raymond_black Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Now 400D has more pixels and functionality. Is it irrational for a customer to buy 30D now ? Sure 30D has a better grip and build quality but it is just hard to justify over 2M more pixels and functionality on dust. Anyone has a different view ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neild Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 If the price drops on the 30D then there will be people who will buy one (I would like one myself if it becomes cheaper...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean_marc_liotier Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 The issue is of course not binary and price is the major factor : the main significance of new products annoucements for bottom feeders such as me is that the previous generation becomes affordable. I'm looking forward to upgrading my 300D to a cheap 20D or a 30D... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 "Now 400D has more pixels and functionality." It's actually only 1.8MP more that's not enough to make hardly any diff in print quality. The dust feature might be good for dry particles but I haven't had many dust problems during 4 years of DSLR use. And the 30D still has more features useful for photographic functionality: larger and brighter viewfinder, faster frame rate and larger buffer, QCD for ease of manual control and EC/FEC, more CFs, ISO 3200, longer rated shutter, faster flash sync, top desk LCD, etc. Personally I'f rather have the 30D than a plastic Rebel/Kiss for the nicer hand feel and operating ease. Of course I'm sure an EOS 35D with more MP (12.8?), brighter LCD/TFT and other tweaks is just around the bend. That will be the 30D's true successor. Not too many 20D/30D owners will ditch their bodies for a mere additional 1.8MP warped in a plastic shell 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...
._._z Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 It has slightly more pixels, but less functionality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 All that being said. . . .I would think that a 30D would not be the wisest choice today. If you have no investment in the Canon system. . .then the 30D is clearly not a good choice. If you are upgrading. . it makes sense to wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 If I could do it all over again and know what I know now. when the 30d price drops to 1000$ next year, I"d choose it over the 400d, even when the 400d cost only 600$, the hand grip is too small for me. And I'm not seduced by the features of the 400d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 <<Not too many 20D/30D owners will ditch their bodies for a mere additional 1.8MP warped in a plastic shell>> Given that you've clearly held the 400D already, can you point out the exact differences in feel between the 30D and it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mawz Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 400D does not have more finctionality. It's got slightly more pixels, but greatly reduced functionality (No quick-shift dial, no ISO 3200, crappy viewfinder and build, slower framerate, no PC Sync, no settings LCD, no spotmetering, less physical controls). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfimages Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I guess I must be getting close to being a dinosaur - I'm still perfectly happy with my 20D. If I bought a 400D it would be strictly as a backup to my 20D. However, I think I'll just wait until the day that FF goes under $2000 before I next buy a DSLR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byronlawrence Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I would easily give up 1.8 mp and the money to get a 20d,, or a 30d over a rebel any day.. and not because of all the plastic (although I am a fan of the metal body) but becuase of the controls and the QCD. the only thing that makes me sad is POSSIBLY, the dust cleaning thing.. BUT I am not sure how sad I would be since I don't really have a big dust problem in the first place AND I don't know how well the new dust cleany thing is. I don't think the mp advantage is worth much,, how is the noise affected? (I haven't heard anything about this is why I ask) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdanmitchell Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 <p>Obviously, we all need to actually hold one of these things and see some reviews of actual photographs to find out whether or not Canon has succeeded in increasing the MP count without a negative effect on noise or dynamic range. <p>Assuming that they have succeeded, I think that an objective comparison of the 400D to the 30D should be pretty favorable to the 400D. <p>Based on <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2006/05/26#a515">my 18 month experience with a 350D</a> I think I draw <i>some</i> conclusions about the 400D. I'm absolutely convinced that most of the comments about its supposed "poor build quality" are vastly overstated - mine has performed without a hitch, often in fairly challenging situations (backpacking, skiing, etc.). The issue of body size is very subjective. I actually <i>prefer</i> the smaller body of the 350D - and it works just fine with my lenses. (Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L, EF 70-200mm f/4 L, EF 24-105mm f/4 IS L, EF 50mm f/1.4) The <i>only</i> time I think about the difference between the body size of the 350D and the 20/30D is when I read in the forums that it is supposed to be a problem... ;-) <p>As to the comparison to the current 30D... I think they now have the same AF system. The new camera has a dust reduction system not found in the 30D. It also has a new, larger display.The buffer of the 400D has been increased. All else being equal, who wouldn't want 23% more MP? No difference in optical quality since they can use the same lenses and both use 1.6 crop sensors. In my experience, although the interface is different, one adapts and either can be operated quite quickly. Oh, and you would probably have enough cash left over if you bought the 400D rather than the 30 D to buy a nice prime lens, or to cover most of the difference between the non-IS and IS versions of a lens like the 70-200mm. That <i>will</i> make a difference to your photographs. <p>All of that