Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

20D; Camera equivalent of God?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:48:51 AM

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

Based on review after review, pitting this thing
against everything in it's class, that is the impression
I've gotten. I'd love to know how long it took Canon to
develop it and how they decided to go with it's design
and features. I don't own one, but it's almost like it is as close to
perfect (for it's price) as a camera has ever been.
The other day, I read a review that gave the Nikon D70 a
"3 out of 5" for operations. The lowest I've seen the
Canon score anywhere is 4/5 for anything, as subjective as
that kind of a rating sounds. Canon also took the CMOS sensor,
which people laughed at 10 years ago as vastly inferior to a
CCD and turned it into the best common sensor in digital cameras,
in terms of performance. Only some very expensive CCDs seem to
offer better performance. One retailer told me it was the easiest
camera to sell because no one questions anything but the price.
When they do, he shows them the Rebel XT and the sale is made.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 12:38:02 PM

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

The 20D is certainly a great camera for the price. However, it's not
perfect and Canon continues to have problems getting the flash exposure
right. I love mine and would never shoot film again because it's that
good. However, I'm hoping that in the not too distant future Canon
brings out it's replacement and it has better flash exposure control
and is a 10 to 12 MP camera. If they do that I will upgrade and be a
happy camper.

God like - No
Damn good, excellent value - Hell Ya

Art
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:00:43 PM

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

I own one and it is a joy to use. But in 3 years it will seem old and
out of date. At this point in time the 20D seems to be the bench mark
for the inexpensive DSLRs but I would not count on that lasting for
more then a few months, gods are not so easily overthrown (well maybe
some of the lesser gods are).

Scott
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:39:09 PM

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

RichA wrote:

> Based on review after review, pitting this thing
> against everything in it's class, that is the impression
> I've gotten.

God is enduring. The 20D is the current flash in the pan.

For that matter, its ergonomics can't hold a candle to the Max 7D which
also has in body A-S.

The 20D is a great camera, no doubt, but it is not "God" like in any
respect.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:08:36 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:k23s61t1rbh9a0kcf5ispbvt98dne9g6gf@4ax.com...
> Based on review after review, pitting this thing
> against everything in it's class, that is the impression

Which God?

Seriously. the 20D seems destined to join some of the other "modern
classics," i.e. the Olympus XA, Canon A2E/EOS-5, Nikon F3, Konica Hexar,
etc.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:40:14 PM

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

While I agree that things will only get better in DSLR development
there will be leveling off as the market shakes out. The manufacturers
will get to a point that they have a stable platform that meets the
needs of their target groups and they will stop heavily investing in
new technology. I personally don't want to do video clips in my DSLR. I
want to take high quality images and have the ability to crop them to
get what I want and still have them sharp and with good exposure
parameters.

Art
April 26, 2005 8:10:00 PM

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

In article <1114529882.256198.156780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Fyimo <arthurw@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The 20D is certainly a great camera for the price. However, it's not
>perfect and Canon continues to have problems getting the flash exposure
>right. I love mine and would never shoot film again because it's that
>good.

It's inspired me to get a film camera...
April 26, 2005 8:22:23 PM

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

In article <1114531243.436758.123530@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I own one and it is a joy to use. But in 3 years it will seem old and
>out of date.


However, I have a measurement that I like to take in terms of human
proportions. The approach to this convergence appears to take a
logarithmic curve. Another example I can think of is in the audio
domain. When the industry gave us 24-bit 96kHz recording capabilities
in consumer devices, we had reached a plateau in reference to the human
proportions. Distortion, dynamic range, and frequency precision can be
improved, but the improvements are only meaningful to equipment freaks
and bat researchers.

These DSLRs coming out, represent the first generation of cameras that
converge on the human proportions, considering ergonomics as well as
objective measures of image quality. Some things could be improved.
I'm told the 20D is expected to last for 150,000 exposures on average.
Considering that I've made about 400 since buying the thing, that
doesn't sound like a lot. Also, the way CCD's are so sensitive to dust,
I can definitely see room for improvement there. I can even envision
the CCD becoming a disposable element. Disposable drugstore cameras
with 14MP CCD's (not that they would be any good, but then, I've taken
photos with drugstore C-41 snapshot cameras that look fine to me at
5x7, whereas I have not yet gotten anything out of my EOS that I even
feel like printing.)

The real money in these camera systems is in the lenses anyway. There's
a more mature technology for you, and one that still hasn't completely
converged on what I'm calling human proportions. (I realize there are
lenses with no measurable aberrations, but I wouldn't be in that market
even if I could do without food and shelter :-)
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 11:59:21 PM

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

RichA wrote:


> Imagine if the camera designers says to Joe Public,
> "Were going to keep the pixel count at 6 million, but improve dynamic
> range."

