EOS 400D out... what about 30D?

[iW00t]

At last the 400D finally caught up with the rest of the world with the new ultrasonic sensor cleaner thingy, but what about those the 30D?

For the first time in a while the consumer SLR is superior to the prosumer SLR, when will be the next window where Canon will probably release the successor to the 30D?

 

[compuwar]

At last the 400D finally caught up with the rest of the world with the new ultrasonic sensor cleaner thingy, but what about those the 30D?

For the first time in a while the consumer SLR is superior to the prosumer SLR, when will be the next window where Canon will probably release the successor to the 30D?

The real "battlefield" in DSLRs is at the low end. That's where the most room for growth is at the moment. There are more people clamoring to "upgrade" to a DSLR than there are people clamoring to "upgrade" their current DSLR. Folks at the higher end of the scale have started to realize that they can still take great pictures without having the latest camera. At the low end, there's still a fight over megapixels and gadgets. Expect consumer DSLR timeframes to continue to outstrip "Prosumer" and "Pro" cameras from here on out.

 

[sjl]

At last the 400D finally caught up with the rest of the world with the new ultrasonic sensor cleaner thingy, but what about those the 30D?

For the first time in a while the consumer SLR is superior to the prosumer SLR, when will be the next window where Canon will probably release the successor to the 30D?

There are only two advantages of any significance that the 400D has over the 30D: the resolution (10 MP vs 8), and the sensor cleaning. In every other way, the 30D is superior: better body, better feature set, wider ISO range, etc.

It's easy to dispel the idea that resolution is important: 8 MP to 10 MP is only a 25% increase in area, or 10% in width/height. I have a 20D (also an 8 MP DSLR), and I get very nice prints at 12x18 inches; I doubt most people would blow their shots up to that point, or beyond, very often if at all.

As for sensor cleaning, I'm not convinced that it does a good enough job to be worried about. Yes, dust on a digital sensor (especially in DSLRs) is a concern; I'm just not convinced that it's possible to do a good job of cleaning it off via any inbuilt means. Rapid vibration of the sensor might dislodge particles, but my worry is that they would then fall back onto the sensor; yes, you can electrostatically charge a different part and attract the dust to that, but that would eventually lose its effectiveness.

The problem for camera stores is that most people don't understand either of those two points (especially the first), so balk at spending the greater amount of money on a camera that's "inferior", based solely on its resolution. The resale value of my 20D has plummeted as a result. (not that I'm particularly worried; it fills my needs more than adequately for the time being.)

My suspicion is that Canon released the sensor cleaning mechanism in the 400D to see how it went, before migrating it up the line. Normally, features appear in high end bodies and migrate down, but in this case, with the risk of reduced reliability, I think Canon's doing it the smart way (not to mention, as has been said, that they need to compete at the low end.)

 

[Abstract]

For the first time in a while the consumer SLR is superior to the prosumer SLR...

Says who? I wouldn't take a 400D if I could have one at 50% off. The jump from 8 MP to 10 MP is essentially nothing, while the 30D's body is impressive compared to the 400D's body, which isn't impressive to me at all when compared to what other manufacturers are offering, and I'm not just talking about the gimmicks and stuff added to the 400D to sweeten the sales pitch. The sensor shaking thing isn't a replacement for an actual sensor cleaning, and it's not like most people use their 400D in harsh conditions anyway. Plus, the 400D's implementation isn't very effective, so it doesn't matter if the sensor dust removal system delays you from having to get an actual sensor cleaning for another 6 months.

If it gets dirty every 12 - 18 months, get it cleaned. It's not very expensive. I'd rather have a better camera body than a sensor dust removal that doesn't replace a real cleaning. In the 12 months I've owned my Nikon D50, I have never had my sensor cleaned, and it doesn't appear as though I'm going to need to anytime soon.


I won't even comment on the MegaPixels concern. That's even less important than the dust removal.

 

[compuwar]

In the 12 months I've owned my Nikon D50, I have never had my sensor cleaned, and it doesn't appear as though I'm going to need to anytime soon.

I agree with everything up to this- now I don't know if you've only had one lens attached to the body ever in that year and never removed it, but I'd really recommend shooting a picture of the blue sky at f/11 or so (f/16 or smaller would be better.)

