Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 31, 2005, 11:29 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Hello people,

Can any one tell me why one might consider the upcoming 5D over the excellent 20D? And why they might think the 5D is worth the money being asked. Which happens to be more than double the cost of the 20D. Curious...

Thanks.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 1, 2005, 12:31 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
geriatric's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 326
Default

This is what the Japs love, bring out a camera, then after the first rush bring out another. When you think how long it takes car makers too tool up too put another car on the market. Just stick with what you have.
geriatric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2005, 12:47 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

IMHO: the only thing the 5d has that would interest me is the full frame sensor.
That makes the wide angle lenses really wide again.
(yes it has a lot of other small changes, but none of them are of interest to me)

In other words not enough to bother with. Especially not for the price being asked for it, which I think is about 3x too high for what they are selling.
(I'm kind of hopeing it causes some people to sell off their recently purchased "now obsolete" bodies so I can pick up one or two used 10D or 20D's for 500$cdn or so).:G

Peter
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2005, 8:28 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Hello Peter,

Can you explain the "full-frame" technology to me? They say you get a "wider angle of view" and that non-full-frame cameras "crop the picture". When they say the picture is "cropped" does that mean you see a "cropped" version of the image? Or, that the picture taken has been cropped? Why would having a full-frame sensor be important? Does it eliminate noise at all ISO settings totally?

As for the pricing...at $4500 Cdn body-only...I think it's ludicris. As I mentioned it's $2600.00 more than a 20D (body-only). Is it twice the camera? I don't think so. As a complete novice...the only major difference I see is the full-frame sensor and an extra 4 odd MP. WooHOO!! Just wondered if the full-frame sensor is worth the added cost...


DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2005, 8:45 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

:cart: I can try but I am terrible at explaining things :-)

A full frame camera has a sensor the same size as a 35mm piece of film IE: 36mm*24mm

The Canon 1.6crop and Nikon 1.5crop have a sensor that is about 1/2 that size 22.5mm*15mm for the Canon.

So only a small center portion of the image circle produced by a normal lens is used.
This cropping out of a small central chunk of the full image makes it apear as though the lenses are much longer than they really are. Former wide angle lenses appear to be mid range, and telephotos appear to be much longer. Good for the long lens users, bad for the ones who liked the wide views.

This is where all the new ef-s (canon) Dii (tamron) dg (sygma(I think) ) lenses come in, they have reduced the image circle produced by these lenses to match the small crop cameras.
This allows the manfacturers to make the lenses much smaller and lighter than standard lenses, and IMHO should, but did not reduce the price since you are getting less for your money. And these lenses become junk if cameras like the 5d start becoming popular as they cannot be used on them.

Also for the same megapixel rating the pixel density on a larger sensor would be lower, allowing for larger photo sites and more seperation between them, that could improve performance.
The extra 4+ megapixels is only about 15%-20% increase in liniar resolution over the 20D. Not enough extra to even think about. It would have to become a 32mp camera to have a 100% increase in resolution:blah: At that point you would have to contend with 200+ meg image files.:?

Last thing about the 5d's price, for the same money I could get 2 new 20D's or for not much more could get a 1D series body.
The 1d-MkII (1.3 crop) is 5400$cdn, only 1K more than the 5d and as a professional series body much better constructed.

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2005, 11:11 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

I have a problem with the way Canon is dealing with their digital success, two different formats with two different lens series for the same lens mount????

I understand why they had full frame (35mm size) pro cameras, it allowed them to step from their Canon 35mm pro cameras into a digital which kept their lenses just as they were familiar with them, no crop factor. Then they concentrated on small format (APS size) sensors for their amateur models, but now you get the two lens lines. The 5D just muddies this whole thing even further by offering a large format sensor in a camera which is closer to the amateur/semi-pro budget range. What next? A 35mm frame Digital Rebel so that all of the "digital" series lenses are opsolete and you have to buy another batch of lenses?

I am beginning to think Olympus had the right idea, toss it all and start with a clean slate, there is no confusion with the 4/3 system.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2005, 11:26 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 112
Default

Monza76 wrote:
Quote:
I have a problem with the way Canon is dealing with their digital success, two different formats with two different lens series for the same lens mount????
imho I don't think it's a 'problem' for them, and I don't think we'll ever see them move over to FF completely - why stick to one format, when you can flood the market with all sorts of crop factor andreel 'em in every which way!
core is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 1, 2005, 11:37 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

core
Quote:
imho I don't think it's a 'problem' for them, and I don't think we'll ever see them move over to FF completely - why stick to one format, when you can flood the market with all sorts of crop factor andreel 'em in every which way!

I think you just hit the nail on the head, this is Canon's approach while Nikon goes after the software market by encoding their white balance. It scares me to think what may happen over at Konica Minolta now that Sony (my way or the highway) has signed up.

That Pentax is looking better by the minute.

Ira
Monza76 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 8:01 AM.