Not so bad, really. Audio equipment went through a whole phase of
pissing over D/A bits as there was little else to fight over.

For digital, highlights going a couple stops higher would be nice (Where
Fijifilm S3 treads).

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:22:45 AM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:k23s61t1rbh9a0kcf5ispbvt98dne9g6gf@4ax.com...
> Based on review after review, pitting this thing
> against everything in it's class, that is the impression
> I've gotten. I'd love to know how long it took Canon to
> develop it and how they decided to go with it's design
> and features. I don't own one, but it's almost like it is as close to
> perfect (for it's price) as a camera has ever been.
> The other day, I read a review that gave the Nikon D70 a
> "3 out of 5" for operations. The lowest I've seen the
> Canon score anywhere is 4/5 for anything, as subjective as
> that kind of a rating sounds. Canon also took the CMOS sensor,
> which people laughed at 10 years ago as vastly inferior to a
> CCD and turned it into the best common sensor in digital cameras,
> in terms of performance. Only some very expensive CCDs seem to
> offer better performance. One retailer told me it was the easiest
> camera to sell because no one questions anything but the price.
> When they do, he shows them the Rebel XT and the sale is made.
> -Rich

I'm sure God doesn't have problems metering flash properly...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:41:22 AM

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

IMO, there have been a few digicams that were very significant products;
they were "good enough" and had overcome the key limitations for a certain
market.

For me, the Nikon 950 and 990 were examples of these kinds of products in
the consumer field; the photos produced were good enough (at 5x7 and 8x10,
respectively) to make film unnecessary for advanced amateurs.

I think the 20D has done the same for the prosumer market. It does
everything it's asked extremely well, and takes pictures that are
outstanding. Like anything else, it can be improved, but I could see
buying one and being happy with it as a photographic tool for a very long
time. I couldn't say that about its predecessors.

--
Albert Nurick | "Everyone is entitled to his own
albert@nurick.com | opinion, but not his own facts."
www.nurick.com | - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:47:43 AM

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

"Alan Adrian" <ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl> wrote in
news:426e69c7$0$13901$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl:

> And I believe that the manufacturers are still stuck with providing
> customers with a very conservative, "stick to what an SLR has always
> been", device.
>
> Something that is bound to happen sooner or later is someone will
> realise that the compromises that defined an SLR are not longer
> applicable in the microelectronics age. We can all think of a
> couple... (easily adjustable and viewable ISO is one), but I do
> believe that our nice lenses will one day be attached to a camera that
> doesn't have a flip up mirror, has preview, takes movies, does lots of
> the things that our little P&S cameras do, does them better, and even
> incorporates stuff I can't think of just now, because of the increased
> room in which to do put it all... When this camera starts to sell,
> everyone will make one and the DSLR will be a completely different
> beast.

I've gotta agree with you, Al. One thing that's kept me from jumping
from my Sony 828 to a DSLR is the fact that I love using the screen as a
viewfinder, and I find the movie mode to be very convenient. There's no
reason a DSLR can't offer both features; mirror lockup and some firmware
should do the trick.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:54:08 AM

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

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> Imagine if the camera designers says to Joe Public,
> "Were going to keep the pixel count at 6 million, but improve dynamic
> range."
> "Huh, what?"

Start prominently specifying dynamic range numbers, then. That'll solve it.
After all, you *can* reduce that to a number.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
April 27, 2005 6:27:59 AM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 4lg9u$stv$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> RichA wrote:
>
> > Based on review after review, pitting this thing
> > against everything in it's class, that is the impression
> > I've gotten.
>
> God is enduring. The 20D is the current flash in the pan.
>
> For that matter, its ergonomics can't hold a candle to the Max 7D which
> also has in body A-S.
>
> The 20D is a great camera, no doubt, but it is not "God" like in any
> respect.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>

Here we go again with the 7D - "can't hold a candle" ?? strong words and
awfully subjective.

The 7D is over-priced with start-up technology from 2 years ago aimed @ the
Minolta die-hards(You). Would you pay over $1300 for a camera that takes
almost 3 seconds to start-up? Oh, wait you did. By the time your 7D
starts-up, my 20D has shot almost 15 frames @ 8.2MP - amazing when you do
the math. Otherwise, the 7D is a satisfactory camera.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 6:28:00 AM

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

Musty wrote:

> Here we go again with the 7D - "can't hold a candle" ?? strong words and
> awfully subjective.

See recent threads. That statement is wrt to eronomics, and it holds.