My D2x looked fantastic at f/2.8 but the last time I needed real depth of field I had to go to the store for some sensor swabs.

I'm guessing I need to clean my sensor about once a quarter, but I don't do a heck of a lot of lens changes.

 

[Abstract]

I switch lenses, but I think it depends where I'm shooting. If I'm on vacation and go out purposely to see things (eg: while in Japan for from mid-December until 1 week ago, hiking in Tasmania, etc), I'll tend to use my Tokina 12-24 mm and just keep that lens on my camera even though it's not long enough for 2% of the shots I want to take. I don't have much reason to change lenses on hikes, high lookouts, or when I'm sightseeing.

Almost everything else is done with my Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8, so if I go to a friend's BBQ or something, I'll bring the 50 mm f/1.8 like I did last time, since we had a BBQ in the evening and it came in handy in lower light. I usually have to switch lenses once or twice in many of these situations.

If I go into the city, I'll bring both the Sigma and Tokina.

If I purposely go out to take photos, I'll take my Sigma and Nikon 105 mm f/2.8 in case I need the reach.

 

[compuwar]

I switch lenses

Please to be posting the very small aperture sky shot then, inquiring minds and all that...

(I'm betting on the need for a cleaning.)

 

[Abstract]

I'll try to take a new photo if I find the time. Only shots I have that are taken at f/16 and above are macro, and I can only see 4 specks of dust, although 2 of them are almost unnoticeable at f/22. I can only see the small one in one of my photos. Maybe I should clean this LCD and try again?

The other 2 are much more prominent (at f/20) and appear as 2 dark grey/black dots in my macro shots, but I can't see them in the large large majority of my photos unless I know exactly where they are already, which is why I said I won't be needing one "for a while." It took me 12 months to get those 2 specks, so I think I'll get my sensor cleaned if I get another 1 or 2 larger specks, which hopefully won't be until after June.

 

[iW00t]

Abstract, you mention going to Tassie, where do you normally send your camera in for sensor cleaning and how much does that cost?

I was kinda hoping that the new ultrasonic cleaning system would defend the sensor against dirt. Changing lenses always drives me nuts, so at least with the new system I'd get a certain peace of mind

 

[bozigle]

For once Canon follow the same politic as Nikon always did (the 200D is just there to prove me wrong but never mind)
Canon used to bring new features to high-end model before offering similar features to consumer model... where as Nikon was first introducing(testing??) the feature to consumer before bringing a more performent equivalent to hight-end

I guess 30D and 5D succesors will have the feature as well...
wich will be very welcome... i'm spending 40€ every 6months to clean my sensor... i guess it has as much to do on how careful you are to change your lenses and the environment (windy+cold+gloves=lot of crap gets in)
bozigle

 

[bob5820]

...For the first time in a while the consumer SLR is superior to the prosumer SLR...

Keep in mind when it comes to pro/prosumer camears that reliability is superior to the latest feature, particularly features of dubious value. When a company such as Cannon or Nikon introduce a feature on a lower or mid range camera the reason is either that 1) its a bling feature that pro's aren't looking for, but sound real cool to the avaerage Joe. 2) There is some concern about reliability, not so bad as to be seen in consumer usage, but possibly a problem when used in a pro setting.

 

[dllavaneras]

Is cleaning the sensor that difficult that you have to pay someone to do it? I thought you could do it yourself...

 

[iW00t]

Is cleaning the sensor that difficult that you have to pay someone to do it? I thought you could do it yourself...

It is a quick way to destroy a A$2000 camera, yes.

 

[bozigle]

Is cleaning the sensor that difficult that you have to pay someone to do it? I thought you could do it yourself...

After paying few time i thought i would save money by doing it myself... i bought some air dust can (type insecticid aerosol... what ever you call that thing in english) ... great success and great fear! i put my camera at around 40cm above it... ha ha ha.
Well the aerosol is not meant to be used horizontaly(the longer side along the horizon) so you can't really blow down the dust from the inside of the camera. and also the can when missused(horizontaly) give away not only high pressure gaz but also freezing liquid...
i end up with my sensor full of Stains (like ink drop on clothes) and then i went to the usual cleaner.

