Canon hits a home run!

OlegK said:

Shoot RAW and forget about white balance. If you shoot JPEG with a
camera like that, it's just stupid, you can as well buy point and
shoot for $200.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree here, and this is as someone who only shoots raw. At this price point, you still get quite a few buyers who are interested in getting good pictures (especially looking for speed) but aren't interested in "photography" per se, or in futzing with post processing. While many image parameters are really only noticed by pixel peepers, anyone can see bad wb (At any size over about 10 pixels by 15 pixels)> of course it is easily fixed, but there are lots of cicumstances where people would rather not mess with it.

There's nothing wrong with the camera. If you need the live view, this has to be the low end Canon choice. But, if you think live view is kind of a waste, there's not that much there. I've been looking forward to this review. Canon continues to execute with a very deft touch. But what the devil is the dslr about, anymore?

The review carefully crafts the view that the features on this camera separate it from a dslr for the beginner, the first buyer, the unsophisticated dolt who lives in a cardboard box over a heating vent.

Basically, if you take the view photography should be simple, that the focus should be on taking pictures, this camera is about 3 features too far.

In other words, if you don't buy the reviewers point of view that simple is somehow for beginners, who wants this camera? It's a camera for someone who wants to process 15 MB raw files to get some increment of detail. And the review suggests that the increment of detail is so small people won't notice, or won't notice it in standard enlargements.

So this camera is about megapixels and live view. The only thing I don't understand in the review, which seems quite detailed and to the point, is why this is necessarily better than a simpler camera.

What feature is really progress? What feature is really 'advanced' versus 'basic' user? It's like if you are serious you have to have these features. Umm, really? I think people should have a simple camera and thoroughly understand it. They should take pictures. They should avoid post-processing. Hey, the picture works or it doesn't. Spend the time taking pix, I guess. Taking pix is fun. Making pix with probs work in post is a perplexing pursuit. Some pix work. Some don't. If this camera is really going to make you a better photog, how? The kit lens is not up to the sensor ress? So what's the real package price to get the MP advantage?

The camera is OK. Canon is forced to do this. To manaufacture change where none may be needed. It's interesting that Canon produces state of the art consumer video cameras. Canon makes AVCHD work as well as anyone, perfects anti shake for video.They develop good auto focus. Features like 24p are quite interesting, and low light video has new options. HD video is a happening place, and Canon is there. Canon is a great company, but draw the lines out another year, for the dslr, and what? Specialty stuff, maybe...

Joe0Bloggs said:

Dennis Phillips said:

A growing cult.

Read Douglas Brown's experience with the A700 at Luminous Landscape.
Here's an extract.

"It's tough, ergonomically well designed, intuitive to use (I still
haven't read the manual and yet managed to instantly come to grips
with and even customise a lot of the camera's features)"

Click to expand...

Ergonomics is a fickle thing; what one considers 'ergonomic' will
always be influenced by previous learning. So a pro with many years
of experience may well prefer old camera designs, but if he were
learning photography for the first time today, he may well find the
new designs easier to come to grips with.

That said, I don't quite see what Joseph S. Wiz. is referring to when
he says the A700 'have designs that place controls where they had to
be 20 years ago'. On the other hand, he isn't exactly known to be a
Canon fan when it comes to ergonomics.

Click to expand...

He is a Nikonian. One of the favorite things for Nikonians to do is to gripe about Canon ergonomics. There is no camera in this world that has perfect ergonomics. Many of the design decisions are made by bean counters. For example, it makes no sense to have buttons that are identical in size and shape for ergonomic reasons, but we find them on many products nevertheless because it is cheaper to make one button than to make several different sizes and shapes of buttons. So, we see amplifiers and other audio component with rows and columns of buttons that are the same color, size and shape. We see them on TV sets and we see them in car stereos and we see them in cameras, in elevators, and just about everywhere we go. We see buttons that are the same size and shape on any given product.

A quote from your post, you are 100% right.
3 features too far makes it 300 bucks too expensive.
The 350d is all most amateurs like me need,
get a better AF,
a real working ISO automatic,
a working fill-in flash which doesn't need babysitting,
a better LCD and better ergonomics...
... and you get something like a Nikon d40-60.
d40=1,4Mb superb jpeg which don't need too much postprocessing.
instead of a 15Mb-Raw-mess.
Which is why I own a D40.
Which is why I ask myself whom this 450d really is for....

I just finished my round of purchasing for the year - while these tests may be fine for the gear heads out there, you also need to attach the body to something to take photos. Its all well and good to take photos of charts and objects in a studio, but in real life there are other important factors.

For me the 450 suffers the same problem as each of its predecessors - it has a horrible narrow grip, feels cheap and costs (and weighs) a whole lot more if you put lenses with decent specs on it. While the kit may have IS - every lens that you want it on will end up having to cost you more too.

