Me too . I guess I'll stick with my Canon 10D, as that's more than enough for me right now . Once I've upgraded from consumer grade lenses of course .
Quote:
But assuming the best about each, they look to be tops in their respective segments.
1Ds MkII is more of a medium format replacement, and priced like (although a bargoon at 8000USD in MF terms, it's still expensive.)
An interesting price pyramid between these two...
Canon 1Ds MkII $8000
Nikon D2X *$4500, *Rumor on the street
Canon 1D MkII $4200-4500
Nikon D2H $3000
Canon D20 $1600
Nikon D70 $1000
Canon 300D $800
For all the talk about Nikon V Canon, there isn't a whole lot in either line-up that stacks up directly against the other guy -- not in terms of features and not in terms of price.
The closest was the soon to be defunct D100 vs 10D match-up, and both of those are available at nice discounts if you look around.
Interesting analysis. I don't know all the features of each camera (I suppose I could make up a chart from t he info on dpreview, but I can't be bothered ), but you're right, in terms of price there's not a lot of direct matching going on. Never thought of it like that before . Of course, all the die hard supporters of each camp like to compare the top of the range aginst the competitors top of the range, and so on down the line, even if they are in different markets.
Quote:
If the D2X and EOS 1D MkII hit the street at about the same price, that will be an interesting match-up. Judging by the spec sheet, one will have more res and better color reproduction (Nikon), the other will have more speed (@ 8MP) and less high ISO noise (Canon).
8fps vs 5fps
ISO 1600 vs ISO 800 (though both will do more, how well either can do it will be debated)
8MP vs 12MP
Personally, I'd go for the Canon, but that's probably based purely on the fact I own one already . If I was new to the market, I don't know if the choice would be as easy.
Quote:
I wonder if a D200 or D90 is coming to replace the D100, and where it lands price-wise? Will it be a direct 20D competitor, or something a tad different?
Based on what you raised earlier about lack of direct comparison, I'd say it'll be a bit different. After all, they want their product to stand out from the competitors .
I got the 20D with EF-S 18 -55 lens kit last week and REAL like it. Going from the 10D to the 20D is a good step up. Quality is the same, at least to my eyes. Yes it is a lot lighter, but it is still solid and sturdy. I was using a 28-135mm lens on my 10D as my walk around lens. Another nice surprise was the Canon Digital Photo Pro 1.1 software. It is faster than the EOS Viewer Utility and just a better app. Start up time to taking pictures is almost immediate. I have to learn to be steadier when taking continuous shots, they blur from my movement. One thing that I did find strange was viewing the large jpeg images in photoshop:
Now imagine if you could take a full 2 f-stops off of every shot, with any compatible lens you own. If that interests you, then consider the $1500 Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D. I've got Minolta lenses so it's a no-brainer for me. Just need tro collect the cash first.
I assume you're referring to the in-camera vibration-reduction motor? I'll want to see more image samples first, but all these non-Canon entry level D-SLRs are based on the same Sony CCD Nikon first used in the D100 ~2 years ago. If you look at photos shot by the Pentax *ist-D, D100, Maxxum 7D and even the Epson RD1 rangefinder camera, the image quality is eerily similar. It all boils down to you which camera feels best in your hand if you have no legacy equipment.
The vibration reduction is very good on the 20D. My blurs came when I was shooting my son during a soccer game and he ran close by. When the camera was stationary and continuous pictures were taken, the quality was good. Right now I have 3 Canon lenses and one of them is the EF-S. I would have to have my socks knocked off by a different brand to even think of getting something else.
Our photographer has a Canon 10D and a Lightphase H20.
Even though the 10D has same or more megapixels the Lightphase produce far superior images.
Can anyone explain why? Are mega pixels like Mhz myth?
Dobby.
Dobby,
A quick check of the data sheet for the H20 reveals that it is in fact a 16MP sensor, so that could be the main reason . It could also be due to other factors such as:
Dynamic range: the H20 has approximately 2 more stops of dynamic range, which means that it has more levels in which to record data.