I guess if you find a way to have a (not too strong) air pressure without liquid particules and keeping your camera down... then you're fine.
On the other hand i made peace with myself and consider the every 6 month trip is worth it and less expensive than having to change my sensor and have a (relatively) clean sensor

bozigle

 

[John T]

It's all to do with marketing!!

From now until eternity, or for however long the likes of Canon, Nikon et al are in business they will have to keep bringing out now models for the lower end of the consumer market. In order to stimulate sales and survive they have to regularly cater for new enthusiasts and all those idiots who "must have" the latest model.

A camera, in its simplest form is only a box containing the sensor or film and a shutter which supports the lens (the most important part). All the bells and whistles just make the picture making process that much easier. They don't make better pictures!

I still have my Father's old Goertz plate camera (circa 1923) and once you can fit a bit of cut film in it (!) it still takes pictures that can rival the so-called "modern" variety!

 

[coldrain]

Sensor cleaning is easily done by yourself and only takes 5 minutes at most (unless you are very slow or clumsy).
Both the 30D and 400D are very good cameras, and their biggest difference is their size and weight (and price).
If you care about the details that are different, then choose on those grounds (30D: metal frame body, 3% spot metering, better high ISO noise performance, faster FPS. 400D: 10mp, dust removal).

The 30D is by no means a dated camera, and outperforms the competition still (Pentax K10D, Nikon D80/D200).

Expect a followup to the 30D and 5D (and 1Ds) in spring this year, probable annoucements around PMA 2007.

The 5D will get a sensor update (16mp?) and maybe weather sealing like the the Nikon D200, dust removal system, the 30D follow up will get a 10.1mp sensor, dust removal system and other enhancements.

 

[EstorilM]

I've been saying this since Canon introduced the 5D.

In order for Canon to be competitive in the prosumer DSLR market, they'll have to do something about the 5D, or get rid of it all together. It just seems like such an experimental product that doesn't really FULLY fit the needs of anyone.

What it does do, however, is eliminate the possibility of Canon introducing a camera with the specs of a D200 for anything in the same price range.

Any camera they announce with similar specs to a D200 will DESTROY their 5D sales and will have to hit the market at almost half the cost of the 5D. While most other DSLR companies have a clearly progressive model lineup, Canon's system is a little different. Weird even.

edit: before anyone says this - yes, I'm well aware of the specific market niche for the 5D, and it's (very good) sensor, however. Look at the specs comparing it to the D200, I don't see how anyone in their right mind could justify twice the price for a lesser model (I'm talking about build construction, feature set, metering, AF, timing, speed, durability, materials, weatherproofing, detailed battery info, etc.)

 

[coldrain]

I've been saying this since Canon introduced the 5D.

In order for Canon to be competitive in the prosumer DSLR market, they'll have to do something about the 5D, or get rid of it all together. It just seems like such an experimental product that doesn't really FULLY fit the needs of anyone.

What it does do, however, is eliminate the possibility of Canon introducing a camera with the specs of a D200 for anything in the same price range.

Any camera they announce with similar specs to a D200 will DESTROY their 5D sales and will have to hit the market at almost half the cost of the 5D. While most other DSLR companies have a clearly progressive model lineup, Canon's system is a little different. Weird even.

edit: before anyone says this - yes, I'm well aware of the specific market niche for the 5D, and it's (very good) sensor, however. Look at the specs comparing it to the D200, I don't see how anyone in their right mind could justify twice the price for a lesser model (I'm talking about build construction, feature set, metering, AF, timing, speed, durability, materials, weatherproofing, detailed battery info, etc.)

The 5D having lesser build quality than the D200? You must be kidding (or just do not know).
In what way is the metering of a D200 better? And since when its the rather appaling AF of the D200 better than the excellent AF of the 5D? How is the 5D not durable? What is wrong with the materials used in a 5D? And since when is it twice the price of a 200D?

Sounds like FUD in the way MS fans like to put down Apple products.

The 5D is of excellent build quality, its image quality is way above that of the D200, its AF system is better, and only people who need to be making photos in streaming rain need a weather sealed camera (and that are not many, I can tell you).

What you should do is actually use a 5D sometime. You then will know what a well made and fast and accurate (AF) camera it is. And how good its image quality is (and how dynamic).

