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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 6, 2006, 5:40 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

you can wait for the next great camera to come out if you like, but the way the digital SLR's are booming there is alway going to bea next great camera ready to come out, so I say get one and start shooting some pictures otherwise you will always be waiting for something better to come along.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2006, 11:35 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
atlantagreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 243
Default

This is purely forcasting on my part, but so far I've been batting a pretty good score the last couple of years with the predictions...

My prediction is that the 30D or whatever they wind up calling it, will be a 10.2MP sensor with the same 1.6X factor as previous models. I would assume the $1500 price will stick as it's been this way for the mid-rangers for the last couple of models. It would be NICE if Canon finally put a real spot metering feature on it, but they don't always heed user opinions who have been begging for it, so we'll see. It wouldn't surprise me to see some tweaks in iso either - such as adding iso 2400 and 3200 as standard menu items.

I'm sticking to my 10D for now, which while a little slow, still takes good pics. If the 30D has the two features (MP and spot) mentioned above and they do the res increase without a noise increase, I will consider upgrading to one, but if it foregoes anything that's needed, I'll stick with what I have for personal use.




atlantagreg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2006, 9:33 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
matthew2000tx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,451
Default

I wish Canon would be the first to offer a full frame DSLR in the 1,500 maket area!!!!

:|I'd trash my 20d and get that camera!
matthew2000tx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2006, 11:10 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 24
Default

The argument that technology is always advancing therefore jump in any time is a bit silly. Yes, things are always improving, but it isn't a straight diagonal line up a chart. A new model comes out, and has more features, but won't be discounted, and it will have firmware probs maybe. Fine. Wait 3-4 months after product release, and get it then. Wait out the hype bubble.At that point, buy, andyou SHOULD have a year or so of having the top of the line camera at that price point,after that,here come the rebates. At this point, you've got day old bread, but it still will take good pix. The 20D does have some probs that make me want to wait. The LCD is too small, the camera doesn't have 1/500 flash synch, and I want 10MP.

If anyone buys the 20D, that's fine, but it will only get more out of date. The last thing I want to do is drop $1200 on something that gets more obsolete by the day.

The march of progress is always climbing up, but it is more like steps.
speleojeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2006, 11:41 PM   #15
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

With your "day old bread" obsession you must be a marketing department's dream. :-)

I'm curious why you think you need 1/500s flash sync. There are only a couple of cameras on the market that have it, those cameras have a minimum ISO of 200.

High speed flash sync like that is useful for only 1 thing: fill flash in bright sunlight where you are pushing the shutter speed higher to REDUCE exposure. Now 1/250 @ ISO100 is exactly as good for that purpose as 1/[email protected] So those entry-level Nikons don't have any advantage over the Canons.

Waiting for the 20D replacement you will likely get 10Mp, unfortunately because I'd much rather have higher dynamic range than the extra pixels, but of course it's much easier to push the Mp and pretend it's a really useful new feature.

Waiting for the 20D replacement you will also likely get a bigger LCD. Which again is a big pity IMO, because the only thing the LCD is useful for is checking the histogram, and it's quite big enough for that at the moment. And a bigger LCD means a shorter battery life. Another marketing only feature that I would really rather not have. If they put in an RGB histogram instead of luminance-only that would be a nice feature, but once again it's a photographer's feature rather than a marketing feature.

So it goes.

