Choices, choices, choices…
Beware… Long post… Some ranting…
Although it may seem like we have had a lot to choose from in the dSLR arena in the (recent) past, I’m sure we can all relate to how quickly it has evolved and changed in such a short amount of time. Finally, it looks like manufactures are putting an effort back into the semi-pro market and not simply milking it with uninspired revisions of last year’s top selling model.
Am I frustrated with Canon? Yes, the30D, which aside from really being a 20DmkII has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Granted, it is a quality camera, but I do feel that what little was changed and the timing of its release says something about Canon’s attitude towards their consumers. I am of the opinion that they should have left well enough alone until they were ready to release something truly innovative. Prior to that, I would have remained a loyal Canonite, I do love their glass, but now options are starting to open up and I have quite a bit more to consider.
Part of the rub of the 30D for me was what it did to the resale value of a 20D, since I don’t feel that the upgrade was truly that significant. However, it is great if you are starting in the market for a quality dSLR because a used 20D is a fantastic bargain and several people I know have taken advantage of this. Still, I only mention it to illustrate that resale value is a significant consideration for me with the amount of cash I invest in a camera and what little I actually have to spend at my leisure. I’m familiar enough with computers to understand that all digital technology takes leaps and bounds effectively destroying the value of its predecessor, that’s a given. Glass of course, is the real investment.
That is one of the main reasons I am not in a hurry to buy Sigma lenses and I am still skeptical of the 4/3 system. Still, they don’t seem to have the option of resting on their laurels and that could be a good thing. What this all boils down to, is that I am in the market for a better solution and several options seem to be on the horizon or available now.
First, the D200 has some down to a very reasonable price, however, very little sets it apart from the 30D but Nikon does make excellent glass. Second, the Pentax K10D is packed with all sorts of fun features like a sensor whacking anti-dust thingy, in camera image stabilization, and weather seals. I’m not particularly keen on the anti-dust gimmick, but stabilization on camera is a big deal. Still, its durability is unclear and quality unproven. Olympus seems to have promising ideas with an E-1 upgrade, and the 4/3 system is still intriguing. Yet, the 5D was and still is a revolution and when its revision hits the market a used 5D might finally be within my reach. But the rumors surrounding Canon’s plans are sketchy at best, and a high and low end full frame release could complicate things even further. Still, one thing I would bet neither Canon nor Nikon will adopt is in-camera stabilization. As amazingly useful as the idea sounds, I think they are too invested in their in-lens stabilization systems.
At this point, if Olympus had a semi-pro dSLR a notch up from the E-500 with in-camera stabilization I would be all over it. If Canon or Nikon had an affordable full-frame dSLR I might be swayed. If Pentax lenses had good resale value and the K10D had proven itself I might be convinced. Right now, all I can do is make the most of my 30D and patiently wait for the day I pack it up and send it on its merry way.
Although it may seem like we have had a lot to choose from in the dSLR arena in the (recent) past, I’m sure we can all relate to how quickly it has evolved and changed in such a short amount of time. Finally, it looks like manufactures are putting an effort back into the semi-pro market and not simply milking it with uninspired revisions of last year’s top selling model.
Am I frustrated with Canon? Yes, the30D, which aside from really being a 20DmkII has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Granted, it is a quality camera, but I do feel that what little was changed and the timing of its release says something about Canon’s attitude towards their consumers. I am of the opinion that they should have left well enough alone until they were ready to release something truly innovative. Prior to that, I would have remained a loyal Canonite, I do love their glass, but now options are starting to open up and I have quite a bit more to consider.
Part of the rub of the 30D for me was what it did to the resale value of a 20D, since I don’t feel that the upgrade was truly that significant. However, it is great if you are starting in the market for a quality dSLR because a used 20D is a fantastic bargain and several people I know have taken advantage of this. Still, I only mention it to illustrate that resale value is a significant consideration for me with the amount of cash I invest in a camera and what little I actually have to spend at my leisure. I’m familiar enough with computers to understand that all digital technology takes leaps and bounds effectively destroying the value of its predecessor, that’s a given. Glass of course, is the real investment.
That is one of the main reasons I am not in a hurry to buy Sigma lenses and I am still skeptical of the 4/3 system. Still, they don’t seem to have the option of resting on their laurels and that could be a good thing. What this all boils down to, is that I am in the market for a better solution and several options seem to be on the horizon or available now.