1) No DSLR has as many photographic controls on dedicated buttons,
diales, levers, switches, wheels, etc as the 7D. This saves the
photographer time as he does not need to delve into menus to change a
photographic setting. W/O leaving the viewfinder you can find the
control and set it (esp. if you're a past Maxxum 9 or 7 user, the
controls are pretty much in the same spot).

2) The Canon 20D has a couple decidedly bizarre notions where exp comp
is concerned. (Same recent threads refer).

3) No spotmeter on the Canon 20D. What's that all about?

> The 7D is over-priced with start-up technology from 2 years ago aimed @ the
> Minolta die-hards(You). Would you pay over $1300 for a camera that takes
> almost 3 seconds to start-up? Oh, wait you did. By the time your 7D

More like 2 s. But who cares? How often does one need the camera in
less than a couple seconds? (Here comes the "but you might miss...").
I certainly did not buy the camera for frame rate or start time. I
can't conceive of composing, exposing and focusing most shots in 10
seconds, never mind 1 or 2.

> starts-up, my 20D has shot almost 15 frames @ 8.2MP - amazing when you do
> the math. Otherwise, the 7D is a satisfactory camera.

While you might enjoy taking 15 shots of your dirty sneakers while you
turn on your camera, I have other things to do. Very, very few people
use machine gun photography for anything very useful very often. My
(Minolta) film camera can outshoot most digitals in fps. Doesn't mean I
ever used it even once in 5 years at 100 rolls / year.

Try to take shots of a baseball as it is struck by the bat and catch it
on the bat.

To cap it, no DSLR, period, offers in camera stabilization other than
the 7D.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 27, 2005 7:00:39 AM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 4muih$dpb$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Musty wrote:
>
> > Here we go again with the 7D - "can't hold a candle" ?? strong words and
> > awfully subjective.
>
> See recent threads. That statement is wrt to eronomics, and it holds.
>
> 1) No DSLR has as many photographic controls on dedicated buttons,
> diales, levers, switches, wheels, etc as the 7D. This saves the
> photographer time as he does not need to delve into menus to change a
> photographic setting. W/O leaving the viewfinder you can find the
> control and set it (esp. if you're a past Maxxum 9 or 7 user, the
> controls are pretty much in the same spot).
>
> 2) The Canon 20D has a couple decidedly bizarre notions where exp comp
> is concerned. (Same recent threads refer).
>
> 3) No spotmeter on the Canon 20D. What's that all about?
>
> > The 7D is over-priced with start-up technology from 2 years ago aimed @
the
> > Minolta die-hards(You). Would you pay over $1300 for a camera that takes
> > almost 3 seconds to start-up? Oh, wait you did. By the time your 7D
>
> More like 2 s. But who cares? How often does one need the camera in
> less than a couple seconds? (Here comes the "but you might miss...").
> I certainly did not buy the camera for frame rate or start time. I
> can't conceive of composing, exposing and focusing most shots in 10
> seconds, never mind 1 or 2.
>
> > starts-up, my 20D has shot almost 15 frames @ 8.2MP - amazing when you
do
> > the math. Otherwise, the 7D is a satisfactory camera.
>
> While you might enjoy taking 15 shots of your dirty sneakers while you
> turn on your camera, I have other things to do. Very, very few people
> use machine gun photography for anything very useful very often. My
> (Minolta) film camera can outshoot most digitals in fps. Doesn't mean I
> ever used it even once in 5 years at 100 rolls / year.
>
> Try to take shots of a baseball as it is struck by the bat and catch it
> on the bat.
>
> To cap it, no DSLR, period, offers in camera stabilization other than
> the 7D.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>

Alan, I am just stirring you up - I am actually surprised you did not flame
me (kudos). I seldom use the continuous shooting (most of my shooting is on
a tripod) - but you should see some of my sneaker shots which I might add
are quite clean (unless you're referring to my yard-work sneakers which are
indeed in need of some care).

Now, in all seriousness, the 7D stabilization is a great thing, but from
what I read, it is not as good as the (much more expensive) IS Canon system.
Also regarding spot metering, the partial metering on the 20D achieves this
(atleast for my applications) - since it meters only a 9% middle circle of
the viewfinder - its a spot of sorts.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 7:00:40 AM

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

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rfDbe.43684$hu5.13609@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
<snipped> Now, in all seriousness, the 7D stabilization is a great thing,
but from
> what I read, it is not as good as the (much more expensive) IS Canon
> system.
> Also regarding spot metering, the partial metering on the 20D achieves
> this
> (atleast for my applications) - since it meters only a 9% middle circle of
> the viewfinder - its a spot of sorts.
>
>
The problem I have with the 20D is the lack of a true spotmeter that is
linked to the focus point, and changeable.
My A2 and 1n film cameras had spot meters that you linked to the focus
point, whichever one you were using. So, if I was shooting a full length
portrait, the end focus point, now the top one, often was right about the
eye or forehead of the model. I could meter off of that, but with the 20D,
I'm stuck with a much larger metering area that is linked only to the center
focus point. It is probably the only thing that I'd change about the
overall operation of the camera. ETT-L II is another, sore, subject...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
April 27, 2005 9:39:20 AM

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

In article <4jft611hkl2tvti07ptradj4kv145erqge@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Imagine if the camera designers says to Joe Public,
>"Were going to keep the pixel count at 6 million, but improve dynamic
>range."
>"Huh, what?"

