| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/25/2006 06:13:03 AM · #76 |
| I think that there aren't great improvements. I shall changen't an entry level reflex(canon 300d) with another entry level reflex. I think that is better to buy a better lens :) |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 06:14:59 AM · #77 |
It took me 1.5 years to collect the funds for a DSLR. I refrained from buying a P&S and by this October I will have finally collected enough.
I have been closely following the development of Nikons - D70->D70s ... the tempting D50.
The Canons - 300D - > 350D and now this!!!
Sony announced their A100 a few weeks back and I had just about settled on them till... Nikon announced D80. Just 3 days back I had transferred all the money into a safe bank account (so that I dont touch it) for the D80 and now Canon decides to make things worse.
Sometimes choice is a bad thing!
I despise the handling/ergo of 350D and as far I think I will for the 400D too. I hope its enough to keep me off it and back to the Nikon which I have come to love (after about 23 times I have 'tested' it in different camera shops :-)). Cant wait till someone can review it properly and wait some time for its availability. The anti dust is a killer feature on the 400D.
I'm just hapless! |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 09:37:40 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Shouldn't that be the D50 v 400D, or the D80 v 30D? |
Not sure. The 400D and D80 are closer in price than D50 and 400D, and the price difference between the 400D and D80 is the same as between D80 and 30D ($550 for D50, $800 for 400D, $1000 for D80, $1200 for 30D).
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The D80 has the edge on the 30D at the moment (in most reviews) by a hair's breadth. However, the 400D, at its price point, surely sets a new standard? |
New standard? Perpahs in megapixels per dollar value only. :) |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 11:40:56 AM · #79 |
| I have a Rebel (pre-XT). From what I read, it sounds like the XTi might be worth an upgrade. I'm also thinking of a 20D. Any comments? I shoot alot of amateur sports (lacrosse/hockey). |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:02:42 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by dunner:
I have a Rebel (pre-XT). From what I read, it sounds like the XTi might be worth an upgrade. I'm also thinking of a 20D. Any comments? I shoot alot of amateur sports (lacrosse/hockey). |
The 5fps of the 20D (v 3fps for the XTi) would be a significant advantage for sports shots.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:11:33 PM · #81 |
| internal sensor cleaning is nice though, and how is that not a major upgrade? |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:30:40 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by saurabhv:
It took me 1.5 years to collect the funds for a DSLR. I refrained from buying a P&S and by this October I will have finally collected enough.
I have been closely following the development of Nikons - D70->D70s ... the tempting D50.
The Canons - 300D - > 350D and now this!!!
Sony announced their A100 a few weeks back and I had just about settled on them till... Nikon announced D80. Just 3 days back I had transferred all the money into a safe bank account (so that I dont touch it) for the D80 and now Canon decides to make things worse.
Sometimes choice is a bad thing!
I despise the handling/ergo of 350D and as far I think I will for the 400D too. I hope its enough to keep me off it and back to the Nikon which I have come to love (after about 23 times I have 'tested' it in different camera shops :-)). Cant wait till someone can review it properly and wait some time for its availability. The anti dust is a killer feature on the 400D.
I'm just hapless! |
Something to think about: Image Stabilization.
The design of IS in the lens has one great disadvantage: price and availability. Both the Nikon and the Canon rely on IS/VR in the lens. So if it's tough to scrape up for the camera, and you want image stabilization, the Sony or KM might actually have a leg up, all other things being equal (which they may not be). I haven't made that determination myself, and I already have an investment in Canon lenses, but I am still considering any camera where I can buy a good 18-200mm walkaround lens with image stabilization for a reasonable price.
I considered the Nikons when the 18-200VR came out, and I'm still considering switching or adding a Nikon because of that. But it's hard to find in stock; also putting IS/VR in the camera body is very attractive to me because ALL your lenses then have the feature, no matter if they are prime (e.g., macro) or zoom at any focal length.
If you have super-steady hands, then it may not matter as much to you, but no one can shoot 1/50 second at 300mm and few can even shoot at 1/100 without it, and while my hands aren't very steady, I can often shoot 1/100 with it on my 70-300 IS DO lens, and sometimes even better.
