| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2005 10:50:23 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I don't at all "get" riot's comment. The 5D is an incredible advancement, and the price is well justified by the feature set. Admittedly, if you don't see the need for full-frame, it looks a lot less attractive; then, for sure, the 1DMkII is a better choice. |
Sorry, i'm just getting sick of people going on about "upgrading" from the 20D to the 5D, how it's a "replacement" - it's not, and for mainly the same differences you mentioned with the mark II. The 20D's crop factor is a Good Thing for wildlife and sports shooters, especially since it has a higher pixel density than the 5D, so cropping from a 5D shot would not give a comparable quality. The 5fps is really a huge step up from 3fps for the same reason.
It is the ambiguity of the 5D's intention that confuses people the most i think - although it is clearly intended as a superior studio/landscape camera to the 20D, the lack of built-in grip and the overlap in certain other features (well, differences from the 1D range) are designed to make the customer think it's ideal for everything the 20D was ideal for. To me it seems the 5D, along with all the hype preceeding it, is more an exercise in effective marketing than a technological advance.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:53:05 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by riot:
[quote=kirbic]
To me it seems the 5D, along with all the hype preceeding it, is more an exercise in effective marketing than a technological advance. |
ROFL!!!
Fullframe 12,8mpix camera with a new focusing system for $3200...
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 12:23:33 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by riot:
[quote=kirbic]
To me it seems the 5D, along with all the hype preceeding it, is more an exercise in effective marketing than a technological advance. |
ROFL!!!
Fullframe 12,8mpix camera with a new focusing system for $3200... |
The full frame 12.8Mpx is nothing impressive, as i say it has lower pixel density than the 20D so it's hardly cutting-edge technology. Certainly doesn't justify the price jump from the 20D...
Message edited by author 2005-08-28 00:27:47.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 12:39:03 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by riot:
[quote=kirbic]
To me it seems the 5D, along with all the hype preceeding it, is more an exercise in effective marketing than a technological advance. |
ROFL!!!
Fullframe 12,8mpix camera with a new focusing system for $3200... |
The full frame 12.8Mpx is nothing impressive, as i say it has lower pixel density than the 20D so it's hardly cutting-edge technology. Certainly doesn't justify the price jump from the 20D... |
How did you calculate the lower pixel density? It has a bigger sensor and more megapixels... if you look at the sensor comparisons here
(near bottom) //www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/ you will find that the 5D sensor stacks up quite nicely against the 1D/1Ds markII
edit - link
Message edited by author 2005-08-28 00:40:03.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 12:48:27 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by riot:
[quote=kirbic]
To me it seems the 5D, along with all the hype preceeding it, is more an exercise in effective marketing than a technological advance. |
ROFL!!!
Fullframe 12,8mpix camera with a new focusing system for $3200... |
The full frame 12.8Mpx is nothing impressive, as i say it has lower pixel density than the 20D so it's hardly cutting-edge technology. Certainly doesn't justify the price jump from the 20D... |
The fact that you're getting full frame for that price is saying something. I've heard that the 1Ds Mark II was overpriced and not worth the extra $6000 over the 20D. The 1Ds Mark II is worht every penny I spent on it IMO, because I want what it has to offer me a a photographer as a tool nad because there is nothing that can replace it for even a dollar less.
I had considered the 5D before buying the 1Ds Mark II and i will say it came in a close second. The 20D was never even a consideration.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:08:21 AM · #56 |
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:11:37 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
How did you calculate the lower pixel density? It has a bigger sensor and more megapixels... |
Ok, 20D has a 1.6 crop factor - this is the crop factor in the horizontal and the vertical. If we crop to the same image area on the 5D, we get (sqrt(12.8)/1.6)^2 = 5 megapixels in the same area the 20D fits 8.2.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:14:44 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by riot:
[quote=kirbic]
To me it seems the 5D, along with all the hype preceeding it, is more an exercise in effective marketing than a technological advance. |
ROFL!!!
Fullframe 12,8mpix camera with a new focusing system for $3200... |
The full frame 12.8Mpx is nothing impressive, as i say it has lower pixel density than the 20D so it's hardly cutting-edge technology. Certainly doesn't justify the price jump from the 20D... |
The fact that you're getting full frame for that price is saying something. I've heard that the 1Ds Mark II was overpriced and not worth the extra $6000 over the 20D. The 1Ds Mark II is worht every penny I spent on it IMO, because I want what it has to offer me a a photographer as a tool nad because there is nothing that can replace it for even a dollar less.
