Have a Canon Elan7 - what's logical D-SLR "upgrade"?

[MI_canuck]

I have a Canon EOS Elan7, with a 28-105 f3.5-4.5 II USM, and a 100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM, both "ring type" USM. As I understand it, these are mid-range consumer level lenses.

Since the Elan is a mid to upper level consumer body (pentamirror, metal mount, more C.fn), as opposed to the entry level Rebel film bodies, would going to a Digital Rebel XT be considered a "downgrade" as far performance (autofocus speed, max frames/sec continuous, custom functions, manual control, etc)?

What would be a "logical" upgrade from my Elan7 to a D-SLR? I consider a new EOS 20D to be a bit out of my price range, but would a USED 20D or 10D or even D60 be better than a brand new Digital Rebel (300D) or Digital Rebel XT (350D)? Or would buying a 350D and putting the difference towards a new lense make more sense?

Or should I look towards Nikon - such as the D70 (or D70s) or upcoming D50 - considering I only have 2 lenses right now, which is a small investment, but not a super huge one. Would be nice to have f2.8 lenses (Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS - for example;)), but I don't think I could afford new ones.

I just returned from the F1 Grand Prix in Montreal, and that is the type of photography I would consider to be my main interest.

I originally went with the Canon/Elan7 over a Nikon N80 due to the faster focusing speed, higher continuous frames per second (not a necessity but nice to have), and greater availability of lenses with USM (Nikon didn't seem to have nearly as many "Silent Wave" lenses (AF-S?) a couple of years ago when I bought my Elan, and also better IS (again seemingly at the time) on the Canon than Nikon's VR. The only plus I could see on the N80 at the time was the spot meter.


What is the recommendation for a D-SLR for my situation, considering I have a couple of Canon lenses right now although not completely opposed to other brands, and have a set limit of about $800 for a D-SLR body.


thnx!


cheers

[Warin]

I would go for the Rebel XT.

As much as I am pro-Nikon, it doesnt make a lot of sense to replace your existing glass.

the XT is far better in terms of adjustability than the original Rebel, so I'd look for an XT at a reasonable price. I prefer new to used, but if you are ok with used, and can find a good 20D, then that would likely be the best choice.

I will say that the F80 is a much better piece than the Elan ;)

[Rhys]

I've just bought an XT with 18 - 55 and 55- 200 lenses. When I've read the manual, charged the battery and got some more photos out of it I'll let you know what I think. It's a lightweight camera and I'm all for lightweight cameras.

[timmciglobal]

Used 20D > New Rebel XT > Used rebel XT > New 10D, Used 10D, New Rebel, Used Rebel > all else.

The sensor on the D60/D30 is not worth the possible "improvements" in manual controls.

The 20D is a great camera, the XT is too just a tad small for the big lenses.

Tim

[MI_canuck]

I will say that the F80 is a much better piece than the Elan ;)


Well - you did start off by saying you were pro-Nikon, so I'll let it pass. ;)


thnx!

[MI_canuck]

I would go for the Rebel XT.
...
the XT is far better in terms of adjustability than the original Rebel


can the XT be tweaked further still, and have even more features "unlocked" through firmware updates?



thnx

[TheObiJuan]

there is nothing to unlock since it has all of the features of the 300D and most of the 20D's features available. Some of the custom functions from the 20d would have been nice in the 350d.

[NeoteriX]

I've just bought an XT with 18 - 55 and 55- 200 lenses. When I've read the manual, charged the battery and got some more photos out of it I'll let you know what I think. It's a lightweight camera and I'm all for lightweight cameras.

Rhys,

I think it's pretty interesting that we were both shooting with the S1 for some time and now have both moved to the Rebel XT at nearly the same time. :) I've got the 50mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 18-200, I'm still learning my way around it and trying to make sense of AE and AF lock and such.

[Rhys]

Rhys,

I think it's pretty interesting that we were both shooting with the S1 for some time and now have both moved to the Rebel XT at nearly the same time. :) I've got the 50mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 18-200, I'm still learning my way around it and trying to make sense of AE and AF lock and such.

I have the 18-55 kit lens and a Quantaray 55 - 200 f4 lens. I have yet to test them thoroughly. In JPEG mode I see I need to raise the sharpness a shade. Contrast seems fine though. Focussing is blisteringly fast. Currently I'm just using it in aperture priority and took some really nice photos of my wife at 1600 ASA. Hardly any grain visible.

