Sprout Crumble wrote:
At least Nikon have a clear digital goal; that of the standardisation on the DX format.
With the announcement of the 17-55/2.8 I believe Canon has made it clear that they will pursue both 135 and APS-C sized sensors, but the APS-C equipped cameras will never be "professional".
I don't see why we have to do all this bashing because the 30D is a "disappointment". I think far from it, I think the 30D is exactly what Canon needed and if I were to choose between the D70s, 30D, and D200, I think the 30D represents a very good value proposition. It's a great upgrade from the 10D and Digital Rebel 300D. It has a lot of things that the 20D lacked.
I think someone made a good point here and that is that Canon's end goal is the propogation of FF and so making the 30D so amazing would really ruin that thinking. The 30D is slightly more than the D70s, the 5D will become slightly more than the D200. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, no camera is "perfect".
I switched for the glass but I'm happy that Canon has released something new and great. It's always exciting to see what is the latest and greatest.
jacko wrote:
Why does this have to be a 'let down'? The 20D is a great camera, and if this is an 'evolution' to that camera, fine, that just makes it better. Don't fault Canon for great marketing either, if they want to call it a 30D, so be it, they can call it anything they want.
I think you're going to see less blockbuster 'hits', and you're going to see more evolutionary releases, tweaking and improving what we have.
Don't worry, D200 owners, your camera is safe, most people still can't buy one
I'm looking at the the canon 30d and new lenses with interest. Honestly, if I could have gotten the hang of working with the canon 5d, I'd be interested in the 30d more. I'm intrigued though.
I think the 17-55 f2.8 IS looks like just the lens I wish Nikon had. I think the 85 f1.2 is interesting, but not really for me right now. I like the fact that canon has a 300 f4 IS, which is one of the few things that kept me interested in canon. I like the fact that they have a 70-200f4 as well. Shame they are all white.
I think Nikon could do well to improve or add a few lenses to the lineup to keep eyes off those canon lenses, but at the same time I think canon could do well to look at nikon to learn about ergonomics.
So, anyone want to teach me how to make a 30d shoot look like a shot from a d200?
Hey, don't go getting any ideas.................. I'm not changing, just thinking out loud.
I took a look and I'm glad my D200 is arriving tomorrow. I think that I made the right decision, for me and my vision. A big point for me was the backwards compatibility of glass. If you look in my sig, I have gotten a lot of AIS glass at good prices, more glass than if I had bought new glass. I eventually will buy different glass, but to start, I'm happy. I'm sure that purchasers of the 30d will be happy to have their camera also. It's all about one's vision.
Personally I am more interested in the 85mm f1.2L and the 17-55 f2.8 IS. The IS is great for static objects in low light indoor. The 85mm f1.2L must be amazing espeically on a FF like the 5D or 1Ds MK2.
As far as 30D vs D200 goes... D200 got banding, a weak JPEG engine [I shoot RAW, so I
don't care], and the 30D might still have issue with AF. It's like picking your own poison
If I were looking for an alternative to the d200, it would be, but I'm not.
Canon makes good stuff. So does Nikon. Neither is perfect.
The bottom line is that you pick the camera that best meets your needs/budget. Everyone has differing needs and budgets, so it's a very good thing that there are differing products.
Pixel peeping and spec checking to determine the "best" is just silly. Besides, it's hard on the eyes.
21farms wrote:
dang, while reading this thread, i had to check *twice* to make sure i was in the right forum!
, when I saw the press release I knew that there will be threads in both forums.
Actually I love the fact that the 30D is a 8MP. Enough "xMP is better than yMP", let's see some development in high ISO performances.
p.s. Personally higher resolution are always welcomed, but in most cases I would rather have a more usable high ISO. Provided that the resolution is 6MP or higher.
I think it is a bit of a let down. Just like when they came out with the D70s. The changes are so small that it makes people wonder "why?" Like when a recording artists does a re-release of an album with only two or three new tracks. But part of the problem is hype and the competitive nature of the market, so anything less than extraordinary is considered a "letdown."
joefrost wrote:
With the announcement of the 17-55/2.8 I believe Canon has made it clear that they will pursue both 135 and APS-C sized sensors, but the APS-C equipped cameras will never be "professional".
Joe
Go figure, in that case I know a whole lot of "amateur" photographers whos only mode of earning a living is shooting with a camera with a non "professional" sensor in it. In fact an entire photog staff at a local paper, thats all they use! The fools, my goodness when will all these amateurs get a grip and stop doing a pro's work?
Go work for a newspaper...having a high ISO will become your best friend.
While this may be true, at 85 lpi and dot gains greater than 30% I hardly think noise is an issue so either or any would be suitable cameras.
If I were looking for an alternative to the d200, it would be, but I'm not.
Canon makes good stuff. So does Nikon. Neither is perfect.
The bottom line is that you pick the camera that best meets your needs/budget. Everyone has differing needs and budgets, so it's a very good thing that there are differing products.
Pixel peeping and spec checking to determine the "best" is just silly. Besides, it's hard on the eyes.
, when I saw the press release I knew that there will be threads in both forums.
?