[Eug Wanker]

Premature specification




8.2 MegaPixels
DIGIC II
1:1.6x Crop
9 Point focusing
1/8000s Max Shutter speed
5fps Continuous speed
25 frame buffer
EF-s support
E-TTL II support
0.2sec startup time
50g lighter than 10D
Price US$1600

This is one sweet camera, but the price... Maybe I'll think about the G6:

7.1MP sensor (3072 x 2304 )
4x zoom (35-140/2.0-3.0 equivalent)
Tilt/swivel LCD
CF memory card support
JPEG and RAW support

Right now, I have the Canon G2 and a Canon EOS 1000 (with lenses that would work on the EOS 20D).

EDIT:

Here is a sample pic (Caution - HUGE pic) from the 20D's predecessor, the 10D.

[CatOne]

What's the sensor size on the G6? Is it the same as the G5, G3, and G2?

Because lots of people think the G3 was a better camera than the G5. They have the same size sensor but the G5 has more megapixels. Which means the G5 is significantly more prone to noise than the G3, because the pixels must be smaller, and thus the gain must be boosted.

Similarly, it looks like the same fate may hit the 20D... with a 1.6x multiplier, it must be the same sized sensor as the 10D, which means the pixels must be smaller and it's more prone to noise. I think the 10D's 6.3 megapixels is about perfect for that sized sensor... if I want 8 megapixel I'd go with the 1DmarkII. I would suspect the 20D will be worse in low light situations thatn the 10D... you'll have to take longer exposures.

Sounds like Canon is falling victim to the megapixel wars.

[brianb]

They might just fall to the mega pixel wars and that truely gets to me but the spec that grabed my attention was 5frames per second with 25 frame bursts. That is a serious upgrade over the 10D Especially for me where I love to shoot racing and other sports but don't have the money to invest in a pro line camera. This might just be the next camera I buy

[wuzup101]

There certainly are some nice features on it... like the constant drive mentioned above. However, the 10D took beautiful pictures with its' 6.3mp sensor. I really don't see the need for more pixels... some other features are nice though...

[Eug Wanker]

Well, I'm still using a G2, and the G2 really doesn't take very good low light pictures (not that I expected it to). They're better than average for a point-and-shoot, but that's not saying much. Thus, I'm hoping the 20D doesn't take worse low light pictures than the 10D. I'll definitely keep an eye on that. Because of this the G6 likely isn't even an option for me.

The other thing I don't like about the point-and-shoots is the obvious noise in colour gradients even in adequate lighting. A good example of this is pictures which include blue sky. The 10D really minimizes that noise, and I'm hoping the 20D will do the same.

The Digital Rebel would actually be sufficient for most of my needs, but it's limited enough to be irritating in certain situations, so I'm not seriously considering that camera, even though its price is nice.

I'll probably have to get new EOS lenses though, since my current lenses are not great ones. They're reasonable for the cost, and a 20D with my lenses would be a serious improvement vs. the G2, but I need an excuse to upgrade the lenses too.

EDIT:

EOS 20D officially announced today

Also announced:

PowerShot G6 - 7.1 Megapixel
PowerShot S70 - 7.1 Megapixel
PowerShot A95
PowerShot A400
EF-S lenses
Flash

[JC Denton]

Check out Luminous Landscape 's overview of a preproduction model of the 20D.

http://luminous-landscape.com/review...0d-part1.shtml

It makes a point to mention how, in his testing, images taken at ISO400 and below are essentially noise-free, and ISO 1600 and even 3200 are usable settings. If this is true, I'd say the smaller sensor size of the 8MP imaging chip won't be a problem for low light conditions.

(Side note: if you're not aware of the site, it's an excellent photography site targeted to pro photographers. The reviews tend to be very focused on how a camera will perform in the hands on an experienced user and don't feel like you're reading a manufacturer's spec sheet.)

[aaanorton]

Originally posted by CatOne:
Sounds like Canon is falling victim to the megapixel wars.

Seems like a good idea to wait for the camera to at least be released before condemning it's performance...