They painted themselves into that corner by making the pixel count
the first piece of marketing data. They would have gotten away with
subjective measures, "your pictures will be prettier".

But they already implanted the idea that "more megapixels is better",
and they made their bed.
April 27, 2005 9:43:01 AM

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

In article <d4mkkp$1hc$2@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>RichA wrote:
>
>
>> Imagine if the camera designers says to Joe Public,
>> "Were going to keep the pixel count at 6 million, but improve dynamic
>> range."
>
>Not so bad, really. Audio equipment went through a whole phase of
>pissing over D/A bits as there was little else to fight over.

Converters are still kind of iffy. And between 16bit and 24bit, we have
bracketed the range between "deltas in dynamic range do matter" on the
low end, and "don't matter" on the high end. There was a reason to go
from 16 to 24 (I know it's arguable, but the argument is different on
the producing side than on the consuming side). Likewise there was a
reason to go from 48kHz to 96kHz sampling rate. Now whether there's a
valid reason to go above 24bits of dynamic range, or above 96kHz
sampling, is purely an academic matter (or a practial one, if you're
doing bat research).
April 27, 2005 9:46:59 AM

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

<snip>
> >
> The problem I have with the 20D is the lack of a true spotmeter that is
> linked to the focus point, and changeable.
> My A2 and 1n film cameras had spot meters that you linked to the focus
> point, whichever one you were using. So, if I was shooting a full length
> portrait, the end focus point, now the top one, often was right about the
> eye or forehead of the model. I could meter off of that, but with the
20D,
> I'm stuck with a much larger metering area that is linked only to the
center
> focus point. It is probably the only thing that I'd change about the
> overall operation of the camera. ETT-L II is another, sore, subject...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>

At the risk of sounding too defensive of the 20D, my shooting is typically
manual mode (will Av from time to time), so in this mode, I can point the
middle-AF-point to the metering area of interest, then set my
shutter/aperture and then recompose (for example metering of the sky) - this
is fairly easy to do. I am just a hobby shooter, so I probably havent come
across the case where I need one of my 9 AF points to be the meter (I can
just as easily move the center point is what I am saying) - to say that the
20D cannot be improved would be naive, but for $1500 it is a damn fine
camera.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:47:00 AM

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

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nHFbe.43800$hu5.1775@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> <snip>
>> >
>> The problem I have with the 20D is the lack of a true spotmeter that is
>> linked to the focus point, and changeable.
>> My A2 and 1n film cameras had spot meters that you linked to the focus
>> point, whichever one you were using. So, if I was shooting a full length
>> portrait, the end focus point, now the top one, often was right about the
>> eye or forehead of the model. I could meter off of that, but with the
> 20D,
>> I'm stuck with a much larger metering area that is linked only to the
> center
>> focus point. It is probably the only thing that I'd change about the
>> overall operation of the camera. ETT-L II is another, sore, subject...
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>
> At the risk of sounding too defensive of the 20D, my shooting is typically
> manual mode (will Av from time to time), so in this mode, I can point the
> middle-AF-point to the metering area of interest, then set my
> shutter/aperture and then recompose (for example metering of the sky) -
> this
> is fairly easy to do. I am just a hobby shooter, so I probably havent come
> across the case where I need one of my 9 AF points to be the meter (I can
> just as easily move the center point is what I am saying) - to say that
> the
> 20D cannot be improved would be naive, but for $1500 it is a damn fine
> camera.
>
>
Oh, trust me, I like the camera, too. My wife and I both have one. But I
got used to using the spot meter with my earlier film cameras.
Focus and recompose can lead to focusing errors, though, if you're dealing
with small depth of field, or subjects with varying planes.
It's just an irritation, that a camera aimed at high level amateurs and low
level pros doesn't have a spot meter, but a camera like the D70, aimed
squarely at the amateur, has one.
BTW, I find 9 focusing points to be overkill. The five, in a row, that my
1n and A2 have I found to be perfectly sufficient. The top and bottom ones
(side ones on portrait orientation) I find to be superfluous.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:57:20 AM

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

Skip,

I totally agree with your two points. If the 20D had spot metering and
a metering system that got flash exposure right I would be in love with
my 20D. I like it a lot and get good results with it most of the time.
These are the features I miss the most from my Canon 1N's as I shot
most with the spot meter and I always got great flash pictures.

