DSLRUsers.com

I know we are D70 but just saw this

http://www.sdcard.be/Nederlands/store/viewitem.asp?idproduct=8980398

Edit: So the D70 has had a great effect on the sales of the D300

I guess Canon likes to increase the pixel count with every upgraded camera.

8Mp.

Looks to be the same body.

Same kit lens.

Looks like deja vu all ever again.

Has it had a brain implant yet?

Maybe we have a prospective premiere Village Idiot nominee? Da foist poison to boiy one?

Would the Village Idiot need to sell their 300D to purchase the 350D to qualify for such a prize?

huynhie wrote:Would the Village Idiot need to sell their 300D to purchase the 350D to qualify for such a prize?

That would depend upon pricing, but it would certainly help.

Especially if they traded up their full kit for a new one.

Price is at the bottom of the page, 999 Euro.

johndec wrote:Price is at the bottom of the page, 999 Euro.

Unless they've delobotomised the camera, that's way too expensive for a dreck.

Er, dribbel.

At that price, you'd want all of the 10D's functionality rolled up into the smaller, lighter, more plasticky, "hey look at me" dribble body.

<shakes head> I can just imagine the excitement it will create amongs the copier brand followers... "Oh wow, 8MP - it's like the 20D now. Must buy, must buy!!"

Not an ounce of innovation - just up the pixel count marginally (+20 pixels to each frame width, similar for frame height) and all of a sudden it makes for a better camera?!

We may be jumping to conclusions a little, there may be more to it than just more pixels.

On another note, I tooks shots (a few of them are posted on my flickr site) that are pretty good with the 300d, but they don't react nearly as well in PP. I have to desaturate when using curves and levels, and also have to heavily sharpen. All in all it isn't a bad camera, but not nearly as great as the D70 (which isn't a PHD in the guise of an SLR).

I would assume that Canon is also going to address many of the issues where the D70 had it trumped. Who knows, there wasn't a lot of info to go off of on the site that I checked (plus I don't speak flemish or whatever the language is).

dooda wrote:We may be jumping to conclusions a little, there may be more to it than just more pixels.

Yes, we might.

Do I look worried?

I would assume that Canon is also going to address many of the issues where the D70 had it trumped. Who knows, there wasn't a lot of info to go off of on the site that I checked (plus I don't speak flemish or whatever the language is).

My guess is that we're looking at a lobotomised 20D, with slightly better hack protection than the 10D had.

gstark wrote:
Yes, we might.

Do I look worried?

Not sure what you mean. I assume that none of us are worried save our one Canon user. I have no intention of looking into a Canon, but it's fun to see what they do and how Nikon would react. The D70 is a solid camera on any grounds however, so canon would have to do a lot to make Nikon worry about where the D70 stands. Sure there are some nicknacks I would change, but the main components are nailed.

I would challenge Onyx's statement of Canon's lack of innovation though. They ushered in the affordable DSLR. They pushed forward the CMOS sensor, and they stand alone with their full size sensor with no crop factor. I don't disagree with someone as well read or as articulate as Onyx very often, but in my opinion there are some issues with thinking Canon does no innovation. But what innovation they do make is married to giant corporate ideals. I look forward to Onyx's response. I anticipate he'll mop the floor with the above. Have at it!

Whatever is happenned, this only hurts their fellows 300D, so you'll see lot of 300D will be dumped in the market at the give away price.
What is your feeling if Nikon going that way? are you suffering by selling your D70 at 1/3 of its original price to u/g yourself?.
Nikon didn't do it with their D2H + D2Hs, cos the D2H or s are similarity of all features.

dooda wrote:Who knows, there wasn't a lot of info to go off of on the site that I checked (plus I don't speak flemish or whatever the language is).

Yes it is Flemish and it says:

According to the latest rumours, Canon will shortly release a new DSLR body.... (the rest I don't need to translate)...

The page is only echoing the rumours that have been flying round elsewhere on the forums...

Ironically, it does purport to be embargoed until 20th February, but I suspect that it is speculation...

The better Canon is doing, the better for all of us.

I mean, continuous competition between Canon and Nikon is essential to bring always better camera at better prices. If Canon shows up with an upgraded 300D to match or beat the specs of the D70, this will only increase the competition and result in better Nikon products in the future, as well as more affordable prices for the D70

Link.

