OT: which camera?

On 17/10/04 9:45 am, in article [email hidden], "W.

D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

It hasn't, but it will be. You don't digital camera evolution will stop
at the 20D do you? Might be worth waiting for the 12MP 40D! ;-)

You didn't stop to think when you wrote this methinks :-)

Also, it depends how resilient your bank balance is! One of the features of
this digital market is that you're going to be under pressure to trade-up
far more quickly than in the olden days. And to some extent you've got to
think about what you will use the extra resolution for? Sure it's desirable
but the images I'm getting are more than adequate for what I want to do with
them!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

On 16/10/04 7:10 am, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

There was a problem with the first models, I think some were recalled.
There was a terrible continuous battery drain, but that could be avoided
if you remembered to switch the shutter to B after every shot. That
became a force of habit with my OM3, but occasionally I'd forget and
find dead batteries on my next trip.

Yep. I found I had to always carry spares with me because I'd simply forget
to take them out of the camera, pretty important when you were camping in
the winter!

Quoted message said:

They did build on it, with the titanium versions. I think they were
produced until relatively recently (I'm sure I saw an OM3Ti on sale just
a few years back, for about £1800).

Well, they did but too late. I think a lot of people who experienced these
problems had their faith in Olympus knocked a bit. Seems the gave up the
professional market. The titanium version looked superb but I wasn't going
to take that risk again. If they continued producing it they were almost
certainly doing so to provide some kind of continuity for their professional
user base.

I've not really looked at their £1,000 digital SLRs. How do they rate?

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I noticed on an American website that Canon are bundling the new 17-85mm
IS digital lens with the 20D at a relatively bargain price (far less
than you'd pay for each of them separately) Does anyone know if that
offer is available in the UK? Since I'd like to buy that lens I'm
wondering if it may be more economical to buy it with the 20D and sell
the 300D. Perhaps the amount saved on the bundle would offset the loss
when selling the 300D? Anyone know more about this?

Are you sure this lens will fit any other Canon Camera? You know the
lens that came with the 300D is a one off.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Andy Howell said:

Yep. I found I had to always carry spares with me because I'd simply
forget to take them out of the camera, pretty important when you were
camping in the winter!

That's why I always used to carry a handheld meter.

Quoted message said:

I've not really looked at their £1,000 digital SLRs. How do they
rate?

Don't know, haven't looked very closely at them myself.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

On 17/10/04 5:48 pm, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

Andy Howell said:

Yep. I found I had to always carry spares with me because I'd simply
forget to take them out of the camera, pretty important when you were
camping in the winter!

That's why I always used to carry a handheld meter.

Guess the electrics were a bit ahead of their time!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

W. D. Grey said:

Are you sure this lens will fit any other Canon Camera?

It'll fit all Canon DSLRs with the smaller sensor.

Quoted message said:

You know the
lens that came with the 300D is a one off.

Not any more it isn't. Canon now have five EF-S lenses, designed
specifically for the small sensor DSLRs. They'll probably make more. I
reckon it'll become a new standard.

10-22mm
17-85mm IS
18-55mm (supplied with 300D)
18-55mm (new USM version)
55-200mm (to complement the 18-55mm)

Here's three of them;
http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/CanonWAlenses.shtml

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

W. D. Grey said:

Quoted message said:

It hasn't, but it will be. You don't digital camera evolution will
stop at the 20D do you? Might be worth waiting for the 12MP 40D!
;-)

You didn't stop to think when you wrote this methinks :-)

Why do you say that? It seems a logical conclusion to draw; 10D - 6MP,
20D - 8MP, 30D - 10MP, 40D - 12MP.

Of course it's pure speculation, they may not increase by 2MP each time
and they may decide to change the naming pattern (they moved straight
from the G3 to G5 - the G3 should really have been called the G4).

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Andy Howell said:

And to
some extent you've got to think about what you will use the extra
resolution for?

I want to be able to make 18" x 12" prints at 300dpi with no
interpolation! So I'll be happy with a 20MP camera! :-)

Also, extra res gives a lot more flexibility for cropping.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Mark Cavendish said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry, but no matter how good this chip is and no matter what it
does, it can't produce 8MP of resolution from 4MP. The quality may
be very good, but any 8MP camera will be twice as sharp.

In theory, I'd have to agree. But the image has to be processed
in-camera first and it is this that will affect the outcome

The whole idea of RAW files is that the image *isn't* processed
in-camera first!

Quoted message said:

If the resolution at 8MP is soft, its equivalent res may well be less
than that of a good sharp efficient 4MP

True, but I haven't heard anyone accusing the 20D of being soft.

We really must make a distinction between sharpness and resolution.
Most people nowadays think of resolution as meaning the number of pixels
in the image. Best to keep it that way (so the resolution at 8MP is
8MP!) Let's call sharpness sharpness, not resolution, it'll only cause
confusion if we do, and that's exactly why we're having this argument.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

On 17/10/04 6:27 pm, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

Why do you say that? It seems a logical conclusion to draw; 10D - 6MP,
20D - 8MP, 30D - 10MP, 40D - 12MP.

