Guys, I hate to say this, but I think the D2x is the closest digital camera hat we are going to get to the EOS 3 in the next 3-5 years. Canon just doesn't seem to be heading there. The 1DII is pretty close if you compare speed and image quality.
Guys, I hate to say this, but I think the D2x is the closest digital camera hat we are going to get to the EOS 3 in the next 3-5 years. Canon just doesn't seem to be heading there. The 1DII is pretty close if you compare speed and image quality.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Do you honestly believe this? What does "from scratch" mean to you?
The body isn't the same body at the 20D, it did have to be designed as a new peice of whatever alloy it is, it's certainly not the 20D design just slightly bigger, there is no flash for one thing. Point is that while they were designing the dimensions, shape and pentaprism they could have put in seatings for weather seals. If you are making new toolings anyway what difference would it have made?
Canon made a small noise about the shutter being a totally new design at the time, don't blame me!
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....Show more →
I don't think the shutter cost was the problem as I believe they did design a new shutter for the camera and they can certainly build a full frame shutter at 5fps if they can do 10fps on the old 1 series film cameras. I think it comes down to two things. First, I think it would cost more for the hardware to process such big image files at 5fps but probably not too much. Though if the sensor really costs as much as everyone says it does then they got to start cutting costs somewhere.
Second, and probably more importantly is that they have to set everyone up to buy the 3D or whatever next year that's full frame, weather sealed, and shoots at 5fps and is $2500. The camera manufacturers got our number and know that if they keep offering these incremental upgrades, they'll keep getting our money . Canon doesn't want to offer the equivalent 3 series too soon if they can get us to buy the D60, 10D, 20D, and 5D along the way to what we really want.
The D200 looks like the first camera at a reasonable price that makes me think that I wouldn't need anything else for a long time....but I got Canon stuff so that's not going to happen.
JSeaman wrote:
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.
Granted, but even with knowledge of these Photoshop workflow features, you are dealing with extra steps that take up time that you would not need to spend if the cameras could handle ‘in the box ‘.
This is not a lot of time if you are using a fast computer and have only a few files to deal with, but when you start using Noise Ninja on 250 reception shots at ISO 1600, you are adding a lot of time to your workflow, even with the fastest of computers. I would say that Noise Ninja and USM application more than quadruple the amount of time it takes for batch jobs to complete in Photoshop. One of the nice things about multi-CPU or multi-core systems is that you can do other things while your batch jobs run in the background, but it sure would be nice if the cameras did more for you at the time of capture.
In that sense, I am thankful that our cameras perform so well at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200, and that we upgraded them for that added functionality. If Canon can give us even lower grain than what they have now (which, admittedly, is very impressive), I would seriously consider yet another upgrade.
Looking back, I believe the D70 came out before the 20D -- and my guess is there were plenty of Canon users (non-pro) ready to jump ship because the D70 seemed better than the dRebel. But then the 20D came out, and most of us were pretty happy. Perhaps we're seeing a similar experience with the D200 -- time will tell.
And by the way, what is the price of the D200? Is it even in the same range as the 20D or its expected upgrade?
Looking back, I believe the D70 came out before the 20D -- and my guess is there were plenty of Canon users (non-pro) ready to jump ship because the D70 seemed better than the dRebel. But then the 20D came out, and most of us were pretty happy. Perhaps we're seeing a similar experience with the D200 -- time will tell.
And by the way, what is the price of the D200? Is it even in the same range as the 20D or its expected upgrade?
Good point on the D70 Drebel comparison. I guess we'll know soon enough if Canon will bring out something similar in a few months. But if they don't offer an equivalent 28-70 2.8 zoom I could care less. That's why I think the d200 is so appealing (17-55 2.8). I can't believe Canon doesn't offer this range and speed in an ef-s lens. I just goes to show that Canon views the 1.6 crop as truely for amateurs.
Canon employees had this same discussion over a boardroom table......at least 3 years ago.
Look at design time, testing, production, marketing. They already know exactly what they will release in 2006, as well as 2007.
Given the success of Canon and the amount of us pouring over these details, rest assured, they've got your number and they've had it for a while. A company like Canon does not get blind sided by product from their number one competitor. They know it, expect it and plan for it.
