Canon 30D **Formerly 35D** Thread
02-21-2006, 02:13 PM
#41
Big Block go VROOOM!
Originally Posted by MotionEffects
Canon definitly lost some sale with the 30D. Obviously the 20D owners are not going to upgrade, 350D owners "where" interested, but find it needless to upgrade. New customer are not even going to look at the 30D b/c of what it has to offer compare to the Nikon D200.
Sounds right? maybe
Sounds right? maybe
02-21-2006, 02:28 PM
#42
Photography Nerd
Sample shots on Canon Japan's website: http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos30d/sample/index.html
02-21-2006, 02:32 PM
#43
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by MotionEffects
Yes!! Too comfortable. If they keep this up Nikon will catch up with their next product real quick.
Canon definitly lost some sale with the 30D. Obviously the 20D owners are not going to upgrade, 350D owners "where" interested, but find it needless to upgrade. New customer are not even going to look at the 30D b/c of what it has to offer compare to the Nikon D200.
Sounds right? maybe
Canon definitly lost some sale with the 30D. Obviously the 20D owners are not going to upgrade, 350D owners "where" interested, but find it needless to upgrade. New customer are not even going to look at the 30D b/c of what it has to offer compare to the Nikon D200.
Sounds right? maybe
02-21-2006, 02:35 PM
#44
Big Block go VROOOM!
I haven't even bothered to go to any of the forums at the major photo sites. I'm thinking it's gotta be like the opening of Al Capone's vault in there.
02-21-2006, 02:41 PM
#45
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by Billiam
I haven't even bothered to go to any of the forums at the major photo sites. I'm thinking it's gotta be like the opening of Al Capone's vault in there.
02-21-2006, 04:26 PM
#46
Acura TLS are SLOW
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I'm not convinced that the 30D is a direct competitor to the D200. I think we'll see the 3D at Photokina at the end of summer.
As for the 3D, Canon has a high chance of releasing it to compete with D200.
But again, these are just rumors.
02-22-2006, 07:24 AM
#47
Senior Moderator
Dan I don't think we'll see a 3D from Canon. The companies don't have to compete head to head with every model. And as long as they're both selling tons of SLR's which they are, there's really no need to. For example there's no fear of you jumping to ship to Nikon since you already have so much invested in lenses, right?
I think the battle will be in the sub 1K SLR world where its now vital to lure in NEW customers who don't already have several lenses.
I think the battle will be in the sub 1K SLR world where its now vital to lure in NEW customers who don't already have several lenses.
02-24-2006, 01:55 PM
#48
Big Block go VROOOM!
FWIW - The UK site Imaging Resource conducted a brief interview with Chuck Westfall, Canon USA's Director of Media and Customer Relationship. Here's the key quote regarding why the 30D uses the same sensor as the 20D.
So there you have it straight from the horse's mouth. For me, everything sort of falls into place after reading that. Makes me wonder if the 30D will be the last 1.6x prosumer camera.
IR: The 20D stands as one of the cleanest performing sensors on the market for the money, especially at high ISO. How much of this decision to stick with the same sensor is related to Canon's tendency to want to keep pixel pitch at an optimum size?
Westfall: Our top priority with every EOS Digital SLR is maximum image quality according to product category. The image qualities of the EOS 30D, 20D and even the EOS Digital Rebel XT remain unsurpassed at their price points. We are always working to advance image quality, but at current technology levels, any reduction in pixel pitch lower than 6.4 microns would result in lower image quality at high ISO speed settings compared to our current design.
Westfall: Our top priority with every EOS Digital SLR is maximum image quality according to product category. The image qualities of the EOS 30D, 20D and even the EOS Digital Rebel XT remain unsurpassed at their price points. We are always working to advance image quality, but at current technology levels, any reduction in pixel pitch lower than 6.4 microns would result in lower image quality at high ISO speed settings compared to our current design.
02-24-2006, 02:07 PM
#49
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by Billiam
FWIW - The UK site Imaging Resource conducted a brief interview with Chuck Westfall, Canon USA's Director of Media and Customer Relationship. Here's the key quote regarding why the 30D uses the same sensor as the 20D.
So there you have it straight from the horse's mouth. For me, everything sort of falls into place after reading that. Makes me wonder if the 30D will be the last 1.6x prosumer camera.
So there you have it straight from the horse's mouth. For me, everything sort of falls into place after reading that. Makes me wonder if the 30D will be the last 1.6x prosumer camera.
02-24-2006, 05:47 PM
#50
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by Billiam
So there you have it straight from the horse's mouth. For me, everything sort of falls into place after reading that. Makes me wonder if the 30D will be the last 1.6x prosumer camera.
Note the 1Ds Mark II, their 16.7 meg camera, uses 7.2 micron pitch.
