Re: http://skyblue04.egloos.com/2864840

What we're looking at in this list of equipment is a compilation and refinement of rumours from the largest Korean dSLR website, www.slrclub.com for those interested.

The author states many, many times that these are merely rumours. I mean, come on, he's got 5 new lenses, all L, and every camera being updated. Seems to be more of a wish list than anything else.

He does mention that "some pros are already testing the 1Ds Mk3" although he does not mention where and it's highly unlikely that testing is being done in Korea, and that it will have "dust removal". Believe that?

Also, when is PMA? The author seems to think that it's in April (i.e. 2007, 4th month) and that that's when Canon will make its announcements.

One more thing, he says, "Rumours are rumours, but some of them are bound to be correct." Nice... If I put one chip on every space of the roulette table I'm bound to win money too, right?

He also literally cheers for a 24-70L with IS at a thousand euros, as do many of us I believe.

Edited by StevenPA on Jan 16, 2007 at 12:03 PM GMT

hah imagine if canon came out with that 10-24mm 2.8L and the 24-70 2.8L IS. if you get a 70-200 2.8L IS, you could have the ideal 2.8L setup for anything below 200mm...from 10 to 200mm.

oh yes.

As for the merger of the 1D and 1Ds models, see Chuck Westfall's comments near the end of this Q&A:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0612/tech-tips.html

Everyone is saying that the D200 is the biggest threat to Canon and the 40D, Also don't forget about the new Pentax K10D which makes the 30D look old and lacking alot of features! And then concider how much Pentax is charging for the K10D (Which is much cheaper then the D200 and 30D and around the price as the 400D).

What I would like to see would be a new 50 f/2.5 macro lens, a updated 100-400 IS with the newer IS system, re-designed zoom (Get rid of push/pull design) and a 400 f/5.6 IS. Also I would like to see a 17-70 f/4 L and a 100 f/2.8 macro IS and updated macro flashes with ETTL-II. Another thing would be a small compact flash gun (Like the 220EX) with an adjustable head (Like the Nikon SB-400).

I don't quite get the reasoning here.... Would they be trying to get back development costs with the first lenses sold? There would be NO reason to double the cost of the lenses based on the previous 18 year plus cycle. Even if every lens had IS. Redo the lenses, make sure they have the often complained about edge to edge sharpness. Better ring type USM, Great color, contrast, distance data for accurate flash. Price them slighty above the current line, and they would have alot of demand for the new lenses. With 20 years to get back the R&D

Besides, haven't they learned alot in R&D already with previous lenses to produce these lenses? That R&D cost would have been amortized and acounted for already.

About the IS, please, just don't. These are fast primes we are talking about, not f/4 zooms. If you want a place to spend some R&D, lets get lower noise at higher ISO

fotographa wrote:
cactusclay wrote:
Well, it looks like all the stuff predicted is going to be big and heavy anyway. I sure would like to see some of there first AF primes redone(18 years later), with ring USM. I know most everyone else likes the big heavy zooms, but still, I would like to see a 24/2 USM, 35/2 USM an a 50/1.4 or 2.0, with Ring USM and all with internal focusing. An XT size body with 50-3200 ISO, 8000 sec. shutter speed, better AF, more cofortable grip and a 100% viewfinder would be nice as well.

To recoup the development costs they would probably each cost double what the current 24/2.8, 35/2 or 50/1.4 cost (and most likely weight in at twice as much too). These are some of the best value lenses in the range - if you consider price, IQ, size/weight.
Besides, these would then cut into the more lucrative market of L-series primes (24, 35, 50 at least) which perhaps does not make marketing sense.
I agree ring USM and IF are great to have (and affordable in some lenses like EF-S 60 macro) but for me the old lenses are still great value for money, and do everything a prime should.

10-24L f/2.8 that would be HUGE (sze and weight) The threads on how big and heavy the 24-70 & 24-105 would dry up and vanish overnight.

IF its true, f/4 seems more likely. I'm in a rock and hard place with wise lenses. The 1DmII is kinda wide limited.... Since I'm too cheap for the 14mm If a 10-24L came true I'd get it. Right after the 24-105. f/4 is OK for both.

ovredal73 wrote:
I cant believe a 10-24L f2.8. It would have to be a fisheye zoom to be possible, wouldn“t it?
But I will sell my 15 fish and 16-35L to get it, fisheye or not, if it actually turns out to be true somehow.

If Canon adds IS the image quality in other parts of the lens needs to be improved to compensate for the quality lost by adding the extra group. These lenses will be a lot more expensive than their predecessors.
I too hope that canon doesn't plan to add IS to all the fast primes.

A 10-24 would not be an L lens since no EF-S lenses are L, unless Canon changed the entire philosophy. More likely the lens is a fantasy of some troll with a mental condition.

EB

A 12-24mm F4.0 L lens which could be used with full frame would be a nice addition to the canon line up. Both Nikon and Sigma offer one. I wonder why canon has not bothered with one yet.

I think we will see a new 1D Mk III in the spring. Maybe a 1Ds Mk III with a 22MP or 24 MP sensor sometime in the fall. Canon really has no reason right now to upgrade the 1Ds Mk II as it currently has no competition in it's category.

The 200mm f2.8L is too small and light to have IS built into it. The 400mm f5.6L on the other hand would be a nice upgrade with an IS for about $500-$600 more than the price of the current offering.

Would also be nice to see a 100-400mm F4L IS or even a 200-400mm f4L IS, but highly doubt if this will happen.

Reading all the pages in this thread, I really don't think the 30D, D200, 5D, 1D MK II, D2x, and 1Ds Mk III are designed to compete with each other. All these bodies are placed in the market to offer just a little bit more or a little less than the competitor's closest/most similar make and model. Nikon and Canon compete with each other where they will have the most sales and the highest profit margin - the Rebel XT/XTi versus the D50/D40/D80 market.

