Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 24, 2005, 11:04 PM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24

Considering that after post #4 of my last thread about trends in developingan industry standard sensordimension, some of you posters mangled my last thread and went WAAAAYYYYY off topic ona tit for tat slugfest and not at all answering my question (except for you first guys). Granted, a lot of the info was good until I got sick of looking at all the minutia that i don't really care about, at least right now.:roll: The tv industry doesn't keep introducing new tv formats. Cars still have 4 wheels, mostly. Computers are either PC or Mac. Why can't the camera industry standardize on one size and then get really good at getting that device to capture images over the years. It seems like the Wild West is alive and well in CameraLand. What a pain in the !#%.

From what I've read from your helpful replies told me is this:

At least for the forseeable future, the DSLR industry has ZERO interest in standardizing at any sensor size, any set up, or, anything elsefor that matter. Why would they do that? It just doesn't seem cost effective considering that the bulk of the lense industry is centered around 35mm. They would dilute and confuse the market by constantly changing sizes. I think itweakens the camera market to have so many competing choices. It confuses consumers like me, and makes a mess out of something that could bemore orderly. That is why I thought they wouldtry to stick with a full frame sensor and then improve it, rather than take it past FF 35mm size.

I guess we are all going to have to play their game. After our equipment breaks, because things are constantly going to change, we'll have to get our credit cards out and buy all new crap, because what we have will become obsolete. Sounds like there just is no way around that. But, it also sounds like NONE of you care about that. I don't get it, but whatever. If that is the case, I guess I need to learn tonot care either. I'm new to all this, so not only do I guess I need to learn about the gear, I have to learn about camera culture, and it sounds likeI need to just get used to constantly changing equipment, and making sure I make enough $ to keep buying whatever is en vogue when it is time to buy, and not get too attached to my equipment.

I suppose it is just a plot to take more of our money, but I guess if they keep changing things, maybe their engineers will innovate something new that will revolutionize photography, and then when that new thing comes into existence, perhaps things will settle down.

I think because of the rebates,I'm going to get my camera from B&H,stick with the 20D, either the 17-85 lense or that 24-105L, and good wide, perhaps a good macro. then, I'll hit the used camera store for a Canon 35mm film body, and see if they've got a nice telephoto. Might as well waste my money now instead of a year from now so I don't miss out on the pictures I want to take today. Gotta jump on this crazy train sooner or later.

How would that 24-105 look out of the 20D? Anybody know?

speleojeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 24, 2005, 11:14 PM   #2
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24

Heck, if I'm looking for a good all purpose lense, what about that reallynice whitebody Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM? It is only $600 more than the 24-105. That should take care of almost ALL of my photo needs, shouldn't it?

speleojeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2005, 7:18 AM   #3
Senior Member
NHL's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,567

28mm (and even 24mm) is not wide enough on a 20D!
You need at least a 18/17 at the low end... The nice thing about the 24-105 is you'll need only 1 more lens: a 10-20 or 12-24 (for a full-frame) to complete your lens collection (i.e. a 28-300 will leave you with a big gap at the wide)

-> 10-20 and 17-85 for EF-s
-> 12-24 and 24-105 for full-frame
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2005, 6:32 PM   #4
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24

OK, yep you're right, I didn't include that I also plan on a wide and a macro. What I meant by all-purpose is the 90% of my usual shooting, which is going to be a lot of normal to long distance stuff, and then I'd want a wide and then from time to time a macro. I think that white body lense will do most of what I need. Yes, the conversion on the 20D does take the lense from a 28-300 to a 45-455 or so, but that is one hell of a telephoto, and I don't mind that it is a push pull design.
speleojeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2005, 3:31 AM   #5
Senior Member
VictorEM83's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156

This is why I buy only 35mm film lenses becuase digital only lenses are just a waste unless you using them for a spefic reaosn as NHL ponted out for wide shots but other than that smaller sensors will cost less FF will cost more and lager than full frame are on Medium format backs so thats not an issue for canon users.
VictorEM83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2005, 11:23 AM   #6
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

You make a variety of points, some of which I agree with and some I don't.

