Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

20D - 2004?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 1, 2005 6:04:55 AM

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

I went and looked again at the DRebel-XT. The shop also had a 20D. Wow, big
difference in the handling, at least to me. I am not sure I can justify the
500 bucks difference though. I am thinking about it though.... Looking at
the brochure on the 20D, seems to be around 2004. Does that sound like when
the 20D came out? Probably silly of me to factor this in, but I would hate
to spend 1500 bucks on a camera that may be outdated with a newer model if
it is time for Canon to release a new one (I don't know the actual cycle of
their releases, just guessing every 18 months or 24 months?).

More about : 20d 2004

May 1, 2005 6:04:56 AM

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

DelphiCoder wrote:

>
> but I would hate to spend 1500 bucks on a camera that may be outdated with
> a newer model if it is time for Canon to release a new one

Then again many of the bugs have been worked out in firmware updates that a
newer model you'd have to wait on.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 1, 2005 6:04:56 AM

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

"DelphiCoder" <delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bPWce.1917$k01.1790@trnddc03...
>I went and looked again at the DRebel-XT. The shop also had a 20D. Wow, big
> difference in the handling, at least to me. I am not sure I can justify
> the
> 500 bucks difference though. I am thinking about it though.... Looking at
> the brochure on the 20D, seems to be around 2004. Does that sound like
> when
> the 20D came out? Probably silly of me to factor this in, but I would hate
> to spend 1500 bucks on a camera that may be outdated with a newer model if
> it is time for Canon to release a new one (I don't know the actual cycle
> of
> their releases, just guessing every 18 months or 24 months?).
>
>
Yes, September of 2004. 18 months does seem to be the cycle, so no
replacement is due until about Feb. of 2006. Any improvement may be just
incremental, the jump of the 10D over the D60 was mainly in details, the
sensor stayed at 6mp, for instance.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Related resources
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 1, 2005 6:27:12 AM

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

DelphiCoder wrote:
> I went and looked again at the DRebel-XT. The shop also had a 20D. Wow, big
> difference in the handling, at least to me. I am not sure I can justify the
> 500 bucks difference though. I am thinking about it though.... Looking at
> the brochure on the 20D, seems to be around 2004. Does that sound like when
> the 20D came out? Probably silly of me to factor this in, but I would hate
> to spend 1500 bucks on a camera that may be outdated with a newer model if
> it is time for Canon to release a new one (I don't know the actual cycle of
> their releases, just guessing every 18 months or 24 months?).

A quick look
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/timeline.asp?start=2004
says it was released August 2004. Very much a current model. Then
again, competition here is furious and models come out regularly.

--
Eyal Lebedinsky (eyal@eyal.emu.id.au) <http://samba.org/eyal/&gt;
attach .zip as .dat
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 1, 2005 6:36:30 AM

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

Thanks!

"Eyal Lebedinsky" <eyal@eyal.emu.id.au> wrote in message
news:48Xce.35105$5F3.18371@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> DelphiCoder wrote:
> > I went and looked again at the DRebel-XT. The shop also had a 20D. Wow,
big
> > difference in the handling, at least to me. I am not sure I can justify
the
> > 500 bucks difference though. I am thinking about it though.... Looking
at
> > the brochure on the 20D, seems to be around 2004. Does that sound like
when
> > the 20D came out? Probably silly of me to factor this in, but I would
hate
> > to spend 1500 bucks on a camera that may be outdated with a newer model
if
> > it is time for Canon to release a new one (I don't know the actual cycle
of
> > their releases, just guessing every 18 months or 24 months?).
>
> A quick look
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/timeline.asp?start=2004
> says it was released August 2004. Very much a current model. Then
> again, competition here is furious and models come out regularly.
>
> --
> Eyal Lebedinsky (eyal@eyal.emu.id.au) <http://samba.org/eyal/&gt;
> attach .zip as .dat
May 1, 2005 6:03:00 PM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:AD_ce.294$eU.264@fed1read07...
> "DelphiCoder" <delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bPWce.1917$k01.1790@trnddc03...
> >I went and looked again at the DRebel-XT. The shop also had a 20D. Wow,
big
> > difference in the handling, at least to me. I am not sure I can justify
> > the
> > 500 bucks difference though. I am thinking about it though.... Looking
at
> > the brochure on the 20D, seems to be around 2004. Does that sound like
> > when
> > the 20D came out? Probably silly of me to factor this in, but I would
hate
> > to spend 1500 bucks on a camera that may be outdated with a newer model
if
> > it is time for Canon to release a new one (I don't know the actual cycle
> > of
> > their releases, just guessing every 18 months or 24 months?).
> >
> >
> Yes, September of 2004. 18 months does seem to be the cycle, so no
> replacement is due until about Feb. of 2006. Any improvement may be just
> incremental, the jump of the 10D over the D60 was mainly in details, the
> sensor stayed at 6mp, for instance.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>

Here is a full history of announcements (source: www.dpreview.com):

Canon 20D - 08/02/2004 (delta = 18mos)
Canon 10D - 02/27/2003 (delta = 12mos)
Canon D60 - 02/22/2002 (delta = 21 mos)
Canon D30 - 05/17/2000

Now here is one thing to keep in mind. The 20D is the first "real" consumer
DSLR, because it overcame some issues which the 10D still had (long
start-up, slower AF, shooting rates, fast processing). Secondly, there is
really no competition for this camera (in this price range) besides the
Maxxum 7D (but most people stick with Canon/Nikon). For this reason I dont
see why Canon need to bring out the next model by 2005 since they can make
quite a bit of money on lenses.

What I am really trying to say is that it is the perfect time to buy a 20D.
It has fallen in price slightly and its probably another year before a new
model is announced. But the new model thing should not worry you since the
20D is a very complete camera and most of your $$ will go on lenses anyway!

Musty.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 1, 2005 6:12:31 PM

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

Thanks for all the great information! I am quickly coming to realize that I
will be spending more money on lens, regardless of the model I choose.


"DelphiCoder" <delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bPWce.1917$k01.1790@trnddc03...
> I went and looked again at the DRebel-XT. The shop also had a 20D. Wow,
big
> difference in the handling, at least to me. I am not sure I can justify
the
> 500 bucks difference though. I am thinking about it though.... Looking at
> the brochure on the 20D, seems to be around 2004. Does that sound like
when
> the 20D came out? Probably silly of me to factor this in, but I would hate
> to spend 1500 bucks on a camera that may be outdated with a newer model if
> it is time for Canon to release a new one (I don't know the actual cycle
of
> their releases, just guessing every 18 months or 24 months?).
>
>
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 1, 2005 7:34:58 PM

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

"DelphiCoder" <delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bPWce.1917$k01.1790@trnddc03...
>I went and looked again at the DRebel-XT. The shop also had a 20D. Wow, big
> difference in the handling, at least to me. I am not sure I can justify
> the
> 500 bucks difference though. I am thinking about it though.... Looking at
> the brochure on the 20D, seems to be around 2004. Does that sound like
> when
> the 20D came out? Probably silly of me to factor this in, but I would hate
> to spend 1500 bucks on a camera that may be outdated with a newer model if
> it is time for Canon to release a new one (I don't know the actual cycle
> of
> their releases, just guessing every 18 months or 24 months?).
>
>

It's just like PCs I think. If it has the quality level and features and you
have the money then you have to jump in else you never will.