I'm most excited about the S70. I just bought the S60 (typical) and am thoroughly impressed. Of course, I not looking for a DSLR.

[Eug Wanker]

Canon EOS 20D website

Sample images

NICE!

[MaxPower2k3]

good lord those are large images. the detail in the hair on the kiwis and the veins in the leaves in the fruit image are really impressive though. What kind of prints can you get from an 8.2mp camera?


on a side note, i have and still love an S30; it's served me very well. These are obviously tempting but i don't use it nearly enough to justify that kind of money (or any kind of money, since my S30 still works great)

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
good lord those are large images. the detail in the hair on the kiwis and the veins in the leaves in the fruit image are really impressive though. What kind of prints can you get from an 8.2mp camera?

It's not the fact that it's 8.2 MP that impresses me. What impresses me is the extremely low noise.

I'd be happy with a 6 MP camera with that amount of noise. I find the low light shots from most point-and-shoots far too irritatingly noisy.

[MrForgetable]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
good lord those are large images. the detail in the hair on the kiwis and the veins in the leaves in the fruit image are really impressive though. What kind of prints can you get from an 8.2mp camera?


on a side note, i have and still love an S30; it's served me very well. These are obviously tempting but i don't use it nearly enough to justify that kind of money (or any kind of money, since my S30 still works great)

very big prints I would think.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by MrForgetable:
very big prints I would think.

i'm going from very fuzzy memory here, but 11x17" @ 240 lpi sounds about right. big. and detailed, with the right capture and glass.

(i'm probably going to get on a list on monday, not sure if it should be adorama, ritz or onecall, or if i should hold out for b&h...)

[Eug Wanker]

I think I'm going to order the 20D with the 17-85 EF-S IS USM lens. That's the equivalent of a 27-136 mm lens, with image stabilization, so that should make a great every day type of lens.

Here is the preview of the 20D with the 17-85 lens at Luminous Landscape.

[brianb]

I think this is the Camera that I am going to be getting albiet not to soon. Gotta get some cash ( Damn I hate that part)

[Eug Wanker]

So I just ordered the EOS 20D + 17-85 IS kit. Hopefully Canon will be able to ship them before I go on vacation. A Europe trip will be the perfect test for this camera.

Canon Canada says mid-September, but the store I ordered from says that demand will likely outstrip supply at least initially. Hopefully Canon is better at meeting ship dates than Apple is.

[Eug Wanker]

[Eug Wanker]

Holy crap! Check out how fast this camera is taking real life pix. The 5 frames per second is no lie.

[brianb]

Yea and you gotta remember t5hat the 1D takes Pics at seven frames a second

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by brianb:
Yea and you gotta remember t5hat the 1D takes Pics at seven frames a second

Canon EOS 20D: US$1499
Canon EOS 1D: US$4499
Canon EOS 1Ds: US$7999

[eddiecatflap]

when we gonna see a NEW design ???

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I think I'm going to order the 20D with the 17-85 EF-S IS USM lens. That's the equivalent of a 27-136 mm lens, with image stabilization, so that should make a great every day type of lens.

How much is that lens in Canadian dollars?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Spliff:
How much is that lens in Canadian dollars?

I have not seen pricing for the lens alone, but the kit with the lens and body is $2900, while the body alone is $2000.

That makes the lens about CAD$900. (Canon USA says the street prices of the lens in the US would be about US$600 (which is a little under CAD$800), but I don't know if that means the bargain basement online stores or what.)

BTW, the lens only works with the Digital Rebel and the 20D, so if you have another EOS camera, you can forget about the 17-85 IS.

[villalobos]

I am probably gonna get flamed in thie thread, but I have to say that the D70 is a cheaper and very competent alternative to this camera.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by villalobos:
I am probably gonna get flamed in thie thread, but I have to say that the D70 is a cheaper and very competent alternative to this camera.

I've always been partial to Canon cameras, so I've never really considered Nikons.