If canon doesn't fix the flash exposure problem I probably won't
upgrade when they replace the 20D. If they fix the flash exposure
problem, add spot metering, and go to 10 or 12 MP I'll switch in a
minute.

Art
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:02:53 PM

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

Musty wrote:

> Alan, I am just stirring you up - I am actually surprised you did not flame

You neglected the 7 secret trigger points to stir me up.

>
> Now, in all seriousness, the 7D stabilization is a great thing, but from
> what I read, it is not as good as the (much more expensive) IS Canon system.

Minolta A-S: 2 stops. Works with all 6 of my lenses. (5 of which are
quite expensive). Works with all the lenses I haven't bought yet, used
or new. Having said that, I'm a tripod/monopod kind of shooter.

Canon/Nikon IS/VR: 3 stops.

For the 1 stop difference I'm not crying, esp. as I would have to buy
the lenses that have the feature.

> Also regarding spot metering, the partial metering on the 20D achieves this
> (atleast for my applications) - since it meters only a 9% middle circle of
> the viewfinder - its a spot of sorts.

Canon have always played the trick of putting the spot meters in the
high end cameras. It is essential for slide shooting. In these days of
chimp-o-metering it's less critical.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:34:56 PM

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

In article <3Vtbe.90277$A31.40881@fed1read03>,
james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>However, I have a measurement that I like to take in terms of human
>proportions. The approach to this convergence appears to take a
>logarithmic curve. Another example I can think of is in the audio
>domain. When the industry gave us 24-bit 96kHz recording capabilities
>in consumer devices, we had reached a plateau in reference to the human
>proportions. Distortion, dynamic range, and frequency precision can be
>improved, but the improvements are only meaningful to equipment freaks
>and bat researchers.
>
>These DSLRs coming out, represent the first generation of cameras that
>converge on the human proportions, considering ergonomics as well as
>objective measures of image quality.

The equivalent of 24-bit/96 kHz would be dynamic range and the numer of
primary colors (3). I guess 16 bits is sort of the limit.

The size of a picture is like the size of a recording. You make pictures
as large as you like (well, wall space is probably a limiting factor,
but in 3D virutal reality, there is more than enough space).

The size of and resolution of a sensor is determined by technical aspects,
not by the limits of human vision. Unless you insist on always seeing the
entire image. But that sounds like a rather artificial limitation.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:11:16 PM

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

In article <Xns9644B50CD4FD7albertnurickcom@24.93.44.119>,
Albert Nurick <albert@nurick.com> wrote:
>There's no
>reason a DSLR can't offer both features; mirror lockup and some firmware
>should do the trick.

No, it requires a different sensor design as well. Current designs (in DLSRs)
are optimized for image quality as the expense of being incapable of
producing video.

But it is strange that there are no P&S cameras with large sensors and
interchangable lenses. Maybe that will happen when the DSLR market is
saturated.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:11:17 PM

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

Philip Homburg wrote:
[]
> But it is strange that there are no P&S cameras with large sensors and
> interchangable lenses. Maybe that will happen when the DSLR market is
> saturated.

Isn't that the 4/3 system you are describing?

David
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 4:37:53 PM

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

In article <tjJbe.20504$G8.18201@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>[]
>> But it is strange that there are no P&S cameras with large sensors and
>> interchangable lenses. Maybe that will happen when the DSLR market is
>> saturated.
>
>Isn't that the 4/3 system you are describing?

I don't know whether the 4/3 system specifies anything about the viewfinder
or not. But the current 4/3 cameras are DLSRs and not P&S.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 4:37:54 PM

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

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <tjJbe.20504$G8.18201@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> David J Taylor
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
>> Philip Homburg wrote:
>> []
>>> But it is strange that there are no P&S cameras with large sensors
>>> and interchangable lenses. Maybe that will happen when the DSLR
>>> market is saturated.
>>
>> Isn't that the 4/3 system you are describing?
>
> I don't know whether the 4/3 system specifies anything about the
> viewfinder
> or not. But the current 4/3 cameras are DLSRs and not P&S.

Agreed, I don't know if the viewfinder is specified, either. But at least
the presence of the 4/3 system might encourage someone, given the right
sensor with live preview capability, form making a "large sensor" P&S.

