 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2006Canon 400D
http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx 10Mp, self cleaning sensor, 2.5"LCD, wonder if it has spot metering like its' bigger brother? > http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx > > 10Mp, self cleaning sensor, 2.5"LCD, wonder if it has spot metering like > its' bigger brother? No Spot metering. Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >> http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wayne That is as stupid as not having it on the new D80. Que? The D80 has spot metering, as does the D50. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : >> http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx : >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : : That is as stupid as not having it on the new D80. I stand detected! Thats right the D80/70/70s/50 will not meter with older lenses though, that sucks as well. > Que? The D80 has spot metering, as does the D50. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > : > : That is as stupid as not having it on the new D80. But at least you can attach older lenses to the body and shoot. Ever tried this with an old Canon lens on a DSLR? Pete D schrieb: > I stand detected! Thats right the D80/70/70s/50 will not meter with older > lenses though, that sucks as well. > But at least you can attach older lenses to the body and shoot. Ever > tried this with an old Canon lens on a DSLR? Why would you want to do that? The EF equivalents are better quality, why limit yourself? SignatureBart Bart van der Wolf schrieb: > Why would you want to do that? > The EF equivalents are better quality, why limit yourself? I wouldn't. I just wrote that because Pete mentioned that no metering was possible using the D80 with older lenses. I just wanted to point out that there is no way at all to use older lenses with new Canon Cameras. Regards Christian > Bart van der Wolf schrieb: >> Why would you want to do that? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I just wanted to point out that there is no way at all to use older > lenses with new Canon Cameras. Hmm. A $30 adapter does it to me. Certainly, there are ways! > Regards > Christian Nick Saxon >> Bart van der Wolf schrieb: >>> Why would you want to do that? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hmm. A $30 adapter does it to me. Certainly, there are ways! It's been more than a few years since the EF mount superseded the FD mount. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>> Bart van der Wolf schrieb: >>>> Why would you want to do that? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It's been more than a few years since the EF mount superseded the FD > mount. Yes maybe, love the K mount though, I have a 30 year old lens from my first SLR that mounts and meters (manually with the press of a button) and is as sharp and as usable as the day it left the factory. I also have an older screw mount lens that mounts with an adapter and meters just as well. Sure the newer AF lenses are a better choice but you can play to you hearts content with all the lovely old stuff. :-))) > Bart van der Wolf schrieb: >> Why would you want to do that? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Regards > Christian Define "older." Any lens made since 1987, with one exception, will work quite nicely, thank you...Of course, FD mount lenses won't, but the new ones are pretty generally an improvement. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com SkipM schrieb: > Define "older." Any lens made since 1987, with one exception, will work > quite nicely, thank you...Of course, FD mount lenses won't, but the new ones > are pretty generally an improvement. I was talking about FD mount lenses. The new AF lenses surely are an improvement, I don't doubt that. I just wrote that because Pete mentioned that no metering was possible using the Nikon D80 with older (non-AF) lenses. That's true, but it's not an advantage for Canon, right? If you want you can use actually any F mount lens, even the oldest ones, dating back to 1959, on the latest Nikon Cameras. The D200 will even allow metering. Regards Christian > SkipM schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Regards > Christian My point was that you are talking about something that occurred nearly 20 years ago. Many of the respondents on this list hadn't even picked up a camera 20 years ago. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com SkipM schrieb: > My point was that you are talking about something that occurred nearly 20 > years ago. Many of the respondents on this list hadn't even picked up a > camera 20 years ago. Including me. ;-) >> SkipM schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > years ago. Many of the respondents on this list hadn't even picked up a > camera 20 years ago. Yes probably true, I just bought a mint condition camera exactly the same as one I bought back in 1978 that was sadly stolen five years ago when the house was burgled, the 55mm F1.8 lens from that Pentax KM clips straight onto my Pentax DS and works beautifully. That's not a problem for me and I suspect a lot of others. I have no older lenses. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly :I stand detected! Thats right the D80/70/70s/50 will not meter with older : lenses though, that sucks as well. Very sad Joan, time to buy some I think. ;-) > That's not a problem for me and I suspect a lot of others. I have no > older lenses. > > :I stand detected! Thats right the D80/70/70s/50 will not meter with > older > : lenses though, that sucks as well. > That is as stupid as not having [spot metering] on the new... Not really. I ever used SPOT metering on my Canon T90 (assuming it HAS it) and I doubt I'll ever WISH I had it on my 20D. I am not surprised the function is NOT on some lower-end dSLRs. Although I suspect the megapixel "war" is cooling a bit, bumping-up the megapixel count will entice FAR more 300 users to upgrade than the addition of spot metering. It's pretty simple but certainly not cheap: If one needs/wants spot metering, they must spend the money required to get it. Signature:) JR >> That is as stupid as not having [spot metering] on the new... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > metering, > they must spend the money required to get it. Why? The Nikons and Pentaxes have it. >> That is as stupid as not having [spot metering] on the new... > >Not really. > >I ever used SPOT metering on my Canon T90 (assuming it HAS it) and I doubt >I'll ever WISH I had it on my 20D. Feature needs are subjective. But just because you seem to have never taken a difficult lighting shot such as a backlit or a spotlighted subject, doesn't mean it's not an important feature to others. A backlit subject is the most common shot I take where I like a tight metering area, and a spot makes it a lot easier to do than with a partial meter. I own the Canon XT/350D and wish it had a spot meter. I also use my friends Nikon D70s a lot, and really appreciate the spot meter. This is one of the few areas where Canon needs to smarten up. > I am not surprised the function is NOT on >some lower-end dSLRs. Except that it most definitely is in lower-end DSLRs, such as the Nikon D50. In fact, every single DSLR camera Nikon makes has spot metering, and I understand several other companies have it in their models. I don't know why Canon continues to leave it out. They finally smartened up with the money-grabbing 30D and included a spot meter, but they should have added it to the XTi/400D. Perhaps they intend to introduce a Canon Rebel XTs/450D in February with a spot meter. >Although I suspect the megapixel "war" is cooling a bit, bumping-up the >megapixel count will entice FAR more 300 users to upgrade than the addition of >spot metering. Sadly the megapixel war is NOT cooling. Canon slapping themselves in the head with this 10mp model and not having 10mp in the 30D is a very clear indication that they're still at "war". And you're right that the number game is more important to a lot of people instead of functionality. The introduction of the Canon XTi/400D with the same features as the competition, with no greater capability, means this is merely a response to provide what Canon believes the poorly informed consumer wants. The 10mp sensor is unnecessary, but the other guys have it so Canon must have it. The sensor cleaner doesn't work, but the other guys have it so Canon must have it. I'm really disappointed in the way Canon responded...but I understand why they did it - compete or die, and they want to remain numero uno. >It's pretty simple but certainly not cheap: If one needs/wants spot metering, >they must spend the money required to get it. Or here's a concept...they can buy a camera brand that actually has it for the same or less money. :-) > The sensor cleaner doesn't work, but the other guys have it so Canon > must have it. Doesn't? What about the idea of "sensor mapping"? Marcel >"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message >> The sensor cleaner doesn't work, but the other guys have it so Canon >> must have it. >> >Doesn't? Admittedly we don't have one to check yet, but since no sensor cleaner effectively works to date, and Canon is just copying the competition, I don't expect theirs to work either. It's just a gimmick to make users feel warm and fuzzy about their camera. >What about the idea of "sensor mapping"? What about it? Mapping is not related to cleaning. > >"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message > >> The sensor cleaner doesn't work, but the other guys have it so Canon [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Mapping is not related to cleaning. Bill, The sensor mapping is done by taking a photo of a white space, thus revealing where the hard to get at spots are, in a way, like custom white balance. At the time of "photoshopping" the photo, you can use this "sensor map" to whipe out the spots. The map wpuld be recorded in the exif. Marcel >>The sensor cleaner doesn't