With this, I can finally compete with KingNitro! (1 Viewer)

[HEMI6point1]

....At least in the photography dept. And I need to win the lottery to get it, but that's beside the point.

On Monday Canon released it's new "amateur" EOS camera model, the EOS-40D.

Read about it here: Canon EOS 40D Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

It's a big upgrade from the 30D and it's only $1,300 body only. Canon also released 2 new lenses: an 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 with an image stabilizer (IS) and a 55-250mm F/3.5-5.6 lens with IS.

Canon also announced the EOS-1Ds Mark III which is their new flagship camera, it's full frame 21mp but it's price matches its feature set: $8,000.00.

Canon also released an updated version of the 14mm F/2.8 "L" series lens but it's $2,200.00. The question is, why? Canon should make a new version of the 200mm F/1.8L, preferably with IS. Now that would be an upgrade!

 

["Dr. Dirt"]

....Canon also announced the EOS-1Ds Mark III which is their new flagship camera, it's full frame 21mp but it's price matches its feature set: $8,000.00.

My sons, Buzzz and Paul both shoot w/the EOS-1D Mark II and they produce incredible photos. Here's their latest batch from a boat race at Long Beach two weekends ago:
Long Beach *Gordy un-approved*

 

[Jenn]

....At least in the photography dept. And I need to win the lottery to get it, but that's beside the point.

Dude, if you need to win the lottery to do it, you can't compete with Joe. You gotta "have" it to be competitive. That's like saying "I can win Top Fuel, but I don't have a car".

 

[Toejam]

Sam, Camera's are like Cars, You can spend as much as you want to! I'd love to try using a Canon 5D or a Nikon D2X, but would I spend $4,500 for a Body? Hell NO! If I was a Professional photog which I'm not, I'd probably make that investment. Same with lenses, how some of those guys can justify spending $5-7,000 on those 400m F2.0 lenses blows me away!

 

[Jenn]

As far as lenses and bodies go, there are some good photography forums that offer classified sections for bodies and glass. I'd check those out if you are looking to go low budget.

I've probably got the same "champagne taste on a beer budget" as Samuel does, but one thing I've learned is that if you can't make do with what you got, the same attitude is going to follow you if you upgrade.

I'll post a link to one of the better forums with classified sections on here for you when I get home Samuel, it's on my favorite places there. Maybe you can find something budget wise there. Cost about 5-10 bucks to sign up there for the classified but if you get on there and save a couple hundred, 5-10 bucks is nothin'.

 

[HEMI6point1]

Sam, Camera's are like Cars, You can spend as much as you want to! I'd love to try using a Canon 5D or a Nikon D2X, but would I spend $4,500 for a Body? Hell NO! If I was a Professional photog which I'm not, I'd probably make that investment. Same with lenses, how some of those guys can justify spending $5-7,000 on those 400m F2.0 lenses blows me away!

As far as I can tell, there has never been a 35mm lens that had an F/2.0 aperture and 400mm focal length because it would be the size of a car! The fastest "tele" lens remains Canon's 200mm F/1.8L lens. It was probably the sharpest lens Canon ever made, but it wasn't very popular - until AFTER Canon stopped making them in 2003, then demand in the used market drove the price way up!

 

[Toejam]

As far as I can tell, there has never been a 35mm lens that had an F/2.0 aperture and 400mm focal length because it would be the size of a car! The fastest "tele" lens remains Canon's 200mm F/1.8L lens. It was probably the sharpest lens Canon ever made, but it wasn't very popular - until AFTER Canon stopped making them in 2003, then demand in the used market drove the price way up!

Look on the Sidelines at Most Sports events, those Huge Lenses that look like Telescopes on a stand? Yes they make those in Nikon and Canon mounts.

 

[.]