Link wrote:The better Canon is doing, the better for all of us.

I mean, continuous competition between Canon and Nikon is essential to bring always better camera at better prices. If Canon shows up with an upgraded 300D to match or beat the specs of the D70, this will only increase the competition and result in better Nikon products in the future, as well as more affordable prices for the D70

Link.

And quicker.

huynhie wrote:I guess Canon likes to increase the pixel count with every upgraded camera.

What's wrong with that? If noise goes down and MP goes up where do you loose out? Better than trying to sell a D2Hs at 4.1MP with improoved noise levels. I've seen "amazing low noise at high ISO" claims from Nikon before that has been total bollucks.

petal666 wrote:

huynhie wrote:I guess Canon likes to increase the pixel count with every upgraded camera.

What's wrong with that? If noise goes down and MP goes up where do you loose out? Better than trying to sell a D2Hs at 4.1MP with improoved noise levels. I've seen "amazing low noise at high ISO" claims from Nikon before that has been total bollucks.

The underlying problem though is that, for a given sensor size, as soon as you increase the pixel count, you automatically also increase the amount of noise that the sensor will produce.

But the real issue is that the increase in the pixel count is, effectively, little more than a marketing exercise.

How much of an improvement in image resolution will one gain from this apparent 25% increase in resolution?

Bugger all!

To achieve a real image quality improvement, the sensor size needs to increased by an order of magnitude, not just a few pixels. This is just sandpit stuff for the "I've got more megapixels than you have" set, and in terms of image quality, I'd certainly not be even thinking about this, let alone calling it an upgrade.

It's not what you've got. It's what you do with it that counts.

petal666 wrote:

huynhie wrote:I guess Canon likes to increase the pixel count with every upgraded camera.

What's wrong with that? If noise goes down and MP goes up where do you loose out? Better than trying to sell a D2Hs at 4.1MP with improoved noise levels. I've seen "amazing low noise at high ISO" claims from Nikon before that has been total bollucks.

I took an image in the last comp we had that was at 1600iso and heavily cropped - no noise reduction was used as it was against the rules of the competition to PP in that way.

You can see noise if you look really hard - test your theory here

http://potofgrass.ath.cx/gallery/challenge2/phoenix_rising?full=1

or if it is the printing of the image that you would expect to see the noise in, ask Birddog about the a4 print he has.

Where going from 4.1 to 8 would be an improvement. Going from 6 to 8 is mostly marketing, and taking advantage of the technology you already have in your 20d. (I'd still feel funny about having a product that is deliberatly lobotomized.)

But alas, and to answer your question, there's nothing wrong with it. They want to sell as many units as possible and they are pretty damn effective at doing so regardless of specs. We like to point this stuff out as Nikon users because. well, we're Nikon users and we love Nikon stuff.

gstark wrote:The underlying problem though is that, for a given sensor size, as soon as you increase the pixel count, you automatically also increase the amount of noise that the sensor will produce.

The 20D is 8MP, the 10D is 6MP the sensor size is the same but the 20D has less noise. Maybe it is noise reduction algorithms or similar in the camera, but as I originally said, if noise goes down, and MP goes up how do you loose out? (As long as image quality stays the same or improves as well)

dooda wrote: (I'd still feel funny about having a product that is deliberatly lobotomized.)

I agree, I wouldn't buy the rebel either. But it does give people the option to get most features at a cheaper price. Just looks at the D2h and D2Hs. Mostly the same shit, half the price

8 MP - We knew that already.

3fps. It's caught up to the D70!

0.2 second startup. Still slower than the D70, IIRC.

Distance linked flash metering. Nothing new there; don't know the details; will it be better than iTTL? Not sure.

MLU - there's one feature the D70 needs.

2nd curtain flash - catch-up time again.

Monochrome mode. Hmmm .... listing that as a feature?

FEC - catch-up time again.

Still no spot metering. What are Canon thinking here?

High speed x-synch at 1/200?? ROTFLMAO!

Does have an optional battery grip though.

