Hey, I know this guy that has a friend that knows someone that works for Canon, and he said the 40D was going to have..........................................

Hey, I know this guy that has a friend that knows someone that works for Canon, and he said the 40D was going to have..........................................

Actually, I know this guy who is a friend of a friend that knows someone that works for Nikon, and he said the D210 will have a EOS adaptor to capture all those people unhappy with the 30D but are stuck with 15 "L" lenses.

IraGraham wrote:
Monito wrote:
If it's so bad, sell your 5D and lenses and buy Nikon. I bet you don't. I also think you'd be a fool to buy an incompatible Nikon as a second camera.

When I say bad, I say bad compared to the competition, D200. It does not compare to my 5D by a long shot, so no I would not want a D200 over a 5D, that would be silly.

Canon is about the closest thing to a "marketing genius" with regard to
DSLR design and sales as there is. I assure you that they know what they are doing.
The 20D or 30D is not in competition with the D200. Both Canon and Nikon know that the real competition in DSLRs is at the entry level. Beyond the entry level, Canon and Nikon both are making no attempt to "compete" with each other. Canon has no model to match up with either the D2x or the D200. Nikon has no model to match up with the 1DsII or 5D, or even the 1DII, for that matter. And neither cares.

The "competition" that the two care about is between the D50/D70 and the
350D/30D. That is where the bulk of the sales are. That is where each manufacturer can sell lenses to new buyers, and that is where they hook new buyers in as potential customers for the high end bodies down the road. In the 20D, Canon already had a body that compares favorably with the D70, and now they have improved it with the 30D and lowered the price to help it to compete better with the D70. I'd say that Canon has done quite well in making sure that it is competitive at the level where the money is to be made.

When you get into the higher end models, each manufacturer has its own philosophy and concept of what a "high end" DSLR should be and neither cares much about what the other is doing.

While current 20D owners may not feel much of a need to upgrade to the 30D, I'm quite certain that Canon will do very well with the 30D with first time
DSLR buyers, owners of the 10D (and older models), and those who want to upgrade from a Rebel. If I didn't have a 20D, I'd consider the 30D a very attractive body for the spot meter, increase in buffer depth, and added ability to adjust ISO in 1/3 stop increments alone. Again, I think it is a worthy evolutionary step, and the rest of us need to come to grips with the notion that DSLR technology has reached a state of maturity. The 1DIIN should have given us a hint that future new models are going to be more incremental in the nature of their "improvements" than they are going to be revolutionary.
They will make the cameras more of a pleasure to use, but they will will not dramatically improve the quality of the images (that will be up to the photographer to improve his/her skills. )
The next major change in pixel density will not come until DigicIII, and Canon will not unveil DigicIII on anything less than a 1-series body.
Les

Agree with Sam. I also predicted the 30D to be like it now is (did a couple of post about it a while ago). I also predicted it to get a lower price tag than the 20D, which it will apperantly get. I bet there will also be a great price for the 30D with the new EF-S 17-55/2.8 (which I also predicted btw) and this will be a killer package, hard for many prospective buyers to resist, I think.

To the original poster of htis thread: My thoughts are that Canon know a thing or two about marketing and what the general public wants and they have apperently deemed the 30D specs to be what it takes.

Now, last week I also predicted a 6/9/15D (1.3 sensor 20D pixel density, new AF, fast etc) , and a 200/2 IS - but this will have to wait apperently. Or maybe not, the day is not over yet here in Europe and I saw something about a press conference at 8.30PM, which is in two hours. With a bit of luck, maybe, maybe, maybe....but no, we will probably have to wait until april och Photokina.

I also use it sometimes for kids' concerts and plays and such, and the loud shutter is a major annoyance there. So much so that, much as I hate to say it, a really quiet shutter on the 30D could be enough to make me trade.

I echo Nill's comment. I photograph birds and it is not good having mirror slap that sounds like a 12-gauge being racked. Is anyone aware of whether the 20D's loud shutter is addressed in the 30D?

I got a 20D last summer, I almost got the Nikon d70s but was told to use my existing canon lenses since I had them already, and get the 20d, the 20d is a fine camera, I got real crappy lenses. I thought about the Nikon d200 to add to my stuff, again someone said hold off on the d200 since the new canon is coming out. Well the d200 looks better than the 30d is some areas, since I do have cheap lenses the change over is not as great if I had thousands in lenses. Selling the 20d and it lenses could get me the d200 body, and any lenses I would add would be about the same if I upgraded my canon line of lenses which I do need to do. It is a perplexing argument isnt it?

