Beni wrote:
The D200 is more a mini D2X as the 5D is a mini 1Ds mkII.
I agree with what you wrote, and see your point, except this. The 5D is not a mini 1Ds mkII. It's a 20D with a bigger sensor, bigger LCD and no pop-up flash. That was my frustration with it.
anyone who believes that basically anything that one or the other company is "responding" to is silly. These companies have their own plan and they are on a roadmap that is perhaps 4 years out and they are plowing that road. Canon may well have a camera in the spring but it will Not be something as a response to the D200, it will be something they have been working on Before the 20D, the R&D and prototyping for this gear and the timelines are not something anyone could build in 6 months , thats for sure . Now they could do something to update a existing product like they did with the 1DMKIIn , but the 20D to morph into a D200 killer , ain't likely. Perhaps is a pretty full featured camera at the same price point as the D200 set for a spring launch , but it surely isn't something they will build in the mean time
Oh, I think they respond to each other, but not on internet time. There is little doubt in my mind that Canon will have to release a product to compete with the D200. Of course, they could go with hte D60/10D route (as their competition to the contemporary and largely superior D100), and then release a capable competitor a year or two down the road. I would be surprised if we see the gripless, mini-EOS-1 camera in anything less than a year from now, but I have no doubt that we will now see it earlier because the new Nikon release is so strong.
Tom I agree, oh do I agree, fact is though that the target market is not 20D users, it's the proam/pro market, it's being bought as a backup to the 1Ds mkII by the pros, it's being used as a pro camera by wedding photogs. It's not part of the 20D market just as the D200 won't be part of the D70 'I've just bought my first SLR' market.
Arka, the gripless 1Ds will be the successor to the 5D, add weather proofing, 5FPS and 1/250 and there will be nothing for the D200 to compete with as a pro's 'lighter and smaller' pro setup, at least nothing that would make a pro want to switch systems. Even if they didn't up the megapixels.
If canon had only not been cheap by leaving out a few rubber seals, and putting in a crippled shutter then we would have it already.
Beni wrote:
If canon had only not been cheap by leaving out a few rubber seals, and putting in a crippled shutter then we would have it already.
They didn't "leave out" anything, Beni. The 20D is the basis of the 5D design (probably literally started from the 20D CAD model), so they would have to engineer in the seals, which is much more difficult than starting off from a design that already has them in.
How is the shutter crippled? It's a FF mirror/shutter mechanism. It's performance is similar to the 1Ds. Again, it would have been a major engineering effort to give it 5fps - an engineering effort that can be justified for an $8,000 body, but not a $3,000 one.
Sam Bennett wrote:
A higher FPS does not necessarily mean a higher number of shots. I think it would be silly to cripple the camera with the grip off since some people may only be shooting for short periods of time.
Well, with a higher FPS, you do need a beefier processor and faster mirror movement which would use up more power, but Lithium should be able to handle the extra load.
Maybe they could do it if they had two processing engines, and only activated both if they had enough juice, and ran them in parallel. It'd be expensive, but it is one way to do things
why can't the new 20D step on the 5D? It's not going to be FF and it only means the 3D or new 5D is going to be that much sweeter.
I have already gotten enough nice shots from my 5D to not care about equity.
You can miss an awful lot of good shots waiting for the next camera.
They didn't "leave out" anything, Beni. The 20D is the basis of the 5D design (probably literally started from the 20D CAD model), so they would have to engineer in the seals, which is much more difficult than starting off from a design that already has them in.
How is the shutter crippled? It's a FF mirror/shutter mechanism. It's performance is similar to the 1Ds. Again, it would have been a major engineering effort to give it 5fps - an engineering effort that can be justified for an $8,000 body, but not a $3,000 one.
Well I don't know, the 5D has a different enough shape that they would have had to use completely different tooling to build the body anyway. I think Canon just wants to keep weathering sealing on "PRO" bodies. It certainly costs pennies to design and produce a few seals based on the volume they work with.
As for the FPS I agree there. The extra horsepower required to shoot 5fps at that image size probably would have been more costly to produce.
inorman wrote:
higher noise pictures are not a plus.
You know, I'm not sure I would really agree across the board. I'm actually not a fan of completely noise-free images, and it's not something I really desire. I like having the ability to shoot at ISO 9600 and get printable images out of it, but I'm actually a fan of the way the 20D and XT look at ISO 800 and prefer it over shooting at 100. After color noise is reduced, it leaves a look that feels a bit more "organic" to me. Curves seem to have a bit more "bite" with higher ISO images and generally give me more pleasant results. I have an 8x10 portrait I shot last week at about ISO 4800 up in my office and it just wouldn't look quite the same at 100.
One thing I like about the Nikon's noise is that it's relatively free of Color Noise which gives it that look that I like. I just wish they had that look at 3200 instead of 400.
After reading through all of this cr-p I've come to the conclusion that a new algorithm in PhotoShop to improve sharpening or perhaps increase contrast would do more for most people's photography than the improved features of the D200 - Likewise an improved Noise Ninja would likely beat out the improvements in the new 30D or 20Di or whatever it may be called.
Go study something about PhotoShop layers - go review your composition skills - go search out a new wildlife shooting location - I'm sure any of the above will improve your photography much more than will worrying about the incrementally improved features on a new camera body!
jmcfadden wrote:
...
Personally I think it is fantastic that it IS a CCD , I prefer the look of the images from a CCD .
...
