New Canon 30D is letdown Canon people. I think Nikon is stand well for next year. And I glad to stay at Nikon. Thanks Nikon for D200 for the big improvement giving to us !

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022114canoneos30d.asp#specs

I wonder why they didn't do more with it?! Seems almost not worth doing. And I know its all down to traste but I really think Canon cameras are soooo ugly!

From Rob Galbraith.com:

Don't take this as a recommendation of the D200 over the 30D. For one, we've only used a preproduction 30D, and then only briefly. More importantly, we've shot the D200 and 20D side-by-side for available light basketball over several weekends this winter, and the 20D is by far the better camera for this purpose. Not only were the ISO 800 through ISO 3200 frames massively cleaner and more usable, the percentage of in-focus frames was signficantly higher. In fact, we've ruled out using the D200 for this sort of assigment again. So, we don't think Nikon has in the D200 a camera that's a clear winner over the upcoming 30D by any means.

Definately some good points there if thats the sort of pgotography you do, no two ways about it. For me they are mute points as I never like to go above ISO 400 (rarely I go above 200) as when light levels fall I use a tripod with the type of pictures I'm taking. I've always read Canon has the better AF system.

I do still think 'overall' they didn't do enough with the 30D to warrant calling it so, it should just be a 20Dn or whatever it is they used for small upgrades.

Orio, so?

I never like to go above ISO 400 (rarely I go above 200)

Try a 20D It's suddenly ok to go there.

@Nikt: so the 30D can't possibly be a let down regarding ISO performance.
It is a let down only to those people who were counting on the pace of technological improvements that Canon has shown over the last couple of years, and Nikon with the D200.

If I had read Rob Galbraith say anything nice about Nikon I probably would of thrown my TOPROL XL 50 Mg. off a bridge and had the big one right there....

You always read a bunch of specs that look good (known in the blog business as "repeatisism" which we call cut and paste) and add bullet points in yellow, then you finish with the "Doubting Thomas" or the zinger line like the one above which leaves you still hanging by your claws from a ten story window.

You got to consider like anyone else in "the game", free publicity for free product is the payoff and Canon does do it better than anyone else. Some of the honest ones will tell you endorsementation exists everywhere and is especially doing well in the Photographic Industry. When you deal in mjillions whats one or two usefully placed to add more names to the list.

No one expects a name to be used without compensation but some of this stuff is so blatant you want to throw up.

In four days I head for the PMA to write about a few things and I already have body armor and my Hummer H2 reinforced for the heat I'm about to lay down on a few and receive in return.

Our motto " Nosmokus Nyetski Bullshitsky" will prevail..... Should be an interesting year............

Edited by ajacobs2 on Feb 21, 2006 at 05:10 PM GMT

The 20D is an excellent camera.

People shouldn't be let down because as I've mentioned elsewhere, there was no need to "improve" it beyond what they've done, the target market it was aimed at and the price point it fits into.

Canon have the 5D, so if people 'need' more, just get the 5D or higher. For most amateurs and enthusiasts, the 20/30D is more camera then they'll ever need.

Lets face it, the reason Canon users are disappointed is because they didn't deliver the "killer" Nikon blow everyone seemed to be waiting for. Am I wrong? I don't think so, they wanted something to 'beat' the D200. Thats not about what camera they need.... thats about camera branding and "my camera is better than yours".

But what everyone keeps seeming to forget is that the Canon 30D isn't competing with the D200, its competing with the D70's. But I'm sure the Nikon forums will now be flooded with how the D30 is a better camera than the D200 in this area or that. Wow, should make for fascinating reading! Again!

Why does this have to be a 'let down'? The 20D is a great camera, and if this is an 'evolution' to that camera, fine, that just makes it better. Don't fault Canon for great marketing either, if they want to call it a 30D, so be it, they can call it anything they want.

I think you're going to see less blockbuster 'hits', and you're going to see more evolutionary releases, tweaking and improving what we have.

Don't worry, D200 owners, your camera is safe, most people still can't buy one

0rio wrote:
I never like to go above ISO 400 (rarely I go above 200)

Try a 20D It's suddenly ok to go there.

@Nikt: so the 30D can't possibly be a let down regarding ISO performance.
It is a let down only to those people who were counting on the pace of technological improvements that Canon has shown over the last couple of years, and Nikon with the D200.
ISO 400 won't look as clean as ISO 100 regardless of the camera its on, especially if there are dark areas in the frame. I wouldn't feel comfortable shooting at higher ISO with any image I intended to get blown up to large size. If it was for web stuff only then fine, or if was an image I wasn't bothered about. But anything thats getting printed or could get printed large, no chance, gimme ISO 100-200 and a tripod every time

But what everyone keeps seeming to forget is that the Canon 30D isn't competing with the D200, its competing with the D70's.

