Canon 20D replacement

[UKBob]

As things go, considering the average production cycle within a specific product line, will anyone hazzard a guess as to how long it might be before the replacement to the 20D hits the shelves?

[simpo two]

Dunno, but does it has a banana holder for gorillas?

[ErnestM]

Considering that they just brought out the 5D, I think a 20D replacement in the next 10-12 months is not out of the question.

ErnestM

[poah]

bigger buffer for RAW images
bigger screen
slightly more mp
better AF
faster write speeds

only things I would like

[monkeyhanger]

1st quarter of 06.

Or so say the jungle drums..

>> Edited by monkeyhanger on Tuesday 27th September 23:35

[simpo two]

monkeyhanger said:

1st quarter of 96

Bit late then!

[UKBob]

simpo two said:

monkeyhanger said: 1st quarter of 96 Bit late then!

The 5D's lack of a built in flash would totally rule it out of the equation for some serious amateurs, I would imagine. If I was prepared to spend that much money, for that reason alone I wouldnt buy it.

[rico]

poah said:

bigger buffer for RAW images bigger screen slightly more mp better AF faster write speeds only things I would like

So you'd like a Nikon?

[poah]

rico said:

poah said: bigger buffer for RAW images bigger screen slightly more mp better AF faster write speeds only things I would like So you'd like a Nikon?

maybe if I wanted more noise, less mp and less buffer I suppose I could downgrade to a D70s

[V6GTO]

poah said:

rico said: poah said: bigger buffer for RAW images bigger screen slightly more mp better AF faster write speeds only things I would like So you'd like a Nikon? maybe if I wanted more noise, less mp and less buffer I suppose I could downgrade to a D70s

And don't forget the lack of ISO 100.

Martin.

[simpo two]

V6GTO said:

And don't forget the lack of ISO 100.

Fish:bicycle. I run mine at 400. Wouldn't use 100 if I had it

[55jnj]

simpo two said:

V6GTO said: And don't forget the lack of ISO 100. Fish:bicycle. I run mine at 400. Wouldn't use 100 if I had it

To a non photographic person with a minimum amount of understanding, why would an ISO 400 rating be better than a 100 (except in poor light conditions maybe ?). I thought the lower the ISO rating, the greater the definition, better the quality. Guess it's not as easy as that. Please enlighten me.

[simpo two]

55jnj said:

To a non photographic person with a minimum amount of understanding, why would an ISO 400 rating be better than a 100 (except in poor light conditions maybe ?). I thought the lower the ISO rating, the greater the definition, better the quality. Guess it's not as easy as that. Please enlighten me.

Good Q. It's a trade off between quality and speed. If your work can be done with slow shutter speeds, fine, use a low ISO for least image noise. However with current AF lenses typically starting at f4.5+, you need a higher ISO to get the shutter speeds for 'normal' photography. Well I do, and frankly for the kind of work I do ISO 400 gives me the kind of shutter speed/aperture combinations I need and noise is not a problem. OK, I see noise if I hoof up the brightness in Levels too much on a dark image, but life is a compromise and you have to pick the combo that works best for you.

[antonyb]

light... if you have an abundance of it, eg - greece or california or artificial then you can shoot all day at ISO100.

ISO400 is the default english setting. LOL.

ISO50 B&W film still beats everthing IMHO. its challenging but the images can be glorious.

[antonyb]

just for prosperity - this one was handheld at ISO100 (canon 20D)

[srider]

simpo two said:

55jnj said: To a non photographic person with a minimum amount of understanding, why would an ISO 400 rating be better than a 100 (except in poor light conditions maybe ?). I thought the lower the ISO rating, the greater the definition, better the quality. Guess it's not as easy as that. Please enlighten me. Good Q. It's a trade off between quality and speed. If your work can be done with slow shutter speeds, fine, use a low ISO for least image noise. However with current AF lenses typically starting at f4.5+, you need a higher ISO to get the shutter speeds for 'normal' photography. Well I do, and frankly for the kind of work I do ISO 400 gives me the kind of shutter speed/aperture combinations I need and noise is not a problem. OK, I see noise if I hoof up the brightness in Levels too much on a dark image, but life is a compromise and you have to pick the combo that works best for you.

try taking slow shutter panning shots behind a fence at a track, I often use ISO 50.......

Because YOU don't need low ISOs, don't assume everyone is in the same boat.

>> Edited by srider on Thursday 29th September 17:52