mark_man

<Don't called it like a new model. Its not the name, its the afford they put in the improvement. Look at D200, from D100 or D70 to D200, you really see Nikon's afford for impovement.>

 

I respectfully disagree - it's not the amount of improvement from the preceding model which makes a new model worthwhile. Each individual model must be taken on its own merits, and may be compared to cameras from other manufacturers which are available at that particular timepoint. There is not much point comparing the new model to the previous one except for those people looking to upgrade from that particular model.

 

Sure, the D200 was a fairly large leap over the D100, but then the D100 trod water for 4 years while the competition moved ahead in smaller but significant steps. The big jump from D100 to D200 does NOT in itself make the D200 a "better" camera than the competing incrementally improved 20D/30D. In fact, Phil's review demonstrates that image quality of cameras in this range are similar at low ISOs, but that the Canon offerings are superior at high ISOs. Where the D200 shines is in its more rugged construction which may appeal to some photographers but by no means everyone.

<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.

Er, since when have you believed Jessops assistants? Anyway - not likely this year. My bet is towards the end of next year or possibly early 2008. But you never know...

Tom Hunter at the National Gallery - his older works are very good. The featured "Living in Hell" series not so impressive, IMHO.

Coming from a 35mm perspective, I am dumbfounded by the negative response to the 30D, which seems to largely centre on the lack of an MP bump. Remember, we are dealing with the 1.6 crop line here. Whether youﾒre talking 8MP, 10MP or even 12MP, Canon, Nikon, whatever ﾖ itﾒs still a 1.6 crop! A couple of MP here or there means practically nothing at this level.

 

My view is: unless you need a new DSLR now, forget 1.6. This is not where the prosumer DSLR future lies ﾖ itﾒs FF. An incremental update now paves the way for a substantial update next time round ie merger of the 5D and 30D lines into a prosumer FF DSLR at a (really) affordable price. Yes, I think the 5Dﾒs price will slide further, but in about 2 years we should be looking at a merged FF DSLR sitting slightly above the 30D pricepoint (about where the Nikon D200 is presently). At this point, myself, and Iﾒm sure, many other 35mm film folk will finally succumb to digital temptation! There will probably be a new semi-pro FF DSLR taking over at the original 5D price (?3D). Of course, everyone is expecting a new cut price 3xxxD to keep the 1.6 crowd happy at the bottom of the pile. So if you look at the 30D as a stopgap model, and resolve to wait a couple of years for the real deal, you'll feel much better :)

Why do you want a smaller aperture? As with all tiny-sized digicam sensors, the DOF is massive compared to the DOF at the same aperture using 35mm.

You've made the right choice. There's really no contest - Barcelona rocks! One tip though - mind your pockets and camera gear - esp on La Rambla. You really cannot be too careful...

I tend to agree with Suman actually. For the price this lens was surprisingly not too bad. The main problems were slowness and cheap construction. Having said that I've long since given mine away so perhaps my actions speak louder than my words...

Great to see Fuji continue to develop this largely neglected yet vital feature in its digicams. I wish other manufacturers would abandon the MP race and introduce truly innovative and useful features in their offerings.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the R1 uses the same sensor as the Nikon D200. Dunno if that is good or bad given the banding issue with a few early D200s. Does anyone know if the R1 has the same banding problem? It probably wouldn't hurt to wait till all the bugs have been ironed out anyway (as with any new product).

I'll get in first before everyone else... The Fuji F10/F11 sounds like it should fit your bill perfectly. ISO up to 1600 (good noise control at 400/800), short zoom, fast shutter response. Costs about ﾣ200 here - should be within your budget in the states. I can definitely recommend the F10. The F11 has manual controls but otherwise same as F10.

There is no good reason why DSLR sensors can't be used in fixed lens digicams apart from the increased cost (which BTW is much less of a consideration than it was before). If you wait a while I've no doubt more such models will become available as manufacturers try to keep ahead of the me-too tiny sensor pack.

sad but true...

It depends on your shooting style. I like variety, and shoot mostly PJ so using different films works quite well for me. I often use a mix of (excuse old names) NPH, NPS, Reala and a chromogenic like XP2. It's true this approach is not for you if you like consistency, but then most weddings involve varying lighting conditions which creates more inconsistency in any case...

