in defense of the Canon 30D

[steve santikarn]

I still remember in the good old pre-digital camera days, when you

buy an SLR you'd expect to use it for at least 5 to 10 years. You'd

be upset if your slr is replaced within a couple of years of

purchase. Now we get miffed that an improved version is NOT released

within 18 months! My, we have truely enter the digital age in

photography. Consumer products (as opposed to professional ones)

have alway been about price:performance ratio. Canon has managed to

improve the performace (all be it very slightly) but, more

signficantly, lower the price at the same time. Isn't that enough?

Owners of the 20D should be happy and the second-hand value of the

20D should be still pretty resonable. Good enough for me.

[bill_d.]

FWIW, my take on the 30D is that it is a sign the digital camera industry is maturing. With the 30D Canon has made its huge existing 20D customer base happy -- most 20D owners will not upgrade, but they may buy that new lens they've been wanting! Some will upgrade, but they may now be more likely to buy the 5D, instead of the 30D. Then, of course, they'll have to buy new lenses to take advantage of the full-frame sensor. It's win-win-win for Canon, as far as I can see.

[rogernoel]

Amen to that. I think we should be happy that we live in an age of technology where there can be advances made, be it minor or major, and we as consumers can benefit if we choose to buy the product. Moreover, the bad mouthing of EF-S lenses is ridiculous. I wonder how many photographers have had these lenses malfunction or break because of the quality of the construction. The three photo mags that I take sure make bad decisions in their choices of pictures to publish if the EF-S lenses are so bad. Finally,I am always amazed at the repeat of questions that are more rhetoric and answers available ten posts earlier. However, I subscribe to several forums and photo sites, and for me this is an enjoyment and a great instructional learning experience.

[dave92029]

The reason I'm disappointed is not about what Canon did but how they did it.

 

I don't see the 30D as a new model, but rather a modification of an existing model, the 20D. I would have been happier if Canon would have offered existing 20D owners an opportunity to upgrade their Firmware so that the software improvements could be enjoyed, for a price by their existing customers. There are some mechanical improvements, but those would only be available to those customers that purchased the new Canon 20D-II. The above approach would have been preferrable IMHO, but I'm not running Canon.

 

I also would prefer to hear officially from Canon what their intentions are for the EF-S lens line. Will they continue to develope this line of lens so that they can offer a complete line (all apertures) below 100mm or what?

 

I also read some say that the 30D is now the equivalent of the 5D but with a APS-C sensor size. If that is so why is there such a hugh price difference between the two cameras? You can buy two 30D's with 18-55 lens for less than one 5d body?

 

Rather than disappointed, maybe I just don't see Canon's vision on where they are going or how they plan on getting there.

[bobatkins]

Just a note to the posters of some of the deleted messages.

 

Anyone who insults another forum member is likely to be taking a vacation from this forum. Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

Now to the subject of the thread.....

 

Yes, film cameras had a longer life cycle, but film cameras are mature technology. 5 years ago you paid $3000 for a 3MP DSLR. Today you pay $750 for a better 8MP DSLR. Infant technology moves fast and so it's reasonable to expect a short product cycle. In 10 or 20 years I'm sure the rate of progress will have slowed down enough to permit a longer product cycle.

 

I'm quite happy with the 30D. It's probably saved me $600 since I it's not likley I'll be selling my 20D and buying one! It's better camera than the 20D, but I'm happy with the 20D and $600 in my pocket. Maybe next time I'll bite.

[grant g]

"FWIW, my take on the 30D is that it is a sign the digital camera industry is maturing." --Bill D.

 

My thoughts exactly. The ONLY people who should be 'upset' by the announcement are those who recently bought a 20D for $1375 USD, and the megapixel hungry chronic upgrader who pre-ordered the 20D when it was released and was hoping to brag about his brand new 10MP camera. Should be good news for EVERYBODY else...even if you're NOT going to buy one. If you already own a 20D...this confirms that you already have a very capable camera and that you should only upgrade when something you really, really want comes out.

