Ah dunno, I thought it was great for making fast prints at family reunions. Just plug in, print, handout and never think about it again. Never used it any other time. Too bad the 10D didn't have a Direct Print button. I had to dig through the dad burn menus...
Have to recall as I am selling my 300D with firmware hack that cameras are dumbed down - it is kinda sad that Canon have to do that.......
microfocus calibration on 40D yes please - up the ante on Nikon yes please
amalgam wrote:
I guess the contract detection AF in live view mode is now a no-brainer and should've been included in the 40D and 1D3. It's not like you'll be using live view for its fast AF anyways.
Edited by amalgam on Aug 23, 2007 at 02:00 PM GMT (Reason: spelling/grammar!)
Read Rob Galbraith "first impression" about it. Hardly of any practical use, just a marketing hype.
jlc61 wrote:
I have yet to see a fully watertight submarine - every boat leaks it's just a matter of ensuring you can get rid of it faster than it can get in....
Submarine Math --- GOESOUTTA >>> GOESINTA or you in trouble
I would like a full frame or even 1.3 crop, but I do not want to wait (again) for a 5D2 and the MK3 is out of my range, so Illplay with a 40D for a few years
Kenny Donahue wrote:
Tried staying out of this but got sucked in...
How come everyone is bad mouthing the 30D? I upgrade from the 10D to 30D
and am very happy. The 40D has some great feature but I want more lenses instead
of a new body.
If the 30D (20Dn?) was such a rip off, then wasn't the 1DMIIn a Canon rip off too?
Don't tell me it's just the name the marketing people picked that devalues the camera.
Happy with the 30D,
-Kenny
The name picked by the marketing people gives the initial relative value for the new product. The buyer then compares the new product to the legacy product(s) to make the final assessment.
The 30D is a nice camera. It is however, widely panned as the "upgrade" to the 20D by the 20D owners because the changes were minor at best (spot meter, larger LCD were most notable.) The 30D thus gives the perception that Canon getting fat and lazy. I think most people were amazed at the 10D-20D upgrade that they were looking for similar magnitude improvement in the 30D. Of course, not everyone was impressed by the 10D-20D upgrade and a few people still do very well with the 10D.
The 1D2N nomenclature does not give pretense of an major upgrade from 1D2; it merely provides minor updates to the predecessor. It is somewhat of a ripoff for those existing 1D2 owners. It is not such a rip off, though, for the original 1D users who bought a 1D in 2001/2002 and were looking to upgrade during 2006. Just like the 30D is actually a good upgrade for the 10D owners such as yourself.
During my 25 years shooting Minolta (begun when they were part of the "big 3 - C/N/M") I watched them lose the will to compete even though they brought autofocus to the world.
Now, four years into shooting Canon and I've already spent half my time watching them introduce bodies that are underwhelming, and/or almost catch up to Nikon offerings from years ago, even though Canon brought image stabilization to the world.
I've still got lots of Minolta "G" glass, and could always move from Canon to Sony, but added with my collection of "L" lenses, I'd need a *really* good reason to consider Nikon. The D300 may very well be it, though! 51 autofocus points with lots of cross type...nice!
If the goal is to collect new monies from trapped current customers...the 40D is a very decent upgrade. If the goal is to grow your customer base from p&s'ers....Canon is telling folks to buy Nikon!
Who here thinks that the buttons at the back of the 40D should have been retained at the left side of the body and not relocated at the bottom edge, which I imagine would be somewhat awkward to press w/ the battery grip attached. Just look at how Nikon positioned the 3.0" LCD on the D300, it's centered right down the middle in relation to the viewfinder eyepiece, leaving enough space for the buttons to remain on the left side. Canon should have just reduced the diameter of the rear wheel and repositioned some of the buttons on the right side to gain the space necessary to do the same thing on the 40D. While at it, they could have used a full-color SED display as well :P. It's almost tragic what has happened to the xxD line in recent years...
The Duck wrote:
If the goal is to collect new monies from trapped current customers...the 40D is a very decent upgrade. If the goal is to grow your customer base from p&s'rs....Canon is telling folks to buy Nikon!
sigh...
I'm not sure the 40D is targeted at the P&S upgraders - that would be the 350xt/xti line, IMHO, which compete well with Nikon's equivalents.
The 40D is more of a bridge between the Rebels and Pro models; as upgrades for current Canon orders / inexpensive higher quality body entry level pro's / backup cameras for pro's with the high end machines. I'm sure there are some first timers from P&S that will buy 40D's - for whatever reason but I doubt they are the prime market Canon is seeking. Getting the p&s in with the Rebels and starting to invest in glass then tempt them with an upgrade is a good marketing tool.
