EOS 30D - does it equal BETTER Photos?!

[colliewalker1]

This is NOT a case of sour grapes - if I had just one the lottery I'm sure I would buy the 30D as a replacement for my now, venerable 10D - once the latest 'must have' - now the day before yesterday's news! BUT - does it produce better photos and can any camera be better than it's lens anyway?

If the same photographer shot the same scene using the same lens - but successively with a 300D/350D/10D/20D/30D how different would the photos be - and will the 40D produce even better photos one day:rolleyes:????!!!!!

[Neilyb]

Well the shots with the 300 /10d will show more noise and be less sharp, but printed at 5"x7" probably will not really differ. I would say no, no great difference but that is not the point of many features, there are lots of features which make taking the pictures easier or more reliable!

[munchy]

imho, there are two things which go to make up an image - the 'artistic' quality and the 'technical' quality.

Who/what is creating the image? A good photographer should be able to take a great picture with the most humble of equipment. The added bonus of 'better' and more powerful equipment is that you will increase the technical quality of the image - higher resolution so you can print larger, no vignetting etc.

In your example, I would argue that the only differences would be in resolution of image, and perhaps some variations of colour and dynamic range. Does this matter to you? Perhaps not.

The higher end cameras will give you all the additional extra's, better build quality, USB2.0, more focus points, larger image buffer - do you need these? Some will relate to the quality of the end image and some will not. Whether a 30/40D will produce a 'better' image than my humble 300D, I think it depends on your definition of 'better'...!

[cdifoto]

I would say the only benefit to a 30D (or any upgrade) is if you've outgrown your current camera body. A better camera cannot make you better per-se. It can only make it easier for you to do what you already do.

[Carzee]

Well, creativity is one thing and the best gear available is another... but results can be even more be dependent on other factors like teamwork for instance: 2 shooters working together have a better chance of getting the cover shot.

[Krapo]

My guess is that the image quality will not increase dramatically. After all, the sensor size is still the same so you still have the same limitations in terms of dynamic and highlights.

If the AF is better, it means that you will miss less shots. It doesn't mean that each shot taken separately will be better than with the 20D. A picture that is in-focus with the 20D will not look better with the 30D.

You can use images themes, like with the 1D MkII n. Yeah, so what? Shoot in RAW and do that afterwards.

Frankly, I wouldn't upgrade to the 30D from a 20D, 10D or Rebel XT for the sake of image quality. In my case, I would do so for a better frame rate, better AF, spot metering, better construction, but not for better IQ. The one of my 350D is more than enough for me.

If I want better IQ, I buy better glass or a 5D / 1D(s) MkIIn.

[René Damkot]

High ISO noise and AF will be better. Maybe spot metering comes in handy sometimes, depending on preference. If any of these matter a great deal, I say: go for it, otherwise: Why bother?

[Woolburr]

Hand a monkey a 1DsMII...and you will still get pictures shot by a monkey. Bottom line.

[mbze430]

[oohhh--oohh---aahhh-ahhh]

[jlacoy82]

Well, go with Collies original question, lets say you set up a tripod with a 70-200 2.8 IS USM mounted on a tripod collar aimed at XX subject. With the exact same lighting conditions, angle of the moon to the sun, exact same focal length, aperture, spot on focusing, exact same ISO speed, will the pictures really be all that different if you say swapped body for body, using 6 different bodies? Will each camera imprint its own little "signature" in each photo, making one better than another?

Or will they all be so ridiculously close the battle for what is "better" really comes down to ease of use and personal preferences/options?

[mbellot]

Hand a monkey a 1DsMII...and you will still get pictures shot by a monkey. Bottom line.


Aww Jeez. I guess I'm screwed then...

[mbze430]

Yes there will be. My friend the avid camera collector did that once. Set up a studio enviroment with 9 different cameras and lens from their respected manufacture. They all exhibit different result. Even the same manufacture body.

you can as well go as far by just changing the lens, it gives different contrast and tone range.

[Tee Why]

This is NOT a case of sour grapes - if I had just one the lottery I'm sure I would buy the 30D as a replacement for my now, venerable 10D - once the latest 'must have' - now the day before yesterday's news! BUT - does it produce better photos and can any camera be better than it's lens anyway?

If the same photographer shot the same scene using the same lens - but successively with a 300D/350D/10D/20D/30D how different would the photos be - and will the 40D produce even better photos one day:rolleyes:????!!!!!
If you look at DPR's test of the 20D, when compared to the 10D, there really isn't much difference in IQ, the picture is a bit bigger. I think the Digic II has a bit better noise control at high ISO's. Other than that, not much more. I've had the 300D (same IQ as 10D) and the N and the XT now and there really isn't a big noticible diff in my eye.
Funny thing is that at the PMA 2006, there was a short interview with the Canon's big wig and he was talking about going to better lenses that can take advantage of the sensors. So I'm starting to think sensors have pretty much peaked in their IQ and will need a revolutionary discovery to make a significant jump in IQ from now on.

[Longwatcher]

10D versus 30D.
I suspect there will be a small amount of difference in some circumstances as far as output is concerned. But there will be a difference in the ability to get the shot.

There is a difference between D60 and 10D despite having same size sensor (They were made a different factories), but the look of the 10D, 20D and I suspect the 30D will be overall similar.

The one technical difference towards output is maximum print size (AKA as how much can I crop) in that case you gain a touch from the 30D over the 10D. 8MP is more then 6MP.

Now before I ramble on some more. My sister borrowing my D60 took as good a picture on her trip as I get with my 1DsMkII. Because she is apparently better at people snap shots then I am. But I definately do better in studio and still life. SO the sensor makes a subtle difference, but the photographer makes a huge difference.

I have the camera, it is the photographer part I continue to work on.

[subtle_spectre]

It's really about the weakest link...

[SWPhotoImaging]

Well, as a 10D owner who absolutely loved the images the 10D could produce when properly exposed (a key element on 10D), I wasn't even tempted by the 20D when it came out. Although a few more megapixels and better high ISO capability were fairly significant differences in specific situations, in a properly exposed image, neither was going to make a good image that much better. I have produced many 20"x30" prints from my 10D, and they are excellent. If the 5D hadn't been introduced, I'd still be shooting with the 10D, and still loving it, and still wouldn't be that tempted by the 30D, although maybe a little more tempted than I was by the 20D. It is mainly the low-light capabilities that really separate these cameras. The 10D (IMHO) produces better color than the 20D, it just doesn't do high ISO as well.

It was the 5D that spoiled me. The color quality and depth completely eclipses the 10D, the fast focusing in low light AND *AMAZING* high-ISO capability are astonishing. After shooting with the 5D, I completely forgot about my 10D. It hasn't left the camera bag in the closet since the day after I got my 5D. But I'd still be using it if the 5D hadn't come out. I wouldn't be trading it in on a 30D.

[ed2day]

No matter how great of a photographer you are it won't help you if your best shot passes you by while you're waiting for your camera to turn on.

[Ron Ashley]

It's what you take pictures of!!!! not you or your gear

[colliewalker1]

10D versus 30D.

I have the camera, it is the photographer part I continue to work on.

The replies to my post are very interesting and revealing - the quote above sums it up very well!

I think that if I wished to upgrade my 10D I would spend the money on the best IS lens I could afford and keep the 10D.:rolleyes:

[Tee Why]

The biggest difference between the 10D and the 30D isn't the imaging, but in the instant on/off/review, bigger buffer, ISO in the viewfinder, RGB histo., bigger LCD, better AF, spot meter, and it goes on and on and on.

[prime80]

No matter how great of a photographer you are it won't help you if your best shot passes you by while you're waiting for your camera to turn on.

Ain't that the truth. The "instant on" is one of the biggest improvements in the newer cameras for me. I don't know how many shots I have from my old G5 that I took just after the critical moment because my camera had powered down and I had to wait a couple of seconds for it to crank back up. Not a problem with my XT (and soon-to-be 20D or 30D).

[pault107]

Imagine being a passenger in a car, looking out of the window, camera switched off on your lap. You suddenly see something AMAZING as the car hurtles by. You switch on your 300D wait 2 seconds and start firing at 2.5 fps. The action is already out of sight.

If you had the 20D/30D, your camera would almost instantly be on, and you could fire off shots at 5 fps.

Could be the difference between a Pulitzer and a picture of a brick wall.

If you're into shooting landscapes, all of this won't make much difference to you. But it's not always about image quality, there are over issues that need to be weighed up.

[Elton Balch]

Well, go with Collies original question, lets say you set up a tripod with a 70-200 2.8 IS USM mounted on a tripod collar aimed at XX subject. With the exact same lighting conditions, angle of the moon to the sun, exact same focal length, aperture, spot on focusing, exact same ISO speed, will the pictures really be all that different if you say swapped body for body, using 6 different bodies? Will each camera imprint its own little "signature" in each photo, making one better than another?

Or will they all be so ridiculously close the battle for what is "better" really comes down to ease of use and personal preferences/options?

Exactly.

[Jon]

For a single carefully controlled scene, you might not see the difference among the models listed if you don't make too large a print (11x14 or above you'd start really seeing the differences among the classes). Many of the features added to the various models over time won't show up in such a limited test. Things like:

More AF points
Faster frame rate
Larger buffer
Increased ISO
Higher flash sync speed
"Friendlier" controls

[Emjay]

I would say the only benefit to a 30D (or any upgrade) is if you've outgrown your current camera body. A better camera cannot make you better per-se. It can only make it easier for you to do what you already do.

Here-here ..... as my signature says, "now i can't blame my equipment anymore" ... well, i could go a lot better in equipment, but figure i should out-grow my current equipment before ever consider changing again. (sometimes i test my true skills by taking a disposable out and trying to get good pics with that, even).

Unless you ever have a need to go to a full frame sensor, cut your teeth on what you have, exhaust that, then move up. But ask yourself first, is it the camera that needs improving, or is it me?

[RgB]

If your other camera doesn't have the same tools and isn't a Canon than YES:lol:

The Lens and the photographer makes the quality, the camera only records what it is presented.

[MarkoPolo]

Having recently upgraded to the 30D from the 10D, I might have some insight.
1. The 30D won't per se take better pictures in every situation, but it will in some(see above comments)
2. I found the improvements in the 30D impressed me more than I was expecting.
3. Unless money is absoultely limiting, you will enjoy the newer camera.
4. A better lens is certainly another way to make image making better and more predictable.
5. Sometimes it's OK to buy something new for yourself just because you want to and no justification is needed. I realize that is a highly personal statement, but you can beat yourself up about stuff like this and it takes the fun away from the hobby.

[Steve O'Kane]

I bought a 30D so that I could use my 10D as a backup. The 10 takes absolutely fantastic photos, as does the 30D. Because most of my shots are planned, the instant startup of the 30 really isn't a factor. Having 2 extra MP does allow me to do a little (emphasis on little) extra cropping. I'm also a manual (mostly) focuser, so the extra focusing points don't add anything for me either.

Steve

P.S. get a split prism focusing screen

[crn3371]

You all realize that you're responding to a year old post? I'm guessing that the OP has probably made his upgrade by now.

[RockOne]

Hand a monkey a 1DsMII...and you will still get pictures shot by a monkey. Bottom line.

One photo followed by a lot of chimping, perhaps :-).