Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
The May issue of Digital Camera is pretty stunning - some amazing bird shots from a comp, how-to-shoot wildlife feature etc etc. Worth it for the bird shots alone, I reckon!
What I am most intrigued by, however, is the review of the Canon 30D. They give % reviews, and at the end of the mag they have tables with the latest top ten (of DSLRs), according to their scores. They rated the 30D at 83%. According to their table, therefore, it will not be listed next month as it falls outside the top ten DSLRs. The 20D is their number one camera, scoring 94%, followed by 1DS mkII, D2x, D200, 5D, 350D, D50, 1D MkII, D70s, KM 5D. The last of those, the KM 5D, scores 90%.
The review says that the 30D "is a nice camera". It scores it well for features, performance, handling and build quality, but it fails on value for money. They say "the pictures produced by the 30D aren't really very different to those produced by the 20D, so that while the camera itself is undoubtedly better specified, you have to wonder whether Canon's done enough in a market which has seen some big changes".
All the other reviews I have seen rate the 30D as at least as good at the 20D, if not slightly better.
I don't take reviews as the be-all-and-end-all, but I do find them interesting. This one really stood out to me. Why such a low score, comparatively? Very interesting.
Any thoughts most welcome...
Nail on the head: Why spend more on a camera that doesn't produce images any better than the one it is replacing/an upgrade for?
For someone like myself it could be good value for money (I still have a 300d) but for the many out there who have a 350d or 20d then does it give them anything fantastically better than the camera they already have? The answer is no, hence it's not great value for the cash you spend on it.
Having said that, as a 300d owner I'm still not going to upgrade to it. I was expecting another leap forward from the 20d but it didn't happen. If I was going to upgrade I'd get a 20d instead - better value for the money they are commanding. As it is I'll wait a while.
That is a good result from the reviewer in my opinion, it says to Canon dont just expect people to buy a new model camera just because it is there, look at the results and take an objective view on your upgrade path.
I reckon Canon have just tried to pull a fast one with the 30D, all the reviews I have read say the same basic thing, if you are happy with the images from your 20D stay with it.
We should be more wise to the marketing machine.
BOB
It just goes to show that on the whole magazine reviews are a load of tosh, IMHO the scores that are given to gear have more to do with the reviewers personal preferences or how many freebies the reviewers recieve than with the product itself, its funny how Canon are being lambasted for releasing an upgraded 20D whilst Nikon seems to have got away with the same thing with the D70S.
I'm afraid spot metering doesn't come cheap and it's a 140 not exactly the end of the world is it? I think that Canon naming it the 30D and not the 20DMK whatever or N designation shows that perhaps Canon see this as a totally new camera and the 20D has simply ran it's course.
For me the 30D was a well worth upgrade from the 10D, which served me well.
The focus is so much better, much better sharper images, the 10D was allways a little soft to me.
Quicker start time, quicker reviewing images, much better and bigger buffer, better FPS and i only paid 850.00 for it on the day of release from my local camera shop.
The 2.5 inch screen is really nice for reviewing.
And it handles great with the battery grip.
Mike
Pentax seem to get away with releasing the same camera with a different letter in its name every 6 months, Canon get a hard time for doing it a couple of times.
Makes me think the important factor is not actually new features but merely the appearance of being new regardless of the content. Says as much about the people buying these cameras as it does about the manufacturers.
WE was showing the 20D at 749 as it got discontinued and they was showing the 30D at 999...
I got a price match and paid 829 for the 30D from WE so the 80 extra for the spot metre etc is well and truely worth the pennies... AND... its my first DSLR so for me the above review doesn't count and should be scored just higher than the 94% the 20D got!
I do agree that they should of called it the 20Dn or MkII and maybe then it would of got a higher score.
Craig 
Well the 30D is a mild upgrade, just as the D70s was.
When you consider the D50 is now being advertised for around 370 pounds body only, while the 350D with kit lens is around 500. These now look very good value.
I either expect more for my money, through technological progress, or I expect the price to fall. A 30D is around twice the price of a 350D, a gap that I feel is untenable.
The magazine was therefore right to mark it down, on value for money grounds. The 350D has to be priced to comepete with both D50 and D70s, so cant stay as artifically high.
Perhaps by the year end, you'll be able to buy a 30D body only for 649, and a 350D replacement for 369. In the mean time, Canon will milk the situation, at the expense of the odd review score.
The 350D is miles apart from the 30D hence the price differential, which considering the better build quality and features of the 30D makes it more than reasonable. Also what people tend to forget is that the Nikon equivilant to the 350D is the D70S and not the D50 and comparing the 350D to the D50 by price is unfair, what is missing from Canon's range is its D50 to attract all those prosumer users wishing to upgrade to a DSLR on a tight budget.
Do you think that the 30D - whether or not it is a worthwhile upgrade from a 20D (and I don't see why you would bother, personally) - is not one of the top ten DSLRs now? The 20D, according to you guys on this site who have them, takes amazing photos. So, therefore, does the 30D. It is placed below so many other cameras now - in this mags rating system - and I don't see why, even taking into account value for money. I think it's an odd one.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top