canon 5d
Canon is finally pulling away from the pack (actually, only Nikon is close) with last week's announcement of the 12.8-megapixel EOS 5D and its lens mate, the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS.
At $3300, I'm not entertaining illusions of purchasing the 5D, but it is an interesting hint at the future of digital SLRs. Roughly 40% of the cost of the only other full-frame DSLR on the market, Canon's 1DsMkII, this points the way to full-frame SLRs eventually reaching prosumer (<$2000) price levels. It'll also spur improvements in consumer models like the Digital Rebel line. But Nikon better get its act together quick, or else lack of competition may cause Canon to slow down its amazing progress.
I find more than 4 or 5 megapixels is not that useful except in two cases: landscape photography, and cropping because you don't have a telephoto lens. I currently take a lot of landscape shots, and I don't have a telephoto, so I do crave more resolution. But for most of my shots, especially of people, 6 million well-focused pixels is more than enough. And I'm not gaining anything if I have to crop back to Digital Rebel dimensions because my telephoto range is further curtailed by a full-frame sensor. So I'm not too anxious about passing on this one.
Here's what will get me to upgrade; we'll call it the Canon 70D*:
- 22-24 megapixel, 1.3-1.0x sensor
- 3+ fps, with 9+ RAW frame buffer
- <=50ms shutter lag
- built-in flash
- better high-ISO noise reduction than the Digital Rebel XT
- size/weight of the Digital Rebel or smaller
- $1500
The 24-105mm image-stabilized lens, though, is tempting. At $1250, though, it's still out of my league. The weather seals won't help, since no Canon body short of a 1D has weather seals. It's billed as compact, but in reality is larger and heavier than consumer 70-300mm telephoto lenses, which are already too big for my taste. And 24mm is not wide enough for a reduced-frame camera like my Digital Rebel. If I had $2000+ though, the 10-22mm and 24-105mm would make a kick-ass combo that would cover practically anything I'd want to take a picture of.
Alright, enough daydreaming. Back to writing.
*Why the 70D? Well, Canon has chosen an absurdly short-sighted naming convention for their digital SLR cameras. The basic gist is, the lower the number, the better the class of camera (1D =pro, *D=premium, *0D=prosumer, **0D=consumer). Within each class, the numbers generally get larger with new models. Thus, besides the Pentium-like names 1D -> 1Ds -> 1DMkII -> 1DsMkII -> 1DMkIIN, we've been saddled with the D30D -> D60 -> 10D -> 20D. I presume the subsequent prosumer cameras will be 40D->50D->70D. Of course, then consumers will be confused by Nikon's pre-existing D70 and D50, which was the reason Canon moved the "D" to the end in the first place. Friggin' idiots.
Labels: Photography
posted by 1600 Squirrels at 1:22 PM
There was a time when a professional photographer could just buy 2 pairs of Nikon bodies (N90, 8008s, etc along with the right filters and lenses) and use the camera bodies/lenses for several decades. Basic camera technology hadn't changed much from the 50s to the mid 70s, and the only things the photographers had to change were the films. Then from the 70s to 90s we had various 35mm electronic SLRs, but again, the only things photographers really had to change were the films. Things were simple back then.
Nowadays, in only 1-2 years our digital equipments become outdated. We're simply crazy about megapixels, ISO sensitivity, and all the other features that seem to keep coming every week or so Despite all this, modern CCD technology still sucks. CCD today is like what film technology was in the 40s, with color. My Pentax K1000 is over 30 years old. In fact it's older than me, but it still has more pixels (if I use ISO-50 film) and much better push/ISO sensitivity (if I use ISO-1600 and double push them) than any CCDs out there.
This huge desire for buying the latest and the greatest thing out there... things that we don't really need but seem to make us feel fulfilled... is that really healthy? It sure is, for Nikon and corporations alike. But it seems like the real losers are the average consumers for having to spend money for something they don't really need, to feel good or confident about their equipments.
I used to be a technology lover when I was much younger. I wanted to spend all my time, money, and energy attaining and using the latest and the greatest technology had to offer. Looking back, it's kind of silly. I guess I'm getting older, but now I opt for simple, cheap, and practical things. 10 years ago, I said no to consumerism, and said no to technology. It's been 10 years, and I feel happy and free, away from technology. Just say no to technology.
11:02 AM
Kevin: have you seen this article comparing the Canon 1Ds to film? (BTW, Canons use CMOS sensors, rather than CCDs.) Keep in mind that the 1Ds is a generation behind: the 1Ds Mk II is 16 megapixel, while current medium-format digital backs are 22 megapixel. Have a look at this photo and tell me what you think of digital sensors after that.
2:40 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
8:21 PM
Ok, the only thing I will say is they're definitely getting better and better, and as long as you have a desire to excel, your wallet will get lighter and lighter :)
8:25 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home