Review of 30D not very kind....

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

RichA - 27 May 2006 02:24 GMT

In the Apr 22nd issue of the Brit mag. Amateur Photographer.
Basically, they had three crops 100% from a 30D, 20D and 10D. The 10D
crop showed more detail and presented a less "washed out" looking image
than either the 20D or 30D, both of which had nearly identical images.
They dinged the camera for its performance score because in the
writer's opinion, it's image quality fell short of the old 10D. All I
had heard to this point was that the 30D exhibited
more noise in the shadows than the 20D. This has been batted back and
forth on the dpreview.com Canon forum. It still scored high, having no
visible noise until images were underexposed at 400 ISO.

Reply to this Message

Mark² - 27 May 2006 06:17 GMT

> In the Apr 22nd issue of the Brit mag. Amateur Photographer.
> Basically, they had three crops 100% from a 30D, 20D and 10D. The 10D
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> forth on the dpreview.com Canon forum. It still scored high, having
> no visible noise until images were underexposed at 400 ISO.

Interesting.
More noise isn't too surprising given that the 10D has larger photo sites
than the 20/30D (same size sensor, fewer pixels packed in).
The "only" things I WISH my 10D had that the 30D has:

Spot meter
5 fps
Big screen
RAW+jpeg (rather than embedded jpeg)
similarly simple focus selector
A couple more MPs
and a few other things...

I'm glad my 10D still fares well (and indeed it does!)...
-But there are some worthwhile things other than noise at 400ISO+ to
consider.
I actually think the 30D would be a great partner with my 5D, partly because
it offers high frame rate, and would be a lower-priced combo much like a 1Ds
II and 1Ds. -One for serious wide angles with incredible detail...and one
with a cropped sensor and blazing fps for telephoto action shooting.

5D+30D combo= less expensive 1DsII+1DIIn combo.
Nice.

Hmmm... I might just have to pick up a 30D one of these days...after my
wallet cools off from the 5D that's still left it smoking..

BTW--It's amazing how **tiny** the chimping screen on my 10D starts to look
after you get used to the comparatively HUGE screen on the 5D...

-Mark²

Signature

Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Reply to this Message

Randall Ainsworth - 27 May 2006 17:40 GMT

> In the Apr 22nd issue of the Brit mag. Amateur Photographer.
> Basically, they had three crops 100% from a 30D, 20D and 10D. The 10D
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> forth on the dpreview.com Canon forum. It still scored high, having no
> visible noise until images were underexposed at 400 ISO.

So why don't you buy a camera and tell us all about it.

Reply to this Message

Celcius - 28 May 2006 11:28 GMT

> > In the Apr 22nd issue of the Brit mag. Amateur Photographer.
> > Basically, they had three crops 100% from a 30D, 20D and 10D. The 10D
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> So why don't you buy a camera and tell us all about it

.;-)
Because they're plastic....

Reply to this Message

nick c - 28 May 2006 00:15 GMT

> In the Apr 22nd issue of the Brit mag. Amateur Photographer.
> Basically, they had three crops 100% from a 30D, 20D and 10D. The 10D
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> forth on the dpreview.com Canon forum. It still scored high, having no
> visible noise until images were underexposed at 400 ISO.

Several weeks ago I lost my Canon 20D to the deep sea. When I received
my insurance check, I bought the Canon 30D. I have not used it often,
preferring to use my 1DMKII, but I have taken about 20 shots with it so
far, just for familiarization purposes. So far I'm very pleased with its
performance.

I'm posting two pictures to illustrate both camera and lens photo
capability. The lens used has often been criticized as being soft at the
full 300mm setting. In both shots, the F stop used was F-7.1, speed was
unrecorded.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4497731

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4497780

You may or may not like the pictures as such but see both lens and
camera performance. I suggest that you click on making the photo's large
to see detail.

Reply to this Message

RichA - 28 May 2006 03:57 GMT

The pictures look fine. No Canon is going to take a bad one, provided
a good lens is attached. The question raised by the article was
simply, "Would the 10D have taken a better one?"

Reply to this Message

nick c - 28 May 2006 06:05 GMT

> The pictures look fine. No Canon is going to take a bad one, provided
> a good lens is attached. The question raised by the article was
> simply, "Would the 10D have taken a better one?"

Not having a 10D camera or having used one, leaves me without comparison
comment. I posted pictures for the purpose of visually displaying that
fears for the 30D camera and past expressed fears of the 70-300 DO lens
may, in a practical sense, be unfounded. As for seeing noise using ISO
400 (I usually use 100), to my eyes it's very faintly distinguishable.
So faint that to me it's of no consequence.

Reply to this Message

ian - 28 May 2006 08:19 GMT

>> The pictures look fine. No Canon is going to take a bad one, provided
>> a good lens is attached. The question raised by the article was
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> (I usually use 100), to my eyes it's very faintly distinguishable. So
> faint that to me it's of no consequence.

won't be an issue unless you have some sort of elaborate test bench or you
scrutinize all your pictures at 1600% whilst shooting at 1600 or above
whilst severely underexposing.

Reply to this Message

JPS@no.komm - 29 May 2006 06:31 GMT

>In the Apr 22nd issue of the Brit mag. Amateur Photographer.
>Basically, they had three crops 100% from a 30D, 20D and 10D. The 10D
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>forth on the dpreview.com Canon forum. It still scored high, having no
>visible noise until images were underexposed at 400 ISO.

The 30D has *exactly* the same sensor and readout circuitry as the 20D.
I've tested noise levels in the RAW data in about 5 different 30Ds, and
they all have the same noise as my 20D. What some 30D cameras have been
doing is under-exposing, which causes more noise. Picture styles may
enhance noise as well.

The 10D might appear to be less noisy than the 20D/30D because its
metering tends to expose higher in the RAW dyunamic range than the
others.

Signature

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to this Message

Mark² - 29 May 2006 07:13 GMT

>> In the Apr 22nd issue of the Brit mag. Amateur Photographer.
>> Basically, they had three crops 100% from a 30D, 20D and 10D. The
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> metering tends to expose higher in the RAW dyunamic range than the
> others.

The 10D is not the same sensor as the 20D though (or 30D), and it makes
sense that it would have less noise due to its larger photo sites. Packing
an extra 2MP into the same size sensor DOES have an effect on noise.

-Mark²

Signature

Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Reply to this Message

JPS@no.komm - 29 May 2006 17:05 GMT

>The 10D is not the same sensor as the 20D though (or 30D), and it makes
>sense that it would have less noise due to its larger photo sites. Packing
>an extra 2MP into the same size sensor DOES have an effect on noise.

Not a whole lot in this case. Most of the noise (about 90%) at ISO 100
in both the 10D and 20/30D is readout noise, which has nothing to do
with the well size. The 10D has slightly less noise in RAW standard
deviation (1.9 vs 2.1), and has a slightly higher DR. At the higher
ISOs (10D really only amplifies up to 800), the 20/30D has a lot less
noise.

Signature

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Reply to this Message