dSLR autofocus ability...

So, you're saying that the D60's AF is about the same as the eos 1000/1000n/1000fn cameras? Lemme see here (and I'm going from memory)...the eos1000 etc sold for around au $700 when new. The D60 for around $5500 new (au dollars of course). Doesn't anyone else even remotely see the HUGE price increase. Doesn't anyone else feel a bit ripped off at what is basically a 2nd rate AF system for a very expensive camera. Sure, I didn't pay the full retail price for it, but someone else did.

All I can think of is everyone here must have high disposable incomes and an itch that they can't scratch when it comes to camera gear. And a serious blind eye when it comes to what I consider is poor offerings, when better is available, and should be included. Again, the D60 just looked up when focusing last night, in fact, it didn't focus at all (I had to switch to manual)! This is with the 70-200 f2.8, center focus point selected, lighting would have been around ev 7 or 8 at a guess. Subject had enough contrast imho to offer enough "grab" for it to focus. Again, my 17 year old 630 wouldn't have had a problem with this shot. This is the first time it's done this, other failed AF attempts have just been it's inability to actually lock onto focus.

I'm seriously starting to think that you guys are digital crazy, and as long as it's digital, the rest of the camera's ability/quality can go to hell. Or you can shut up and fork out big $$$ for a pro grade camera just to get decent AF that compares to old models that sold much cheaper when new. If you don't want to do that, you're a cheap bastard. If you insist that Canon is offering sub grade AF systems in very expensive cameras, then you're either crazy, or just stirring. Understand my logic here:

You pay $5k for a eos1n and get superb AF

You pay $5k for a D60 and get sub standard AF

You pay the same amount, you should get the same AF system. Any other logic is rubbish as far as I'm concerned.

Dave

i have a 1n and I got a 20d briefly. the 20d's focusing was not as accurate. and there's no other way to say it than that. the 20d is, we'll have to face it, the same as an eos 33/30 [of course without the eye control thingy]. if you want 1 series accuracy, get a one series. although i would like a 45 point system in a 'lower' body - like the 5d, we wont get it unless canon run out of ideas. the mpix race is winding down now cause sensors resolve beyond the power of the lens if we keep on climbing, numbers drive a market not an AF system because 90% of 20d users perhaps don't even care...

Dpastern, the D60 isn't manufactured or sold any more. At the time it was sold it was a breakthrough in image quality and price. Sure, Canon could have produced it with a better AF system, but the objective of that camera was to produce a camera with a price that was low enough to set a new price point and break into a market that had excluded many people previously because of price.

The main reason I bought the D60 was that I was making a trip to Africa and found that with the new carry on baggage restrictions I could not fit all my cameras, lenses and film. By going digital I eliminiated the need to carry 50 to 100 rolls of film.

Did Canon purposely downgrade features of the D60 to assist sales of future, "improved" models? Possibly. That would be a business decision. Every product you buy is a compromise between cost an quality that is aimed at target markets. You would not be very successful in business if you tried to produce BMW quality cars and sell them for Hyundai prices. You would sell lots of vehicles, but your negative profits would destroy you.

In any case, I know people who have bought D30, D60, 10D 20D and can hardly wait for the next camera in the series to come out. If they have the disposable cash to do that, great for them. We should also thank them for funding the research and development that will produce better and cheaper cameras for the rest of us.

If you can't or won't afford to get into the game, that is your choice. That doesn't mean the game will stop for everyone else.

And that makes it alright?

Yes, and it was heavily criticised for it's poor AF in lower light. Shall I pull up some reviews to back up my comments?

I disagree here. The D60 was introduced to make up for the many shortcomings in the D30. Nothing more and nothing less. And, the D60 wasn't much cheaper than the D30 (if at all), so that pretty much disproves your point. People bought the D30, people bought the D60. The D60 did offer some advantages, yes. Larger resolution. I think that was about it from memory. In fact, I'll cover myself by including this link to prove my point:

http://www.dpreview.co​m …0%2Ccanon_eosd6​0&show=all

The only difference I see there is the increase in resolution. Same AF, same buffer.

Agreed.

Of course! Tell me, does Canon purposely downgrade their 1 series of pro cameras to stop people from upgrading to the new versions of the 1 series cameras when they are released? Nope. They don't, cos they would lose face and lose sales. The consumer level cameras fund the pro cameras. Think about it before you argue that comment.

Have IQs dropped? Did I say that? No! What I was saying, was that the AF on the D60 is sub standard, especially when it's considered by some other posters to be equivalent to a 35mm film 1000n! I might add that the 1000n was a LOT cheaper. What I AM saying, is that for the cost of the D60 (as new), consumers deserved a much better AF system. They got a digital SLR + eos 1000n AF for the price of a pro 35mm film SLR. I'd have been very peeved off with Canon and disappointed if I'd bought a D60 new and dealt with the poor AF for those new prices. In fact, I'd have returned the camera quick smart.

Yes, and that's good for those on great incomes. For those on not so great incomes?

Every company does this. I hate to tell you, but all that R&D is factored into the final consumer cost. When you buy a product, you're paying partly for the R&D. A company like Canon introduces a new technology, perfects it over time, and with that perfection, there is an increase in consumers wanting the technology, and market demand usually pulls down the price, and from there it's a circular activity. More people buy, price lowers, until it hits a magical bottom end and then it flattens out. I'm no marketing whiz, but I'm not dumb either.

You still are not comprehending what has peeved me off so much - that for the *cost* of the D60 new, the AF was cheap and substandard. I'd have had no problem with the price of the D60 if the AF was better, at least as good as my eos1n. Then, you wouldn't hear me **** about it.

But, anyways, this is pointless. It is plainly obvious to me that these forums will not tolerate any negative points made against Canon products, and that many of the users have high disposable incomes, who rather than see why the current model is insufficient, simply upgrade to more expensive models. Obviously, Canon loves consumers like this, as it means they don't have to maintain quality for their lower ended models, and make a nice increase in profits from the sale of the more expensive models. It is clear that I cannot trust these forums to give me accurate and unbiased information on Canon products.

Dave

So how much extra onto the $5500 cost of a D60 would you think was acceptable to improve the autofocus?

All the best

Keith

I think that's near to the right answer.

Well it depends how do you look at all this. Is keeping 1ds at 3fps (or whatever it has) purposely downgrading camera, so that you need to buy another 1d if you are shooting sport next to your studio shooting? Is keeping 1:1.3 sensor in 1d purposely downgrading camera, so you would need to buy 1ds if you want full frame? It all depends how you look at all this.

If there was a possibility of an upgrade I'd pay $150 US for mine, but not anymore, since the price depreciated far too much to pay off.

Canon's goals are simple, to maximize the profit, but there are two ways doing that and they're playing dirty. What's the reasonable excuse for dumbed down Rebel? None other than profit and I despise that just as much as lies, fraud and blatant robbery. I don't want to be a consumer that boosts into the store everytime they release a new version of some camera. Canon won't become honest any time soon, if ever, so the next camera I'll buy is going to be a no-bull**** 1 series camera and that's all there is to it.


Edit:

First of all, 1Ds actually IS intended for studio, highest ISO being 1250, it's full frame, which is good, because studio usually prefers wide to tele, as opposed to sports, 1.3 sensor gets closer, is cheaper to make and gets the best of the lens on top of all. Next, RAW file sizes are ~9 Mb, write speeds are around 1400 kb/s which is pretty much the maximum that a CF cards were capable of; 6,7s per image, there's ~100mb buffer, sufficient for 10 images. And, it's pre-2002. They could increase the buffer, but what good would that do? How big would you want to have it, for 100 images? Now I'd have to ask you how much that would cost - not even thinking about the battery consumption.

Is keeping 1:1.3 sensor in 1d purposely downgrading camera, so you would need to buy 1ds if you want full frame? It all depends how you look at all this.

Like I said above, keeping the 1.3 sensor is dealing with the costs, there are free telephoto benefits, and image quality improve due to taking the best out of the lens so I see nothing bad with this. If you want full frame, you can buy the 5D, it's ~$3000. The full frame sensor increases costs pretty dramatically IMO and changes things a bit, therefore they couldn't have built a non-professional camera any sooner. It will take some time before we'll see a sports full frame camera; the 1Ds II has 4 fps, eventhough it achieves write speeds above 6 mb/s.

300d was a castrated 10D, but the clever people found a way to unlock it...kind of let the cat out of the bag about canon then didn't it!

I wonder if KM dealt with these overblown issues....

I guess it doesn't matter now, they didn't make money in the camera business and are thus not making DSLR cameras any more.

Which comes down to the same point that's been made repeatedly in these threads - Canon's going to make money, because if they don't there will be no Canon. And they're not going to sell a 1Ds II camera for the price of a 20D regardless of cost until competitive pressures dictate it. And even if competitive pressures dictate doing so, if the cost is too high to produce such a camera, they will simply not do so.

Thanks Keith, in all honesty, @ au $5500 I'd expect top notch AF. No extra money involved. OK, I know I didn't buy it brand new, but someone did. If I had bought it new, I'd have been very, very, very disappointed and angry with Canon. Of course, there's no way to regulate this, so companies can (and do) rip their consumers off with sub standard features/performance at elevated prices, all in the name of profit!

Dave

PS I'm not a fan of money, and I'm not a fan of capitalism at the best of times. Capitalism is one of the reasons why there's so many poor people in this world (and the fact that man is greedy and selfish by nature).

I'm not asking that. How many people would say:

1. The Canon eos1d range of camera's AF is better than the AF from the older Canon eos1n 35mm film camera?

2. The AF in aforementioned Canon eos1n is pretty damn good as is, and would suit most average users.

3. The current AF included in the D60 (and to an extent, the 20D) is inferior to the ten year old eos1n's AF.

Canon is basically holding people to ransom - if you want an accurate and fast AF in usable light range you have to go the pro series 1d units. Otherwise, you're stuck with AF that's sub standard to a large extent and easily beaten or equalled by most older Canon 35mm film cameras, some going up to 15 years old! Not really acceptable I think.

Dave

Actually, that's a lie. The countries that practice free markets to the greatest extent also have the wealthiest "poor" in the world. It's when socialism creeps in that the people begin to suffer. Why? Because capitalism rewards success and allows people to excel and grow. It lets people be responsible for their own position in life. The alternative socialistic approach creates no incentive to achieve, so people don't.

We don't need to look any farther than the old eastern block of the Soviet Union - building 1950 cars in 1980, living in a vast, widespread poverty with absolutely no chance for anybody to alleviate the situation. Or one could look at Venezuala - a potentially rich country that has a huge abundance of poor. Why? Government-run and controlled industry. Socialism/communism. When people cannot gain from the fruit of their labor, they soon cease to work.

As for greed and selfishness - I'll ask a simple question: Of these two people, who is the greedy and selfish one, the person that toils every day at two jobs so that he may buy the house, car, or camera that he likes (which in turn puts others to work building those items), or the person that feels that they deserve a share of the fruit of another person's labor and creation despite not putting up the effort? Maybe they're equally greedy, but in a capitalistic society, the reward goes to the one that rightfully earns it through their investment, whether that investment be time, labor, intelligence, or money.

I'd really like to see some images that show what the AF system on older film cameras does when compared, on equal footing, with digital. Meaning, equally exposed, equally framed images printed at equal size. I've yet to see proof of any of the assertions of AF accuracy between ANY film camera and Canon's line of digital products over the years.

Comparing a pile of 4X6 inch prints with a 100% crop is decidedly unrealistic.

In the meantime, ransom is a decidedly harsh word for a situation that is so mundane. If you don't like the AF system, don't buy the camera. There are, believe it or not, other alternatives out there. The nice thing about a free society is that you don't HAVE to buy from anybody. You have a choice.

We are talking a huge price diferential between the true pro camera and the 10D and 20D, they do very well for the price.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.