python2000 wrote:
The D300 is currently $1600 at B&H. The 40D is $969. The 50D body-only will probably be $1199 or $1299. I'm not sure if I am a "fanboy" for suggesting that those are not the same prices.
From my perspective, $1200 and $1600 are cameras in the same price range. They are 2nd tier cameras that will compete with each other. Canon takes the route of offering less feature / functionality at a lesser cost to you while Nikon takes the route of offering full features at a very resonable cost.
python2000 wrote:
The D300 is currently $1600 at B&H. The 40D is $969. The 50D body-only will probably be $1199 or $1299. I'm not sure if I am a "fanboy" for suggesting that those are not the same prices.
And you can buy a 20D for a couple of hundred bucks. What intellegence is there in comparing the vastly discounted price of a body about to be replaced to a current body hardly discounted? It's the price it will be released at that will count and that will not be a fraction of the D300 anymore just as the release price of the 40D wasn't, a point the fanboys refuse to admit.
Canon's MP increase is quite a bit more than previous models. What are you expecting? 20MP? 30MP? Do you really want to pay 7k for a 50D body with a 24MP sensor? Or perhaps around $1400 for a 15MP sensor? It sounds like your expectations are a bit unrealistic if you think that 15MP is not a big increase.
I fail to understand all the moaning about how these cameras are disappointing.
chez wrote:
From my perspective, $1200 and $1600 are cameras in the same price range. They are 2nd tier cameras that will compete with each other. Canon takes the route of offering less feature / functionality at a lesser cost to you while Nikon takes the route of offering full features at a very resonable cost.
i agree. $1200 and $1600 are not that far apart and in a few months you will also be able to find better deals on the D300 which will bring them even closer.
Beni wrote:
And you can buy a 20D for a couple of hundred bucks. What intellegence is there in comparing the vastly discounted price of a body about to be replaced to a current body hardly discounted? It's the price it will be released at that will count and that will not be a fraction of the D300 anymore just as the release price of the 40D wasn't, a point the fanboys refuse to admit.
Beni, I'm not sure why you are being so obtuse. I clearly listed my projected non-discounted price of the 50D. Using what you call intelligence, why would you compare a "hardly discounted" to no discount? Yeah, if you are convinced that $1600 and $1200 are the "same price" you are probably right. You give me $1600 and I'll give you back $1200 and we'll see how "same" you think it is. And $400 is a bigger price difference than the XSi to 40D, and no one is going around saying that only "fanboys" would buy the XSi - whatever the heck a fanboy is.
It's close enough to not make enough difference if you want a serious camera, hell we all spent a lot more in the older days for far less speced cameras which just prove that we were willing to pay for features. No doubt $400 isn't enough for you to want a serious camera and you would prefer a warmed over 40D with consumer options. But let me ask you this question. You have a serious amatuer photographer wanting a new camera. Would you tell him to buy a consumer body with 15 megapixels or pay just a little bit extra and buy a pro body with 13 megapixels. If you would have answered the former then you should be ashamed. $400 is a tiny amount relatively and methinks it is you who is being obtuse and touting a $400 difference (the AF alone would be worth it nevermind the weather proofing!) to keep your one upmanship for canon. The exact definition of a fanboy. This isn't the difference between the price of a 40D and a 1D mkIII, it's consumer to pro in just $400. That is no difference at all.
$1200 is 75% of $1600... and $1600 is the street price of the D300 while $1200 is the initial sticker price of the 50D. I wouldn't say there is a negligible difference in price. For buyers at that price point $400 is a HUGE difference, not to mention the price of the 50D will drop quickly. The 40D's price dropped $350 in the past 10 months.
Perhaps the D300 still has the advantage in specs, but the 50D is certainly an upgrade to the 40D and will sell very well. I don't think either camera is good enough to convince one user to switch from one brand to another. First time users are more likely to drop $600 on a XSi/1000D or Nikon 40D/60D (or whatever it's called now).
Assuming this is real, has anyone seen a release date? I found one date after Googling the subject that said April 5th 2009. That would be a pretty advanced leak.
I'm 95% sure that the 50D will be announced next week. Leaks miraculously find their way out at most 2 weeks before announcement.
And as other posters have guess already, price will be either $1200 or $1300.
Announced, but what about availability? It took me 7 months to get a 1DS-mk3 after it was announced. Of course the prosumers get on the shelves faster. Still I am wanting to sell my Xti and upgrade so I can use my 1ds-mk3 as landscape only, and the 50D for wildlife only.
I kidded one of the senior salesmen at LL Lozeau here in Montreal (probably the largest Canadian camera store east of Toronto...they move tons of equipment) about adding a 50D and 5DII to what I was buying this afternoon.
He responded saying no one really knows what the 5D successor is going to be called...but they're expecting the 50D to be announced Monday or Tuesday. They have not opened waiting lists for either camera.
On the current Canon bodies that support the focus microadjust feature, does this feature support third party lenses like the Sigma lenses? If so, is the feature sophisticated enough to deal with the types of issues that you might encounter with a Sigma lens? I've held off buying the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and Sigma 50mm 1.4 because of focus worries.
Using the "Diffraction Limited Aperture Estimator" on the Cambridge in Colour site ( http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm ), it estimates that diffraction will begin to become visible at 100% crops at f/7.6 with the 15.1 MP sensor. This is in contrast to f/9.3 for the current 40D. Granted, this is only an estimate, but I was wondering what effect this will begin to have in our shooting with the 50D.
" ... it estimates that diffraction will begin to become visible at 100% crops at f/7.6 with the 15.1 MP sensor. This is in contrast to f/9.3 for the current 40D. Granted, this is only an estimate, but I was wondering what effect this will begin to have in our shooting with the 50D. "
That is a very good question indeed. I've been wondering about diffraction myself. Anyone with an optical background who can put us right on this one please?
UCSB wrote:
Using the "Diffraction Limited Aperture Estimator" on the Cambridge in Colour site ( http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm ), it estimates that diffraction will begin to become visible at 100% crops at f/7.6 with the 15.1 MP sensor. This is in contrast to f/9.3 for the current 40D. Granted, this is only an estimate, but I was wondering what effect this will begin to have in our shooting with the 50D.
I hate it when flaws become visible at 100%. Reminds me why I never do it... But if you must pixel peep, remember that 100% viewing of 15mp shows more detail than 10mp at 100%. It's better in practical terms to just choose a camera with the resolution necessary to make the size prints you need. For example, I have an IPF6100 that makes 24x36" native prints, so 15mp is important to me. But if you don't print big, then no need to worry about max resolution, diffraction etc...