 

I'm a gearhead and very pleased that I don't have to pay a premium on extra megapixels that I don't need or want on a crop camera. I have a 5D and don't need more megpixels. I'm buying a 30D soon. I'm glad I waited.

[vab3]

I agree. As someone who does this strictly as a hobby, I think an 8MP, 17-55/2.8, and 10-22 could keep me occupied for 5-10 years unless it just plain wore out.

 

I can do super wide, lower light, big prints...what more were average folks like me doing 20 years ago?

 

My disappointment was that it doesn't seem likely to drive down the price of a 10D or 20D by much. The 10D did drop on KEH.com by about $50 this week. But the EF-s is starting to seem worth the extra dough.

 

I think the 30D is in response to Nikon's D70. All Canon needed was a spot meter to match them, and the 8 MP one-up's them. (The 2 inch screen 2-up's them) So they can extract a few more hundred bucks from someone who is in that market, without having to develop production facilities for a new sensor (at least this year).

[davidmccracken]

I am not sure I get your point. I was in a Canon showroom recently and on the wall they have a history of their cameras. It seemed that they released a camera every year (more or less.) The thing is a cheap film camera is capable of taking good quality images. While this is also true of DSLR cameras, technology is making the 'film' finer. When we get to the point of absolute pixel satisfaction, people will hold onto their DSLR cameras for 5 - 10 years.... or at least longer than 18 months.... I suspect.

 

Certainly if I had a 20D, I would not be buying the 30D. I would imagine those that have the 20D are breathing a sigh of relief knowing they don't feel commercial pressure for the need to upgrade..... unless they want to buy a 5D.

 

I would be interested to meet anyone or at least know why any person would buy the 30D who has a 20D unless they needed a second body anyway. It will be interesting to see if Canon bring out a plastic version of the 30D. I doubt it.

[toddklassy]

I too don't understand all of the negative hoopla. Most of the detractors are either Nikonians or those early adopters who want to have the cutting edge of everything. If they are upset with "how Canon went about it" and the fact that is called a 30D, they can either chose not to buy the new camera or cover up the ID plate with some gaffers tape. Be thankful that there is a replacement camera out there for you just in case you need one...one that has been improved in many ways and one that will cost a fraction of what we paid for our 20D. That's what I call "progress."

 

Final point...I've really only been taking photographs for about six months, but one of the most important things I've learned is that the quality of the camera and the quality of the lens is an insignificant contribution to the overall quality of a photo. I've seen glorious photos taken with a $10 cheapo camera made in China and I've seen pure rubbish from people who bought the 5D hoping that it would make them a better photographer. To those I say, if you're still upset, save the $1500 you planned on spending on Canon's magic bullet and use it instead on some photography lessons...given your attitude it will probably be a better investment.

 

Todd

[neild]

Perhaps the 30D should be called a 20D mk II, or a 20D-N?

[toddklassy]

I bet if Canon changed the name of the camera it would perform better, too. Maybe they ought to call it the Juggernaut 3000. I bet that would be one helluva camera!

[james_davison]

As a 10D owner I have been waiting to see what comes up. Something like the 5D is what I'd been waiting for, before the EF-S lenses started to get serious with the 10-22 and the 17-85 IS, and the 60 macro and now this 17-55 2.8 IS.

 

I built my lens lineup around the fact that 17mm was around the widest I could afford at the time I bought the 10D. I have the 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L, as well as the 28-105/3.5-4.5 II, the 50/1.4, 28/2.8, and the 15/2.8 fisheye. As such, my lenses are built around a full-frame coverage.

 

If I had no gear right now I'd be considering the 30D and the D200 (as I think the Nikon is a great all-round camera with enough speed to shoot sports and enough resolution for a decent landscape - two things I like to shoot) as there are enough good lenses for APS-C sensors now that I could live with them. The 10-22, especially, would be wonderful to have with a nice, clean 8mp sensor like the 20D/30D have.

