30D vs D200? Canon lose...I think

[stephen sullivan]

Justin, I agree with Eric.

 

As for you, buy the best camera that you can afford. If you can afford the 30D, then buy it. If you can only afford the 20D, then buy that, it's a great camera.

 

If you are hoping that the 30D will magically appear with rebates that will make it on pair (price wise) of that of the 20D, I hope you have a lot of patience. About 10 months worth. Who knows what Canon will release around Christmas.

 

We all hope for a lot. IMO I was hoping for more with todays announcement. In the meantime, I still have two great camera bodies by canon EOS 1 & EOS 20D.

[pbizarro]

I have been using the EOS system since 1991. I see myself as a photographer (or aspiring to be, someday...), rather than a "Canon fan".

 

Being a Canon fan will not improve my photography.

[gan_esh]

It wouldn't be fair to compare the 30d to the D200.

 

The D200 is Nikon's answer to Canon's 5D in Aps-C form.

[digitmstr]

>>The D200 is Nikon's answer to Canon's 5D in Aps-C form.<<

 

ROTFLMAO!

[andrew_carlson]

Eric, I think you're right the 30D isn't an upgrade product. I've owned my 20D for 18months I guess and haven't once considered upgrading. The 5D while it piqued my interest isn't fast enough where it counts.

 

Most likely this is canon's answer to the gadget types that constantly want the latest and greatest techno-gizmo to add to their collection. Look at all the posts for the last two months and how many new questions regarding the latest technology. A lot of prosumers want to upgrade because it gives them something to do and something to complain about when they aren't happy. Then there are the pros that are still using five or ten year old bodies and just as happy today as they were the day they got that body.

 

A lot of cliche's run through my mind like "A fool and his money are soon parted."

 

The problems with developing technology like a DSLR and marketing that same technology are similar to any other tech field. The marketing side knows that if they produce product XYX with certain features then they can sell say 100,000 of them at $1500, then another 100,000 at $1100, and 50,000 at $899. So they know they can make close to $300M off of product XYZ. Any way they can cut cost in R&D of that product adds to the profit. Reusing chips, sensors, technology from one product line does exactly that. (Now these are not realistic numbers, I'm making them up to prove a point and someone with a marketing background could be far more accurate than me.) The point is product XYZ is an asset with a fairly predictable income. Knowing that income makes the stock holders happy, maintaining that income they need to re-design or improve that product and re-release it so it becomes another asset. Product lifecycles are huge in technology right now, understanding them, and pressing as much out of them as is possible. The 10D->20D->30D is just extending product lifecycle out from say 3 years to 8-10 years by subsequent upgrades with a fairly predictable income. I wouldn't be surprised if its the last EOS xxD we see and another direction takes place as this lifecycle is pretty well milked. Then new directions from the 5D will occur for 7-8 years and so on.

 

Look at companies Gillette and Shick as examples. Every few years or so they develop a new razor handle for shaving. They don't do much really, a new handle that is slightly more ergonomic, attaches to the safety blades a little differently so they aren't compatible with their own systems, and a huge marketing campaign telling you you need to upgrade to the latest for a softer smoother shave like the handle has anything to do with that. Every 6 months new cartridges are announced. I find it ironic that all they really do is add another blade to the cartridge and charge out the wazoo for those blades. Both perform adequately but charging over $10 for 4 razor cartridges that only last a couple of shaves is outrageous. Yet every day people buy them and boast of getting dozens of shaves from each to justify the expense. I'm seriously considering moving to a straight razor, they last longer and give a better shave. I can't use safety razors for more than 3-4 shaves it irritates too much, it'd cost me $15 a month to shave regularly, something Gillette or Shick can take to their stockholders as a happy, constant income, I'm an asset to them. A good straight razor and kit is about $25 but has a huge learning curve - watch out for the jugular.

 

 

If I can sell you one of product XYZ good, if I can sell you two, better, if I can sell you one of product XYZ every 18 months I've got you hooked an a constant income. Its almost like a services model where you pay $20 a month for service. Only we're paying $1400 every 18 months. Nobody says you have to upgrade, it isn't required of anyone but you know that people will because, by golly, the neighbors bought one we can't be seen with our old one now. Or better yet our old version isn't shiny and new anymore. Canon is role-playing a game called keeping up with the joneses. We, the faithful consumer are also role-playing with Canon, Nikon, and others, to have the best tech and make our peers and neighbors jealous of our shiny new EOS xxD mk19 camera.