Sensor size: This is not just the number of pixels, but the physical dimensions of the sensor. The H20 sensor is much larger than a 10D's sensor (37x37mm vs 15x23mm). This will determine the pixel density, which can affect things like noise, as a larger sensor with a given number of pixels will tend to have less than a smaller one with the same number of pixels. For example, if you compare the same image taken on a 10D with one taken on a 6MP P&S, the 10D will have less noise.
There's probably many more reasons, but I think these could be the main ones .
And yes, there is often a mega pixel myth, just like mega hertz .
The 20D has none. The image-stabilization is built into select lenses like the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, which is a fantastic all-purpose lens.
IMO, Canon still does not have a decent inexpensive wide-zoom though they are getting closer with the 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6.
I don't know if you can call it inexpensive but the canon EFS 10-22 lens is a very wide lens. It has ashperic elements and an UD glass, like many L lenses. Some people will said that it's not the sharpest lens of the world, but I will reply that I don't know a zoom better optically in the same focal range.
I don't know if you can call it inexpensive but the canon EFS 10-22 lens is a very wide lens. It has ashperic elements and an UD glass, like many L lenses. Some people will said that it's not the sharpest lens of the world, but I will reply that I don't know a zoom better optically in the same focal range.
Well, that's what I consider exclusively ultra-wide, and it's still $800. That kind of money should buy you a constant aperture as well.
Well, that's what I consider exclusively ultra-wide, and it's still $800. That kind of money should buy you a constant aperture as well.
The only constant aperture 2,8 lens ultrawide zoom is the 16-35 2,8 L lens : quite expansive : the 17-40 4 L is a better bargain. Unfortunately on a 1,6 cropped camera, it's not that wide.
I have a sigma 15-30 EX (24-48 mm equivalent) and I do not notice much difference with my 24-70 2,8 L, if I use it at F8 and F11. It's a very different story wide open ...
This said I doubt that we will see high quality ultrawide zoom at a decent price. Naturally ultrawide optic have problems dealing, with chromatic abberation, geometrical distorsion and sharpness in the corners. No ultrawide zoom, will ever (let's say for the next three decades) be as good optically than a 70-200 zoom.
Comments
Originally posted by Matsu
Quite a cat fight, isn't it?
Yes, but competition is good
Quote:
They both cost more than I can pay.
Me too
Quote:
But assuming the best about each, they look to be tops in their respective segments.
1Ds MkII is more of a medium format replacement, and priced like (although a bargoon at 8000USD in MF terms, it's still expensive.)
An interesting price pyramid between these two...
Canon 1Ds MkII $8000
Nikon D2X *$4500, *Rumor on the street
Canon 1D MkII $4200-4500
Nikon D2H $3000
Canon D20 $1600
Nikon D70 $1000
Canon 300D $800
For all the talk about Nikon V Canon, there isn't a whole lot in either line-up that stacks up directly against the other guy -- not in terms of features and not in terms of price.
The closest was the soon to be defunct D100 vs 10D match-up, and both of those are available at nice discounts if you look around.
Interesting analysis. I don't know all the features of each camera (I suppose I could make up a chart from t he info on dpreview, but I can't be bothered
Quote:
If the D2X and EOS 1D MkII hit the street at about the same price, that will be an interesting match-up. Judging by the spec sheet, one will have more res and better color reproduction (Nikon), the other will have more speed (@ 8MP) and less high ISO noise (Canon).
8fps vs 5fps
ISO 1600 vs ISO 800 (though both will do more, how well either can do it will be debated)
8MP vs 12MP
Personally, I'd go for the Canon, but that's probably based purely on the fact I own one already
Quote:
I wonder if a D200 or D90 is coming to replace the D100, and where it lands price-wise? Will it be a direct 20D competitor, or something a tad different?
Based on what you raised earlier about lack of direct comparison, I'd say it'll be a bit different. After all, they want their product to stand out from the competitors
Dave.
