What is so wrong with the 30D?

[gaetano catelli]

i say i strongly agree with Jim.

<p>

to begin with, a 50-year-old camera (like the Speed Graphic 4x5, which is my favorite of my dozen or so cameras) is nonetheless the product of more than a <b>century</b> of refinements in opti-mechanical image capture. specifically, lens technology in medium and large format was a mature technology by the 1950s. by contrast, digital still cameras are what -- 15 years old?

<p>

second, what the whiners about whining continue to fail to grasp in their comparisons with the rate of technological advance in film cameras is that the film camera's light sensor (ie, the film itself) was constantly evolving, and still is (especially color). so, an 'upgrade' to noticeably improved image quality was a matter of spending a few bucks on the latest film emulsion -- not $3000 as with a 5D.

 

thus, while the box on the film i use for my Speed Graphic says "Tri-X", it's not your grandfather's Tri-X.

<p>

third, if i read one more time that "it's the photographer, not the equipment", i'm going to hurl my breakfast. yes, there are artistic geniuses who can produce great works of art with a Holga. and, there is always the highly paid professional in a completely different field who spends 5 figures on an outfit to take snapshots at his kid's birthday party indistinguishable from those he would get with a $200 point and shoot.

<p>

but, if you take the ratio of working pros who primarily use top-of-the-line equipment to those who primarily use Holgas (same with contemporary vs. 50-year-old film <i>emulsions</i>, btw), you get a quantifiable measure of the real story.

<p>

fourth, just speculating here, but somehow Intel and AMD continue to come out <i>every few months</i> with ever faster CPUs, <i>which often can be used with one's existing motherboard.</i> yes, i know that the evolution from 8-bit to 16-bit to 32-bit and now to 64-bit architecture has resulted in a lot of obsolescence. but, though mass market microcomputers are now about 25 years old (ie, much older than digital still cameras), every time i plunk down $1000 or so into a PC upgrade, the improved system <i>flies</i> by comparison with the old one.

<p>

so, whether the comparison is film or PCs, there is no analogous wait of 36 months <i>if we're lucky!</i> for a noticeable improvement in performance at a $1500 price point for those of us already financially committed to Canon glass.

<p>

maybe the reason why so many of us are in an uproar over the 21D is that, unlike those who don't get it, we instinctively realize that we're being ripped off to some extent here.

[thomas_munch]

<I>...I have no debt. I talk about buying a new camera tomorrow because I have the cold hard cash today.</i>

<P>

Discussing new camera equipment is fun, but these are words to follow. Then again, I don't sell equipment nor do I work for a credit company.</p>

<P>

--tom

</p>

[andrew_c2]

They won't. Most people don't use large format film already. Then again, if it was offered in a compact 35mm-sized body, more people would perhaps buy into it.

 

I admit it; I'm strictly a hobbyist who enjoys drooling at new PMA announcements. I have a 300D. I've discovered the beauty of small prints, say, 5x7s, that can be just as effective, if not more in the right circumstances, than 13x19s and larger. As I read the news of bigger, badder cameras (I mean the 5D and up; the 20D/30D would be doable for many hard-core hobbyists) and their corresponding high prices, part of me feels frustrated with the price. But then, part of me feels liberated because I think of my 300D and HP 8450 and how well they're working together right now.

 

Getting more megapixels means less and less to me now; what I would love is quality 3200 ISO and better dynamic range. Apart from that, I'll gladly plunk down $1000 for a 5D in a couple of years!

 

So, to respond directly to your question, there is nothing wrong with the 30D for hobbyists. The fact that hobbyists who wouldn't be seen with a MF camera are now considering $3000 cameras like the 5D means that advertising is getting to them. Ironically, it seems to me that the more 'prosumers' become interested in $3000 cameras, the less companies like Canon will feel inclined to beef up $1000 cameras. But I may be missing something.

[andrew_c2]

BTW, to respond to Jim, I would agree that this is certainly a gearhead forum, so no need to apologize for masturbating over gear. I certainly go to dpreview every day in February to see what's up. But it is a sad state of affairs where our wallets are the only things that dictate whether purchase of a commodity is viable. That is called liberalism, and I am a proud consumer of it.

 

I don't mind, however, people who critique the reasons why we buy more and more expensive equipment that we cannot take to the next stage of existence (eh, maybe we can-- never know! At least, that's what countless civilizations before 'modern' Western ones thought!). I welcome such critique. It reminds consumers that we have a conscience. And we all certainly have one.

 

While this is certainly a gearhead forum, there are no rules explicitly affirming it as solely such; and so, I welcome all kinds of comment on EOS.

