..looks like a Canon 10D, 300D ,Nikon D100 killer to me......

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jim Waggener, Feb 3, 2004.

  1. Jim Waggener

    Jim Waggener Guest

    Jim Waggener, Feb 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jim Waggener

    Charlie Self Guest

    Jim Waggener posts, again:
    And the fact is the camera doesn't really exist yet. It also lacks some
    features that are on the D100 and others, at least as described.

    Let's see what happens when it hits the market--and let's see what other
    companies put up against it.

    Charlie Self
    "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is
    sure."
    Mark Twain
    http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
     
    Charlie Self, Feb 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jim Waggener

    AArDvarK Guest

    Nope ... no mirror lock up for photography.
    Alex
     
    AArDvarK, Feb 4, 2004
    #3
  4. Jim Waggener

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Jim Waggener posts
    But all the facts aren't in yet, wait until PMA ... what happens if the 300D
    drops in price to $499 and the 10D is replaced with the 10D Mark II with the
    8.2 Mpix sensor for $999 - $1,199, as rumored?
     
    Bill Hilton, Feb 4, 2004
    #4
  5. Jim Waggener

    Lisa Horton Guest

    I'll tell you what happens, I start warming up the credit cards :)

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Feb 4, 2004
    #5
  6. Jim Waggener

    KBob Guest

    Also it's missing a couple of the highest ISO settings, and the flash
    is a bit weaker. Also it has lost the TIFF imaging capability of the
    D100. Maybe a "killer" in terms of price, however...
     
    KBob, Feb 4, 2004
    #6
  7. Jim Waggener

    Jim Waggener Guest

    lol. exactly the person they want
     
    Jim Waggener, Feb 4, 2004
    #7
  8. Jim Waggener

    PhotoMan Guest


    Hell, mine went up in smoke within a month of buying my dReb!
    Joe Arnold
     
    PhotoMan, Feb 4, 2004
    #8
  9. Jim Waggener

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Well, the other Canon DSLR's have pretty much all paid for themselves in
    short order, no reason why that should change with a better one :)

    Really though, they'd need to come up with more than a slight increase
    in pixel count to get me to bite again so soon. But if the long rumored
    EOS 3 DSLR came out, that would be an easy decision.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Feb 4, 2004
    #9
  10. Jim Waggener

    W6DKN Guest

    Then I'll look out the window to see if I can spot any flying pigs ... :>)

    = Dan =
     
    W6DKN, Feb 4, 2004
    #10
  11. Jim Waggener

    Gavin Cato Guest

    I can't see for the life of me why you'd want to use TIFF anyway.

    Just shoot RAW, smaller filesize and convert to TIFF later. Exact same
    quality as shooting TIFF in the first place.
     
    Gavin Cato, Feb 4, 2004
    #11
  12. Jim Waggener

    Chris Brown Guest

    Funny, it looks like a camera to me.

    Why must everything be the "killer" of everything else in order to be taken
    seriously by some people? Can't we just evaluate these things for what they
    are? The 10D, 300D and D100 are all very good cameras with their own
    strengths and weaknesses. The D70 looks like it's also going to be a very
    good camera. It's good to see that the competition between Nikon and Canon
    is still healthy.
     
    Chris Brown, Feb 4, 2004
    #12
  13. TIFF can give more streamlined workflow.


     
    Darren Sawyer, Feb 4, 2004
    #13
  14. Jim Waggener

    JPS Guest

    In message <4020bca0$>,
    Better, actually, because TIFF forces a white-balance, so you degrade
    the image by balancing it again (or changing levels again).
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 4, 2004
    #14
  15. Jim Waggener

    JPS Guest

    In message <bvqk3l$6bv$>,
    I'd rather wait for a RAW render at home than have my camera tied up in
    the field with long TIFF writes.
    --
     
    JPS, Feb 4, 2004
    #15
  16. Jim Waggener

    Chris Brown Guest

    Actually, RAW is better quality than TIFF as the process of demosaicing,
    white balancing, colourspace conversion, etc. involved in making a TIFF is
    lossy. By keeping the raw file around, you get to redo these steps at a
    later date using different settings or a better algorithm if you choose.
     
    Chris Brown, Feb 4, 2004
    #16
  17. Jim Waggener

    Neil Brown Guest

    I thought the missing features to be huge for me.... eyepoint , ASA boost
    and the add on batterypack/grip are big reasons I bought.. esp the grip and
    asa

    Neil
     
    Neil Brown, Feb 4, 2004
    #17
  18. Jim Waggener

    Linda_N Guest

    Most would. Tiff makes no sense on/in camera when Tiff is easily achieved
    later as you mentioned in an earlier post.

    Linda.
     
    Linda_N, Feb 4, 2004
    #18
  19. I'd rather wait for a RAW render at home than have my camera tied up in
    There might be occasions when you want the best quality and can't get to
    your own PC, so the proprietary RAW formats are no good to you. I know TIFF
    is rather slow and takes too much space but it has its uses in situations.
     
    Darren Sawyer, Feb 4, 2004
    #19
  20. "As rumored"? That was rumored by someone who was trolling. It's
    shockingly unlikely.
     
    Mike Kozlowski, Feb 4, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.