Just when I was going to buy A Conan 350

[agallag]

...and considering that most new EF-S lenses are designed from the ground up around non-full-frame sensors, I think they're probably pretty darn close to equal. Maybe if you're blowing shots up to poster size, then examining them back to back with a microscope, you'd be able to tell a difference. Otherwise though, I doubt it's a big deal.

[az]

...and: A good photographer makes great photos, good equipment in the hands of a mediocre photographer produces high-fidelity ultra-resolute boring pictures.

[VJ]

IS a full frame sensor a big deal? Maybe for some, but for us? No. Look at properly taken and processed 30D images and see if you think "gee, this is lacking detail and sharpness; I need full frame!".

The only reason it can be a big deal is if you need real wide angle shots. For digital cameras, the widest (non-fish eye) commonly is 10-12mm; which translates to 15-18mm on analog/full frame.

Theoretically, a full frame sensor could have less noise, but in practise the difference isn't big.

But there are downsides: the full frame cameras (i.e. 5D) suffer from severe vignetting when wide aperture, wide angle lenses are used.

IMO, for most consumers, there is no need to go full frame (more drawbacks than upsides).


Jörg

[Pace]

Phenomenal!

[agallag]

Ooo, looky. The 40D is coming very soon! Sorry about the timing Pace.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/canon-eos-40d-details-leaked-101-megapixels-198489.php

[Pace]

Not overly bothered, as I took some fantastic pictures last night, and that's the whole point. I have poorly focused pictures from years gone by, of family and friends who have since passed away, and I don't want that to happen again.

My first personal camera was a Pentax Epsio 738 or something, and I took one of my best ever pictures with it, way back in September 2001, whilst whale-watching in Australia. I also failed to focus on my mum and sister whilst taking a photo of them at Niagara falls. I've been using a Fuji S602 for the past couple of years, and while the snap-happy no-cost benefits of digital have taught me immensely about photography, it simply cannot autofocus in the dark, and LCD/EVF is not good enough to reliably focus manually. The 30D however, is phenomenal! In almost pitch black conditions (I couldn't see my test subjects facial expression) I pressed the shutter button halfway, the camera fires a stroboscopic flash, tells me it's focused, and I take the shot. It was absolutely perfect, although there is no way my sister will let me share the face she pulled!

I am surprised that Canon are announcing it so soon though - I expected the 400D to be their newest camera until at least a few months into 2007. So, overall, incredibly pleased with it, but if anybody wants the camera, I'll sell for £700 .

I'm also glad I didn't choose the 5D - it would've been overkill, and it will never look discreet with a speedlite flash stuck on the top.

Hope this is of assistance - I'll post further thoughts over the next few days. Think I'm going to a party on Saturday night, so hopefully the low-light performance will get seriously tested.

Regards

Paul.

[agallag]

The low light thing sounds very promising. That's by far my biggest complaint with my Canon S50. In bright natural or artificial light, it's great. Anything less and it struggles. The 30D sounds like a fantastic camera. I'll certainly try harder to talk my brother out of the 5D.