From what I understand, yes, the Nikon D70 is a competent camera. However, the Canon 20D is superior. My understanding is that the Nikon D70 competes (favourably) with the Canon 300D, but it really is not in the same class as the Canon 20D.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by brianb:
They might just fall to the mega pixel wars and that truely gets to me but the spec that grabed my attention was 5frames per second with 25 frame bursts. That is a serious upgrade over the 10D Especially for me where I love to shoot racing and other sports but don't have the money to invest in a pro line camera. This might just be the next camera I buy

Canon has always been more guilty about this than other pro-digital brands. The silky smoothness of Digic'd photos, especially night shots...it just really bothers me. I wouldn't trade sensor noise for blotchy patches...EVER.

[TiDual]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I've always been partial to Canon cameras, so I've never really considered Nikons.

From what I understand, yes, the Nikon D70 is a competent camera. However, the Canon 20D is superior. My understanding is that the Nikon D70 competes (favourably) with the Canon 300D, but it really is not in the same class as the Canon 20D.

I spent a lot of tim deciding between the D70 and the 300D ... I think picture quality is pretty close (anyone interested should check out the www.dpreview.com site ... reviews and forums are excellent). In the end I chose the D70: build quality, feel, and controls were noticeably superior to me, and of course, the speed and instant start-up time (a truly critical feature). But how a camera feels in the hand is very important ... I wouldn't buy any camera without playing with it first a bit.

It may well be the 20D is in a different league than the D70 ... for the price, it should be (the D70 seems to have dropped in price a little recently). But I wouldn't be persuaded by the mega-pixels alone. That said the review seems fairly positive: for the details see: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by TiDual:
I spent a lot of tim deciding between the D70 and the 300D ... I think picture quality is pretty close (anyone interested should check out the www.dpreview.com site ... reviews and forums are excellent). In the end I chose the D70: build quality, feel, and controls were noticeably superior to me, and of course, the speed and instant start-up time (a truly critical feature). But how a camera feels in the hand is very important ... I wouldn't buy any camera without playing with it first a bit.

It may well be the 20D is in a different league than the D70 ... for the price, it should be (the D70 seems to have dropped in price a little recently). But I wouldn't be persuaded by the mega-pixels alone. That said the review seems fairly positive: for the details see: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/

In all honesty, the pixels don't concern me. If it was 6 MP I would have still bought it. The extra 2 MP is just a bonus.

What really impresses me the lack of low light noise and the usability at high ISOs.

These pix were taken at ISO 3200:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=10015283
http://www.mrx.no/terje/3200_ISO.html

ie. They're actually usable at ISO 3200, and at ISO 400, the pix are almost noise free.

This one's taken at ISO 1600 (click to enlarge):



This pic was taken at ISO 100, but at night. Note the complete lack of noise.

Even at ISO 800 indoors it's fairly free of noise.

[rotuts]

Hello

Ive found this thread very interesting and have learned a lot here. Id like to ask the august threaders a question, and hopw most don't mind my change to a Sony question:

I have an old Sony DSC-505. IT has been a delight for me. this winter I thought about getting the new Sony DSC-828, but backed off due to mention of Chormatic distortion at the DP Review site, knocking off the rating a bit.
\
I then looked at the Nikon with the 6 PM and removable lens ( forgot the ### its the one with the 1k price without lens)

I talked to some knowledgable folks at a local camera store and they reviewed the trade offs: I realized that the CCD size matters maybe more than the MP, and that perhaps Sony tried to 'sqeeze' too many MP into the 828 for first palce in the MP wars.

understanding that waiting never hurts, I left my decision up to the next Sony model and Id re-evaluate then

I put my $$ into a Canon DV camera and am very happy with it (Optura 300) it alows me to import video into Imovie, etc.

SO: my quewstion is this to this group: whats the view on the DSC Sony line?

Im leaning that way as I have one I enjoy, it has an excellent lens and Im the type that doubts Ill ever go to the trouble of changeing a lens, but maybe image stabilization is for me in the future.

