New 8.2 megapixel canon camera

[LiquidMetal]

That is cool.I cant even see hair strainds on people if im in front of them.CURSE YOU COMPUTER SCREEN!!!

[SMH]

Saw a video preview at cNet.com. Shoots about 5 frames/sec which is really impressive. BTW where would one go for a decent digicam review? What's the most trusted site to visit for this sector?

cNet Preview (w/Video) (http://reviews.cnet.com/Canon_EOS_20D/4505-6501_7-30994097-2.html?tag=tab)

Thanks,

-SMH

[Lunatique]

dpreview.com is the most trusted in the industry.

Pixel count isn't the most important thing. Dynamic range, performance, features..etc are more important. For example, The Canon 1D is only 4 megapixels, but it out resolves any of the crappy consumer 8 megapixel cameras like Canon Pro 1, Olympus C8080..etc.

When looking at cameras, look at if it's designed for professionals, not just at the pixel count.

I've got an order on the Canon 1D Mark II, but this new 20D sure looks interesting. Might make a good backup body.

[ghopper]

How much is the 20D gonna cost, similar price as the 10D ?

I'm having an eye on the Nikon D70 though. Good kit for the price, which is around $1200 inc lens.

[JDex]

$1499 body
$1599 w/ basic lens

The cnet preview highlights it.

[ghopper]

$1499 body
$1599 w/ basic lens

The cnet preview highlights it.

Thanks, but I didn't watch the preview.

[vrljc]

Unfortunately the camera's sensor is not full size. 8.2 megapixels is really cool, but when you want to shoot an 18mm focal length, instead you are only getting a 29mm; that is frustrating.

"Its large APS-C (22.5 x 15.0mm) size realizes an effective angle of view that’s 1.6 times the focal length indicated on Canon EF lenses."

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos20d/

However, if you are a nature or sports photographer, then this is the camera for you!

-jon

[hypercube]

I think as a proper successor to the 10D, which is what this is meant to be, it looks to be pretty awesome from here, especially considering the price(!), it fits right into the line behind the 1D Mark II etc. Also they seem to have made an intelligent effort at increasing the resolution vs. the 'prosumer' method of piling pixels on tinier and tinier sensors. Have to of course wait for more sample images to come out, but Canon's sensors always seem to be head and shoulders above the rest (unless you want a Foveon debate).

btw speaking of dpreview, they have a fairly indepth preview of the 20D up, hopefully now that things have been "leaked" intentionally, they'll allow them to post a full review soon.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081909canon_eos20d.asp

[jeremybirn]

Unfortunately the camera's sensor is not full size. 8.2 megapixels is really cool, but when you want to shoot an 18mm focal length, instead you are only getting a 29mm; that is frustrating.
Nothing frustrating about it. Sure, buy a new lens if you're lacking on the wide end (I got a 10.5mm for my Nikon D70), but more importantly get used to all your lenses being smaller and lighter for any given FOV. Every format of film/video is a different size - these sensors are actually closer in size to 35mm Motion Picture film frames, and lense choices vary accordingly.

Moore's law depends on chips getting smaller, not larger, so last I checked you'd be paying about $5000 if you wanted a bulky camera with a "full frame" sized sensor. Now that mid-sized sensors are getting good light response, I can't imaging buying that just to avoid getting a new lens.

-jeremy

[Dennik]

I think this camera is bad news. You will need twice the makeup to look good. Actually its better if that camera never catches your face. But yeah, for nature it would be the best. Instant posters anyone? :)

[paintbox]

This also mean probably a trickled down 200D or 400D will probably hit the market (after the very succesfull 300D)

I got a 500N 35mm, and I love it....if I can spare the money this 20D would be nice to have :)

[SQ2]

i was thinking of picking up a "canon IXUS i" it would cost me $300.


any ideas on good cameras?

[norritt]

any ideas on good cameras? fuji is making some very nice compact cameras with good resolution for a great street price. I have a s7000 - got it about one year ago for just 480 euro.