With film bodies for me there was never a compelling need to upgrade with a
newer body. However, I think with digital cameras they change fast enough
that you can only see them as a temporary purchase. Hopefully the glass will
be longer lived.

With PCs I tend to purchase near the top end but replace on a 5 year cycle.

The alternative strategy some use is to purchase at the bottom end and
upgrade every two years.

I think one of these strategies should suit for DSLR bodies. However you
don't have the lengthy application install and system set-up time with a
camera you have with a PC.


Lester
May 1, 2005 7:40:52 PM

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

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4274e912$0$2062$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
<snip!>
>
> It's just like PCs I think. If it has the quality level and features and
you
> have the money then you have to jump in else you never will.
>
> With film bodies for me there was never a compelling need to upgrade with
a
> newer body. However, I think with digital cameras they change fast enough
> that you can only see them as a temporary purchase. Hopefully the glass
will
> be longer lived.
>
> With PCs I tend to purchase near the top end but replace on a 5 year
cycle.
>
> The alternative strategy some use is to purchase at the bottom end and
> upgrade every two years.
>
> I think one of these strategies should suit for DSLR bodies. However you
> don't have the lengthy application install and system set-up time with a
> camera you have with a PC.
>
>
> Lester
>

I disagree that DSLR will continue like PCs. The reason is that the
"application" is always pushing PCs further (games mainly). For cameras,
there wont be this continual improvement in applications (the application is
quite simple). Eventually, there will be some amount of MP which will be
"enough" and people will focus more on lenses and learning to how to shoot!
Yes, the last 5-10 years have been different because the technology was so
immature, basically the goal was to make the DSLR as much like the 35mm SLR
as possible - I think we are there now mostly (wrt frame rates, AF,
features). If I gave you a DSLR that had a "full-frame" (35mm), 10fps, large
buffer, large/bright view-finder, a super fast AF and 24MP resolution, what
else would you really need to take good photographs? All you would need
beyond that is skill and some decent lenses and maybe automatic dust
removal. Going forward the main thing you will see is prices falling.
Something like a 1Ds MkII will probably cost $1500-$2000 in a few years and
it will support higher MP and higher frame rates.

Musty.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 1, 2005 7:42:34 PM

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

DelphiCoder wrote:
> I went and looked again at the DRebel-XT. The shop also had a 20D.
Wow, big
> difference in the handling, at least to me. I am not sure I can
justify the
> 500 bucks difference though. I am thinking about it though....
Looking at
> the brochure on the 20D, seems to be around 2004.

The 20D follow-up will likely be evolutionary, sticking with 8
megapixels, but going to a larger LCD, and adding some sort of built-in
remote (IR or RF). I don't think that they're going to go to a higher
resolution sensor due to noise issues. It'll also be interesting to see
what Nikon does regarding replacement models for the D70 and D100.

Are you sure that the difference is $500? Taking the $100 rebate on the
20D into account, Costco has the Rebel XT kit for $950, and the 20D kit
for $1300. This is a $350 difference. Buydig is $1259 for the 20D kit,
$900 for the Rebel XT, a $359 difference. The fact that Canon has a
rebate on the 20D, may mean that a new model is imminent.
May 2, 2005 12:09:50 AM

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

In article <8M6de.31991$AE6.2136@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

>I disagree that DSLR will continue like PCs. The reason is that the
>"application" is always pushing PCs further (games mainly). For cameras,
>there wont be this continual improvement in applications (the application is
>quite simple).

The 20D is one of the first cameras that converged on a certain set of human
proportions for me. The ergonomics of the interface are tremendous,
actually far better than the Rebel XT. Even though the features are
very close, the controls on the 20D are much more usable. To me, this
is a big deal. Also, the shooting-priority is important. I like the
short latency of the camera. I've spent as much on other digital
cameras as I have on the Canon body, and been disappointed enough to
never even use them. Also important, is battery life. 1000+ outdoor
photos on a single charge? Another reason I've basically thrown away a
drawer full of $300 and $400 digital cameras.

Image quality is finally superior to what my results were with a Canon
AE-1, a Nikon FE, and film. I realize that 35mm film is better than an
8MP digicam, but on my wall I have an 8x10 print that is more fine than
anything I ever got out of a film camera.

Part of this is the fact that even the kit lens and my Tamron zoom are
better than most of the lenses I had back in the day, and part of it is
the fact that I can take 100 photos and throw away 100 of them, and
that's true for any digital camera of course.

I thought about the Rebels, and the Nikon, but the 20D had a certain
chemistry for me that I could not walk away from. Now, it *is* a bit
discouraging to realize that I have $3500 in lenses on my wish list.
And the idea that this camera body is only expected to last for 150,000
exposures bothers me a lot too, considering that I easily take 100
pictures every time I go out with it.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 2, 2005 12:20:03 AM

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

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:o k5de.31795$AE6.1444@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:AD_ce.294$eU.264@fed1read07...
>> "DelphiCoder" <delphicoder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bPWce.1917$k01.1790@trnddc03...
>> >I went and looked again at the DRebel-XT. The shop also had a 20D. Wow,
> big
>> > difference in the handling, at least to me. I am not sure I can justify
>> > the
>> > 500 bucks difference though. I am thinking about it though.... Looking
> at
>> > the brochure on the 20D, seems to be around 2004. Does that sound like
>> > when
>> > the 20D came out? Probably silly of me to factor this in, but I would
> hate
>> > to spend 1500 bucks on a camera that may be outdated with a newer model
> if
>> > it is time for Canon to release a new one (I don't know the actual
>> > cycle
>> > of
>> > their releases, just guessing every 18 months or 24 months?).
>> >
>> >
>> Yes, September of 2004. 18 months does seem to be the cycle, so no
>> replacement is due until about Feb. of 2006. Any improvement may be just
>> incremental, the jump of the 10D over the D60 was mainly in details, the
>> sensor stayed at 6mp, for instance.
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>>
>
> Here is a full history of announcements (source: www.dpreview.com):
>
> Canon 20D - 08/02/2004 (delta = 18mos)
> Canon 10D - 02/27/2003 (delta = 12mos)
> Canon D60 - 02/22/2002 (delta = 21 mos)
> Canon D30 - 05/17/2000
>

According to the Canon Museum, the 20D was introduced in September, 2004.
It may have been announced in August, but it started shipping in Sept. I
was #3 on the waiting list, locally, and got mine on the 15th of that
month...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 2, 2005 1:45:43 AM

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

james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:

> Also, the shooting-priority is important.

Do you mean the thing where it's always ready to shoot if you press the
button, no matter what you're doing at the time? Is the Rebel not like
that?

> Now, it *is* a bit discouraging to realize that I have $3500 in lenses
> on my wish list.