They will sell their millions, and make money as this is in the price range you mentioned. Many folks for the first time in their lives got decent pictures from the Canon 10D, 20D and so forth. So it's logical for those who could care less about every infinite point of inconsequential information digested here and recomposed on a daily basis to find "30" better than "20" which was better than "10" and so forth. The manufacturers know we love numbers and lower case letters too. Leica would be dead without numbers and specific models and nuances. It very appealing in our social order. It status to collectors. it's money tuning out the same thing year after year.

Rarely do you see numbers go down. Higher numbers mean better performance even in electric chairs. What do you say to a guy on death row in a state with electric chairs? ' Why, more power to you"!

For every top ender $2000 or better we buy the Canon and Nikon Camps sell probably five or more low enders. With bigger "claws and money, Canons volume makes the big ticket work".

Last year if you looked at most of the forums we had a lot of chit-chat time with problems. The D70 green light , the trace D2H problem that crippled a lot of the pro cameras and wallets, and the SONY CHIP problem. One million and no call as to which ones are bad. It ended with the hyped banding on the D200
Really twelve months of suspense and newbies reading about these problems do have soft minds ( meant as impressionable not stupid) and accept this "trash talk" and jump to another camp. Lots of new shooters may lurk to read and learn and you don't know they are here or anywhere else in the blog or forum land..

On the other shores of Lake Ka-Ka-Flinger they came with the 5D already being price reduced substantially to compete with the D200. Whether it matters or not Full Frame and Regular lens use for the FF Canons appeals to many. They can rename anything, make subtle changes and have a market going in two days period. one day to post and one day to read.

Smart move, lower the 5D in the mid range and bring in a winner because of reputation. Very smart for this market. With the bottom cameras features coming up and the top coming down, they have 1/2 and full frame for both halves of their world.

Just casually looking at the demographics, Canon users I suspect came to Canon from Digital evolution after the EA-1 series dominated automation while Nikon still pushed the PRO models. I think Nikon users, especially here from all these surveys have more years with Nikon Loyalty ( aka Brandsmanship) than canon users.

Oh and with five days to PMA and Nikon already played their cards, Canon will get their major attention as they usually do right at the main entrance to the PMA with the biggest display, yes a circus but never the less, nice goodies and Nikon will be in the left side about midway down.

Size has to do with it........

nikt wrote:

Lets face it, the reason Canon users are disappointed is because they didn't deliver the "killer" Nikon blow everyone seemed to be waiting for. Am I wrong? I don't think so, they wanted something to 'beat' the D200. Thats not about what camera they need.... thats about camera branding and "my camera is better than yours".

But what everyone keeps seeming to forget is that the Canon 30D isn't competing with the D200, its competing with the D70's. But I'm sure the Nikon forums will now be flooded with how the D30 is a better camera than the D200 in this area or that. Wow, should make for fascinating reading! Again!


Not at all. I'm disappointed because the camera I wanted, a 1D with an APS-C sensor (3D?) didn't appear and outside of a firmware upgrade, the 30D is a non-event. As a committed Canon user, I really have zero interest in Nikon bodies other than as a potential source of new ideas I'd like to see Canon implement.

The 20D isn't a D70s competitor and it remains superior to the D200 in many respects and at a much more attractive price. The D200 is a fine camera with a great spec and at a good price. Its a shame Canon decided its obsession with FF sensors means more than giving its users the camera that masses of them want. At least Nikon have a clear digital goal; that of the standardisation on the DX format.

The 30D will probably grab a lot of 10D owners that held off from getting the 20D. The larger LCD and other minor improvements just may push them over the edge.

The 30D will probably grab a lot of 10D owners that held off from getting the 20D. The larger LCD and other minor improvements just may push them over the edge.

Good point... they won't need pushing, a slight nudge should do it...........

I see it has more precise back focusing.. um errr. Focusing ... Sorry

I see they have neary caught up to the D50 with the new features.. About time.

Also all this talk about high ISO. I actually cant see any difference between the D200 and 20D files.. Maybe Im not looking close enough. Dont know.

Mick, just so you know, I wasn't necessarily referring to you, but many others. Its going to happen, and it happening.

I'll respectefully disagree with your statement that the D200 is inferior in many aspects to the 20D. Since I use both cameras, and a 5D, I guess this is just my opinion.

The 20D sits between the D70s and the D200 in price and specs, market, functionality. Until the D200 came out, it was battleing it out with the D70s. It definately does compete with the D70s for that market share.

I just don't agree that Canon is letting down their community. I think they have set a clear path, if the 20D is not enough camera, then move to the 5D. Its just that some people will not agree with that path. I just don't think Canon would want to increase things like Megapixels and introduce higher noise levels.... thats the thing that would really kill Canon.

Marli wrote:
I see it has more precise back focusing.. um errr. Focusing ... Sorry

I see they have neary caught up to the D50 with the new features.. About time.

Also all this talk about high ISO. I actually cant see any difference between the D200 and 20D files.. Maybe Im not looking close enough. Dont know.



Check this out... Pay attention of the 20D and D200 ISO1600 shots.

http://digitalcamera.impress.co.jp/06_02/auth/toku1/index_iso.htm

Thank of it as a the Japanese DPReview, they are very professional.


