Canon D30 Snobbery in rec.photo.digital

I think the argument that the E-10 design is not a true SLR is a
bit tired now. SLR - Single Lens Reflex. I don't think theres
anything about interchangeable lenses in there. Besides, how many
SLR owners use their camera with the same lens 90% of the time?

People like to boast, and put down others, and put down other
people or their possesions. Frankly I am sick of these long Camera
X vs Camera Y threads that attract so much argument.

I was going to get a D30, but I got an E-10. I will buy a car for
my wife with the difference.

Regards

Paul
Paul, what are you going to do, put a down payment on a Metro, and finance the rest? Sounds like buyers remorse to me. Don't feel bad, I've been there myself, and I sympathize with you all the way. =)
 
Yo Ted B. those are the strong words that I hesitated to say, so as not to offend anyone on the forum. After all, this is an Olympus forum, and Oly does make some very excellent cameras. There is a large line between Major and Minor hobby. Put your duckettes where they suit you best!

r, Scooter
Much higher up-front costs with digital perhaps, but much lower
operating costs.

Spend $10,000 up front or spend it on film and developing costs.
Don't forget, when you shoot digital, you don't have to wait to get
your pictures developed, or be at the mercy of someone elses idea
of good color.

I didn't post in the "How big is yours" (hobby expenses that is)
thread, but will re-cap my hobby expenses here, as the $$$ seems to
be important to some in this thread.

I already had a Canon Rebel G with a Tamron 28-300 lens (
a Speedlite 380 flash (
for the D30), I now have a superb DIGITAL setup.

Add a Sigma 15-35 lens soon (

Add an upgrade up to the 550 EX flash (
and I'm at $4200.

If I had it, I would gladly spend $5500 to trade up to the 1D and
be done spending money.

So, for $9700 (spread out over 4-6 years) I can have a pro setup.

It is JUST my hobby, but I, like the other poster, don't
smoke/drink/golf/boat/ski/surf/collect anything/chase women or any
other expensive hobby. I take pictures, and mostly of my family.
I spend all my free time WITH my family. I process my pics in the
living room with my family. I'd say that's a good hobby, wouldn't
you?

I could have kept the money, but then I would have been a very
bored man with $10,00 more in the bank, than I already have.

You go to work and make money to do several things. Pay bills,
take care of your family's needs, take care of others needs, save
for retirement, and have fun. If it weren't for the fun, there
would be far less motivation to take on all the rest.

Photography is a very rewarding hobby and well worth the $10,000
investment. I'm sure any of you would spend a similar amount on
any hobby you were interested in, if you had that much disposable
income. Don't forget, I spent only $3200 so far, and that over a 4
year period. That comes out to 800/year or $66 per month. $16.50
per week, or about the cost of 2 six packs of micro-brewery beer a
week, or 4 mixed drinks in a bar. Give up drinking, and YOU could
have a D30, too!

Try collecting guns as a hobby, with high quality pistols going for
$700-$800 and spending $16 for bullets, to punch 50 holes in a
piece of paper. When you're done, you just have a piece of paper
with holes in it, albeit, rather close together holes, if you're
any good!

Or buy a $6000 jet ski and use it 10 times a year.

Don't even mention boats!

As for the E10, I rejected that camera (for myself only, to be
sure) because of the noise levels. I wanted blue skies, not
speckled skies like I got from my C2100 UZ. The D30 gives me what
I wanted and more. And an affordable hobby to boot (for just about
anyone who can budget). And I can expand my hobby as far as I want
to go. Now that's a good deal.

Enjoy your E10/E20 cameras, your D1* cameras, your Sony 707's, etc.
And take lots of pictures of your family, so you can remember them
when you get old.

Ted
I guess I am confused here! While I love digital and I own two
digital cameras, I am wondering about something here! If you are
going to spend $10,000 aren't you better off just staying with Film?

Just a thought!
Jason
 
I own an E-10 (and love it). The E is noisier than the D's, but can
come very close after Photoshop actions (see
http://netnet.net/~llueck/NR.htm ).