J
I hear this all the time. And I do not understand
CCD and CMOS are just mono-chrome black and white sensors to produces the output proportional to the number of photons that they recieved. What creates the colors ( or the "Look" ) is the RG-GB color array and low-pass filter put on the top of the sensor and the RAW converter s/w.
Inherently what makes the CCD and CMOS have different "Look"s ?
Pondria wrote:
I hear this all the time. And I do not understand
CCD and CMOS are just mono-chrome black and white sensors to produces the output proportional to the number of photons that they recieved. What creates the colors ( or the "Look" ) is the RG-GB color array and low-pass filter put on the top of the sensor and the RAW converter s/w.
Inherently what makes the CCD and CMOS have different "Look"s ?
I cannot explain it to you the (scientist) but I assure you it is a real and something that when you see it you can come to understand it. My favorite sensor so far has been the D1x, for this "look" . I only hope they went after this with the D200. You will hear the sane Canon shooters and not the rabid ones more often than not prefer the look and feel of the 1D then the 1Ds to all others for native sharpness and a film like quality. My D2x files are good , low noise and extremely detailed, but they "look" and feel different from the D2h and D1x
Sam, why do people think that a shutter that can do sync at 1/250 and 5FPS is such a 'new' concept for FF?, how many cameras (film!) have canon made in the past that have those specs? It's not a foreign or difficult concept for canon. I would have paid the extra $150 for the different part from the parts bin and for some rubber seals. The body and shutter were designed from scratch, some bean counter decided to cut some costs to the extent that the camera is less than it could have been which will probably cost canon extra when the entire 3D has to - again - be designed from scratch.
But then if they gave us what we wanted now then why would we upgrade?
jmcfadden wrote:
I cannot explain it to you the (scientist) but I assure you it is a real and something that when you see it you can come to understand it. My favorite sensor so far has been the D1x, for this "look" . I only hope they went after this with the D200. You will hear the sane Canon shooters and not the rabid ones more often than not prefer the look and feel of the 1D then the 1Ds to all others for native sharpness and a film like quality. My D2x files are good , low noise and extremely detailed, but they "look" and feel different from the D2h and D1x
I can accept your explanation. Just to see what we are talking about, can you post a CCD shot that you think has the look of CCD ? I'm familiar with CMOS look.
jmcfadden wrote:
I cannot explain it to you the (scientist) but I assure you it is a real and something that when you see it you can come to understand it. My favorite sensor so far has been the D1x, for this "look" . I only hope they went after this with the D200. You will hear the sane Canon shooters and not the rabid ones more often than not prefer the look and feel of the 1D then the 1Ds to all others for native sharpness and a film like quality. My D2x files are good , low noise and extremely detailed, but they "look" and feel different from the D2h and D1x ...Show more →
I have no doubt that there's a noticeable difference between sensors and their "looks" at the pixel level. I've noticed that my MKII shots are definitely sharper than the 20D shots, and I would imagine that a good CCD would have even more of a difference at the same resolution. But honestly, I don't buy the whole "there's just something about the CCD that I can't explain" thing. These sensors are all more the same than they are different. The biggest differences we see as photographers is how that data is shaped into the final image through our workflow.
You can take an example from just one camera, same photo, and see a huge difference in tonality in just the RAW settings within a single converter:
Splitting hairs between CMOS and CCD's "character" seems like it's missing the point as to what's really important in image processing.
I don't see a digital equivalent of an EOS 3 being a possibility with Canon's current lineup. Look at the spec sheet of a 5D and a 1DIIn. Now look at the price. Where in that $700 difference do you see a digital 3 going? Especially without destroying 5D sales, or people just not buying it in favor for a 1 for a couple hundred bucks more. The 5D would have to be knocked down quite a bit in price for it to fit, and I don't see that happening. If it does, I'm buying one
That wouldn't work, so this mythical digital 3 would have to be like a 20D on steriods. Probably cheaper than a 5D, but then you'd be choosing between saving money AND getting weather sealing and pro autofocus....or spending even more money and ditching all that just for a FF sensor.
Cliff Notes: A "3D" just won't fit into the lineup, IMO.
Gino02GT wrote:
I don't see a digital equivalent of an EOS 3 being a possibility with Canon's current lineup. Look at the spec sheet of a 5D and a 1DIIn. Now look at the price. Where in that $700 difference do you see a digital 3 going? Especially without destroying 5D sales, or people just not buying it in favor for a 1 for a couple hundred bucks more. The 5D would have to be knocked down quite a bit in price for it to fit, and I don't see that happening. If it does, I'm buying one
You're looking at it purely from a money standpoint, and not a feature standpoint. A 3D may be the same price as a 5D, but they would be functionally so different that they could be marketed properly to the audience they're aimed for. I'm not really interested in FF at this point. The 5D is nothing but a curiousity for me. I'm not even remotely contemplating buying one. Now, a D200-like camera at $2,000-$2,500 that is spec'd as a baby 1 Series? Absolutely. Give me 1 Series build quality (sturdiness and weather sealing), an AF system somewhere between the 5D and the 1 Series (cross points on the edges, adjustable AI Servo sensitivity) in a half-height body, and I'm there. Make it 1.6, I don't care.
Again, if Canon marketed the 5D as the 20Dff or whatever, this would all make more sense. Think of it like marketing cars - you're marketing the overall functionality of it. If someone wants the Turbo'd 6 Cylinder instead of the NA 4 Cylinder, it's an upgrade. Just because it costs more than base doesn't mean it's overlapping the next car up even though the price overlaps with the base.
_poke_ 
