Just chiming in with my take on the lack of 30D successor ...
I would like to see Canon come out with a proper leap ahead, not some luke-warm bit of catch-up. Even though I don't have the finances to get a fresh 40D when it comes out, I still want "my" brand to do well. (Yes, that means that, up to a point, I'm brand-loyal.)
And this is what it boils down to: The 30D isn't doing well. It isn't any less of a camera compared to when it came out, but if that's your yard stick, then get a clue. This isn't about the specifications, it's about the competition, and here the 30D is showing its age. Its sales have taken a beating from the D80, D200 and the K10D and it will continue to do so. The new kits that have been introduced just underline that point: Canon sits on a pile of unsold 30Ds which sell not as well as it expected, so it isn't doing well.
In part this is completely irrational. I'm well aware of that. My 10D isn't going to perform any better or worse, 40D or not, but at least I understand the desire of some people here. It's about wanting your brand, the one you use, to do good. It re-enforces the idea that you've picked the right brand, which hints at the future-proof-ness of your decision.
The 30d may not be that great, but I think when Canon came out with the 5d they were trying to fill in the space between the 1d bodies and the prosumer bodies. It seemed to me that the 30d was a waste of money of an upgrade, so I skipped it, and saved a bit more for a 5d. Sure the 5d isn't a perfect camera but it more than does the job in most professional applications I apply it to (don't shoot sports action or in hurricanes). I think that Canon will have to come out with some decent improvments in the 15-1800 price range. But it's just a matter of time at this point and with the 1dIII as a model for specs, it can give us an idea of things that'll probably be added. I'd say it'll be 10-12 mpxl, anti-dust, probably 1.6 or 1.3 crop and digic III. Beyond that not too much can be said.
Really there are some really nice features in the d200, and if Canon looks at the specs and find a way to up the ante in 2-4 of the best features(or at least measure up), then it'll be a success...
But first and foremost, I think Canon didn't want to release anything else with the 1dmkIII to give it the most impact. Right now if you need to upgrade, go 5d, if you don't want to spend the cash, well just wait.
Tentacle: It re-enforces the idea that you've picked the right brand, which hints at the future-proof-ness of your decision.
I honestly do not understand why brand loyalty works for those who do not upgrade for 4-5 years. I think that at least 1D mk III should be a reason to upgrade. "40D" is going to be still the same "advanced amateur" camera 30 D has been.
1D mkIII was released with 10.1 Mpixels. Why do you think Canon would learn in 4-5 months how to make a 1.6 crop camera with 12 Mpixels? Why would they want to make it?
mfurman wrote:
I honestly do not understand why brand loyalty works for those who do not upgrade for 4-5 years. I think that at least 1D mk III should be a reason to upgrade. "40D" is going to be still the same "advanced amateur" camera 30 D has been.
I agree with what you say about the 1DM3 camera. It sure does have upgrade quality. I would buy it right now but unfortunately it doesn't fit my pocketbook so it's out for me. I also agree that the 40D will be another warmed over 20/30D but it may be the best I can get. That's why I'm holding out for the 40D or whatever it will be called.
Now, if they could bring out a "refreshed" 5D for around $2000.00 then maybe that might be my target even though my telephoto suffers. The 5D does look good though.
Another year or so we might know what they're doing on the 40D. I hope it's that soon.
mfurman wrote:
I honestly do not understand why brand loyalty works for those who do not upgrade for 4-5 years. I think that at least 1D mk III should be a reason to upgrade. "40D" is going to be still the same "advanced amateur" camera 30 D has been.
I did point out that it wasn't a 100% rational thought, didn't I?
But brand loyalty does play a role. If I would switch over to Nikon, I'd not just have to replace the body, but glass, grip and flashgun as well. Wanting to see Canon do well follows from not wanting to switch systems.
> ...if they could bring out a "refreshed" 5D... ...that might be my target even though my telephoto suffers.
No. Strangely your telephotos will remain exactly the same focal length. If the pixel pitch is the same then you can just crop off half your full frame happy in the knowledge that your cropping has given you a 'telephoto advantage'. There is no telephoto gain for a particular pixel pitch. And here's the downside: the higher the pixel pitch, the more likely that your sensor exceeds the limits of your lenses' resolution. In other words, if your lens can illuminate a full frame then best results can be gained by using its full image circle. If it isn't long enough, don't crop, just get a longer lens.