 

I keep remembering it isn't the equipment that makes a good photographer. Good photographers make use of the equipment. I also wonder what Ansel Adams would think or say. He'd probably have nothing to do with any of it. The remote flash would be nice instead of having to buy a 550 or 580ex but it isn't that big of a deal, I bought a couple of strobes off ebay and a wein and am happy. Problem solved.

[gaetano catelli]

<i>"I also wonder what Ansel Adams

would think or say."</i>

<p>

iirc, Ansel Adams wrote in his 3-volume work on photography that whenever asked what type of camera he would use for a particular assignment, he would reply: "the heaviest one i can carry".

<p>

judging by the notes appearing under the photos he used to illustrate his writings on photography, Adams used 1st-rate equipment.

<p>

i know there are artistic geniuses who take more aesthetically interesting photos with a pinhole camera than i will ever take with any amount of expensive equipment. but, it's precisely because i'm not an artistic genius (or even remotely close to being one) that i need all the technological help i can get with the <i>image quality</i> (like lower noise at ISO 1600 and 3200), as opposed to this or that 'refinement' of something that wasn't adversely impacting image quality in the first place.

<p>

i don't think the technology is so mature that an improvement in noise can't be expected at the same price point after 18 months. rather, i think Canon blew this round, big time.

[rdkirk]

>>i don't think the technology is so mature that an improvement in noise can't be expected at the same price point after 18 months. rather, i think Canon blew this round, big time.<<

 

How do you know Canon has not improved the noise of the 30D over the 20D?

[rustymadd]

You know there is one possible hint that has come out of the 30D release, and that would be that the technological advancements may be slowing down finally. I see that as a good thing because 8, 10, 12, and 16 megapixels is probably enough for most photographic needs.

 

Therefore they could slow down the releases, and start getting back to the basics of ergonomics, reliability, and durability.

 

My biggest complaint about the current "semi-pro" DSLRs is not about gizmos. I would simply like a camera that can accomodate a split-screen/microprism focusing screen for operator verifiable/manual focusing.

 

That and perhaps the original version of ADEP, or depth of field markings on the majority of lenses.

 

Like a few others though, I was mildly relieved that the 30D isn't so advanced that I feel I must upgrade right away.

 

Many people felt the same way about the 10D to 20D migration. But I personally felt the differences between the 10D (a camera I couldn't stand because it is way too slow) and the 20D were seriously significant.

 

Now perhaps we'll see the prices of all DSLRs come down to more realistic prices, or at the very least, the price difference between a pro and a semi-pro DSLR diminish.

 

Well, it's my pipe dream.

 

C Painter

[rustymadd]

>"Eric, I think you're right the 30D isn't an upgrade product."

 

Which begs the question; what is the purpose of its release? To maintain some kind of arbitrary release schedule?

 

>"Most likely this is canon's answer to the gadget types that constantly want the latest and greatest techno-gizmo to add to their collection. "

 

What "techno-gizmos" did the 30D introduce? I guess I'm confused.

 

>"Then there are the pros that are still using five or ten year old bodies and just as happy today as they were the day they got that body."

 

Yeah like the FE2, F100, F5, 1VHS, and the 1RS. All great bodies and still fully capable...but they're film based, and film isn't as friendly nor as efficient as digital.

 

But back on the original track of this thread;

 

I agree with Eric, that it appears that Nikon is finally catching up with Canon, and honestly I think that's a good thing. We all benefit from competition. But simply upping the MPs isn't going to cut it at this point.

 

I think this is a very interesting turn of events.

 

C Painter

[eric_chiu2]

I think its a very good discussion here. Every one have their good point of view. I guess

there are no absolute right or wrong.

 

There is one thing I can't agree is that instead of 30D vs D200, we should see 5D vs D200.

If you look at the price range, 5D is double the price of D200. How can this be targeting

the same group of people? Its like someone looking for a Honda Civic and may be he will

buy a BMW instead? Look back to the 30D which is only $100-200 different.

 

If you say the D200 is almost as good as the 5D feature wise. Than, Canon really have to

be careful. Its either D200 is a super good deal or 5D is super over price.

 

Well, as some body said, I shouldn't that worry for Canon. If 30D can't sell, they will lower

the price. I am waiting the same thing happen to 5D also. Btw, enjoy whatever you have a

take a lot of pictures :-)

[jim_larson1]

<i>How do you know Canon has not improved the noise of the 30D over the 20D?</I>

 

Same sensor.