Only $3500? You're getting off cheap. :) 

> And the idea that this camera body is only expected to last for 150,000
> exposures bothers me a lot too, considering that I easily take 100
> pictures every time I go out with it.

So if you go out with it every day, 7 days a week, it will last just over
4 years. Not nearly as long as a film camera is expected to last, but
since it's digital, you'll probably want a new one in 4 years anyway, no?

Also, it's the shutter, not the whole body, and you can certainly have it
repaired.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
May 2, 2005 9:02:05 AM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:z%gde.568$eU.41@fed1read07...
> "Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
<-snip!->
> >
> > Here is a full history of announcements (source: www.dpreview.com):
> >
> > Canon 20D - 08/02/2004 (delta = 18mos)
> > Canon 10D - 02/27/2003 (delta = 12mos)
> > Canon D60 - 02/22/2002 (delta = 21 mos)
> > Canon D30 - 05/17/2000
> >
>
> According to the Canon Museum, the 20D was introduced in September, 2004.
> It may have been announced in August, but it started shipping in Sept. I
> was #3 on the waiting list, locally, and got mine on the 15th of that
> month...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>

Thats why I put announcements, dpreview did not write release dates. I
bought mine when the 20D /w 17-85 kit was available. Still very happy with
that lens, my photos are getting better and better despite my lens staying
the same. Still on the hunt for a sharp, bright prime with "moderate" focal
length (anything in the range of 28-50mm).

Musty.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 2, 2005 10:43:47 PM

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

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:8M6de.31991$AE6.2136@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4274e912$0$2062$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> <snip!>
>>
>> It's just like PCs I think. If it has the quality level and features and
> you
>> have the money then you have to jump in else you never will.
>>
>> With film bodies for me there was never a compelling need to upgrade with
> a
>> newer body. However, I think with digital cameras they change fast enough
>> that you can only see them as a temporary purchase. Hopefully the glass
> will
>> be longer lived.
>>
>> With PCs I tend to purchase near the top end but replace on a 5 year
> cycle.
>>
>> The alternative strategy some use is to purchase at the bottom end and
>> upgrade every two years.
>>
>> I think one of these strategies should suit for DSLR bodies. However you
>> don't have the lengthy application install and system set-up time with a
>> camera you have with a PC.
>>
>>
>> Lester
>>
>
> I disagree that DSLR will continue like PCs. The reason is that the
> "application" is always pushing PCs further (games mainly). For cameras,
> there wont be this continual improvement in applications (the application
> is
> quite simple). Eventually, there will be some amount of MP which will be
> "enough" and people will focus more on lenses and learning to how to
> shoot!
> Yes, the last 5-10 years have been different because the technology was so
> immature, basically the goal was to make the DSLR as much like the 35mm
> SLR
> as possible - I think we are there now mostly (wrt frame rates, AF,
> features). If I gave you a DSLR that had a "full-frame" (35mm), 10fps,
> large
> buffer, large/bright view-finder, a super fast AF and 24MP resolution,
> what
> else would you really need to take good photographs? All you would need
> beyond that is skill and some decent lenses and maybe automatic dust
> removal. Going forward the main thing you will see is prices falling.
> Something like a 1Ds MkII will probably cost $1500-$2000 in a few years
> and
> it will support higher MP and higher frame rates.
>
> Musty.
>
>

True, but for the next few years incremental improvement in resolution, but
increasing limited returns.

I think meaningful resolution improvement will soon require a sensor larger
than APS-C.

I certainly hope for that cheap 1Ds Mk x. However since the cost of silicon
chips is defined by their physical size largely I am not sure how cheap they
can become. (Anyone have a costed BOM for a 1Ds Mk2?).

All the cost improvements in the IC industry costs are through higher levels
of integration that will apply to the electronics but not the sensor.

For the sensor we just yield improvements, difficult to say what the fab
yield is for a 35mm full frame sensor, assume at least 30%, so they can
double to 60% yield that halving the cost of the sensor.

Say cost of supporting electronics falls to 25%, probably ceiling out at 30%
of current price unless a whole new sensor technology is used - of course
new technologies crop up at an increasing rate....

Lester
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 3, 2005 12:07:07 AM

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

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:427666d3$0$2591$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

> I certainly hope for that cheap 1Ds Mk x. However since the cost of
silicon
> chips is defined by their physical size largely I am not sure how cheap
they
> can become. (Anyone have a costed BOM for a 1Ds Mk2?).

Right, Canon is handing those out! The high cost of the larger sensor
cameras is more defined by what the market will bear, and the almost total
lack of competition. Canon has no reason to lower the cost of the 1Ds Mark
II, even if the sensor yields go to 100%, since there are no competitors,
except in medium format. For the 1D Mark II, they have to contend with the
D2x, but anyone looking at more than just megapixel resolution, and who
isn't committed to the Nikon lens mount already, will choose the 1D Mark II.

> All the cost improvements in the IC industry costs are through higher
levels
> of integration that will apply to the electronics but not the sensor.

Not ture. There is a level of integration that does not make sense from
either a cost perspective or a function perspective, at the high end. One
need look no further than the x86 market. Attempts to integrate the CPU,
graphics, I/O, and chipset, have been attempted by many companies (including
two that I worked for), but such efforts invariably are relegated to low-end
products. It isn't just yields, it's issues such as thermals, and the
difficulty of doing PCB layout with a package that has too many balls or
pins.
May 3, 2005 2:07:49 AM

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

I tend to buy near bottom and stayed current through regular upgrade. Almost
all electronics are not built as sturdy as those from the past. Regular
upgrade solves the reliability problem. I am taking this approach with DSLR
also.

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4274e912$0$2062$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> With film bodies for me there was never a compelling need to upgrade with
> a newer body. However, I think with digital cameras they change fast
> enough that you can only see them as a temporary purchase. Hopefully the
> glass will be longer lived.
>
> With PCs I tend to purchase near the top end but replace on a 5 year
> cycle.
>
> The alternative strategy some use is to purchase at the bottom end and
> upgrade every two years.
>
> I think one of these strategies should suit for DSLR bodies. However you
> don't have the lengthy application install and system set-up time with a
> camera you have with a PC.
>
>
> Lester
>
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 3, 2005 5:24:38 AM

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

>"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>
>> I disagree that DSLR will continue like PCs. The reason is that the
>> "application" is always pushing PCs further (games mainly). For cameras,
>> there wont be this continual improvement in applications (the application
>> is
>> quite simple). Eventually, there will be some amount of MP which will be
>> "enough" and people will focus more on lenses and learning to how to
>> shoot!
>> Yes, the last 5-10 years have been different because the technology was so
>> immature, basically the goal was to make the DSLR as much like the 35mm
>> SLR
>> as possible - I think we are there now mostly (wrt frame rates, AF,
>> features). If I gave you a DSLR that had a "full-frame" (35mm), 10fps,
>> large
>> buffer, large/bright view-finder, a super fast AF and 24MP resolution,
>> what
>> else would you really need to take good photographs?

