I think that a 1.3 CF sensor is exactly the right thing for Canon to do to revitalize their pro-sumer line. Whether they put it in something called a 40D or create a whole new line doesn't really matter. With the introduction of the latest consumer DSLRs the 30D has very little advantage beyond a magnesium body and 5 fps. In many other ways it is actually behind those newer consumer bodies. I agree with posts that have suggested a modified 1DMkIII sensor that is targeted at 5 fps instead of 10 and a camera with a cost reduced feature set (e.g. AF similar to the 5D, etc.). They could offer this product at a price premium over the current 30D pricing (maybe $1999). Being able to offer image quality and the excellent high ISO noise performance of the 1DMkIII would be a huge draw to many. I know that some feel that there would be a hit due to the inability to use the EF-S 10-22mm lens. However, IMHO the increase in sales due to image quality, a bigger brighter viewfinder, etc. would easily outpace the loss of 6mm at the wide end when comparing the use of a 10-22 on a 1.6CF camera with the use of the similarly-priced 17-40 f/4L on a 1.3CF camera ( 16mm effective vs. 22mm effective). There is no perfect solution for everyone, but overall, I think this move would again set Canon ahead of their competition in the important pro-sumer segment.
For years Konica built 35mm SLR cameras where the film to flange distance was 40mm, the shortest in the industry, the mirror actually shifted back while going up, so that there was clearance. This kind of technique might also work for Canon, so that a 1.3 crop or even a full frame might be able to use an EF-S lens.
Something like that already takes place. If you modify a mount of a D30, D60 or 10D, you can actually mount an EF-S lens on them. Or you have to modify the lens collar of an EF-S lens, same effect. But whereas an EF-S compatible 1.6x crop camera works fine, a non-EF-S 1.6x crop camera can still slam the mirror into the rear element of some of the EF-S lenses, at certain zoom/focus distances.
flannmic wrote:
I think that a 1.3 CF sensor is exactly the right thing for Canon to do to revitalize their pro-sumer line. Whether they put it in something called a 40D or create a whole new line doesn't really matter. With the introduction of the latest consumer DSLRs the 30D has very little advantage beyond a magnesium body and 5 fps.
I agree that the XXD series is destined for bigger sensors, but I seriously doubt it'll happen anytime soon. Nobody here has bothered to mention the fact that the vast majority of digital rebel photographers are content using **only** the kit lens. The market for $700 EF-S lenses will not survive on the strength of digital rebel users alone.
On the other hand, very very few 20D/30D photographers have only the kit lens in their bag. I'd say that the market for expensive EF-S lenses today (ie 10-22 and 17-55) survive largely because of 20D/30D photographers. If the 20D/30D series abandon the EF-S mount, it will effectively kill the market for expensive EF-S lenses. Even the most loyal Digital Rebel photographers (like me) will be less inclined to buy EF-S lenses after watching so many fellow Canonites ditch their EF-S mounts.
The price of a FF camera will need to reach truly affordable status first, before Canon moves the XXD cameras to a larger sensor. That's the most logical timeframe for Canon to gently nudge EF-S people towards EF mounts.
If they were to do it prematurely, the $1800 price tag for the 40D's bigger sensor would still be out-of-reach for many 20D/30D photographers. And at the same time, these APS-C photographers would completely lose confidence in the longevity of their EF-S mount. Can't afford the new EOS camera, and yet can't spend money on EF-S lenses. From a marketing standpoint, that would be a very, very bad thing for Canon.
If Canon truly wants to make a big splash, they should throw the whole book at the APS-C EOS 40D. Don't hold anything back --- $1300, Weather sealing, 3" LCD, Live View, User Focus calibration, auto ISO, the works. It'll sell like hotcakes even if they just re-use the sensor from the 400D. Then come 2009, they introduce the EOS 50D in APS-H format. The 1DmkIII Jr. for $1400. With that, people will gladly ditch their APS-C 40D without giving it a second thought...
Tentacle wrote:
Like any format, APS-H size has its pros and cons. What makes APS-H so interesting is that it is the biggest size that can be produced in single lithography passes. Anything bigger needs multiple exposures per layer. So for a large volume price-competitive market segment, like the prosumer xxD range, it would fit well, because it's the biggest slab of silicon that can be made relatively cheaply. It's a sweet-spot, production wise, 50% bigger in area than APS-C.
This is, I expect only a temporary problem, if there is a call for bigger single pass lithography machines, then someone will produce them. I would expect that the next level of single pass lithography will probably be 48x36mm or larger.
obody here has bothered to mention the fact that the vast majority of digital rebel photographers are content using **only** the kit lens. The market for $700 EF-S lenses will not survive on the strength of digital rebel users alone.
On the other hand, very very few 20D/30D photographers have only the kit lens in their bag. I'd say that the market for expensive EF-S lenses today (ie 10-22 and 17-55) survive largely because of 20D/30D photographers. If the 20D/30D series abandon the EF-S mount, it will effectively kill the market for expensive EF-S lenses.
