Let's Speculate about Canon - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/18/2005 12:52:08 AM · #9

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

...I have been trying to decide when to buy another DSLR. I need a second camera body ...?

I found myself in the same situation a while back. The 20D did not offer much more (for the kind of shooting I do) for the price. It is a little smaller and lighter than the 10D as well (I like 'em big and heavy).

The 1D Mark II is big and heavy. The files are bigger (good thing). It has a spot meter and is a lil more water resistant.

Ellamay lets me use her Mark II and/or her 20D whenever I like. The shots out of the 20D look like 10D shots. It's not as much fun to use (I'm more at home with my 10D. The 10D feels more solid).

Shots out of the Mark II are markedly better: the exposures are much closer to what I intended (spot meter). Overall, the images look like they carry more information. The metering is incredibly precise.
I have little use for the speed it offers. I, really, don't care for the price.

So I went out and bought a second 10D, for CDN $ 800.00. I replaced the shutter: CDN $ 200, CDN $ 1.000 in total. The Mark II would have cost me six times as much. That's a little steep, I think, for a spot meter.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/18/2005 01:04:11 AM · #10

The 1D II is NOT $4500 but $3499.95 at B & H

I think you will like the 8.5 fps for sports, the fast AF, the very accurate metering and the amazingly accurate AI-Servo focus (see examples below)

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

06/18/2005 02:17:06 AM · #11

I was considering a 1Ds-MkII, but I may have to change my mind. There are 23 users here that have the camera, but they only have 2 second place and 1 third place ribbon between them. The 23 cameras probably cost something in the neighborhood of $184,000.00 total, which comes to about $61,333.33 per ribbon!

Most of the 23 owners don't seem to enter challenges very often. They probably spend their time working to pay for the camera.

I'd still love to have one, but I guess I'll stick with my 10D for a while longer. :)

art-inept

Olympus C-5060WZ

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

06/18/2005 02:25:51 AM · #12

in some interview with one of the top guys in canon, he announced that canon will most likely introduce a 1-series camera that will replace all the other 1-series and should be priced at around 5K to compete against the D2x

Ristyz

Apple iPhone 12 Pro

06/18/2005 02:36:15 AM · #13

I have a 10D that was sold to me by a friend that ditched it after only two months once he got his paws on the MKII. I will have to admit that I miss the super fast focus of my EOS 3 film camera....I cannot wait until I can get a MKII or the equvilent of to use for my work. (horse events) This conversation may help me make the final choice from the 20D to the biggie....I want a FAST camera...but that's just what I need, not everyone needs a tool like that for what they do.

As for not entering many challenges, or thier lower scores, it is not the camera that makes the photograph but the person wielding it and thier skill in using the tool they hold. As a friend of mine used to say, "It's not just the camera"!

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

06/18/2005 04:57:22 AM · #14

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

What is it that makes the Mark II worth spending $3000 more?

I was in kind of the same predicament, except a 1D mkI vs. a 20D. For me, I think having a pro camera will pay off, vs. a prosumer.

I bought myself a 1D mkI yesterday, which I intend to use alongside my 300D (ok, I'll mostly use the 1D). I'll let you know my thoughts when I get it, since the 1D is similar in speed to the 1D mkII.

Having said that, the SportsShooter member I just bought my 1D off has two 20D's that use uses, so..

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/18/2005 05:39:56 AM · #15

after my NASCAR experience, especially after trying to stand beside such an array of heavy duty equipment

i figured the mark II was going to be my only option.

yesterday, at the track (toyota was in town testing their open wheel cars), i met two other pros who swear by the 20D. one has a mkII, but put it down when he realized he was getting what he needed from the 20 at half the weight. the other basically said he didn't think it was worth the money, and that he was getting everything he needed from the 20.

so, i'm still on the fence, too.

KiwiChris

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/18/2005 06:52:30 AM · #16

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

My newspaper sports work is why i want a faster frame rate. I'm just not sure if 5fps will satisfy me until i'm able to try it.

Hi John...

I use the 20D for exactly what you do, and I've tried all three bodies (10D, 20D, and 1DII) with my 70-200 F/2.8...

5fps is good in most cases, but occasionally I find I'd like 'that bit more' as 200ms is a long time during a tackle, or a charge-down of the ball in rugby. At the end of the day even at 8fps there is a great deal of luck in catching 'perfect' timing in sports.

