My, how far we've come...

[bob_king2]

<p>A previous post prompted me to check out a review of the Canon D30 from 2000, 9 years ago. Have look at it here<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30/<br>

It makes interesting reading. The D30 was ground-breaking with a 3 megapixel APS sized CMOS sensor. Its image quality gave the more expensive professional Nikon D1 a run for its money. I've still got my first digi-cam - the 2 megapixel Canon Powershot A200. In low light its shutter lag is measured in weeks. My first DSLR was a 300D Rebel with a whopping 6.3 MP. My son still has his. The interesting thing is that all of these cameras will still take photos as well as they did when first released (maybe a little better with firmware updates). I get my A200 out every now and then.<br>

Now we expect cameras with live view, HD video, lens micro-adjustment, auto ISO and so on. Notwithstanding, there are many happy campers still shooting away merrily with their D30's, D60's, 10D's and so on. And rightly so. Is technology sucking us in? An online store I get a lot of my gear from has already sold its first 2 shipments of 7D's.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[sami_lahtinen]

<p>well well well well well well........</p>

[sami_lahtinen]

<p>well well well well well well........</p>

[bob_king2]

<p>Well, I guess all is well that ends well...</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[isaac sibson]

<p>Just because something was good before doesn't mean it can't be done better, and certainly should never mean that it <em>shouldn't</em> be done better. "Technology sucking us in" would be fair comment if it weren't achieving anything and caused us to upgrade. For those to whom a newer camera would deliver no benefit then maybe so.</p>

<p>With reference to the D30 which I used to have... I used to say that it was a terrible camera (in the sense of a film camera - box, shutter, AF, metering) married to a great sensor. That remains the case. In terms of comparison to my 5D, the 5D delivers much better high ISO performance, better AF, far better file handling, metering, etc. These things are not frippery, but real-world benefits. The larger screen, more solid construction, auto-ISO, etc are nice to haves, but there's no need to NOT have them when we can. </p>

<p>Yes, those older cameras still take photos as well as they did. But I like to think that I take better photos now. </p>

[bob_king2]

<p>And thats why I've got a 5DII... Imagine what things will be like in another 9 years. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that truly significant advances in digital technology have been made in the last 9 years. Its always a personal decision as to when to jump on or off the technological bandwagon and to determine our own threshold of being "sucked in".</p>

<p>The camera store I refered to stated on their site "We have been around for a while now in the business. In this time, we have NEVER seen demand for a digital camera, than we have for the 7D. This includes the demand for the 5D Mark II". I guess Canon have a winner.<br /> <br /> <br /> Cheers, Bob</p>

[fmueller]

<p>I am not one to upgrade cameras very often. I bought a Minolta XD-7 (XD-11 in the US) in the mid 80s, and used that camera as my main shooter until 2006, when I bought my Rebel XT. I complemented my XD-7 with lenses from 16mm fisheye to 400/5.6 and several older bodies - mostly SRT series. All of the gear (except the XD-7, 50/1.4 and 75-200/4.5) was used, and became affordable for me as support by Minolta for its manual focus system dropped. When I didn't get the images I wanted, I rarely felt it was the gear letting me down. I tried an AF camera for a while (600si), and while I enjoyed some other features, I felt the AF system itself was slowing me down and my keeper rate dropped.</p>

<p>The Rebel XT has been a revelation to me with instant feedback, no more need for scanning, and vastly improved low light capabilities (compared to slide film). I am still super happy with it, but one has to say Canon makes it very hard for people to keep the money in their pocket. For me it's especially the constantly improving low light performance that tempts me to upgrade. I use the XT for about 80% of images at ISO1600, which is still great for web publishing, but of course newer cameras would do the job significantly better. Also, I have a very infrequent need for video, and bought a Panasonic PV-GS85 for that purpose. Having that capability right in the DSLR sure would be nice.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>The camera store I refered to stated on their site "We have been around for a while now in the business. In this time, we have NEVER seen demand for a digital camera, than we have for the 7D. This includes the demand for the 5D Mark II". <strong>I guess Canon have a winner</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suspect this is because with the 7D, Canon has gone a fair way to showing that the APS-C is no longer a stop-gap purchase until you can afford to go full frame but is now a fully fledged format in its own right, and quite right, too. So all those people with 17-55IS, 10-22 etc suddenly have a camera that potentially gives them the same performance as a 5D without needing to change lenses. Whether they need it is a different matter :o) </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is technology sucking us in?.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. But isn't it the same with HiFi, TVs, and a load of other consumer electronics?</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I am thinking about adding a 7D when I hear how the Af performs in real world use. I was wondering what my camera store order situation was (I live in canada) they said they had about a dozen advance orders and would not have an availability issue. This differs from the 5DII where thay had over 400 advance orders and several months backlog. I am not sure which country you are in but in Canada the two high end stoires in Calgary do not have an issue with the 7D.</p>