The B&H catalog got me wondering what I'd need to spend to match
the E's F2 35-140, F2 200, F2.8 420 and F2.8 610:

Canon's EF 28-70 F2.8L USM - ~$1200 USD (closest to E's main lens).
EF 135 F2L USM - 1000 USD (closest to E's 200mm conversion lens).
EF 300 F2.8L IS USM - ~$4600 USD (Note-image stabilized, closest to
E's 420mm conversion lens).
EF 400 F2.8L IS USM -$8000 USD (note-image stabilization, closest
to E's bazooka-like 420 AND 200 conversion lenses giving 610mm F2.8).


Is this a fair comparison? No, but it's just as meaningful as saying
the the E-10/20 are noisier than the D's.
You must be joking, right? You still have not listed all the 55 lenses that canon makes for their EOS family, not to mention the flashes. =)
 
The point of the post was to pick out from the 55 lenses that canon makes, those which would provide equivalent shooting ranges to the E-10 and lense accessories.

Paul
I own an E-10 (and love it). The E is noisier than the D's, but can
come very close after Photoshop actions (see
http://netnet.net/~llueck/NR.htm ).

The B&H catalog got me wondering what I'd need to spend to match
the E's F2 35-140, F2 200, F2.8 420 and F2.8 610:

Canon's EF 28-70 F2.8L USM - ~$1200 USD (closest to E's main lens).
EF 135 F2L USM - 1000 USD (closest to E's 200mm conversion lens).
EF 300 F2.8L IS USM - ~$4600 USD (Note-image stabilized, closest to
E's 420mm conversion lens).
EF 400 F2.8L IS USM -$8000 USD (note-image stabilization, closest
to E's bazooka-like 420 AND 200 conversion lenses giving 610mm F2.8).


Is this a fair comparison? No, but it's just as meaningful as saying
the the E-10/20 are noisier than the D's.
You must be joking, right? You still have not listed all the 55
lenses that canon makes for their EOS family, not to mention the
flashes. =)
 
Scooter

You are full of buyers remorse here. The D30 better than a D1X. You are crazy. BTW i do have both an E-10 and a D30 with all L glass.

Mike
Ger Bee,

Oh come on! The question posed is with respect to the D30 not the
D1x. The D30 is no Dix.
It is not a D1X, but quite possibly as good, or even better.
 
Scooter

forget my last message.

I just realized that you dont even have a D30 or an E-10 or for that matter any decent camera and you also where the moron asking about the $100 mirror lens from ebay last time.

That'll give you nice quality, haha

Mike
 
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
Foolish JB - you should know better than to leave for a few days at a time...
 
Paul

this guy really isnt worth your time.

Check out what lenses he is interested in

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=1778859
Paul
I own an E-10 (and love it). The E is noisier than the D's, but can
come very close after Photoshop actions (see
http://netnet.net/~llueck/NR.htm ).

The B&H catalog got me wondering what I'd need to spend to match
the E's F2 35-140, F2 200, F2.8 420 and F2.8 610:

Canon's EF 28-70 F2.8L USM - ~$1200 USD (closest to E's main lens).
EF 135 F2L USM - 1000 USD (closest to E's 200mm conversion lens).
EF 300 F2.8L IS USM - ~$4600 USD (Note-image stabilized, closest to
E's 420mm conversion lens).
EF 400 F2.8L IS USM -$8000 USD (note-image stabilization, closest
to E's bazooka-like 420 AND 200 conversion lenses giving 610mm F2.8).


Is this a fair comparison? No, but it's just as meaningful as saying
the the E-10/20 are noisier than the D's.
You must be joking, right? You still have not listed all the 55
lenses that canon makes for their EOS family, not to mention the
flashes. =)
 
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
 
Scooter

forget my last message.

I just realized that you dont even have a D30 or an E-10 or for
that matter any decent camera and you also where the moron asking
about the $100 mirror lens from ebay last time.

That'll give you nice quality, haha

Mike
Geez, mikey, who chapped your A$$! Don't get your undies up in a bunch, you have no idea what cameras I have. What a friggen braggart. You really ought to think before you type. Didn't your mother teach you any manners? 'forget my last message'? consider it done.
 
Is it really the price you pay thats an issue or the value you feel that you are personally getting from the money you spent?

