Beni wrote:
If I'm a guy in a shop wanting to buy either the 50D or D300 and both are the same price, why would you advise me to take a 50D eventhough it isn't the pro body the D300 is?
The answer to that question is still out until the 50D has hit the shelves. Pro-AF with 51 sensors sounds great but 9 well placed sensors that are at least as accurate would be more than enough for most uses. Weather sealing? I've shot a 30D in various deserts and in the rain without a problem. In the end I think it boils down to IQ and we can't really judge that at this point in time. Should the 50D beat the D300 in that department, there definitely is a case to be made...
All in all I think it's a nice upgrade. Evolutionary, not revolutionary. And enough to keep upgraders in the Canon camp when they think about replacing their 450D. I'm particularly thrilled about the bump in resolution while allegedly besting the predecessor's noise capabilities. Bodes well for the 5D replacement. Plus it looks like the heat is on: a new model in 12 months can only mean Canon's hot on the heels of Nikon and hasn't reached the slump many of us thought it was in.
Beni wrote:
Like it better for what though? Serious question, not trying to be negative, what would 50D buyers like better that they would take a lower speced camera for the same price? I'm interested. If the answer is the glass then doesn't that just mean that Canon have used their popularity in glass to provide less camera features at a given price point? Again this is with reference to the 50D and D300 being the SAME price in the UK (50D more expensive at release). If I'm a guy in a shop wanting to buy either the 50D or D300 and both are the same price, why would you advise me to take a 50D eventhough it isn't the pro body the D300 is?
Edited by Beni on Aug 26, 2008 at 09:11 AM GMT...Show more →
I don't think it is that simple... Theoretically you may be right... Maybe the D300 is still a better cam because it has more features. IF they are the same price, yeah, the D300 would be an obvious choice for many that are just starting out. However, people invest in a DSLR system. Swapping always means you will loose money. So when you solely look at the Canon system, the 50D is a nice addition to the line-up. I much prefer it over the 40D for back-up/travel usage. But then again, I use a 1Ds3 as a main cam. On top of that, I have never liked the look of Nikon files.
OT:
I dunno if anyone have mentioned it before. But Canon Norway has said at their press conference today that Canon will be releasing 2 (TO) more EOS camera this year. Model names was not mentioned.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
In the end I think it boils down to IQ.
But does it anymore? Does the market for these cameras need more than 13 megapixels and a clean iso 1600? Hasn't the IQ race reached it's saturation point for anything but the specialist or pro user (the resolution of the 1Ds mkIII, the speed and high iso lack of noise of the 1D mkIII or D3, etc)? Didn't we all rejoice when we thought the concentration would now be on body features not more megapixels? This is a 40D with more megapixels and higher useable iso. Do we really want to encourage the megapixel oneupmanship that Nikon has given up on and canon seem to use as an excuse not to provide pro features in a body priced exactly the same as a D300 in the UK. We all hoped that Canon had 'got' it after the nikon releases but this is just a 30D-40D level upgrade. I don't think they've got it at all and doubt the 5D mkII will be any different.
Hey, good thing I can't afford to upgrade my two 5D's anyway at present!
why would you advise me to take a 50D eventhough it isn't the pro body the D300 is?
A pro is hardly the audience for these cameras. Not even as a backup, maybe some pros want it as a compact SLR for private use or an assistant because of it's funny price, but most serious pro's work with 1D and D3 series.
A company can make an amateur camera camera look as pro as they want, with pro features, with pro sealing with pro build, with pro weight, with pro whatever, and it will probably appeal to some pro-wannabee amateurs, BUT in the end the difference is in the image quality. We will judge the 50D vd D300 mostly on results. So far Canon has done a great job in giving the best image quality in almost every price class. In this respect I expect the 50D to be better than the D300. The specs indicate so (more MP, higher ISO, DIGIC IV). Canon tries to compete in image quality, Nikon in feature sets. Now that Kodak isn't important anymore because film has been replaced by sensor tech it's important to understand the different value of upgrades. It's not about a button, a bell or a whistle, it's about sheer sensor technology and to improve performance again and again every 5 or 6 months! There is in this camera industry no company that put out so much technology in recent years than Canon did. And they still go on with new factories built at this very moment.
How things have changed since Nikon and Kodak led the market in the film era.
Anyone see the preview on DPReview? Note the section on gapless microlenses. It looks like they were able to arrange the microlenses and photodiodes so that each pixel gets roughly the same (or even more) light than a single pixel on the 40D. So, that despite the increased pixel density, the pixels are actually larger (relative to the pixel pitch) than on the 40D. Awesome!
Oh, and even with the pro AF, if this thing CAN do clean ISO 3200 and decent ISO 12800 at 15MP, it's a better imaging device than the D300, IMO. It's all about the final image.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well it's a nice upgrade, but I can't see how people are saying it's a huge upgrade.
For me it's a huge upgrade from my 20D and I'm glad I waited. Now I just have to wait a little longer for reviews, user comments, the price to drop a bit, and to see what the 5D upgrade brings to the table.
Jman13 wrote:
Oh, and even with the pro AF, if this thing CAN do clean ISO 3200 and decent ISO 12800 at 15MP, it's a better imaging device than the D300, IMO. It's all about the final image.
As a pro I strongly disagree, without the pro features you might not get the image at all, good quality or not, but then as you say, the camera isn't aimed at me and I respect that. It's more what it portends for the 5D mkII which worries me!
If the 5D mkII were to be a D700 at the same price point then I would mortgage my wife to upgrade my two 5D's. As it is I think I won't need to bother. I've got all the image quality I need with a 5D, it's the pro features that I would upgrade for and I can't see that happening given this release.