Marketing? Hm. so that is why the 20D is nto available anymore. 30D is just an improved version of the 20D, just like the D70s wa an improved version of the D70. I found the s a more laughable upgrade ...

tach18k wrote:
I got a 20D last summer.... It is a perplexing argument isnt it?

2 me not realy. I don't thing the D200 is a 'better' camera. For 700 euro more you get a camera with a bad viewfinder, more megapixels, but also more noise. No thanx.

edit:

and predicting a slow sale start for the 30D? Why? The 20D is still selling very good and for the same price you now get something better. What more do you want? I predict that the 30D will sell jut as good as the 20D.

Remember b.t.w. what everybody said about the 20D? that it wasn;t a worthwill update for the 10D? ...

Edited by ebeaydojraes on Feb 21, 2006 at 05:52 PM GMT

uz2work wrote:
IraGraham wrote:
Monito wrote:
If it's so bad, sell your 5D and lenses and buy Nikon. I bet you don't. I also think you'd be a fool to buy an incompatible Nikon as a second camera.

When I say bad, I say bad compared to the competition, D200. It does not compare to my 5D by a long shot, so no I would not want a D200 over a 5D, that would be silly.

Canon is about the closest thing to a "marketing genius" with regard to
DSLR design and sales as there is. I assure you that they know what they are doing.
The 20D or 30D is not in competition with the D200. Both Canon and Nikon know that the real competition in DSLRs is at the entry level. Beyond the entry level, Canon and Nikon both are making no attempt to "compete" with each other. Canon has no model to match up with either the D2x or the D200. Nikon has no model to match up with the 1DsII or 5D, or even the 1DII, for that matter. And neither cares.

The "competition" that the two care about is between the D50/D70 and the
350D/30D. That is where the bulk of the sales are. That is where each manufacturer can sell lenses to new buyers, and that is where they hook new buyers in as potential customers for the high end bodies down the road. In the 20D, Canon already had a body that compares favorably with the D70, and now they have improved it with the 30D and lowered the price to help it to compete better with the D70. I'd say that Canon has done quite well in making sure that it is competitive at the level where the money is to be made.

When you get into the higher end models, each manufacturer has its own philosophy and concept of what a "high end" DSLR should be and neither cares much about what the other is doing.

While current 20D owners may not feel much of a need to upgrade to the 30D, I'm quite certain that Canon will do very well with the 30D with first time
DSLR buyers, owners of the 10D (and older models), and those who want to upgrade from a Rebel. If I didn't have a 20D, I'd consider the 30D a very attractive body for the spot meter, increase in buffer depth, and added ability to adjust ISO in 1/3 stop increments alone. Again, I think it is a worthy evolutionary step, and the rest of us need to come to grips with the notion that DSLR technology has reached a state of maturity. The 1DIIN should have given us a hint that future new models are going to be more incremental in the nature of their "improvements" than they are going to be revolutionary.
They will make the cameras more of a pleasure to use, but they will will not dramatically improve the quality of the images (that will be up to the photographer to improve his/her skills. )
The next major change in pixel density will not come until DigicIII, and Canon will not unveil DigicIII on anything less than a 1-series body.
Les


I agree with everything Les says and want to add a couple thoughts.

I think many folks here tend to see the DSLR world through the lens of these forums, seeing new camera models in terms of upgrades. At this moment there are 1920 people looking at FM. That is a small fraction of the total people who own DSLRs. I do not know for sure, but I bet most purchasers of DSLRs are new buyers and not upgraders. This market has not reached saturation. There will be many more converts from film in the years to come. They will be buying the 30D and its successors.

The other point I want to make is that there is very little difference between 8 and 10 MP. It is a 25% gain in total pixels but only 10% in linear pixels. The 30D produces an image with 3504 pixels on the long dimension and the D200, 3872. If you took these images and sized them to 20" they would be 175 and 194 ppi, respectively. That is not a big difference. Or figured another way, the 30D yields a 11.68" wide image at 300ppi and the 200D, 12.9". Again, this is not a big difference. There are people who routinely make beautiful prints at 20"x30" and larger with 8 and even 6 MP cameras. Anyone who really needs more than 8 MP would be better off getting a 5D or 1Ds Mk II.