OK, this is a bit different - we are now talking about digital P&S rather than DSLRs. Doesn't matter, P&S sensor size is also a hot topic. I think you are right that the trend is for sensor upsizing here as well. Sony has just released a P&S with a APS-C sensor (DSC-R1). I'm sure it won't be the last - I actually suspect that APS-C sensors will become the standard for high-end digital P&S. There is no technical reason why we couldn't have a P&S with a FF sensor; the problem would be convincing punters to buy it over a FF DSLR!

Thanks for your reponse Roger. You definitely fall into the category of "serious photographer" which I only briefly defined. I did not mean pro by any means! It's a person's attitude to photography, rather than their ability or whether they get paid for it. The key word in my statement, which perhaps I should have emphasised, is the word *future.* I don't see serious photographers or manufacturers making big commitments to the cropped format which would lock them in for the future for at least the medium term.

 

Remember, people tend to keep (using) lenses longer than bodies. Therefore, you can judge a photographer's level/type of commitment by the type of glass they have. If a person had all Canon glass I would say they were pretty committed to Canon. How many photographers have bought up a full range of EF-S or DX glass? (I know, not easy, as manufacturers haven't brought out full ranges of said glass! - I think I have made my point)

 

I do have views on FF vs crop, but I'm not talking about that here. I'm looking at the evidence: neither serious photographers nor major manufacturers have demonstrated that the cropped format is going to be dominant in the future. It might be popular as a temporary measure until digital FF bodies become commonplace, but it doesn't look like it's the way of the future. (point of clarification: for less serious photographers I think the cropped format *will* probably be the way of the future, I'm *not* saying it will die out) (another point of clarification: I'm not saying anything about the relative merits of FF vs crop) (is that enough disclaimers?)

It depends on what you mean by very good results. You mention both sharpness and blurred backgrounds. Digicam lenses are not renowned for their sharpness compared to SLR lenses, but the images can be adequate (no personal experience with the A400). The main problem with most digicams is that they use tiny sensors (much smaller even than "cropped" DSLR sensors), so depth of field at a given effective focal length is much greater than on 35mm. So if you want blurred backgrounds, you need to place the subject much further away from the background (not always possible!) Having said that, I would take Michael's advice which is to try using available light as much as possible. This is by far the most valuable method to learn about portrait photography. You can definitely improve your skills even using a digicam.

Bob, you've hit the nail on the head. Neither serious photographers nor serious camera manufacturers really believe that cropped sensors are the way of the future for serious photography (by serious, I mean people who are committed to photography as opposed to casual shooters - I'm not trying to alienate people, just making a sensible distinction). That's why they are trying very hard to avoid committing to the format! The lack of dedicated EF-S or DX primes is very good evidence of this. As I've said before, regardless of whether you are moving from film, or starting from scratch, I would be very cautious about investing in cropped glass (notwithstanding Bob's long-standing view that you can just sell it when you move to FF).

I don't think there is much doubt Nikon are going to release a FF DSLR sometime (relatively) soon. 1) Large sensors are coming down rapidly in price. 2) They have just discontinued the only other visible means of support for their array of FF lenses (ie 35mm film cameras). 3) They haven't exactly released a slew of DX lenses to replace the seemingly redundant FF ones. Ergo, FF Nikon digital must logically be forthcoming...

You should also consider the Fuji F10/F11 in this price range. Advantages are usable high ISOs (much more useful than you might think) and fast response times (turn on/shutter lag)...oh, and a Li-ion battery! The newer F11 adds manual controls - otherwise pretty much the same as the F10.

The Tom Hunter exhibition at the National Gallery is, er, interesting. And it's free...

Also bear in mind the 20D is due for replacement soon. If you can wait for a month or so for the specs then you'll be able to consider the 20D replacement as another option.

Well, if it's any help to Fuji, I'm willing to state my continued support for their films as long as they are readily available. All they need to do is to keep their end of the bargain...

Are you shooting film or digital? If film, which one? My 85/1.8 gives beautiful skin tones on NPS/NPH/Reala. Haven't tried the 70-200.

How fast are your lenses? Depending on how fast they are, you may well need an 800ISO film like NPZ. I agree with the suggestion of a chromogenic - I prefer XP2. Do you have a tripod - some long exposures might be interesting.