I look forward to your comments. sorry if Ive changeed this thread too much.

rotut

[X-Ray]

The Minolta DSC is a fine camera, as are most of the prosumer models from various manufacturers. That said, you'll find that you'll get more bang for the buck and better image quality from a dslr (both the Nikons and Canons are excellent cameras) for the same amount of money spent on a prosumer model. Even if you don't need lens interchangability, you're still better of with a dslr. Besides, who knows what the future might bring - with a dslr you at least have the option for future expandibility.

[Eug Wanker]

Sony cameras seem to be fine, but the ones I tested were a little too red in the colour balance for my tastes, and the requirement for Memory Stick was bad for me since I already had CompactFlash.

BTW, some interesting details about the Canon EOS 20D:

1) The 20D is USB 2.0 but OS X.3.5 does not recognize it. I assume .6 will add support for it, but it won't matter much for me since I'll just use a USB 2 memory card reader. The camera supports up to around 5.6 MB/s file transfers with CompactFlash cards. I'm glad I own fast CF memory.

2) Works with CompactFlash cards over 2 GB. Formats them FAT32.

3) Adobe Photoshop doesn't recognize the 20D's 12-bit RAW images yet.

4) You can save both JPEG and RAW pictures from a shot.

5) Supports both the sRGB and the Adobe RGB colour spaces, but quite frankly I don't know what this means in real-life terms. Explanation anyone?

6) Camera is lighter than the 10D it replaces.

7) RAW images are 8.7 MB (!), and the highest rez JPEGs are 3.6 MB. Thus a 512 MB card might hold only around 140 JPEGs.

[aaanorton]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
3) Adobe Photoshop doesn't recognize the 20D's 12-bit RAW images yet.


5) Supports both the sRGB and the Adobe RGB colour spaces, but quite frankly I don't know what this means in real-life terms. Explanation anyone?

Adobe has been pretty quick in updating Camera RAW to accommodate new cameras. I'd imagine they'll add support these soon.
Color spaces (briefly) define gamut of available colors. sRGB is one of the most commonly used spaces, but for seemingly no good reason. It is a small space. It was designed around the color capabilities of color monitors in the late 80s. AdobeRGB (1998) is comparatively much larger. You'll see this in "vibrance" of colors, particularly reds and warmer colors. I WISH I had AdobeRGB as an option on my camera. As it is, I have to convert them all on import in Photoshop. For more reading on this, I highly reccommend the articles and books (listed on link) by Bruce Fraser. The guy is a genius.

[Riddler]

I bought a Canon EOS 10D last November, I'd decided I needed a hobby that would get me out the house and was amazed at the quality of pics a friend showed me he had taked with a D60 (older Canon DSLR) Figured the initial cost was high but it wouldn't be as expensive as feeding my Mac addiction right?

WRONG.

Not 3 months after buying the 10D I made the mistake of looking at pics taken with a Canon "L" series lens (you know the big white ones) and began suffering from something known in Canon circles as "L FEVER"

A few weeks later I had some how convinced the wife we needed this monster 100-400mm lens and shelled out $2300! Other bits and bobs have been aquired so much to the extent I had to insure my equipment seperately!

Seriously though, the 10D is astonishingly good, the 20D looks even better. I've taken some wonderful pics that no Prosumer camera could get near to and it does get me out more

(Just noticed, 100th post...only took 5 years!)

[Eug Wanker]

Thanks for the explanation aanorton.

Riddler, Happy 100!

I know what you mean. I've already been pricing out the EF 70-200 f/4L, and I don't even have the 20D yet. I've been fighting the urge though, since it's a lot of coin to spend to get everything at once, and I already have the EF 75-300. It's a mediocre lens at best, but at least it's light, physically small, and it's OK up to about 200 mm, when stopped down. The 70-200 f/4L isn't all that heavy, but it's kinda big at 17 cm. That's 5 cm longer than the 75-300, and big enough that it'd be tough to carry around in my camera bag.