Edited by Quercus on Feb 21, 2006 at 12:28 PM GMT

The 30D is a replacement for the 20D, at a lower pricepoint, with incremental improvements. It maintains the very solid market position of the 20D.

Most people would not ditch their 20D for this, but maybe 10D / 300D owners will. If you're buying a new camera, its 95% of the D200 at several hundred dollars less. Aside from full frame (we're a few years away from FF in consumer models I think) and a more robust weather proofed body, what more could you want?

A fine camera... i probably won't be upgrading from my 350D anytime soon, but the 30D would be my pick if I was.

The 30D is a replacement for the 20D, not more. And it is a very well positioned body on the market, rather cheap compared with competitors.
Especially this year 2006 we will see a very big struggle, when new bodies from Sony, Samsun and Panasonic will be available. And this fight will be at the low end, not within the upper class. These companies, which will be the loosers at this point will be the looser over all.

I disagree with the OP, I think the 30D is not a mistake at all. By incorporating the features most users actually wanted, canon has separated the 30D from the 350D and does not compete with their pro bodies. 10mpix is no great change from 8, I upgraded from a 300D to a 20D not for the pixel count, but for what the 20D had which was lacking in the 300D. (speed and handling, metering) I am not planning to upgrade to a 30D, and even if it had 20 megapixels and an expresso maker builtin, that would not change my plans.

The 30D was developed to add a level of separation between the 350D and the 5D, and I think it fits in perfectly. And it is nice to see they are sticking to a commitment with the EF-S lenses as well.

I love this thread.. if you dont like it then dont get it.. geez whats all the hype about anyways. I'll trade my 20D for the 30D anyday + cash to get the extra trimmings.. and would you look at the freakin 2.5 huge screen?

Man.. I own the 5D and I would gladly trade up my 20D + Cash for the 30D.. Apples and Oranges people..

I don't see 'only having 8 mega pixels' is such a big deal. The 30D seems like a very nice camera - though FF is the way for me to work so am extreemely happy with my 5D and think that this is the camera 20D users will move to and the 30D will be for people upgrading from the 350.

IraGraham wrote:
Who agrees with me that the 30D is a missed step by Canon? I predict slow sales from the start. I was looking forward to using it as a backup for the 5D until I saw the specs. An 8 megapix sensor.................................is Canon crazy or what? I will wait now and save my $1600 worth of disposable income. The Nikon 200D is far better in my estimation. Canon should have waited another month so they could upgrade the sensor to a little higher then the 200D. Then they would have had great sales. They are gonna loose big time. The only people that will buy are those that just have to have the latest version of a camera. I encourage everyone to keep their 20D and upgrade next year. What do you guys think?

Also I am not excited about the new 85L. Way to overpriced if you ask me.
I don't think that the 30D is meant as an upgrade to existing 20D owners—its meant to continue capturing the market in this segment. More pixels would have probably meant more noise. I think Canon hasn't missed-step, in the immortal words of Agassi: image is everything.

The 30D will be my first DSLR. The 20D was good enough for me but I decided to wait for its succesor. Big plus for me is that it is an improved 20D at a lower price! More improvements would have increased the price and then I'd not have bought this one but gone for a 20D. So as far as I'm concerned Canon did a good job on this one.

From an image processing standpoint, I think the bottle neck right now is with DIGIC II. Until canon launches DIGIC III with some substantial increase in processing power, I don't expect any major increase of MP in the EOS family

I'm sort of bummed, was hoping for something with this release a bit closer to 5D, for something like $2000. But I guess for now 5D is the full frame price point and 8MP is about maximal for 1.6 crop cameras. Seems like a good time to just suck it up and get the 5D or are there rumors of some sort of 35D in-between camera??

The 30d can't hurt canon, because they barely changed the manufacturing. They might not get a lot of 20d ugpraders, but people waiting from the 300d etc. will go for it. Even if nobody upgraded from the 20d, the 30d sales won't be lower than the current sales rate of 20d (people who were getting ready to buy a 20d aren't going to say "Bah! Now that a better camera is out, I don't want it!".