work, but the other guys have it so Canon >>must have it. > > Doesn't? > What about the idea of "sensor mapping"? Yes, this one first appeared with the Kon Min 7D - Dimage Master introduced the ability enter a dust reference shot, and then process your entire shoot with auto removal of this dust map. Nikon Capture I think introduced it later. FotoNation have a technology for this which can be built into cameras, but not one single maker has yet done so. They have previewed it at two photokinas in a row and it's not been taken up. David > >>The sensor cleaner doesn't work, but the other guys have it so Canon > >>must have it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > David David, I have a feeling that the use of "sensor mapping" might be promising. Such a map could be used in the same way layers do in Photoshop. One could simply take the map layer out and presto, the deed is done. Sensors could still be cleaned, but not so frequently. One could establish a "map" before the shoot of the day or after changing lens and not worry about the dust problem. Cheers, Marcel >>>> The sensor cleaner doesn't work, but the other guys have it so Canon >>>> must have it. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Cheers, > Marcel Every time you change aperture either the map would have to change, or to compensate for the change in the pattern the "sensor mapping" would have to change. Maybe this could be sorted out later in software that reads exif data. But if the software isn't both free and easy to use, then the clone tool may remain a better alternative. SNIP > Every time you change aperture either the map would have to change, > or to compensate for the change in the pattern the "sensor mapping" > would have to change. Maybe this could be sorted out later in > software that reads exif data. From <http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Rebel_XTi_White_Paper.pdf> I get the impression that the camera is automatically set to f/22 for the "Dust Delete Data" shot. So it seems that it is used more as a locator for the dust, and the software dust removal is more intelligent than a mere mask. SignatureBart > SNIP >> Every time you change aperture either the map would have to change, or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > locator for the dust, and the software dust removal is more intelligent > than a mere mask. If it works, then it would be useful. Nikon Capture has a dust removal feature. But after a year or so of knowing about the feature I haven't ever found a real need to use it. Does the Canon version work by taking a dust delete photo *before* you take pictures (mainly useless I would think - as dust appears after lens changes in the field - and you usually don't see it until you get home) or *after* you find you have a card full of dust-spotted images can you take a dust reference photo and apply the correction to those images? >>>The sensor cleaner doesn't work, but the other guys have it so Canon >>>must have it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > built into cameras, but not one single maker has yet done so. They have > previewed it at two photokinas in a row and it's not been taken up. My hp point and shoot had a hot pixel elimination thing too. I remember people returning photos cos of the hot pixels on the rear screen. No affect on actual picture. Come to think of it people with grit and dust on their mirrors and prisms were worried about picture quality on film and took alot of reassuring before they accepted their actual film was safe. >>> That is as stupid as not having [spot metering] on the new... >> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > :-) Its not what you need is what the customer wants. Local computer shop had the same problem, he preferred to have balanced quality systems and was making very little. Took on a business partner who bought in cheap as chips parts all on the mobo type thing slow as sh.t but with a fast (lotsa megahertz actually which isn't the same thing) processor. Sales picked up. Not only that the repair side of the business picked up too after just over a year. :) You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. >>>It's pretty simple but certainly not cheap: If one needs/wants spot >>>metering, they must spend the money required to get it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Its not what you need is what the customer wants. It's too bad the customer doesn't have a clue what they really want then. Apparently they just want more "toys" in their cameras that don't do squat to help them, but it's a cool feature. That's one of the things that always irked about SLR cameras - consumers don't want to pay for good glass (evidenced by the fact that Canon still doesn't have a good 17-70 lense and most companies have a cheap kit lense), yet they complain when their $1000 DSLR with 18-55 doesn't do what their $300 P&S could do. It boggles the mind...boggles I tell ya! >You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. That's not true...when I worked on a ranch, I used to get the horses to drink all the time. There's a trick to it. :-) >> That is as stupid as not having [spot metering] on the new... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > metering, > they must spend the money required to get it. Don't laugh, if you want to be with the big boys and have pro features you've got to for out for the pro body. Its not just about megapixels ya know. <smirk> Jim Redelfs skrev: > It's pretty simple but certainly not cheap: If one needs/wants spot metering, > they must spend the money required to get it. If they want ty buy Canon, that is. Not only does low-end Nikon have it, and low end Monoltas had it, my Panasonic FZ20 has it too, and a pretty small spot, to boot. Spot metering is a sine qua non for me. When the otherwise very modestly upgraded 30D appeared, that was the feature that enabled me to finally make a decision. And if you never use spot metering, fine. But I'm sure I would have had to resort to mindless and endless bracketing without it, whenever I wanted to shoot a) backlit portraits, b) large white flowers, like water lilies, or c) snowscapes. I know no simple way of doing that except by spot metering - ideally with a smaller spot than Canon's. Jan Böhme Jim Redelfs skrev: > It's pretty simple but certainly not cheap: If one needs/wants spot > metering, > they must spend the money required to get it. If they want ty buy Canon, that is. Not only does low-end Nikon have it, and low end Monoltas had it, my Panasonic FZ20 has it too, and a pretty small spot, to boot. Spot metering is a sine qua non for me. When the otherwise very modestly upgraded 30D appeared, that was the feature that enabled me to finally make a decision. And if you never use spot metering, fine. But I'm sure I would have had to resort to mindless and endless bracketing without it, whenever I wanted to shoot a) backlit portraits, b) large white flowers, like water lilies, or c) snowscapes. I know no simple way of doing that except by spot metering - ideally with a smaller spot than Canon's. Jan Böhme I feel the same way about spot metering, its lack was the one major annoyance about my 20D. But spot metering in the hands of the inexperienced (heck, in the hands of the experienced, for that matter) can be a double edged sword, coming back on the user in some of the most unexpected ways and times. My 5D has it, but it's not linkable to a selected focus point as in the 1 series, and in my old A2 or the old EOS3, which is a whole lot better. Is the spot meter so linkable in either the Nikon or Minolta iteration? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > My 5D has it, but it's not linkable to a selected focus point as in > the 1 series, and in my old A2 or the old EOS3, which is a whole lot better. > Is the spot meter so linkable in either the Nikon or Minolta iteration? Nikon - yes the metering spot follows focus area selection with Single Area or Dynamic area selection. When AF closest subject mode it defaults to center. > Jim Redelfs skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it, and low end Monoltas had it, my Panasonic FZ20 has it too, and a > pretty small spot, to boot. Actually my Canon A70 has spot metering. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx > > 10Mp, self cleaning sensor, 2.5"LCD, wonder if it has spot metering like > its' bigger brother? Hi all! I've seen lots of comments on the camera, but none on a very important achievement it seems: the self cleaning sensor. Personally, I would gladly forgo spot metering to have self sensor cleaning. I've just ordered a kit after coming back from vacation and having to delete a few photos I could not rescue. Of course, I had to change lenses in the course of this vacation... that's what DSLR'sd are for, yet in a humid climate, changing lenses creates havoc on a sensor ;-( My 02 Marcel >> http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My 02 > Marcel It must have been on another thread that I read the comment that "It's a feature available on other cameras, Canon have copied that feature, it doesn't work very well on other cameras, so it probably won't work very well on the Canon either" >It must have been on another thread that I read the comment that "It's a >feature available on other cameras, Canon have copied that feature, it >doesn't work very well on other cameras, so it probably won't work very >well on the Canon either" Funny...I was thinking that earlier when I made this joke: >Just wonder... where does the dust go when using ultra-sound to clean the >sensor? Nowhere...it stays on the sensor! :-) >>> http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > doesn't work very well on other cameras, so it probably won't work very > well on the Canon either" EPhotozine did a very negative test on the Sony A100's dust removal function - negative in every sense, it was unrealistic and produced a bad result. If they did the same with the Canon system (leaving the camera open face up, shutter open, sensor exposed in the middle of a city with parkland in summer for two hours) no doubt it would be equally negative. So far the Sony system appears to be keeping dust at bay for most users, a couple have reported needing to clean the usual way for a stubborn spot or two. I have none, 1200 frames and a month of rather frequent lens changing and short test shoots. But it was a full year before I needed to clean my Dynax 7D; these cameras were never natural dust attractors to start with. David >>>> http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx >>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > David Is it the camera being a "dust attractor" or more to do with the gap between the sensor itself and the low pass filter. I note that Canon claim their 400d dust removal is "better" because it shakes the low pass filter itself - as opposed to their claim that other makers have an extra piece of glass in the optics that is shaken. > Is it the camera being a "dust attractor" or more to do with the gap > between the sensor itself and the low pass filter. I note that Canon > claim their 400d dust removal is "better" because it shakes the low pass > filter itself - as opposed to their claim that other makers have an > extra piece of glass in the optics that is shaken. CMOS is known to be more prone to attracting dust - it's been a big problem for Canon, so they needed a solution. I think the AA filter is more distant in the KonMin 5D/7D than in some cameras, as the image is more softened by it, and dust never looks really sharp unless you stop right down. Sigma's sensor, with no AA filter, images any dust which gets on it sharp even at full aperture. I don't think any maker has an extra piece of glass which is shaken. Olympus has a thin plastic film which is shaken, Sigma has a glass cover much further forward, which is not. David > CMOS is known to be more prone to attracting dust - it's been a big > problem for Canon, so they needed a solution. A problem users experience and have to worry about or a marketing problem? -Wolfgang >> It must have been on another thread that I read the comment that "It's a >> feature available on other cameras, Canon have copied that feature, it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >needed to clean my Dynax 7D; these cameras were never natural dust >attractors to start with. Personally, I think sensor dust problems are grossly exaggerated. <rant> I've had my Canon XT for well over a year, and I've only cleaned it a couple of times now with a cheap $3 nylon brush from Shoppers Drug Mart. My friend has a Nikon D70s and it's never been cleaned since it was spotless from day one...no wait, I think I cleaned it once. He has a D200 as well, and I believe he's cleaned it with a cheap brush a couple of times. He's a pro shooter, but he cares less about sensor dust than I do, and he changes lenses like some people change channels on TV. Another friend uses a Canon semi-professionally and has cleaned his several times. Now, he's neurotic about keeping his sensor clean, but it just doesn't seem to be as big an issue as some would have you believe (like the sensor cleaning tools people). :-/ Having said that, if I was a pro shooter in the middle of the Serengeti during a drought with dust devils zipping back and forth during a shoot, I may be concerned with sensor dust. If I was changing lenses in lower Nevada during the summer, I might be a bit concerned too. But around here (Ontariario), with our humidity, dust is airborne for about 1.015 seconds, and that's with a tailwind. So it's just not a big issue. :-) Now getting back to piezo-electric cleaning solutions, it's a joke, a gimmick, a selling tool, a toy, something for the marketing people to push. It's not a practical cleaning method, nor does it have much effect at keeping a sensor clean. But the unwashed masses have been deluded into thinking it works by the big marketing machines, so they think they want it, whether it works or not. </rant> I gotta give credit to those marketing people...they know how to seduce the consumers, that's for sure. > http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx > > 10Mp, self cleaning sensor, 2.5"LCD, wonder if it has spot metering like > its' bigger brother? 30D owners start crying now. Canon has just skewed the line-up. >> http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx >> >> 10Mp, self cleaning sensor, 2.5"LCD, wonder if it has spot metering like >> its' bigger brother? > > 30D owners start crying now. Canon has just skewed the line-up. Rich: Tsk, tsk. Only sophomores such as yourself would think that. I have a nice 20D and didn't even feel remotely bad when the 5D and 30D were released. Signaturelsmft > >> http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Only sophomores such as yourself would think that. I have a nice 20D and > didn't even feel remotely bad when the 5D and 30D were released. Why would you? The 30D has the same sensor and pixel count, the 5D is in another league entirely and costs way more. But, now we've got....4 cameras (Pentax, Sony, Nikon and Canon) with relatively advanced feature sets and 10meg sensors, all for under a grand. It's going to be like the 5D versus 1DsMkII image quality comparisons, only this time the little plastic 10 meg will clearly win. This is the major difference between the old film cameras and digitals, the difference in image quality from one camera to another. > Why would you? The 30D has the same sensor and pixel count, the 5D is > in another league entirely and costs way more. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > major difference between the old film cameras and digitals, the > difference in image quality from one camera to another. It will clearly win because it has horizontally 1 extra pixel every 10? Have you ever tried to see a 25% increase in number of pixels in a print? "Clearly" isn't accurate. Build, spot metering etc are a lot more important, if you ask me. > http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx > > 10Mp, self cleaning sensor, 2.5"LCD, wonder if it has spot metering like > its' bigger brother? Well, so much for Photokina being "disappointing." (Sorry, RichA) And we still have the XTi waiting in the wings. This is shaping up to be a very good year for digital photographers. >>http://www.canon.com.au/eos400d/default.aspx >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > This is shaping up to be a very good year for digital photographers. Yeah, I'm just wondering how low the price is going to go for the XTi. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > Yeah, I'm just wondering how low the price is going to go for the XTi. > > Greg List price (US) * · Body only: $799 · Kit: $899 (with 18-55 mm lens) http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp#specs >> Yeah, I'm just wondering how low the price is going to go for the XTi. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >· Body only: $799 >· Kit: $899 (with 18-55 mm lens) The Sony A100 started at pre-order pricing of £699 in the UK. Within a week of launch, it had dropped to £599 in one major chain. Heading for a $200 price drop. So the Canon will likely follow that price trend. >>> Yeah, I'm just wondering how low the price is going to go for the XTi. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So the Canon will likely follow that price trend. ER, why? Signaturelsmft >> So the Canon will likely follow that price trend. >> >ER, why? Because the trend is toward lower prices in all consumer electronics. Canon cannot allow a high price gap between it and the Sony (or other equivalent) or itwill lose sales in this market segment. Pre-order price in UK for 400D is £650 (body only) £720 (body + 18-55 lens). That means a dollar price difference of over $225 at current exchange rates. >>> So the Canon will likely follow that price trend. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lens). That means a dollar price difference of over $225 at current > exchange rates. I don't disagree with the overall trend, but you quoted an immediate price drop from pre-order to within a week on a Sony (which you snipped above.) That's what I doubt will happen with Canon's offerings. -- john mcwilliams >I don't disagree with the overall trend, but you quoted an immediate >price drop from pre-order to within a week on a Sony (which you snipped >above.) That's what I doubt will happen with Canon's offerings. What I assumed was that since the retail price of the Sony had fallen so quickly after actual launch, then the Canon would have to do the same to remain competitive. The 400D launch is stated to be in Spetember here (UK), with a pre-order price of £720 with lens. That makes it £120 (equivalent to over 200 USD) more than the Sony A100 - more than enough to make people seriously consider it to the Canon. Regards. >> I don't disagree with the overall trend, but you quoted an immediate >> price drop from pre-order to within a week on a Sony (which you snipped [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > makes it £120 (equivalent to over 200 USD) more than the Sony A100 - > more than enough to make people seriously consider it to the Canon. Ah, I see. Perhaps so; I now realize that while many here wouldn't consider a non-dSLR to compete very directly with a dSLR, the larger market may not make that distinction. SignatureJohn McWilliams >Ah, I see. Perhaps so; I now realize that while many here wouldn't >consider a non-dSLR to compete very directly with a dSLR, the larger >market may not make that distinction. The Sony A100 is a DSLR. >>I don't disagree with the overall trend, but you quoted an immediate >>price drop from pre-order to within a week on a Sony (which you snipped [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Regards. All it means is that sony overpriced their offering and quickly rectified the problem. Canon will keep 400D price higher until the 350D stocks are depleted. Then the 400D prices will gradually fall. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.