I'd rather have one of these: Nikon D300 | Digital Camera Review

 

[Kelly Andersen]

As far as I can tell, there has never been a 35mm lens that had an F/2.0 aperture and 400mm focal length because it would be the size of a car! The fastest "tele" lens remains Canon's 200mm F/1.8L lens. It was probably the sharpest lens Canon ever made, but it wasn't very popular - until AFTER Canon stopped making them in 2003, then demand in the used market drove the price way up!

They make 500 & 600's in 2.8, mortal man cant afford it though.

 

[Toejam]

I'd rather have one of these: Nikon D300 | Digital Camera Review

Brent, guess how much that thing cost?

 

[.]

Brent, guess how much that thing cost?

I read that retail will be $1800 but of course you'll be able to buy it for less.

 

[HEMI6point1]

I'd rather take the 40D, it's 2 mp less but at least the high-ISO (above 800) will actually be usable, that's the issue with the Nikon's, they make great lenses and the bodies are durable but they "noise out" at anything over 800 speed.

 

[.]

I'd rather take the 40D, it's 2 mp less but at least the high-ISO (above 800) will actually be usable, that's the issue with the Nikon's, they make great lenses and the bodies are durable but they "noise out" at anything over 800 speed.

Kind of an overly broad generalization, don't you think? Did you notice that it's a new CMOS sensor and not a CCD like in other Nikon's? Of course not, you were too busy painting with a broad brush. Have you seen any pics from this camera? I doubt it since I can't find any yet. So tell me, how do you know the high-ISO will be noisy without having even seen a single pic from the camera? At least it won't have that typical over-saturated plastic look that Canon can't seem to get rid of even in their top models.

I can count on my fingers the number of times I've used ISO 800 or higher in the 3+ years I've owned my D70. Have you ever shot actual 800 film? I'm pretty sure it's granier than any shot taken out of my D70. I would have loved to have my hundreds of rolls of Kodak Tri-X 400 look as good as what comes out of my D70 at ISO 800.

 

[HEMI6point1]

Kind of an overly broad generalization, don't you think? Did you notice that it's a new CMOS sensor and not a CCD like in other Nikon's? Of course not, you were too busy painting with a broad brush. Have you seen any pics from this camera? I doubt it since I can't find any yet. So tell me, how do you know the high-ISO will be noisy without having even seen a single pic from the camera? At least it won't have that typical over-saturated plastic look that Canon can't seem to get rid of even in their top models.

I can count on my fingers the number of times I've used ISO 800 or higher in the 3+ years I've owned my D70. Have you ever shot actual 800 film? I'm pretty sure it's granier than any shot taken out of my D70. I would have loved to have my hundreds of rolls of Kodak Tri-X 400 look as good as what comes out of my D70 at ISO 800.

I never understood how people say it's a "plastic" look, to me it's POP! Also, Canon's lenses are usually a tad cheaper and most of the new ones give you an image stabilizer where as the Nikor lenses usually don't (ex: Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS, $950 Vs Nikor 17-55mm F/2.8 DX with no IS for $1,200).

As far as the CMOS sensor in the D300, finally Nikon got smart but it's flippin' Sony making the sensor, and unlike Canon who has been making CMOS sensors for close to 7 years Sony is still a relative newbie at it so I doubt the image quality at ISO 800+ is going to be better than the Canon.

BTW I actually like the D70 very much, there are lots of people who refuse to upgrade to the newer cameras because the image quality from the D70 is better at higher ISOs (due to not having as many pixels crammed into the same size sensor).

And yes, I have used film, way back in 2000-2001. I used an old, manual-focus Canon FT-b with a 50mm F/1.8 lens. Was responsible for me getting into digital: I didn't know much about photography then, and I listened to a guy say "just leave the lens at F8, you'll be fine." Well I did that, and I went to a cousin's wedding and took some pics with some hot girls in low light. Well let's just say I wasn't exactly happy with how they turned out, when I exited the photo shop my mom (who was in the car waiting for me) said, "I could tell what you were saying by your lips and you weren't exactly speaking french!"

 

[Tony Niswonger]

....At least in the photography dept. And I need to win the lottery to get it, but that's beside the point.

