With the gear in my profile do you think I would be disapointed if I bought the 17-85 ef-s as a walk around "general use" ? Will it be "right there" regarding IQ with the rest on my lenses or will I be disapointed?
Times I would use the lens: Walking around with the family in Neport or Providence, snap snapshots at outdoor gatherings (primes would be used indoors)...
bbudman wrote:
Two of the primary reasons I went with Canon digital in the first place was because their sensors were cleaner than the Nikon offerings
Canon line of telephoto lenses were more affordable compared to their Nikon counterparts.
Finally, we should all be thankful that these two companies in general are doing the things they are because we all stand to benefit, Canon and Nikon shooters alike. Pricing will get better, products will offer more features, and maybe when we realize this we will stop complaining and once again start taking pictures!
My sedtiments exactly. I shoot Canon 500/4 IS, and the Nikon's new 500/4 VR will be upward from US$7000.
Without Nikon on Canon's back, do you think the 40D would debut at $1299? Competition is good to us users!
danny d wrote:
Buying the 40D, giving the wife the 350D!!
With the gear in my profile do you think I would be disapointed if I bought the 17-85 ef-s as a walk around "general use" ? Will it be "right there" regarding IQ with the rest on my lenses or will I be disapointed?
Times I would use the lens: Walking around with the family in Neport or Providence, snap snapshots at outdoor gatherings (primes would be used indoors)...
Considering the lenses you own I think you would be quite happy. If you could swing it you could always go for the EF-S 17-55 IS f/2.8. At almost double the cost you would gain a little low light shooting benefit if you do much shooting in low light otherwise as a walk around daytime lens you would probably be just as happy with the 17-85. Both lenses get above average ratings in the review section so that is a positive.
UCSB wrote:
Better viewfinder, useful LCD upgrade, 12MP, in-camera wireless control of off-camera flash, virtual horizon, ISO 3200 + (if it works out), weathersealing. I don't know how well their AF works, but there seems like some potential there also. For JPEG shooters, D-Lighting which will really improve shots. I'm sure I missed some things. The 12MP, viewfinder, and LCD are easily worth $500 to me.
So you're selling all of your Canon equipment and moving to Nikon? Let me know when you're selling, I might be interested!
As a walk around, I think you would be happier with the Sigma 17-70. I used the 17-85 on my 350D and 30D before selling it. The Sigma surprised me. For what you want to use it for as stated above, I'd give it a look.
In the age of digital, many of us have also become gadget geeks. Some of us already were before the advent of the digital camera. These new cameras from Nikon and Canon pack a lot of technology in them and it is hard not to get excited about them. That being said, there is wisdom in loving what you have and more importantly realizing what you have and how well it can work for what you want to do. I took a trip over to dpreview earlier and while I enjoy Phil's dslr reviews, his forum is a nightmare. For every one useful post, you have ten that consist of utter tripe. All the time that goes into composing the gazillion posts on camera vs. camera, where said cameras have not even been released yet, is mind boggling because its utterly pointless at this moment in time.
Here is a little comparison of the 40D and D300 that is more important to me than the 2 extra MPs. That is 14bits vs. 12bits.
I know the D300 offers 14 bits but only at a framerate of 2.5fps while the 40D delivers 6.5fps @ 14bits.
Here is the quote from Nikon: "14-bit NEF (RAW):uncompressed or compressed RAW. Images are recorded at a bit-depth of 14 bits, producing files roughly 1.3 times larger than 12-bit files but increasing the color data recorded resulting in smoother tones. Maximum frame advance rate decreases to 2.5 fps. "
I'd challenge anyone to pick 12 vs. 14 bit images in a random lineup of 100 in more cases than a random distribution. Again, we're not talking dynamic range, just precision / tonality, and given how today's output devices (monitor, printer) work, I think in a real life, double blind test you stand no chance.
stanj wrote:
I'd challenge anyone to pick 12 vs. 14 bit images in a random lineup of 100 in more cases than a random distribution. Again, we're not talking dynamic range, just precision / tonality, and given how today's output devices (monitor, printer) work, I think in a real life, double blind test you stand no chance.
I have no problem picking out the difference on my monitor or printer. Very recognizable.
JohnnyGCanon wrote:
So you're selling all of your Canon equipment and moving to Nikon? Let me know when you're selling, I might be interested!
If I decide to sell, I'll let you know. I shot Nikon from 1967 to 1987, then switched to Canon at the dawn of EOS. So I have 20 years of experience with each manufacturer. The D300 looks like the Camera that I have wanted for the past few years. But, since it won't even be out until November. I think it is reasonable to see what Canon offers up at PMA before doing anything crazy.
I have a 10D. I've passed on the 20D, struggled to resist the 30D with the big LCD screen, even barely passed up the opportunity to buy a like-new used second 10D body.
I can resist NO MORE. I must upgrade to the 40D. It's time to start saving now.
I *could* look for a used 30D, or even a clearance 30D, but I think the collection of features that comprise the 40D are almost impossible for a 10D owner to resist.
bbudman wrote:
I...
I can't help but wonder what the response would have been if Canon had of introduced the 40D with the specs close to the D300 and on top of that had a suggested retail price of $1800? I imagine that there would be plenty of people cursing Canon for raising the cost and saying that they were going to loose alot of sales to Nikon because it was too expensive!
I recall exactly that response when the 85mm L mark II was released! Some were claiming Canon was beginning to price their gear so high mere mortals would not be able to afford them in the near future.
What I have yet to hear anyone say about either camera is something along the lines of:
How good are the images that one can expect from either camera? On paper the AF of the D300 looks good but could Nikon have long passed the point of diminishing returns? This thread seems to be more about arguing over spec sheets than photography!
Ah dunno, ah likes both nikon 'n canon. I'm getting the 40D but would love a D300 too (I still have a few Nikon bodies and many lenses). No reason to be immature and badmouth the other side of the fence merely to make yourself feel better. You basically can't lose with either one.
pauljas wrote:
This thread seems to be more about arguing over spec sheets than photography!
Glad someone said it.
On a cost/performance basis, I don't think they're that much different but I'll still be going for a 40D because it suits my needs very well. It'll be a welcome step up in capability from my current 10D.
One feature of the Nikon D300 that hasn't been mentioned is its magical ability to render your present Canon camera, or for that matter the 40D, incapable of taking the quality pictures that you have been able to do in the past.
I upgraded my 350D to a 30D about 3 months ago and have less than 2000 actuations on my new camera. I noticed a big improvement in build quality, focus speed, a more comfortable body, 1/3rd stop ISO, spot meter, larger LCD. While I took great photos with my 350D, I think I get more keepers with the 30D. Under most circumstances the focus system is good, but there are occasions where I think it could have been better. I pre-ordered a 40D from Adorama on Tuesday and am anxious to see if all the new upgrades really translate into real world performance. I had been considering a 5D and will be following that release closely, but I am really hoping that the 40D can take a leap into the 5D's IQ. If the 40D is a big improvement, my new 30D will have to go.
Jim Victory wrote:
I have no problem picking out the difference on my monitor or printer. Very recognizable.
Really? What camera? (your profile doesn't say). Also, how do you turn the said 14-bit image into 12-bit? Do you have a plug-in that chops the bottom two bits? I am really curious.
What I have yet to hear anyone say about either camera is something along the lines of:
How good are the images that one can expect from either camera?
Exactly my thoughts. I get the feeling that people who were amazed by the 40D a week ago suddenly concluded that it won't take good enough pictures. It seems like people think the camera needs to do all the work for them.
Maybe new cameras could have a mode that would automatically erase any picture that wasn't super good. Imagine how much better that cameras pictures would be.
