On another "technical note" It's rather interesting you end up having to spend as much or more than your camera cost per lens to shoot with any real quality if you stay with the Canon lens line. I guess there all the same "butt" where does the money end for these greedy companies JEEEEEEZE!
The money isn't in shooting pehapes buying stock would be a better profession/hobby A well designed 40D would do the trick!
Tentacle wrote:
Because there is a limit to optics. It is not possible to just crank up the pixel density time and time again. You can see from the 12 Mpixel 1.5x crop D2X that you need really high quality glass to get the most out of the sensor at such high pixel densities. (27 Mpixel full frame equivalent.) Otherwise your sensor will have a resolution that the glass cannot offer.
But why should the pixel count be increased all the time? 6-8 M pixels are plenty for 98% of users. And those 2% will get a full frame camera.
astrolucida wrote:
But why should the pixel count be increased all the time? 6-8 M pixels are plenty for 98% of users. And those 2% will get a full frame camera.
Unfortunately, many uniformed photographers think pixel count is the most important measure of a camera's worth. Luckily Canon only increases pixel count if they can deliver as good if not better performance than the previous lower density camera.
I hope Canon do not push the 40D out to 12MP. Don't forget @ 10.1MP, the 400D is equivalent to an 11.5MP 1.5x crop camera, having a nearly 14% higher pixel density than the D200, K10D, A100 etc.
I'd prefer 10.1MP with digic III and 1D III tech on the photolithography delivering possibly lower noise than the 30D despite the higher pixel density. More important are further improvements to the AF, LCD, VF, write speeds, sealing.
So you are telling me that the Nikon D2Xs wastes 2 of its 12.4 megapixels?
Please read a little more careful. I said the D2X(s) needs high quality glass because the sensor has such fine pixel pitch that it will out-resolve a lot of lenses. I never said the 2 additional Mpixel were a waste.
Tentacle wrote:
Physical: Yes, the EF-s line (not the 3rd party crop-optimised lenses) allow for deeper penetration of the rear element into the mirror box. On a APS-H cam, that would likely result in mirror slapping.
Technological: Yes, as mentioned, the EF-S project to an image circle which is big enough to encircle an APS-C sensor. APS-H needs a bigger projection circle.
Business: Yes, the original idea was for EF-s to make cheaper lenses. Smaller image projection circle means smaller lens elements. So, cheaper, more compact and lower weight. Even the most expensive EF-s lens is cheaper than most Canon L glass....Show more →
True on all accounts, though the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is comparable in price to the 24-105 f/4L that it somewhat mimics (or the 24-70 if you prefer).
When Canon introduced the 5D, they stated clearly that Canon intended to move to full frame for their complete camera line-up, except for entry level. And the xxD series definately is NOT entry level...
For Canon to even consider replacing the 30D with a larger sensor'ed camera would be marketing suicide. There is a strong demand for a well-made 1.6X camera due to it's price point, and all of Canon's serious competitors have a durable magnesium-alloy body camera in APS-C. It makes a fine birding camera, a wedding camera, an all-purpose camera for those that don't want to spend $3000+ on a body (granted, I'm sure that Canon could market a 1.3X 10.1 mpx 30D at under $2000, but I doubt that they could approach $1100 where the 30D now sits).
Make the 40D (or whatever it's called) a 1.3X and Canon will have sold more Nikon D-200 bodies than all of Nikon's advertizing could dream of selling.
I'm not saying this because I don't personally prefer the larger format - I'm saying this because many, many people like the 1.6X cameras, and have invested a good deal of money in lenses (Canon or otherwise) that fit that format.
DynoMoHum wrote:
The price of the Canon 30D at B&H in NY USA is $1009.95 (USD) body only.
It should be low, its basically a 20d. Even at that price id still consider a 400d. But the release of the 40d seems inminent so id hold off making a dslr purchase right now unless one doesnt have a decent one already like a 10d or 20d. If you need to buy something buy a lens.
No, I can wear off my 350D completely. I intend to buy it after the 40D announcement, when prices will drop even further. Otherwise I wouldn't buy it, I'd wait another half a year or so (I don't REALLY need it, it's just that it's going to be a very good time to buy).
A well designed 40D would do the trick!
- this is less than 750 EUR...Crazy!
. I intend to buy it after the 40D announcement, when prices will drop even further. Otherwise I wouldn't buy it, I'd wait another half a year or so (I don't REALLY need it, it's just that it's going to be a very good time to buy).