«

"Ron Recer" <> wrote in message
news:...
> >From: "this old user"
>>Date: 8/18/2004 7:51 PM Central Standard Time
>
>>Agreed. But you know they could get it if they asked because it's got 8MP,
>>like that is really a big deal compared to 6MP.
>
> The 8Mp is NOT a big deal especially when one of the sites that supposedly
> showed the 20D said that the RAW file size was "8.2 MP (3072x2048
> pixels)".
> Several other places referred to the camera as "10D" instead of "20D" and
> the
> buffer size was shown as 25 frames in one place and 9 frames in another.
> To
> many errors in the text for it to have been a real Canon site IMO.
>
> Ron


Why not?

These kinds of web pages are done way ahead of time and a link was made from
the main site when time is ripe. Someone can easily sneak out the URL to the
public.

And the URL address with "temeplatedata" clearly indicates that they were
testing the page.

Neverthless, the specification is pretty close to what I expected and I
predicted the the 10D replacement would have EF-S mount. ...But how come
there's no spot metering? Not that 20D would cannibalize any 1D MK II sales.

Ron Recer wrote:
>..... To
> many errors in the text for it to have been a real Canon site IMO.
>
> Ron

I saw the "20D" images on the Canon USA website before they were
pulled. I didn't see any specs tho...

-Dave

James Fisher <> wrote:

>
>Nice photoshop job..

Nop. Take a look at this Canon Japan site. They may of course have used
Photoshop in the production af the site

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20d/index.html

Peter

"James Fisher" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Nice photoshop job..
>
>

Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/can...0d/default.asp

"Mark B." <> wrote in message
news:tqWdnQ4bNPn41LjcRVn-...
> "James Fisher" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> >
> > Nice photoshop job..
> >
>
> Bzzzt. Wrong answer.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/can...0d/default.asp
>
Right you are Kenny...

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20d/

ok, how about from Canon own site?

dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in
news::

>>> Nice camera but not earthshaking from my point of view.
>
> I doubt that many 10D users will trade up to this right away,

I dunno. If the claim of 1600 ISO having the same noise as 400 ISO does on
the 10D is accurate, they'll get my money.

The 10Ds ISO 400 has saved the day on many occasions for me, trading lovely
colors and decent shooting speeds for a bit less detail. ISO 1600 shooting
speed with that quality makes me pay attention like a heroin addict,
especially if other settings show a comparable increase.

If it isn't marketing hype. Apparently reviewers won't be able to answer
that question till the 23rd.

<snip>

Eric Gill wrote:
> dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in
> news::
>
>
>>>>Nice camera but not earthshaking from my point of view.
>>
>>I doubt that many 10D users will trade up to this right away,
>
>
> I dunno. If the claim of 1600 ISO having the same noise as 400 ISO does on
> the 10D is accurate, they'll get my money.

They will have mine as soon as my 20D arrives (been on a list since last
Sunday). 300D will then be my wife's. Good thing: most say her shots
are better than mine, using a refined P&S; giving her a dSLR is a good idea.

Phil

Phil

"Darrell Larose" <> wrote in message
news:k2eVc.1824227$ et.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "Mark B." <> wrote in message
> news:tqWdnQ4bNPn41LjcRVn-...
> > "James Fisher" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> > >
> > > Nice photoshop job..
> > >
> >
> > Bzzzt. Wrong answer.
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/can...0d/default.asp
> >
> Right you are Kenny...
>
> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20d/
>
> ok, how about from Canon own site?

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos20..._sample-e.html

Bart

In article <Xns954AE638FCCAericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119>,
says...
> I dunno. If the claim of 1600 ISO having the same noise as 400 ISO does on
> the 10D is accurate, they'll get my money.

Ditto. I shoot a lot of available light and have shaky hands.
Virtually no noise at ISO 1600 would be a godsend.

> The 10Ds ISO 400 has saved the day on many occasions for me, trading lovely
> colors and decent shooting speeds for a bit less detail. ISO 1600 shooting
> speed with that quality makes me pay attention like a heroin addict,
> especially if other settings show a comparable increase.
>
> If it isn't marketing hype. Apparently reviewers won't be able to answer
> that question till the 23rd.

Well, Canon has some sample images up - dunno if any are low-light.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Brian C. Baird <> wrote in
news::

> In article <Xns954AE638FCCAericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119>,
> says...
>> I dunno. If the claim of 1600 ISO having the same noise as 400 ISO
>> does on the 10D is accurate, they'll get my money.
>
> Ditto. I shoot a lot of available light and have shaky hands.
> Virtually no noise at ISO 1600 would be a godsend.
>
>> The 10Ds ISO 400 has saved the day on many occasions for me, trading
>> lovely colors and decent shooting speeds for a bit less detail. ISO
>> 1600 shooting speed with that quality makes me pay attention like a
>> heroin addict, especially if other settings show a comparable
>> increase.
>>
>> If it isn't marketing hype. Apparently reviewers won't be able to
>> answer that question till the 23rd.
>
> Well, Canon has some sample images up - dunno if any are low-light.

The Canon Japan site had shot info - all are at 100 ISO, using the 50mm
f/1.4 prime. Two are in studio. The tower shot is certainly low light,
but towers usually don't move very quickly and they almost certainly used
a tripod.

IOW, nothing useful on the subject we're discussing, damnit!

Truthfully, though, the more information we're getting, the more I like
the new body. For example, write speed to Compact Flash tests to
something like 3 times faster (!), and you can preview while it's still
writing. I've always envied this of competing rigs.

And the faster, better focus. Just these three features alone would have
saved me considerable headache yesterday, shooting dancers in a studio.

Let's hope the reviewers have some good news Monday...