I had considered the 5D before buying the 1Ds Mark II and i will say it came in a close second. The 20D was never even a consideration. |
I only said the difference in sensor isn't worth the price leap, not the rest of the camera - there are many features other that do justify that pricetag. However, if we're talking about the other features, i've mentioned above why it doesn't bear direct comparison to the 20D.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:32:49 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
How did you calculate the lower pixel density? It has a bigger sensor and more megapixels... |
Ok, 20D has a 1.6 crop factor - this is the crop factor in the horizontal and the vertical. If we crop to the same image area on the 5D, we get (sqrt(12.8)/1.6)^2 = 5 megapixels in the same area the 20D fits 8.2. |
not exactly sure about that math... i think at somepoint you need to factor in that the 5D has a 35.8x23.9 mm sensor (vs 22.5 x 15mm on the 20d)... and you can always zoom in (on a zoom lens) to get the same crop and that would give you 12.8 mega pixels compared to 8.2
nice try :-p
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:40:36 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by jonr:
you need help |
 |
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:45:36 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
How did you calculate the lower pixel density? It has a bigger sensor and more megapixels... |
Ok, 20D has a 1.6 crop factor - this is the crop factor in the horizontal and the vertical. If we crop to the same image area on the 5D, we get (sqrt(12.8)/1.6)^2 = 5 megapixels in the same area the 20D fits 8.2. |
not exactly sure about that math... i think at somepoint you need to factor in that the 5D has a 35.8x23.9 mm sensor (vs 22.5 x 15mm on the 20d)... and you can always zoom in (on a zoom lens) to get the same crop and that would give you 12.8 mega pixels compared to 8.2
nice try :-p |
I think you're missing my point. That's exactly what i'm factoring in - the 1.6 crop factor. More pixels at the same crop factor... or a tighter crop for the same pixels. Better for wildlife, photojournalist and sports photographers looking to get the most reach out of their long lenses - where you can't "always zoom in" because not all of us carry 1000mm lenses.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 02:12:32 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by riot:
I only said the difference in sensor isn't worth the price leap, not the rest of the camera - there are many features other that do justify that pricetag. However, if we're talking about the other features, i've mentioned above why it doesn't bear direct comparison to the 20D. |
First, it won't bear direct comparison because it does not compare. Tangerines and oranges at least. One was not made to replace the other. The 20D has a lot of features that are lacking on the 5D. In many respects it is a more useful camera. But not to me. The sensor is the reason I would choose the 5D over the 20 and why for me it would be worth the extra couple thousand dollars.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:09:12 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
How did you calculate the lower pixel density? It has a bigger sensor and more megapixels... |
Ok, 20D has a 1.6 crop factor - this is the crop factor in the horizontal and the vertical. If we crop to the same image area on the 5D, we get (sqrt(12.8)/1.6)^2 = 5 megapixels in the same area the 20D fits 8.2. |
not exactly sure about that math... i think at somepoint you need to factor in that the 5D has a 35.8x23.9 mm sensor (vs 22.5 x 15mm on the 20d)... and you can always zoom in (on a zoom lens) to get the same crop and that would give you 12.8 mega pixels compared to 8.2
nice try :-p |
I think you're missing my point. That's exactly what i'm factoring in - the 1.6 crop factor. More pixels at the same crop factor... or a tighter crop for the same pixels. Better for wildlife, photojournalist and sports photographers looking to get the most reach out of their long lenses - where you can't "always zoom in" because not all of us carry 1000mm lenses. |
Obviously this is not a camera for you. I don't think nsbca7 is missing the point at all. I take my hat off for Canon, and I think they've released a fantastic camera, one that will hurt Nikon/Minolta greatly.
I know several photojournalists (even in sports!) that have ordered the 5D, some even to replace their 1D mkII. If you see a 20D replacement with a FF sensor with 12,8mpix you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with the 20D, it's a new camera for a new market.
It has a new focusing system, which is greatly improved over the 20D.
It has about 1 stop less noise than the 20D, meaning that ISO3200 looks better then 20D's ISO1600. It has a huge viewfinder with more information. AWB is greatly improved. Though it's only 3fps, it has a much larger buffer, which is exactly what I need. It has spot metering, and improved light metering. The LCD screen is bigger, and can now be viewed from all angles.
Who the heck needs a 1000mm lens?? What kind of sport would require you to use 1000mm? I don't know of any sports around here that would require you to use a 1000mm lens to capture the event from the presspit. Pree Photographers need to be able to shoot wide angle shots like they've done with their old film cameras. I own a Sigma 12-24mm and a 17-40mm, I've used Canon 10-22mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 14mm/2.8 and 16-35mm/2.8. And I tell you they all suck on a 20D compared to a 16-35mm on a fullframe body.
If wildlife is what shoot, then buy a Nikon D2X. If you're a pressphotographer, you'll love the 5D. I know I will.
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 01:21:47 PM · #64 |
I know I will be getting a 5D once I can afford it. I would love to have the full frame capability. Also, the new features that the 5D has are well worth it, IMO.
Now, to figure out the quickest way to get $3300.00. I would like to get the camera without giving up my 20D, but I honestly don't see that happening.
Message edited by author 2005-08-28 13:22:28. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/18/2025 10:12:09 AM EDT.
