Live-LCD isn't much to impressive (most point-and-shoots and the new entry level Olympus DSLR already has it), but the 10 fps is mighty insane. Also, the 1.3 crop sensor (same as Mark IIn) should give your lenses good reach compared to if they went to a full-frame sensor like the 5D. But $4k is pretty bloody expensive.
I'm going to disagree. Until Olympus announced more DSLRs with live LCDs, this was the second one I've heard about. Not only that, it is the only DSLR that does it with the primary sensor, not a smaller, secondary one that makes everything a little more complex.
crop factor advantage for telephoto is a myth. Pixel density is what counts. As an example, the "full-frame" 1Ds II has more "reach" than the 5D, and also more than the 1.3x crop 1D II, which has the same pixel density as the 5D (thus, both the 5D and 1D II have the same reach.)
As a consequence, the real reach advantage of the 20D over the 5D is NOT 1.6X, but 1.28X (the factor of pixel density or pixel pitch). And that is before taking into account the AA filter, which is recognized to be weaker on the 5D, yielding sharper per-pixel pictures.
The fact that most 1.6x crop cameras have more reach is that they can afford to have more pixel density, because a full-frame with that pixel density would be too expensive, but as far as 1.3X and FF is concerned, this is not a practical rule.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Castle @ Mar 8th 2007 4:43PM
Live-LCD isn't much to impressive (most point-and-shoots and the new entry level Olympus DSLR already has it), but the 10 fps is mighty insane. Also, the 1.3 crop sensor (same as Mark IIn) should give your lenses good reach compared to if they went to a full-frame sensor like the 5D. But $4k is pretty bloody expensive.
t-bone @ Mar 8th 2007 7:01PM
I'm going to disagree. Until Olympus announced more DSLRs with live LCDs, this was the second one I've heard about. Not only that, it is the only DSLR that does it with the primary sensor, not a smaller, secondary one that makes everything a little more complex.
Andy @ Mar 9th 2007 10:58PM
crop factor advantage for telephoto is a myth. Pixel density is what counts. As an example, the "full-frame" 1Ds II has more "reach" than the 5D, and also more than the 1.3x crop 1D II, which has the same pixel density as the 5D (thus, both the 5D and 1D II have the same reach.)
As a consequence, the real reach advantage of the 20D over the 5D is NOT 1.6X, but 1.28X (the factor of pixel density or pixel pitch). And that is before taking into account the AA filter, which is recognized to be weaker on the 5D, yielding sharper per-pixel pictures.
The fact that most 1.6x crop cameras have more reach is that they can afford to have more pixel density, because a full-frame with that pixel density would be too expensive, but as far as 1.3X and FF is concerned, this is not a practical rule.