So I still dream of having IS built in so it's applied to any lens I buy--at any price point--automatically. That would give you the ability to use it for macros, which for some subjects, like bugs, are hard to capture with a tripod. Or with whatever happens to be my favorite lens at the time. Even if you put on the inexpensive Sigma 28-300, for example, while sacrificing quality for travel, you don't have to sacrifice IS/VR.
My own concern with Sony/KM is mainly whether or not their lenses are as good as Canons and Nikons.
But if you can't afford expensive L glass, or Nikon lenses, or they would really be stretching the budget, then the Alpha is pretty tempting. It is for me!
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:37:20 PM · #83 |
Neil, you made me think of an interesting question, and I'm not sure I know the answer.
Is it more efficient to have the IS in the lens (further away from the pivot point of movement) or in the body (closer to the pivot point)? When you think about it, whatever mechanism exists in IS (and I'm not even sure how it works), it will move further in actual distance when it is in the lens (we know this intuitively from knowing longer lenses have more problems when handheld). So is that better for the functioning of the mechanism or worse?
I'm not sure what the answer is.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:47:15 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is it more efficient to have the IS in the lens (further away from the pivot point of movement) or in the body (closer to the pivot point)? |
Optical image stabilization is more efficient than sensor-based. Some obvious advantages are that you can see in the viewfinder an image that is already stabilized, so you are shooting exactly what you are seeing. Also, optical image stabilization aids the autofocus and auto-exposure sensors (since they, too, are getting stabilized information). Optical stabilization is also better suited for panning.
This said, I would not mind to have the sensor-based stabilization as an option that can be turned on or off to suite the need. However, for me this is definitely not a selling point in a camera. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:49:29 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is it more efficient to have the IS in the lens (further away from the pivot point of movement) or in the body (closer to the pivot point)? |
My very rough understanding is that IS works well in body for smaller lenses - longer lenses require more movement compensation, which the in-lens system will take into account, but the generic in-body system may not. There have been anecdotal reports of IS working well in body for focal lengths up to 100mm or so, but not so well beyond that.
A side advantage of in-lens is that it works on all bodies (though I admit that is only an advantage for multi-body photographers) including film. It also works when composing images through the viewfinder (as I experimented with when comparing puzzled's 70-200 IS to my 70-200 non-IS) - though this is not much of an advantage!
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 12:51:25 PM · #86 |
I would have thought that Canon will introduce IS on body at some point (in order to keep up with the Jones') - but it will auto-switch off when an IS lens is mounted.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 02:27:41 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
I think thats just in Japan - in USA it should still be the Rebel I think |
They call it "KISS" only in Japan. |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 02:38:39 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by dunner:
I have a Rebel (pre-XT). From what I read, it sounds like the XTi might be worth an upgrade. I'm also thinking of a 20D. Any comments? I shoot alot of amateur sports (lacrosse/hockey). |
The 5fps of the 20D (v 3fps for the XTi) would be a significant advantage for sports shots. |
I hope the Feb announcement (if any) has a higher fps. I know the camera has a lot of work to do in a second, but still I can wish.... 10fps could cause me to serious look at a new camera. (ok so would 7 fps, but I am wishing remember)
I suppose I could just get something like the
Canon Powershot A620 7.1MP Digital Camera with 4x Optical Zoom
For the times I need/want to capture action.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 02:40:57 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would have thought that Canon will introduce IS on body at some point (in order to keep up with the Jones') - but it will auto-switch off when an IS lens is mounted. |
Why would they do that? That would kill the IS lens market.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 03:18:51 PM · #90 |
The in-lens stabilization does have the advantage of stabilizing the view finder.
But you do have to weight that against not having it on all your lenses. For example, I'd love to have the Canon 100mm Macro, or one of the Sigma's even, but I'd prefer a macro lens with stabilization.
Canon is in last place in this regard and I don't see anything helpful on the horizon. Nikon at least has a reasonbly priced, somewhat compact, 18-200 VR and now a VR macro lens.