Edited by sl1200mk4 on Feb 21, 2006 at 09:17 AM GMT

I'm all for small incremental upgrades at this point to the main part - the pixels. 8 is great!

The 20D is a great camera that wasn't my cup of tea for the simple reasons that it didn't offer A: selectable lower that max speeds B: iso stops in 1/3rds C: spot metering and I don't care for the shutter sound (not a biggie) nor the ergonomics (biggie).

So it seems to me that this is a terrific refinement. I won't be getting one - but I have to admit to a greater respect for the new body. Canon has addressed the largest and most complained about shortcomings of the old model - what is there to be disappointed by?

It's even less expensive - yes they will sell a boat load of them.
How many guys here really that can shoot that well that this camera will make them perform poorly, eh? C'mon guys!

SilverPenguin wrote:
0rio wrote:
I never like to go above ISO 400 (rarely I go above 200)

Try a 20D It's suddenly ok to go there.

@Nikt: so the 30D can't possibly be a let down regarding ISO performance.
It is a let down only to those people who were counting on the pace of technological improvements that Canon has shown over the last couple of years, and Nikon with the D200.
ISO 400 won't look as clean as ISO 100 regardless of the camera its on, especially if there are dark areas in the frame. I wouldn't feel comfortable shooting at higher ISO with any image I intended to get blown up to large size. If it was for web stuff only then fine, or if was an image I wasn't bothered about. But anything thats getting printed or could get printed large, no chance, gimme ISO 100-200 and a tripod every time

Go work for a newspaper...having a high ISO will become your best friend.

Thanks SL1200MK4 that Japaness site is just wonderfull for make comparisons !

And for me I believe those discussion are birth because of a bad numberring system i beleive. That must be 20Ds or 20Dn , not 30D comparing the steps from 10D to 20D and so..

But anyway this is Canon strategy.. I am agree that most of people logically wating some more improvement with a 20D to 30D step so eye control rumor is fake..

Sprout Crumble wrote:

At least Nikon have a clear digital goal; that of the standardisation on the DX format.

With the announcement of the 17-55/2.8 I believe Canon has made it clear that they will pursue both 135 and APS-C sized sensors, but the APS-C equipped cameras will never be "professional".

Joe

I don't see why we have to do all this bashing because the 30D is a "disappointment". I think far from it, I think the 30D is exactly what Canon needed and if I were to choose between the D70s, 30D, and D200, I think the 30D represents a very good value proposition. It's a great upgrade from the 10D and Digital Rebel 300D. It has a lot of things that the 20D lacked.

I think someone made a good point here and that is that Canon's end goal is the propogation of FF and so making the 30D so amazing would really ruin that thinking. The 30D is slightly more than the D70s, the 5D will become slightly more than the D200. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, no camera is "perfect".

I switched for the glass but I'm happy that Canon has released something new and great. It's always exciting to see what is the latest and greatest.

jacko wrote:
Why does this have to be a 'let down'? The 20D is a great camera, and if this is an 'evolution' to that camera, fine, that just makes it better. Don't fault Canon for great marketing either, if they want to call it a 30D, so be it, they can call it anything they want.

I think you're going to see less blockbuster 'hits', and you're going to see more evolutionary releases, tweaking and improving what we have.

Don't worry, D200 owners, your camera is safe, most people still can't buy one


I'm looking at the the canon 30d and new lenses with interest. Honestly, if I could have gotten the hang of working with the canon 5d, I'd be interested in the 30d more. I'm intrigued though.

I think the 17-55 f2.8 IS looks like just the lens I wish Nikon had. I think the 85 f1.2 is interesting, but not really for me right now. I like the fact that canon has a 300 f4 IS, which is one of the few things that kept me interested in canon. I like the fact that they have a 70-200f4 as well. Shame they are all white.

I think Nikon could do well to improve or add a few lenses to the lineup to keep eyes off those canon lenses, but at the same time I think canon could do well to look at nikon to learn about ergonomics.

So, anyone want to teach me how to make a 30d shoot look like a shot from a d200?


Hey, don't go getting any ideas.................. I'm not changing, just thinking out loud.

Edited by txbonds on Feb 21, 2006 at 11:09 AM GMT

I took a look and I'm glad my D200 is arriving tomorrow. I think that I made the right decision, for me and my vision. A big point for me was the backwards compatibility of glass. If you look in my sig, I have gotten a lot of AIS glass at good prices, more glass than if I had bought new glass. I eventually will buy different glass, but to start, I'm happy. I'm sure that purchasers of the 30d will be happy to have their camera also. It's all about one's vision.

Personally I am more interested in the 85mm f1.2L and the 17-55 f2.8 IS. The IS is great for static objects in low light indoor. The 85mm f1.2L must be amazing espeically on a FF like the 5D or 1Ds MK2.

As far as 30D vs D200 goes... D200 got banding, a weak JPEG engine [I shoot RAW, so I
don't care], and the 30D might still have issue with AF. It's like picking your own poison