Lenses don't affect any of the physical attributes of the body such as frame rate, sensor size, AF system, metering system, image processing and on down the list. A 1200mm f/5.6 or a kit lens won't change the performance of a 300D body.
Hammerli wrote:
"Canon has 5 bodies, and no options. How many combinations of powertrain, body style and options do car manufacurers offer? I can buy a base Audi A4, or go to an upgraded engine model or get an S4, and I can choose a sedan or wagon based on that same body, not to mention all the other options.
Let's face it, comparitive to many products, Canon doesn't offer us a lot of body choices..."
Why would you directly compare the camera industry to the car industry or a tripod company? It's nonsensical. Compared to all other camera makers, I'd say Canon is way, way ahead of the game. I honestly can't believe we're now actually complaining about 'only' having five digital SLRs to choose from!
Jeff wrote:
Why would you directly compare the camera industry to the car industry or a tripod company? It's nonsensical. Compared to all other camera makers, I'd say Canon is way, way ahead of the game. I honestly can't believe we're now actually complaining about 'only' having five digital SLRs to choose from!
I think we all need a vacation from this...
I only did it to illustrate the very point you make. The suggestion in the post I responded to was that someone in the market for a Corolla would be interested by a Lexus introduction, which is as you say nonsensical. My point was that you can't compare the two, notice I said "I understand the reasons why the manufacturers do it, but it's a lot harder to please the masses with 5 models." Perhaps no one read into that the intent. I miss where I was complaining.
Two points here :-
1) The Canon DSLR range is currently 6 bodies (don't forget the 20Da)
2) Name another manufacturer who offers a wider DSLR range. There isn't one.
Jeff wrote:
I've heard a lot of people saying this, and I think a lot of people are in for a very long wait before the price drops substantially. I'd guess that after a year you may save maybe $200-300. I'd personally rather use that camera for the year than 'save' a few hundred smackaroos...
I'm with you there, Jeff. I'd rather have the 8-10,000 pics over that year and make $2,000 or so making big prints for families with the camera than save a couple hundred.
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
Wouldn't it be much more cost-effective with an EF-S fisheye and TS lens to fit the 20D instead of a whole new camera with an expensive FF sensor to fit existing lenses?
Jeff wrote:
I've heard a lot of people saying this, and I think a lot of people are in for a very long wait before the price drops substantially. I'd guess that after a year you may save maybe $200-300. I'd personally rather use that camera for the year than 'save' a few hundred smackaroos...
I would agree with you. The 20D was introduced at $1500. After a year, the price right now from the most reputable dealers is still $1300. I would not be surprised if even that $200 decrease was out of the resellers' hides rather than a decrease in Canon's wholesale price. I would not regard having waited a year for a $200 decrease to have been worthwhile.
I would like to think that when the 5D goes on sale, the largest retailers will knock off that top $300, but I doubt it's going to drop substantially from its October street price turns out to be until its own successor is announced. Part of the result of maturing of the market and lineup is the stabilization of prices.
Earlier on somebody asked why the 12.8 sensor couldn't go into a 1D2(n). Part of the challenge with a high FPS body is reading the data from the sensor and trasnferring it to the buffer. Also, as the sensor warms up, you'll see more noise. It's quite possible the 12.8 sensor didn't run cool enough for clean ISO 100 images in a high FPS application.
FF is still a premium market, so in contrast to the 1Ds2 - this is a huge step forward in making FF more affordable. In 3 or 4 years we'll probably have a 5DmkII or III (or whatever) at around 22 MP for $2500. I'm looking forward to that!
John Black wrote:
In 3 or 4 years we'll probably have a 5DmkII or III (or whatever) at around 22 MP for $2500. I'm looking forward to that!
Maybe.
Look back 2+ years at all the price speculation of the 1Ds, and maybe it won't happen. I personally feel that this camera should be about $2500 retail, with the 1DII at $3500+ and the 1DsII at $6000, but until Canon sees some pressure from elsewhere, I honestly think that we won't see a lot of significant price decreases in the next 2 years. I wish it were so, but based on history, I'm doubtful. What the melding of the 1D and 1DS-Series will do to prices is anyone's guess. I'm guessing that that new camera will retail for, yep, you guessed it, $8000.
hrhansen wrote:
Wouldn't it be much more cost-effective with an EF-S fisheye and TS lens to fit the 20D instead of a whole new camera with an expensive FF sensor to fit existing lenses?
In the short run, not necessarily, considering the R&D costs of developing those new lenses. The smaller EF-S lenses should offer cost savings based on their supposedly easier production, but look at the prices for the initial EF-S offerings.
That said, I'm looking forward to unboxing my small-image circle Tokina 12-24 this afternoon.
Have to say I agree with the original poster, it seems a lot to ask twice as much cash (probably more in the UK!) for a few more megapixels (which aren't that important to me as the largest I print is around 18x12) and Full frame. Buy a film camera!
3 fps is a little too slow for most action photography. obviously the 5d has been compromised so as to make it cheaper for the enduser but it's not a bad camera at all. it will serve a useful purpose for many. but as for me, i ain't crazy about it. i'm happy with the 20d and the efs lenses. i'm happy with the d2x and that 1.5x crop. my intuition tells me that nikon will never produce a ff.
it's clear that there is a psychological factor now at this stage of digital camera history between ff and those with a 1.6x (or 1.5) crop. i think at the end of the day, it all depends on your mindset. but there is always that human weakness that 'any new is a novelty'..
some day, when all the hurly burly is done and the battle is lost and won', we will all look back and say, 'ah, what does it matter, it's all history now.'
I can't see how Canon could pull off a merged 1D/1DS for 8K. The people who need the speed of 1D may balk at such a high price; they need speed over hi res and FF, otherwise they would be buying the 1DS.
Jeff wrote:
Maybe.
Look back 2+ years at all the price speculation of the 1Ds, and maybe it won't happen. I personally feel that this camera should be about $2500 retail, with the 1DII at $3500+ and the 1DsII at $6000, but until Canon sees some pressure from elsewhere, I honestly think that we won't see a lot of significant price decreases in the next 2 years. I wish it were so, but based on history, I'm doubtful. What the melding of the 1D and 1DS-Series will do to prices is anyone's guess. I'm guessing that that new camera will retail for, yep, you guessed it, $8000. ...Show more →
Moldy wrote:
Have to say I agree with the original poster, it seems a lot to ask twice as much cash (probably more in the UK!) for a few more megapixels (which aren't that important to me as the largest I print is around 18x12) and Full frame. Buy a film camera!
Rob
Few more megapixels? Like more than double the number you currently have and 56% more than the 20D. Not important at 18x12? 166 DPI vs 240 DPI isn't noticeable? Go back to film? And lose high ISO/low noise, fast feedback and a noticeable chunk of image quality.
Either this was a poor attempt at sarcasm or you've missed the point completely. Yes, it's not a cheap camera, but for it's target audience it's 50% cheaper than the alternative and a complete bargain.
Moldy wrote:
Ok, bit harsh mate. Just posting my opinion.
Not got a problem with people saying that it's not the camera for them (too expensive, too slow, not weatherproof etc), but dismissing the technical advantages as not worth having for anyone is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.
I'm fairly sure that most serious 300D owners, if loaned a 5D for a month, would be wondering what they could sell in order to keep it come the end of the period.
.