[Eug Wanker]

EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 (2.8x4.8", 16.8 oz. / 71x122mm, 480g):




EF 70-200 f/4L ( 3.0x6.8, 25 oz. / 76x172mm, 705g):



BTW, on the EOS 20D:

200 mm = 320 mm
300 mm = 480 mm

[brianb]

that L Lens is a sweet lens I almost bought that one myself but cheaped out and bought a Tamron 70 - 210 mm f2.8 lens. Which is still a nice lens but the L series is so much better

[Riddler]

I had originally planned on getting the 75-300 IS but couldn't resist the L (the 9 months interest free was what sealed it!)

It takes amazing pics but it tends to attract too much attention, to be honest I wish it was black (the red ring is what says "L")

Let me know what you think of the 20D when it arrives Eug, little tip - I'd recommend buying iView Media Pro as you'll find it's much better at organizing the vast number of pics you'll end up shooting!

[Powaqqatsi]

All nice and whatever. But I was planning on switching to DSLR this summer but I have decided against it. The quality I want only comes from a Canon 1Ds which is out of my league (price) and I am a Nikon man so I have Nikon glass. I compared for two months but when I held a D70 in my hands is just laughed. The viewfinder in those digital cameras is just unusable and the 300D, D70, 10D, 60D all feel like �500 cameras and not �1000 or �1500 cameras. The quality of digital cameras will be acceptable and comparable to slidefilm in about 10 years at this rate. I'll reconsider a DSLR in 5 to 10 years from now.
So I decided to sell my Nikon F3 and F90X and my manual lenses. I am going to upgrade to autofocus and I'm buying a Nikon F5+a film scanner (don't know which one yet). As for digital: I am considering to upgrade my Nikon Coolpix 995 to a somewhat newer (used) Coolpix.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
All nice and whatever. But I was planning on switching to DSLR this summer but I have decided against it. The quality I want only comes from a Canon 1Ds which is out of my league (price) and I am a Nikon man so I have Nikon glass. I compared for two months but when I held a D70 in my hands is just laughed. The viewfinder in those digital cameras is just unusable and the 300D, D70, 10D, 60D all feel like �500 cameras and not �1000 or �1500 cameras. The quality of digital cameras will be acceptable and comparable to slidefilm in about 10 years at this rate.

For most purposes, a low noise 8 MP camera can rival film in terms of quality in real-life conditions, even though under lab conditions, top quality film will be better. Yes, film has higher resolution, if the shot is perfect. And sure, you can bracket, but if you're a non-pro, high end film gets really expensive, really fast. I think of a low noise 8 MP camera equivalent to having very good quality (but not necessarily the absolute best quality) and free film in the camera at all times, with any choice of speed from ISO 100 to ISO 1600, changeable at any time, including from shot to shot. Plus, being a Coolpix owner it should be obvious to you how having instant viewing of the images can really change your shooting habits.

For me 8.2 MP is fine for most usage, since I basically never print anything bigger than 8x10 anyway. YMMV.

BTW, I consider the 20D to be superior to the 300D, D70, 10D, and 60D, but it by no means is a real pro camera either. I do see comments around the net from the pros though that consider it a viable backup camera for a pro.

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
For most purposes, a low noise 8 MP camera can rival film in terms of quality in real-life conditions, even though under lab conditions, top quality film will be better. Yes, film has higher resolution, if the shot is perfect. And sure, you can bracket, but if you're a non-pro, high end film gets really expensive, really fast. I think of a low noise 8 MP camera equivalent to having very good quality (but not necessarily the absolute best quality) and free film in the camera at all times, with any choice of speed from ISO 100 to ISO 1600, changeable at any time, including from shot to shot. Plus, being a Coolpix owner it should be obvious to you how having instant viewing of the images can really change your shooting habits.

For me 8.2 MP is fine for most usage, since I basically never print anything bigger than 8x10 anyway. YMMV.

BTW, I consider the 20D to be superior to the 300D, D70, 10D, and 60D, but it by no means is a real pro camera either. I do see comments around the net from the pros though that consider it a viable backup camera for a pro.