 

The 30D is a wonderful camera, and oh how demanding and spoiled we have become. These little improvements have created a lightweight, fast, high resolution, inexpensive camera with a dedicated group of equally lightweight lenses with ultra-low dispersion elements, fast constant apertures and image stabilisation. People wanting more need to realise that there are 1-series cameras out there that cater to porfessional needs.

 

It probably wouldn't pay for me to sell most of my lenses and buy a 30D, 10-22, 17-85 and sigma 30/1.4 or whatever Canon makes to compete with it. Buying a 5D and keeping my lenses is much more convenient and cost-effective, considering the benefits of the 5D over the 30D.

 

But yeah, I have no idea why people complain about yearly updates to cameras. They're the same people who complain about the # of actuations the 20D shutter is capable of, too. I'll bet these people don't upgrade their cars every year, either, but still somehow manage to get around just fine.

[robin_sibson1]

As a current 20D user, I am not disappointed with the 30D, which is a sensible mid-life refresh for a very successful camera. But I am not likely to upgrade to it. I would certainly appreciate it if Canon did what Nikon did with the D70, which is to make firmware-only features available for the earlier camera - it would be nice for CF-4-1/3 users to have restart on the * button, for example, and it might even be possible to have 1/3-stop ISO, although I don't think that's a particularly big deal anyhow. I guess for some folks the better continuous-drive control and larger buffer might be enough to trigger an upgrade, but most of the changes are nice-to-have rather than solves-a-problem.

 

If I am disappointed, it is because Canon have yet to produce a 1.6-factor camera which is seriously better as a camera than the 20D/30D. That's mainly for me an issue about AF and viewfinder, not about megapixels.

[NK Guy]

FWIW, I've updated my lookup table to include the new camera and new lenses.

<P>

<A HREF= "http://photonotes.org/lookup/" > http://photonotes.org/lookup/ </A>

[steven_wartofsky1]

I think Canon should signal a very clear bifurcation in their product line, with a lens line specifically designed around the smaller sensors, and another line (probably the more traditional one, with refinements over the years) for FF sensor cameras and film cameras.

 

It seems they are beginning to go this way, and that makes sense.

 

I also think they're signaling, with both the 30D and the brilliant new SD700, that it's not all about MP. If I didn't already have a P&S I'm perfectly happy with, I'd be delighted to consider the extra MP of an SD550 vs. the extra ISO (800) and IS of an SD700.

 

Ultimately there are an amazing array of choices now with Canon's camera equipment; all they really need to do is make the pricing and split between FF and non-FF a little more decisive, IMHO.

[jim_larson1]

<i>I built my lens lineup around the fact that 17mm was around the widest I could afford at the time I bought the 10D. I have the 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L, as well as the 28-105/3.5-4.5 II, the 50/1.4, 28/2.8, and the 15/2.8 fisheye. As such, my lenses are built around a full-frame coverage.

<p>

{snip}

<p>

It probably wouldn't pay for me to sell most of my lenses and buy a 30D, 10-22, 17-85 and sigma 30/1.4 or whatever Canon makes to compete with it. Buying a 5D and keeping my lenses is much more convenient and cost-effective, considering the benefits of the 5D over the 30D. </i><p>

Tell me again why you would sell any of your lenses?

<p>

Your lens collection looks similar to mine. Transitioning from a 10D to a 30D with your existing lenses would be relatively transparent to you. . .and the image quality would only be incrementally better.

<p>

A primarly reason (or excuse) to upgrade would be obtain a true wide angle. This could be done one of two ways: (a) Buy a 30D and a 10-22/EF-S ($1400+$800 = $2200), or (b) Buy a 5D, and your existing 17-40/4L becomes your wide angle ($2850).

<p>

Note that going to a 5D will buy a more significant improvement in image quality than going to a 30D. It will also effectively reduce DOF for your lenses to capture a given scene. (ie, shoot 80/4 vs 50/4).

<p>

However, because you have a "1.6 crop" now, swapping to a full frame camera like the 5D will change how you use your other glass. You may find that the 70-200/4L a bit short. You may find that you need higher quality in the critical 40-70mm range (which will get used more often). I submit that you will spend more on glass going to a 5D than you would in buying a 30D.

