A kick-butt camera is looming

The EOS 20D has a 22.5 mm X 15 mm sensor. Scale that up to full-size (35
mm) and you get 20 megapixels with the current sensor density. The ISO and
noise performance with the current sensor are both very good. Give Canon 1
to 2 more years and I'd bet a prosumer 35 mm, 20 MP SLR camera will be
available for $2000 U.S., or less. The heck with EF-S lenses. I'm going to
wait a while.

Looming? Sounds scary to me.

Charles Schuler wrote:
The EOS 20D has a 22.5 mm X 15 mm sensor. Scale that up to full-size (35
mm) and you get 20 megapixels with the current sensor density. The ISO and
noise performance with the current sensor are both very good. Give Canon 1
to 2 more years and I'd bet a prosumer 35 mm, 20 MP SLR camera will be
available for $2000 U.S., or less. The heck with EF-S lenses. I'm going to
wait a while.

My wife kicks my butt every time I buy a digital camera...now the cameras
going to kick it too?

Bill Crocker


"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
...
The EOS 20D has a 22.5 mm X 15 mm sensor. Scale that up to full-size (35
mm) and you get 20 megapixels with the current sensor density. The ISO
and noise performance with the current sensor are both very good. Give
Canon 1 to 2 more years and I'd bet a prosumer 35 mm, 20 MP SLR camera
will be available for $2000 U.S., or less. The heck with EF-S lenses. I'm
going to wait a while.

My wife kicks my butt every time I buy a digital camera...now the cameras
going to kick it too?

Bill Crocker


"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
...
The EOS 20D has a 22.5 mm X 15 mm sensor. Scale that up to full-size (35
mm) and you get 20 megapixels with the current sensor density. The ISO
and noise performance with the current sensor are both very good. Give
Canon 1 to 2 more years and I'd bet a prosumer 35 mm, 20 MP SLR camera
will be available for $2000 U.S., or less. The heck with EF-S lenses. I'm
going to wait a while.

Canon announced the 1Ds MkII 16.6 MP camera last month. A 20 MP sensor only
has about 20% more pixels. It takes 25% or more pixels to notice much of an
improvement (all else being the same). The difference in resolution is less
than the difference between a 4 and 5 MP camera. The 8MP 20D has 33% more
pixels than the 10D. The difference in image quality is not that great. I'm
holding off an upgrade until a 10+MP camera in that price range is
announced.

The point is, they're pretty much there. They just need to work on the
price. : )
bg

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
...
The EOS 20D has a 22.5 mm X 15 mm sensor. Scale that up to full-size (35
mm) and you get 20 megapixels with the current sensor density. The ISO
and
noise performance with the current sensor are both very good. Give Canon
1
to 2 more years and I'd bet a prosumer 35 mm, 20 MP SLR camera will be
available for $2000 U.S., or less. The heck with EF-S lenses. I'm going
to
wait a while.

Canon announced the 1Ds MkII 16.6 MP camera last month. A 20 MP sensor only
has about 20% more pixels. It takes 25% or more pixels to notice much of an
improvement (all else being the same). The difference in resolution is less
than the difference between a 4 and 5 MP camera. The 8MP 20D has 33% more
pixels than the 10D. The difference in image quality is not that great. I'm
holding off an upgrade until a 10+MP camera in that price range is
announced.

The point is, they're pretty much there. They just need to work on the
price. : )
bg

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
...
The EOS 20D has a 22.5 mm X 15 mm sensor. Scale that up to full-size (35
mm) and you get 20 megapixels with the current sensor density. The ISO
and
noise performance with the current sensor are both very good. Give Canon
1
to 2 more years and I'd bet a prosumer 35 mm, 20 MP SLR camera will be
available for $2000 U.S., or less. The heck with EF-S lenses. I'm going
to
wait a while.

In article , says...
Canon announced the 1Ds MkII 16.6 MP camera last month. A 20 MP sensor only
has about 20% more pixels. It takes 25% or more pixels to notice much of an
improvement (all else being the same). The difference in resolution is less
than the difference between a 4 and 5 MP camera. The 8MP 20D has 33% more
pixels than the 10D. The difference in image quality is not that great. I'm
holding off an upgrade until a 10+MP camera in that price range is
announced.

