Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: tsiphoto has spoken  (Read 19233 times)
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #60 on: January 28, 2008, 04:57:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm seriously thinking about forking over the loot and getting the 1DS3 for that reason. The 5D will be a nice portrait camera, for local jobs, and a nice backup camera. I just have to figure out how to eat and buy the 1DS3 at the same time. (I guess there is always bulk rice, beans, and hamburger for a few months, without eating out everyday like I do now.)

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Where I've got to!

Mike
Logged
condit79
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #61 on: January 28, 2008, 05:24:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that before a 5dII comes out we´ll have an update to the 1dmkIII, or something that puts the d3 down a notch.  Think a 1dsmkII+5d with a faster frame rate and updated features.  That´s a camera a lot of people would get excited about if it had better high iso improvement and great DR.  

I´d personally just like to see a smaller body like the 5d with better AF distribution and more sensitive outer points, weather sealing, 14 bit and all the new tech.  If nothing´s announced by august, I´m getting a 1dsIII when I go back to the US to visit the family.  The strong euro rocks for me right now.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 28, 2008, 11:39:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've probably overlooked a few features but the only substantive feature I see in the 40D which could make a difference to the shots you take is the faster continuous frame rate. The 40D would be a better choice for action shots where the precise split second makes or breaks the picture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If it's anything like the 20D/350D they as said above there's a world of difference. One had very nice handling and the other made you dig around in menus and was crippled in little but very annoying ways. Same sensor, but to my mind one camera was good and one was crippled.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #63 on: January 28, 2008, 01:20:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If it's anything like the 20D/350D they as said above there's a world of difference. One had very nice handling and the other made you dig around in menus and was crippled in little but very annoying ways. Same sensor, but to my mind one camera was good and one was crippled.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

400D was a big improvement on the 350d interface.  The 20D still had a better interface for some things.  But in general the 400D's is right there with it.

The introduction of the My Menu stuff should make it even better.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #64 on: January 29, 2008, 10:36:35 AM »
ReplyReply

There was stuff like the flash + camera interaction wasn't as good too.
Canon will probably cripple the 400 compared to the 40, simply so as not to canibalise sales.
I just happened to have a play with both the 20 + 350/300? when they both were new as the cheaper camera simply had a different wrapper around the sensor IIRC and I was curious about the difference. And the cheaper one seemed deliberately designed to be inferior in use, which is a crap way of doing business. Make the more expensive cameras seem like they have added value as opposed to making the cheaper ones look like they have reduced value - there is a difference, is a much better way of doing it.
Years ago I bought the EOS3 over the EOS1 as it was a better camera [for my needs] and had eye control AF, which is soooooo much better than any other AF I've ever used. I bought the 5D over the 1DsII for same reason, a better tool [for me], and not crippled to the price point.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #65 on: January 29, 2008, 10:53:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And the cheaper one seemed deliberately designed to be inferior in use, which is a crap way of doing business. Make the more expensive cameras seem like they have added value as opposed to making the cheaper ones look like they have reduced value - there is a difference, is a much better way of doing it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

jjj,
I don't believe this is happening this time. Canon are aiming this camera at the P&S crowd. It doesn't even accept CF cards or the standard BP-511A batteries, which is a disadvantage for 20D, 30D owners who might like to buy one. The additional cost of SD cards and a spare battery wipe out the price advantage over the 40D.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #66 on: January 29, 2008, 11:17:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
jjj,
I don't believe this is happening this time. Canon are aiming this camera at the P&S crowd. It doesn't even accept CF cards or the standard BP-511A batteries, which is a disadvantage for 20D, 30D owners who might like to buy one. The additional cost of SD cards and a spare battery wipe out the price advantage over the 40D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Memory is cheap and it doesn't use the same battery as the 400D.  (The 400D shares the G9's battery.)
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #67 on: January 29, 2008, 01:20:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Memory is cheap and it doesn't use the same battery as the 400D.  (The 400D shares the G9's battery.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's true and the difference in price between the 450D and 40D is, what, about $200. Anyone shooting RAW will need at least one 4GB SD card or a couple of 2GB cards or even a handful of smaller cards. Owners of a P&S camera should already have a few.

The point I make is that anyone upgrading from a 20D or 30D will not find a price advantage if they don't already have a few SD cards. Since it's a new design of battery, a spare battery will be an additional cost for everyone.

I guess 2x4GB SD cards and a spare battery would be pretty close to $200, wouldn't it?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 01:38:25 PM by Ray » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2008, 01:47:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's true and the difference in price between the 450D and 40D is, what, about $200. Anyone shooting RAW will need at least one 4GB SD card or a couple of 2GB cards or even a handful of smaller cards. Owners of a P&S camera should already have a few.

The point I make is that anyone upgrading from a 20D or 30D will not find a price advantage if they don't already have a few SD cards. Since it's a new design of battery, a spare battery will be an additional cost for everyone.