You know it's not really the resolution that is my problem but it is the camera itself. All these cameras use, for some unknow reason, really crappy viewfinders and they are all not very well built. They should be built much better with a price point like that IMHO. Have you ever compared something like a Nikon F100 to a D100 (or equivalent Canon) ? The build quality and viewfinder on the D100 is MUCH lower and yet it costs the same. Also the crop factor is something awefull. I like wide angle lenses and you can't get a wide angle for a DSLR unless you shell out a fortune. (And those toy kit lenses with a 17mm at wide don't count, I'm talking about good prime lenses here). So for me DSLR isn't there yet. As for picture quality, I must admit it's quite good these days but my big problems is, like I said, the camera itself. The value for money is very low.

For most purposes, a low noise 8 MP camera can rival film in terms of quality in real-life conditions, even though under lab conditions, top quality film will be better.

I just want to add that film is better even in non-lab conditions. The exposure range is much higher and you do not have the problem of 'burnt' colors like overexposed white regions in your image. And you also do not have problems with noise that comes from long exposures. And no chance of sticky pixels And no dust on the CCD.

Yes, film has higher resolution, if the shot is perfect.

What do you mean with "if the shot is perfect ?"

I not saying DSLR sucks, it is quite good but nood good enough yet to justify the outrageous price they ask for it. You can't blame them, it's a new market and new markets always make a ton of money because everyone wants one.

[aaanorton]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
I just want to add that film is better even in non-lab conditions. The exposure range is much higher and you do not have the problem of 'burnt' colors like overexposed white regions in your image.

I guess you're talking about push/pull-ability of films here, not actual exposure latitude. What ASA and how much push on film do you usually use?

What do you mean with "if the shot is perfect ?"

I not saying DSLR sucks, it is quite good but nood good enough yet to justify the outrageous price they ask for it. You can't blame them, it's a new market and new markets always make a ton of money because everyone wants one.

Factually, there is more value in the pro range, which is kinda odd. The 1ds is a great camera and addresses most of your issues. It's built well, has a full frame sensor (which makes for a nice large, bright viewfinder) and (thanks to it's fine image quality) can be used to make money by pros and/or semi-pros.
That said, I still think there is a large market for the D20 and such. If you want your pictures to be digital at some point (and what pictures aren't these days?), shooting direct to digital makes sense and avoids many problems of scanned film.

[CatOne]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
You know it's not really the resolution that is my problem but it is the camera itself. All these cameras use, for some unknow reason, really crappy viewfinders and they are all not very well built. They should be built much better with a price point like that IMHO. Have you ever compared something like a Nikon F100 to a D100 (or equivalent Canon) ? The build quality and viewfinder on the D100 is MUCH lower and yet it costs the same. Also the crop factor is something awefull. I like wide angle lenses and you can't get a wide angle for a DSLR unless you shell out a fortune. (And those toy kit lenses with a 17mm at wide don't count, I'm talking about good prime lenses here). So for me DSLR isn't there yet. As for picture quality, I must admit it's quite good these days but my big problems is, like I said, the camera itself. The value for money is very low.

...

What do you mean with "if the shot is perfect ?"

I not saying DSLR sucks, it is quite good but nood good enough yet to justify the outrageous price they ask for it. You can't blame them, it's a new market and new markets always make a ton of money because everyone wants one.

OF COURSE a digital camera that costs the same as a film camera is going to have some lower quality components. A film camera is VERY simple. What does it do? Not a lot -- it opens and closes a shutter.

So there ya go. If you're going to pay $1500 for an EOS-1V, you get a shutter, and you get some buttons. The lens is totally separate. So there's PLENTY of money to put in great quality seals, a really high quality viewfinder, etc. The digital camera has to have the sensor, the ability to write everything to a CF card, all the processing, signal analysis, etc. There's a whole computer in there. And the film camera... again... the shutter slides across

So practically, a $1800 (street) film camera is the BEST you can get... an F5 or a 1V. Everything better be perfect, because you're paying for a light box with some advanced features. No processing is done, it's just exposing the film to light.