Nikon has nothing comparable to the 5D, simple as that. Yes, not everybody wants full frame. I know that. But that is why Canon also has a 30D. For when you do want the extra tele reach, or do not want the added expenses.

The upgrade to the 5D is just a natural one, the 1D will move up, so the 5D can move up too in resolution. What else is new in camera land.

 

[Zeke]

It's easy to dispel the idea that resolution is important: 8 MP to 10 MP is only a 25% increase in area, or 10% in width/height. I have a 20D (also an 8 MP DSLR), and I get very nice prints at 12x18 inches; I doubt most people would blow their shots up to that point, or beyond, very often if at all.

Just to contribute here. I routinely print large. Have several 13x20 and a 16x24 from my 20d. The print quality depends more on the lens than on the sensor at this point. Mine look great even when viewed up close.

 

[EstorilM]

The 5D having lesser build quality than the D200? You must be kidding (or just do not know).
In what way is the metering of a D200 better? And since when its the rather appaling AF of the D200 better than the excellent AF of the 5D? How is the 5D not durable? What is wrong with the materials used in a 5D? And since when is it twice the price of a 200D?

Sounds like FUD in the way MS fans like to put down Apple products.

The 5D is of excellent build quality, its image quality is way above that of the D200, its AF system is better, and only people who need to be making photos in streaming rain need a weather sealed camera (and that are not many, I can tell you).

What you should do is actually use a 5D sometime. You then will know what a well made and fast and accurate (AF) camera it is. And how good its image quality is (and how dynamic).

Nikon has nothing comparable to the 5D, simple as that. Yes, not everybody wants full frame. I know that. But that is why Canon also has a 30D. For when you do want the extra tele reach, or do not want the added expenses.

The upgrade to the 5D is just a natural one, the 1D will move up, so the 5D can move up too in resolution. What else is new in camera land.

I've played around with a 5D before in stores on a number of occasions, the build quality between that and the D200 is night and day - I'd suggest you open your eyes a little to other companies before tagging yourself as a hypocrite and comparing me to some MS troll.

Everything is different, from the location of buttons, to the way that they are constructed (textured, molded buttons that fit the contours of the camera, versus little cheapo glossy plastic dots that canon likes to call buttons.) Um, Inset status LCD screen to prevent scratches? Included screen protector for main LCD? Or the fact that the status LCD is significantly larger on the D200, and displays more information (as does the viewfinder.) The battery gauge on the 5D has TWO STEPS. D200 has 5 step on the status LCD, percent remaining, and charge cycles / life in the menu.
D200 has multiple programmable shooting modes, custom modes, menu layouts, etc.
Anyways, back to construction - for $3k Canon doesn't even give you a spring-loaded CF door? Nice. I get that on a D40. I'm just saying, for you money - fit and finish goes MUCH further with most Nikon cameras. A number of the features I listed already can't be found on anything less than a 1D.
D200 has an internal iTTL (wireless) flash commander and speedlite, um..

I'm really not sure how you can possibly call the AF of the D200 appalling. Pretty much proof that you've never used the camera, or at least have no idea HOW to use a camera. I've shot with D200s in every imaginable condition from monsoon-like dark, rainy days shooting equestrian sports with subjects moving at 35mph getting tack sharp continuous AF, to low light / blackout conditions at night. I've never had a problem. Period. It's almost as good as the CAM2000 in the D2Hs / x that I've also used, which is one of the fastest systems on the market. Additionally, the D200 also has an 11 point AF grid versus 9 of the 5D, and has bunch of other features from closest-subject priority, 7-area wide, groups, etc (with variable target lock-on, tracking modes, etc.) The 5D is pretty much a studio camera, sports shooters like myself that need the 1.5x crop demand much more from an AF system. The working range of the D200's AF is -1 to +19 EV, versus -.5 to +18 EV of the 5D. I mean, were you pulling all of this out of your um.. ? ..well I have no idea where you get off calling the D200's AF appalling, unless you're saying the 5D's is even worse.

On to the metering. Nikon 3D Matrix II Metering is pretty much known around the market as being the best.

