20D or 5D

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rob wrote:

> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/ [...] neos5d.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?

Is this my money we are spending, or yours?

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

If you have to ask a question like that then you may wish to consider
the unpleasant thought that you might not even be 'worthy' of a 20D.

> Can you justify it's cost for a non-professional?

Why should I justify it's cost? I am not selling the things.

> For me, it's seems to much difference in cost but that's me.

Well, since it's your money, that's all you need, right?

> I believe the 20D about one year ago was around $2000 so it fell
> about $800 over a year.

Ah, you aren't a photographer, but an investor in the photographic
equipment futures market! Well, here's the deal about that sort of
thing: only an idiot would sell you a put, and only an idiot would buy
a call. Are you an idiot?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> What you need to do is really try and define your needs, and how
> those needs stack up against the abilities of the two bodies. The 5D
> isn't universally ahead of the 20D. For example, the 20D can shoot 5
> frames per second in jpeg mode, while the 5D is limited to 3 frames
> (any mode).

Has it got a good movie mode? ;-)

-Mike

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> <Rob> wrote in message news:m9qkg1hnb0tsejsc3tl3pduv5fkta4qflj@4ax.com...
>
>>Given the review on
>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.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?
>
>
> I can't justify anything for anyone but myself. You'll have to determine
> that.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 20D was about $1500 when released.
>
> If you're not already prepared with a list of reasons why the 5D makes sense
> for you, then there is a good chance that it doesn't make sense for you now.
> It has many features which a lot of us have been wishing for: Spot meter,
> full-frame, nearly 13MP, no pesky built-in flash (did you know it has no
> flash?), and other features many general shooters don't ever care about.
>
> What you need to do is really try and define your needs, and how those needs
> stack up against the abilities of the two bodies. The 5D isn't universally
> ahead of the 20D. For example, the 20D can shoot 5 frames per second in
> jpeg mode, while the 5D is limited to 3 frames (any mode).
>
> Check it out and do some serious consideration before you plonk down any
> amount for either camera.
>
> Mark
>
>
> I'm sure all of us Aussies fresh from spending $3k on our flaky 20Ds
can now shell out $5k on the day of release just to have a repeat of the
20D's reliability issues and hastily engineered "upgrades" with even
more bugs than the ones they tried to fix. This time with a full frame
sensor and no internal flash! (thank God they saw the light). Just a
case of one up-manship. It doesn't work when your quality control is
designed by monkeys.

I note with interest that this is not a "Professional" camera either,
just one for "Enthusiasts". Canon's way of squirming out of the loose
auto focus ability and it's really poorly designed ETTL II, flash
integration and operating environment requirements which doesn't suit
anyone living west of Ipswich (Queensland Australia) in the summer. At
least it was with the 20D.

So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have
discovered with their "state of the art" (sniggers) cameras. It took
just 2 days to discover the first 5. I wonder how long it will be before
the first complaint surfaces about this one?

I missed one important "feature" of this new camera which will stuff up
many people's plans to own one - Well all the humans who live north and
south of Paradise's boarder on the equator anyway. Operating Humidity is
maximum 85%. I guess that cuts out all you rain forest nuts. Orchid
growers and beach dwellers in those wonderful tropical islands!

--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have
> discovered with their "state of the art" (sniggers) cameras. It took
> just 2 days to discover the first 5.

Care to elaborate what 3-5 of them are? (the BG-2E issue doesn't
count) Curious, not challenging you.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1124758882.338691.268420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wiltw@aol.com says...
> > So far there are 14 frequently documented problems 20D owners have
> > discovered with their "state of the art" (sniggers) cameras. It took
> > just 2 days to discover the first 5.
>
> Care to elaborate what 3-5 of them are? (the BG-2E issue doesn't
> count) Curious, not challenging you.

Doug has been a ranting and raving lunatic ever since he went off of his
medication. Don't bother.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

pixby can't stop himself from proving he is a shithead:

> I missed one important "feature" of this new camera which will stuff up
> many people's plans to own one - Well all the humans who live north and
> south of Paradise's boarder on the equator anyway. Operating Humidity is
> maximum 85%. I guess that cuts out all you rain forest nuts. Orchid
> growers and beach dwellers in those wonderful tropical islands!

And the Nikon D2X spec is ... what?

Hint: virtually all electronic devices have a specified "operating
environment" that limits relative humidity to ~90%, "non condensing".
But of course, to the Nikon Nutcase, the normal laws of physics do not
apply to the object to their religion...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> pixby can't stop himself from proving he is a shithead:
>
>
>>I missed one important "feature" of this new camera which will stuff up
>>many people's plans to own one - Well all the humans who live north and
>>south of Paradise's boarder on the equator anyway. Operating Humidity is
>>maximum 85%. I guess that cuts out all you rain forest nuts. Orchid
>>growers and beach dwellers in those wonderful tropical islands!
>
>
> And the Nikon D2X spec is ... what?
>
> Hint: virtually all electronic devices have a specified "operating
> environment" that limits relative humidity to ~90%, "non condensing".
> But of course, to the Nikon Nutcase, the normal laws of physics do not
> apply to the object to their religion...
>
Don't know about the D2x, but the D70 is also 85% humidity (no
condensation). I guess it's a "cover-all" clause by the makers to try
to limit liability for failure due to internal corrosion/water damage.
There wouldn't be too may places o earth where the temp is always
between 0 and 40C with humidity less than 85%.
The product has to be fit for it's intended use according to consumer
protection laws in most countries. If it isn't, then such a clause is
meaningless, as intended use for such a camera is not solely for use in
temperature and humidity controlled environments.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And the Nikon D2X spec is ... what?

Exactly the same. If you look at such specs you'll find that pretty much
everything says "0-40 degrees C, max 85% humidity". It's so consistent
that it's probably automatically inserted without much thought.

I've used my D2x outside all three "limits" already, with no ill effects,
though it's only seen below-freezing on two days, and then not below it
by much, this being summer and all. Judging from previous experience
using a D70 well below 0 degrees C, it'll be fine come winter.

As for the humidity... if the 85% "limit" really were a problem, I'd
pretty much have to keep the thing in storage all summer, where I live.
I've used my D2x, and the D70 before it, in 100% humidity.

Given that Douglas is the only one to have reported any issue with the
environmental limits, I'd expect a decent Canon to do just as well.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> In Brazil, we had a "hot box" for sensitive electronic equipment like
> video cameras, etc.
> All it consisted of was a wooden box, a hinged door, and a standard
> light bulb that always stayed lit in side. This would basically keep
> it relatively dry inside and free of mold, condensation, etc.
> Worked a charm.

That worked well for me in Auckland, but in a hot humid environment
like Cairns the temperature needs to be kept down as well. Excessive
heat will shorten the life of the electrolytic capacitors.

I store my camera gear in an area which is usually airconditioned.

-Mike

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

If I had Canon equipment, I would order the Canon 5D today!!! Forget about
the 20D. It's a fine camera but compared to the specs of the 5D, no chance.
The 5D is the real digital 35mm format camera that one can actually afford.
Go for it! - I still don't give up hope that sooner or later Nikon will come
with something comparable, too. Something, that is worthy of the Nikon glass
I have for my Nikon F3.

Gregor

<Rob> wrote in message news:m9qkg1hnb0tsejsc3tl3pduv5fkta4qflj@4ax.com...
> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/ [...] neos5d.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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> 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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:tEwOe.32092$Oy2.7765@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> 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
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

GTO <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> 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 | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mike Warren wrote:
> Mark² 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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11gl7bnsq1rd8c1@corp.supernews.com...
> GTO <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> 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 | jeremy@exit109.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mark² 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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote:
> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/ [...] neos5d.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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Depending on the power consumption of the 5D in standby-mode, you may not
have to always switch off your camera. While moving around taking pictures,
I try to avoid switching off my D70 even when putting it into my bag. - But
perhaps the EOS type of cameras drain the battery too quickly when turned on
(?).

Gregor

"ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote in message
news:T5SdnVqiZqwcMpfeRVn-1w@comcast.com...
> On 22-Aug-05 17:09, Rob wrote:
>> Given the review on
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/ [...] neos5d.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.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

frederick wrote:
> 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.

How much for cash?

--
Douglas,
You never really make it on the 'net
until you get your own personal Troll.
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<Rob> wrote in message news:m9qkg1hnb0tsejsc3tl3pduv5fkta4qflj@4ax.com...
> Given the review on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/ [...] neos5d.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.

It was $1499 on intro, so it's dropped $261 in the year since. And it would
be difficult to justify the extra expense of the 5D over the 20D unless you
need full frame for wide angle lens usage, or you need the spot meter. The
50% more resolution will only come into play at sizes of somewhere in the
neighborhood of 24x36 inch prints, in my opinion.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:09:51 -0500, Rob wrote:

>Given the review on
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.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.


Maybe the question should be for which camera is a better value at
the current prices?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

>> Has it got a good movie mode? ;-)

> I hope you're joking....

Of course. See the wink? ;-)

-Mike

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7LxOe.1480$A%1.1076@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...


> 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.

I think this final factor is going to become the key factor in forcing
Nikon's hand. Once that happens, there isn't any room left in the
form-factor of 35mm based gear, and so little remains but noise reduction
*while simultaneously pushing sensitivities upward to 6400 and beyond. Low
noise advantage will always lean in favor of those using larger pixels.
This alone may be what finally forces Nikon to commit to full frame, as you
suggest.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:9hzOe.8378$Us5.5975@fed1read02...
>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3mvns5F18flo0U3@individual.net...
>> Mark² 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.
>
> Great! More power to ya.
>
>> Is there an actual down side to a built in flash other than it doesn't
>> sound "pro"?
>
> Yes, there is.
> -By having it built in to the prism housing, you are forced to give up a
> larger, more comfortably usable viewfinder. And... I never ever use my
> built-in flash. I think it's great for many people who would consider
> always mounting a 550EX "pesky," but for the rest of us, it's just not
> what works best.
>
> As to your clever use of both...good idea. But that doesn't work with the
> 10D. It doesn't really need to though. The 550EX has a little pull-out
> reflector that adds a catchlight to eyes or light fill while bouncing
> flash. If that's not enough forward fill, then I just stick my 80/20
> bouncer (80% light goes up, while 20% bounces forward via the partial
> bounce surface) on the flash and get not only fill, but diffused
> fill--which gives a much more pleasing rendition of wrinkles, etc. than a
> fill flash emitted by such a small source, such as a built-in.
>
> The 80/20 diffuser is pretty cheap. You might find that you really like
> it. It comes with little velcro inserts so that you can also use it as a
> full bouncer, or the 80/20 configuration. Also, it has a translucent
> attachment for more direct, but diffused light...AND...it also comes with
> gold and silver bounce inserts.
>
> All of the above costs around $45, and it always in my bag (it folds and
> it quite flat/small).
>
> So to answer your question...no. It has nothing whatever to do some sort
> of "professional sound," but it does have a lot to do with excellent
> images.
>

Just in case you're not picturing what I'm talking about, here it is at B&H,
with pictures fo it mounted on a flash in it's 5 different configurations.
Only $39.99.
Tiny URL version: http://tinyurl.com/8apvx

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co [...] ype=search

A GREAT little device I think anyone with a external flash would do well to
carry. It's especially beneficial for candid people shots within 10-15
feet, as it not only gives better skin textures, but also speads the light
for tight group shots at close range (which can be problematic with
flash...more light in the middle. when you either don't have a ceiling...or
it's not white...or it's too high, etc.).
While some people swear by a 3x5 card and rubber band, those can't do
gold/silver, nor can they do 80/20 or direct soft-box diffusion.

-Mark