Just read the specs. If there would not be that FF sensor, this camera could just be 20D N. And only because there's FF, Canon is asking 2x the price of 20D.
After getting used to use 1D serie cameras, going back to 10D and 20D chasis dosn't attract much.
5D isn't 1D serie camera, It has 20D family look and fealing so that's where it's used prices will fall. If you'll buy 5D, you're giving Canon $1000 for FF. And they can laugh while people believe FF sensor is expensive to build. Bet it only costs around 5-10 bucks more.
Would hoped to get a bit more professional look and feel to that camera. Eg. those 1D buttons and work, body without a grip. And 45 point AF. Then it would have be more worth of the money.
just my 2 cent.
Edited by Jeff on Aug 25, 2005 at 01:27 PM GMT (Reason: Title typos (a la JP))
First, the FF does surely costs a little more than just 10 bucks more than a APS-C sensor. And the FF sensor gives you a big and hoprfully bright viewfinder! And the WA lenses stay WIDE! I think that's also worth something... yeah I know, telephotos get shorter again...
Second I think it a bit more than an 'N'-upgrade. That would not have Spot-metering ...
And finally, how do you know the 5D feels like the 20D? Have you already got one in your fingers? Then give it to me!
Well, I do like this camera, looking forward to reviews and samples and hope to be able to afford one as soon as possible....
Well imagine how those poor 1Ds MkII owners feel - they are paying $4000 more than 1D MkII owners for that Full Frame chip that only costs $10 more to make
The Full Frame Chip is really the point isn't it - & makes it COMPLETELY different to the 20D - for Canon to produce a FF DSLR for less than 1/2 the price of the 1DS MkII is amazing really - & you're disappointed
One must compare the 5D to the 1DS MKII and not to the 1D MKII as they are the only FF SLRs Canon have. When you look at it that way it's not that expensive. And it's made for landscape and such compared to the 20D which has both faster framerate and makes the tele-lenses longer.
Arhi Esansaari wrote:
And they can laugh while people believe FF sensor is expensive to build. Bet it only costs around 5-10 bucks more.
No. Based on calculations on how many sensors you can fit on a silicon wafer and on the yield, it costs ten (10!) times as much to produce a FF sensor than a 1.6x sensor.
Well, maybe the packaging is not ten times as expensive so probably the complete sensor price is about five times as much. But definitely it is much more expensive.
I personally don't see any lure in an FF sensor - especially as I like telephotography so much.
The question in my mind is ... how much better image quality would you expect from a 5D + 17-40/16-35 and a 20D + 10-22? The wideangle argument doesn't hold much water in my eyes.
I definitely wouldn't pay twice the price of a 20D for a fullframe version. I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed - not with the camera, but because it just doesn't give me enough reason to upgrade.
Not sure why you expected 1 series quality for less than 1 series pricing. Clearly that was never going to happen, and if you thought it would, you were a fool.
as a 1Ds2 owner, I am not unhappy with Canon regarding the 5D. On the contrary, I think this is a great new camera.
I also look forward to seeing the 'quality' reviews of the 5D and the 24-105.
Semiconductor production is a LOT more expensive than most people think. This will not be an extra $10 to make......
The 5D has quite a few nice upgrades compared to the 20D besides the sensor. RGB histogram, spot metering, and it sounds like it might have a 1 series style shutter release rather than the nasty consumer ones. The much larger buffer will be a boon for many people.
But the sensor is a huge move by Canon IMO. There must be so many people out there who have been longing for this camera. I got the 1Ds II because I felt it was the first ever "real" digital equivalent of a 35mm SLR, and having lenses behave as they should was a large part of it. I never really considered the 1Ds to be quite "there" as an all-round camera. The 5D now does for the lower end what the 1Ds II did for the higher end, and finally more people will be able to feel that they have a genuine replacement for their 35mm film SLR. My only reservation is I'm not convinced they'll be able to make enough to meet demand any time soon.
Gibbonx wrote:
The question in my mind is ... how much better image quality would you expect from a 5D + 17-40/16-35 and a 20D + 10-22? The wideangle argument doesn't hold much water in my eyes.
I definitely wouldn't pay twice the price of a 20D for a fullframe version. I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed - not with the camera, but because it just doesn't give me enough reason to upgrade.
Then clearly you have no need for this camera.
Go use the 15mm fish, the 14mm rectilinear, any of the TS-E lenses or a MPE on a 20D and you'll immediately understand many's desire for this camera.
Arhi Esansaari wrote:
Just read the specs. If there would not be that FF sensor, this camera could just be 20D N. And only because there's FF, Canon is asking 2x the price of 20D.
Did you miss the 12.9 megapixel spec? That's more than 50% extra resolution than the 20D and can justify an extra $1K on its own.
Sjhugoose wrote:
Go use the 15mm fish, the 14mm rectilinear, any of the TS-E lenses or a MPE on a 20D and you'll immediately understand many's desire for this camera.
Scott
That's a pretty narrow target audience.
To be honest, I'd be more impressed with a weathersealed 1.6x crop body with an inbuilt grip, but that was never going to happen
I'm not saying it's not an appealing camera, I can see reasons for it's existence. It's just a big leap in price from a 20D ... I'm struggling to see an affordable/sensible upgrade path from where I am now, and that's disappointing.
"Newly developed 9-point AF unit with 6 invisible Supplemental AF points, improved AI SERVO AF subject tracking and improved focusing from a defocused state
• 3 AF points work with f/2.8 or faster lenses for enhanced precision
• Improved 35-zone exposure metering "
I wonder how much this closes up on the 1DMKII focusing?
Gibbonx wrote:
I'm not saying it's not an appealing camera, I can see reasons for it's existence It's just a big leap in price from a 20D ... I'm still struggling to see an affordable upgrade path.
There are many reasons for this camera, but perhaps you are not the target audience, and should wait for the 20D upgrade some time next year. I can see this becoming a big Wedding photo camera.
Canon are going to sell a LOT of the 5D, make no mistake about it.
Ok then, I will get this 5D and keep my 20D. When the Nikon D200 comes up, I will buy that too. Not a problem, mate, good stuff should be acquired and used with great affection. Let the big boys work hard for you the consumer ... we just sit back, relax and buy any good stuff they come up with. Money is not a problem.
Do we even have a spec for the D200? Any indication that it's even going to be a noticable improvement on the 20D? What's the point of saying you're going to buy a camera that doesn't exist outside of the development lab, needs a whole different set of lenses and there's no actual evidence of improvement over Canon's current range?
I'm not saying it's not an appealing camera, I can see reasons for it's existence. It's just a big leap in price from a 20D ... I'm struggling to see an affordable/sensible upgrade path from where I am now, and that's disappointing.
If the 5D will allow me to sell 30x40 family portraits that I'm satisfied with, I'll make up the difference in cost with three clients.