Compare the 1005-pixel 3D / color system in the Nikon to the 35 segment system in the Canon. Go ahead haha. The working range of the Nikon's AF is a full stop higher, working from 0-20EV versus 1-20 of the Canon's.

What else.. let's see. Dynamic range. I'm seeing both cameras at 8.2EV usable DR. I'm on a roll here.

So, not doing very well so far - the D200 is also compatible with just about any Nikkor lens ever made, versus EF mount for the 5D.

It's also faster, buffers almost twice as many RAW files in continuous mode, USB transfer rate is more than TWICE as fast as the 5D, shoots 5fps, supports GPS EXIF tags, has a higher capacity battery, embedded image comments, user memories, programmable function buttons, more than twice as much EV compensation possibilities (+/- 5 versus 2 for the 5D.)

I mean, I could go on forever. I didn't pick a camera then become a troll trying to convert everyone - I started out with nothing, and went with Nikon for a reason.

The funny thing is - after reading all of what I said, you'd think Canon would keep the 5D in a competitive price range with the D200. Regardless of what you think, street price of the D200 is almost half that of the 5D. Kbye.

 

[Abstract]

All this mention about which camera has better AF, etc, makes me think that although coldrain speaks with an authoritative voice, it's all opinion, just like yours, which is where most of us stop tuning in to camera arguments that coldrain likes to start, and where people participate in for some reason......


The D200 is better in many ways, though.

 

[compuwar]

Look at the specs comparing it to the D200, I don't see how anyone in their right mind could justify twice the price for a lesser model (I'm talking about build construction, feature set, metering, AF, timing, speed, durability, materials, weatherproofing, detailed battery info, etc.)

While in general, I agree with you, I'll point out that the exact same argument has been made numerous times about the D200 vs the D2x(s). Spec-wise, they're so close it't not "worth" the 2x price difference on paper. Having traded in a D200 for a D2x, I'll tell you that significantly longer battery life, very, very slightly better AF, a built-in vertical grip/shutter, slightly faster frame rate and high speed crop all come together to make a tool that works better for me. Even after I'd decided firmly that the price difference wasn't "worth it." It doesn't change the saleability of my images, nor in any real terms their quality, but the difference is quite astounding. Like our Canon fanboy friend seems not to understand, there's more to some things than the specs indicate.

I'm not the only one who's reached the D2x/D200 conclusion in favor of the 2x more expensive body, though fairly many have migrated the other way as well.

While I initially thought the D200 will massacre sales of the D2x, it doesn't seem to have done so. All the spec reading in the world would have put the D2xs in the "bound to be a complete failure" bracket.

 

[EstorilM]

While in general, I agree with you, I'll point out that the exact same argument has been made numerous times about the D200 vs the D2x(s). Spec-wise, they're so close it't not "worth" the 2x price difference on paper. Having traded in a D200 for a D2x, I'll tell you that significantly longer battery life, very, very slightly better AF, a built-in vertical grip/shutter, slightly faster frame rate and high speed crop all come together to make a tool that works better for me. Even after I'd decided firmly that the price difference wasn't "worth it." It doesn't change the saleability of my images, nor in any real terms their quality, but the difference is quite astounding. Like our Canon fanboy friend seems not to understand, there's more to some things than the specs indicate.

I'm not the only one who's reached the D2x/D200 conclusion in favor of the 2x more expensive body, though fairly many have migrated the other way as well.

While I initially thought the D200 will massacre sales of the D2x, it doesn't seem to have done so. All the spec reading in the world would have put the D2xs in the "bound to be a complete failure" bracket.

Ohh, I wasn't comparing it to a D2x - though that camera took a significant price hit after the D200 was announced (and I know a lot of pros that opted for D200s as backups.) Haha, the battery life thing isn't fair, as the the 3e battery has half the capacity of the D2 series batteries (it's amazing how resolution will kill battery performance, a D70 with the same size battery gets twice as many shots.)

Yeah.. high speed crop is amazing, and if I had a D2x I'd use it almost all the time. I'll probably drop the money on one when the D3 comes out - actually they aren't too bad now since the Xs came out. The 1 year warranty on my D200 is about to run out so I'm going to send it in for the banding fix and to swap out my rubber grip, maybe do a service clean as well. Then I'm on my own. Might be a good time for a D2.