said, I don't think that most people would want to switch or upgrade cameras for these differences. For example, the actual effect of going from 8.2 MP to 10.1 is really quite small - unlikely to be noticed in most cases. <p>Of course, all of this begs the question of "what's next, Canon?" A replacement/upgrade to the 30D? A reduction in price of the 5D? A new, less expensive full-frame body? (I posted my <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2006/08/23#a788">wildly speculative, completely unsupported speculation</a> elsewhere. <p>Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_howard1 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Yes completely irrational. now where did I put the AE-1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_milso Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 The thing is, Canon wants to hold onto the "prosumer" crop market or else they would have never came out with a thousand dollar EF-S mount lens a few months ago. Therefore I believe the upgrade to the 30D will also be a 1.6 crop camera. Right now canon has all three market covered (Amateur 350D/400D, Semi pro 20/30D and Pro 1-series) why would they loose a market sector? The 5D hits somewhere in the middle as a higher end semi-pro or prosumer. They need to sell the high dollar EF_S lenses to someone and it isn't the full frame crowd and it isn't the Rebel crowd. I know some Rebel owners buy the more expensive ef-s mounts, but most of them don't there is a higher percentage of those sales going to the 20D/30D crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovcom_photo Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Glenn, you are correct...if one loves Noise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Who let Glenn back into the EOS forum? :) Keep in mind those extra 1.8 will only get you 12.5% increase in linear resolution. That's hardly enough to measure, and not enough to see in print. The 400D is a great update of the Rebel class camera, but it would have to be considered a downgrade from a 20D. Come Febuary, we'll no doubt see a 35D/40D that has the new features & sensor. So I agree it would not be a great time to get a 30D if you can wait, but if not, it's still a very good camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_kirkwood Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I do not own any digital camera at present. I am a long-time Nikon guy with a goodly number of lenses, all but a few of them manual focus, and therefore I would get little to nothing for them if I needed to raise cash for a digital body. With that in mind, if I were going out today to get a digital body I'd get a Canon 5D plus a half a dozen Nikon adapters. I have no desire to have my lenses cropped 1.5 times. I almost bit on a used Kodak DCS Pro/N but stopped short when I learned the meter won't operate with manual lenses. Working the aperture manually on a 5D would be a chore and a bore but preferable to me to the cropping of the D200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbyrne Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Dan. The Images are not 23% larger, thats not how it works with mp's. The images size of the XTI is 3888x2592 and the 30D is 3504x2336. The difference between the sizes of the two is minuscule. I'm not a math whiz but that looks like less than a 10% difference in size to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eos 10 fan Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 The earliest the 30D will be replaced is Spring/07 at PMA. I got my 30D a few months ago so I will have had at least 9 months use before its replacement turns up. The price of a new 30D will continue to drop though ($1450 at intro, now $1200). Even if the 400D had been available when I picked up the 30D I still would have choosen the 30D as it had the features I wanted - I do not see the 400D having more 'shooting' functionality than the 30D. -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 "Given that you've clearly held the 400D already, can you point out the exact differences in feel between the 30D and it?" The Rebel XTi appears to have the same form, size and outer materials as the Rebel XT, so you don't have to hold a 400D to know approx what it feels like. Just grab a XT and you'll know if it's for you or not. 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...
jon_austin Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Craig Ferguson "I guess I must be getting close to being a dinosaur - I'm still perfectly happy with my 20D. ... I think I'll just wait until the day that FF goes under $2000 before I next buy a DSLR." Craig: My sentiments, exactly! I'd love to have a sub $2K 5D successor with all the current features, plus 3/5 fps selectable, a brighter LCD and built-in flash. And I'll probably keep the 20D for back-up and telephoto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanglee Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 "Will 30D be dead soon ?" As soon as the 400D hits the shelves, all the 30D will stop working immediately =). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 If you already have the 350d,20d or 30d, it would be a waist of money to replace them with the 400d, and sell your current one. Its better to buy a new lens that is not redundant to what you have. I dont care about the new cameras, cause every year, there are always new models coming out, and why Should I replace my 350d? It work perfectly, like new. With what I have now, why would I hurry to buy a new one? it's better for me to wait for a less expensive fullframe body, If I were to upgrade. A 12mp above FF camera is what I consider a real upgrade to my 8mp, not a mere 10mp, I have a 10mp r1, the difference is not very big, but noticable none the less, but at prints 8x12 and below, there is absulutely no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 >>I guess I must be getting close to being a dinosaur - I'm still perfectly happy with my 20D<< I have friends making a living with 'old' EOS D60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Shucks, ah sees lots of old Pentax Spotmatics, Canon AE-1, X370, FM, FG, etc., in Waikiki. Some folks actually treasure and use their old cameras for decades. 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...
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