On Monday Canon released it's new "amateur" EOS camera model, the EOS-40D.

Read about it here: Canon EOS 40D Preview: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

It's a big upgrade from the 30D and it's only $1,300 body only. Canon also released 2 new lenses: an 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 with an image stabilizer (IS) and a 55-250mm F/3.5-5.6 lens with IS.

Canon also announced the EOS-1Ds Mark III which is their new flagship camera, it's full frame 21mp but it's price matches its feature set: $8,000.00.

Canon also released an updated version of the 14mm F/2.8 "L" series lens but it's $2,200.00. The question is, why? Canon should make a new version of the 200mm F/1.8L, preferably with IS. Now that would be an upgrade!

Very cool....

 

[.]

I never understood how people say it's a "plastic" look, to me it's POP!

It's definitely not natural looking. If I had a dollar for every time somebody posted a pic on a forum and another person asked what camera is that and I jumped in and replied "It's a Canon" correctly I could probably buy a D300. I even posted examples for you in another thread a while back of what's screwy with almost every pic I've seen come out of a Canon DSLR. They crank the saturation and contrast levels up so high that it looks unnatural and plastic-like. I can spot it almost every time without even trying. I'm sure you've seen plenty of pics of models and celebs where they've airbrushed it a few steps too far...well, that's pretty much what Canon DSLR pics look like to me.

It was terrible on the first Rebel (and hasn't gotten much better since) and that's the reason I went with Nikon. I wanted a DSLR badly and was literally a couple days from plunking down my cash but then I saw the first pics out of one and I thought it was a joke at first. I waited another 3 or 4 months until the D70 came out and I'm incredibly glad I did. I want my pictures to look natural and be an accurate record of what the scene actually looked like when I tripped the shutter release, not an over-contrasty, over-saturated, glossied-up, photochopped version of what Canon thinks it should be. I can manipulate my shots to look like that later if I want.

And yes, I have used film, way back in 2000-2001. I used an old, manual-focus Canon FT-b with a 50mm F/1.8 lens. Was responsible for me getting into digital...

If you've used film then I guess I don't understand the big deal over high-ISO noise that really isn't bad at all, certainly better than any film we've ever used. I learned with a Pentax K-1000
and my dad's Mamiya-Sekor 35mm shooting Kodak Tri-X and Plus-X back in '87. In a perfect world there would be no noise or grain but the world isn't perfect.

 

[Toejam]

I'd rather take the 40D, it's 2 mp less but at least the high-ISO (above 800) will actually be usable, that's the issue with the Nikon's, they make great lenses and the bodies are durable but they "noise out" at anything over 800 speed.

I guess my camera didn't get the Noise memo, I shoot 1600 plenty and the Images look fine. If I ever decide to upgrade Body-wise one thing I'm big on is weight! I don't care what anybody says, a 600g Body isn't built as good as a 900g body! Weight equals quality!

 

[.]

Nikon's, they make great lenses and the bodies are durable but they "noise out" at anything over 800 speed.

Geez, look at how horrible the noise is in this picture. Why I can barely make out what he was taking a picture of!

D80, ISO 1250

Another horribly noisy pic, so bad I can barely read the numbers!
D80, ISO 3200

D200, ISO 3200

D70, ISO 1600

Looking at these pics I guess Nikon should get out of the camera business since all I see is horrible amounts of noise. /sarcasm

 

[HEMI6point1]

Those pics look pretty good, you can still see noise, but it's not bad. Don't forget those are resized though. I can remember when Nikon came out with the D2x, NOBODY went over ISO 800 on it!

BTW it's funny though when talking about noise, although the noise on Nikon DSLR's are a little higher (although I will admit they are getting closer to Canon now than they ever were), it's still better than any film produced. ISO 800 for example on a Canon 30D is better than a film ISO 200.

 

["Dr. Dirt"]

Talk about getting a dose of your own medicine?