nathanlake wrote:
Please don't mis-interpret the post -- I'm certainly not having a go at "Amateiurs" Vs "Pros".
But you can't always base these sort of results on "purely nr of units sold".
For starters when new technology arrives there might only be a few units sold until manufacturing and research engineering come out with cheaper and better production costs.
Newer users can buy into "New Technology" whereas the original adopters ususally have to pay a premium and have only a limited number of options.
For example the guys reply that the D60 wasb etter --of course true --and I actually still have one = but without the D30 there wouldn't have been a D60.
I still stand by my original prognosis that "the tipping point" for Digital photography was the introduction of the D30.
All the other improvements have come from that.
Without the original D30 we wouldn't even have 5d, 1DMK 3 etc etc.
(or at least not until much later in the development cycle).
If you read Luminous Landscapes review of the 10D you might change your mind. 10D was the camera that came right after the D60 and D30. It had many of the same features of its bigger Pro siblings. It was magnesium instead of polycarbonate and the price of $1499.00 was a steal. My vote goes to the 10D
Emile Gregoire wrote:
300D, first sub $1000 dSLR to hit the streets.
Agree 100%. I thought about the 1Ds as one of the first "good" FF cameras (let's not forget Kodak got there first), but the 300d broke digital SLR's open for the masses (We still have one in our home and it still gets used).
I disagree with the 5d as the primary choice; while it was an "affordable" FF step, it never did, and never will, sell in the way the 300d did.
Agree 100%. I thought about the 1Ds as one of the first "good" FF cameras (let's not forget Kodak got there first), but the 300d broke digital SLR's open for the masses (We still have one in our home and it still gets used).
I disagree with the 5d as the primary choice; while it was an "affordable" FF step, it never did, and never will, sell in the way the 300d did.
Moreover, neither the 1Ds nor the 5D are milestones that every other manufacturer must pass. Pentax and Sony, for instance, may never create 24x36mm cameras and they may yet continue to do very well. Nikon would have done well even without a 24x36mm camera.
But they all had to respond in kind to the 300D, or they would have been forced out of the game entirely. They had no choice--the 300D influenced both the market and the manufacturers in a way that was absolutely unignorable.
Why are most people selecting cameras that the majority of the world has never heard of? The 1D-series means absolutely nothing to most people. They will never own one, never understand what it is capable of, and probably will die of old age never having heard of it.
The Rebel XT has done more to promote the Canon DSLR line than all other DSLRs combined.
The 1D is a pro camera that is important to professional shooters. It is like saying the Lamborghini Murcielago LP640 is the most influencial automobile.
A quxick poll of users shows about 5x350D's, and 6x400D's
1 1DMk11 used by an ex photography student, and my 30D and 5D
there are also 2/3 Nikons on there including a full time newspaper pro
The majority of amateur photographer users on our forum were therefore swayed to Canon by the entry level DSLR'S 350D and 400D
nathanlake wrote:
The 1D is a pro camera that is important to professional shooters. It is like saying the Lamborghini Murcielago LP640 is the most influencial automobile.
Maybe we should make a new pole for cars. I'd have to go with the Ford Taurus or Model T.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I can't believe the 5D is getting so many votes and yes I do own one.
I guess many people go ga-ga over FF.
Although a very nice camera, to me 5D has always been a 20D hopped up with a larger imaging sensor, only recently coming finally down in price where I think it should have been to start with.....<$2k.
I was a solid film shooter, but decided to try the new "Digital Rebel", the 300D.
This was my conversion to the digital world. I progressed through a number of cameras, but the 5D was an opening into a new world. It might have been caused by switching to L series about the same time.
I was hard pressed to vote 300D or 5D, but it turned out that it hardly mattered. These were the two that redefined photography up to the present for the vast majority of serious "pro-sumers".
PetKal wrote:
I guess many people go ga-ga over FF.
Although a very nice camera, to me 5D has always been a 20D hopped up with a larger imaging sensor, only recently coming finally down in price where I think it should have been to start with.....<$2k.
That would not have been real smart from a business perspective given that there were so many people out there willing to pay the price that they did put on it.
5D and D60 in terms of influencing the pro market.
300D for influencing the consumer market.
PetKal wrote:
I guess many people go ga-ga over FF.
Although a very nice camera, to me 5D has always been a 20D hopped up with a larger imaging sensor, only recently coming finally down in price where I think it should have been to start with.....<$2k.
Hey! Now that's not fair!
The 5d is NOT simply a " 20D hopped up with a larger imaging sensor", it's a "30D hopped up with a larger imaging sensor". Now the 30d may simply be a " 20D hopped up with a larger LCD", but 30 is a bigger number than 20, so it's worth more money.
Get your facts straight buddy. This is a professional forum here and we only deal with facts.
The 5d is NOT simply a " 20D hopped up with a larger imaging sensor", it's a "30D hopped up with a larger imaging sensor". Now the 30d may simply be a " 20D hopped up with a larger LCD", but 30 is a bigger number than 20, so it's worth more money.
Get your facts straight buddy. This is a professional forum here and we only deal with facts.
James, please forgive me for I am just an amateur gear collector.