Jason
The world doesn't end on the shores of the Atlantic ocean....

Paul
I think the argument that the E-10 design is not a true SLR is a
bit tired now. SLR - Single Lens Reflex. I don't think theres
anything about interchangeable lenses in there. Besides, how many
SLR owners use their camera with the same lens 90% of the time?

People like to boast, and put down others, and put down other
people or their possesions. Frankly I am sick of these long Camera
X vs Camera Y threads that attract so much argument.

I was going to get a D30, but I got an E-10. I will buy a car for
my wife with the difference.

Regards

Paul
 
Gary I am not disagreeing with you here. I do not think you are disagreeing with me either. The skill level or vision of the person using the equipment at hand will always be a factor. I have a trumpet that my son now plays that much less expensive than the Silver Getzen model I play currently. While the Getzen cost over $1000 more, I can still make the less expensive trumpet sound good. If I play the same music the only thing that is different are tonal qualites, constuction, and design. If you did not know which horn I was playing and you were in the next room, would you really know the difference? I think not! Does the end result justify the means? It sure does! Then why do I play the more expensive horn instead of my son? Cause I like it, wanted it, and had the money! Does it change the outcome? Only if you are limited by the instrument so severly that it handicaps your natural ablity! I think this says a lot!

Jason
I think you both miss several points of each other in this case.
Its not the camera you use but the results you get.
Jason,

The second message I posted in this thread addressed this point:

"One more caution in these types of arguments: I have heard people
say that it isn't the camera, but the man (person) behind the
camera that counts more. Well, fine, but that is beside the point.
We all know that we need certain capabilities in a camera to be
able to get the images we want - such as manual control over focus,
exposure, DOF, etc, and a PC contact to use studio or other
auxiliary flashes, SLR viewing with fine focusing capability, and
good ergonomics with ease of setting all the variables. And rapid
shutters so we can capture the moment we want! Some of these
requirements put some cameras out of contention, but the E is not
one of them. It has all of the features a pro would need except
interchangeable lenses, which is NOT a problem if the E series lens
is adequate for your needs."

Gary Eickmeier
 
Jim I'm with you in this one......just tired of FRED & PECKER.

:O)

Rick.

PS: yes the D30 is another story.
Phil, why you often let people insulting others (including
yourself) in your forums?
A good question. Jim K has continuously called me names without any
reason, and without participating to any intelligent discussion
about reasons for him hating me.

Pekka Saarinen
I don't "hate" you, but I dislike the way you presented yourself to
this forum and attacked anyone who disagreed with you and placed
yourself and the d30 with exaggerated worth. I never called you any
names either unless you want to count my missplelling of your name.
Certainly there are worse names to use if the intent was to call
you names. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, but I
suggest you consider other people's rights to their opinion too.
The insults and arrogant attitude began with you. What did you
expect, hugs and kisses?

Regards,
Jim K
 
Jim I'm with you in this one......just tired of FRED & PECKER.
There certainly have been some strange reactions in this thread.

I quite innocently thought I would ask Olympus users if they thought the results from E10/20 prints were visibly worse than those from the D30. I didn't think noise was a valid issue, because by the time you go to print, you don't really see it much.

After seeing some of Pekka's images and thinking about it a little more, I am able to see his point. Noise is about the only visible artifact of enlarging digital images to larger and larger sizes. We can't blow up 35mm much beyond 8x10 without seeing grain, but digital seems to be a different animal. Even though the size of the imager is smaller than 35mm, there doesn't seem to be a penalty for making ridiculously large prints - except possibly for noise.

So it's not ALL about megapixels. I learned something in this thread, and I am sorry it developed into a slugfest for a while there.

Gary Eickmeier
 
All of which everyone buys? I think you missed the point.

Mike
I own an E-10 (and love it). The E is noisier than the D's, but can
come very close after Photoshop actions (see
http://netnet.net/~llueck/NR.htm ).

The B&H catalog got me wondering what I'd need to spend to match
the E's F2 35-140, F2 200, F2.8 420 and F2.8 610:

Canon's EF 28-70 F2.8L USM - ~$1200 USD (closest to E's main lens).
EF 135 F2L USM - 1000 USD (closest to E's 200mm conversion lens).
EF 300 F2.8L IS USM - ~$4600 USD (Note-image stabilized, closest to
E's 420mm conversion lens).
EF 400 F2.8L IS USM -$8000 USD (note-image stabilization, closest
to E's bazooka-like 420 AND 200 conversion lenses giving 610mm F2.8).


Is this a fair comparison? No, but it's just as meaningful as saying
the the E-10/20 are noisier than the D's.
You must be joking, right? You still have not listed all the 55
lenses that canon makes for their EOS family, not to mention the
flashes. =)
 
I agree with you but Mr Pecker is not Snow White, neither FRED!

both should spent more time.....one playing music and the other one playing soccer.
cause they think they are hot but they are NOT> (FRED & PECKER)

;O)

Rick.
Jim I'm with you in this one......just tired of FRED & PECKER.
There certainly have been some strange reactions in this thread.

I quite innocently thought I would ask Olympus users if they
thought the results from E10/20 prints were visibly worse than
those from the D30. I didn't think noise was a valid issue, because
by the time you go to print, you don't really see it much.

After seeing some of Pekka's images and thinking about it a little
more, I am able to see his point. Noise is about the only visible
artifact of enlarging digital images to larger and larger sizes. We
can't blow up 35mm much beyond 8x10 without seeing grain, but
digital seems to be a different animal. Even though the size of the
imager is smaller than 35mm, there doesn't seem to be a penalty for
making ridiculously large prints - except possibly for noise.

So it's not ALL about megapixels. I learned something in this
thread, and I am sorry it developed into a slugfest for a while
there.

Gary Eickmeier
 
Jim I'm with you in this one......just tired of FRED & PECKER.
There certainly have been some strange reactions in this thread.

I quite innocently thought I would ask Olympus users if they
thought the results from E10/20 prints were visibly worse than
those from the D30. I didn't think noise was a valid issue, because
by the time you go to print, you don't really see it much.

After seeing some of Pekka's images and thinking about it a little
more, I am able to see his point. Noise is about the only visible
artifact of enlarging digital images to larger and larger sizes. We
can't blow up 35mm much beyond 8x10 without seeing grain, but
digital seems to be a different animal. Even though the size of the
imager is smaller than 35mm, there doesn't seem to be a penalty for
making ridiculously large prints - except possibly for noise.

So it's not ALL about megapixels. I learned something in this
thread, and I am sorry it developed into a slugfest for a while
there.

Gary Eickmeier
Gary if you can remeber after this long winded thread, I originally agreed and defended Pekka's opinions. The slugfest began by his very arrogant attitude and sarcastic tone, which I personally detest. But I agree that the noise is a major contributor to making larger prints. The claims that noise does not show up "that much" in prints only seems to hold up here with E10 owners. In reality, noise effects print quality. I can see e10/20 noise even at 8x10 prints. We can argue if its to much or not much until the we turn blue in the face. I'd rather have a print 8x10 and larger with absolutely the least amount of noise. As for the D30, it has less noise at ISO 400 then the E10/20 does at ISO 80. This is simply a fact. However, just because the D30 has a larger sensor, and produces "cleaner" images does not mean people who are happy with the results from the E10/20 are stupid, nor should they be looked down upon or insulted. I speak of Pekka, not you.

I have seen a lot of Mr. Pekka's pictures he posts, they are at best OK, certainly nothing to get excited over, and certainly would not be my choice to show off what the D30 is capable of. I wouldn't even make this comment if he and a few of his cheerleaders didn't make him out to be something great or an artist. He may be a artisit in his field of music, but in photography, he is like many of us, only average.

Kindest Regards,
Jim K
 
... I wouldn't
even make this comment if he and a few of his cheerleaders didn't
make him out to be something great or an artist.
...
Kindest Regards,
Jim K
Jim K. this one more time, I kindly ask you: Could you stop the
name calling, please.

Cheers,
Matti J.
Matti, seriously now, are you joking? Surely you can't be referring to "cheerleaders" a comonly used term even among politically correct polititions. If I wanted to use "name calling", there are much better choices then the non-offensive term I used.

Best Regards!
Jim K
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top