And as for DSLR "not being right for the price..." really have you worked with a D60 or a 10D? I suspect not. The shots you can take with a 10D, blown to 11x17", are AMAZING. They can be SHARPER at 11x17" than can film, and there's so much you can do with digital that you can't do with film, it's amazing.

In 5 years, 95% of all professional photographers will use digital. The remaining 5% will be the curmudgeons. There will be NO practical reason to stay with film.

[aaanorton]

Originally posted by CatOne:
In 5 years, 95% of all professional photographers will use digital. The remaining 5% will be the curmudgeons. There will be NO practical reason to stay with film.

Oh if only this were true... But it ain't. I really wish it were, since I make my living off pro photogs shooting digital, but film will be around for a long time.

[Eug Wanker]

It seems that EF-S 17-85 mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens I ordered does fairly well at the 85 mm end. w00t!

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by aaanorton:
I guess you're talking about push/pull-ability of films here, not actual exposure latitude. What ASA and how much push on film do you usually use?

I meant that the dynamic range of film is much much higher. Film can capture bright highlights much better than digital. Digital still has a huge problem with highlights. That will probably improve if CCDs (or CMOS) and the algorithms get better.

Also long exposures are not a problem with film, while they still are with digital (altough it's at an acceptable level these days)

Film also captures a much wider color range, but hey that's something that is good enough in digital cameras these days.

Factually, there is more value in the pro range, which is kinda odd. The 1ds is a great camera and addresses most of your issues. It's built well, has a full frame sensor (which makes for a nice large, bright viewfinder) and (thanks to it's fine image quality) can be used to make money by pros and/or semi-pros.
That said, I still think there is a large market for the D20 and such. If you want your pictures to be digital at some point (and what pictures aren't these days?), shooting direct to digital makes sense and avoids many problems of scanned film.

Yes the 1Ds is good enough for my use but I can'r justify the cost of the damn thing (+the cost of Canon lenses since I have Nikkor glass). I never said there wasn't a market for cameras like the 20D but it's not good enough for me for the price they are asking.

Originally posted by aaanorton:
OF COURSE a digital camera that costs the same as a film camera is going to have some lower quality components.

I don't think it's all that logical.

So there ya go. If you're going to pay $1500 for an EOS-1V, you get a shutter, and you get some buttons. The lens is totally separate. So there's PLENTY of money to put in great quality seals, a really high quality viewfinder, etc. The digital camera has to have the sensor, the ability to write everything to a CF card, all the processing, signal analysis, etc. There's a whole computer in there. And the film camera... again... the shutter slides across

So practically, a $1800 (street) film camera is the BEST you can get... an F5 or a 1V. Everything better be perfect, because you're paying for a light box with some advanced features. No processing is done, it's just exposing the film to light.

You're oversimplifying things. A Nikon F5 or a Canon 1 aren't simple camera's, there's a LOT of electronics in those cameras. I do not believe that a digital camera costs more to manufacture than a regular camera (especially in the high end). It's just a new market and the camera manufacturers know that new stuff can be sold at a premium price since people want this new and easy to use stuff.

And as for DSLR "not being right for the price..." really have you worked with a D60 or a 10D? I suspect not. The shots you can take with a 10D, blown to 11x17", are AMAZING. They can be SHARPER at 11x17" than can film, and there's so much you can do with digital that you can't do with film, it's amazing.

Yes I have worked with those cameras and while they aren't bad (very good actually) they aren't comparable to film, yet. I can do everything and more with a fillm camera than I do with a digital camera. 28x43cm (that's �11x17" I think) isn't that much you know. I often enlarge to +1meter. BUT, like I said, the "not being right for the price" has mainly to do with the build and handling quality of these cameras.

In 5 years, 95% of all professional photographers will use digital. The remaining 5% will be the curmudgeons. There will be NO practical reason to stay with film.