I think the DSLR will continue to improve like PCs for the forseeable
future. You're right that the MPixels will get to a sensible ceiling
quite soon, but there are other major hardware advances still to come
- the most essential one to my mind being an increase in dynamic range
so the sensors can capture a true 16 (or 24) bit dynamic range for
each colour.

This will avoid most of the exposure difficulties (blown
highlights/dark shadows) that we see now with the current generation
of sensors.

Combined with the desire for lower noise sensors and higher ISOs with
good quality we still have a way to go.

Then there are all the new applications that are not practical yet but
that improved hardware would make possible. For example, if sensors
were high enough resolution and were capable of (say) scanning
themselves five times in the few milliseconds after you press the
shutter, then it would probably be possible to do image Stabilisation
in software on the camera body. Thus avoiding the need for costly IS
hardware on each lens.

I'm sure there will be plenty to keep the marketing men rubbing their
hands together with glee for at least the next decade.

It's even conceivable that, maybe one day, Canon will be able to make
simple flash photographs work as well as they did twenty five years
ago! Wonders will never cease.

Steve
May 3, 2005 5:24:39 AM

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

Perhaps it is more appropriate to look at the P&S market. What is really
driving that market? Another market to consider is CD and DVD players. It is
NOT the quality but the features that make one model sell. I am reasonably
happy with a 6MP DSLR but I want fast response, hugh storage, good JPEG
compression, minimal mirror/shutter vibration. I also want to see features
available on P&S like video also available on DSLR.

"Steve Gouldstone" <nospam@langdaledesigns.co.uk> wrote in message
news:58gd7151tsdbj30luod8m4i73lbao50cul@4ax.com...
> >"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I disagree that DSLR will continue like PCs. The reason is that the
>>> "application" is always pushing PCs further (games mainly). For cameras,
>>> there wont be this continual improvement in applications (the
>>> application
>>> is
>>> quite simple). Eventually, there will be some amount of MP which will be
>>> "enough" and people will focus more on lenses and learning to how to
>>> shoot!
>>> Yes, the last 5-10 years have been different because the technology was
>>> so
>>> immature, basically the goal was to make the DSLR as much like the 35mm
>>> SLR
>>> as possible - I think we are there now mostly (wrt frame rates, AF,
>>> features). If I gave you a DSLR that had a "full-frame" (35mm), 10fps,
>>> large
>>> buffer, large/bright view-finder, a super fast AF and 24MP resolution,
>>> what
>>> else would you really need to take good photographs?
>
> I think the DSLR will continue to improve like PCs for the forseeable
> future. You're right that the MPixels will get to a sensible ceiling
> quite soon, but there are other major hardware advances still to come
> - the most essential one to my mind being an increase in dynamic range
> so the sensors can capture a true 16 (or 24) bit dynamic range for
> each colour.
>
> This will avoid most of the exposure difficulties (blown
> highlights/dark shadows) that we see now with the current generation
> of sensors.
>
> Combined with the desire for lower noise sensors and higher ISOs with
> good quality we still have a way to go.
>
> Then there are all the new applications that are not practical yet but
> that improved hardware would make possible. For example, if sensors
> were high enough resolution and were capable of (say) scanning
> themselves five times in the few milliseconds after you press the
> shutter, then it would probably be possible to do image Stabilisation
> in software on the camera body. Thus avoiding the need for costly IS
> hardware on each lens.
>
> I'm sure there will be plenty to keep the marketing men rubbing their
> hands together with glee for at least the next decade.
>
> It's even conceivable that, maybe one day, Canon will be able to make
> simple flash photographs work as well as they did twenty five years
> ago! Wonders will never cease.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
May 3, 2005 6:49:55 AM

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

In article <117ajg7srpujbd7@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>
>james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, the shooting-priority is important.
>
>Do you mean the thing where it's always ready to shoot if you press the
>button, no matter what you're doing at the time? Is the Rebel not like
>that?

I imagine the Rebel has the same features as the 20D for the most part;
I based my preference on the 20D on a whole lot of little things.
>
>> Now, it *is* a bit discouraging to realize that I have $3500 in lenses
>> on my wish list.
>
>Only $3500? You're getting off cheap. :) 

That's just my wish list that I'm likely to actually buy this year, not
the secret list :-)


>since it's digital, you'll probably want a new one in 4 years anyway, no?

I don't know. I'd like to think I'd still be using this body along
with whatever other equipment I have in 2008. I used a Nikon FE from
1977 until 1996, when it was damaged in a fire.

>Also, it's the shutter, not the whole body, and you can certainly have it
>repaired.

Right, assuming the parts are available. It's a consumer model after all.
>
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 3, 2005 6:49:56 AM

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

james wrote:
> In article <117ajg7srpujbd7@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>>since it's digital, you'll probably want a new one in 4 years anyway, no?
>
>
> I don't know. I'd like to think I'd still be using this body along
> with whatever other equipment I have in 2008. I used a Nikon FE from
> 1977 until 1996, when it was damaged in a fire.


I wouldn't count on that though, yes you chose wisely on the high end. I
used my $800 Oly for 5 years & was still getting questions like "wow,
what camera do you use" by the time I needed more.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-03-09.s...
"Here's one thing I've learned about photography over the years that
translates to digital: photography is expensive. If you want to be a
photographer, you just kinda hafta drop the cash you need to drop and
then stop shopping and get down to work."

>
>>Also, it's the shutter, not the whole body, and you can certainly have it
>>repaired.
>
>
> Right, assuming the parts are available. It's a consumer model after all.
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
May 3, 2005 6:54:39 AM

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

In article <_6CdnQWeNc6nfevfRVn-iQ@adelphia.com>,
TW <hong236@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>Perhaps it is more appropriate to look at the P&S market. What is really
>driving that market?

There are finally P&S cameras that give people the equivalent results
that they used to get from their Vivitar 110's. In case you think I'm
joking, I'm not.

Try explaining to people that they have to sit still, like it's 1940 or
something. When there's shutter latency, or a slow preflash, they think
you took the picture and started moving already. This kind of thing is
death to the P&S snapshot. Back in the day I used to love to shoot 110.
I even had a Ciba process and did some of my own 110. I hold 110 and
126 P&S as the niche that the digital P&S needs to fill. It's FAR
beyond the quality, but that's not the point, and completely beside the
point as long as there are problems like latency.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 3, 2005 8:14:39 AM

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

On Tue, 03 May 2005 02:54:39 GMT, james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>
> There are finally P&S cameras that give people the equivalent results
> that they used to get from their Vivitar 110's. In case you think I'm
> joking, I'm not.
>
> Try explaining to people that they have to sit still, like it's 1940 or
> something. When there's shutter latency, or a slow preflash, they think
> you took the picture and started moving already. This kind of thing is
> death to the P&S snapshot.