The point is, they're pretty much there. They just need to work on the
price. : )
bg



I agree, whole-heartedly. I think the "Pixel race" is a zero sum game. As
long as they dont increase the sensor size along with the pixel count, they
havent improved much of anything.

I'de be using a D-Rebel (with the Russian firmware hack) right now if it
weren't for the fact that I couldn't keep the dirt out of it long enough to
do a days work with it. 6mp is fine with me as long as I get the low noise.

Even when I left the lens mounted all day long, the dirt and dust inherent in
my work got inside the camera, and screwed it up. (if you have read any of my
earlier posts you know its HORSE SHOWS that I shoot, "up-close & Personal" as
ABC sports used to say, right where the dung, the dust, and the dirt is). The
seal of the lens mount may be "LIGHT TIGHT" but its not "Air Tight". It was a
big problem with film SLRs too but the back could be opened for cleaning, and
the film got advanced with every shot, taking any dirt on the sensor (film)
with it.

The dust produced by the steel and aluminum shod feet of hundreds of 1000 to
2000 pound horses grinding the footing all day long can turn the air from
dust free to dust saturated in a matter of the first two hours of the first
day of a three or four day show. The dust produced is finer than talcum (and
MUCH lighter) and permeates EVERYTHING in the general vicinity. Most riders
who wouldn't be seen outside the show ring with glasses will wear them
instead of contacts because of the dust or they will go in sans lenses of any
kind. The dust causes BIG problems with cameras, computers and printers
(mostly, its dried horse dung, and stone dust, the actual footing is nearly
dust-free except for what blows in or is carried in by the horses in most
arenas).

The D-Rebel I used was new, and I got it cleaned TWICE and returned it to its
owner, but I was saddened to have to go back to the P&S SLR-LIKE cameras
because of the dust problem. The dust seems to stay on the outside with them
(Sony F717 Sony F828, Fuji S7000) and they have needed cleaning on the inside
only once in the past year.

I am thinking about the "Ultra-Sonic self cleaning" cameras with the adhesive
patch to catch the dust. If that adhesive patch is user replaceable, it might
sell me a camera. If it is not user replaceable, it will probably "fill up"
in one or two days of shooting.

For my money (and my use) the perfect camera would have the lens performance
of the Sony F-828 and the sensor size and performance of at least the Digital
Rebel. That combination would achieve my goals.. Less noise with less flash
needed in low light...It also would probably be a heavy hunk of equipment,
matching that lens to that sensor size, but worth the work of carrying it
around. Give me that camera, without changeable lenses for the price of a
Digital Rebel (before discounts), and you've made a sale, even if its more
expensive than the low end DSLRs. (My Sony 828 was $200 more than the Digital
Rebel with the Kit lens at the same store when I bought it, but I bought it
anyway as, having used one, I knew it could survive the average weekend or 3
to 4 day show).

Using a flash powerfull enough to "get the picture" at a low ISO setting is
problematic at a horse show, it will anoy either the Judges, the horses or
the riders, and using a higher ISO on a P&S usually gets you a picture that
is NOT saleable, or at least not the quality I want to present, even after
noise reduction by even the BEST software available.

Am I the only person out here who wants the manufacturers to STOP chasing
pixels and start IMPROVING pixels???




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article , says...
Canon announced the 1Ds MkII 16.6 MP camera last month. A 20 MP sensor only
has about 20% more pixels. It takes 25% or more pixels to notice much of an
improvement (all else being the same). The difference in resolution is less
than the difference between a 4 and 5 MP camera. The 8MP 20D has 33% more
pixels than the 10D. The difference in image quality is not that great. I'm
holding off an upgrade until a 10+MP camera in that price range is
announced.

The point is, they're pretty much there. They just need to work on the
price. : )
bg



I agree, whole-heartedly. I think the "Pixel race" is a zero sum game. As
long as they dont increase the sensor size along with the pixel count, they
havent improved much of anything.

I'de be using a D-Rebel (with the Russian firmware hack) right now if it
weren't for the fact that I couldn't keep the dirt out of it long enough to
do a days work with it. 6mp is fine with me as long as I get the low noise.