First, the D200 has some down to a very reasonable price, however, very little sets it apart from the 30D but Nikon does make excellent glass. Second, the Pentax K10D is packed with all sorts of fun features like a sensor whacking anti-dust thingy, in camera image stabilization, and weather seals. I’m not particularly keen on the anti-dust gimmick, but stabilization on camera is a big deal. Still, its durability is unclear and quality unproven. Olympus seems to have promising ideas with an E-1 upgrade, and the 4/3 system is still intriguing. Yet, the 5D was and still is a revolution and when its revision hits the market a used 5D might finally be within my reach. But the rumors surrounding Canon’s plans are sketchy at best, and a high and low end full frame release could complicate things even further. Still, one thing I would bet neither Canon nor Nikon will adopt is in-camera stabilization. As amazingly useful as the idea sounds, I think they are too invested in their in-lens stabilization systems.
At this point, if Olympus had a semi-pro dSLR a notch up from the E-500 with in-camera stabilization I would be all over it. If Canon or Nikon had an affordable full-frame dSLR I might be swayed. If Pentax lenses had good resale value and the K10D had proven itself I might be convinced. Right now, all I can do is make the most of my 30D and patiently wait for the day I pack it up and send it on its merry way.
0
Comments
The D-SLR's are ever changing. As are all electronic gadgets these days. What's new today is old...even outdated....tomorrow. I bought a 20D when it came out, and now it's obsolete. The resale value may be poor, but who really wants to buy a used D-SLR approaching 100,000 shots?
I believe a pro quality film camera will keep it's value longer than a pro d-slr, because of the rapid advances in digital technology. But at the same time I think more d-slr's will be sold.
I expect small changes in the upgrades, like from the 20D to the 30D. People want the changes, so Canon listens. Some will upgrade, some won't. I won't, not for a minor change. That also means I'm not that worried about resale, because I bought the 20D to use, not sell.
I'm happy with my 20D, and will use it until it dies. Even then I may have it repaired. I have hopes that my next d-slr will be a pro model (because I want one that's why
There's my rant........
Unless you're indepentantly wealthy...or on someones payroll...it will be hard to keep up with the changes. You have a great camera in the 30D, and would be doing yourself a favor by getting some L glass to go with it. I love the L glass I have, and will continue to invest in more.
One doesn't always need the latest and greatest d-slr to take good pictures, but good glass will always be good glass!
I say get some L glass and make that 30D shine....of course you will have something to do with the final image as well.
hmmm...I guess I don't get it either
Apart from differences in ergonomics and lens lineup, I don't see that much of a difference between current offerings from Nikon and Canon. You have the basic three tier system, with a slight overlap due to model updates. Both offer solid, proven, systems well supported by their respective companies and readily available world wide. Both companies are on the cutting edge of DSLR technology and are bringing it to market about as fast as could be reasonably expected. They are after *corporations* with the ultimate goal of making a profit.
As far as Pentax, Olympus, Sony, Sigma, et al, well they definately bring to market some capable cameras, and all of them are viable tools for photographic endeavors. So, no real *losers* in the DSLR game, just *options*!
Now, as far as technology like anti-shake, anti-dust, weather proofing, gps, mp3 players, and all of that....Personally, I can take it or leave it. Much of it seems like a gimmick rather than a *need* (to ME...). You know, nice to have but not necessary for my needs, and just something else to go wrong....
Bottom line for me has always been that coming from an AE-1, *any* DSLR is a total BLAST and has brought me more pleasure in shooting than anything else I've used to date.
I took a look at your portfolio, and you have a lot of nice work done with a 20D and a 30D. Honestly, I didn't see *anything* that would really have benefitted from the "latest technology". If anything, I came away from your galleries thinking you would be a good candidate for a 5D!
I chose to start my DSLR experience with a Canon D-Reb. I've built up a kit based on the Canon EOS system. I've learned to rest on that decision and to *enjoy* that decision. Insert any 'brand' into that equation, and it will come out the same if you have the right attitude-
A camera is a tool that I use to express my unique vision. If I get to the point where my vision exceeds the capability of my tools, I will upgrade. But until then...
Good luck and Good Light!
But yes, I've had a few pieces of L glass and I was almost hooked. The thing that throws me though, is the 70-200 IS. To add $500 to the cost of a lens is getting harder for me to justify now that it is becoming an option in some camera bodies. But since I love to shoot handheld and I do a lot or indoor in the 70-200 range it is something I would like to use.