BTW there is a difference between old bread and an old camera. Bread gets worse with age and cameras (during their working life) don't. My 20D takes photos as good now as it did when I bought it, and after the replacement comes out the photos don't suddenly get worse either. Of course you have to stop bragging that you have the latest and greatest, so for some people that really hurts, though at this level in the market you don't have that the greatest anyway, that honour is reserved for the 1-series cameras.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 6:20 AM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
High speed flash sync like that is useful for only 1 thing: fill flash in bright sunlight where you are pushing the shutter speed higher to REDUCE exposure. Now 1/250 @ ISO100 is exactly as good for that purpose as 1/[email protected] So those entry-level Nikons don't have any advantage over the Canons.
This is only partially true. High speed synch is good for fill flash - but not just on bright sunny days. Sports shooting can really benefit from it. Especially when you want to use it just as fill rather than trying to light the whole shot with your flash. A perfect example is American High School football - played at night in lit stadiums. Some people prefer to use a fill flash because it helps illuminate players faces inside the helmets (useful in certain shots but obviously not cross-field or down-field). You're typically shooting ISO 1600 or 3200 so the argument about ISO 100 / 1/250 doesn't apply. So, while I agree high speed synch is typically a fill flash thing - there are other times you want fill flash and higher than 1/250 shutter speeds.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 7:53 AM   #17
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I disagree.

Your football example is a very good one where there is absolutely no advantage at all to 1/500s synch as on the Nikon v 1/250 with the Canon.

The actual flash pulse itself is around 1/1000 so when you're not trying to light the whole scene you're actually better off selecting a slower shutter speed like 1/60s to get some stadium background exposure and letting the flash "freeze" the action.

So for fill flash in low-light situations like you describe you are better with a slower or moderate shutter speed. Perhaps 1/60 or 1/125.

Sometimes in low light situations you do want high shutter speeds, but for that you have FP mode which will synch down to 1/2000s. And you have to accept that the flash will have to light the whole scene.

Of course using FP at 1/2000 you need a very powerful flash or multiple flashes, but of course you can use a Better Beamer or similar to aim the flash to get a much better GN.

Now I may be wrong about all I have written, but I don't think so. At present I stand by my claim that the Nikon 1/[email protected] is no better than Canon 1/[email protected] Both systems can synch at higher speeds in FP mode (or equivalent).



P.S. speleojeff's simultaneous wish for a large sensor AND a higher speed flash synch is rather silly too. The ONLY reason the 1/500s synch is possible on the Nikon is because the sensor is SMALLER than FF.

http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/flashtec5.htm
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 8:03 AM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
I disagree.

Your football example is a very good one where there is absolutely no advantage at all to 1/500s synch as on the Nikon v 1/250 with the Canon.

The actual flash pulse itself is around 1/10000 so when you're not trying to light the whole scene you're actually better off selecting a slower shutter speed like 1/60s to get some stadium background exposure and letting the flash "freeze" the action.

So for fill flash in low-light situations like you describe you are better with a slower or moderate shutter speed. Perhaps 1/60 or 1/125.
I'm afraid you are wrong on this one. Give it a try if you don't believe me. The flash just simply isn't powerful enough to 'freeze' the entire frame. It's different when you have a relatively close subject (say in basketball) but for football at least flash use is still done with high shutterspeeds.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 8:12 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
hgernhardtjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 516
Default

If you want to seea photo of theback of the new Canon dSLR, check here

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=25939

:G:?:blah:
hgernhardtjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2006, 8:23 AM   #20
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I'm still far from convinced.

We agree that there's no way you can light a whole stadium with a flashgun.

You're telling me that 1/250s is not sufficient to freeze the action in a football game?

I shall have to bow to your wisdom but frankly I find it very difficult to believe.

And at 1/2000s in low light how much of the stadium/field do you see in the picture?

If the flash output is to be significant in a stadium then you're talking close range or telephoto anyway. The solution to the situation you describe is high ISO and fast prime lenses with a better beamer to focus the flash output.

It's probably why you never see very good photos from high school football games. The pro stadiums have much better lighting and the photographers still need the really expensive kit to get decent shots.

It has nothing to do with whether 1/500s synch on standard flash is any better than 1/250s.

At any rate it's a moot point. Unless they make some pretty substantial progress on shutters we're not going to see anything faster than 1/500 on APS sensors, and 1/250 on FF sensors. And frankly the market pressure for this highly specialised requirement is very low. It's probably much easier to make more sensitive sensors at high ISO and sell you very expensive fast prime lenses.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 3:49 AM.