View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Thu Jun 19, 2025 12:20 pm
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 7 posts ] |
|
Author |
Message |
paulzolo
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm Posts: 12251
|
I dunno, but to me it’s confusing. There is a logic, but it falls over badly.
So, we have: ESO300D, 350D, 400D etc - the “hundred” line is clearly consumer, entry level kit. I get that.
Then we have the EOS 30D, 40D etc - the “tens” which are not full frame DSLRs, but are more advanced, and more “pro” than “am”.
Then the EOS 4D, 5D, 5D MkII - full frame, professional level cameras, with prices to match.
So... where does the EOS 7D fall in all this? It’s not full frame, so in my eyes it doesn’t fit with the 5D line. It’s more in the 40/50D line. It doesn’t make sense to me.
|
Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:23 pm |
|
 |
veato
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:17 am Posts: 5550 Location: Nottingham
|
Canon's website currently shows the range as this:
EOS 1000D EOS 450D EOS 500D EOS 50D EOS 7D EOS 5D Mark II EOS-1D Mark IV - DEC 09 EOS-1Ds Mark III
I'm not saying it makes any sense but when have companies been known to make things easy for us!
_________________Twitter Blogflickr
|
Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:16 am |
|
 |
EddArmitage
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:40 pm Posts: 5288 Location: ln -s /London ~
|
The way I see it, the xxxD series is the standard entry level, with xxxxD being a reduced entry level. Then there's the xxD which is a step up. From then on you have a choice between a faster burst-rate or a more pricey but higher IQ full-frame version, with the 5DII and 7D, and the top-end pro 1D and IDs.
Personally I see the xxD series as pretty redundant, as you'd be barking not to get a 7D for a bit more, and the xxxxD seems to exist just to offer an option to match Nikon's slightly-cheaper-than-an-xxxD entry level model, and is just a crippled xxxD.
|
Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:29 am |
|
 |
nickminers
Occasionally has a life
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 7:59 pm Posts: 292 Location: UK
|
Well if you think that's confusing (as far as I can tell, with a few exceptions, the lower the number, the better the camera), could someone explain Nikon's system?
|
Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:43 am |
|
 |
EddArmitage
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:40 pm Posts: 5288 Location: ln -s /London ~
|
|
Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:45 am |
|
 |
veato
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:17 am Posts: 5550 Location: Nottingham
|
Thats a mess right? Their 'professional' range is...
D3X D3S D3
So good so far then as far as the top of the range goes. Then....
D300S D300
At the bottom of the pro range. Thats ok too, I get that. But just to throw a spanner in the works there's the D700 sitting right in the middle.
D3X - FX 24mp D3S - FX 12mp and video D3 - FX 12mp D700 - FX 12mp D300S -DX 12mp and video D300 - DX 12mp
Although looking similar in sensor spec to the D3 the D700 doesnt have the portrait handle/battery grip layout as the D3. Its like the anomoly in the range lol
As for the consumer spec models I havent got a bleeding clue (as listed in order on Nikon website)...
D90 D5000 D3000 D60
?????
_________________Twitter Blogflickr
|
Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:05 am |
|
 |
trigen_killer
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:37 pm Posts: 835 Location: North Wales UK
|
I started considering Nikon and gave up trying to figure out their numbering. Canon have got a bit confusing but are nowhere near as bad.
_________________My lowest spec operational system- AT desktop case, 200W AT PSU, Jetway TX98B Socket 7, Intel Pentium 75Mhz, 2x16MB EDO RAM, 270MB Quantum Maverick HDD, ATI Rage II+ graphics, Soundblaster 16 CT2230, MS-DOS/Win 3.11 My Flickr
|
Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:59 am |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 7 posts ] |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|