[MI_canuck]

I just returned from the F1 Grand Prix in Montreal, and that is the type of photography I would consider to be my main interest.



For this type of shooting - would it be worth considering Nikon (and get good lenses to suit my needs), or should I stick with Canon (and my 28-105 USM and 100-300 USM), and add an extra lens down the road (maybe a 70-200 f4 L, and maybe a super long telephoto, 400mm +) ?


thnx

[MI_canuck]

Basically another question I would have, who makes the best glass (Nikon vs Canon) for D-SLR, in the $200-600 lens price range, that is good for fast action (such as race cars)?

One one hand, you have fast focusing cameras (like the Canon 20D), but does Canon make decent lenses in my price range ($200-600) to take advantage of that, if not does Nikon have better lenses in that range, despite camera bodies (D70, D50) with (traditionally) slower focusing systems (and less AF points).


BTW how does the AF speed and accuracy of the XT (350D) compare with the D70 (or upcoming D50)?



thnx!


EDIT: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9158

seems like the D50 produces better picture quality than the XT judging from the pics in the links posted in the above pasted thread :confused:

[D70FAN]

For this type of shooting - would it be worth considering Nikon (and get good lenses to suit my needs), or should I stick with Canon (and my 28-105 USM and 100-300 USM), and add an extra lens down the road (maybe a 70-200 f4 L, and maybe a super long telephoto, 400mm +) ?


thnx

I'm sure that the Canon crowd will say to stick with Canon. I'm inclined to agree with that recomendation, but mainly because you have an investment in Canon lenses, and your budget is $800. You might be able to get an XT body for that price (or a little more). If you can live with the small-ish grip in the short term you can always add the battery grip later.

At this point, with your budget, the XT is probably the best overall solution. If budget were not an issue, for shooting action events, like F1, I would recommend the 20D...period.

[TheObiJuan]

I agree with Geogre, you have an investment, so stick with canon. The XT will be great, thank God Canon provides an excellent battery grip. It is far better than the one for the 20D. :p

[Warin]

Ideally, for this type of shooting, you want a good long lens, which is most assuredly out of your price range.

Canon makes a phenomenal 300mm f/4 IS telephoto lens, but it runs in the 2K+ canadian price range, which is more than a little out of your price range

Nikon has a non IS 300mm f/4, which I have a great deal of experience with, and I love it. I am going to try to get to a CASCAR event sometime this year and try my hand at high(er) speed motor sports phortography. However, it is still 1500 dollars or so canadian.

Have you considered looking at KEH for used long lenses?

Canon f/4 300mm (http://keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=11243917&SKID=CE06009034036K3&SID=NewUsed&BID=CE&CID=06&SOID=N&ISPRICE=919.0&dpsp=0&curpic=0)

or

Nikon f/4 300mm (http://keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=11243917&SKID=NA06999045188M1&SID=NewUsed&BID=NA&CID=06&SOID=N&ISPRICE=1079.95&dpsp=0&curpic=0)

The nikon is new and has a rebate.

Zooms are nice, but nothing beats a prime lens for speed and sharpness. Both of these lenses are great because they are relatively compact for a long lens, and will provide ~450mm equivalent field of view on a DSLR body.

[aparmley]

My advice go to a store and take a memory card... use both cameras in store and buy the one your gut tells you is better. Do your research online.. head over to dpreview use their side by side spec comparison tool... check out some of his great samples... do some lens research... but don't make a decision until you have held them both in your hands and have taken some pictures...

That was my attempt at being unbais. I would tell you to save a little more and buy the 20D if you made me name a camera right here and right now... but I think you should shoot with the D70s, XT and 20D... before you decide.