David
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 6:05:46 PM

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

james wrote:
> In article
<b31hoh6v4ioocfb2kuadil1ia7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
> Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>
> >Frequency is comparable to resolution in prints. Above a certain
number of
> >DPI we can't see any addition details (with using magnifying
glasses, etc).
>
> I was thinking about what would constitute "the true test".
>
> I wonder how an 11x17 print from a digicam compares to an 11x17 print
> from a Linhof (all in skilled hands), for instance, being subjected
to
> 10x loupe scrutiny by a judge in a gallery competition?
>
> The true convergence will be when that judge isn't able to tell from
a
> print whether it was made with a traditional camera or a digital
camera,
> right?
>
> I mean, at the snapshot level, we're already there.
Why would you want the judging to be done with a 10x loupe, aren't
the prints meant to be simply viewed with the unaided eye. Wouldn't
this be like comparing sound recording system by slowing down the play
back 10x, sure you might pick up differences at that point but so what,
people don't listen to music at 1/10 normal speed and people don't
view prints with a loupe.

Scott
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 7:05:36 PM

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

james wrote:
> In article <d4ovh8$mqb$2@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >james wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I wonder how an 11x17 print from a digicam compares to an 11x17
print
> >> from a Linhof (all in skilled hands), for instance, being
subjected to
> >> 10x loupe scrutiny by a judge in a gallery competition?
> >
> >Meaningless.
>
> Meaningless in an aesthetic sense, but not in a technical one.
> Has digital photography converged on silver photography, or has it
not?
>
> Here where I sit, it certainly has. But what about for medical,
> surveillance, and that sort of application?

Medical is very rapidly converting to digital and I believe most
surveillance did some years ago.

But I take photographs so it is what I can see with my (unaided) eye
that I care about.

Scott
April 27, 2005 8:24:46 PM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:YxLbe.1$6f3.0@fed1read07...
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:nHFbe.43800$hu5.1775@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>> <snip>
>>> >
>>> The problem I have with the 20D is the lack of a true spotmeter that is
>>> linked to the focus point, and changeable.
>>> My A2 and 1n film cameras had spot meters that you linked to the focus
>>> point, whichever one you were using. So, if I was shooting a full
>>> length
>>> portrait, the end focus point, now the top one, often was right about
>>> the
>>> eye or forehead of the model. I could meter off of that, but with the
>> 20D,
>>> I'm stuck with a much larger metering area that is linked only to the
>> center
>>> focus point. It is probably the only thing that I'd change about the
>>> overall operation of the camera. ETT-L II is another, sore, subject...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Skip Middleton
>>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>>
>>
>> At the risk of sounding too defensive of the 20D, my shooting is
>> typically
>> manual mode (will Av from time to time), so in this mode, I can point the
>> middle-AF-point to the metering area of interest, then set my
>> shutter/aperture and then recompose (for example metering of the sky) -
>> this
>> is fairly easy to do. I am just a hobby shooter, so I probably havent
>> come
>> across the case where I need one of my 9 AF points to be the meter (I can
>> just as easily move the center point is what I am saying) - to say that
>> the
>> 20D cannot be improved would be naive, but for $1500 it is a damn fine
>> camera.
>>
>>
> Oh, trust me, I like the camera, too. My wife and I both have one. But I
> got used to using the spot meter with my earlier film cameras.
> Focus and recompose can lead to focusing errors, though, if you're dealing
> with small depth of field, or subjects with varying planes.
> It's just an irritation, that a camera aimed at high level amateurs and
> low level pros doesn't have a spot meter, but a camera like the D70, aimed
> squarely at the amateur, has one.
> BTW, I find 9 focusing points to be overkill. The five, in a row, that my
> 1n and A2 have I found to be perfectly sufficient. The top and bottom
> ones (side ones on portrait orientation) I find to be superfluous.
>
Not only that but the corner ones are quite hard to select with the
joystick. You might try splitting AF from metering using cf4-1. Then all you
need do is compose, focus, meter and shoot. This overcomes the possible
focusing error with the focus-recompose technique.


> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
April 27, 2005 8:50:39 PM

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

In article <hc10qq1d6it8gmg28tb0gsmcc7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>
>
>In article <3Vtbe.90277$A31.40881@fed1read03>,
>james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:

>>These DSLRs coming out, represent the first generation of cameras that
>>converge on the human proportions, considering ergonomics as well as
>>objective measures of image quality.
>
>The equivalent of 24-bit/96 kHz would be dynamic range and the numer of
>primary colors (3). I guess 16 bits is sort of the limit.

Well, the bit width corresponds to dynamic range, and the frequency
corresponds to the number and size of pixels. I'm not trying to argue,
just trying to be a bit more accurate.

The real value of higher tolerances is headroom. It's nice to have an
audio converter that is designed for extreme fidelity, because then when
you, uh, stop it down to an average fidelity, you can be even more
comfortable with its accuracy. That's my unscientific appraisal, but I
think it's valid. A 44.1khz sampler at 44.1kHz is wide open. A 96kHz
sampler at 44.1kHz is in the middle of it's range of precision.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:33:40 PM

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

In article <zpPbe.47$Tg3.23@fed1read03>,
james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>In article <hc10qq1d6it8gmg28tb0gsmcc7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
>Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>>In article <3Vtbe.90277$A31.40881@fed1read03>,
>>james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>
>>>These DSLRs coming out, represent the first generation of cameras that
>>>converge on the human proportions, considering ergonomics as well as
>>>objective measures of image quality.
>>
>>The equivalent of 24-bit/96 kHz would be dynamic range and the numer of
>>primary colors (3). I guess 16 bits is sort of the limit.
>
>Well, the bit width corresponds to dynamic range, and the frequency
>corresponds to the number and size of pixels. I'm not trying to argue,
>just trying to be a bit more accurate.

Frequency is comparable to resolution in prints. Above a certain number of
DPI we can't see any addition details (with using magnifying glasses, etc).

However, the total number of pixels in an image is no more limited than
the length of a piece of music.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
April 27, 2005 11:33:41 PM

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

In article <b31hoh6v4ioocfb2kuadil1ia7@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:

>Frequency is comparable to resolution in prints. Above a certain number of
>DPI we can't see any addition details (with using magnifying glasses, etc).

I was thinking about what would constitute "the true test".

I wonder how an 11x17 print from a digicam compares to an 11x17 print
from a Linhof (all in skilled hands), for instance, being subjected to
10x loupe scrutiny by a judge in a gallery competition?

The true convergence will be when that judge isn't able to tell from a
print whether it was made with a traditional camera or a digital camera,
right?

I mean, at the snapshot level, we're already there.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 11:33:42 PM

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

james wrote:


> I wonder how an 11x17 print from a digicam compares to an 11x17 print
> from a Linhof (all in skilled hands), for instance, being subjected to
> 10x loupe scrutiny by a judge in a gallery competition?

Meaningless. An 11x17 is not meant to be viewed with a loupe anymore
than poetry is meant to be appreciated by looking at a single letter in
the text.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 12:58:05 AM

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

On 27 Apr 2005 15:05:36 -0700, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>james wrote:
>> In article <d4ovh8$mqb$2@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >james wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> I wonder how an 11x17 print from a digicam compares to an 11x17
>print
>> >> from a Linhof (all in skilled hands), for instance, being
>subjected to
>> >> 10x loupe scrutiny by a judge in a gallery competition?
>> >
>> >Meaningless.
>>
>> Meaningless in an aesthetic sense, but not in a technical one.
>> Has digital photography converged on silver photography, or has it
>not?
>>
>> Here where I sit, it certainly has. But what about for medical,
>> surveillance, and that sort of application?
>
>Medical is very rapidly converting to digital and I believe most
>surveillance did some years ago.

In part because of the "portability" of digital and the extended
infrared response of an unfiltered CCD. My Panasonic CCD surveillance
camera (actually bought for astronomy) can see an entire room lit up
by a couple infrared LEDs.
-Rich
April 28, 2005 1:31:06 AM

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

In article <1114633308.558312.183990@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I mean, at the snapshot level, we're already there.
>Why would you want the judging to be done with a 10x loupe, aren't
>the prints meant to be simply viewed with the unaided eye.

Well, *I* wouldn't. I'm just suggesting a test that would imply the
digital cameras have arrived. Until you can pass this test, you can
argue that film isn't dead.

Wouldn't
>this be like comparing sound recording system by slowing down the play
>back 10x, sure you might pick up differences at that point but so what,
>people don't listen to music at 1/10 normal speed and people don't
>view prints with a loupe.

I do inspect my sound recordings in detail, and it's not unreasonable to
inspect digital recordings in *great* detail when mastering.
April 28, 2005 1:32:33 AM

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

In article <d4ovh8$mqb$2@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>james wrote:
>
>
>> I wonder how an 11x17 print from a digicam compares to an 11x17 print
>> from a Linhof (all in skilled hands), for instance, being subjected to
>> 10x loupe scrutiny by a judge in a gallery competition?
>
>Meaningless.

Meaningless in an aesthetic sense, but not in a technical one.
Has digital photography converged on silver photography, or has it not?

Here where I sit, it certainly has. But what about for medical,
surveillance, and that sort of application?
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:16:21 AM

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

"KO" <KO@deleteOK.com> wrote in message
news:426faebc$0$578$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:YxLbe.1$6f3.0@fed1read07...
>> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:nHFbe.43800$hu5.1775@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>> <snip>
>>>> >
>>>> The problem I have with the 20D is the lack of a true spotmeter that is
>>>> linked to the focus point, and changeable.
>>>> My A2 and 1n film cameras had spot meters that you linked to the focus
>>>> point, whichever one you were using. So, if I was shooting a full
>>>> length
>>>> portrait, the end focus point, now the top one, often was right about
>>>> the
>>>> eye or forehead of the model. I could meter off of that, but with the
>>> 20D,
>>>> I'm stuck with a much larger metering area that is linked only to the
>>> center
>>>> focus point. It is probably the only thing that I'd change about the
>>>> overall operation of the camera. ETT-L II is another, sore, subject...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Skip Middleton
>>>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> At the risk of sounding too defensive of the 20D, my shooting is
>>> typically
>>> manual mode (will Av from time to time), so in this mode, I can point
>>> the
>>> middle-AF-point to the metering area of interest, then set my
>>> shutter/aperture and then recompose (for example metering of the sky) -
>>> this
>>> is fairly easy to do. I am just a hobby shooter, so I probably havent
>>> come
>>> across the case where I need one of my 9 AF points to be the meter (I
>>> can
>>> just as easily move the center point is what I am saying) - to say that
>>> the
>>> 20D cannot be improved would be naive, but for $1500 it is a damn fine
>>> camera.
>>>
>>>
>> Oh, trust me, I like the camera, too. My wife and I both have one. But
>> I got used to using the spot meter with my earlier film cameras.
>> Focus and recompose can lead to focusing errors, though, if you're
>> dealing with small depth of field, or subjects with varying planes.
>> It's just an irritation, that a camera aimed at high level amateurs and
>> low level pros doesn't have a spot meter, but a camera like the D70,
>> aimed squarely at the amateur, has one.
>> BTW, I find 9 focusing points to be overkill. The five, in a row, that
>> my 1n and A2 have I found to be perfectly sufficient. The top and bottom
>> ones (side ones on portrait orientation) I find to be superfluous.
>>
> Not only that but the corner ones are quite hard to select with the
> joystick. You might try splitting AF from metering using cf4-1. Then all
> you need do is compose, focus, meter and shoot. This overcomes the
> possible focusing error with the focus-recompose technique.
>
>

I've gotten pretty good with selecting the points with the joystick, but
mainly as an exercise...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 3:18:13 AM

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

"Fyimo" <arthurw@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1114606640.675973.261390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Skip,
>
> I totally agree with your two points. If the 20D had spot metering and
> a metering system that got flash exposure right I would be in love with
> my 20D. I like it a lot and get good results with it most of the time.
> These are the features I miss the most from my Canon 1N's as I shot
> most with the spot meter and I always got great flash pictures.
>
> If canon doesn't fix the flash exposure problem I probably won't
> upgrade when they replace the 20D. If they fix the flash exposure
> problem, add spot metering, and go to 10 or 12 MP I'll switch in a
> minute.
>
> Art
>
I'm with you...My A2 did everything I wanted it too, my 1n just did it
better...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 10:01:54 PM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 4qqd4$jcn$3@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've gotten pretty good with selecting the points with the joystick, but
>> mainly as an exercise...
>
> Do you do that to music?
>
>
>

Peter Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey..." ;-)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
April 28, 2005 11:36:27 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:k23s61t1rbh9a0kcf5ispbvt98dne9g6gf@4ax.com...
> Based on review after review, pitting this thing
> against everything in it's class, that is the impression
> I've gotten. I'd love to know how long it took Canon to
> develop it and how they decided to go with it's design
> and features. I don't own one, but it's almost like it is as close to
> perfect (for it's price) as a camera has ever been.
> The other day, I read a review that gave the Nikon D70 a
> "3 out of 5" for operations. The lowest I've seen the
> Canon score anywhere is 4/5 for anything, as subjective as
> that kind of a rating sounds. Canon also took the CMOS sensor,
> which people laughed at 10 years ago as vastly inferior to a
> CCD and turned it into the best common sensor in digital cameras,
> in terms of performance. Only some very expensive CCDs seem to
> offer better performance. One retailer told me it was the easiest
> camera to sell because no one questions anything but the price.
> When they do, he shows them the Rebel XT and the sale is made.
> -Rich

If it had the metering and AF systems of the EOS 3 (similar to the 1Dmk2) it
would be near my perfection :o )
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 1:51:02 AM

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

Skip M wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 4qqd4$jcn$3@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>Skip M wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I've gotten pretty good with selecting the points with the joystick, but
>>>mainly as an exercise...
>>
>>Do you do that to music?
>>

> Peter Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey..." ;-)

Good 'un!
;-)

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
!