Even when I left the lens mounted all day long, the dirt and dust inherent in
my work got inside the camera, and screwed it up. (if you have read any of my
earlier posts you know its HORSE SHOWS that I shoot, "up-close & Personal" as
ABC sports used to say, right where the dung, the dust, and the dirt is). The
seal of the lens mount may be "LIGHT TIGHT" but its not "Air Tight". It was a
big problem with film SLRs too but the back could be opened for cleaning, and
the film got advanced with every shot, taking any dirt on the sensor (film)
with it.

The dust produced by the steel and aluminum shod feet of hundreds of 1000 to
2000 pound horses grinding the footing all day long can turn the air from
dust free to dust saturated in a matter of the first two hours of the first
day of a three or four day show. The dust produced is finer than talcum (and
MUCH lighter) and permeates EVERYTHING in the general vicinity. Most riders
who wouldn't be seen outside the show ring with glasses will wear them
instead of contacts because of the dust or they will go in sans lenses of any
kind. The dust causes BIG problems with cameras, computers and printers
(mostly, its dried horse dung, and stone dust, the actual footing is nearly
dust-free except for what blows in or is carried in by the horses in most
arenas).

The D-Rebel I used was new, and I got it cleaned TWICE and returned it to its
owner, but I was saddened to have to go back to the P&S SLR-LIKE cameras
because of the dust problem. The dust seems to stay on the outside with them
(Sony F717 Sony F828, Fuji S7000) and they have needed cleaning on the inside
only once in the past year.

I am thinking about the "Ultra-Sonic self cleaning" cameras with the adhesive
patch to catch the dust. If that adhesive patch is user replaceable, it might
sell me a camera. If it is not user replaceable, it will probably "fill up"
in one or two days of shooting.

For my money (and my use) the perfect camera would have the lens performance
of the Sony F-828 and the sensor size and performance of at least the Digital
Rebel. That combination would achieve my goals.. Less noise with less flash
needed in low light...It also would probably be a heavy hunk of equipment,
matching that lens to that sensor size, but worth the work of carrying it
around. Give me that camera, without changeable lenses for the price of a
Digital Rebel (before discounts), and you've made a sale, even if its more
expensive than the low end DSLRs. (My Sony 828 was $200 more than the Digital
Rebel with the Kit lens at the same store when I bought it, but I bought it
anyway as, having used one, I knew it could survive the average weekend or 3
to 4 day show).

Using a flash powerfull enough to "get the picture" at a low ISO setting is
problematic at a horse show, it will anoy either the Judges, the horses or
the riders, and using a higher ISO on a P&S usually gets you a picture that
is NOT saleable, or at least not the quality I want to present, even after
noise reduction by even the BEST software available.

Am I the only person out here who wants the manufacturers to STOP chasing
pixels and start IMPROVING pixels???




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

BG250 wrote:
Canon announced the 1Ds MkII 16.6 MP camera last month. A 20 MP sensor only
has about 20% more pixels. It takes 25% or more pixels to notice much of an
improvement (all else being the same). The difference in resolution is less
than the difference between a 4 and 5 MP camera. The 8MP 20D has 33% more
pixels than the 10D. The difference in image quality is not that great. I'm
holding off an upgrade until a 10+MP camera in that price range is
announced.

The point is, they're pretty much there. They just need to work on the
price. : )
bg


At that level, pricing becomes difficult. As the resolution increases,
so does the price of the lens needed to exploit the extra resolution.
That is why there seems to be a point at which pricing takes a quantum
leap.

BG250 wrote:
Canon announced the 1Ds MkII 16.6 MP camera last month. A 20 MP sensor only
has about 20% more pixels. It takes 25% or more pixels to notice much of an
improvement (all else being the same). The difference in resolution is less
than the difference between a 4 and 5 MP camera. The 8MP 20D has 33% more
pixels than the 10D. The difference in image quality is not that great. I'm
holding off an upgrade until a 10+MP camera in that price range is
announced.

The point is, they're pretty much there. They just need to work on the
price. : )
bg


At that level, pricing becomes difficult. As the resolution increases,
so does the price of the lens needed to exploit the extra resolution.
That is why there seems to be a point at which pricing takes a quantum
leap.