The D50 was my first dSLR, but I owned a few P&S digitals before that. I personally am not impressed with either resale value or the leaps and bounds of technology. My first digital camera was the Olympus D-490 a 2 MP that sold for about $475 and used Smart Media cards that at the time cost $75 for 256mb. That camera was stolen and I, "upgraded" to the Olympus C-2040. Still a measly 2.1 MP and the same SM cards (that you could now get for $10) cost me less than $200. A friend of mine now uses that camera and will use it until it dies (which it probably will shortly). But, I digress, my point is that the little OLD 2MP camera took nicer pictures than the FujiFine Pix 5100 that replaced it! The technology in the C2040 was obsolete, but the picture quality was still better than the flashy SLR wannabe Fine Pix camera.
I couldn't take it anymore and decided to invest in a dSLR that could take pictures like my Canon T50. I went in to the store to shop around after a couple months of research. I was looking at Nikon, Canon, and the Olympus Evolt 500 (Since I'd so enjoyed the two P&S Olympus cameras.) I was expecting to pay about $1000 for the body.
What I ended up with was the $599 Nikon D50 w/kit lens and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 and the SB-800. I spent more than I originally planned, but I got more "stuff". I'd been tossing around the idea of upgrading the camera to the D80 or D200 because the image quality wasn't as nice as I wanted it to be. Then, last weekend I bought the 70-200 f 2.8 VR lens and I LOVE it. The picture quality improved tremendously. Looking at the image at 120% still looks awesome. Holy Moly! While the lens cost more than the D80 it'll certainly last longer and may someday be used ON the D80 or D200. I looked and looked at the difference between the D50, D70, D80, and D200 and it seemed that every time you upgraded you gained some features but you also lost some and I was having trouble deciding what I wanted. Now, I can wait a while for some new wunder technology to come out and WOW me since I'm happy as a clam with my new glass.
However, I also understand your reserve in spending the bucks on new glass when you aren't even sure you want the Canon anymore. I guess you just have decide what is the most important thing to you...
1) Money spent - though you may spend more on one brand is what you're getting WORTH it and is the outcome (image) better than what could be had for the other price. Is the difference in quality directly proportional to the difference in money?
2) Residual Value - If you plan to resell quickly (because of upgrades or other reasons) does the camera/equipment you choose have a history of high resale and/or residual value? Will you want to upgrade right away or are you happy with the image quality to wait until your equipment dies?
3) Vanity - Are you only wanting the latest BECAUSE it's the latest? Do you want the flashy big name brand like Canon or Nikon because of the name? Or do you want Olympus or Pentax because people know they have the anti-dust mirror and in camera stablization?
4) Image quality - What it all comes down to is image quality. If you are not happy with the quality of your images then it's time to change something. Be it the body, the glass, or the brand. However, it's also good to rely on the tried and true "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." idiom.
Not really sure if I answered a question(s) since I'm not really sure there was one (any), but I talk a lot anyway
SmugMug Support Specialist - www.help.smugmug.com
http://www.phyxiusphotos.com
Equine Photography in Maryland - Dressage, Eventing, Hunters, Jumpers
1. In terms of the 5D at its current price, probably... but still not at a level I can justify. However, once it comes down a bit more I would say yes without question. Still, a body that could produce quality images at say iso 800 but would add image stabilization to every lens could potentially equate to serious bang for the buck compared to the 5D which could pull off a higher iso but would be an extra $500 just for the IS.
But as I wrote that, I realized that an opinion I hold in terms of fast glass vs IS applies to this. That being if I had to choose an f2.8 over an f4 with IS I would always take the 2.8 hands down. And heck I could still get good residual value on non-IS glass and I could get the best of both later on after I make a few extra bucks.
2. See above, but yes I have had many lenses in the past and sell them as I find the ones I am most comfortable with. I do that a lot... Buying a Sigma was like buying a new car, I drove it off the lot and it was already worth less.
3. No. In fact, the whole white thing kind of irritates me, I prefer to be low key, a big lens draws enough attention as it is. Pentax silver just scares me. I'm a basic black kind of guy, and brand only matters to me in terms of how people value it when I decide to sell it.
4. Exactly, and since indoor without flash comes up more often than I would like, iso noise is right up there with lens quality for me. Tough to beat the full frame sensor on this one.
Between this and thoughts from another thread on the 4/3 I am leaning very heavily towards the 5D, however I will need to wait, but thats OK. I'm sure this spring will be an eventful time for dSLRS.