A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

20D or 5D



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 23rd 05, 04:39 AM
GTO
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I wonder if I should stop considering buying Nikon DX lenses. Looking at the
Canon 5D, I can no longer imagine how Nikon can stick with a DX format image
sensor. The community of 35mm camera users will most certainly no longer
accept a DX format image sensor in a D2X that sells for US$5000.

Anyway, a couple of months ago, the 20D was the best DSLR for the money.
Maybe end of next year, Canon will introduce a 35mm format sensor in a lower
priced model. The perfect upgrade for your 20D ;-)

In 2006, what will be my Nikon upgrade for my D70?

Gregor


"Beach Bum" wrote in message
. ..
Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
non-professional that much easier than the 20D?


One thing for sure - buying EF-S lenses will be a freakin' waste of money.
So if it was me, I'd get the 5D - but I just bought the 20D, so I'm
screwed.


Damn grass is always greener!

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com




  #22  
Old August 23rd 05, 04:52 AM
Jeremy Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GTO wrote:

I wonder if I should stop considering buying Nikon DX lenses. Looking at the
Canon 5D, I can no longer imagine how Nikon can stick with a DX format image
sensor. The community of 35mm camera users will most certainly no longer
accept a DX format image sensor in a D2X that sells for US$5000.


Why not? The D2x is equal or higher spec than the 5D in everything but
sensor size; the two cameras are not comparable. And unless you really
need super-wide-angle, full frame is a lot of money for little benefit.
(The main benefit may be a hard lesson in how poorly some lenses may
behave at the edges of a full frame digital sensor.)

Having said that, I'd imagine that full frame is in the future, sooner
or later, so apart from the DX fisheye (which you need to get fisheye
on 1.5x) it's probably best to stick to full frame lenses.

In 2006, what will be my Nikon upgrade for my D70?


Maybe sometime in 2006 Nikon will fill in the mid-spec gap in their
lineup. It's a big jump from D70 to D2x.

--
Jeremy |
  #23  
Old August 23rd 05, 05:00 AM
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

GTO wrote:

In 2006, what will be my Nikon upgrade for my D70?

Almost certainly a DX sensor 12.? mp D200, hopefully available before
the end of 2005.
If Nikon release the D200 at a similar price to the 5d, then I'll sell
my Nikon gear.
  #24  
Old August 23rd 05, 05:08 AM
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Warren wrote:
MarkČ wrote:

It wasn't particularly "hot" in the box, but it was enough to get rid
of excess moisture.



20 degrees C is the optimum temperature.


We also used little cans of stuf that collected balls of water in
it...the name of the stuff escapes me.
-Periodically, you'd have to dump the water out, being careful not to
spill any of it inside...since any residue/dust of the substance
would actually cause water to visibly collect whatever it settled on.
--Weird substance, that.



There's something like that here called (I think) a Closet Camel.

-Mike



The little balls in "closet camels" are calcium chloride.
Spillage will be very corrosive to metals and electrically conductive.
Activated alumina or silica gel might be safer to use around camera gear.
  #25  
Old August 23rd 05, 05:34 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rob wrote:


I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
non-professional that much easier than the 20D?


No.

--

Stacey
  #26  
Old August 23rd 05, 05:38 AM
GTO
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Personally, I do not need a 35mm format image sensor in my DSLR. There is
nothing magical with the 35mm format. Sure, it is somewhat awkward to use my
F3 and then switch to my D70. The 1.5x cropping factor has its limitations.
And yes, I like my 20mm f2.8, which is pretty useless on a DX format camera.
But the 35mm community of photographers is a different story. People will
ask, why should they accept DX format CMOS sensors when Canon can make them
larger. The pressure from this market segment will mount faster than Nikon
will be capable of convincing most of them that it is not really
"necessary". Sure enough, Canon seems to be moving faster than Nikon most
likely anticipated. Once Canon offers a full line of DSLRs with the 35mm
format (from US$1000 to US$5000+), Nikon must match this feature or come up
with a CCD that offers true 14-bit A/D. Something that so far cannot be
accomplished with CMOS sensors, but already today CCDs can be purchased that
offer 16-bit A/D. Of course, such a design must be cooled (e.g. with Peltier
cooling) to ensure proper function.

There is one thing that might kill the DX format image sensor in the future
anyway. How small can you make pixels before you can very noticeably see the
difference when comparing the image quality with the output from its larger,
35mm format, sibling? One thing I really like is the 8.2 um x 8.2 um pixel
size of the Canon 5D.

Gregor


"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
...
GTO wrote:

I wonder if I should stop considering buying Nikon DX lenses. Looking at
the
Canon 5D, I can no longer imagine how Nikon can stick with a DX format
image
sensor. The community of 35mm camera users will most certainly no longer
accept a DX format image sensor in a D2X that sells for US$5000.


Why not? The D2x is equal or higher spec than the 5D in everything but
sensor size; the two cameras are not comparable. And unless you really
need super-wide-angle, full frame is a lot of money for little benefit.
(The main benefit may be a hard lesson in how poorly some lenses may
behave at the edges of a full frame digital sensor.)

Having said that, I'd imagine that full frame is in the future, sooner
or later, so apart from the DX fisheye (which you need to get fisheye
on 1.5x) it's probably best to stick to full frame lenses.

In 2006, what will be my Nikon upgrade for my D70?


Maybe sometime in 2006 Nikon will fill in the mid-spec gap in their
lineup. It's a big jump from D70 to D2x.

--
Jeremy |



  #27  
Old August 23rd 05, 05:43 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Cockpit Colin wrote:
Rob wrote in message ...

Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.


Buy first, justify later - this philosophy has worked for me for many a year


Hell yeah, can I get an Amen! Sometimes the stark realization that you
just plonked down $3k for a camera will make you get your ass of the
sofa and become the world's best photographer!

Ben

  #28  
Old August 23rd 05, 05:43 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MarkČ wrote

no pesky built-in flash


Why is a built in flash "pesky"? On the camera I use, you can use the flip
up flash along with a shoe mounted "bounce flash?, adjust the output of
each independantly so you can shoot a perfectly balanced "bounce plus
fill". That doesn't seem pesky to me and has resulted in the most natural
looking flash shots I've ever taken.

Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't
sound "pro"?

--

Stacey
  #29  
Old August 23rd 05, 05:50 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

And unless you really
need super-wide-angle, full frame is a lot of money for little benefit.


Did you look at the corners of that "super wide angle " landscape image yet?

--

Stacey
  #30  
Old August 23rd 05, 06:10 AM
ThomasH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote:
Given the review on
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...canoneos5d.asp

Do you think the $3299 is worth it compared to about $ 1238 for the
20D now (buydig.com) considering its improvements over the 20D?
I wonder if the 5D will make good picture taking for the
non-professional that much easier than the 20D?

Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional? For me, it's seems
to much difference in cost but that's me. I believe the 20D about one
year ago was around $2000 so it fell about $800 over a year.


This is what Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscapes also thinks:
This price will fall down. However what makes me think against
the 5D, is the bizarre set of controls. I miss the EOS-1 like or
EOS-3 like set of buttons on the left. This wheel on the left
is such a waste. Its one of the reasons that I left out EOS-20D.

And, I will probably die and never guess why Canon is placing
the on-off button on this strange place. I can switch on and
off my Nikon with one hand while pulling it out of the bag.
Canon better stays on, you cannot reach this silly switch.

Thomas.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.