I'm with you on this 100%. That latency drives me nuts. It's why,
given the current state of the art, you can pry my 20D from my cold
dead fingers. But I look forward to the day when I can Just Take
Pictures without lugging this big heavy thing around.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
May 3, 2005 11:27:09 AM

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

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:iIade.9088$_K.2135@fed1read03...
> I thought about the Rebels, and the Nikon, but the 20D had a certain
> chemistry for me that I could not walk away from. Now, it *is* a bit
> discouraging to realize that I have $3500 in lenses on my wish list.
> And the idea that this camera body is only expected to last for 150,000
> exposures bothers me a lot too, considering that I easily take 100
> pictures every time I go out with it.

According to Canon the 20D shutter life expectancy is 100,000 and the Rebel XT
(350D) is 50,000. If you are keeping the camera long enought to wear out the
shutter the 20D would be a much better buy!

Steve S
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 3, 2005 10:19:50 PM

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

On Tue, 3 May 2005 07:27:09 -0500, "Steve" <stevesamuelson@highstream.net> wrote:

>"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
>news:iIade.9088$_K.2135@fed1read03...
>> I thought about the Rebels, and the Nikon, but the 20D had a certain
>> chemistry for me that I could not walk away from. Now, it *is* a bit
>> discouraging to realize that I have $3500 in lenses on my wish list.
>> And the idea that this camera body is only expected to last for 150,000
>> exposures bothers me a lot too, considering that I easily take 100
>> pictures every time I go out with it.
>
>According to Canon the 20D shutter life expectancy is 100,000 and the Rebel XT
>(350D) is 50,000. If you are keeping the camera long enought to wear out the
>shutter the 20D would be a much better buy!
>
>Steve S
>
>


I have not researched it myself, but it is a common topic on the photography groups, and the 20D has been listed at 150,000 shutter life in at least 12 posts so
far as I've seen, your the first to list it at 100k. just pointing out that it might be even more than you think, and therefore a better value for longevity...
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 3, 2005 10:19:51 PM

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

callme annie wrote:

>
> I have not researched it myself, but it is a common topic on the
> photography groups, and the 20D has been listed at 150,000 shutter
> life in at least 12 posts so far as I've seen, your the first to list
> it at 100k. just pointing out that it might be even more than you
> think, and therefore a better value for longevity...

There was an article by, IIRC, Bob Atkins where it is stated as 150K
cycles, but no source is referenced. Just because it's repeated
everywhere does not make it true. OTOH, for this class of machine
100,000 would seem a decent minimum. The EOS-1v had a demonstrated
shutter life of over 125,000. If at that point it cost $300 - 400 to
have the shutter replaced, that too would be decent. But most likely by
that time the photog will be looking at something else.

Other cameras are quoted as having 25,000 shutter cycle lives and that
is not reasonable at all.

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
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 3, 2005 11:11:25 PM

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

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:LLvde.3005$7F4.605@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:427666d3$0$2591$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>> I certainly hope for that cheap 1Ds Mk x. However since the cost of
> silicon
>> chips is defined by their physical size largely I am not sure how cheap
> they
>> can become. (Anyone have a costed BOM for a 1Ds Mk2?).
>
> Right, Canon is handing those out!

I expect you sign in blood if you see one....

> The high cost of the larger sensor
> cameras is more defined by what the market will bear,

Considering the size of the sensor chip I doubt that, any chip that is over
a few square mm is very expensive.

> and the almost total
> lack of competition. Canon has no reason to lower the cost of the 1Ds Mark
> II, even if the sensor yields go to 100%, since there are no competitors,
> except in medium format. For the 1D Mark II, they have to contend with the
> D2x, but anyone looking at more than just megapixel resolution, and who
> isn't committed to the Nikon lens mount already, will choose the 1D Mark
> II.
>
>> All the cost improvements in the IC industry costs are through higher
> levels
>> of integration that will apply to the electronics but not the sensor.
>
> Not ture. There is a level of integration that does not make sense from
> either a cost perspective or a function perspective, at the high end. One
> need look no further than the x86 market. Attempts to integrate the CPU,
> graphics, I/O, and chipset, have been attempted by many companies
> (including
> two that I worked for), but such efforts invariably are relegated to
> low-end
> products. It isn't just yields, it's issues such as thermals, and the
> difficulty of doing PCB layout with a package that has too many balls or
> pins.
>
>

When I say higher level of itegration I mean more transistors per unit area.
Thus more functionality for less chip area. Less chip area == less cost.

There are smaller cost improvements with process improvement etc but these
are second order.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 3, 2005 11:26:02 PM

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

<Top Posting moved to bottom>

> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4274e912$0$2062$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> With film bodies for me there was never a compelling need to upgrade with
>> a newer body. However, I think with digital cameras they change fast
>> enough that you can only see them as a temporary purchase. Hopefully the
>> glass will be longer lived.
>>
>> With PCs I tend to purchase near the top end but replace on a 5 year
>> cycle.
>>
>> The alternative strategy some use is to purchase at the bottom end and
>> upgrade every two years.
>>
>> I think one of these strategies should suit for DSLR bodies. However you
>> don't have the lengthy application install and system set-up time with a
>> camera you have with a PC.
>>
>>
>> Lester
>>
>

"TW" <hong236@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:05GdnWJdUrtqQevfRVn-1Q@adelphia.com...
>I tend to buy near bottom and stayed current through regular upgrade.
>Almost all electronics are not built as sturdy as those from the past.
>Regular upgrade solves the reliability problem. I am taking this approach
>with DSLR also.
>

I know what you mean, at least with standard consumer equipment like TVs,
DVD players et al. They seem to be (and probably are) designed for a mean
time to failure of 2 years (after the warranty plus a bit).

Not sure if this applies to DLSRs though as reliability is key for Camera
manufactures.

It terms of upgrades some one suggested that 24Mpixels would be enough
forever.

I think they have a point - there is a time when even top level
photographers will run out of the need for more megapixels in the output.

This is missing the point that the best designed sampling systems are
oversampled.

In a camera this would be say having a 100 Mpixel sensor and downsampling
digitally to give you a 25Mpixel image (in the camera on the fly). No losses
with blur filters (the lens would probably be a good low pass filter but any
anti-alias filter you did need would be flat within the final image
passband), no sharpening defects. Effectively Ideal colour interpolation and
no aliasing.

I suspect we will start to see this path at some point in medium format
first I guess.


Lester
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 4, 2005 12:14:14 AM

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

Alan Browne wrote:
> callme annie wrote:
>
>>
>> I have not researched it myself, but it is a common topic on the
>> photography groups, and the 20D has been listed at 150,000 shutter
>> life in at least 12 posts so far as I've seen, your the first to list
>> it at 100k. just pointing out that it might be even more than you
>> think, and therefore a better value for longevity...
>
>
> There was an article by, IIRC, Bob Atkins where it is stated as 150K
> cycles, but no source is referenced. Just because it's repeated
> everywhere does not make it true. OTOH, for this class of machine
> 100,000 would seem a decent minimum. The EOS-1v had a demonstrated
> shutter life of over 125,000. If at that point it cost $300 - 400 to
> have the shutter replaced, that too would be decent. But most likely by
> that time the photog will be looking at something else.
>
> Other cameras are quoted as having 25,000 shutter cycle lives and that
> is not reasonable at all.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
25,000 is criminal!