I have a hunch that a pretty large percentage of the 20D/30D users also stick to one lens, and that it is often the kit lens, or sometimes either the 17-85 or (for well-heeled buyers) the 17-55 f/2.8. (Keep in mind that FM posters are likely more dedicated photographers than the typical crop sensor camera buyer.) That is an interesting question though - what percentage of crop sensor camera buyers use only their original kit lens vs. the percentage acquiring additional lenses?
"Abandoning" the EF-S lenses (and I'm not saying that such a move is occurring any time soon) would not likely be a big problem for Canon as long as they draw down inventory first. If they were to move away from crop sensor cameras (at least above the entry level) there would be little demand for high quality EF-S lenses such as the 10-22 and the 17-55 any more. If anything, as owners of older 20D/30D/other crop bodies moved to full frame the demand would dry up on its own
Regarding the pricing changes necessary for full frame to penetrate the portion of the market currently served by the 10D/20D/30D type cameras, I don't think the price would need to go quite as low as you might think. While you can purchase the current camera in this series for a price in the low $1000 range, there are several reasons to think that a full frame replacement could sell for more.
My view is that a successful price at introduction could be a few hundred dollars above the inflation adjusted original list price of the 10D or, arguably, the 30D. Those cameras did sell well at prices that were, again in inflation adjusted terms, higher than the current 30D price. While you might accurately point out that those cameras had little or no competition in their market niche or even at close prices above or below, putting a full frame sensor in such a camera now creates a similar situation - there would be no competition at a similar price and the less-expensive bodies would be crop sensor. (This is not to say that crop sensor bodies are not good, but it is true that there is some real value for many buyers in the full frame sensors.)
In addition, Canon has improved and made more powerful the next lower model, the 400D. The functional advantages of a 30D over a 400D are much less clear than differences between similarly placed models were in the past. What this means, I think, is that Canon could get away with increasing the price on the model above the 400D as part of an introduction of a full frame sensor. Those who weren't will to pay the higher price differential for (what I'll call) a "full frame 40D" might be less disappointed by the 400D than they might have previously been by a 300D or even a 350D. For those who want full frame, getting it for a price not far above the inflation adjusted price previously paid for a new 20D (and quite a bit below the list price of a 5D) would seem like a very good deal.
Edited by danmitchell on Mar 01, 2007 at 09:20 AM GMT
Yakim Peled wrote:
IMHO the only thing missing would be to know what Canon is planning...
Us knowing what is coming would possibly be very damaging for Canon, with regards to trying to get inventory of to-be-succeeded-stuff cleared. Not to mention that the competition would love to know what's coming so it can adjust its future products (and it's PR) accordingly.
MrSez wrote:
I have a 10D and was hoping for something special since I do not think the 30D is much of a upgrade. My question is since Nikon has a D40 do you really think canon would want a 40D. Just my 2 cents.
Canon would call it the 40Dnn. Supposedly the "nn" stands for "not nikon". Strange, yes. But they were bloodthirsty samurai at one time...
Given that Canon don't release any more new bodies what are the chances that they will adjust the pricing of their remaining older cameras? - I say that in looking at the price ratio of the 1D3 compared to the 30D and a few years ago the price ratio of a 1D2 vs 20D.
There are quite specific rumours that there will be a Cashback for a long list of Canon products in Europe, starting on the 1st of April. I could post the list but this will probably not be useful for Australia.
A lot of the 20D/30D users do in fact upgrade, the 400D users stay put with the single lens. Just for a moment, does anyone want to think about what they're requesting here with the 40D being a 1.3x sensor.
They have just released a 17-55mm lens (RRP AU$1999). Why would you do that if it was going to only be available to a group that never upgrades past the standard 18-55mm that comes with the 400D (the lens is almost twice the cost of the body)?
I for one... am a 300D owner the does have more then the Kit lens... and I don't think I'm alone... I do want to upgrade to a 30D+ body...
Personally I think it's odd that a user would buy a DSLR with no intentions of ever buying additional lenses. I suppose there are people that do buy entry level DSLRs with no intention of ever buying more lenses, presumably one reason to do this is to get better High ISO performance then is available with P&S... but still I really question just how many people spend $800 or so for a DSLR with no intention of ever buying additional lenses. I know for sure I am not in that camp.
I'm trying to get more info on this particular rumour I was sent:
"Canon senior engineer, Taki Somoishe, stated today in Las Vegas that the new Mark III Ds will ship in November in time for Christmas season. A 22mp full frame sensor with a new high speed chip coded Digic IV model. The camera will have a burst rate of 7 frames per second. The camera fill not have a view screen similar to the 10 frame D model. The Mark III Ds will capture images in Jpeg, Raw and now tiff. More info to be announced in March"
There is Canon rebate (or cash back) going on until June in Japan. 20000 yen for 30D and 10000 yen for XTi. ($1 = 120 yen). That makes 30D price for near 100000 yen or less than $900...
