egret wrote:
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?

It appears they did make some adjustments to the shutter based on the increased longevity of 100,000 clicks. I also think I read something about the mirror being being shorten slightly to reduce blackout. Maybe some of these changes will have an effect on the shutter noise.

Jim

I think to many people blame whats in their hands and not themselves when they take a bad picture. They end up selling off all their gear and going wtih the other company only to switch back a year later. Stop crying over what the camera doesn't have or what the other guys have and get out and take pictures with what you do have!!

I think Canon guys know very well what they do, and the lack of a neccesity to strike back Nikon (as we all see with the release of 30D) is the result of Canon being the number one of the market. And although i agree that the D-200 is a well constructed camera, please, don't compare the image quality and the high ISO performance of the 20D (and very likely the 30D because they share DIGIC II/CMOS) with those of the Nikon. I think the 30D is the result of the incoming maturity of D-SLRs evolution, which means that the megapixel count race is no more the mainstream of camera developing-see the refinements offered by Canon: spot metering, 1/3 ISO increments, etc. The 30D marks the mature stablishment of certain camera line in the Canon lineup; I doubt the D200 will be causing any scratch on Canon sales in the future...

I think it's great. Much like the upgrade from 300D to 350D, here canon added functionality that really should have been present in the 20D. It's a shame it wasn't already there, actually. I guess now canon has a pretty robust line-up, and this upgrade adds some tangible differences between the 350D and 30D levels, and reduces the differences between 5D and 30D to basically just sensor crop.

350D - reduced functionality but good imaging capability
30D - full functionality 1.6 (ie, spot metering, ISO increments, etc)
5D - full functionality 35mm-frame size
1xxxx - pro

It should make the 30D vs. 350D decisions easier for people.. now there's a more tangible difference than just control layout.

Yup, the megapixel race in the low-end cameras is over. Canon doesn't care that the D200 has 10MP, and why compare the D200 to the 30D anyway? Nikon's line and Canon's line of cameras are totally different.

Canon doesn't need to step ahead of Nikon with an equivalent model everytime a new camera like the D200 is released. Canon is already ahead. They've been ahead for years.

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 totally disagree. The difference between 8 and 10 MP is incremental, and you'd struggle to show discernable resolution differences. Remember that to double resolution, you'd have to quadruple the MP. And the D200 at ISO 1600 and up isn't in the same league as the 20/30D. Don't get so hung up on the megapixel marketing.

I do agree with you, though, about the new 85L, and that I'll be keeping my 20D for a while longer, and happily so.

Well it makes me appreciate my 1.3 crop 1D even more. Now I can pick up a XT for a backup and stop waiting for what might come out next.

Seems like a decent upgrade to me . what did evryone expect a new camera , its a replacement so it was only going to have things that canon have seen and been told by all the 20D users over the last 18months what was needed to make the 20d even greater.
iso in the viewfinder was one complaint and the rest i think you can see have been corrected in this 30D ,
Did Nikon not do this with there 70 model .
so i can't see any reason for complaints, if you ant a higher spec body buy a 1series or a 5d ,

technocraft wrote:
I don't need more megapixels on the 20D.

Me neither. 4 is enough, in fact.

The spot metering would be handy, and the ISO in 1/3 increments, but what the 30D really needed was a buffer that holds 20 RAW files, not 11, and maybe a 20-point hybrid AF system with even better low light performance than the 20D. Now *that* would have been an upgrade.

They certainly aren't getting any cash from me for this "upgrade."

Can't wait for my 1D to arrive!


Edited by cogitech on Feb 21, 2006 at 05:22 PM GMT

I find it hilarious to see how so many people are upset with Canon because they refused to release a camera with horrible noise and banding problems. Yeah! Canon sucks! <_<

joecirca79 wrote:
I find it hilarious to see how so many people are upset with Canon because they refused to release a camera with horrible noise and banding problems. Yeah! Canon sucks! <_<

Uh, they fixed the banding problems and noise is easy enough to deal with.

I dunno if people are upset or just baffled.

Seems like a decent upgrade to me . what did evryone expect a new camera , its a replacement so it was only going to have things that canon have seen and been told by all the 20D users over the last 18months what was needed to make the 20d even greater.
iso in the viewfinder was one complaint and the rest i think you can see have been corrected in this 30D ,
Did Nikon not do this with there 70 model .
so i can't see any reason for complaints, if you want a higher spec body buy a 1series or a 5d ,

and why do folk seem to be bashing this of the D200 the d200 is on the 5D level ,

The D200 is on this level, it falls way short of the 5D. It's about time a camera company stoped to make its camera better instead of pumping out high mp crap

I think it's funny how everyone was making predictions with specs (most importantly weathersealing and 10MP) to compete with the D200, and now that the 30D turns out to be basically a 20Dn, the tune changes.

But anyways, probably a smart move by Canon, just trying to sink prices, and introducing a 17-55 f/2.8 to show they are serious about crop format. They will sell a boatload of them.

Rich.B wrote:
Seems like a decent upgrade to me . what did evryone expect a new camera , its a replacement so it was only going to have things that canon have seen and been told by all the 20D users over the last 18months what was needed to make the 20d even greater.
iso in the viewfinder was one complaint and the rest i think you can see have been corrected in this 30D ,
Did Nikon not do this with there 70 model .
so i can't see any reason for complaints, if you want a higher spec body buy a 1series or a 5d ,

and why do folk seem to be bashing this of the D200 the d200 is on the 5D level ,

I still don't consider the 5d as a competitor to anything on the market. The D200 is a completely different beast. It's faster frames per second, its a 1.6x crop, it has weather sealing, it has a pro build, it is 1300 dollars cheaper, and it is meant for all-uses from prosumers to pros.