I think you are completely right. While I think they probably get out improvements in sensor technology a year or so after development I think the body designs are developed way before. I bet when the d30 came out way back when they had a 3 series equivalent body sitting on the shelf at the same time. But the savvy guys at Canon realized that they can pull us through a whole load of incremental upgrades before they bring out the camera features that everyone is really looking for, something they've had in a film body version for quite some time.
With that same idea, if Nikon comes out with a camera that looks like it outclasses what Canon has to offer, they've got a full line of models sitting on the shelf and can pick the best to release based on competition and marketing research.
Actually I lied...I think Canon's probably sitting on some pretty incredible sensor technology as well. If you think about it, from the D60 on, the sensor really hasn't changed too much. Sure we have some increased MP, but the dynamic range is pretty much the same, and while the noise is better, I think that is in large part due to in camera image processing and not as much related to the actual noise characteristics of the chip. But what do I know...not a whole lot I'm sure
1. ISO in Viewfinder - Its silly that we have to say this....
2. Larger Screen - like N;s and 5D
3. VF: If it could be brighter and slightly larger
4. Larger Buffer: For fun action shot taking
5. 10.2 Mp CMOS
6. 1.3 X Crop Factor - Real Kicker here!!!
Keep the price the same!
Now I know Canon says it doesnt intend to keep the 1.3 but I believe it to be the most flexible size. You dont have the light falloff issues on the wider lens, you still have wide angle with lens other than the 10-22, and you get to keep a model telephoto multiplier to make that distance possible.
I know I am dreaming but this would definately encourage me to shell out another 1600. Otherwise, no big deal really.
Close your eyes- Hold a 20D with it's infamous rotating grip in your hand and then hold a Nikon D70 or D200. I felt like I just fell out of my Ford Fairmont and into
the lap of luxury. Ergonomics and qc from Canon is lacking. Same thing with the glass. Faulty motor on a 6 month old 135, lockups on 70-200IS out of warranty, and first copy of 24-70 couldn't focus beyond 35mm. I have a closet full of Nikon glass just begging for a resurrection. From it's price point, it might be time to give the Nikon a, "Spin Around the Block", just for laughs. Who knows, it might be a nice ride.
By the way, does anyone know of anyone who has a late serial# , low count 1D they want to get rid of? Thick as a Brick!
With regard to CMOS vs CCD, I prefer the CMOS for two reasons
1) Battery Consumption: I notice a huge difference in battery life between my 1D and my 1Dmk II
2) Image Quality: Although the CCD images are sharper straight from the camera, they also suffer from artifacts. The 1D is VERY prone to Moire patterns. These patterns show up all the time in everyday shooting.
Overall, I find that the CMOS images take more editing. The CCD based images tend to fall apart a bit faster in the digital darkroom.
My experience here is based on not only owning the 1D and 1Dmk II, but also personally shooting all the current Nikon/Canon cameras side by side in multiple comparisons.
I'm going to tell you guys the same thing i told my 80 year old boss today who after buying a d100 and waiting for its replacement bought a 20D.
If you are going to keep waiting for a camera that is better you are just going to end up frustrated and broke.
If you are shooting canon right now i have no idea why you would feel the need to switch over to nikon just for the features listed.
What happened to the days of spitting on a lens to clean it?
That said, i sure as hell hope that the nikon bodies start performing better then the canons, i've got canon glass and i'm comfy with their cameras, so if there is something there to make them better then so be it.
1. ISO in Viewfinder - Its silly that we have to say this....
2. Larger Screen - like N;s and 5D
3. VF: If it could be brighter and slightly larger
4. Larger Buffer: For fun action shot taking
5. 10.2 Mp CMOS
6. 1.3 X Crop Factor - Real Kicker here!!!
Uhh...i dont see that happeneing, mostly the last part.
As long as my 20D continues to deliver such beautiful results at 5 fps, the new techno gizmos of the D200, and even the FF of the 5D, just don't seem to offer a large enough degree of improvement to get very excited about jumping ship or otherwise upgrading.
timmyquest wrote:
Uhh...i dont see that happeneing, mostly the last part.
All that Canon have said is that they (1) will drop 1.25 crop from the 1 series and (2) they intend to move towards 1.0 crop for all but their low end models. Nothing their says that a 25/30D can't have 1.25 crop.