In theory they could use 6.4 micron pitch the 20d Uses and make a full frame sensor that does a 21 meg image.
It would be pretty bizarre to release such a high end EF-S lens mount, just to drop the mount two years later or so (when the 30d's successor would probably be announced).
02-25-2006, 05:42 PM
#52
Big Block go VROOOM!
Originally Posted by ChodTheWacko
t would be pretty bizarre to release such a high end EF-S lens mount, just to drop the mount two years later or so (when the 30d's successor would probably be announced).
02-26-2006, 10:55 PM
#53
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by Billiam
I actually wasn't envisioning EF-S mount coming to an end. Right now I consider the 20D and 30D to be the "prosumer" offerings with the Rebel as a "consumer" offering. What I could see happening is the EF-S mount becoming exclusive to the consumer offerings and the prosumer offerings going to full frame sensors from here on out.
Actually, no, my 20mm 1.8's life will be revived.
02-27-2006, 02:55 PM
#54
-S namyaC-
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: TN
Age: 38
Posts: 4,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Billiam
I actually wasn't envisioning EF-S mount coming to an end. Right now I consider the 20D and 30D to be the "prosumer" offerings with the Rebel as a "consumer" offering. What I could see happening is the EF-S mount becoming exclusive to the consumer offerings and the prosumer offerings going to full frame sensors from here on out.
02-28-2006, 06:13 PM
#55
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by Billiam
I actually wasn't envisioning EF-S mount coming to an end. Right now I consider the 20D and 30D to be the "prosumer" offerings with the Rebel as a "consumer" offering. What I could see happening is the EF-S mount becoming exclusive to the consumer offerings and the prosumer offerings going to full frame sensors from here on out.
What you state is quite possible, but it sure places the 17-55mm F2.8 EFs lens at a strange price point. People who picked the Rebels/Rebel Xts do it to save money, and it's hard to imagine them shelling out $1100 for a lens.
03-04-2006, 05:10 PM
#56
Photography Nerd
Michael Richmann has a very interesting take on the 30D:
For these reasons, I think EF-S is going to be around for a long time.
Makes perfect sense to me. 8MP is more than enough to print anything the average consumer will want, but if they do want to print 13x19's a FF SLR would be a logical upgrade.
Originally Posted by LuminousLandscape.com
The great Megapixel Race appears to be over. From the roughly 3 Megapixel Nikon D1 and Canon D30 of late 1999 and early 2000, to today's mainstream 6 – 8 Megapixel and top of the line 12-16 Megapixel models, we now seem to have reached a point of equilibrium. More Megapixels aren't what most photographers need. We need better Megapixels, and the manufacturers seem to have realized this.
The 6 – 8M range provides amateurs with enough to make A3 (11X17") prints, while 12-16M let's pros and advanced amateurs produce double page spreads and 13X19" or larger display prints. These were the outer limits of 35mm film in any event,, and so anything bigger is rightly the realm of medium format, just as it always has been.
To the industry's credit we are even seeing digicams with somewhat lower Megapixel counts than last year. Even camera makers now realize that 6 million clean Megapixels are better than 8 million noisy ones. Given that most digicams have slow lenses, people were shooting at high ISO settings, and were dissatisfied with image quality, even on wallet-sized prints. Mother Nature applies the laws of physics to how many photons can be captured by an individual photo site, and even the best image processing firmware can't create something out of nothing when the pixels get too small.
The implications of this are that while we may see small incremental increases in Megapixel count over the next few years, we will now see camera makers focus their attentions instead on further reducing prices and enhancing their camera's other capabilities.
The 6 – 8M range provides amateurs with enough to make A3 (11X17") prints, while 12-16M let's pros and advanced amateurs produce double page spreads and 13X19" or larger display prints. These were the outer limits of 35mm film in any event,, and so anything bigger is rightly the realm of medium format, just as it always has been.
To the industry's credit we are even seeing digicams with somewhat lower Megapixel counts than last year. Even camera makers now realize that 6 million clean Megapixels are better than 8 million noisy ones. Given that most digicams have slow lenses, people were shooting at high ISO settings, and were dissatisfied with image quality, even on wallet-sized prints. Mother Nature applies the laws of physics to how many photons can be captured by an individual photo site, and even the best image processing firmware can't create something out of nothing when the pixels get too small.
The implications of this are that while we may see small incremental increases in Megapixel count over the next few years, we will now see camera makers focus their attentions instead on further reducing prices and enhancing their camera's other capabilities.
Makes perfect sense to me. 8MP is more than enough to print anything the average consumer will want, but if they do want to print 13x19's a FF SLR would be a logical upgrade.
03-04-2006, 08:19 PM
#57
-S namyaC-
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: TN
Age: 38
Posts: 4,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that's exactly what is needed - better pixels, not more. Better latitude as well - 3200 ISO pics from a 1D Mark IIn are AMAZING! Every camera should strive to hit at least that level.
