philbinley wrote:
I'm very happy with my 40D, and don't see any reason to upgrade unless the IMAGE quality is better. Don't give us more pixels...Give us better pixels! Are you listening Canon!
Bill
I am too. I can't imagine how much better this could be and still be around $1K for the body. Having never tried a 1D3, I can't say this is any more than a guess, but is it really three and a half times better of a camera than the 40D / 50D? Don't get me wrong, I'd have one in a heartbeat. But it would be more out of lust than need. Improving the sensitivity would be nice (lower noise), and it's probably going to happen anyway. My 40D seems a lot better at this than my 20D was.
I'm waiting for 70D. Till then my 30D will work fine (touchwood). Never been a fan of a APS-C sensor with more than 8 or 10 megapixels. I hardly ever print more than 16x20 anyway and the 30D hasn't disappointed me.
artsupreme wrote:
Yeah, I guess some of you are right....
Sounds like a Troll to me.
artsupreme wrote:
And if Brazil boy thinks a 40D/50D is a fiat compared to a 1D2 "ferrari" he's clueless...I've owned both and a 40D can achieve the exact same results (if not better in some cases less a few fps) in the right hands.
I currently own a 40D and two 1DII's. The 40D is a fine camera, but it's not a Ferrari. Neither is the 1DII, but it's a heck of a lot better than a 40D for shooting fast action.
websurfer wrote:
I think I"ll calm down and just be waiting for the 80D cos I am so satisfied with my 50D. The 50D will do it fine for me the next years to come.
I'm going to wait for my Rebel XT to break. I am satisfied with that as well
kakomu wrote:
I got the impression that the 3 was in the same league as the 5D.
Not really. If I recall correctly, the prosumer EOS 3 was released with a better AF system, updated flash system and equivalent weathersealing versus the flagship pro camera at the time, the 1N. The EOS 3's build is not quite as rugged, it doesn't have a built-in diopter and only has 97% viewfinder coverage. The EOS 3s AF system and weathersealing were only superseded by the 1V couple of years later. A full-frame digital version of the EOS 3 has been on wish lists long before the 5D came out. I don't think we'll see one from Canon for at least two years if the 5D upgrade cycle holds.
kakomu wrote:
I got the impression that the 3 was in the same league as the 5D.
Canon advertised the EOS 3 has having similar materials, construction and sealing as the 1N. I have the 1998 EOS 3 brochure and it states this and even has a picture of the EOS 3 covered with rain drops. And the brochure certainly heralds the EOS 3 as a pro body. So the EOS 3 had pro body construction via EOS 1/1N standards. However the 1V one upped it with magnesium body, even better seals and twin CPUs.
I think canon should make a 7d (15MP, fullframe, no video, lower fps, liveview, MF adjust, and all that jazz) and the 60d taht you guys are talking about.
Is a throwaway feature like video really that big of a deal? Does it really add to the cost once they've done the software work?
If you're talking about a consumer camera like the XXd series, most sites and magazines that review them do a feature check list, which is silly because one camera is going to have video and the other isn't and some wag is going to summarize his review with "well this one has video" And "this one has 2 more megapixels than that one"
Stupid but true and that's just how it goes. Stand by for video on your 60d.
sangosimo wrote:
I think canon should make a 7d (15MP, fullframe, no video, lower fps, liveview, MF adjust, and all that jazz) and the 60d taht you guys are talking about.
I just dont get this 'No Video' thing. you are just going to have to get used to the fact its here and its here to stay. if they put it in the 500D then every new thing that comes above (and probably below) will have it, it will just be a case of how much quality each variant will be capable of.
seem to remember the same things being said about Live View.
philbinley wrote:
Thank God, I thought I was the only one voicing this opinion. I won't buy a camera simply because it has more megapixels. I will though, drop a wad of dough on a better sensor, say a 12 MP sensor that has less noise, higher dynamic range, & better color and contrast replication. I'm very happy with my 40D, and don't see any reason to upgrade unless the IMAGE quality is better. Don't give us more pixels...Give us better pixels! Are you listening Canon!
for fast action nothing matches a pro series camera, like my mk2n however the AF even on a 40D was excellent compared with my previous 20D. Although I wound up returning it as the LCD cast bothered me.
all I care about is having higher ISO with less noise. I have the 40D and I'm happy with it except I would love the ability to shoot really high ISO with little or no noise
Never been a fan of a APS-C sensor with more than 8 or 10 megapixels. I hardly ever print more than 16x20 anyway and the 30D hasn't disappointed me.
!