[MI_canuck]

well - i went into a camera store and held and played with the Rebel XT, 20D and D50 (they had *JUST* got on in)...

basically, didn't like the feel of the Rebel XT at all - fellt too small and dare I say "cheap"... even though I don't have large hands, the XT still fellt too small to hold comfortably

the D50 actually fellt very robust and well built - the SD card format is nice - since i have a smaller pocket digi cam that also uses SD.... it fellt better built and higher quality than the XT... was nice to hold on to... although a little unfamiliar since a have Canon film SLR... the controls did seem a little more basic - lack of a front mount scroll wheel - only a rear one - but that's just a minor point i guess... the viewfinder was on the small side, and only 5 focus points, vs 7 on the XT and 9 on the 20D... but despite having 2 Canon lenses already - i would definitely consider the D50 especially consider the price is *right*... $899 for the kit - that's MSRP at my local shop - i'm sure online it would be much cheaper, and B&H I think will be offering it body only, or at least with a better 18-70 DX rather than the cheapy 18-55 kit lens...

20D fellt MOST like my Elan - in fact it seemed that they share basic body architechture - fellt very comfortable and natural - also like the view throught the viewfinder... but at a steep $1499 for body only at my local shop (can surely get it cheaper online but still) - a little on the pricey side :(

with that said - would getting a used 10D (maybe off Ebay for example) be a wise choice? I know the 10D doesn't accept the EF-S lenses, and is 6.3 vs 8.2 MP (not a big difference to me - not enough to worry about anyways)...



So.... I'd either spring for a D50 and buy new lenses, and either keep my Canon Elan with the 2 lenses, that way i'd have a film backup, or i can just offload than and put towards a D50 outfit with a couple of Nikkor lenses...

-OR-

look for a used 10D body for $700 or less used off of Ebay or other place that sells used camera equipment (B&H maybe, or other suggestions?????)


thnx!!

[TheObiJuan]

Do you have a fry's near you? I heard they had the 10Ds new for 799. The 20D is indeed a great camera, I love the ergonomics and style. It could use a bigger and brighter viewfinder, but I'm not really complaining. :p

KEH.com has some good deals, aswell as adorama and b&h for used stuff.

Forums like fredmiranda and robgalbraith.com are also great.

[MI_canuck]

i keep drifting back to the Rebel XT, simply based on cost... even though it didn't feel the greatest to hold, i know (and have seen in online reviews) that it takes really good quality images...

if i didn't have Canon lenses right now, i think i'd be leaning towards a D70 (non-s) considering the great prices on them right now (and there's also a firmware update to give it some of the D70s improvements), and the 18-70 kit lens seems actually pretty good... and the images i've seen posted online from D70 users blow me away - the real world images (not from reviews) of the D70 seem even better than the Rebel XT ones... :confused:

i'm leary of being a used 10D - and a GOOD used one is still more money than a Rebel XT or D70... and i'm sure the street price on a D50 body will dip into the $6XX's real soon...

i feel that maybe i should sell my Canon film gear and just go fully digital - since if/when i get a D-SLR, i doubt i'd use film much at all...


:confused:

[Rhys]

I'd hang onto the film gear and I'd go for the XT. I have the XT and have found (in the 300 photos I've taken with it so far) very few problems. Portrait mode screws up royally occasionally. I aimed at a woman who covered about 50% of the frame area and the dratted camera focussed on the background yet the major focus points were on the subject. I've written to Canon for an explanation on that one!

I really like the XT because it's so small and light. I don't have to lug tons of weight around. I can't say I care for the aesthetics of a plastic lens mount on the 18-55 kit lens but it's certainly lightweight. I'm all in favour of less weight.

The downside of the XT is that it takes the amateur Canon battery rather than the shotgun battery that all the other Canon DSLRs take. This, of course, means that I'll have to buy either another similar battery or the battery grip that takes 6 AA batteries. The problem there is few chargers will charge in batches of 6.

Why hang onto the film gear? Simply because film can offer options that digital cannot although these days, I think the world has fully moved on from film into digital.

[D70FAN]

i keep drifting back to the Rebel XT, simply based on cost... even though it didn't feel the greatest to hold, i know (and have seen in online reviews) that it takes really good quality images...

if i didn't have Canon lenses right now, i think i'd be leaning towards a D70 (non-s) considering the great prices on them right now (and there's also a firmware update to give it some of the D70s improvements), and the 18-70 kit lens seems actually pretty good... and the images i've seen posted online from D70 users blow me away - the real world images (not from reviews) of the D70 seem even better than the Rebel XT ones... :confused:

i'm leary of being a used 10D - and a GOOD used one is still more money than a Rebel XT or D70... and i'm sure the street price on a D50 body will dip into the $6XX's real soon...

i feel that maybe i should sell my Canon film gear and just go fully digital - since if/when i get a D-SLR, i doubt i'd use film much at all...


:confused:

I can't really speak on the XT as I don't own one. My first impressions were not particularly good. I do own a D70 and after 8000 frames and over a year of use, it has never disappointed me. It is a well designed and implemented dSLR that I would recommend to anyone without excuses.

Good luck on your decision.

[Rhys]

I can't really speak on the XT front as I don't own one. My first impressions were not particularly good. I do own a D70 and after 8000 frames and over a year of use, it has never disappointed me. It is a well designed and implemented dSLR that I would recommend to anyone without excuses.

Good luck on your decision.

I like the XT's 8 megapixels, lightness and ease of use. I am not particularly keen on the fact it sometimes can't focus properly. Generally, I like the camera. I'm not too keen on the fudge Canon makes regarding full-manual mode.

[D70FAN]

I like the XT's 8 megapixels, lightness and ease of use. I am not particularly keen on the fact it sometimes can't focus properly. Generally, I like the camera. I'm not too keen on the fudge Canon makes regarding full-manual mode.

I tried to warn you...Time to try a D70s? :D

Incidently, my guess is that most of your focus problems are lens related, not the fault of the XT. The one thing I did like about the XT was marginally faster focus (using a Sigma 18-125).

I suggest you return the lenses you bought with the XT and get the Sigma 18-200 DC (to cover the same range as your current lenses). You will be amazed at the disappearance of your focus problems...

[Rhys]

I tried to warn you...Time to try a D70s? :D

Incidently, my guess is that most of your focus problems are lens related, not the fault of the XT. The one thing I did like about the XT was marginally faster focus (using a Sigma 18-125).

I suggest you return the lenses you bought with the XT and get the Sigma 18-200 DC (to cover the same range as your current lenses). You will be amazed at the disappearance of your focus problems...

The Kit lens isn't too bad. I do intend to get more lenses though - possibly a 28 - 70 or fixed focal length lenses.

[cwphoto]

I think you are crazy to think of switching brands when you already have an investment in two compatible lenses.

Surely the money you save in buying a D50 over an EOS 20D would be wiped out by having to buy at least one new lens. Notwithstanding that the 20D is a higher-spec camera (D70s class).

[speaklightly]

But at the end of the day, doesn't it honestly come down to the fact that if you have a good "feel" about your camera and get the sense that it is really working with you, rather than making you create work arounds, you are going to get better photos.

I know it kind of sounds corny, but attitude about the camera you are working with does make a difference, at least that is true for me. It is, at least for sort of a subjective thing.

Sarah Joyce

[Rhys]

That's true. You can't take good photos if you hate your camera. I find the full manual controls a little funky on the XT but that's because I am used to an aperture ring rather than a pair of buttons.

[MI_canuck]

well i played around further with the XT and D70, D50 and 20D... honestly the XT is probably something i can get used to ... it's isn't so bad.... but my biggest concern/complaint would have to the battery, and secondarily, the lack of a second thumb wheel... (which also plagues the D50).... might not be a big deal, i don't use (M)anual mode that much....

but the battery issue with the XT seems like a big point for me... it's like half the capacity (7XX mAh i think) vs 1400-1500 mAh for the others... almost forces one to get the BG-E3 battery grip, which of course adds bulk, etc.


cost consciously, the XT makes most sense though, and i might just bite the bullet and go for one, and wait until the next better affordable Canon model comes out, and/or the 20D becomes cheaper and/or more readily available on the used/refurb market...


The D70 just keeps drawing me back, despite the need to have to buy new lenses.... it's such good value (especially with the D70s out now) and the pics i keep seeing more and more posted on various sites and always stunning!


if i can gain confidence that the XT can take as good (or better?) quality pics than the D70 (with equivalent glass of course) then would make the decision to just go with an XT much simpler...


thnx



cheers

[Rhys]

My XT photos can be seen on www.sageworld.smugmug.com

Thus far I am 300 photos in and have charged the battery only once (at the beginning). I shall probably get the battery grip but only because I want the ability to use AA batteries in an emergency. I'll also probably get a spare Canon battery.

[MI_canuck]

cool thnx Rhys! i'll check those out when i get a chance.... in your opinion (and without me having looked at your pics), are you satisified with the image quality vs that of the D70?


one more important thing I forgot to mention... the XT happened to have a 75-300 USM lens attached to it... and when towards the 300 range (f5.6 min) the focus in low light was absolutely HORRIBLE... it would hunt from one end of the focus range to the other.... is this NORMAL???


the focusing of the D70 (granted, it had the 18-70 Nikkor ED kit lens) was far superior, and never hunted, but i'm wondering if this is due simply to the larger aperture F3.5? of the 18-70 lens...

i've seemed to notice the focus issue pop up on other forums for the XT (dpreview) - it seems to be a plaguing problem... anyone care to comment?? is this a REAL issue with the XT? poor focus?


thnx!!

[TheObiJuan]

My 350D hunted like crazy with the sigma 70-300 and tamron 1.4TC, but it was expected. I learned how to focus, and how to use the AF sensors to my advantage, I saw a lot more in focus images. The 70-300 even without the 1.4TC would yield oof images, sometimes due to slight camera shake though.

My 135 f/2.8 never really produced any soft, out of focus, or blurry pics. It locked on all the time.

[D70FAN]

one more important thing I forgot to mention... the XT happened to have a 75-300 USM lens attached to it... and when towards the 300 range (f5.6 min) the focus in low light was absolutely HORRIBLE... it would hunt from one end of the focus range to the other.... is this NORMAL???


the focusing of the D70 (granted, it had the 18-70 Nikkor ED kit lens) was far superior, and never hunted, but i'm wondering if this is due simply to the larger aperture F3.5? of the 18-70 lens...


Since the 18-70 DX is the "standard kit" lens it should tell you something about Nikons concern for image quality. The results I'm seeing (in test results here and elsewhere) from the D50's 18-55 "kit" lens seem to be of that same high-quality level.

That said, I changed over to the Sigma 18-125 DC as it offered as good or better performance to the Nikkor kit lens, with the extra reach I wanted.

[MI_canuck]

OK - so I've established that the Rebel XT is the most logical choice for me (price-wise, and compatible with my 2 Canon lenses)


BUT..... I just can't get used to it... I don't like the way it feels... the size is fine, but the controls are just more awkward than a 20D (which is most like what I am used to - my Elan 7)... and the battery life/capacity is one thing against the XT (i'm sure it's enough for PLENTY of pictures, but it still has half the capacity of most all the other D-SLRs out there)... and one nagging bit... the LCD

By going with the XT... i'd be "settling" for it, rather than truly be happy with it....


Had I no Canon lenses in my possession, I'd be getting a D70 kit, no question. Value-wise, it's unbeatable, and I've seen to many nice sample pics of it posted all over the web...



Now - since the XT is price-wise to my level, and I have Canon lenses, I think the 10D could solve all my problems (only thing I'd give up, is the possibility of using EF-S lenses - which Canon seems to be realeasing more and more of now....)... Picture quality-wise, I don't know if the 10D is equal to the XT (low res I know, 6.3 vs 8.2), but I'm sure the 10D is no slouch in picture quality...


I'm so tempted to go for the 10D, since I can easily find one in the $750-850 range... my only concern, is if lack of EF-S capability will hurt it in the future (both in ownership - a whole line of lenses is off limits, or reselling it off later on - will anyone want a 10D in the future if it can't do EF-S) ?? I guess the 1D/1Ds can't take EF-S lenses either (although those are full frame cameras so it doesn't matter as much).... just wondering if the whole Canon D-SLR lineup will eventually migrate to EF-S completely (ie. will any "new" lenses released by Canon from now on be only EF-S???)



thnx!!!

[cwphoto]

just wondering if the whole Canon D-SLR lineup will eventually migrate to EF-S completely (ie. will any "new" lenses released by Canon from now on be only EF-S???)



thnx!!!

I can't see Canon discontinuing the EF lens series as they have shown a very big commitment to full-frame (1Ds) or near full-frame (1D) cameras for their professional line-up (of which they lead the market).

I think the market is large enough to support both lens ranges for the short to medium term, however longer term I wouldn't be surprised to see only full-frame SLRs as the cost difference in chips sizes becomes relatively negligible.

While I think purchasing a 10D is not a great idea, the fact that it won't accept EF-S would be of little consequence to me.

[MI_canuck]

While I think purchasing a 10D is not a great idea, the fact that it won't accept EF-S would be of little consequence to me.


can you ellaborate? why do you think a 10D would be a worse purchase than a Rebel XT?

or do you have other suggestions that would fit my needs/budget?


thnx!!

[D70FAN]

I think the market is large enough to support both lens ranges for the short to medium term, however longer term I wouldn't be surprised to see only full-frame SLRs as the cost difference in chips sizes becomes relatively negligible.



I'm not sure that you understand the dynamics of semiconductor manufacturing, but cost savings comes from shrinking the die size area by using finer and finer lithographies and advanced processes.

A full frame sensor is about 36mm x 24mm or about 864 square mm. An APS-C sized sensor is about 24mm x 16mm or about 384 square mm. Thats about a 2.25:1 factor in die area, and an equal, or greater than, 2.25 x cost, due to fewer die per wafer and lower yields due to higher defect densities.

Note that Canon APS-C sensors are slightly smaller than the rest (hence the 1.6x vs. 1.5x crop factor) so may be even less expensive to manufacture.

The bottom line is that a full-frame sensor, simply due to the physical format size, will always cost more than a APS-C sensor, regardless of pixel density.

[cwphoto]

You're absolutely right - I know nothing about the dynamics of semi-conductor whatever. But I do know a little about economics and that the relatively high proportional value that these chips add to the price of a camera is the main reason for today's price difference (ie around 50% as you have indicated).

Once these chips become commoditised and add less than 10% to the manufacturing cost of a camera then the difference becomes negligible as a proportion of the whole.

[cwphoto]

can you ellaborate? why do you think a 10D would be a worse purchase than a Rebel XT?

or do you have other suggestions that would fit my needs/budget?


thnx!!

It's yesterday's technology (haven't time to elaborate - have a wedding to go to) - any savings represent a false economy to me. Go the XT or 20D.

[D70FAN]

You're absolutely right - I know nothing about the dynamics of semi-conductor whatever. But I do know a little about economics and that the relatively high proportional value that these chips add to the price of a camera is the main reason for today's price difference (ie around 50% as you have indicated).

Once these chips become commoditised and add less than 10% to the manufacturing cost of a camera then the difference becomes negligible as a proportion of the whole.

To help clarify this a little more...

...It will be many years, if ever, before commoditization of CMOS dSLR sized sensors. The cost per pixel will go down, but the cost of the whole sensor will be a very slow decent indeed.

You can shrink the size of the photo sites and smash more pixels into the same area. But a full size 35mm sensor will always be 864 square mm. Cost reductions will occur through wafer price reduction or process yield enhancement (which are very very slow) and not by shrinking the die (which is much quicker).

Example:

Consider that while consumer digital all-in-ones appear to be getting cheaper, the fact is that the sensor die areas are getting smaller and much more restricted in their ISO sensitivity range. ISO is not a major factor in most consumer all-in-ones but for dSLR's it is a major concern.

4 years ago a 5MP camera used a .66" sensor, cost $600 and had a usable ISO past 400. Today a 5MP camera uses a .37" sensor, costs $350 and usable ISO of about 200. Half the sensor size, half the ISO, half the cost. Also consider that current 7MP and 8MP .66" image sensor cameras are still well over $600 (price sound familiar?). And note that ISO performace has suffered on these cameras as well.

Area for area the cost has not decreased much, if at all, in the past 5 years, while pixel density has gone up, and the ISO sensitivity has gone down.

Even in this moderately low end commodity market, sensors are still a major portion of the cost to manufacture a camera, and definately not a commodity by cost percentage standards.

Because of the nature of dSLR's and their fixed-area image sensor sizes the consumer (commodity) all-in-one scenario is even less likely as there is no die area shrink available as a quick cost reduction option.

With the success of Nikons 12.2MP D2X using an APS-C sized sensor, and the myriad of advantages to APS-C, unless there is a major breakthrough in wafer cost and manufacturing technology, don't look for a consumer 35mm full-sized sensor dSLR anytime soon.

[Rex914]

If the XT doesn't feel "right" to you, you should really consider the 20D. I have no idea what your budget is or what you got your XT for, but a 20D can be easily had for under $1200, after rebates, no tax. That's still a good $300-$400 more than an XT, but that extra raise could mean the difference between a camera that "does the job" rather than one you truly enjoy using.

[Clyde]

To help clarify this a little more...

...It will be many years, if ever, before commoditization of CMOS dSLR sized sensors. The cost per pixel will go down, but the cost of the whole sensor will be a very slow decent indeed.

You can shrink the size of the photo sites and smash more pixels into the same area. But a full size 35mm sensor will always be 864 square mm. Cost reductions will occur through wafer price reduction or process yield enhancement (which are very very slow) and not by shrinking the die (which is much quicker)....

Consider that while consumer digital all-in-ones appear to be getting cheaper, the fact is that the sensor die areas are getting smaller and much more restricted in their ISO sensitivity range. ISO is not a major factor in most consumer all-in-ones but for dSLR's it is a major concern...

Because of the nature of dSLR's and their fixed-area image sensor sizes the consumer (commodity) all-in-one scenario is even less likely as there is no die area shrink available as a quick cost reduction option...

With the success of Nikons 12.2MP D2X using an APS-C sized sensor, and the myriad of advantages to APS-C, unless there is a major breakthrough in wafer cost and manufacturing technology, don't look for a consumer 35mm full-sized sensor dSLR anytime soon.


Incredible stuff, reminds me of another famous Geo.., Geoffrey Chaucer. Like Chaucer, well worth reading and understanding, and like Chaucer, very close to english. My version of Chaucer came with helpful margin notes, where words plebians like me weren't expected to recognize were defined.

It would be a downright generous gesture if you could briefly explain the difference between APS-C, 35mm, CMOS, and any other standard sensors. Are you saying that you think lenses like the Sigma 18-200 will be usable in the next few generations of dSLRs? My impression was that the Pentax istD, the Nikon D70-50s, the Oly 300, the Canon 350, and the Canon 20 all had different sized sensors. This led me to suspect that it was foolish to hope that any lens besides one intended for a 35mm would be usable a generation or two down the road.

If you bother to respond to this, I would love a brief (or maybe less brief?) digression on sensor size and ISO and sensor size and Depth of Field. For instance, given similar aperture and zoom, would there be any difference in Depth of Field using a Sigma 18-200 on a canon 350 or a nikon 70s (I believe the only difference between the lenses is the mounting system?)

I am not sure this is entirely coherent, if not, I apologize in advance, otherwise,

Thanks,

Clyde
(I used to love that "Cheap Trick Live at Bokeh" album)

www.clydesart.com (http://www.clydesart.com/)

[D70FAN]

Incredible stuff, reminds me of another famous Geo.., Geoffrey Chaucer. Like Chaucer, well worth reading and understanding, and like Chaucer, very close to english. My version of Chaucer came with helpful margin notes, where words plebians like me weren't expected to recognize were defined.

It would be a downright generous gesture if you could briefly explain the difference between APS-C, 35mm, CMOS, and any other standard sensors. Are you saying that you think lenses like the Sigma 18-200 will be usable in the next few generations of dSLRs? My impression was that the Pentax istD, the Nikon D70-50s, the Oly 300, the Canon 350, and the Canon 20 all had different sized sensors. This led me to suspect that it was foolish to hope that any lens besides one intended for a 35mm would be usable a generation or two down the road.

If you bother to respond to this, I would love a brief (or maybe less brief?) digression on sensor size and ISO and sensor size and Depth of Field. For instance, given similar aperture and zoom, would there be any difference in Depth of Field using a Sigma 18-200 on a canon 350 or a nikon 70s (I believe the only difference between the lenses is the mounting system?)

I am not sure this is entirely coherent, if not, I apologize in advance, otherwise,

Thanks,

Clyde
(I used to love that "Cheap Trick Live at Bokeh" album)

www.clydesart.com (http://www.clydesart.com/)

Sorry Clyde. Hope this helps:

APS-C and 35mm are actually film formats/sizes. 35mm is the best known of the two and has been around since the late 1920's.

APS-C was a recent film format to be the "Volks Camera" back in the mid 90's. The driving forces were Fuji and Kodak trying to simplify film use. I worked with Kodak on the first APS pocket camera and it was my companies microcontroller (Mitsubishi) that ended up powering 3 of the 5 APS camera brands. I helped transfer the program to Thailand in 1997/98.

There are 2 versions of APS-C. One is the Canon which is a little smaller and the others (Nikon, Minolta, and Pentax) are kind-of the standard size version. Olympus has gone out on their own and is part of the 4:3 consortium with Kodak, Fuji, and Panasonic.

To clarify my last statement: 4:3 is an aspect ratio similar to a standard TV screen or computer monitor. 35mm film and APS-C have a 3:2 aspect ratio which is more rectangular.

CMOS (stands for Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor), and CCD (stands for Charge Coupled Device) are two different integrated circuit designs and processes that are similar but have different advantages and disadvantages. Sorry I don't have the time to go through both, but if you google the two there is a plethora of information on both. the bottom line is that CMOS is the most common and least expensive of the two, but also the most difficult to control for image sensing. Recent advances in CMOS technology have made it the new leader for future image sensor design.

Next brief: As sensor size and photo sensor sites get smaller, they gather less light and need more amplification to generate the same picture contrast and brightness. When these sensor signals are amplified so is the ambient electrical noise which appears as "grain" (or trash in the image) and loss of detail. ISO is actually an adopted film value (film speed) which indicates sensitivity, to light in film and digital image sensors. Like film, the higher the ISO rating, the greater sensitivity to light, and susceptability to noise (or graininess in film). The larger the photo sites, the more sensor image signal, and less amplification is required. So less noise.

Sorry, but it would take a whole book on each of these subjects to fully explain them, so I hope you can follow my explainations.

As for DOF differences between APS-C cameras, there should be very little as the actual field sizes are very close. As to how this relates to full-frame sensors? To be honest I'm no expert in optics so I'll leave that to someone else.

Again, I hope this helps, but if you Google the idividual items there is litterally hundreds of pages on all of these subjects.

[Clyde]

Sorry Clyde. Hope this helps:

...

Next brief: As sensor size and photo sensor sites get smaller, they gather less light and need more amplification to generate the same picture contrast and brightness.... Like film, the higher the ISO rating, the greater sensitivity to light, and susceptability to noise (or graininess in film). The larger the photo sites, the more sensor image signal, and less amplification is required. So less noise....

Thanks, that was well put. It is nice to have access to your expertise.

Clyde

(Can't find "Cheap Trick Live at Bokeh" on Ebay...)

http://www.clydesart.com/

[cwphoto]

To help clarify this a little more...

...It will be many years, if ever, before commoditization of CMOS dSLR sized sensors. The cost per pixel will go down, but the cost of the whole sensor will be a very slow decent indeed.

You can shrink the size of the photo sites and smash more pixels into the same area. But a full size 35mm sensor will always be 864 square mm. Cost reductions will occur through wafer price reduction or process yield enhancement (which are very very slow) and not by shrinking the die (which is much quicker).

Example:

Consider that while consumer digital all-in-ones appear to be getting cheaper, the fact is that the sensor die areas are getting smaller and much more restricted in their ISO sensitivity range. ISO is not a major factor in most consumer all-in-ones but for dSLR's it is a major concern.

4 years ago a 5MP camera used a .66" sensor, cost $600 and had a usable ISO past 400. Today a 5MP camera uses a .37" sensor, costs $350 and usable ISO of about 200. Half the sensor size, half the ISO, half the cost. Also consider that current 7MP and 8MP .66" image sensor cameras are still well over $600 (price sound familiar?). And note that ISO performace has suffered on these cameras as well.

Area for area the cost has not decreased much, if at all, in the past 5 years, while pixel density has gone up, and the ISO sensitivity has gone down.

Even in this moderately low end commodity market, sensors are still a major portion of the cost to manufacture a camera, and definately not a commodity by cost percentage standards.

Because of the nature of dSLR's and their fixed-area image sensor sizes the consumer (commodity) all-in-one scenario is even less likely as there is no die area shrink available as a quick cost reduction option.

With the success of Nikons 12.2MP D2X using an APS-C sized sensor, and the myriad of advantages to APS-C, unless there is a major breakthrough in wafer cost and manufacturing technology, don't look for a consumer 35mm full-sized sensor dSLR anytime soon.

A typical Engineer's answer. Let's meet again in a few years time and we'll see what the real story is...