While the LCD may look nice - at the end of the day that's not what you end up hanging on the wall. The extra size comes at the expense of some valuable real estate on the back panel and makes an already cluttered layout even worse.

Tim in upstate NY said:

I just finished reading the DPR review of the 450D and all I can say
is....

WOW!

Click to expand...

--
My profile on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/people/holgs/
(photos from my travels and life in general)

PhotoTraveler said:

So somehow Nikon is right in ergo? Which just happens to be the one
you use? Amazing.

One could change the names of brands around in what you said and be
just as right. Nothing about a Nikon makes them superior, it all
comes down to what some people like.

In the Case of Nikon and Canon ergo, both companies are too afraid to
ever change anything to see what works better. And as a result, the
users are used to stuff being in the same places every time, so
anything different when they grab a different brand just seams wrong
to them. Other brands at least try thing to do a better job.
Sometimes they nail it (7D, A700 (though do it in different ways),
some times they blow it, E3) but they are working the issue.

Minolta is the one that messed cameras up in the first place with the
7000. First to mess things up by removing knobs and otherwise good
controls. They were then the first to get them back right. Cameras
like the 7D are a dream. Everything is easy to get at, and fast. No
menus needed. Why go through a menu when you can turn a knob. I can
control the 7D in the dark by feel and what ever I see in the view
finder.

The A700 made some improvements over the 7D, but also went backwards.
I miss my compensation knob big time, now I have to use a menu and
hit buttons. But other brands are no different there.

Click to expand...

When cameras were mostly mechanical devices, knobs and levers were the only options.. When they became electronic, the bean counters saw a chance to reduce the number of knobs and buttons to save cost. I also miss the exposure compensation dial. It is so much easier to turn a knob than to push the menu button and then adjust the settings.

Somsit Sukkrasanti said:

lol, I buy Canon A720 which got Highly Recommend from dpreview for
my wife and very disappointed, almost throw it's away to my trash.

Click to expand...

That would be a waste. You can sell it on eBay for almost as much as you pay for it. LOL.

Holgs said:

For me the 450 suffers the same problem as each of its predecessors -
it has a horrible narrow grip, feels cheap and costs (and weighs) a
whole lot more if you put lenses with decent specs on it. While the
kit may have IS - every lens that you want it on will end up having
to cost you more too.

Click to expand...

...It's always like this...a flock of 'other brand' fanboys coming out of the woodwork to repeat the same tired old cliches about the grip and general handling qualities of Canon's low end Rebel series DSLRs. It was the same years ago when I started out with my first DSLR, the 300D. It wasn't any more true then than it is now. What's really ironic though is that an Olympus user would repeat these things when the 400 and 500 series Olys are even worse in that regard.....hello?

Holgs said:

While the LCD may look nice - at the end of the day that's not what
you end up hanging on the wall. The extra size comes at the expense
of some valuable real estate on the back panel and makes an already
cluttered layout even worse.

Click to expand...

Well, at the end of the day, and physical characteristics or physical impressions of the camera aren't what you end up hanging on the wall either!

I've owned the 10D, 20D, 30D, 5D, and Rebel XT over the years. Frankly, I haven't had any issues with the handling of any of these cameras, even with switching between a 5D and XT from moment to moment. Yes, the Rebel series is smaller. But you don't need a hamfisted grip on these cameras. Contrary to what some people believe, a camera grip does NOT need to fill the entire cavity of your palm. With a small, light body like the Rebels, all you need is a light and pretty relaxed grip, with your left hand cradling the bottom of the camera. And as for the "cluttered layout", there are actually fewer buttons on the back of the XSi, and almost all of them are now accessible with your right hand thumb, whereas with previous Rebels you had a lot more buttons on the left size of the LCD screen, which meant two-handed operation. I actually find the new XSi to be LESS cluttered than previous Rebels!

T3 said:

Holgs said:

While the LCD may look nice - at the end of the day that's not what
you end up hanging on the wall. The extra size comes at the expense
of some valuable real estate on the back panel and makes an already
cluttered layout even worse.

Click to expand...

Well, at the end of the day, and physical characteristics or physical
impressions of the camera aren't what you end up hanging on the wall
either!

Click to expand...

Oh, and as for what you do end up hanging on the wall, it's nice to see that the XSi delivers more detail, lower noise, and higher dynamic range than the Oly E-420. Good thing too, because I was actually considering picking up a 420 as a walk-around, knock-around body. Instead, I think I'll eventually replace my XT with the XSi, and slap on Canon's compact 35mm f/2. That should give me a considerable edge over the 420 + 25/2.8 pancake in low light reportage shooting, even though the 420 + pancake would have given me an edge in compactness.

Chris_in_Osaka said:

LOL SORRY SORRY SORRY

After encountering so many recent posts informing me the
inevitability of full frame universalism, I couldn't help throwing it
back in a thread re: a Canon crop sensor camera.

By the way, home run???? Did we read the same review? They're
definitely on base with a double. What innovative or unique features
make this camera a home run? We know it's not the pricing.

Click to expand...

What's the big deal about "innovative or unique features"? Some might even say "innovative or unique features" are just gimmicks. No thanks. I'll just take a good camera that delivers solid and exceptional image quality. That's what the XSi delivers. I was actually considering picking up an Oly E-420 with 25mm f/2.8 pancake lens as a walkaround, knockaround reportage DSLR but now I realize I'd be better served by getting an XSi with Canon's compact 35mm f/2 lens. Especially considering the XSi's level of resolution, high ISO performance, bigger viewfinder, and very good tonal/dynamic range, all of which exceed the 420's. E-420 = unique gimmick.

PhotoTraveler said:

The 450D is entry level. Same as that class always has been. The
hang over old model is the cheap model.

Entry level does not mean the cheapest model. It's the model designed
as an entry level. Just like buildings, there is an entry level, but
often it's not the lowest floor in the building, the building has
basements.

Click to expand...

No, entry-level does basically mean the "cheapest model". Based on specs and performance, the XSi is certainly not "entry-level" because it can quite easily be used in a pro or advanced capacity. These days, "entry-level" is practically purely a pricing determination. And with Canon, they basically keep their previous Rebel model in the pipeline to take up the "entry-level" banner, with the newer Rebel model being positioned in a "premium" position above that. Heck, in the case of the XSi, some people even think it resides in a position alongside or even above the 40D-- at least in terms of performance. So clearly, the XSi isn't really considered an "entry-level" model either in pricing or performance.

Yes, you can make the argument that one can make an "entry" into DSLR photography with an XSi, but you can make that argument with the 40D, too, or even the 5D! But when you consider "entry-level" as being defined by the least expensive DSLR in Canon's product line, the XSi is not that camera. And, in fact, when you go to Canon's website, you'll see the Canon XTi and XT still in the current product line. And they are still readily available through a wide variety of Canon dealers.

Additionally, this has been Canon's approach to the Rebel series even with the film Rebel SLRs-- they offered multiple Rebel models at different price points. But while in the film days, the film Rebels were only differentiated in price by maybe $20 or $30, in the digital age the different Rebels are differentiated in price by as much as a few hundred dollars (the Rebel XT, for example, is still selling new at Amazon for only ~$400), which adds more credence to the notion that the new XSi is not Canon's "entry-level". So here's how it currently stacks up in Canon's Rebel series:

Canon XT (entry-level): ~$400
Canon XTi: ~$600
Canon XSi: ~$800

All still in Canon's product line, all still readily available, all still selling.

Anastigmat said:

PhotoTraveler said:

So somehow Nikon is right in ergo? Which just happens to be the one
you use? Amazing.

One could change the names of brands around in what you said and be
just as right. Nothing about a Nikon makes them superior, it all
comes down to what some people like.

In the Case of Nikon and Canon ergo, both companies are too afraid to
ever change anything to see what works better. And as a result, the
users are used to stuff being in the same places every time, so
anything different when they grab a different brand just seams wrong
to them. Other brands at least try thing to do a better job.
Sometimes they nail it (7D, A700 (though do it in different ways),
some times they blow it, E3) but they are working the issue.

Minolta is the one that messed cameras up in the first place with the
7000. First to mess things up by removing knobs and otherwise good
controls. They were then the first to get them back right. Cameras
like the 7D are a dream. Everything is easy to get at, and fast. No
menus needed. Why go through a menu when you can turn a knob. I can
control the 7D in the dark by feel and what ever I see in the view
finder.

The A700 made some improvements over the 7D, but also went backwards.
I miss my compensation knob big time, now I have to use a menu and
hit buttons. But other brands are no different there.

Click to expand...

When cameras were mostly mechanical devices, knobs and levers were
the only options.. When they became electronic, the bean counters
saw a chance to reduce the number of knobs and buttons to save cost.
I also miss the exposure compensation dial. It is so much easier to
turn a knob than to push the menu button and then adjust the settings.

Click to expand...

Funny..on my A700 there's a button dedicated to exp. compensation (there's no need to delve into menu's)..but I decided for now to program the front wheel to control exposure compensation..works ok..with the 7d I still had to take my hand off the lens barrel to find the knob..think I prefer the A700 way..

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guido_2007/

Ideally, the lens captures what the eye had in mind...but the damn thing won't listen.

Well i figure the truth lies somewhere between "reasonable" and "wow".

bazz.

Certainly looks like a nice camera. Just a thought, though: the 450D costs exactly (to the dollar) the same as a D80, so comparing the feature set with a D60 is .... Plus the 450D test images were taken with a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens (B&H $329) while the D60 test images were taken with a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens (B&H $110).

To the reviewers: why can't all cameras use the same lens for testing?

According to Phil, the F1.8 Nikon lens is sharper than the 1.4.

Les Olson said:

Certainly looks like a nice camera. Just a thought, though: the 450D
costs exactly (to the dollar) the same as a D80, so comparing the
feature set with a D60 is .... Plus the 450D test images were taken
with a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens (B&H $329) while the D60 test images
were taken with a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens (B&H $110).

To the reviewers: why can't all cameras use the same lens for testing?

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

Joe0Bloggs said:

Dennis Phillips said:

A growing cult.

Read Douglas Brown's experience with the A700 at Luminous Landscape.
Here's an extract.

"It's tough, ergonomically well designed, intuitive to use (I still
haven't read the manual and yet managed to instantly come to grips
with and even customise a lot of the camera's features)"

Click to expand...

Ergonomics is a fickle thing; what one considers 'ergonomic' will
always be influenced by previous learning. So a pro with many years
of experience may well prefer old camera designs, but if he were
learning photography for the first time today, he may well find the
new designs easier to come to grips with.

Click to expand...

That's "habitability" of the user interface. Only one small aspect of ergonomics. Other aspects include control effort, operation speed to a habituated user, potential for strain injuries...

Although user interface design is a big part of what I do, I am not a full time HFE (human factors engineer). I have had the privilege of working with some of the best, like Diane Gourd, who also worked on CAESER, and I learned a bit about reach zones, joint motions, effort measurement, etc.

I've applied some of this to assistive technology, both ergonomic modifications of instruments for injured or challenged flutists, and some pretty radical work on cameras for challenged photographers. Placed subcu probes and monitored motions on an EMG to locate the lowest strain control placements. I used to have a nice four channel EMG.

There's also wonderful CAD software that can do ergonomic simulations and contains massive anthropometric databases, any percentile, any gender or age range, any ethnic group. You bet the camera manufacturers have access to these kind of tools.

The biggest difficulty user interface designers face is "folk wisdom" that is often nothing of the sort. For example, did you see what anastigmat spewed out about the poor ergonomics of having essentially identical buttons. That's the kind of tripe you get from someone whose ergonomics education consists of reading brochures on audiophile car tuners.

Buttons designed to be worked by the same fingers are the most ergonomic when they are the same size and shape. There are actual tables and databases for the different motions of each finger at the different anthropomorphic ranges. If the work task permits the arms and hands to be moved, allowing the fingers to be located for an optimal motion, then linear placement also makes sense. Look at a piano keyboard, 88 keys, linear, essentially identical (the black keys being placed according to acoustic necessity)

Joe0Bloggs said:

That said, I don't quite see what Joseph S. Wiz. is referring to when
he says the A700 'have designs that place controls where they had to
be 20 years ago'.

Click to expand...

My apologies, I had not noticed that A700 was the first Sony do do away with the shutter knob that is placed where the link shaft to a Copal Square shutter would be. This has been a pet peeve of mine about the Minolta cult for many years, touting that disaster as "ergonomic". They're down to just one major control, the front command dial, being really screwed up, and it's not a 20 year old error, it's just weird. I can think of no reason for their front command dial placement, it causes unnecessary pronation of the right first finger.

Joe0Bloggs said:

On the other hand, he isn't exactly known to be a
Canon fan when it comes to ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Canon has been wasting real estate on that big, round, purposeless dial for decades. When they finally did put four way controls on cameras, dodging the dial meant awkward placement for something very critical. They've consistently made grips that are sized for hands much smaller than global 50th percentile, as if they were designing only for the Japanese market.

I've always thought it would be fun to round up high line and midline cameras from all the major players, a statistically significant number of photographers, and an EMG, and measure which cameras really do have the best ergonomics.

I know when we did it with one Leica shooter who kept going on about the shutter position on an R9/DMR vs. the modern control dials like Nikon and Canon use, he was pretty shocked to find it took about half as much effort to work a Nikon D2X than the "ergonomic" Leica.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

You've never actually been a useful contributor here, and never actually been an asset to this site.

But your new shift, when you actually ran out of even your style of poorly conceived arguments, and decided to try to offend me with a personal attack on my Grandmother, was beyond low.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=28037853

You are not needed on this site. Go away, and do not come back.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

DMillier said:

According to Phil, the F1.8 Nikon lens is sharper than the 1.4.

Click to expand...

So the tests compared the 450D+lens with a camera+lens half its price, and with a good 50mm lens the D80 is $200 cheaper than the 450D.

DMillier said:

According to Phil, the F1.8 Nikon lens is sharper than the 1.4.

Click to expand...

Or at least at that F stop it is. Isn't the test scene at f/8 or f/11? From the the tests I have seen, the 1.4 is sharper below 5.6, the 1.8 above 5.6