But if the Sony or any in-camera IS/VR solution was a "equivalent" camera in other respects, think of how nice it would be to have that "extra-edge" of IS when you are not using the tripod. While I've always told myself that the Canons make up this edge a bit by allowing higher ISOs, the fact is, I took some pictures at sunset the other day of a Heron (not in flight), and pushing even to ISO 400 versus the ISO 100 I was using earlier did significantly impact the images at 100% magnification. So keeps ISO values down is a good thing too.
Other points made were good as well. With multiple bodies, lenses get an advantage over in-camera IS. Unless all your cameras have it!
Good question too Jason about the effectiveness. I have only read good things about the effectiveness of in-camera stabilization, but have never seen a true comparison of the technologies.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2006 04:20:39 PM · #91 |
| i thought on lens IS was better than sensor IS especially when you get to longer lenses. Anybody else heard that? |
|
|
|
08/25/2006 04:52:52 PM · #92 |
Not sure how accurate this news release of the new EOS400d is, but look for your self and make up your own mind.
//www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/24/canon_unveils_eos_400d_digital_slr/ |
|
|
|
08/28/2006 02:24:33 PM · #93 |
You know, I was just guessing ....
300D
350D
now it was about time to add another 50 to the model number, especially after Sonys "attack" ...
I have not even read the specs yet, but if not too expensive, it might become my first dSLR ...
|
|
|
|
08/28/2006 03:20:25 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by hopper:
The powerful and fast EF50mm f/1.2L USM lens will be available in November for an estimated selling price of $1,599**. |
Wow, it's gotta be a heckuva lot better than the $75 EF50 1.8 for that price.... |
All for just two stops! |
Actually, f1.2 is just 1 stop faster than f1.8. Based just on lens speed, that extra stop costs $1520 or so. |
|
|
|
09/26/2006 05:01:49 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by hopper:
The powerful and fast EF50mm f/1.2L USM lens will be available in November for an estimated selling price of $1,599**. |
Wow, it's gotta be a heckuva lot better than the $75 EF50 1.8 for that price.... |
All for just two stops! |
Actually, f1.2 is just 1 stop faster than f1.8. Based just on lens speed, that extra stop costs $1520 or so. |
Since the f1.2 is a L lens, you're getting more than just an extra stop. |
|
|
|
10/07/2006 09:35:06 PM · #96 |
When is DPReview going to get a full review on the 400D? I'm waiting to see what they have to say about the difference between it and the 350D. This is taking them much longer than usual to get something like that out, especially with a camera like the 400D...
|
|
|
|
10/07/2006 09:50:06 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
When is DPReview going to get a full review on the 400D? I'm waiting to see what they have to say about the difference between it and the 350D. This is taking them much longer than usual to get something like that out, especially with a camera like the 400D... |
Side-by-Side
|
|
|
|
10/08/2006 02:07:19 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
When is DPReview going to get a full review on the 400D? I'm waiting to see what they have to say about the difference between it and the 350D. This is taking them much longer than usual to get something like that out, especially with a camera like the 400D... |
Side-by-Side |
Oh I know all the numbers, I want to see test images though.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2006 09:59:23 PM · #99 |
DpReview finally has an actual review of the camera.
In a nutshell:
- good overall camera
- 10MP bump makes no difference whatsoever
- a pretty conservative upgrade which Nikon clearly saw coming and preempted with the D80's feature set
//www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/ |
|
|
|
10/16/2006 11:13:54 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Optical image stabilization is more efficient than sensor-based. Some obvious advantages are that you can see in the viewfinder an image that is already stabilized, so you are shooting exactly what you are seeing. Also, optical image stabilization aids the autofocus and auto-exposure sensors (since they, too, are getting stabilized information). Optical stabilization is also better suited for panning.
This said, I would not mind to have the sensor-based stabilization as an option that can be turned on or off to suite the need. However, for me this is definitely not a selling point in a camera. |
How 'bout you give me both in a synchronized system. Then I can jog and shoot at the same time.
:) |
|
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: 08/03/2025 08:27:08 AM EDT.