Of course it's pure speculation, they may not increase by 2MP each time
and they may decide to change the naming pattern (they moved straight
from the G3 to G5 - the G3 should really have been called the G4).

I guess, for me sensor resolution will be more important than sensor
coverage. I'm quite surprised at how I have adapted to the 1.5 format. And
with this new generation of wide angles I'll happily stop with this sized
format.

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

Andy Howell said:

I guess, for me sensor resolution will be more important than sensor
coverage.

Yes. Sensor coverage is only really an issue for those who want to
carry on using their old lenses. All of mine are manual lenses so
they're obsolete anyway, thus I have to start afresh.

Quoted message said:

I'm quite surprised at how I have adapted to the 1.5
format.

I really like the new smaller formats. Although the crop factors vary
from manufacturer (1.3, 1.5, 1.6, plus the new 4:3 format), they're all
universally smaller than 35mm, and it seems clear that trying to make
full-frame sensors is like trying to force a square peg into a round
hole - the smaller sensors are much more suited to the limitations of
35mm lens design and the new digital lenses are more suited to the
smaller sensors.

Quoted message said:

And with this new generation of wide angles I'll happily
stop with this sized format.

I think this new format is great. Basically it means smaller, lighter
and cheaper lenses. Great for walkers.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

On 17/10/04 6:28 pm, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

I want to be able to make 18" x 12" prints at 300dpi with no
interpolation! So I'll be happy with a 20MP camera! :-)

Also, extra res gives a lot more flexibility for cropping.

How long before we can have that you reckon?

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

Andy Howell said:

Quoted message said:

I want to be able to make 18" x 12" prints at 300dpi with no
interpolation! So I'll be happy with a 20MP camera! :-)

Also, extra res gives a lot more flexibility for cropping.

How long before we can have that you reckon?

What, cropping or a 20MP DSLR?

You can crop now, but image quality will suffer a bit.

We've already got 22MP MF digital backs, but they cost silly money.

The new Canon 1Ds Mk II is nearly 17MP, which is probably close enough.

Actually, 18" x 12" at 240dpi would probably suffice, that's only 12MP.

If the number of megapixels keeps multiplying at the 1.6x sensor size,
it may not be long before the image resolution shows up too many flaws
in the lenses, so the sharpness (resolution) of the lenses may become
the limiting factor, rather than the resolution of the sensor.

The solution to that would be bigger sensors and correspondingly bigger
lenses, i.e. medium format with digital backs.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

On 17/10/04 7:00 pm, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

I think this new format is great. Basically it means smaller, lighter
and cheaper lenses. Great for walkers.

True. I'm waiting for a 20 equivalent digital lens. Canon has a 10 to
something and Nikon a 12 to something but we're talking about £600 to £800
here. Perhaps next year sometime.

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

Andy Howell said:

True. I'm waiting for a 20 equivalent digital lens. Canon has a 10
to something and Nikon a 12 to something but we're talking about £600
to £800 here. Perhaps next year sometime.

10-22, equivalent to 16-35. So a 20 equivalent already exists. The
Nikon and Sigma 12-24 is equal to 19-38, so that includes a 20 too.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Paul Saunders said:

If the number of megapixels keeps multiplying at the 1.6x sensor size,
it may not be long before the image resolution shows up too many flaws
in the lenses, so the sharpness (resolution) of the lenses may become
the limiting factor, rather than the resolution of the sensor.

As it already is by all accounts with the 1Ds. Even the Mk I needs to
have very good glass mounted on it to give of its best.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Paul Saunders said:

(they moved straight from the G3 to G5 - the G3 should really have been
called the G4).

Wasn't G4 something rude in some language or other, a bit like the MR2
is known as simply the MR in France?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

Quoted message said:

It hasn't, but it will be. You don't digital camera evolution will
stop at the 20D do you? Might be worth waiting for the 12MP 40D!
;-)

You didn't stop to think when you wrote this methinks :-)

Why do you say that?

Paul old son, you're too ready for an argument.

Mine was a GOL (remember Glib one Liner)

You left the word "think" out of "You don't digital camera
evolution....etc."

I'm definitely not getting into discussions about new cameras - I'm a
pensioner and can't afford these luxuries.

Good fun eh?
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know the
lens that came with the 300D is a one off.

Not any more it isn't.

As I understand it my lens that came with my 300D can't be used on
another Canon. Is that right?

--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

"Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:27:00 +0100, Paul Saunders wrote:
|
| >(they moved straight from the G3 to G5 - the G3 should really have been
| >called the G4).
|
| Wasn't G4 something rude in some language or other, a bit like the MR2
| is known as simply the MR in France?
| --
| Phil Cook

Something like that. I think the number 4 was bad luck in Japan or China or
something?

Ste