beauh44 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 My .02 cent's worth: I bought a 20D almost a year ago. I then bit the bullet for a 1DsII. My 20D sits largely un-used now, even when shooting with the "virtual teleconverter" advantage of the 1.6x crop-factor and a 500mm lens. I'll almost always put up with lugging the extra weight of the 1DsII as well. Why? The viewfinders can't be compared, I got my wide angle lenses back and I can crop away almost 2/3rds of the 1DsII image and still have around 6 megapixels to play with. If I don't need to crop I've got plenty of pixels for a big print if needed. The two negatives (for me) of the 1DsII are cost of course and the need to buy extra storage - and lots of it. But the prices are always coming down. Example: I recently purchased a 300 gigabyte external Seagate hard disk, new at Best Buy for $250 - less than a buck a gigabyte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwand Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 <i>"The best thing about the less-than-full frame bodies like the D1mk2 is that all my telephoto lenses just got 30% longer, for free, and without any additional weight. All those little feathered creatures just got a lot closer."</i><p><p> No they didn't. You didn't get anything that you couldn't get from a full frame sensor with the same pixel density and cropping in post processing. You got cropping for free, and a reduced camera cost. You don't get free magnification from a cropped sensor. To see this for yourself, pick up a FF camera and compare the viewfinder image with a cropped DSLR using the same lens. At the same time, you can also see why many people want a full frame DSLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_c. Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 I don't care what the others say.<br> I ain't gettin no crop factored cameras. Not one, not me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg M Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Do I want a full frame digital SLR- hell yes. It's the next best thing to medium format digital, which I will never be able to afford. Everyone else for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwand Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 <i>"What I'd much rather have is a 36x36mm sensor. This would allow for both horizontal and vertical framing, in a number of different aspect ratios, with the viewfinder reconfiguring itself accordingly."</i><p><p> While I don't disagree that this idea and square formats have merit, I'd like to point out that most final images, especially prints, are in rectangular format. Generally, monitors are rectangular, web pages are rectangular, paper is rectangular, magazines are rectangular, posters are rectangular, and so on. At that time, you're cropping and throwing away some pixels. So why pay for those pixels in your equipment and data processing -- just flip the thing, and optimize a bit for the end product. Cropped sensors are used to reduce cost, and this cost is high, and the elbow swivel can help out here.<p><p> This might also help explain why 645 digitial tends to be more common than 6x6 digital.<p><p> But if you happen to really like sqare format, and publish your own work in that format, then of course, you'd want a square sensor to start instead of throwing away the rectangular excess pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayhai Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 I don't need it. I thought i would have to upgrade, but my 20d is more than sufficient for my needs. I dont want those large file sizes. Sure, when FF dslrs are around 1500 and its features far and away surpass those on the 20d I wouldnt mind upgrading. Until then I am working with ef-s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_c. Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 So, you want it.<br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 I prefer the large viewfinder and like my wide angle lens to remain wide angle. If 1.6x crop sensors die out I will not shed a single tear. Memory cards are cheap and plentiful, computers are fast and HD storage is inexpensive and huge. Anyway, 5D RAW file are nothing compared to 4000dpi 16 bit scans. After years of scanning 5D files are very petite! Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormegil Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Just wanted to make a point on the future "sub $1000" FF dSLR. Doubt it. FF dSLRs are taking the MF niche. MF cameras dont' sell for under $1000. Hell, a basid full manual Hasselblad body, with no lens, no AF, no motor drive, no prism finder still costs over $2000! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_shawn Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 I own a 1ds MKII since yesterday and ? yes, i wanted it so badly, now I have it and I am happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medina photography cherry Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 That would be a YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 yes we do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_guhan_gunaratnam2 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 yes here too, for me viewfinder is the most importnat right now, followed closely by the larger files and res. And I dont only want FF, when they are all at FF, I can't wait for them to reach the pixel density present in something like the D2X. I'm using the word want here...not need. I like my 350D very much. [sorry, that was a little self help exercise I'm trying] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Oh, we definitely "want it". But only when they give it to us for a nice price, and not cut down on any of the features. 3.3k for a 5D is still overpriced, especially when the thing has a sub-par fps count and a slightly modified AF. The main question here is not the viewfinder, as Nikon and Minolta have clearly demonstrated, APS-sized cameras can come with wonderful viewfinders. The question is how good a lens do you need to team with your FF camera... especially at the wide-side. Ironically, the Nikkors are much in that respect (their 17~35 for example), although they don't even use it digitally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ymages Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 next camera after my 20D will be a FF .. I shall wait .. I dont like the 5D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_c. Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Jose, I bet my life that FF DSLR will be under $1,000.00 eventurally.<br> I gurantee you, I will buy a FF DSLR when they go for $1,500.00 or less.<br> I hope you'll stick around in this forum, so we can have a chuckle.<br> :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_thomas1 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Going by the numbers, if the 20D is twice the camera that the 10D is, then the 10D is twice the camera that the 5D is... No? Oh well, I do love my 10D anyway, regardless of the fact that I cant shoot straight with it :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 YES we do want FF Canon DSLRs.<p> YES all squares are rectangles.<p> YES a FF Canon DSLR will be available for 2000 dollars by summer 2007.<p> More importantly, YES because of the tiny APS-sized viewfinders and lack of proper wide angle lenses for APS DSLRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_kieltyka Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Mad Wand wrote: "While I don't disagree that this idea and square formats have merit, I'd like to point out that most final images, especially prints, are in rectangular format. Generally, monitors are rectangular, web pages are rectangular, paper is rectangular, magazines are rectangular, posters are rectangular, and so on. At that time, you're cropping and throwing away some pixels. So why pay for those pixels in your equipment and data processing -- just flip the thing, and optimize a bit for the end product. Cropped sensors are used to reduce cost, and this cost is high, and the elbow swivel can help out here." Of course the idea has merit. A 36x36mm format (let's call it "Super 35") would be technically superior to the 35mm format while still being able to use all lenses designed for 35mm. It would be a higher-cost format, at least in the short term, for people who want/need more flexible framing. The 35mm format is rigid. You may love the 3:2 aspect ratio but what if I love 4:3? Or 6:7? Isn't it better to have a reconfigurable finder that shows me 4:3 or 6:7 framing if I want it? Isn't it better to have a finder that can switch between horizontal & vertical frames? I can, of course, always crop my 3:2 images after-the-fact. And I can flip the camera on its side for verticals. But why should I have to? Technology is advancing...let's make use of it. So you throw away some pixels with a 36x36mm sensor. So what? In return you get a far more flexible system. If you like shooting square with a 35mm camera you're left with a 24x24mm image after cropping. With the Super 35 format you'd get a 30x30mm image, a 56 percent increase in image area. Using the same lenses. If you like 4:3 photos you can crop the 35mm format to 24x32mm frames. Or you could use Super 35 and get 27x36mm frames instead. (You might have to go back down to 24x32mm or so with wider lenses due to corner light falloff. But let the camera worry about this too.) What's driving the push towards "full frame?" IMO it's mainly the inability or unwillingness of 35mm adherents to imagine something better. If we ask for nothing more the camera companies will take the path of least resistance and give us nothing more. -Dave- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Re: the sub-$1000 FF dSLR: Don't doubt it. I think your reference to the MF niche is flawed. I believe we'll see the FF dSLR extend its market reach downward as well as upward. A year ago, many in this forum were dissing the notion of a sub-$4K FF dSLR, and now we have the 5D. Heck, a week before it was officially announced, many were proclaiming the leaks were an elaborate hoax! And since Derek C.'s willing to bet his life that FF DSLRs will sell for under $1,000.00 eventually, I'm willing to do the same. (Bet HIS life, that is...) Re: the success of the 1Ds series: Mark Chappell already countered the challenge to the successfulness of Canon's top-of-the-line dSLRs. My point is that Canon has been able to maintain a new selling price between $7k-8k for these bodies, and still sell all they care to make. That's a definition for success in my book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 >>Has the 1Ds series really been a sales success?<< Absolutely! Have you seen data to suggest otherwise? At the price point of the camera ($8,000 USD) it has in fact surpassed even Canon's own expectations, hence the forthcoming 5D. You are NOT *seriously* comparing sales of items that are nearly $7,000 apart, are you? Success is relative to the market for which a product is intended. A Ferrari is NOT meant to compete with a Ford minivan therefore, the PRICE point is different and so are the units per month/year. But, as long as it meets projected sales for its *intended* market a product WILL be a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 20D and D70 are easy to detect, vs good film scanned desktop, at 11X14. Therefore there's demand for full frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 <I>20D and D70 are easy to detect, vs good film scanned desktop, at 11X14</i><P> Have you made this test yourself? I have, and I strongly disagree. At larger print sizes, you can begin to notice a difference, but in a blind comparison (where the viewer is unaware of which print is from scanned film and which is digital), any differences are extremely minor. And unless it's an extremely good scanner, the prints from a 20D or D70 may well be better. They will certainly have a better dynamic range, if the film in question was a slide film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_h3 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 Is that the "royal we"? We say YES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernando lopez Posted September 17, 2005 Author Share Posted September 17, 2005 "Sounds like somebody is trying their damndest to rationalize NOT buying a 5D. Did the wife say no, Leon?" I am not saying she did, but neither that she did not.....;-). Sometimes you have to read between the lines with women... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now