The 5d has superior image quality and ISO performance, but is far more suited to landscape and portrait photographers. The feature sets and prices are just completely different.

MPerdomo wrote:
I think it's funny how everyone was making predictions with specs (most importantly weathersealing and 10MP) to compete with the D200, and now that the 30D turns out to be basically a 20Dn, the tune changes.

But anyways, probably a smart move by Canon, just trying to sink prices, and introducing a 17-55 f/2.8 to show they are serious about crop format. They will sell a boatload of them.

I don't see them selling a "boatload" of them. I'm sure they know their market and limited prodution will make it difficult to acquire at first, but I still don't see it selling even near the 17-40L or 70-300 IS. The average 20d and XT customer that I know doesn't spend $1300 on their walk around lens... Hell, most of them don't spend $1300 on any lens.

cineski wrote:
I think Canon is relying on the new 17-55 to keep and get new Canon customers. I don't agree with the megapixel wars, but it sure seem that Canon and Nikon do, as do Joe consumer, so the 30d really surprises me in its subtleness. From Canon's perspective, people who buy the 30d will now want to spend more money in a year for the next upgrade, or even the 5d in a few months. Money money money....

I agree totally.

"subtleness"

As I've said elsewhere the only reason I think some people see this camera as a let down is because its branded a 30D which you would think means whole new camera but instead its an upgrade of an existing one. Had they branded it a 20Dn I don't think there would be so many un-happy people.

I don't know why people get so defensive about it being better or worse than the D200. Its the peson behind the thing that counts, I've seen shots taken on a 20 year old manual focus camera that I only wish I could take!

well it takes nikon qiute long time and many many months to take over canon, let's give canon same time to develop something new and then we will see

cogitech wrote:
Uh, they fixed the banding problems and noise is easy enough to deal with.

I dunno if people are upset or just baffled.
It's simple...Canon wanted to make sure that the sucessor to the 20D wasn't a step backwards in image quality. It likely would have been if they crammed 2 more MPs into the sensor at this time.

Quote from the 30D White paper:
"While it makes a strong case for itself as a separate device, the EOS30D provides a
clear upgrade path to the EOS5D and the EOS-1D MarkII N..."

I think the same goes to owners of the 20d. If you want more features and better IQ, you gotta move up.

White paper: "Still, tried-and-true, or tried-and-true-but-very-much-modern-and-current, has a genuine appeal, especially to the person who’s paying for it."

Couldn't agree more.

a dslr should have more of everything including mp than any entry level camera. the sony point and shoot has 10.3mp.

Rich.B wrote:
and why do folk seem to be bashing this of the D200 the d200 is on the 5D level ,

Well,5D doesn't have the 5fps. and it's a full frame. I'd preffer 1.6 crop over full frame for the type of work that I do.
All in all, 30D can't compete with D200 and I am sure Nikon people are jumping up in the air. With all the rumors,they were having a heart attack,trying to predict Canon's next big thing. Big thing didn't happen. A few people from work are going to the store tomorrow to buy D200.They were waiting for the 30D. Now,they are mad for wasting their time all these months.
Sucks to be Canon...

20D is huge a camera! It kicked film's bottoms (left and right 1/2). Sensor resolution is exceeding most of the consumers lenses resolving power. People macking living w/cameras are using it. Don't let complainers rough up your tail. I have been tacking photos (seriously) since '70 and finaly went digital. 20D would be the the back-up and tele choice but 30D has one important advantage: larger screen. This is important to a mature (mature but not senior) population. I gather you are still not "mature" so you will have a years of injoinment w/20D. Don't buy many lenses but good lenses. Go for f2 and 2.8 not because camera needs it but human behind the camera needs to see the object's detales. 5, 8, gazilion FPS who cares. You need only one shot: the good one (Uzi makes the noise but sniper rifle in a marckman's han hits the target). Fast frame rate produce a lot of time looking dissapontingly in a images on the screen wheer The One would be just between those you have but The (good) One is gone for ever.
Good luck and great light:
Dane3

tach18k wrote:
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?

20D is huge a camera! It kicked film's bottoms (left and right 1/2). Sensor resolution is exceeding most of the consumers lenses resolving power. People macking living w/cameras are using it. Don't let complainers rough up your tail. I have been tacking photos (seriously) since '70 and finaly went digital. 20D would be the the back-up and tele choice but 30D has one important advantage: larger screen. This is important to a mature (mature but not senior) population. I gather you are still not "mature" so you will have a years of injoinment w/20D. Don't buy many lenses but good lenses. Go for f2 and 2.8 not because camera needs it but human behind the camera needs to see the object's detales. 5, 8, gazilion FPS who cares. You need only one shot: the good one (Uzi makes the noise but sniper rifle in a marckman's han hits the target). Fast frame rate produce a lot of time looking dissapontingly in a images on the screen wheer The One would be just between those you have but The (good) One is gone for ever.
Good luck and great light:
Dane3

As I've yet to make the dSLR jump from film. I really don't see any problem at all with this camera and why Canon did it. I know this is a silly comparison, but Ford has been making cars for years...right? Take a model of Mustang from the 1990's and take this year's Mustang GT. 1990's = 20d....still a great car/camera. Now, take the Mustang GT = 30d. It's still basically the same camera...but better. It's not trying to be a Ferrari. Why get all bent out of shape when Canon is just making a previous SLR better? If they brought out some new line to fit in the middle of the 20d and the 5d, all it's fault's would be magnified and already judged before even holding the camera. I'm all for making a current product better.

Ford haters....it was only a comparison. I own a Chevy.......