No way


So, just for the record, I am not saying that digital cameras suck. I'm only trying to say that they can not satisfy me at this point. One day they will, but not yet

Oh and congratulations on the new camera Eug (I don't want to derail this thread or anything)

[ph0ust]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I think I'm going to order the 20D with the 17-85 EF-S IS USM lens. That's the equivalent of a 27-136 mm lens, with image stabilization, so that should make a great every day type of lens.

Here is the preview of the 20D with the 17-85 lens at Luminous Landscape.

that's an awfully nice camera to put such a junk lens on. might i suggest checking out the 17-40L. after all, you are buying a $1500 camera body.....

[ph0ust]

Originally posted by TiDual:
I spent a lot of tim deciding between the D70 and the 300D ... I think picture quality is pretty close (anyone interested should check out the www.dpreview.com site ... reviews and forums are excellent). In the end I chose the D70: build quality, feel, and controls were noticeably superior to me, and of course, the speed and instant start-up time (a truly critical feature). But how a camera feels in the hand is very important ... I wouldn't buy any camera without playing with it first a bit.

It may well be the 20D is in a different league than the D70 ... for the price, it should be (the D70 seems to have dropped in price a little recently). But I wouldn't be persuaded by the mega-pixels alone. That said the review seems fairly positive: for the details see: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/

the d70 is, in most respects, far superior to a canon 300d OR 10d; particularly in auto-focus and metering capabilities. the 20d will be a welcome improvement on some of the 10d shortcomings. all in all, the 10d is a fantastic camera, but unless canon really drops the ball the 20d will be a big step up with better better auto-focus, metering, e-ttl2, raw format, write speed, noise reduction, digic 2, and more.

here's another cool review: http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_p...id=7-6458-7153

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by ph0ust:
that's an awfully nice camera to put such a junk lens on. might i suggest checking out the 17-40L. after all, you are buying a $1500 camera body.....

If you can believe the MTF ratings, the 17-85 might actually do very well compared to the 17-40L. Luminous landscape has already said it's a very good lens, enough so that the guy who does the reviews is buying a 17-85 for himself. He hasn't done formal lab testing yet though because Canon only gave it to him for a short period. He'll publish all the numbers when he gets his own production model.

I think it probably has to do with 20D sensor's reduced frame size. The EF-S lenses only are tested out to 13 mm, because that is all that is needed for the 20D's sensor. The 17-40L is tested out to beyond 20 mm, because it needs it for the full-frame sensor. As you know, it's a LOT easier to get good quality out of the centre of the lens, and this is especially true when that's all you're concentrating on.

17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM:




17-40 f/4L:



BTW, the 17-40L's range is a little too small for me for an everyday type lens anyway. I'll test the 17-85 and see how much I like it. If the quality is reasonable I'll keep it. If it sucks then I consider swapping it for something else.

EDIT:

Here is a more direct comparison of the 17 mm side, with the 17-40's graph scaled to more appropriate compare:



The 17-40 wins at 17, but the 17-85 does do quite OK it seems. More important to me though as I said is the fact that the 17-85, well, goes to 85. And the graph at the top of this message would suggest that it is excellent at 85.

[msuper69]

I will not buy a DSLR (with changeable lenses that is) until the problem of dust on the CCD is eliminated or a sure-fire and safe method of cleaning the CCD is developed.

Until then I will stick with my trusty old E-10.

[aaanorton]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
I meant that the dynamic range of film is much much higher. Film can capture bright highlights much better than digital. Digital still has a huge problem with highlights. That will probably improve if CCDs (or CMOS) and the algorithms get better.

Digital has a much higher dynamic range than any film. It's just that exposing for it properly is a problem. True, highlights blow out quickly, but if they are exposed for correctly, everything else falls into place. It's more like exposing for chrome film, where all you are concerned with are the highlights.

[LiquidSnake]

I am a EOS10D owner and I've preorder this camera.I've checked and test it for 9-10 minutes and i really really like it (Last week in Istanbul/Cebit/Bilisim event)
Please take a close look to : Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 .I have tons of lenses and no lens beat's this lenses price/performance.
Clik here for Canon mount Tamron @ amazon