digitaljoe wrote:
Ira I totally agree. Cant understand why they did it. Nikon must be rejoicing! The D200 is a great camera. I will probably buy one now.

IraGraham wrote:
Exactly!!! Finally someone with a little sense. Do you guys realize many guests at wedding will be using cameras with more me megapixs then you in their 10 megapix point & shoots? That is not good no matter how you slice it.


First, a word for the wise: When someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean that they're lacking sense.

Second, a word for the pixel counters: If you're relying on the number of pixels in your camera to produce better images, you're lacking sense.

Seriously, a 10MP P&S is no better than the person wielding it; I'll take a pro(*) with a 1D over an amateur with a D200 any day. Heck, I'd take a pro with a 3MP P&S over the amateur with the D200.

* By "pro", I'm referring to a quality photographer, not necessary someone who gets paid for their photography.

(It is amusing how the table has turned; it used to be the Nikon shooters asserting that the number of pixels didn't matter, now it's the Canon shooters.)

uz2work wrote:
IraGraham wrote:
digitaljoe wrote:
Ira I totally agree. Cant understand why they did it. Nikon must be rejoicing! The D200 is a great camera. I will probably buy one now.

Exactly!!! Finally someone with a little sense. Do you guys realize many guests at wedding will be using cameras with more me megapixs then you in their 10 megapix point & shoots? That is not good no matter how you slice it.

And those tiny pixels on the tiny P&S sensor will be able to capture less detail and will have more noise than the 4 MP of a 1D or the 6 MP of a 10D.
Having more 20% more pixels on a P&S than on a DSLR means something only if your goal is to be able to brag about having the most pixels.
Les


Well said.

If megapixels amounted to everything, then my fiancee's 6mp Fuji Z1 would be as good as a 1d, 10d, d100, D70, etc. etc. It isn't even close.

If you actually looked at images coming from a D2X or D200, you'd realize that it isn't better than the 20d--and it is certainly worse above ISO 400. Megapixels "can" be good, but I've yet to see an APS-C that is clearly better than the "lowly" 20d 8.2mp.

jdaily wrote:
(It is amusing how the table has turned; it used to be the Nikon shooters asserting that the number of pixels didn't matter, now it's the Canon shooters.)


I still think extra MP is a good thing, as long as it doesn't sacrifice noise, sensativity, dynamic range, and resolving quality.

However, nobody has been able to produce an APS-C sensor that equals the 20d and Digic II. If the 30d had 10mp and the same ISO sensativity, low noise characteristics, and dynamic range of the 20d sensor, I'd love it--but I'd rather have that 8.2mp 20d sensor than one with as much smudge as the D2x above iso 400.

I think the sensor change from 10d to 20d was pretty significant--not just for the extra MP, but for the dynamics of the picture itself.

Jim Victory wrote:
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


Thanks, Jim. I was making this inference also. It is not unreasonable to think that shutter noise and reliability/longevity are related. I'll be watching for reviews. (I guess we all will - duh.)

jdaily wrote:
(It is amusing how the table has turned; it used to be the Nikon shooters asserting that the number of pixels didn't matter, now it's the Canon shooters.)


Pixel quality matters, I used a 10d and d100 side by side and the 10d was sharper and cleaner.

Also the higher the megapixel count the larger the difference has to be to be a significant advantage.

From 6-8mp there is small but noticable difference, from 8-12 there is also a small but noticable diff. From 8-10 doubt there is much diff. Either way, better pixels can cancel out any MP advantage. And Canon has the best pixels, cleaner / sharper.

IraGraham wrote:
digitaljoe wrote:
Ira I totally agree. Cant understand why they did it. Nikon must be rejoicing! The D200 is a great camera. I will probably buy one now.

Exactly!!! Finally someone with a little sense. Do you guys realize many guests at wedding will be using cameras with more me megapixs then you in their 10 megapix point & shoots? That is not good no matter how you slice it.


And just how much good will all those extra P&S pixels do them when they drag their memory card down to Wally world to get a stack of 4x6 prints?

Oh, and what ISO does that 10mp P&S operate at? Great for seeing the overexposed (thanks to the uncompensated pop-up flash) faces of the wedding guests floating in a sea of blackness.

rocketpop wrote:

If you actually looked at images coming from a D2X or D200, you'd realize that it isn't better than the 20d--and it is certainly worse above ISO 400. Megapixels "can" be good, but I've yet to see an APS-C that is clearly better than the "lowly" 20d 8.2mp.


Perhaps 8.2 mpx or so is the "pinnacle" of performance for the APS-C format.

rocketpop wrote:

If you actually looked at images coming from a D2X or D200, you'd realize that it isn't better than the 20d--and it is certainly worse above ISO 400. Megapixels "can" be good, but I've yet to see an APS-C that is clearly better than the "lowly" 20d 8.2mp.


Perhaps 8.2 mpx or so is the "pinnacle" of performance for the APS-C format.

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


Les well said, and you are dead on IMO.

The launch of the 30D is not a Canon versus Nikon war, its all about targeting the majority of the consumer/users. The upgrade from 20d-30d, AND LOWER Price, is just another way that Canon continues to get it rite and target the biggest bang for the R&D buck. If this was a war, Canon has completed celebrating there victory, (for this round). I commend them for the commitment to there customers and continued R&D.