All up, it still sounds like a lobotomised 20D to me.

that why I upgrade to the D2x instead of! and having my D2h as the second body and my D100 as my backup same as my D70 as a fun camera when I do want to travel light

dooda wrote:Where going from 4.1 to 8 would be an improvement. Going from 6 to 8 is mostly marketing

Going from 4 to 8MP is better than going from 6 to 8, but only marginally so.

Going from 4 to 12 - as in the D2X - would be a significant improvement.

petal666 wrote:The 20D is 8MP, the 10D is 6MP the sensor size is the same but the 20D has less noise. Maybe it is noise reduction algorithms or similar in the camera, but as I originally said, if noise goes down, and MP goes up how do you loose out? (As long as image quality stays the same or improves as well)

The noise reduction that Canon use is excellent, but the reasons to upgrade from a 10D to a 20D should rarely be to take advantage of the extra pixel count.

Noticeably better high ISO images with lower noise - yes, maybe.

Faster response; bigger buffer, better colour rendition. All good reasons.

Better metering, with spot mode? Oh that's right, the 20D doesn't have that.

petal666 wrote:

dooda wrote: (I'd still feel funny about having a product that is deliberatly lobotomized.)

I agree, I wouldn't buy the rebel either. But it does give people the option to get most features at a cheaper price. Just looks at the D2h and D2Hs. Mostly the same shit, half the price

But neither camera is lobotomised.

Looking at the new dribble's feature list, it's clear it's still basically a cynical marketing exercise.

Roll on the hackers!

gstark wrote:
0.2 second startup. Still slower than the D70, IIRC.

listing that as an advantage? You've got to be kidding.

gstark wrote:All up, it still sounds like a lobotomised 20D to me.

Of course it is, where is the claim that it isn't?

petal666 wrote:

gstark wrote:
0.2 second startup. Still slower than the D70, IIRC.

listing that as an advantage? You've got to be kidding.

I don't understand your point. Fast startup is good, and .2 second is excellent, but it's still not as good as the D70.

Sometimes you just need to grab the camera, turn it on, and shoot. The D70 does it. The new dribble will mostly get away with it now too.

gstark wrote:

petal666 wrote:

gstark wrote:
0.2 second startup. Still slower than the D70, IIRC.

listing that as an advantage? You've got to be kidding.

I don't understand your point. Fast startup is good, and .2 second is excellent, but it's still not as good as the D70.

Sometimes you just need to grab the camera, turn it on, and shoot. The D70 does it. The new dribble will mostly get away with it now too.

My point was, can you honestly tell me you could tell the difference between 0.2s and whatever the d70 is?

That's less time that it would take to think "Man, I wish I had a vertical grip"

The D70 is my first DSLR. I got that over the Drebel for looks and feel as much as anything else they both took good pic's. The reasons I got a D70 have not changed. I found a tool I like and if the choise was between the D70 and the new rebel I think I would make the same choise again.
Bravo Canon The D70 is now going for $899 US Before rebate at a good site $499 at the sites that charge 299 for a battery and 299 for the charger
I can now realisticly think about getting a second body for my sweaty without to big a dend in my lens fund  BTW if you want to see a feeding frenze look at the D300 forum on Dpreview
I got my D70 in July 04 and past the 5000 point last week. That is 5000 things that made me stop and enjoy that the " I glade I waited" group lost.
Get the best tool for the $ that does the job and let it do what you got it for
I hope we don't go into "Chicken Little" mode when the D100 replacement is released I do not believe "The sky is falling" or anthing is going to KILL the 2004 camera of the year for a while yet

petal666 wrote:

huynhie wrote:I guess Canon likes to increase the pixel count with every upgraded camera.

What's wrong with that? If noise goes down and MP goes up where do you loose out? Better than trying to sell a D2Hs at 4.1MP with improoved noise levels. I've seen "amazing low noise at high ISO" claims from Nikon before that has been total bollucks.

And what is wrong about my above statement? It is an observation that that is in line with what Canon has been doing with their latest cameras lately. Why do you have to drag this down Nikon is doing?

petal666 wrote:My point was, can you honestly tell me you could tell the difference between 0.2s and whatever the d70 is?

That's less time that it would take to think "Man, I wish I had a vertical grip"

But it is the difference in time between getting that grab shot, or missing it.

Could I measure it? No.