Contrary to popular misconception, frame size doesn't deliver a telephoto advantage. Pixel pitch does. If the 5D2 had the same pixel pitch as the 400D, then puff goes your 'telephoto advantage'.
I really wish this would get said more often... it sort of annoys me when people start talking about loosing 'reach' or 'telephoto' when they speak about going from one crop sensor to another sensor that's bigger and/or has different pixel density...
I'd much rather see people speak about pixel density... and the pros and cons of higher or lower pixel density.
brainiac wrote:
Contrary to popular misconception, frame size doesn't deliver a telephoto advantage. Pixel pitch does. If the 5D2 had the same pixel pitch as the 400D, then puff goes your 'telephoto advantage'.
I'm curious... Did Canon parade their 'new' Canon 30D kits at PMA? we've seen posts about how the people in the UK got descriptions of a whole bunch of new Canon kits... and now in the USA, Best Buy has a new Canon 30D kit with a 28-135mm IS lens for $1499... Interestingly enough... B&H does not yet show this particular kit, nor does Best Buy's on-line pages... B&H has a new 30D kit with the 28--105mm USM II lens for $1499... (you can buy the body and 28-105mm lens separately cheaper at B&H)... The body and 28-135mm IS sell separately at B&H for about the same price as this new kit at BB....
So... did Canon try and promote any of these kits at PMA?
brainiac wrote:
There is no telephoto gain for a particular pixel pitch.
Contrary to popular misconception, frame size doesn't deliver a telephoto advantage. Pixel pitch does.
Can't be both ways, or maybe I just didn't interpret what you were saying correctly. For many, pixel pitch is a far more affordable alternative than your solution of "get a longer lens." The "pixels per duck" is very relevant and very useful for many wildlife photographers. Nothing is without compromise, but many like the advantages a greater pixel density allows such as lighter weight bodies and lenses.
DynoMoHum wrote:
I really wish this would get said more often... it sort of annoys me when people start talking about loosing 'reach' or 'telephoto' when they speak about going from one crop sensor to another sensor that's bigger and/or has different pixel density...
I'd much rather see people speak about pixel density... and the pros and cons of higher or lower pixel density.
On the other hand, some refer to that as semantics. Technically a 5D isn't FF either, but we don't argue that point every time someone uses FF and 5D in the same post. We know what they mean as a general rule. I have no problem with people referring to "effective" reach, since at a given lens focal length, like size prints effectively show a greater "reach" from a higher pixel density (i.e. the 8MP from a 30D covers the same area on a 5D sensor as 5MP, very noticeable at 8x12 size.)
This isn't the place for the what is better, pixel density or longer lens debate, that has been covered here many times, but I don't think effective reach is an out of place term.
DynoMoHum wrote:
I really wish this would get said more often... it sort of annoys me when people start talking about loosing 'reach' or 'telephoto' when they speak about going from one crop sensor to another sensor that's bigger and/or has different pixel density...
I'd much rather see people speak about pixel density... and the pros and cons of higher or lower pixel density.
It's all about balance, your trading reach for sensor size. The smaller sensor, given the same pixel count, will have more noise, so you trade sensor size for pixel count. If you want the higher pixel count, you trade pixel count for noise. Often you can reduce noise, by using a lower ISO setting, so your trading ISO for noise. There is noise processing software, which lets you keep ISO but then your trading ISO for sharpness.....
Eventually, if the megapixel race continues, we will reach a point, where reach will exceed the point where the tradeoffs are worth it, then the 1.6 crop will start to go away. For example a 1.6 crop sensor of 24MP, that limits you to ISO200 or gives "mushy" images, probably will not fly, especially when a full frame 24MP sensor allows 6400ISO and has razor sharp images.
Can't be both ways, or maybe I just didn't interpret what you were saying correctly. For many, pixel pitch is a far more affordable alternative than your solution of "get a longer lens." The "pixels per duck" is very relevant and very useful for many wildlife photographers. Nothing is without compromise, but many like the advantages a greater pixel density allows such as lighter weight bodies and lenses.