If the 10D/20D are anything like the 7N and its predecessors, then you
can expect well in excess of 150k. I have two pro-sumer EOS bodies that
are 16 years old and still perfect. I put 10 hard years on each before I
retired them and not a problem. They must have 2-300 k plus on each.
Likewise I have an an EOS-3 which has at least 150k cycles on it and
not a single problem.

I think the shutter will far outlast the usefulness of the camera in
most cases.

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 4, 2005 12:37:39 AM

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

james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:

>> Only $3500? You're getting off cheap. :) 
>
> That's just my wish list that I'm likely to actually buy this year, not
> the secret list :-)

You're *still* getting off cheap. :) 

>> since it's digital, you'll probably want a new one in 4 years anyway, no?
>
> I don't know. I'd like to think I'd still be using this body along
> with whatever other equipment I have in 2008. I used a Nikon FE from
> 1977 until 1996, when it was damaged in a fire.

Yeah, but film cameras don't become obsolete. Digital ones do.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 4, 2005 12:37:40 AM

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

In article <117fo8jn2nfll88@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> film cameras don't become obsolete.

They don't?

You don't see any Speed Graphics anymore. My Instamatic 104 is long gone.

Film cameras are no more immune to obsolescence than any other machine.

How about this: Chemical-based imaging is becoming obsolete.

JR
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 4, 2005 12:37:41 AM

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

"Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-3F49C1.20131703052005@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <117fo8jn2nfll88@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>> film cameras don't become obsolete.
>
> They don't?
>
> You don't see any Speed Graphics anymore. My Instamatic 104 is long gone.
>
> Film cameras are no more immune to obsolescence than any other machine.
>
> How about this: Chemical-based imaging is becoming obsolete.
>
> JR

Actually, I have a Speed Graphic in my closet. Just saw it the other day.
And it works as well as it ever did, or it would if I weren't too lazy to
cut my own film for it...
Even a sub- 1mp camera isn't exactly "obsolete," it still takes the same
quality images it did on the day it was purchased...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
May 4, 2005 5:07:22 AM

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

In article <n3gf71prj4cko6hu0h7gk8j784kvu94m0i@4ax.com>,
callme annie <shirleytemple@whoareyou.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 3 May 2005 07:27:09 -0500, "Steve"
><stevesamuelson@highstream.net> wrote:
>
>>"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
>>news:iIade.9088$_K.2135@fed1read03...
>>> I thought about the Rebels, and the Nikon, but the 20D had a certain
>>> chemistry for me that I could not walk away from. Now, it *is* a bit
>>> discouraging to realize that I have $3500 in lenses on my wish list.
>>> And the idea that this camera body is only expected to last for 150,000
>>> exposures bothers me a lot too, considering that I easily take 100
>>> pictures every time I go out with it.
>>
>>According to Canon the 20D shutter life expectancy is 100,000 and the Rebel XT
>>(350D) is 50,000. If you are keeping the camera long enought to wear out the
>>shutter the 20D would be a much better buy!
>>
>>Steve S
>>
>>
>
>
>I have not researched it myself, but it is a common topic on the
>photography groups, and the 20D has been listed at 150,000 shutter life
>in at least 12 posts so
>far as I've seen, your the first to list it at 100k. just pointing out
>that it might be even more than you think, and therefore a better value
>for longevity...

Well, 150k or 100k are at the same order of magnitude of "finite".

If the cost to repair is nominal, and if it will still be possible in a
few years, then no problem. I just can't make myself think of this
camera body as disposable.
May 4, 2005 5:11:14 AM

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

In article <d58l82$kfl$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>If at that point it cost $300 - 400 to
>have the shutter replaced, that too would be decent. But most likely by
>that time the photog will be looking at something else.

What's interesting about that statement, is that while I was researching
the digicams, I was *also* looking to replace my 1978 Nikon FE with
another one just like it. The only reason I say "replace" as opposed to
"continue using" is that my Nikon burned up (slowly roasted, rather), in
a fire in '96, and I got out of photography at that time.

But you're probably right; I'll still be using the same Canon lenses
(unless they change the mount from EF) on some other Canon body in 7 or
10 years. But I'd like to believe that it's my choice, and not some
kind of planned obsolescence.
May 4, 2005 5:16:37 AM

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

In article <jim.redelfs-3F49C1.20131703052005@news.central.cox.net>,
Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:

>> film cameras don't become obsolete.
>
>They don't?
>
>You don't see any Speed Graphics anymore.

Funny you should mention that. I know at least 3 people still using
Graflex cameras, and one of them is a quite prolific street photographer
in Dallas, who uses a Speed Graphic with a Polaroid back. Every day.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 4, 2005 5:16:38 AM

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

In article <VnVde.14171$_K.3467@fed1read03>,
fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

> > You don't see any Speed Graphics anymore.

> Funny you should mention that. I know at least 3 people still using
> Graflex cameras, and one of them is a quite prolific street photographer
> in Dallas, who uses a Speed Graphic with a Polaroid back. Every day.

Well, nutz!

There goes MY credibility. Wait... Did I have any to begin with?

<grin>
JR
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 4, 2005 6:44:42 AM

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

Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>> film cameras don't become obsolete.
>
> They don't?
>
> You don't see any Speed Graphics anymore. My Instamatic 104 is long gone.
>
> Film cameras are no more immune to obsolescence than any other machine.

Well, I suppse they become obsolete along with whatever kind of film
they're meant to use. But, a 35mm SLR doesn't become obsolete until
35mm film does.

A digital camera isn't going to make pictures any technically better
than it did when you bought it. A film camera can, by virtue of using
better film. I doubt there is going to be any better 35mm film being
created any more, but a 35mm SLR from the '70s can make better pictures
today than it could then.

Digital, being in its infancy, isn't like that yet.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 4, 2005 12:17:45 PM

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

Jim Redelfs wrote:

> In article <117fo8jn2nfll88@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>
>>film cameras don't become obsolete.
>
>
> They don't?
>
> You don't see any Speed Graphics anymore. My Instamatic 104 is long gone.

I saw no less than half a dozen speed graphics (SG's and similar "press"
cameras) a couple weeks ago. All in working order. All for sale. They
can be rented here as well.

As to instamatic... please. 126 was yet another failed Kodak film standard.

>
> Film cameras are no more immune to obsolescence than any other machine.
>
> How about this: Chemical-based imaging is becoming obsolete.

A commercial studio owner I met is selling off a lot of his film
equipment but is maintinging a couple 35mm, 6x6/6x7 and view cameras.

Wedding photogs I know still shoot formal weddings on 6x6 or 645.

It is not becoming obsolete, just less preferred.

My film cameras still work fine, and will work fine for another 20
years. I have little doubt that film will be available and processing
as well, though with lessening variety and processing convenience.

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
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 4, 2005 12:17:46 PM

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

In article <d5aeh6$n5b$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> As to instamatic... please. 126 was yet another failed Kodak film standard.

I disagree.

While it was not as good as 35mm, the 126 format was quite successful and well
supported for many years. My collection was begun using that format until
1979 when I purchased my first 35mm.