Could I notice it? In certain situations that I've been in, absolutely.

Huynie,

I think that the overall tone of the thread was cynicism with Canon and their new product. Though your comment didn't warrant specific defense, it was in the context of other comments, and perhaps misinterpreted.

dooda wrote:cynicism with Canon and their new product.

Which new product was that ?



In all seriousness now, I look forward to having a play with this camera within the next month or so. I'm sure it will find a market somewhere and it will produce excellent images, just as its about to be superceded predecessor can.

It's a shame that Canon bring to market their bottom end products as they do, because they really do produce some great gear, but that seems to be a fact of life - they're a marketing company, whereas Nikon is more engineering oriented.

That's not necessarily a good thing in the longer term, because it's often the case that a solution that has better marketing behind it beats the better engineered solution.

Fortunately, bot corporations make excellent high-end products that are equally well recieved in the professional markets, and there is a healthy competition between them.

As long as that situation remains as strong as it is today, we, as consumers, can only stand to benefit.

dooda wrote:I would challenge Onyx's statement of Canon's lack of innovation though. They ushered in the affordable DSLR. They pushed forward the CMOS sensor, and they stand alone with their full size sensor with no crop factor. I don't disagree with someone as well read or as articulate as Onyx very often, but in my opinion there are some issues with thinking Canon does no innovation. But what innovation they do make is married to giant corporate ideals.

Dooda, I'm not gunna challenge you - you're right. This thread has turned a little too much pissing contest already anyhow.

Yes Canon did usher in the "affordable" DSLR, but I feel it was more a psychological price barrier of $US1000 that they broke. DSLRs were slowly heading that way, they just crept under that price point first which IMO is only natural progression and someone's bound to do it.

On the other hand, the CMOS revolution could be considered a great innovation. They didn't invent it - in fact it was their stubborness in not conforming to industry standards (a la Sony) that made them adopt CMOS techonology for imaging (it's inherently worse from an engineering standpoint than CCD for image capture; just like Porsche stubbornly sticking to their rear-engined 911), they've refined it today to be competitive technology at the high end. Remember how crappily received the original D30 CMOS sensor was? And the Kodaks... ooooh boy. Anyways, yes - they've taken CMOS, worked at controlling noise characteristics so well that it's ended up leading the industry (arguably). Nikon's LBCAST had great promise, combining the best of CCD and CMOS, but according to some segment of users, failed to deliver. So Nikon have done the next best thing and imitated with the D2X. Is it an admission of defeat? As much as I'd like to think not, it probably was... time will tell.

In terms of sensor technologies in digital imaging, I would consider Sigma's foveon sensor and Fuji's super CCD technologies to be more of an innovation than the mere refinements that Canon had with CMOS.

As for the full frame argument - I don't see FF as being an advantage, but that's a whole different kettle of fish. Nikon has committed to APS-C sized DSLRs as they've created the DX lens line (which Canon has copied BTW with their EF-S) so the fact that they don't have a FF DSLR is because they don't want to, not because they can't.

gstark wrote:But it is the difference in time between getting that grab shot, or missing it.

Could I measure it? No.

Could I notice it? In certain situations that I've been in, absolutely.

If you press the shutter button to activate the camera as you bring it up to your eye, both cameras will be on WAY before it gets there.

I'd like to know what situation you have been in where the 0.2sec activation time would have been an issue.

Onyx,

Onyx wrote:Nikon has committed to APS-C sized DSLRs as they've created the DX lens line (which Canon has copied BTW with their EF-S) so the fact that they don't have a FF DSLR is because they don't want to, not because they can't.

I think that's a case of parallel development. The EF-S lens came out with the 300D, and it encompassed some significant design/engineering decisions within the camera that would have needed to be in the design computer for some time before being brought to production.

petal666 wrote:If you press the shutter button to activate the camera as you bring it up to your eye, both cameras will be on WAY before it gets there.

I'd like to know what situation you have been in where the 0.2sec activation time would have been an issue.

Who says I always shoot from the eye?


That's where the difference comes in.

Wide-ish angle lens, turn camera on, point it towards the image you're grabbing, and shoot.

Bringing the camera to your eye can also often be the difference between grabbing the shot, or not.