 

Same imaging chip.

 

no claim of improved performance.

 

(same reasons the 300D and 10D gave identical performance)

[jim_larson1]

<i>How do you know Canon has not improved the noise of the 30D over the 20D?</I>

 

Same sensor.

 

Same imaging chip.

 

no claim of improved performance.

 

(same reasons the 300D and 10D gave identical performance)

[gaetano catelli]

you can say that again!

 

btw, a month or so ago i joined those predicting that this model would be called the 30D.

 

it turns out it should be called the 21D

[andrew robertson]

Canon claimed that the 20D had much better low noise performance than the 10D, but it

turned out to have some serious banding. Comparisons showed the two cameras to

perform almost identically (with the exception of the 20D's banding problem).

[jim_larson1]

<i>Canon claimed that the 20D had much better low noise performance than the 10D, but it turned out to have some serious banding. Comparisons showed the two cameras to perform almost identically (with the exception of the 20D's banding problem).</i>

<p>

True and not true. Canon, I believe, claimed two stop improvements in both noise and dynamic range.

<p>

I think the tests over at dPreview found a one stop improvement in noise above ISO 400. (ie, ISO 800 on 20D looked like 10D ISO 400)(and Phil claimed that ISO 100-400 in the 10D virtually noise free).

[digitmstr]

>>we should see 5D vs D200. If you look at the price range, 5D is double the price of D200. How can this be targeting the same group of people?<<

 

It is not. You, and many others, are confusing pixel numbers with sensor size, pixel size, noise performance, imaging engine and image quality. The 5D is a FF camera, the D200 it's a cropped camera which uses specifically made lenses.

 

The 5D offers a Full Frame sensor with image quality and noise performance superior to the D200. It also allows EOS users to retain the effective focal lenght of their glass without having to purchase additional lenses just for that camera.

 

They don't target the same users by a long shot. Comparing pixel numbers is NOT a good way of comparing equipment. Just like one wouldn't compare an 8mp P&S camera with a 20D.

 

It's really not an absolute! It depends on what *YOU* need/want/like. For myself, I want a full frame sensor so, the cropped cameras are not an option for me.

 

The right tool for the right job.

[andrew robertson]

Ansel Adams said in the foreward to his "Basic Photography Series" the he expected digital

capture to be the next big revolution, and would explore this medium as it would have its

own esthetic. He was an ardent gear nut, and corresponded frequently with many

photography equipment companies about various topics.

[mawz]

The D200 isn't a direct comparison to the 20d or 30d. If you look at the camera lines from Nikon and Canon, you'll note that each seems to fit in between the other's cameras. The XT is in between the D50 and D70, the D70 in between the XT and 20d.

 

The D200 is a digital F100. Canon's 'digital EOS 3' is the 5D right now, although that's unfair to the 3, which is definitely more camera than the 5D (Which is really a Digital EOS 5).

 

The 20d and 30d fit in between the D70 and the D200, it's clearly more camera than the D70, but also clearly not as much as the D200 (Which is essentially a D2x in a smaller form, as the F100 was a smaller F5).

 

 

The major weaknesses I see in the 30D is the continuing lack of a wireless flash commmander mode, and the lack of a FEL/Multi-spot metering button. I'd also like to see the EOS 3's dual metering readouts (remarkably useful, those).

 

Eric, you should look at the pricing on the 30D, it did come out significantly cheaper than the 20d was when new. In fact it came out right at the 20d's MSRP right now (Barring the fact the 20d is selling well below MSRP at the moment).

[cees_d]