The negative frame is nearly as large as 35mm. Admittedly, I could have
improved my images with a higher-quality (lens) camera.

My only regret is that I have been unable to find a good way to scan the negs.
I have some valuable (to me) images in that format.

> > How about this: Chemical-based imaging is becoming obsolete.

> It is not becoming obsolete, just less preferred.

You are either an overt optimist or prefer an unusual definition to the term
"obsolete". I won't make any time-based prediction but, at some date, the
term will most certainly apply to chemical-based imaging.

> My film cameras still work fine, and will work fine for another 20
> years. I have little doubt that film will be available and processing
> as well, though with lessening variety and processing convenience.

I agree. My Canon T90, its last frames exposed with images of my new 20D and
its peripherals, will probably work fine even longer than your prediction.
Whether, at that time, there is reasonably available (whatever THAT means)
film and the means to process it is certainly debatable today.

:) 
JR
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 4, 2005 8:07:49 PM

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

Jim Redelfs wrote:

> In article <d5aeh6$n5b$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>As to instamatic... please. 126 was yet another failed Kodak film standard.
>
>
> I disagree.
>
> While it was not as good as 35mm, the 126 format was quite successful and well
> supported for many years. My collection was begun using that format until
> 1979 when I purchased my first 35mm.

120 has been around since 1901. Still here. Spawned 220. Still here.

35mm has been around sice WW-I (one). (not in cartridge) and in the 135
format (cartridge we all use) since 1934.

Still here.

Those are the yardsticks: Decades and decades of service.

126 (1963 - 1972 (ish)) did little better than the more recent APS
fiasco (1996 - 2004).

You could still get 126 after 1972/3 and you can still get APS now. in
dwindling amounts and emulsions. You can say APS is "well supported"
now and it would not be a lie. It's sold all over, can be processed all
over, scanners have adaptors for it. But, like 126, it is a failed
standard.

> The negative frame is nearly as large as 35mm. Admittedly, I could have
> improved my images with a higher-quality (lens) camera.
>
> My only regret is that I have been unable to find a good way to scan the negs.
> I have some valuable (to me) images in that format.

An MF scanner. Or take it to a place with a fuji frontier. That can
probably do a reasonable job. A flatbed with transpareny top might do
okay, but not great.

>>It is not becoming obsolete, just less preferred.
>
>
> You are either an overt optimist or prefer an unusual definition to the term
> "obsolete". I won't make any time-based prediction but, at some date, the
> term will most certainly apply to chemical-based imaging.

That's a bid broad as it excludes too much. But even in the narrower
domain of profesisonal and amateur photography, film will still be a
reasonable option in 10 to 20 years.

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
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 5, 2005 12:17:49 AM

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

"Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-21F3D6.07410204052005@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <d5aeh6$n5b$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > As to instamatic... please. 126 was yet another failed Kodak film
standard.
>
> I disagree.
>
> While it was not as good as 35mm, the 126 format was quite successful and
well
> supported for many years. My collection was begun using that format until
> 1979 when I purchased my first 35mm.

126 was a huge financial success for Kodak. Even 110 was a success. The
recebt standards, that failed commercially, were disc and APS, both of which
probably had a net loss in terms of ROI.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 5, 2005 4:25:38 AM

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

In article <d5ba2i$d6e$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>> My only regret is that I have been unable to find a
>> good way to scan the negs. I have some valuable (to me)
>> images in [126] format.

> An MF scanner.

Medium Format?

> Or take it to a place with a fuji frontier.

What's that?

> film will still be a reasonable option in 10 to 20 years.

OK, I agree. There is so much imbedded infrastructure to support film that it
wouldn't surprise me to see it last that long.

When I bought my T90 body, EOS was only 1-1/2-years old. Already invested in
Canon's FD lenses, I stuck with the mount.

I only hope that, now that I've finally made the switch (virtually walking
away from a nice collection of Canon glass), EF and EF-S mounts stick around
for a LONG time.

:) 
JR
May 5, 2005 7:32:31 AM

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

Jim Redelfs wrote:

> In article <d5aeh6$n5b$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> As to instamatic... please. 126 was yet another failed Kodak film
>> standard.
>
> I disagree.

>
> The negative frame is nearly as large as 35mm. Admittedly, I could have
> improved my images with a higher-quality (lens) camera.
>


Doubtful, the problem was film flatness/registration. It was OK for fixed
focus shapshot shooting but that was about it.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 5, 2005 2:14:40 PM

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

Jim Redelfs wrote:

> In article <d5ba2i$d6e$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>> My only regret is that I have been unable to find a
>>>good way to scan the negs. I have some valuable (to me)
>>>images in [126] format.
>
>
>>An MF scanner.
>
>
> Medium Format?

Yes. Nikon 8000/9000; Minolta multiscan (a few models). You can also
take them to a service bureau but scan prices are very high (about
$25/frame).
>
>
>>Or take it to a place with a fuji frontier.
>
>
> What's that?

Minilab. A place that prints photos may be able to do a good job
scanning and making a CD. You have to be specific on your needs.

>
>
>>film will still be a reasonable option in 10 to 20 years.
>
>
> OK, I agree. There is so much imbedded infrastructure to support film that it
> wouldn't surprise me to see it last that long.
>
> When I bought my T90 body, EOS was only 1-1/2-years old. Already invested in
> Canon's FD lenses, I stuck with the mount.
>
> I only hope that, now that I've finally made the switch (virtually walking
> away from a nice collection of Canon glass), EF and EF-S mounts stick around
> for a LONG time.

People are shooting lens mounts that are over 50 years old, so no real
worry unless it is a rare breed.

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
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 5, 2005 8:58:44 PM

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

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:427a8664$0$29766$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Most engineering design teams do accelerated life tests on key mechanical
> components including switches and catches. 100K operations is a common
> requirement. I would be surprised if Canon did not do qualification tests
> on at least a handful of shutters.
>

I'm sure your right. But, being practical, I don't see any current digital
camera reaching that life.

Let's do the math. If a really serious amateur did 200 shots a week, that
would be 10,400 "activations" each year. That rate would give the shutter
on a 20D an effective life of nearly 10 years. Does anyone here really
think they will be using the same camera 10 years from now?

So, why get excited over 100,000 vs 150,000?

