People have a short memory. Ask a person who bought a D60 2 years ago for $2000 if the 30D is a good deal for $1300 (or whatever it will cost). People get spoiled easy and always demand more for less money.
How many people really need 10 MP? How big are your prints? My G1 does very nice 8.5 x 11 and it's a mere 3.3 MP!
I'm very excited about this camera. I was going to a 20D for the low(er) light capabilty but now I'm going to the 30D which to a great camera and fixed 90% of the bitches poeple had about the 20D.
The only things I'd really like to see is a quieter shutter (we'll see) and a split prism for manual focus standard with the camera. I really miss manually focusing and KNOWING the focus is where I want it.
V8V8 wrote:
Give me a break... not one of knows how the d200 and 20d compares at higher iso's.
why not? Rob Galbraith along with many others have had plenty of time to compare both cameras.
you all need to calm down...........the 30D is going to be a knockout camera.
i have already gone down and put my name on the list and can't wait to get it....................don't get me wrong, i love my 20D, but after using the 5D, the LCD on the 20D is really a let down. not that it's the only reason for upgrading, but i love the ISO in the VF and the fact that i can set ISO without jumping from 400 to 800 to 1600.
most of you probably don't use it, but i always take the i900D to kids parties and adult parties and print from the camera..........Direct Print is way cool.
The megapixel race is over. I get crystal clear 13x19 prints from my XT. I do not need prints big as the side of a building and you can already do that with 8 megapixels if you need to.
It's clear that Canon does not want people abandoning their 20Ds for this camera. The enticement is for 10D and 300D owners to go for the new camera or for 1.6 crop sensor owner to go to the pro full sensor models like the 5D and others.
I am happy that the perception that clients have of my lowly XT will remain the same for some time till I can afford a professional model or a medium format digital back.
In the mean time I can actually improve my photography and cash flow instead of worrying about where the money will come from for a marginal upgrade of my camera governed only by people's perception that 8 megapixels is insufficient.
Yes the 30D is a evolution of the 20D - almost like a 20Dn. And many proud 20D owners state that it is not enough for upgrading. Though, it amases me to see how many more people in the forum owns a 1DIIn rather than a 1DII. Many people must have been upgrading - or what?
My point is, soon you will see a lot of proud 30D owners here in forum and significanly less 20D's even though nobody right now wants to upgrade from 20D to 30D. Why? Because we all want the newest model. Face it - 20D is a fantastic camera but it is now 'last years model'.
I feel the same about my 1DII...
I've read the 30D specs and I think it's going to be a fine camera. It is an incremental upgrade. 20Dn would have been a more appropiate name. It does seem to me however that most of the bitching and complaining is aimed at the fact that the 30D is not a D200 killer. So what? Can't Nikon have the best sub $2000 camera for a while? So many people are reacting like they just found out Nikon was sleeping with their wife while Canon took pictures. (I knew that high ISO performance would come in handy )
MPerdomo wrote:
I think it's funny how everyone was making predictions with specs (most importantly weathersealing and 10MP) to compete with the D200, and now that the 30D turns out to be basically a 20Dn, the tune changes.
But anyways, probably a smart move by Canon, just trying to sink prices, and introducing a 17-55 f/2.8 to show they are serious about crop format. They will sell a boatload of them.
um, they have a term for that in psychology. forgot what it is though
MPerdomo wrote:
But anyways, probably a smart move by Canon, just trying to sink prices, and introducing a 17-55 f/2.8 to show they are serious about crop format. They will sell a boatload of them.
Sinking prices is probably a good strategy. I don't think I'd be going out too far on a limb to say that the margin on the D200 is a little thin. Canon has undercut the D200 for a reason - they can produce the 30D for not much more than the 20D, meaning that they can pull Nikon's price downward. They've got room to pull it down a bit more while still turning a profit. I don't think that Nikon can reduce the D200 much without reaching the break-even point. It seems to me that the pro-like body has to be a bit expensive to produce.
Can't Nikon have the best sub $2000 camera for a while? So many people are reacting like they just found out Nikon was sleeping with their wife while Canon took pictures. (I knew that high ISO performance would come in handy )
paladin7 wrote:
are you comming from dpreview forums?
I love that a guy with 4 posts makes a comment like this. LMAO I also love guys who put down dpreview because they feel the superior posting on this message board.
I was expecting the 30D to be 75% of the 5D at half the price. I am glad that that didn't happen and the 5D will hold it's value probably for quite a bit longer .....
I actually think it is a very nice little camera and will make a very good combination with a 5D for wedding photographers. If I didn't have a 1D2 along with my 5D I would buy one for sure.
It's just the incremental progression all but the dreamers expected. Not much different from the D60 to 10D step.
Canon have 70% of the DSLR market and gazillions of EF lenses in circulation.- so why would they launch a 12mp $1000 20D replacement that would primarily just take sales away from the 5D/pro sectors?
This is not Canon's entry range, and no sane person is going to ditch even 2 or 3 lenses and jump ship to another system just because (maybe) it's Nikon's turn to take a slight lead.
The DSLR market is 'maturing' . Bodies aren't obsolete after 12 months and pixel counting has all but ended..
digitaljoe wrote:
Ira I totally agree. Cant understand why they did it. Nikon must be rejoicing! The D200 is a great camera. I will probably buy one now.
Exactly!!! Finally someone with a little sense. Do you guys realize many guests at wedding will be using cameras with more me megapixs then you in their 10 megapix point & shoots? That is not good no matter how you slice it.
IraGraham wrote:
Do you guys realize many guests at wedding will be using cameras with more me megapixs then you in their 10 megapix point & shoots? That is not good no matter how you slice it.
It doesen't mean jack if the person behind the camera doesen't know how to take a good photo!
IraGraham wrote:
Exactly!!! Finally someone with a little sense. Do you guys realize many guests at wedding will be using cameras with more me megapixs then you in their 10 megapix point & shoots? That is not good no matter how you slice it.
And those tiny pixels on the tiny P&S sensor will be able to capture less detail and will have more noise than the 4 MP of a 1D or the 6 MP of a 10D.
Having more 20% more pixels on a P&S than on a DSLR means something only if your goal is to be able to brag about having the most pixels.
Les
How many wedding albums have 11X17's or 13x19's? 8 Megapixels is perfectly fine for all wedding shooting. Most of my clients want 4X6's or 5X7's and at the most 8X10's. Having an extra 2 megapixels won't improve quality for those sizes. And to be truthful, I like to shoot if possible without flash, and Canon Kicks Nikons butt when it comes to low light and high ISO's. So the improvements Canon has made are just about the same they did on the Mark II N. Buffer is a little better, LCD screen is bigger, Spot metering, just about all the things I would want in the 20D. Now I can have it all in a camera that is less expensive than the 20D when it came out. For those nice portrait shots, I'll just whip that 5D over my shoulder and fire away.
)