What this does do is push the people who have 20ds but are content with upgrading to the next 30d, 40d, 50d etc look very hard at 5d and better. The 30d is it for awhile, and if they want a markedly better camera, they are going to have to buy the 5d.

By all counts, I'm arleady seeing a lot more people saying things like "Well, 5d it is."

I hope they AT LEAST improved the AF on a new 30D

I strongly agree with everything Les said.
As a 10D owner, I can confirm I find this new body tempting. I may like to have two bodies sometimes (in order to carry a backup or to have two lenses mounted in the same time or other) and this one looks very sexy. I am not sure I will buy the 30D though for I am not that rich , but I can confirm it fixes most of the things I regret with the 10D: addition of a spot meter, 1/3 ISO, ISO in the viewfinder when setting it, improvement of the power efficiency, larger and better screen, better control of choice of AF points, selectable high speed mode. These changes are definetely worth more for me than an upgrade of the sensor to 10MP. I still regret the viewfinder is not much improved.

I think the changes from the 20D to the 30D have made a good camera better for the serious amateur photographer. I'm a 20D owner and the bigger screen, RGB histograms, and spot metering are things I want. They also help Canon differentiate the "advanced amateur" 30D from the entry-level 350D - there wasn't all that much difference in performance and features between the 20D and the 350D given the price difference.

Clearly the 30D isn't a "D200 fighter", it's a refinement of the 20D. In the spec-sheet wars, people who buy into the "megapixel myth" at this price level and aren't already committed to a camera family will probably go with Nikon's D200, as will existing Nikon owners. But Canon owners with a significant investment in Canon lenses - especially amateurs who started with a 300D or 350D - will graduate to the 30D. Both the 30D and D200 are fine cameras with superb lens families. So what's the problem?

IraGraham wrote: The Nikon 200D is far better in my estimation. Canon should have waited another month so they could upgrade the sensor to a little higher then the 200D. Then they would have had great sales. They are gonna loose big time. The only people that will buy are those that just have to have the latest version of a camera...I encourage everyone to keep their 20D and upgrade next year.

Also I am not excited about the new 85L. Way to overpriced if you ask me.

Until 2mp makes that large of a difference, this slight upgrade is quite enough for most. Think about it, Canon answered every photographer's concerns about the 20D: LCD size, ISO in the viewfinder, smaller blackout time...

Would another month have made it economically viable to throw in some more pixels and add a few hundred dollars? Probably not, a whole lot of people would take the 30D as it is right now.

If you're looking for high megapixels, wait a little bit. If you'd like to sell all of your lenses and gear just to get two more megapixels from the D200, I'll be waiting in B&S...

Since when has ridiculously fast L glass been cheap? You get what you pay for...

I'm sure glad there are plenty of expert internet jockeys out there who know better than the filthy rich and hugely successful Canon corporation.

..cue the eye-rolling..

If you guys are in this only for megapixel bragging rights or on-paper specs, give up the fight now because you'll always be broke and always be frustrated if that's the case. Also, yes Nikon knows what they're doing and still churn out superb (and underrated) equipment. All the better for the photographic field in general.

WHY does it have to be a Nikon vs Canon vs whoever war? This isn't us vs them. It's JUST a camera for shooting pictures, everyone. It's JUST a light-tight box with a shutter and imaging sensor. Just an object. Ease up already. Take some pictures. If they truly stink because Canon "dropped the ball" with your camera, THEN worry about what's out there that's better.

As someone who owns or has owned multiple cameras or pieces of equipment from Canon, Sony, Nikon, Rollei, Leica, Konica, Voigtlander, Sigma, Pentax, etc (both digital and many film cameras).. I can honestly say they all take pictures. They take pictures of what **I** put in front of them and I'm the limiting factor in how good the photos are, not the cameras and the fact one has 8 megapixels and the other has 10.

Heaven's sakes..

I was reading the info on Canon's site and found this in the LCD info:

"The full-featured shot information screen not only provides an RGB histogram, it can display the AF frame [point?] used. Magnification has never been faster. Magnification zooms to the focus point rather than the center of the image to check exposure and critical focus."

So RGB Histogram is super cool, and previously unmentioned.

And having the display show focus point and zoom to that point is really cool.

Edited by technocraft on Feb 21, 2006 at 04:59 PM GMT