[sarah_needham]

As many others have said, there's nothing wrong with the 30D. I currently have and EOS30 and will switch to digital when I can get the equivalent of my camera in digital. What I will wait for is ECF and full-frame pics. That said, so long as it doesn't take too many years !

[savas_kyprianides]

I recall when a hard drive of 500 megabytes took up a footprint 8� square and cost over a

thousand dollars. Who would have imagined we�d have CF cards offering several gigs of

storage space? Compare that development with todays sensors looking toward tomorrow and

one could discern evolutionary tonal range that is unthinkable today. Although I have read

somewhere that todays sensors are starting to challenge what lense are capable of delivering,

so who knows?

[John Crowe]

I have a used 10D to get me through until a full frame new or used DSLR is affordable. For me that is about $1500 USD, so likely a used one for Christmas 2007. So I am not actually interested in each new camera that comes out. What I am looking for is significant steps either in technology or reduced price with each one so that I can meet my 2007 expectations. To me the 30D does not deliver any significant difference from the trends already set by the 20D, XT, and 5D. For the first time Canon has released "just another DSLR". Perhaps they are setting a new trend releasing real cameras in the fall and the re-runs in the spring.

[andrew robertson]

"I've no doubt that the relentless advance of technology may in fact make possible the

120mp sensor envisioned above. But how many will really want or need it?"

 

I think you missed my point. This kind of resolution is possible using technology available

RIGHT NOW. Some people are insistent that you need this kind of resolution to equal film.

The problem with that kind of resolution would be finding a lens good enough to produce

that kind of resolution on the sensor.

 

But what's wrong with wanting higher resolution sensors? Is the desire for resolution

really at odds with the pursuit of photography? Did you all sit around at the local pro shop

and yell 'neener neener enner, you tool, what are you messing around with Kodachrome

25 and Tech Pan for, you number crunching gearhead talentless loser!' every time

somebody wanted to get some fine grained film? I would bet that if one were to dig deep

enough in the posting histories of those who are mocking people who like to see

technological progress in sensor resolution you'll see that many of them also love to talk

about their fine grained film and how their prints are better! My god, the hypocrisy is rank

with some of you.

 

I personally would chalk the desire for digital resolution to 'top out' to a fear for the time

when digital capture is in every measurable way superior to even the finest grained film.

Then all the anti-digital crowd will have going for them is grain and the smell of stop bath.

[digitmstr]

The *MAIN* mistake was the name: as it is many times people invadvertently invert letters and numbers (i.e. D10 instead of 10D).

 

Now, you'll never really know if they are talking abut the old D30 or the 30D... :p

[jim_larson1]

well. . let's not even talk about the <i>name</i>.. . .

[erin.e]

How droll Gampi ;-) and really is the most important flaw with the 30D

[grant g]

LOL guys...

 

As a D30 owner, I REALLY don't like the thought of name 30D being added to my

arsenal...oh, well. I'm buying it anyway. Just because I can. ;)

 

Jim is right...we don't talk about photos here...just the gear.

 

And if you have debt, or can't feed your family...I'm sure this is a camera you can pass on.

[markklotz]

It's not what's wrong with the 30D, it's what was missing on 20D that should have been there in the first place. That's what upsets me. Spot metering! I could care less about the bigger LCD screen on the D30. I needed spot metering on the 20D. Canon left that out. Why? It's a pretty simple thing, and I shouldn't have to fork out another $2000.00 to have it. Some weather proofing would be nice too. Nikon is starting to look interesting to me.

[andrew robertson]

Hey Mark, go ahead and sell! We'll be here to buy your hardly used Canon lenses and

bodies at fire sale prices. When people switch systems on a whim, everybody wins!

[markklotz]

<blockquote>"hardly used Canon lenses and bodies"</blockquote>

 

Afraid not Andrew. I'm a freelance photographer and my equipment gets used a lot. Thus said, I'm not interested in the name on my camera, I'm interested in how it will perform as a working tool for me. As I stated earlier, the 20D has been an excellent camera, but it lacks spot metering. It bugs me, that now spot metering is included in the new 30D. It would be irrational (in a business sense) for me to buy the 30D just because of that feature, when it should have been there in the first place.

[erin.e]

Mark Klotz said

 

"It would be irrational (in a business sense) for me to buy the 30D just because of that feature, when it should have been there in the first place."

 

Why would it be irrational in a business sense to buy the camera (30D)with the spot meter if you need for your work? after all it is tax deductable, and a much cheaper option than changing systems.