Up till yesterday I could not decide between 20D, D200 and 5D. My experience is limited to the better digital P&S cameras and a middle class SLR. Because I started to feel very limited by the possibilities of my cameras I decided halfway last year that it was time for a serious DSLR. I mainly shoot wildlife and occasionally landscapes and people. I liked the 20D very much but wanted to wait for the D200. When I read the specs and saw the first pictures I ordered the D200 just before Xmas but availability is really bad here in the Netherlands. So I still haven't received it. Then the 30D was announced last Tuesday and I saw that most advantages that the D200 has over the 20D were implemented in the 30D. Combined with the comparisons I had seen between the 20D and the D200, I was doubting my choice again. Then yesterday I read Phil Askey's full review which confirmed what I already had seen in the comparisons: The D200 has 2 more MPs but it doesn't show in the produced details at all. Comparing JPEGs it's very clear. Canon's in camera processing delivers much better JPEGs. Using RAW PP, the D200 delivers much better results, but still not more detail than the 20D to my opinion. And last but not least: With noise reduction off the 20D has 3 stops advantage over the D200. With noise reduction on, the D200 loses much detail at high ISO. I rather have a low noise 8.2 MP camera than a higher noise 10 MP camera. Of course the D200 body is very nice and its handling and first glance pictures are very nice. Maybe some will call me a pixel peeper. But I often need crops and I really hate noise and loss of detail. Of course I also considered the 5D, although it's quite expensive for me as non-pro. But the full frame sensor is not that practical when mainly shooting wildlife and the higher pixel count doesn't compensate that fully. And when I read about servo banding and major dust problems of the viewfinder I decided this camera needs some maturing. The 30D I expect to be very mature. The 20D already is a very good camera. Many pros are shooting with it for 1 1/2 year and still have no problems. The 30D is the same camera, but with improvements. That makes me confident enough to order it without seeing test results first. So I cancelled the D200 order yesterday and ordered the 30D.

I think the 30D is very appealing to prosumer DSLR starters, who do not have (much) lenses and accessories of any brand yet.

And if one mainly shoots wildlife and/or in low light conditions, I think the 30D is a better choice than the D200. I agree it's not a real upgrade for 20D owners. I wouldn't upgrade either. But for starters, the improvements in the 30D can swing the choice from D200 to the 30D. At least for me it did!

[andrew robertson]

Cees, if you have any kind of investment in quality lenses your decision is much easier.

Once you DO have $10000 or so worth of lenses, you'll realize that switching from Canon to

Nikon or vice versa every 18 months (when new cameras come out) is a game that you can't

play for very long unless you are wealthy.

 

This is why I laugh when I hear people claim they're 'fed up' with company X and are

switching. Go ahead! I'll be there to buy your lenses at fire sale prices, if they're even worth

buying!

[ricky_yue]

Wouldn't it be just nice if 30D comes with 1.0 or even 1.2 mp, then I think a lot of arguments between 30D or D200 will be over. But since we don't live in a perfect world and we have to face a tough decision, the bottom line is whether you really need the extra pixels.

 

Let me just clarify my point. I am not a DSLR user yet, although I have been seriously considering of joining the thousands into this new innovation. I am still shooting with my Canon EOS T70 which is about 22 years old. I also got a Nikon AE, which is even older. For a beginner like me, believe me, I almost bought the D200 in December except the storekeeper told me the next shipment would not arrive till March. It is almost impossible to contemplate, as I live in Hong Kong and we always pride ourselves to be at the edge of technologies and new models always are on display in Hong Kong shops before the guys in the UK read about them! Anyway, the long wait put me off from the impulse purchase. Sure enough, I started reading the banding problem with Nikon and kind of happy that I did not placed the order.

 

During this time, I keenly wait for the arrival of 30D. When it was finally announced, my excitment can be compared to witnessing the birth of my first baby. Yes, I am a little bit disappointed that the 30D does not come with bigger pixels, but I ask myself, how many photos have I blown up to size above 11x14? I can count only 3. So I can go to sleep now, knowing fully well that my wait for the 30D is worthwhile. I soon will have a camera which has a 2.5" LCD (a very important feature to me), a very good noise performance shooting at 800 ISO (I hate using flash but take a lot of indoor photography), and a camera which is light weight (700g vs Nikon 830g), better still, my 30D will arrive in mid-March. Had I ordered the D200, I think I still would be waiting and anxiously hoping Nikon had solved the banding problem.

[hash]

>> how many photos have I blown up to size above 11x14

 

I only print two sizes: 4x6 for album / color test and A3 for wall display.

[silvermink]

I'm a Minolta user who's hoping to switch to Canon or Nikon - I had my heart set on a 7D, but I'm not sure I want to put that much more money into a company that's fled the photography business, and I really don't have much faith in Sony as regards high-end support and accessories, being as Sony's a consumer electronics company and not a camera company (my apologies to the Sony fans in the audience.) I personally was really hoping Canon would step up to the plate and put out something competitive with the D200, and this just ain't it. On the plus side, it's not like the D200's a bad camera, so I don't feel too bad going that way. I think it's very much worth it to me to put in a little bit more money and step up to something with weather sealing, etc. YMMV.

 

That's not to denigrate what I'm sure are the many fine qualities of the 30D, it's just not the camera I was hoping for from Canon, and I think a lot of other people feel the same.