After using the 1DII I'd plonk down the coin in a flash if I had it burning a hole in my pocket. It's just 'better' in so many intangible ways..

I didn't feel that the 8fps by itself was worth it though..

The change from the 10D to 20D is large though, as with a fast CF card I've found it very rare to push the button and not get a photo, so to speak. It's buffer size and management is much better than the 10.

I used the 10D for one netball game and found it was forever pausing when I didn't want it to. Very annoying, although probably because I'm used to the 20D, as it's not a bad camera in the scheme of things.

The other difference I noticed between the 10D and 20D was focus speed. I use the center focus point only for sports, and found that the 10D wouldn't focus at 3fps in a burst, so if the action was changing during a burst of shots only some of them would be in focus. With the 20D and 1DII it's very rare not to have what's under the center focus point in focus, even if that is the grass, spectators, carpark signs...

Even in the middle of a burst at 5 or 8fps respectively you'll get shots where the focus point was on something 40m behind the action and it's tack sharp, then the very next frame you'll have the player sharp again. With the 10 I found that if you lost your target you'd get one or two out of focus frames, where nothing was sharp.. Might have been the one I borrowed, but I don't believe it was atypical.

My 2c would be to go with the 20D, then wait and see what Canon do next. It's a good camera, and you can replace your 10D with the 30D (Or whatever) if it's 1000% better when it comes out. The 10D will still have a reasonable resale value, as they seem to be holding their value.

Also, for what it's worth, I'm considering buying the 10D I borrowed as a backup to my 20, as I can't afford another new body at the mo, but feel a bit uncomfortable not having a spare.

Cheers, Me.

06/18/2005 07:10:04 AM · #17

No attack on 20d or 350d owners....BUT it is sensless to compare an EOS-1 body with the other offerings in the line.

The physical features alone can largely justify the price differential...one must hold an Eos-1 for a few moments to truly value it's build and it's feel.

Of course there are also a bunch of "mechanical and electronic" reasons, AF speed and agility for sports shooters, custom meterings for wedding people, infinitely adjustable and absolutly accurate WB in Kelvin.

I own the 1DsMkII and aside from FF and 16.7MP and the FPS thing, I don't really know how the 1D differs from the 1Ds ....so assuming there are no other differences, and having used the 20d on 2 occasions I can promise you that the price differential is 100% justified.

in the end, the real question is application... will YOU benifit from the different and improved features or would the money be better spent on glass.

06/18/2005 07:14:57 AM · #18

Originally posted by art-inept:

they don't have a choice, Canon is outselling NIKON 8to1 in the consumer market 12to1 in the sports and 30to1 in the studio...NIKON can no longer sustain the production of several different bodies because of lack of volume.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/18/2005 07:17:30 AM · #19

Originally posted by micknewton:

well having looked at the profiles of some people whom list the 1DsMkII as their body...I can pretty much garantee that some of those are fictional... one person list the whole Eos-1 line and the D1x and the D2x..... come-on... I'm almost posivite that over 50% of these are fictional!

Message edited by author 2005-06-18 07:19:09.

KiwiChris

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/18/2005 09:00:20 AM · #20

Originally posted by Gil P:

Hmmm, which reminds me, I've got a Hassleblad with 20Mp phase-1 back.. Must get the SC to add it... :-).

photodude

06/18/2005 09:20:57 AM · #21

My take (or perhaps wish) on the 20D is that they will have to upgrade somewhat with the 30D to stay at this price point. Since the XT now has many of the features of the 20D for $500 less, Canon will just put more goodies in the 20D

Personally I would love the eye controlled focus - are you listening canon?

aled

Canon EOS-D30

06/18/2005 09:28:09 AM · #22

I'm still using my old D30. Recently bought a 20D and the difference in functionality is negligible, performance obviously has improved. I have noticed that the D30 sensor requires far less cleaning and picks up less dirt so it is usually the camera I take out with me on the spur of the moment also it seems to be far more resilient than the 20D (e.g. the 20D has a flimsy CF cover that moves around and creaks in the grip). 8+ Mpixels brings out a lot more detail on my macro shots especially I've noticed on insect compound eyes...

06/18/2005 10:11:21 AM · #23

Originally posted by aled:

The reason your D30 gets less dirty is also the reason why it was so much less sensitive and accurate.