<p>

I know I certainly would. :)

[james_davison]

Jim,

 

As far as the 17-40, yep that's pretty much the idea. I would really like a true wide, and $2200 vs $2850 for all the benefits of a 5D and the 17-40/4L seems like a no-brainer.

 

I don't like how I use my other lenses either. The 50 isn't a normal lens. The fish isn't very fishy. The 28-105 hardly gets used at all, and for the 5D it wouldn't be used when serious quality is an issue - mostly general use for school, family and travel. It is, however, not bad glass - especially when stopped down somewhat. I know that this lens has been used by pro landscape photographers in weight-saving situations, and my experience with it has been great.

 

When I'm wanting serious glass, the 17-40, 50 and 70-200 is fairly comprehensive coverage. I also have a 1.4x teleconverter for my 70-200, and that would pretty much cancel out the losses in reach from my longer lens.

 

Yes, I may want a 24-105/4L and a 300/4L at some point, but I think I might buy similar lenses (like the 17-55/2.8 EF-S) if I get the 30D. So...I see it as an improvement in all my lenses more than anything else.

[dave henri]

I currently have a 10D and a 1V and have no plans to upgrade to the 30D. I love the 10D. My biggest beef with it is the slow "wake up" time after it goes to sleep. But otherwise it's a great camera. What I'd really like to see, and am waiting for, is a comparable 5D with the ability to autofocus an f/4 with a 2x converter (f/8), similar to the 1 series cameras. It doesn't have to be built like a tank like the 1 series is, but that would be a camera worth upgrading to. That feature alone is why my 1V trumps my 10D while using long telephoto lenses. Another big consideration is the viewfinder image for eyeglass wearers of the 1 series. It seems like I'm calling for a 3D.

[mark_man]

<I think Canon should signal a very clear bifurcation in their product line, with a lens line specifically designed around the smaller sensors, and another line (probably the more traditional one, with refinements over the years) for FF sensor cameras and film cameras.>

 

I think Canon is deliberately keeping things very blurry in this area. The last thing they want is for serious photographers-in-the making to commit to EF-S which would act as a barrier to stepping up to the more expensive FF bodies. Sure, photographers who already have FF glass from their film days are not a problem for Canon; it's the next generation. The upgrade path from beginner 1.6 consumer DSLRs to advanced FF (moneymaking for Canon) must not contain too many hurdles. You can say what you like, but most people will at least hesitate before ditching their EF-S glass when they move to FF. What Canon desperately wants to avoid is for people to hold onto that 350D or 30D, rather than spring for the 5D on account of their investment in EF-S glass! That's why we're on a drip-feed as far as quality EF-S glass is concerned.

[doug_landrum]

My two cents. I waited to switch to a digital camera until the 20D came out. I evaluated the 20D as providing printed image quality equal to or surpassing 35mm film cameras. Before the 20D, I shot with a Leica R7 and a set of high quality Leica prime lenses. I scanned the film to produce digital images.

 

I now have an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. I would not get an EF-S lens except possibly the EF-S 10-20mm. I fully expect competitive pressure from Nikon to nudge Canon into marketing, in about 3 to 5 years, an affordable (under $1500) prosumer full frame digital body with a build quality equal to or better than the 20D/30D/5D. I expect the future body to have better exposure calibration, MUCH better flash calibration than the ETTL-II of present cameras and better dynamic range and less noise than the present bodies. That is the body that I will buy after many years of happy snapping with the 20D.

 

The arrival of the 30D implies a longer time line rather than shorter timeline for the future prosumer body that I will want. I fully expected Moore's law to result in a 30D with an improved sensor/digital processor. That did not happen. I will happily keep on shooting the 20D with quality lenses.

 

I have found that lens quality makes a significant difference. One thing to keep in mind is that Nikon lens offerrings comparable to L glass cost $200-$300 more than Canon L's at B&W.

 

Happy snaps.