The reason they don't make full frame sensors is because the price of the camera would be twice as much. At least. Until the Canon 5D, they cost between $7,000-$8,000USD. There is no way the market for DSLRs would be where it is if they had stuck with only full-frame sensors. It was the introduction of the Nikon D100 and the Canon 10D that *made* this market. (The Canon D60 & D30 were not bad, but their resolution was too low to be taken seriously for their price tag. Of course, that is just my opinion. If I'm missing a DSLR, someone will chime in. I guess there was the Nikon D1.) And all those cameras (including the ones I discredit) had smaller than full-frame sensors.

It was the $1,000-$1,500USD price point that make them sell like hot-cakes. And then they made even more money off the lenses, flashes and other stuff. So without non-full frame cameras you couldn't be considering the 20D... and I don't believe I would have picked up this hobby. The cost of developing film would have scared me away, and the full frame DSLR would have been too much money.

And to me, smaller than full-frame sensors are great. I love them. I take pictures of wildlife, so the sensor-crop giving me more reach is exactly what I want (I know it isn't exactly the same as a longer lens.)

This industry is still in the "wild-west" though. I agree with you there. Some economist would probably have a term for this "stage" in the products lifetime. Where the next generation is noticably better such that the previous generation is worth very little. That is where we are now. Nothing stops you from not upgrading... the Canon 10D still takes great pictures today. And canon will fix that camera for years to come (at least I hope) so if it breaks you don't *have* to throw it out. Of course, labor costs being what they are a repair could costs around 1/3-1/2 the price of a new one. But that isn't the camera market's fault, that is the labor market in the US doing that.

They actually do have a reason to standardize on a sensor size. It is in their own interest to do so, as the costs of production would drop. And they have standardized to some extent. Canon uses full frame, 1.3x crop on the Pro sport line, and 1.6x on the Consume DSLR. Nikon uses 1.5x on all DSLRs. Then there is the 4/3rds cameras from Olympus and ?? (I for get who.) Ok, that was worse than I though. But really, for most people the full frame and 1.3x crop cameras are too expensive. So there really are only 3 (1.5x, 1.6x, & 4/3rds.) While not ideal, it isn't as bad as you might think from your post. Now in the point-and-shoot market it is really bad... there are many more sensors there, but it matters less there.

And while the camera body looks expensive, you'll spend way more money in lenses, flashes and all that jazz. And that investment will last you a really long time. Way longer than any camera body. I'm unusual for people here, but I've spent... roughly almost $10,000 on lenses alone (and I'm not including flashes, tripods, heads, ...) but a touch less than $3,000 on camera bodies (a 10D & a 20D. Not including the $750 I sold the 10D for.)

What bugs me more than anything else is that the difference between generations of cameras isn't big enough for me. It is only "just enough better" to make me consider upgrading. But it isn't enough to make me go "ya, that one would really help me out." And I think that is intentional. Makes them the most money and we keep upgrading. I wasn't going to get the 20D, until someone offered me more money than I expected for my 10D. It just wasn't "good enough" for me. I'm waiting for the 1D MkIIN's replacement (maybe a year?) unless the 20D's replacement is just amazing. I hope competition helps cure this... I really want Nikon to produce more better cameras to really threaten Canon... make them really stretch and put out something much better.

My other hope is that the mega-pixel wars will calm down. 8Mp is really quite large. I wouldn't complain about more, but I'd prefer more dynamic range. I don't think that is a selling point the market will understand (the general market, that is. The stevesforums' market is much smarter than the general market.) I'd like more accurate and faster auto-focus. I'd like a deeper buffer for storing taken images. More MP? I wouldn't complain, but I'm not jumping up and down for it.

I agree with VictorEM83. That is also why I don't get non-35mm lenses. I know I'll get a 1.3x crop camera, and those lenses just won't work on it. So just be careful how you spend your money and you won't waste it.


As for your list. The 20D is a nice camera. I've heard fairly good things about those two lenses. I agree with NHL that 24 isn't very wide on it. I had to get a 17mm so I could take wide-angle shots. 28mm (in my case) just wasn't enough. If you really want wide angle, get the 17-85 (Assuming its good enough for you.)
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2005, 11:30 AM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175


1) Go buy a camera that you like.

2) Go buy a couple lenses that you like.

3) Go out and shoot.

Chris M

ChrisDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2005, 11:31 PM   #8
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24

Yep, thats what I'm going to do. What a sassy forum! :blah:

I'm getting the 20d, the 28-300 L whitebody, 20mm wide, and 100 mm macro, 430EX flash, and 2GB mem card. end of story.

Adios and thanks for the help everboday!

speleojeff is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:02 AM.