 

Of course as a freelance photographer, you could have brought a 1D Mk11 in the first place and it all would be a moot point.

[andrew robertson]

Spot meters can be handy, but truthfully I think it's easy enough to get by without one. I

never miss spot metering on my 10D or R-D1.

[markklotz]

<blockquote>"Of course as a freelance photographer, you could have brought a 1D Mk11 in the first place and it all would be a moot point"</blockquote>

 

Yes, of course. And maybe I could find a money tree somewhere too. Here in Canada (I don't know what country you are in) you can't write off 100% of your equipment in the first year. You can only write off about 20% per year over 5 years. As my business grows I purchase the equipment that I need and can get by with, without going overboard with unnecessary expenses.

 

<blockquote>"Spot meters can be handy, but truthfully I think it's easy enough to get by without one. I never miss spot metering on my 10D or R-D1."</blockquote>

 

I think you are under rating the usefulness of the spot meter somewhat, but I guess it depends on the type of photography you do. Most Nikon cameras have spot metering, whereas Canon has mostly limited it to top of the line models (until the 30D). I also can get by without it, but when I've got limited time and little room for error, it is a useful tool indeed. My point is though, it should have already been on the 20D.

[carl_weller]

Just to clarify my POV:

 

I never expected this to turn into a "people who obsess over gear can't be good

photographers" thread. I must admit I was also stunned by the lack of real difference

between the 20D and 30D. I'm glad I wasn't desperately waiting for the 30D to be

released.

 

I wanted to point out that, although there will still be some great improvements to look

forward to, the market is maturing to the point where we have mass market cameras for

serious amateurs that really deliver the goods. We are well past the apex of the 80/20

rule. Look at how much more you pay for the 5D when the 20D/30D provides more than

many many people need. Its not so much about what is theoretically possible - its about

whether or not what is out there now does what you want/need it to do.

 

Canon obviously can't meet all your needs right now (either because they actually can't or

because it is not economically sensible for them to do it). But there's nothing that

engenders disappointment so surely than expectations based solely on personal wants

flavoured by impatience. By the righteous anger and indignation of some people on the

forums, you would think that canon owes them something :)

 

But I do also feel that the continuing demand for more and faster and better has, for a lot

of people, taken the focus off the end result and put it on the gear.

 

If your demand for better gear comes from a particular photographic need that is not

being met, then more power to you - you're pushing the edge of what's possible and

forcing real improvements that will benefit us all.

 

If, OTOH, you want things that are available now (i.e. 5D, IDs MkII), but just won't put

down the pingas, then don't blame canon/nikon for not delivering it to your timeframe.

 

I'd hate to see the day when this forum becomes just a gear forum. There is obviously a

continuum of people posting to this forum, at the one hand total gear obsession where

people swear they will swap to nikon because the newest DXX Mk57 has three extra

widgets and half a MP more (and will probably also swap back when the new canon trumps

it), at the other end people who just see cameras as a tool and love the EOS system as a

very good means to a photographic end. And then there's a whole lot of us somewhere in

the middle.

 

In short, we can all learn from each other and should try and appreciate the other person's

viewpoint

[gaetano catelli]

you started a thread entitled "What is so wrong with the [21]D?", intended as a rhetorical question. but actually, it's an implied straw man argument that you proceed to knock down. but, in fact, no one, to my knowledge, is saying there's something unacceptable about the 21D as such. what's being said is that it's not the *new model* it purports to be, and that we had been led to expect would be available more or less every 18 months.

<p>

<i>"I wanted to point out that, although there will still be some great improvements to look forward to, ..... the 20D/30D provides more than many many people need. Its not so much about what is theoretically possible - its about whether or not what is out there now does what you want/need it to do."</i>

<p>

well, apparently, there're "many many people" who *do* need more, and you're not listening. but, if Canon wants to stay in the camera business, they will be better listeners than you are, and they won't be pulling another boner like this soon.

<p>

<i>"Canon obviously can't meet all your needs right now (either because they actually can't or because it is not economically sensible for them to do it). But there's nothing that engenders disappointment so surely than expectations based solely on personal wants flavoured by impatience."</i>

<p>

film is still being constantly upgraded after more than *100* years. (and, btw, it's still not enough!)

<p>

<i>By the righteous anger and indignation of some people on the forums, you would think that canon owes them something :)</i>

<p>

a few moments of actual thought would have revealed what a silly sentiment you have expressed. Canon isn't just selling camera goods in isolation. on the contrary, it goes to great lengths in its marketing to convince prospective buyers that Canon equipment is part of an entire *system*. if after more than 100 years of progress filmmakers can still turn out emulsions with less grain/more accutance/better color like clockwork <i>at the same price point</i>, than so can Canon vis-a-vis the noise level in its sensors and/or the software that filters the signal.

<p>

<i>But I do also feel that the continuing demand for more and faster and better has, for a lot of people, taken the focus off the end result and put it on the gear.</i>

<p>

and your evidence that any of us are any less concerned with the result is?

<p>

<i>If your demand for better gear comes from a particular photographic need that is not being met, then more power to you - you're pushing the edge of what's possible and forcing real improvements that will benefit us all.</i>

<p>

let me expand on what i have written in this thread and elsewhere. with all due respect to those who are primarily interested in photographing other subject matter, many many of us feel that people are the most interesting subject matter. and, since the earliest days of photography, many many of us have been trying to capture the look of people as they *really are*, not how they've been contorted or distorted to conform to the limitations of the camera body, lens, image sensor, and, last but not least, flash.

<p>

not to get overly philosophical about it, but i don't feel that (in most cases) flash shows people as they really are. rather, it shows how they look when suddenly briefly blasted with a light brighter than the sun. (of course, there's some really great work done with flash. a gorgeously dreamlike shot of a little girl dancing at a wedding taken by Marc Williams comes to mind. but, i have found these to be relatively rare exceptions.)

<p>

<b>as it turns out, oftentimes people are being their most interesting when the lights go down low. for those of us trying to capture the way people really appear at such times, there is no such thing as too much ISO or too little noise</b>.

<p>

<i>If, OTOH, you want things that are available now (i.e. 5D, IDs MkII), but just won't put down the pingas, then don't blame canon/nikon for not delivering it to your timeframe.</i>

<p>

you're forgetting that some of us have already committed to EF-S glass -- in no small part because we were led to believe that we were buying into a *system* that would provide continually improving image quality.

<p>

<i>I'd hate to see the day when this forum becomes just a gear forum. There is obviously a continuum of people posting to this forum, at the one hand total gear obsession where people swear they will swap to nikon because the newest DXX Mk57 has three extra widgets and half a MP more (and will probably also swap back when the new canon trumps it), at the other end people who just see cameras as a tool and love the EOS system as a very good means to a photographic end. And then there's a whole lot of us somewhere in the middle.

<p>

In short, we can all learn from each other and should try and appreciate the other person's viewpoint.</i>

<p>

your purpose seems to be to cenusre the great many of us who don't share your own point of view that if the 21D is good enough for you, then it should be good enough for the rest of us..

 

[flanneryphoto]

The thing that continually surprises me on so many posts is the idea that improvement to sensors must limited to resolution. I am personally very happy with the resolution of my 20D. My fear has been that the marketing obsession of Megapixels would prevent the improvement of other factors of the image sensor. My hope for the 30D was that resolution wouldn't go up much (if at all), but that things like high ISO noise and dynamic range would continue to improve. Certainly, the 20D is excellent for high ISO noise performance, but there is certainly room for improvement and I don't know of too many wedding photographers that would complain about higher dynamic range. Higher and higher pixel densities make improvements in these areas very difficult. However, if we stop the quest for higher Megapixels, I would hope for other improvements to be seen.

[markklotz]

Well said Mike, I agree!

[andrew robertson]

"My point is though, it should have already been on the 20D."

 

When Popular Photography measured the size of the D70's spot meter, they found it

covered almost 10% of the frame, about the same as the 'partial' meter on the 10D / 20D.

So, the Nikons don't really have a spot meter either - they have a partial meter that they

CALL a spot meter.

[carl_weller]

Gaetano,

 

I am appalled by your rudeness. Do you think it is OK to launch into attacks on someone's

person because you don't agree with them?

 

I can only presume that its because I dared to post a non-gearhead opinion on a gearhead

forum?

 

Take a good hard look at the forum Gaetano.

 

The vast majority of questions aren't very gearhead at all, just the usual "what lense

should I buy next/do I need a slim UV filter with this wideangle lense XYZ/should I

upgrade from camera X to camera Y/ is the f2.8 really worth the extra money over the f4"

sort of questions that you would expect from people to whom photography is an

important but not all-consuming part of their life.

 

In short, the forum is shared by a lot of people with varying attachments to technology

and photography, but with a common love of the EOS system, and the MINIMUM you

should be able to expect from anyone on the forum is good 'ole fashioned manners,

whether they actually agree with you or not.

[bobatkins]

If this thread degenerates, I'm simply going to remove it, along with anyone who engages in name calling.

 

Anyone is free to disagree with the opinions of others, but personal attacks will not be tollerated.