I guess 2x4GB SD cards and a spare battery would be pretty close to $200, wouldn't it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably closer to $45.  Unless you buy at a brick and mortar store in which case it might be $200.

Regardless, you're right, it does reduce the price gap.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2008, 09:20:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Probably closer to $45.  Unless you buy at a brick and mortar store in which case it might be $200.

Regardless, you're right, it does reduce the price gap.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Geez! Things must be cheap in America. In Australia a Sandisk Extrememe III SD 2GB card cost A$50 (US$40) from an internet site called "Cheap Chips". That wouldn't include postage. A genuine Canon BP-511A costs around US$90-$100.

This issue is more relevant for someone in my situation. I decided against upgrading from my 20D to a 40D because it didn't seem to have any particularly significant features I would find useful, considering the 5D is my main camera.

8mp to 10mp is not enough to get better image quality when I want the greater reach with my 100-400 IS zoom that the cropped format offers. The 40D also doesn't allow auto-focussing with the 1.4x extender on that lens, which becomes an f8 lens at 560mm.

The 450D would provide a noticeable resolution boost from 8mp to 12mp and the contrast detection autofocussing system in LiveView should permit autofocussing at f8. In addition it has that +/-3 EC for autobracketing of high contrast scenes.

The fact that it doesn't accept CF cards and has a completely new design of battery annoys me because I already have several 4GB & 2GB CF cards and half a dozen spare BP-511A batteries.
Logged
astanley
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #70 on: January 30, 2008, 10:58:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would assume the MKII selling is only back stock. Canon isn't making that camera any longer, I would bet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably.

To throw my $0.02 into the discussion -- I either buy a 1Ds MK II if there is no "5d MK ii" or similar released/announced, or I buy the 5d MK ii.  I'm not going to spend up for the MK III right now; the new investment in glass to rival my 645 would get me divorce papers.  However, I can approach that goal with a less expensive 5d mk II or a 1Ds mk II.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #71 on: January 30, 2008, 12:35:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Probably.

To throw my $0.02 into the discussion -- I either buy a 1Ds MK II if there is no "5d MK ii" or similar released/announced, or I buy the 5d MK ii.  I'm not going to spend up for the MK III right now; the new investment in glass to rival my 645 would get me divorce papers.  However, I can approach that goal with a less expensive 5d mk II or a 1Ds mk II.

Cheers,

-Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Sony Alpha900 at $3000 and 24MP is gonna make the 5D2 look pretty lame at 16MP.

This may force Canon to include their 21MP chip in the 5D replacement instead of the planned 16MP unit.  It doesn't cost Canon a red cent more to make a 21MP sensor versus a 16MP sensor, so the only reason they are using a lower MP chip in the 5D series is to protect sales of their oversized and overpriced 1DsIII.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5081


« Reply #72 on: January 30, 2008, 02:26:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Sony Alpha900 at $3000 and 24MP is gonna make the 5D2 look pretty lame at 16MP.

This may force Canon to include their 21MP chip in the 5D replacement instead of the planned 16MP unit.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I doubt that Canon ever planned a pixel count as low as 16MP in the 5D's replacement: a substantial image resolution advantage over smaller formats is important to a product like the 5D, and the encroachment of 10MP and then 12MP from APS-C cameras probably weakened demand for the 5D, leading to all those price cuts. Probably the 16MP was just speculation based on a dubious belief than fewer, bigger pixels improves the dynamic range seen on equal sized prints, or the even more dubious idea that Canon can afford to "hobble" its products in what is a now a quite competitive market.

Quote
It doesn't cost Canon a red cent more to make a 21MP sensor versus a 16MP sensor.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed, it could even cost less in this case, because Canon can share more of the design and fabrication resources even if two different 21MP sensors are made. Maybe just a lower read-out rate version for the "5DMkII" sensor, as has been done in several cases previously. (But Sony has effectively killed sensor read-out rate as a cost factor with its massively parallel on-chip A/D conversion!)

If a 35mm system has a sufficient range of primes (r very good zooms) that can do justice to 25MP sensors, DMF probably has to move beyond current 22MP, 31MP and maybe even 34MP sensors. So Dalsa in particular needs a new sensor soon. Kodak's 39MP might be safe for now, but anyway Kodak has already talked about going to 50MP or 60MP in the next generation. It should be enough to about match the 6 micron pixel spacing of Sony's 25MP sensor, giving about double the pixel count, 50MP.


I keep thinking that lenses will eventually return to being the dominant image resolution distinction in favor of larger formats, as sensors push the limits of lenses (and with the cost and weight of a sufficiently versatile lens collection being as always a major distinction in favor of smaller formats.)
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #73 on: January 30, 2008, 10:07:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, yes, all fine and good!