OK, much bigger than a ixus, but with proconsumer features, great image quality at a max. 12mp (interpollated, but with Fujis Super CCD Technology) image output (also raw) and full manual control (you all do not get with the ixus) fuji launched the F810 this weeks.

more about the f810 and some photos here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=9937497

that is poster size quality with such a small camera - great :)

[vrf]

The Canon 1D is only 4 megapixels, but it out resolves any of the crappy consumer 8 megapixel cameras like Canon Pro 1, Olympus C8080..etc.

When looking at cameras, look at if it's designed for professionals, not just at the pixel count.

I agree that pixel count isn't everything. But the 1d does not resolve more detail than the Pro1. I own a Pro1 and a D60, and have used a 1d. You're mistaken here. The Pro1's files clearly have more detail, and if you downsample a Pro1 image to a 1d file size, the image looks better, too.

Now, of course at high ISOs the 1d is far superior in terms of noise levels.

[Lunatique]

I agree that pixel count isn't everything. But the 1d does not resolve more detail than the Pro1. I own a Pro1 and a D60, and have used a 1d. You're mistaken here. The Pro1's files clearly have more detail, and if you downsample a Pro1 image to a 1d file size, the image looks better, too.

Now, of course at high ISOs the 1d is far superior in terms of noise levels.
I'd love to see your test examples. I'm sure the guys from the photography forums I hang out at would too--we're kinda suckers for controlled tests. :D

Here's a question though--if you could only have one camera for the rest of your life, would it be the Pro 1 or the 1D? ;) No contest eh?

[vrf]

I'd love to see your test examples. I'm sure the guys from the photography forums I hang out at would too--we're kinda suckers for controlled tests. :D

Here's a question though--if you could only have one camera for the rest of your life, would it be the Pro 1 or the 1D? ;) No contest eh?
Yeah, I know about the whole controlled tests thing. No time, though. But, in good lighting, the Pro1 does absolutely resolve more detail than the 1D.

Of course, I'm not disputing that the 1D is a better camera. It's much faster, better at high ISOs, etc. But it's also a tank, and it's not something I'd ever use for just a walk around camera. Too intimidating. And for action shots and low-light stuff, I think I'd probably upgrade my D60 to the 20D rather than get the 1d. (Unless you're talking about the 1D Mark II, in which case I'd love to have one. That whole $4,500 thing keeps me away, though.)

[paintbox]

I did a test print yesterday of one of those sample shots, and the amount of detail is just mind boggling...the preview on dpreview is also noteworthy :)

Does anyone have any experience with putting a non-digital lens on a D10/D1 ? I own a 28-200 and I would love to be able use it on this...I read somewhere you have to do a 1.6 conversion factor so it would become a 45-320mm ? Any bad side-effects (or good ones ?)

[wireFrame]

If this thread is about who's who in the megapixels category, try Kodak:
http://photos.msn.com/resources/targeted/en-us/editorial/KodakBreaksMegapixelSoundBarrier_Pro14nPRShotV_Lead.jpg
http://photos.msn.com/resources/targeted/en-us/editorial/KodakBreaksMegapixelSoundBarrier_p.htm

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2501/IW001115hnkodak/

[Neil]

If this thread is about who's who in the megapixels category, try Kodak:

Not necessarily. It was more about detail. And it was nice to see a site put up large, sample images. Not just claims with nothing to back it up.

[shortbuss]

Well, I read an article that if you were to translate a 35mm negative to megapixels, a 35mm negative would be approximately equal to 6 megapixels. I'm not certain if this is true or not, but they were basically saying that anything over 6 megapixels was just overkill for the average photographer; except for portrait work I suppose. And if you want to blow up a photo, use Genuine Fractals. I have a Minolta Dimage 7i which is only a 5 megapixel camera, and I can blow up photos to at least 13 x 19 with very little grain; considering the original photo is relatively clean and sharp.

Does anyone know if this is true about 35mm = 6 megapixels?

Dpreview.com is the best as stated already!

Cya,

ESB

[wireFrame]

Not necessarily. It was more about detail. And it was nice to see a site put up large, sample images. Not just claims with nothing to back it up.
This camera is real. You can find samples here (http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=dcsPro14n+sample+images&btnG=Google+Search&meta=).

Canon 1D has better image details in reviews.

It's lot easier to type "dcs pro 14n sample images" at google search by the way.

[Neil]

It's lot easier to type "dcs pro 14n sample images" at google search by the way.
Yes, that's if i wanted to. I really don't care to. My interest in CG is not in photography and I don't care to learn about every camera on the market. Hell I still use disposable cameras when I go on vacation. I don't work for Canon and this was not some ploy to get the website more hits, I found the images to be awesome, and the price to be comparable. This is 'cg news'. Read it as news and nothing more.

[igorstshirts]

I would think if one used a super high grade slow speed 35mm film, like 25 speed, it could/would equal to more than 6 megapix. The quality of camera and lenses for an SLR would come into play as well.

[Lunatique]

The Kodak dcs pro 14n is a big joke among photographers. It's one of the most laughed at camera in the history of digital camera. Kodak fumbled so much with that camera that they irreversibly destroyed their reputation.

[jeremybirn]

Does anyone know if this is true about 35mm = 6 megapixels?
That's a very rough estimate, I've heard other estimates much higher. Move to some photography forums and you'll get lots of people measuring how digicams generally have lower color resolution than luminance resolution, other details that can be argued about endlessly. Professional photographers with an ideal film stock, ideal camera lens, ideal exposure, etc. can probably push 35mm shots way beyond that.

In practical terms, when I got a 6mp digital SLR (Nikon D70 in my case) and use a good lens, I can get sharper, more detailed shots than most of what I got on my old Nikon SLR or 35mm point and shoot camera. When digitizing 35mm shots, I'd generally scan at 7.2 MP (going for 3000x2400, a 300ppi print at 8x10), and some people scan much higher than that.

The rub is, once you digitize everything down to and including the film grain, so the grain pattern is visible in your bitmap, you have to say you've scanned at a higher resolution than the amount of actual scene detail on the film. But, if you scanned at a resolution that didn't show any film grain, you'd be losing detail that was visible in the original negative, so you can never say "I've found an exact 1:1 match between film detail and pixel resolution."

-jeremy

[Tommy5547]

I like Canon's stuff..
And apparently - so does the photographers at the olympics...Chek them out here:

http://www.photomalaysia.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=569&hl

:)

[maddness]

that's really awesome. It funny to think how people once said that kind of technology would be decades off if not impossible.

[hypercube]

small update on the original topic, dpreview just updated their 20D preview with their usual battery of test images and a couple dozen test shots they did themselves..some very nice ones in there:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos20d/page14.asp

[KiboOst]

it all depends in what you do with your pics. I've done some photos exhibitios in 30x45cm with a 300d, and if they are very good at 2meters, you can see some lacks of pixels when you look closer (less than 50cm). I'm sure 8Mp would have give me more details. for peoples who don't print more than A4, 6mp is fully enough.
Anyway this 20d looks very good in several ways, against 300d/10d !

Kib

[samartin]

Something else to read :-

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E20D/E20DA12.HTM

[Lunatique]

Yeah, it's not a fair fight, but what the hell.

http://www.ethereality.info/ethereality_website/photography/canon_vs_olympus/canon_1DMKII_vs_Olympus_c3030z.jpg
http://www.ethereality.info/ethereality_website/photography/canon_vs_olympus/canon_vs_olympus.htm

[Neil]

that's your wife right?

[jeremybirn]

Yeah, it's not a fair fight, but what the hell. Does your wife have a sister?

-jeremy

[Lunatique]

Does your wife have a sister?

-jeremy
Yes she does--but I'll just say Elena is like a freak of nature in her family--if you want to date her sister, sure, go ahead. You might not like it though. . .. LOL

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.