10D : 17.067 x 11.378 @ 180 pixels/inch 18M
20D : 48.667 x 32.444 @ 72 pixels/inch 23.4M
Now all I need is another firewire HD.
reg
Originally posted by tonton
Now imagine if you could take a full 2 f-stops off of every shot, with any compatible lens you own. If that interests you, then consider the $1500 Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D. I've got Minolta lenses so it's a no-brainer for me. Just need tro collect the cash first.
I assume you're referring to the in-camera vibration-reduction motor? I'll want to see more image samples first, but all these non-Canon entry level D-SLRs are based on the same Sony CCD Nikon first used in the D100 ~2 years ago. If you look at photos shot by the Pentax *ist-D, D100, Maxxum 7D and even the Epson RD1 rangefinder camera, the image quality is eerily similar. It all boils down to you which camera feels best in your hand if you have no legacy equipment.
reg
Even though the 10D has same or more megapixels the Lightphase produce far superior images.
Can anyone explain why? Are mega pixels like Mhz myth?
Dobby.
Originally posted by dobby
Our photographer has a Canon 10D and a Lightphase H20.
Even though the 10D has same or more megapixels the Lightphase produce far superior images.
Can anyone explain why? Are mega pixels like Mhz myth?
Dobby.
Dobby,
A quick check of the data sheet for the H20 reveals that it is in fact a 16MP sensor, so that could be the main reason
Dynamic range: the H20 has approximately 2 more stops of dynamic range, which means that it has more levels in which to record data.
Sensor size: This is not just the number of pixels, but the physical dimensions of the sensor. The H20 sensor is much larger than a 10D's sensor (37x37mm vs 15x23mm). This will determine the pixel density, which can affect things like noise, as a larger sensor with a given number of pixels will tend to have less than a smaller one with the same number of pixels. For example, if you compare the same image taken on a 10D with one taken on a 6MP P&S, the 10D will have less noise.
There's probably many more reasons, but I think these could be the main ones
And yes, there is often a mega pixel myth, just like mega hertz
Dave.
Originally posted by reg
The vibration reduction is very good on the 20D.
The 20D has none. The image-stabilization is built into select lenses like the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, which is a fantastic all-purpose lens.
IMO, Canon still does not have a decent inexpensive wide-zoom though they are getting closer with the 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6.
Originally posted by Eugene
The 20D has none. The image-stabilization is built into select lenses like the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, which is a fantastic all-purpose lens.
IMO, Canon still does not have a decent inexpensive wide-zoom though they are getting closer with the 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6.
I don't know if you can call it inexpensive but the canon EFS 10-22 lens is a very wide lens. It has ashperic elements and an UD glass, like many L lenses. Some people will said that it's not the sharpest lens of the world, but I will reply that I don't know a zoom better optically in the same focal range.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I don't know if you can call it inexpensive but the canon EFS 10-22 lens is a very wide lens. It has ashperic elements and an UD glass, like many L lenses. Some people will said that it's not the sharpest lens of the world, but I will reply that I don't know a zoom better optically in the same focal range.
Well, that's what I consider exclusively ultra-wide, and it's still $800. That kind of money should buy you a constant aperture as well.
Originally posted by Eugene
Well, that's what I consider exclusively ultra-wide, and it's still $800. That kind of money should buy you a constant aperture as well.
The only constant aperture 2,8 lens ultrawide zoom is the 16-35 2,8 L lens : quite expansive : the 17-40 4 L is a better bargain. Unfortunately on a 1,6 cropped camera, it's not that wide.
I have a sigma 15-30 EX (24-48 mm equivalent) and I do not notice much difference with my 24-70 2,8 L, if I use it at F8 and F11. It's a very different story wide open ...
This said I doubt that we will see high quality ultrawide zoom at a decent price. Naturally ultrawide optic have problems dealing, with chromatic abberation, geometrical distorsion and sharpness in the corners. No ultrawide zoom, will ever (let's say for the next three decades) be as good optically than a 70-200 zoom.