Personally, I probably will get a 40D as it represents enough of a jump from my xti n terms of its sports shooting capabilities.
What Elton said. As a 20D owner, I saw nothing compelling enough in the 30D revision to cause even a bit of temptation to switch. Even the 40D is only causing a slight tingle. The 20D is a great camera, the 30D is a slightly greater camera, and the 40D is again slightly better yet. Considering the news over the past couple of days the next one needs to be spectacular.
claudermilk wrote:
What Elton said. As a 20D owner, I saw nothing compelling enough in the 30D revision to cause even a bit of temptation to switch. Even the 40D is only causing a slight tingle. The 20D is a great camera, the 30D is a slightly greater camera, and the 40D is again slightly better yet. Considering the news over the past couple of days the next one needs to be spectacular.
The 20D is indeed a great camera in many respects but IMO the AF system is not so great. With my 24-70 L it is best described as flakey and unreliable, so hopefully the 40D's AF will be a vast improvement in that area.
Also consider that the price of the 40D is less than the 20D was when it was released all those years ago. That's a huge step forward, too. The Nikon D300 is spectacular (on paper) but IMO its price/performance ratio will probably lag the 40D.
Much as I drool over a D300 I think Canon's done a superb job at cramming cutting-edge features into a $1200 body (which I believe will be the street price by the end of the year)
I'm sort of mystified as to how this thread went from "the 40D is a great upgrade and shows Canon listened" to "Nikon is going to destroy Canon".
Can someone please clearly state why anyone would spend $500 extra dollars on the new Nikon over the 40D. It doesn't add up to me. Do we really believe that their AF and ISO is going to blow the doors off of Canon. Other than that, more megapixels (which I consider insignfiicant) and the higher resolution display is really all I see here.
If the goal is to collect new monies from trapped current customers...the 40D is a very decent upgrade. If the goal is to grow your customer base from p&s'ers....Canon is telling folks to buy Nikon!
Are you seriously suggesting the D300 is pitched as a likely purchase for upgrading P&S users? That particular battleground is the tier of DSLRs below i'd say.
python2000 wrote:
I'm sort of mystified as to how this thread went from "the 40D is a great upgrade and shows Canon listened" to "Nikon is going to destroy Canon".
Can someone please clearly state why anyone would spend $500 extra dollars on the new Nikon over the 40D. It doesn't add up to me. Do we really believe that their AF and ISO is going to blow the doors off of Canon. Other than that, more megapixels (which I consider insignfiicant) and the higher resolution display is really all I see here.
Better viewfinder, useful LCD upgrade, 12MP, in-camera wireless control of off-camera flash, virtual horizon, ISO 3200 + (if it works out), weathersealing. I don't know how well their AF works, but there seems like some potential there also. For JPEG shooters, D-Lighting which will really improve shots. I'm sure I missed some things. The 12MP, viewfinder, and LCD are easily worth $500 to me.
I have pretty much come to the conclusion that we are never going to be happy with what we get no matter if it comes from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. I tried to keep up with this thread from the beginning and it went from one extreme to the other. If I worked for Canon I would be boarding up the windows and locking the doors for fear of a riot!
Personally, I am pretty satisfied with the offering from Canon in the 40D! I have been wanting to upgrade my trusty 20D and have the 40D on order. I think it will fit well beside my 1DmkIIn and I can finally give the 20D to my wife and encourage her to use it more often.
Two of the primary reasons I went with Canon digital in the first place was because their sensors were cleaner than the Nikon offerings and the Canon line of telephoto lenses were more affordable compared to their Nikon counterparts. Who knows, this may very well change in the future, "at least as far as sensor noise is concerned", but I don't believe Nikon will change the pricing on their lenses anytime soon. For anyone that has bought in to the Canon line and has an investment in glass and accessories to up and sell because Nikon offered a body with more features makes no sense. Don't get me wrong. Nikon makes some excellent cameras loaded with alot of sweet features that appeal to me but not enough so that I would sell all my gear and start over. I think Canon did a good job of listening to their customers and incorporated many useful features in to the 40D that we have been asking for over the last three years.
I can't help but wonder what the response would have been if Canon had of introduced the 40D with the specs close to the D300 and on top of that had a suggested retail price of $1800? I imagine that there would be plenty of people cursing Canon for raising the cost and saying that they were going to loose alot of sales to Nikon because it was too expensive!
Finally, we should all be thankful that these two companies in general are doing the things they are because we all stand to benefit, Canon and Nikon shooters alike. Pricing will get better, products will offer more features, and maybe when we realize this we will stop complaining and once again start taking pictures!
Oh, by the way. I have really enjoyed my 20D today. You know it takes just as good of a photo today as it did when I bought it! Wow!
That would indeed be great.