Walt
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 6, 2005 12:29:38 AM

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

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:F-KdnROIto6XFOffRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>
> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:427a8664$0$29766$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Most engineering design teams do accelerated life tests on key mechanical
>> components including switches and catches. 100K operations is a common
>> requirement. I would be surprised if Canon did not do qualification tests
>> on at least a handful of shutters.
>>
>
> I'm sure your right. But, being practical, I don't see any current
> digital camera reaching that life.
>
> Let's do the math. If a really serious amateur did 200 shots a week, that
> would be 10,400 "activations" each year. That rate would give the shutter
> on a 20D an effective life of nearly 10 years. Does anyone here really
> think they will be using the same camera 10 years from now?
>
> So, why get excited over 100,000 vs 150,000?
>
> Walt
>

One reason to get excited is that some are using the 20D in a more
professional capacity. Remember, the original press release touted the 20D
as being ideal for the wedding photographer and other professionals who
don't need the overall ruggedness and weather sealing of the 1 series. My
wife and I typically shoot 300-600 images each at a wedding (4-8 hours), do
that a couple times a week, not to mention portrait shoots, personal
photography and other uses, and you've cut the longevity down to 4-5 years,
given a shutter life expectancy of 100,000. The 20D may have been relegated
to back up duty by then, but it would be nice to think that it would be a
reliable backup, wouldn't it?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
May 6, 2005 9:29:21 AM

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

In article <F-KdnROIto6XFOffRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
Walt Hanks <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:

>Let's do the math. If a really serious amateur did 200 shots a week, that
>would be 10,400 "activations" each year. That rate would give the shutter
>on a 20D an effective life of nearly 10 years. Does anyone here really
>think they will be using the same camera 10 years from now?

In ten years, I expect to be able to give this camera body to a family
member, with an expectation that they would get some use out of it.


If it hadn't been for the fire that literally roasted my Nikon FE, I'd
have never stopped using it. I realize film cameras and digital cameras
are different beasts.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 6, 2005 7:55:10 PM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:xwBee.1358$eU.1297@fed1read07...
> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:F-KdnROIto6XFOffRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:427a8664$0$29766$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> Most engineering design teams do accelerated life tests on key
>>> mechanical components including switches and catches. 100K operations is
>>> a common requirement. I would be surprised if Canon did not do
>>> qualification tests on at least a handful of shutters.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure your right. But, being practical, I don't see any current
>> digital camera reaching that life.
>>
>> Let's do the math. If a really serious amateur did 200 shots a week,
>> that would be 10,400 "activations" each year. That rate would give the
>> shutter on a 20D an effective life of nearly 10 years. Does anyone here
>> really think they will be using the same camera 10 years from now?
>>
>> So, why get excited over 100,000 vs 150,000?
>>
>> Walt
>>
>
> One reason to get excited is that some are using the 20D in a more
> professional capacity.

True. But a pro should be budgeting for repairs. If accurate, this
information indicates that you will need to plan on replacing the shutter in
your 20D in 4 or 5 years. Setting aside $200/year should be more than
adequate.

Clearly, Canon's digital bodies are not built for long-term pro service (I
don't know about Nikon's as I haven't seen equivelent data - does anyone
have it?). That is consistent with being a "leading edge" product. In
their marketing meetings, I'm sure the assumption is that people will
upgrade before the shutter dies.

Now, if either company built a body with the life expectancy of a good film
camera and the capacity to upgrade the sensor and processors, THAT would be
a long term investment worth making. Somehow, I don't see that happening.

> Remember, the original press release touted the 20D as being ideal for the
> wedding photographer and other professionals who don't need the overall
> ruggedness and weather sealing of the 1 series. My wife and I typically
> shoot 300-600 images each at a wedding (4-8 hours), do that a couple times
> a week, not to mention portrait shoots, personal photography and other
> uses, and you've cut the longevity down to 4-5 years, given a shutter life
> expectancy of 100,000. The 20D may have been relegated to back up duty by
> then, but it would be nice to think that it would be a reliable backup,
> wouldn't it?
>
> --

Nice - yes. But apparently, not what Canon had in mind. But wouldn't you
agree that for the average 20D buyer, shutter life is not going to be an
issue?

Walt
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 6, 2005 8:58:28 PM

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

Walt Hanks wrote:
>
> True. But a pro should be budgeting for repairs. If accurate, this
> information indicates that you will need to plan on replacing the shutter in
> your 20D in 4 or 5 years. Setting aside $200/year should be more than
> adequate.

Given CDN rules (20% per year depreciation) it's no wonder professionals
will fork out $5 - 8K for a high end DSLR. Maintenance is deductible too.

> Now, if either company built a body with the life expectancy of a good film
> camera and the capacity to upgrade the sensor and processors, THAT would be
> a long term investment worth making. Somehow, I don't see that happening.

Leica D8/D9. Happening and out of the gate at 10 Mpix and 1.37 crop.
(Okay, not in stores yet). But I doubt there will be a sensor upgrade
for several years, prob'y 5 - 10.

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
a b Ý World of Warcraft
May 6, 2005 10:26:56 PM

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

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o -CdnQvkM9w4VubfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xwBee.1358$eU.1297@fed1read07...
>> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:F-KdnROIto6XFOffRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's do the math. If a really serious amateur did 200 shots a week,
>>> that would be 10,400 "activations" each year. That rate would give the
>>> shutter on a 20D an effective life of nearly 10 years. Does anyone here
>>> really think they will be using the same camera 10 years from now?
>>>
>>> So, why get excited over 100,000 vs 150,000?
>>>
>>> Walt
>>>
>>
>> One reason to get excited is that some are using the 20D in a more
>> professional capacity.
>
> True. But a pro should be budgeting for repairs. If accurate, this
> information indicates that you will need to plan on replacing the shutter
> in your 20D in 4 or 5 years. Setting aside $200/year should be more than
> adequate.

You can budget the money, but how about the time? How many back up cameras
do you need? If my 20D is in the shop, and my backup goes down, I'm out of
business. Or if the 20D is, by then, the backup, then the only net I'd have
if its frontline replacement went down is a D30...

>
> Clearly, Canon's digital bodies are not built for long-term pro service (I
> don't know about Nikon's as I haven't seen equivelent data - does anyone
> have it?). That is consistent with being a "leading edge" product. In
> their marketing meetings, I'm sure the assumption is that people will
> upgrade before the shutter dies.

The 1 series certainly is, and if the 20D has a shutter life of 150,000 vs
100,000, it's in the range of the Nikons, too.
>
> Now, if either company built a body with the life expectancy of a good
> film camera and the capacity to upgrade the sensor and processors, THAT
> would be a long term investment worth making. Somehow, I don't see that
> happening.
>
>> Remember, the original press release touted the 20D as being ideal for
>> the wedding photographer and other professionals who don't need the
>> overall ruggedness and weather sealing of the 1 series. My wife and I
>> typically shoot 300-600 images each at a wedding (4-8 hours), do that a
>> couple times a week, not to mention portrait shoots, personal photography
>> and other uses, and you've cut the longevity down to 4-5 years, given a
>> shutter life expectancy of 100,000. The 20D may have been relegated to
>> back up duty by then, but it would be nice to think that it would be a
>> reliable backup, wouldn't it?
>>
>> --
>
> Nice - yes. But apparently, not what Canon had in mind. But wouldn't you
> agree that for the average 20D buyer, shutter life is not going to be an
> issue?
>
> Walt
>
And, no, I wouldn't agree, just because of what I said above, it was
marketed to pros, and many pros use it. We were shooting a wedding late
last month at a very popular venue, and of the 4 photographers shooting the
two other weddings on site, 3 of them were using 20Ds, the other was using a
Nikon D2h(?). So, 3 weddings, 6 photographers, 5 20Ds...

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