Are we expecting a price cut on the Canon 10d?

'Going to be adding a DSLR after PMA. I have no real investment in

lenses at this time so I'm considering the new Nikon D70, the Canon

10d if the price comes down to around a grand, or, the dark horse,

the Sigma sd9/10. Has anyone heard anything on the 10d price? I'm

sure it'll get cut, it's just how much.

 

Also, is there anywhere I can download some Canon RAW files and

software to look at them on my computer and print them on my

printer? That's the impressive thing about the Sigma files, the

downloads look sharper on my moniter and print better than any

Tiff/Jpeg from other makes. But I need to compare RAW files to get

the real story.

 

thanks,

Please anyone correct me if I am wrong. I believe RAW image quality is no better than the best quality JPEG. A RAW file is just benificial in the editing process as it allows more manipulation and adjustment to all aspects of the file like white balance, +/- exposure, highlight and shadow detail, and much, much more. JPEG image quality will degrade after repeated opening, adjustment, and saving. <P>As far as opening raw files. I only know of a couple of different types of software. Photoshop CS or photoshop with a RAW plugin. Canon sends you software to read and edit raw images with the camera. I would be happy to send you raw images via email if you had a program to open them.

You are wrong. JPEG files have only 8 bits per colro channel. RAW mode with CAnon

is 12 bits per channel: color is smoother. You are also not forced into the narrow

gamut sRGB color space which clips blues and greens.

 

And I would not be too sure about a price cut on the Canon 10D before summer.

Ellis,

 

Have you ever taken a look at the Sigma RAW files and compared them to Canon RAW files your've shot? Like I said, the Sigma RAW stuff I've downloaded and converted to TIFF/JPEG just looks so much sharper than the Canon JPEG's I've downloaded. Do you have any experience with the Sigma?

 

thanks,

Thanks for the correction Ellis. My appologies for incorrect information. AJM

When the 10D was released Canon had planned to inch the price down after the initial buying rush subsided. Problem is...it never subsided. :-) I wouldn't expect a 10D price cut now without a corresponding 300D cut. The D70 may push down the 300D's price, but I agree with Ellis that we're not likely to see this before summer.

 

The Sigma SLRs have impressive resolution for their pixel count. I suspect a larger 8 megapixel version of the Foveon sensor would give the Canon 1Ds a run for its money. I don't like the idea of being locked into the Sigma mount, though.

 

The Nikon D70 looks very nice judging by the preview report I read at dpreview. The 10D's main advantages are a sturdier build and mirror lockup. I would pick the lens lineup you're most impressed with and let that dictate your camera choice.

 

-Dave-

Dave, good advice. I'm not a lens hog, so just about any make will cover what I need.

I totally agree with Dave here, decide basedon the lenses that each manufacturer has in its line up.

 

As for what looks good on screen be it jpeg, raw or whatever -its one thing seeing it onscreen but its a totally different story when you go to output that file onto paper or pdf... What looks best on paper is the one to go with imho.

The Sigma being sharper is due to a more aggressive in camera sharpening (if I remember correctly). Canon leaves those decisions up to the photographer during post processing (or you can change it in the 10D for in camera). It'll be just as, in not sharper but totally in your control if you do it in PS.

<i>I don't like the idea of being locked into the Sigma mount, though. - David</i>

<p><p>

I've always wondered why Sigma didn't just manufacture their DSLR's in the Nikon and/or Canon mount. I think it would have given the beginner to mid-level Nion and Canon DSLRs a run for their money.

<p>

The process of converting a RAW file to JPEG is inherently softening. That is why unsharp mask is generally recommended. I do thi so often that I purchased Nik Sharpener Pro to save me time, it ia an Adobe plug in that does the guess work for you.

 

Oddly, a softening effect is generally desirable when doing portraiture work unless the model has perfect skin and features.

 

You can tweak the sharpening setting with on camera controls but I generally prefer to have more control in Photoshop.

"Have you ever taken a look at the Sigma RAW files and compared them to Canon RAW files your've shot?"

 

Jeff, you have never 'taken a look at the Sigma RAW files', nobody has, because they need to be converted to TIFF, JPEG, or whatever, before you can see any image at all. During this image conversion many things can be added, like sharpening, and they can be specifically 'manipulated' for Web use or print use at this stage. You are simply trying to compare chalk with cheese. Unless you have a full history of the parameters applied during RAW conversion you aren't going to be able to compare quality, one against another, from any download sites or supplied files.

 

Just read some reviews, try if you can some RAW-to-prints experiments in a camera shop from each camera, and trust to consumer confidence in the camera 'system'. One thing I think you will find is that Sigma 'hype' their DSLR's resolution in much the same way Fuji claim 12mp's from a 6mp chip. Neither deliver the quality they claim. So again, comparisons are not an easy thing in digital photography.

> JPEG files have only 8 bits per color channel.<br>

> RAW mode with CAnon is 12 bits per channel

<p>

True re JPEGs, and true re RAW mode with the Canon 10D. But surprisingly, the cheaper Digital Rebel's RAW files are 14 bits per channel. (Or maybe not so surprisingly, since the drebel is newer. Expect 14 bit from the 10D's successor.)

>> The Sigma being sharper is due to a more aggressive in camera sharpening (if I remember correctly).<<

 

This is not the case. The Sigmas shoot in RAW format only, with the USM amount entirely up to the user. The Foveon sensor has higher resolution for a given pixel count than other sensors due to the lack of Bayer matrix color filtering on the sensor and thus lack of need to interpolate color during RAW conversion. The interpolation process degrades spatial resolution somewhat.

 

-Dave-

>> But surprisingly, the cheaper Digital Rebel's RAW files are 14 bits per channel. (Or maybe not so surprisingly, since the drebel is newer. Expect 14 bit from the 10D's successor.) <<

 

I'm pretty sure the 300D's sensor captures 12-bit data just like the 10D's sensor. But I expect 14-bit A/D conversion will become commonplace before long.

 

-Dave-

Ii looks like I was wrong. The Digital Rebel, like the 10D, captures just 12 bits per channel, <i>not</i> 14. When a local dealer claimed the drebel's raw files were 14 bit I was sure he was wrong, so I went to Canon's site to prove it. My recollection is that I found some specs there that confirmed the 14 bit claim, which is why I posted that "information" last night. After David K. disagreed with me I again searched both canonusa.com and canoneos.com, and could find nothing one way or the other about bit depth for the 300D. But looking further I found three confirmations of the 12 bit figure:

<p>

B&H specs for the drebel say "Color Depth - 24-Bit GB (PEG files) and 36-Bit GB (RAW files)"

<p>

On his site Norman Koren says "Bit depth is 12 for the Canon ES 10D and 300D"

<p>

Roger Caving says "like the 10D, 1D's, 300D and many of the P&S diagrams capture 12-bits of data for each pixel."

<p>

And finally, on his "Canon Digital Rebel / ES 300D Kit Review" on photo.net, Kevin Borden says "its [the Digital Rebel's] competitors are prosumer cameras like the Sony F828 and the Minolta Damage A1. Both of these cameras have fast 28-200mm equivalent zoom lenses as well as 14-bit A/D conversion for only a little bit more than a Digital Rebel." (Clearly implying the drebel is <i>not</i> 14 bit.)

<p>

So it's pretty clear that I goofed. My apologies. Actually in a way I'm sort of glad I was wrong, since unless Canon announces a 10D replacement this week I plan to buy a 10D right after PMA, and the idea that "10D lite" (aka 300d) owners would have greater color depth than I bothered me just me a bit (no pun intended, of course).