Has anyone any new information on the 5D upgrade?

lol
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #74 on: January 30, 2008, 11:01:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I keep thinking that lenses will eventually return to being the dominant image resolution distinction in favor of larger formats, as sensors push the limits of lenses (and with the cost and weight of a sufficiently versatile lens collection being as always a major distinction in favor of smaller formats.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This appears to be the case to me, too. The pixel count of a sensor seems to determine pretty accurately it's resolving capability. A 20D really does resolve slightly more than a 10D, and a 40D really does resolve more than a 30D, even if you would hardly notice it in the average shot.

But lenses seem to be 'all over the place'. The best copy of one model of lens can be better than the worst copy of a more expensive and apparently higher quality lens. Poor performance at maximum aperture, and in the case where the lesn has been designed for the format, vignetting and resolution fall-off at the edges are my main gripes
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 31, 2008, 03:23:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
jjj,
I don't believe this is happening this time. Canon are aiming this camera at the P&S crowd. It doesn't even accept CF cards or the standard BP-511A batteries, which is a disadvantage for 20D, 30D owners who might like to buy one. The additional cost of SD cards and a spare battery wipe out the price advantage over the 40D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It always happens. You cannot sell a better camera for less, if you want to keep selling your more expensive model.    And why would a 20D/30D ownner want to buy a  camera that is more faff to use and as said above SD cards are cheap.
If you want to see a fantastic example of removing features/usability to target each price point, look at Polar Heart Monitors.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 03:25:14 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #76 on: January 31, 2008, 03:58:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It always happens. You cannot sell a better camera for less, if you want to keep selling your more expensive model.    And why would a 20D/30D ownner want to buy a  camera that is more faff to use and as said above SD cards are cheap.
If you want to see a fantastic example of removing features/usability to target each price point, look at Polar Heart Monitors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


/[engagedpreviewmode]

I met an engineer from Canon in the pub last night - he was on holiday in the Yorkshire Daels - and he said that the next 5D will have 28Mp (this has been forced on them by Nikon and Sony - and will be used as the test bed for Canon's latest 'thought control' technology.

It will be released on 1 April.

/[enddpreviewmode]

Really, I think this shows that Canon remain competent at marketing. If there was a new 5D equivalent with 16Mp I would buy a 1Ds3, if it had 21Mp and better autofocus I'd buy the new 5D.

As it is I either wait and see what they come up with, or just stump up for a 1Ds3 now. Or perhaps I should see if Canon really want to play catch up and release the >25Mp 1Ds3a later in 08...

Mike
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #77 on: February 04, 2008, 01:34:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It always happens. You cannot sell a better camera for less, if you want to keep selling your more expensive model.    And why would a 20D/30D ownner want to buy a  camera that is more faff to use and as said above SD cards are cheap.
If you want to see a fantastic example of removing features/usability to target each price point, look at Polar Heart Monitors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The interesting thing that appears to be happening here is that the cheaper 450D really does offer some useful improvements over the no doubt better-built 20D, 30D and even 40D.

Those who occasionally drop their camera or who have had the experience of getting caught in a downpour with their camera which subsequently refuses to work, will probably be willing to forgo the improvements in the 450D for the sake of the more robust build and better waterproofing of the 40D, which of course is part of the additional cost.

I'll just go through again the main features I've noticed in the 450D which the 40D doesn't have.

(1) An extra 2 megapixels. By itself, not particularly significant but would be noticeable when upgrading from a 30D. A 50% increase in pixel count is definitely worthwhile, especially when using the full advantage of the cropped format to extend the reach of one's longest telephoto lens.

For example, when comparing an 8MP image from my 20D using a 400mm lens, with a 4.8MP image from my 5D using the same lens (cropping the 5D image to the same FoV as the 20D image), there's a noticeable improvement in detail in the 20D shot. One would not really expect a further noticeable improvement when using a 40D in place of a 20D in these circumstances, except perhaps at 400% enlargement on the monitor.

However, I'm fairly confident the 450D would provide a further improvement in these circumstances, compared with the 20D.

(2) +/- 3 stops EC. There are extremes of dynamic range which cannot be captured with just the usual +/- 2 stops EC with exposure bracketing for the purpose of merging to HDR. Such scenes would include the interior of one's hotel room with a view of snow-capped Himalayan peaks through the window.

Of course, you can get around this limitation by using a tripod. However, CS3's auto-alignment of images is so good, you can now merge hand-held shots, although sharpness is going to be limited by the sharpness of the longest exposure.

(3) Auto-focussing in LiveView mode. The 450D has it. The 40D doesn't. The 40D's autofocussing is phase detection which is expensive to implement at maximum apertures of f8, so the 40D doesn't autofocus at all with 400/f5.6 lenses plus 1.4x extender. The 450D which employs a contrast detection system probably does autofocus at f8 and/or in LiveView mode, although this remains to be investigated.

Setting aside ergonomic issues and robustness, the main feature advantage of the 40D is it's 6.5 frames per second as opposed to the 450D's 3.5 frames per second.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad