Canon D30 Snobbery in rec.photo.digital

stripes · Nov 12, 2001

Jason Stoller said:
Yes but you miss my point! Its about the money being spent! Yes we have gotten close to what we can do with film in the digital world, but at what cost?

Well other then the $2k for the D30 all the rest of the absurd amounts folks are spending on the D30 sound like money they would spend on a EOS film camera (lenses, lighting, model fees, studios, and the like...in fact much of that would be relevant to the E20).

So did the $2k camera cost less then the film would?

Did the $2k camera make some shots better then film because of the instant check of exposure, and to see if the strobes are lined up "just so", and if you put the right color gel in your hair light, and got the main to fill ratio just the way you want it?

Did the ability to adjust ISO on the fly from shot to shot let you get things you can't on the film camera?

Maybe the D30 (or E20) lets you go out to a site, and do a lighting set up and shoot in one day rather then one day for test shots, and a second day (after the tests are developed) to get the real stuff.

If so the more expensive digital camera made your shooting cost less (or at least work better).

Besides the folks I was talking about sell prints from scanned slides, or prints from the D30, they don't do the ciba, so in fact for their use the D30 is as good as film, in fact better. (Personally I'm not sure I totally agree, but I don't make a living from my prints)

(and yes, much of this is relevant to the E20 as well as the D30 -- the E20's fixed lens is a nice studio lens, and most of this was a studio argument...)

stripes · Nov 12, 2001

Gary Eickmeier said:
I know that the more expensive cameras have higher writing speeds, less noise, perhaps some greater convenience or features, and interchangeable lenses. No contest on that.

One thing that I do rather like about the D30 is the wireless E-TTL speedlights (flash), I don't think the Oly has anything like that. It is a lot faster then working with a flash meter. Of corse it would be even nicer if you could get monolights that could do that...

(faster is better with pet models, since they don't hold cute poses long enough for you to decide how you want to shoot and fiddle with the lights...faster is also better with payed models since the quicker you can get the shots you want the sooner you can stop paying them -- of corse monolights may be better there since they cycle faster!)

Gary Eickmeier said:
[...] My ONLY question is whether the photographic result is superior or not. I just happen to love the design of the E10/20, and prefer it and its fixed lens over all others. But if the more expensive cameras had ANY superiority in results, it would get my attention, if not my credit card. My current opinion is that there may be more measurable or visible at 100% on the monitor noise in the E, but not in the prints that you make on your inkjet. But I have no Epson printer, either, so I could be wrong on that.

Well the epson line starts at about $100, a pack of the matte heavy weight paper is pretty cheap, go for it.

Or better yet send samples from both cameras to ofoto.com and get a 8x10 or larger print from each. The 8x10 costs $4 plus shipping.

Gary Eickmeier said:
So, I guess if anyone of you has done such a test, I would be very interested in your opinion, and if anyone who has both cameras could post sample pix of the same subject and let us guess which is superior (without knowing which camera took them), that might be fun.

I printed Phil's E10 and D30 pics at ofoto on 8x10s (the largest size they had at the time, and probably more useful then the larger sizes anyway). I liked the D30 ones better. However you may like the E10's better, or the E20's. Plus I already had most of the lenses (and two speedlights + ST-E2) I would want from my film Canon, so it was an easy choice for me.

But why use my opinion when you can form your own for less then $20? Go for it. Report back

stripes · Nov 12, 2001

Gary Eickmeier said:
Actually, I don't know how to link to a newsgroup message. There is no URL that I can find. Can you enlighten me on this?

Look in the headers for a line like "Message-ID: " (you may have to find a menu item like "view full headers", in trn the keyboard command is "v"). The URL is "news:" and the stuff from inside the angle brackets, for example news:[email protected] ...or maybe news: [email protected] -- I forget exactly which.

That style of URL is about 8 years old, but not all web browsers can do anything with them.

(the Message-ID is unique for every news message over all time -- or at least that is what the RFCs say, and they way they are normally generated it will probably be more or less true)

[...]> Sorry pal, but I wasn't calling Pekka a snob, just referring to his opinion as an example of D30 snobbery that many people have. I'm trying to understand the technical basis of it. If that doesn't interest you, then don't worry about it.

It may not have been your intent, but if you hold someone's actions up as an example of some sort of behavior (camera snobbery) you are pretty much implying that they are the kind of person who engages in that sort of behavior... at least unless you go out of your way to assert that that is unusual behavior on their part.

stripes · Nov 12, 2001

Jim K53618 said:
I bought it just to use Canon's superior wireless flash technology. Yes, I said superior. No one comes close to their wireless flash technology which is E-TTL as well.

Er, I'm not sure why you went and repeated yourself.

Does this mean you are asserting Minolta's wireless flash is not E-TTL? I'm under the impression that it is .

I went with Canon because they had wireless E-TTL and IS lenses. I'm happy with it, but that doesn't mean that there isn't other nice stuff out there. Minolta's flash system is one of them. The exposure system on the M7 is another one. The viewfinder on the Nikon F5 is another one. Focus points at the 3rds on the Contax AF camera is another. I wish Canon had them all in one camera (esp. one I could afford), but they don't, many of the features they don't have at all.

stripes · Nov 12, 2001

Jukka Jarnberg said:
Just looked New York Camera price list of few Canon lenses - yes, they are very good lenses (I have been and still am Canon user) ...

You can frequently rent Nikon and Canon lenses.

Jukka Jarnberg said:
300mm F2.8 about 5000Euro ~ same amount dollars I guess

$4,500, but avail (where I am at least) for about $40/day. Also old enough to be available used (I'm assuming you are talking about the IS lens, I didn't see prices for the older non IS version)

Jukka Jarnberg said:
400mm F2.8 about 9200Euro

A "mere" $7000. Prices may come down since Canon has announced a lighter DO version of this. Rents in some places.

Jukka Jarnberg said:
600mm F4 about 10500Euro

$8,300. I have not seen these for rent. I think it is about 15 pounds. Not something I'm likely to heft about

The sale prices are B&H (very reputable NY store, others charge less, B&H always ships your gear), the rentals are Penn Camera (down the street from where I work) in VA.

Ger Bee · Nov 12, 2001

Paul Blamire said:
For me, the E-10 was a no brainer,

Sad. Let me know when you recover!

Andrew Grant27981 · Nov 12, 2001

Paul Blamire said:
The D30 shutter lag is quoted (by canon) as 60ms, the same as for
the E-10. The lenses I tried with a D30 gave similar AF
performance as the E-10, other lenses may give better results, but
remember the AF control loop is computed by the camera not the
lens. I have seen quite a few accounts of 'slow' AF when compared
to film EOS cameras using the same lenses.

You may be right about the shutter lag, I base my remarks on Phils measurements in his reviews.

The D30's AF is definitely on the slow end of EOS AF performance. It is certainly faster than most digital cameras though. AF performance is lens dependent in two ways, the speed of the AF motor which is built into the lens in the EOS system and the max aperture of the lens. The D30 AF performs much better with faster lenses such as the 50/1.4 though a 2.8 lens is prettry good also.

Paul Blamire said:
For me, the E-10 was a no brainer, I had no lenses, no dedicated
flash, no batteries, and the E-10 covered 95% of my needs. I'm
simply not good enough a photographer to warrant such expense, but
when I am, I don't want to be lumbered with a camera I spent loads
on that I no longer want.

I am happy that you like the E-10. I looked at it seriously because I already had some Oly kit including a dedicated flash. I sold it all and bought a D30 and related kit. The D30 body is not much more expensive than the E-10 was at the time (and the E-20 is now). The lenses and dedicated flash will work with any EOS camera such as the new 1D or a film body. I expect the D30 to be my primary camera for at least another year or two. When Canon does produce a replacement, the D30 will make a perfectly fine backup body.

Should I decide to switch systems, the used maket for EOS lenses is very healthy. In fact, you can even rent many of the more expensive lenses.

Se Kang · Nov 12, 2001

You have my apology if my opinion made you upset. It was not my intent.

When you made such comment about E10 SLR, did you thought about how your statement will flame Olympus E10 SLR users?

I noticed that you started a thread on the Canon SLR forum calling me (and other Olympus member) a “troll”. That is OK, you are entitled to your opinion…and so do I.

In the meanwhile, I am going to shoot some pictures. Jaja gave me a great idea of take some pictures of candlelight (natural light).

Peace.

Pekka Saarinen said:
SeKang said:

I am a D30 and E10 owner. Pekka Saarinen’s comments are
absolutely irresponsible and totally unprofessional. I have been a
silent reader of this forum for long time. I cannot keep my silence
for this comment.

Click to expand...

I see, another way to diguise a troll. Please let me debate about
my own comments - they are MY comments - not yours or D30
community's (whatever that means) or John Smith's.

Pekka Saarinen said:

On behalf of all (if not majority) D30 owners, I am embarrassed and
shamed of Pekka Saarinen’s comments.

Click to expand...

Be my guest. One question: why? Do you take hardware personally -
you say you're a professional - can't be... these are just tools
and it's a tool debate.

Pekka Saarinen said:

If I can, I would like
to apology for such comment to all E10 (and E20) owners.

Click to expand...

Let's see what D30 users have to say about this...

Pekka Saarinen said:

I want other photo enthusiasts to professionally critique my photo
work regardless of what tool (camera) I use. In that regards, I
have been enjoying Olympus forum very much.

Click to expand...

"my photo"? But you have never posted anything else that this
post? troll alert confirmed

Pekka Saarinen said:

Olympus SLR forum posts
more pictures than any other SLR forum. Thanks to JaJa and others
who really enjoy taking pictures, I will continue to respect and
enjoy Olympus SLR forum very much.

I am sick of other SLR forums (including Canon SLR forums),
concentrating too much on the “equipment” issues. I am
not saying these are not important issues. I want to see what we
can do with these expensive equipments.

Click to expand...

Do you really think in the end of the day pro's like to (which I am
not btw) sit down and share all days work with the forums?
Equipment talk is very important as equipment costs so much - and
that you have no clue what it's used for is just fine.

Pekka Saarinen said:

Besides…I like JaJa’s photo’s better than Pekka
Saarinen’s photos…and that’s a professional
critique.

Click to expand...

I like Jaja's work, too but this discussion is about cameras, not
any particular photos or "who's the best photographer" -nonsense.

PS. your profession seems to be in medical industry
( http://www.digipixart.com leads to http://www.emedicalfiles.com/ )
, not photography. I think I'll get a second opinion....

Michael F. · Nov 12, 2001

Given the standard definitions of what an SLR is, the E-10/20 are NOT SLR-like, they are, in fact, SLR's. Like it or not. The kind of lens is irrelevant. Lots of film SLR buyers (and I'll bet, a lot of digital SLR owners) buy only one very versatile lens, like the 28-200/300 mm lenses now available. Does that make those camera bodies any less of an SLR? Of course not.

Mike

Mike Roberts said:
Gary Eickmeier said:

Pekka Saarinen has some comments in the rec.photo.digital newsgroup
about the superiority of the D30 over the E10 or E20. He says

"There is absolutely no point to compare D30 to E20. If some people
think there is, because Olympus marketing calls it an SLR, they are
wrong. E20 is not a real SLR - it's a fixed lens SLR emulation camera.

"Why put your money into a system where lens a body are welded
together? If there is a flaw in either, you have to dump the whole
system. If you don't have enough range of aperture or ISO, you're
stuck. It's often a question of getting a photo or not getting a
photo."

I downloaded and printed out some pix from each from Phil's
reviews. I made sure there was lots of blue sky and detail in each.
I then printed them both at 7x10 size. To me, it's a tossup which
is superior. They aren't identical images, but it is still not
night and day or even close. I did note that the picture size had
the E20 file at 256ppi, whereas the Canon was only 216ppi at the
same size.

I also noticed in the reviews of each that the absolute/extinction
resolution of the Canon was 1150/1350, whereas for the E20 it was
1350/1650 or so. Big difference, and this is taking into account
everything from the CCD to the "welded on lens."

Let's get real here. Do you guys think the D30 snobbery is caused
by true performance superiority, or are they just trying to justify
a more expensive purchase? If price were no object, would you
rather have an E20 or a D30, D1X, whateva?

Click to expand...

Well he is not talking about performance superiority in terms of
image quality as you are, but about performance in terms of
flexibility. And there a true SLR (pardon my ignorance, but are
they even technically SLR(single lens reflex)?) certainly beats all
the SLR-like cameras.

But, of course, in the quoted text he is showing the bias of a
false belief that his shooting is like everyone elses. Of course,
there is a reason to compare SLR and SLR-like cameras. Especially
for amateurs and even for some pros. I would think that portraiture
and wedding photography professionals would enjoy not investing
many times more money for something that does not actually add much
to their ability to make their customers happy.

Mike Roberts

P.S. You guys to scared to continue E10 vs. D7 thread, huh?

Jim K53618 · Nov 12, 2001

Mike F. said:
Given the standard definitions of what an SLR is, the E-10/20 are
NOT SLR-like, they are, in fact, SLR's. Like it or not. The kind
of lens is irrelevant. Lots of film SLR buyers (and I'll bet, a
lot of digital SLR owners) buy only one very versatile lens, like
the 28-200/300 mm lenses now available. Does that make those
camera bodies any less of an SLR? Of course not.

You are correct that the E10/20 is by every meaning of the definition a SLR.

However, I doubt that the average DSLR owner will buy only one versital lens. On the contrary, at least by a recent survey in the canon slr forum, average money spent is about $5000. That would strongly cast doubt on your assumption, and indicate most become lens junkies.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&page=1&message=1746663

Regards,
Jim K

Michael F. · Nov 12, 2001

I guess that's not really a surprise . . . But people certainly don't buy all 40 Canon lenses, for instance. And my guess is that pros buy many more lenses than amateurs. I don't know how ownership breakdown goes (% amateurs, %pros, etc.), but $5,000 isn't all that much.

Mike

Jim K said:
Mike F. said:

Given the standard definitions of what an SLR is, the E-10/20 are
NOT SLR-like, they are, in fact, SLR's. Like it or not. The kind
of lens is irrelevant. Lots of film SLR buyers (and I'll bet, a
lot of digital SLR owners) buy only one very versatile lens, like
the 28-200/300 mm lenses now available. Does that make those
camera bodies any less of an SLR? Of course not.

Click to expand...

You are correct that the E10/20 is by every meaning of the
definition a SLR.

However, I doubt that the average DSLR owner will buy only one
versital lens. On the contrary, at least by a recent survey in the
canon slr forum, average money spent is about $5000. That would
strongly cast doubt on your assumption, and indicate most become
lens junkies.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&page=1&message=1746663

Regards,
Jim K

Jason Busch · Nov 12, 2001

Gary,

If money were no object, I would grab a D1x. I am a stickler when it comes to the price:quality ratio. The D30 is a nice camera, but for the price--no way. I would rather have an E-10 or an E-20. Th E-20 still beats the Canon by almost $1000. That's a lot of lenses and accessories I can get really excited about.

Jason Busch

Jukka Jarnberg · Nov 12, 2001

Jim K said:
........., and indicate most become
lens junkies.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&page=1&message=1746663

Regards,
Jim K

haha ... great term Jim 'lens junkies' ... some persons seem to collect lenses like poststamps ... during film 35mm era with Canon bodies we - wife & me - started first with few lenses from wide angles to teles but soon realized that we needed only 3 ... it was our subjects which showed where we were ... ended up having three primes 35mm f2 ... 85mm f1.8 and 50mm f3.5 macro (at the actually was eyeing 100mm macro for trade in that 50mm macro & 85mm) ...

jukka

Joo · Nov 13, 2001

Stripes,

That is a typical Jim K response. Make a blanket statement with nothing to support it.

Joo

stripes said:
Member said:

I bought it just to use Canon's superior wireless flash technology. Yes, I said superior. No one comes close to their wireless flash technology which is E-TTL as well.

Click to expand...

Er, I'm not sure why you went and repeated yourself.

Does this mean you are asserting Minolta's wireless flash is not
E-TTL? I'm under the impression that it is .

I went with Canon because they had wireless E-TTL and IS lenses.
I'm happy with it, but that doesn't mean that there isn't other
nice stuff out there. Minolta's flash system is one of them. The
exposure system on the M7 is another one. The viewfinder on the
Nikon F5 is another one. Focus points at the 3rds on the Contax AF
camera is another. I wish Canon had them all in one camera (esp.
one I could afford), but they don't, many of the features they
don't have at all.

Michael Brown · Nov 13, 2001

Mike F. said:
Given the standard definitions of what an SLR is, the E-10/20 are
NOT SLR-like, they are, in fact, SLR's. Like it or not. The kind
of lens is irrelevant. Lots of film SLR buyers (and I'll bet, a
lot of digital SLR owners) buy only one very versatile lens, like
the 28-200/300 mm lenses now available. Does that make those
camera bodies any less of an SLR? Of course not.

Well, to split hairs, the E10/20 are not strictly speaking SLRs since the R in SLR stands for "Reflex" which implies the use of a mirror to send the beam to the viewfinder instead of the shutter (and film) and the E10/20 use a prism to split the beam into two paths. However, by any sensible criteria the E10/20 cameras are SLRs.

The whole reason why film SLRs are 'better' than non-SLR cameras is that you can see 'through the lens' so you can see focus, depth of field, zoom etc all without the parallax error you can get with non-SLRs. It just so happens that most (all?) film SLRs have interchangable lenses but some non-SLRs (eg Leica compacts) also have interchangable lenses so this feature has nothing to do with SLR-'ness'.

Since digicams don't have a film that must only be exposed whilst taking the shot it's much easier to get the "seeing through the lens" benefit of a film SLR without any prism or mirror trickery even if it's presented to you on an LCD screen or EVF instead of through an OVF. As the point of an SLR (allthough not the definition) is to be able to see what the lens is seeing then ANY digicam which has a live LCD screen or EVF (including many cheap compact digicams) can be called an SLR so the term SLR has really become obsolete in the digicam world.

Michael.

Mathias Vejerslev · Nov 13, 2001

I am sure someone else has already pointed this out by now, but I don't have time to go through all the answers..

Pekka is very to the point in his comments I think. Some photographers regards the lens to be at least half of what the camera is. They like interchangeability and versatility. Creative possibilities and expandability. These things are cut away somewhat with a fixed-lens camera, as good as it is. Forget about sample images and model numbers.

Mathias

Gary Eickmeier said:
Pekka Saarinen has some comments in the rec.photo.digital newsgroup
about the superiority of the D30 over the E10 or E20. He says

"There is absolutely no point to compare D30 to E20. If some people
think there is, because Olympus marketing calls it an SLR, they are
wrong. E20 is not a real SLR - it's a fixed lens SLR emulation camera.

"Why put your money into a system where lens a body are welded
together? If there is a flaw in either, you have to dump the whole
system. If you don't have enough range of aperture or ISO, you're
stuck. It's often a question of getting a photo or not getting a
photo."

I downloaded and printed out some pix from each from Phil's
reviews. I made sure there was lots of blue sky and detail in each.
I then printed them both at 7x10 size. To me, it's a tossup which
is superior. They aren't identical images, but it is still not
night and day or even close. I did note that the picture size had
the E20 file at 256ppi, whereas the Canon was only 216ppi at the
same size.

I also noticed in the reviews of each that the absolute/extinction
resolution of the Canon was 1150/1350, whereas for the E20 it was
1350/1650 or so. Big difference, and this is taking into account
everything from the CCD to the "welded on lens."

Let's get real here. Do you guys think the D30 snobbery is caused
by true performance superiority, or are they just trying to justify
a more expensive purchase? If price were no object, would you
rather have an E20 or a D30, D1X, whateva?

Gary Eickmeier

Pekka Saarinen · Nov 13, 2001

SeKang said:
You have my apology if my opinion made you upset. It was not my
intent.

I'm not upset - my blood ran faster!

Se Kang said:
When you made such comment about E10 SLR, did you thought about how
your statement will flame Olympus E10 SLR users?

You're saying: no one should reply to "E20 or D30?" threads because E10 or E20 users might find it unpleasant? And did you read the whole news post - I did not post only those 2 paragraphs.

Oh well, I'll try to remember commandment #9 and keep out of these oversensitive areas :

Se Kang said:
9. Thou shalt behave in a manner that reflects well upon the community
of D30 owners. Thou shalt suffer fools gladly, both your old
friends who are still attached to film, and your new friends who
have gone digital too, but think the Oly E-10 is really a better
camera because it has a higher megapixel count and lets you do live
preview on the LCD.

( all commands are at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&page=1&message=1757142 )

Pekka

Jim K53618 · Nov 13, 2001

Mike F. said:
I guess that's not really a surprise . . . But people certainly
don't buy all 40 Canon lenses, for instance. And my guess is that
pros buy many more lenses than amateurs. I don't know how
ownership breakdown goes (% amateurs, %pros, etc.), but $5,000
isn't all that much.

Mike

I think a better breakdown would be whats in their checking account or how many credit cards they have. We see some cases where amateurs posess more and better lenses then pros. Everyone is only restricted by budget. So the breakdown of of amateur or pro is not the main splitter or determinater any more. Think about it. If price was no object, almost everyone would be a lens junkie. Whats even more amazing then the fact that amateurs out rank pros in numbers and income, is the age factor. There are 24-27 year old amatuers who have spent a lot more money on lenses then many pros! Some as high as $18,000. Non-pros, and very young. Certainly not the norm, but an eye opener no less!

Regards,
Jim K

Michael F. said:
Jim K said:

Mike F. said:

Given the standard definitions of what an SLR is, the E-10/20 are
NOT SLR-like, they are, in fact, SLR's. Like it or not. The kind
of lens is irrelevant. Lots of film SLR buyers (and I'll bet, a
lot of digital SLR owners) buy only one very versatile lens, like
the 28-200/300 mm lenses now available. Does that make those
camera bodies any less of an SLR? Of course not.

Click to expand...

You are correct that the E10/20 is by every meaning of the
definition a SLR.

However, I doubt that the average DSLR owner will buy only one
versital lens. On the contrary, at least by a recent survey in the
canon slr forum, average money spent is about $5000. That would
strongly cast doubt on your assumption, and indicate most become
lens junkies.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&page=1&message=1746663

Regards,
Jim K

Click to expand...

Matti J. · Nov 13, 2001

greg mclemore said:
Matti, I don,t usually get involved in these type of senseless
disscusions, ...

Many thanks! Atleast the discussion just turn out to be much more meaninfull now that you joined.

greg mclemore said:
...but your remark about the d-30 images being far
superior to that from the e-10 is so incorrect that I just had to
respond.

So incorrect? Do you mean E-10 is on par with D30... or even better? Have to think about this new argument...

greg mclemore said:
First the term SLR means single lense reflex, in my 30
years of photography the importance of using a slr has had more to
do with accurately seeing what I was about to shoot.

You are right but E-10 is not exactly SLR by definition altough framing through the lens is the very essence of it. Look what I found:

SLR (Single Lens Reflex)

A camera in which the lens you view through is the same lens used to take the photo. SLRs are what most people think of as "pro" cameras. Most of them feature large, interchangeable lenses and an advanced degree of creative control. A mirror directs the image up onto a focusing screen the exact same distance from the lens as the film is. As the exposure is made, the mirror swings out of the way, and then the shutter fires.

greg mclemore said:
Lastly the
images from the e-10 are very good.

I didn't say E-10 images are not good - I admit: they are good, just said D30 images are better and thanks to vast selection of lenses, in good hands it is superior.

Enough said, compare these:

Which ones would you choose?

greg mclemore said:
Their are cameras that have
...
both cameras in a gifted photographers hands will yield
excellent results, now that is the truth.

Well you said it and I cannot but agree. But by definition the D30 + quality lense combination cannot be beaten image wise by E-10.

Matti J.

John M. Poster · Nov 13, 2001

I own an E-10 and a D1X. Believe me, if price is no object, you want the D1X. I am glad to have both, though, although the E-10 is seeing very infrequent use these days.

Gary Eickmeier said:
Pekka Saarinen has some comments in the rec.photo.digital newsgroup
about the superiority of the D30 over the E10 or E20. He says

"There is absolutely no point to compare D30 to E20. If some people
think there is, because Olympus marketing calls it an SLR, they are
wrong. E20 is not a real SLR - it's a fixed lens SLR emulation camera.

"Why put your money into a system where lens a body are welded
together? If there is a flaw in either, you have to dump the whole
system. If you don't have enough range of aperture or ISO, you're
stuck. It's often a question of getting a photo or not getting a
photo."

I downloaded and printed out some pix from each from Phil's
reviews. I made sure there was lots of blue sky and detail in each.
I then printed them both at 7x10 size. To me, it's a tossup which
is superior. They aren't identical images, but it is still not
night and day or even close. I did note that the picture size had
the E20 file at 256ppi, whereas the Canon was only 216ppi at the
same size.

I also noticed in the reviews of each that the absolute/extinction
resolution of the Canon was 1150/1350, whereas for the E20 it was
1350/1650 or so. Big difference, and this is taking into account
everything from the CCD to the "welded on lens."

Let's get real here. Do you guys think the D30 snobbery is caused
by true performance superiority, or are they just trying to justify
a more expensive purchase? If price were no object, would you
rather have an E20 or a D30, D1X, whateva?

Gary Eickmeier

Canon D30 Snobbery in rec.photo.digital

stripes

Guest

stripes

Guest

stripes

Guest

stripes

Guest

stripes

Guest

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts