However, must be treated with a Double Grain-Of-Salt ...
Note from the above link the line:
- canon ef 10-24 F/2.8 L USM - 1200Eur
I have trouble imagining it would be technically possible to make this lens (EF and L mean it covers FF) but, if they do make it, I would expect the price would be double that quote. If I am wrong, I'll buy one. Can't lose here! More likely this is further evidence of the need for that extra grain of salt.
Tentacle wrote:
Why would that be? Foveon works. And it will postpone the point where the sensor will out-resolve the glass. So what gives?
You again?
The OP on DPR admitted it was fictional.
I'm not saying that a foveon type sensor is out of the question (if anything it seems to be the only logical place to go), just that the 1DTc, as reported, was plucked out of thin air...
dcmiller wrote:
The 1DsTC is best case conjecture. What I would classify 'fiction' at this point would require someone to know Canon's plan and report falsely.
I'm not saying that a foveon type sensor is out of the question (if anything it seems to be the only logical place to go), just that the 1DTc, as reported, was plucked out of thin air...
The scientist in me was screaming "WHAT'S THE [$EXPLETIVE] SOURCE ON THAT THEN??" when I read the remark 'sans' background. Your little DPR detail put it into nice perspective. Thank you
I did try to google on "true color" +canon +patent but that didn't yield much yet...
Since the dpreview guy was vague in his first post, I can't follow an argument based upon it's veracity.
Foveon has a 4.6mp chip in production that will be used in the upcoming SD14. That camera will produce a low ISO.image roughly equivalent to a 10mp bayer. This chip is 1/3 the size of full frame.
Take that chip, triple the size, and increase pixels about 6% and that makes a 16mp ff chip. A camera with that chip will conservatively produce a 32mp equivalent image.
Conjecture based on this logic is defensible. Whether it's true or not remains to be seen.
I don't understand why Canon limits it's camera resolution to 8-10mp.They do have the technology to go over 25MP+.
So, I do expect 40D to be 12-16MP(non interpolated as 20D/30D),Superior AF,50 ISO,sensor cleaning,larger screen,frame buffer
Oh,support for SD card formats would be a huge benefit,since those are really cheap.
I'd personally would like to see RAW+jpeg,where jpeg is about 800x600pix and radio trigger(as 300D Drebel has)
Tentacle wrote:
...
The 40D can give the D200 a run for its money IF Canon pours on enough special sauce, like weathersealing, or maybe the APS-H crop for better DR and high ISO performance. A 40D with APS-H sensor and the pixel density of a 20D/30D would be awesome.
It would indeed, but I doubt either of these (weathersealing / APS-H) will happen with the xxD series any time soon. OTOH, the 1.6x crop is great for keeping weight down with (effectively) long lenses, so I'd say this is a market niche in between the current xxD's and the xD's (5D included): the weathersealed 1.6x camera with 10+MP.
The 1.25x weathersealed camera we already have: it's the 1D2N - in coming incarnations it may get a few more MP now that technology (storage, transmission) is getting better able to cope with bigger files.
How they may eventually re-arrange their naming conventions to accomodate all these possibilities is another mystery. Maybe they could call the new weathersealed 1.6x camera (speculation) the 7D.
Although the 1Ds mkII could do with the frame rate of the 1D mkII, why would canon need to upgrade the 1D mkII at all, it's perfect for it's intended user base, journalists. Do they want even bigger files to have to FTP up when they're sending only the medium size ones anyway mostly? Just can't see any reason why Canon would upgrade it, there's nothing to upgrade in what is essentially an extremely sucessful niche (very large niche but niche non the less) DSLR.
Beni wrote:
Although the 1Ds mkII could do with the frame rate of the 1D mkII, why would canon need to upgrade the 1D mkII at all, it's perfect for it's intended user base, journalists. Do they want even bigger files to have to FTP up when they're sending only the medium size ones anyway mostly? Just can't see any reason why Canon would upgrade it, there's nothing to upgrade in what is essentially an extremely sucessful niche (very large niche but niche non the less) DSLR.
because it's not just a niche camera used only by PJ's and pros. If you want an EOS 3D, this is the only thing that's close and many people buy it for that reason; unhappy with many aspects of the xxD series cameras. They would like a smaller lighter camera but can't give up the pro features at all.
It's doesn't matter that you don't think or see a need exists for an upgrade, competition and the nature of consumers demands it must happen. Personally I can see many areas that could be improved and would also like to see a 12MP version. Nearly 3 yeas old and I bet Canon could easily upgrade this and keep many camps happy.
Beni wrote:
Although the 1Ds mkII could do with the frame rate of the 1D mkII, why would canon need to upgrade the 1D mkII at all, it's perfect for it's intended user base, journalists. Do they want even bigger files to have to FTP up when they're sending only the medium size ones anyway mostly? Just can't see any reason why Canon would upgrade it, there's nothing to upgrade in what is essentially an extremely sucessful niche (very large niche but niche non the less) DSLR.
I use this camera exclusively for Wildlife and would love the increase in MP to enhance feather and fur detail. I also use the 1DsMKII for this but it can't compete with the 1DMKIIn type of camera for BIF.
400D (body only) - $700, 30D (40D? body only) - $1160 ($1,060 after rebate), notice the gap here 5D (body only) - $2,800 ($2,500 after rebate)
It seems to me given these lineups that Canon has an opportunity to offer a $1,500 to $1,600 camera that is clearly better than the D200 and that such a camera would have the opportunity to do well. Not only does the 5D not have any competition right now, but neither does the D200 or at least it doesn't have much and I don't see how the 40D, unless it goes up in price quite a bit, can really compete with the D200. I think there is a real possibility that Canon will offer a camera in this range. Perhaps it is wishful thinking. I would like something a bit more than what I think the 40D price will allow and yet I can't really afford the 5D price. In the long run I think a full frame camera will fill this niche and maybe they can get the cost of a stripped down 5D into this price range, but even if they can't I would like a camera with quite a bit better autofocus than the 30D, better all around build, perhaps an APS-H size sensor and great high ISO performance in this price range. I think that should be possible. It will be interesting to see if Canon addresses this price range. I hope they do.
I agree with you Steve. I think that there is a very good sized market of serious amateurs sitting right at a price point where Canon has no product. The thing about people willing to spend $1500 - $2000 for a camera is that they are also willing to spend money on lenses. I strongly suspect that Canon will fill this void at PMA. If they don't and Nikon addresses some of their lens line-up weakness (300mm F4 VR and an equal to the 24-105 IS) then Canon could start to see their market share continuing to decline under increasing pressure from Nikon and Sony.
I think if the 5d gets any upgrade it will be minor similar to the 20/30d upgrade. There is no competition for the 5d currently.
I think the 30D is due for a major upgrade, just because the 30d was a joke of an upgrade from the 20d. It's starting to take a beating from the D80 and D200. This is why I expect a disappointing upgrade to the 5D. If canon continues on this trend they are getting in essence twice as much market time for basically the same camera.
I think a lot of people are just fooling themselves. I can't see canon giving consumer level cameras (non 1 series) weather sealing, vastly improved AF, and more FPS. If they did that why would anyone buy a 1 series? It's just not going to happen. You might see minor advancements to those features, but they are still going to keep a serious performance gap between the 1 series sealing, AF, and possible FPS because that's what sells 1 series cameras.
Same is true for some of the lens wishes.
I'd love to see a 100-400 F4 non push pull with IS, however I'd never pay the $5000+ for it that one would cost. People complain the 100-400 push pull is too big and heavy if they get rid of the push pull it's going to get bigger and heavier. The nikon 200-400 f4 is over $5000 and is a massive lens. I could also see them try to release a 200-500 f 5.6 zoom with IS just to be different. The 200-X seems more likely to be seen in a new L lens because so many have the 70-200, and a 200-400 will have better IQ than a 100-400.
I don't think we will see the 100-400 revamped to a new IS system or the 300 F4 revamped. Simply because there are probably other lenses without IS that canon is drooling to offer. Unless it's very cost effective for them to do this, and they think they can increase prices enough to take advantage of it. I'd suspect at least a 30-50% price increase if they do revamp them. Take the 24-70 2.8. The 17-55 2.8 IS was instant proof that canon can charge silly amounts of money for a wide angle zoom with IS that isn't even an L lens. They could easily charge $2000+ for a 24-70 2.8 IS L lens. We can argue how useful IS is for wide angle lenses but the proof is in the fact that the 17-55 is selling great.
The 400 5.6 sure needs IS, but you can figure the price will be around if not over $2000 just by the price increase on the 70-200 f4 IS.
Also I think if canon does not come out with a 18-200 IS lens, with quality to rival the nikon version with a price tag around $1000, they are just flat out stupid. The nikon version has been out for almost 14 months now and it's still widely sold out, it's still selling on ebay used more than MSRP. I know people that specifically bought a D80 just to use this lens as their travel camera.
So you may get your lens wishes, but be prepared to shell out a lot of coin for them.