[hjoseph7]

This is definately a case where cut-throat competion really works for the consummer. If the D30 did not have any competition it would probably still be selling, 3 pixels and all.

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Yes, I've been sucked in and <em>need</em> to have the latest digital cameras, BUT, I still have and use my 3OOD. It's still a good little shooter! It and it's kit lens are now pressed into more pedestrian roles such as quick snaps for fourms, eBay photography and such but still does a fine job. Despite being older technology, it still meets my needs for some projects. I'll keep mine till it quits working.</p><div></div>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>My high water mark was the 5D, and I think it will continue to keep me happy for quite some time, barring Error99. The II version's been out a while, but I'm just not interested. I'm not sure what it would take to budge my complacency: maybe much higher dynamic range?</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Is technology sucking us in?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, of course. It's been so in all aspects of life, and for as long as civilization ever existed. Why the sudden surprise?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I view DSLRs as simply computers that are specialized at capturing images. They are just like my older film SLRs (friendly and familiar) thus accept and retain my investment in nice EF lenses.</p>

<p>DSLRs become obsolete quickly, whereas lenses rarely do.</p>

<p>It's good and high praise that technology "sucks us in." Keeps the paychecks coming too.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>A big difference between film SLR's and DSLR's is that the former do not become obsolete as quickly as the latter. For example, a photographer who knows what he's doing can get as good images with a 1971 F-1 as with a 1V. The limiting factors with film bodies are, generally speaking, the lenses and the film. But nobody would argue that images taken with a D30 are anywhere near as good as those taken with a 5D Mark II, and there's a difference of less than a decade between the introduction of the these two bodies (as opposed to nearly four decades between the F-1 and 1V). This is obviously because with DSLR's it's the sensor (along with the lens) that is decisive for image quality, and the sensor is part of the body's hardware.</p>

<p>I just wish that sensor technology were not progressing as rapidly as it is!</p>

[karl_lehmann]

<p>"Is technology sucking us in?" - Bob<br>

Those who bought the D30 were definitely being sucked in, because they would have gotten far better results with film. But we should all be thankful they got sucked in - otherwise film would STILL be state of the art. It's the early adopters who drive the market.</p>

[isaac sibson]

<p><em>because they would have gotten far better results with film</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

I can't say I totally agree with that Karl. Of course you can't print a 3MP image up at big sizes, but for small prints the D30's results were fantastic. </p>

<p>It was at the fairford airshow that the D30 really made me realise that film was over. I was carrying both the D30 and the EOS 3, and took most of my photos with the 3 (of all the cool stuff, like the F117, B2 and the Red Arrows). Later in the day as the light faded and my 200 ISO film wouldn't cut it anymore I decided I had nothing to lose in taking a few shots with the D30. My <a href="http://www.askisaac.com/images/B1B.jpg">favourite shot of the day</a> was one of those.</p>

<p>And, of course, there's the well known article on the subject: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml</a></p>

<p>Far better results with film? Given the number of poorly made prints and scratched (unscannable, even with ICE) negatives I was getting, even by 2003, the balance tipped to digital incredibly fast. My EOS 3 had its last hurrah in 2004, and was sold in early 2005 before it became worthless (in monetary terms). As much as I loved the EOS 3, the D30 proved the way forward (and it was sold at the same time as the 3, both replaced with a 20D). </p>

[w_t1]

<p>I wake up and thank God every day for you people that dumped your film cameras 2007 and later and are on the digital upgrade bandwagon. I've purchased some film equipment from 35mm to 4x5 in new condition that I could never have justified purchasing at new prices.</p>

<p>I don't have a problem buying yesterday's technology, my new 10d from B&H was purchased when the 20d was on its last legs. My 10,000 shutter actuations like new in the box 1dmk2 was purchased 4 months ago. My total out of pocket cost for both was 1700, far less than the new prices.</p>

<p> </p>