However, I disagree with the pixel count estimates above. With a good "L" lens, you can make GOOD poster size prints from a ~4mp 1D - I know, I've seen them. Whats lots of amateurs don't understand is that it's not just about the camera's image quality, but in fact quite the opposite in the film world and now really less than half with digital. It's about a clean image out of the lens: part lens quality, part perfect focus. Then you can bring the print method into the equasion, but that's a whole other discussion. My point is that a really good 6-8mp can make WAY over a stinkin A3...at least an A2. 12-16mp should get you A1 and A0/poster size prints.
However, I disagree with the pixel count estimates above. With a good "L" lens, you can make GOOD poster size prints from a ~4mp 1D - I know, I've seen them. Whats lots of amateurs don't understand is that it's not just about the camera's image quality, but in fact quite the opposite in the film world and now really less than half with digital. It's about a clean image out of the lens: part lens quality, part perfect focus. Then you can bring the print method into the equasion, but that's a whole other discussion. My point is that a really good 6-8mp can make WAY over a stinkin A3...at least an A2. 12-16mp should get you A1 and A0/poster size prints.
03-05-2006, 09:44 AM
#58
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by proaudio22
I think that's exactly what is needed - better pixels, not more. Better latitude as well - 3200 ISO pics from a 1D Mark IIn are AMAZING! Every camera should strive to hit at least that level.
However, I disagree with the pixel count estimates above. With a good "L" lens, you can make GOOD poster size prints from a ~4mp 1D - I know, I've seen them. Whats lots of amateurs don't understand is that it's not just about the camera's image quality, but in fact quite the opposite in the film world and now really less than half with digital. It's about a clean image out of the lens: part lens quality, part perfect focus. Then you can bring the print method into the equasion, but that's a whole other discussion. My point is that a really good 6-8mp can make WAY over a stinkin A3...at least an A2. 12-16mp should get you A1 and A0/poster size prints.
However, I disagree with the pixel count estimates above. With a good "L" lens, you can make GOOD poster size prints from a ~4mp 1D - I know, I've seen them. Whats lots of amateurs don't understand is that it's not just about the camera's image quality, but in fact quite the opposite in the film world and now really less than half with digital. It's about a clean image out of the lens: part lens quality, part perfect focus. Then you can bring the print method into the equasion, but that's a whole other discussion. My point is that a really good 6-8mp can make WAY over a stinkin A3...at least an A2. 12-16mp should get you A1 and A0/poster size prints.
Posters are meant to be viewed across the room, so they don't need to be high resolution. Many billboards have been made with shots from a D30.
Anything that is going to be critically evaluated from arms length (i.e. 16x24 and smaller) should be printed at 240 to 200 ppi. That's the industry standard. It's also the reason why 22MP to 40MP medium format cameras are the standard for commercial photography.
Here's a quick chart I made to give an idea of the resolution required for small format prints:
For large format prints from 24 to 48 inches, you want at least 100 ppi. Fine art and enlargements should be at 150 ppi, which makes for some huge file sizes.
Anything larger than 80 inches, you would use the square foot method to determine file size. 1MB/SQ FT will yield good results.
Pro labs typically use high-end RIP software to interface with their printers which can do amazing jobs with low-input resolutions. So if you want to get a low res shot blown up big, it's definitely worth the money to take it to a pro.
03-05-2006, 10:29 AM
#59
Big Block go VROOOM!
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Pro labs typically use high-end RIP software to interface with their printers which can do amazing jobs with low-input resolutions. So if you want to get a low res shot blown up big, it's definitely worth the money to take it to a pro.
03-08-2006, 08:05 PM
#60
-S namyaC-
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: TN
Age: 38
Posts: 4,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Billiam
And that's really the key to this conversation.
Dan, I said poster size as a general statement for image size - not meaning for use as a poster. I would have to agree with your chart for what you are saying, the average joe at home. I think for the educated amature at least, that it's irrelivent.
What I meant about perfecting focus and other parts of the image is that the internet is full of people with DSLRs whining about blurry, etc large prints from xxx camera. I think probably 90% or more of those cases are not the fault of the camera or printer. People spend sooo much time dittling around with printing the image that they forget about the process of taking it. My point is that the megapixel count is the least of the beginner photographer's problems when creating a large print. I wish they would have focused on creating better CCD/CMOS pixels a long time ago intead of upping the count.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MrHeeltoe
1G TSX Tires, Wheels, & Suspension
20
02-23-2023 01:54 PM
MrHeeltoe
2G TSX Tires, Wheels & Suspension
3
09-29-2015 10:43 PM
MrHeeltoe
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
0
09-28-2015 05:43 PM