EB-1 wrote:
A 10-24 would not be an L lens since no EF-S lenses are L, unless Canon changed the entire philosophy. More likely the lens is a fantasy of some troll with a mental condition.

Nobody said it is an EF-S lens. The "assumption" is that it's a full frame, L lens. Read the rumors properly before bashing them

pascal03 wrote:
A 12-24mm F4.0 L lens which could be used with full frame would be a nice addition to the canon line up. Both Nikon and Sigma offer one. I wonder why canon has not bothered with one yet.


Nope. Only Sigma 12-24 is FF. The Nikon's one is for cropper bodies and it was a MUST to give their users WA option. Still it is only 18mm "effective" which is far below Canon's 16-35 not to say about 14mm prime.

Still Sigma got some audience on FF despite of it's flaws (low speed, soft corners, no way to srew-in filters etc.) so theoretically Canon could think about responce

Mark Shaxted wrote:
Nothing better to do... so... new releases in this order - EDUCATED GUESS!!!!!!!!!!!

[...]

5DmkII - Bound to get a resolution increase, god knows it needs it (!!!!). With better DR.

[...]

Some observations: There is virtually no competition to the 5D because it's the only affordable full frame dSLR out there. Word out here is that it's already hurting 1Ds sales. I'm not the first to mention this, nor will I be the last

Ok, would a resolution bump be nice to some? Yes. Would it be a smart move by Canon? Doesn't look like it. There is no pressing need, and doing so will do damage elsewhere. Like I said on page one of this thread, I expect the 5D upgrade to be like the 20/30D upgrade. Some new features, no reso bump.

dcmiller wrote:
I've never understood the need for a new 5D this soon either. But some people seem confident that it will happen at PMA.

[...]

One reason to update the 5D to a new mark, other than adding some features, is to overhaul all the internals, improve on reliability and tweak its design to make production cheaper. After 18 months of product life, Canon will have a long list of tiny improvements that go under its skin, which the end-user will never see.

EOS20 wrote:
Everyone is saying that the D200 is the biggest threat to Canon and the 40D, Also don't forget about the new Pentax K10D which makes the 30D look old and lacking alot of features! And then concider how much Pentax is charging for the K10D (Which is much cheaper then the D200 and 30D and around the price as the 400D).

What I would like to see would be a new 50 f/2.5 macro lens, a updated 100-400 IS with the newer IS system, re-designed zoom (Get rid of push/pull design) and a 400 f/5.6 IS. Also I would like to see a 17-70 f/4 L and a 100 f/2.8 macro IS and updated macro flashes with ETTL-II. Another thing would be a small compact flash gun (Like the 220EX) with an adjustable head (Like the Nikon SB-400).

Well if Canons pricing of it's latest L-lenses is a trend any improvements on older desgns won't come cheap - but at 2-4 times the original price.

Wan't a 24-70/2.8L IS? prepare to pay 2000$+ for such a beast. A 100-400/4-5.6L MkII? probably be in the 2500$ range. A 20/2L? 1500+$ Probably. The 400/5.6L IS - again a 2000$ figure.

Suddenly the older lenses don't look so bad...

Yeh Canon seems to be taking advantage of the popularity of digital by charging alot more for there newer lenses! More pepole are spending money on "L" lenses then they would have back in the day of film (Both due to the popularity or photography now, and the need for quality lenses to match digital sensors).

I still would like to see some updated primes though.

jamesf99 wrote:
On another note, why is everyone concerned about the 30d competing with the d200? There is no Canon equivalent of the D200, unless you call a whole in the product line competitive.

The 20d/30d were designed to compete against the D70/D80 and I still think that battle is competitive. Canon has a gap "price wise" in the line from the 30d to the 5d and IMO the best way to counter that is to increase the 30d specs, and bump the 5d's capabilities and features while simultaneously decreasing the price. If Canon had a 5d II with all the missing stuff the 5d lacks (fill in your own wish list) for a price of $2K, Nikon would sell far fewer D200s.

I agree.

My take is that the 5D will eventually disappear (just like the original EOS 5 did) and be replaced by something more akin to the EOS 3 - that would be a D200 competitor, same as the EOS 3 competed with the F100.

You have to keep in mind that Nikon and Canon take great care to price and feature spec their cameras so as to NOT have a direct competitor. The 30D and D80 are different both features and price.

When talking about the D200, it should be kept in mind what makes this camera appealing and that is that it is basically (though not quite) a D2x without a grip. If the Canon 40D does appear, the following will happen (similar to what some have said):

- it is an incremental improvement from the 30D, more MP same body etc, and come in at a very cheap price point.

- it is a major revamp, a cut down 1DS (pro style body) and come in over the D200 in price.

The D200 was the major revamp that Nikon needed for the D100. Maybe the 40D is the one that Canon needs.

and remember that the D200 is already over a year old, so whatever Canon comes up with, Nikon can respond soon. They have the better timing atm...

True, except that Nikon tends to take around the 3 year mark to upgrade their bodies. This of course may change, the D200 was announced in November 2005. So as you said, it is already almost 14 months old. Still a hot camera in sales and still seems new, so I see the cycle trend continue. In other words, a D200 will be around for another 18 months before any upgrade.

Since Canon typically upgrade every 18 months, they should be ok for this cycle if they do something special... such as the cut-down 1DS thats been mentioned.

nikt wrote:
You have to keep in mind that Nikon and Canon take great care to price and feature spec their cameras so as to NOT have a direct competitor.

Whether Canon and Nikon intend it or not, they do indeed have direct competition between such models as the D50 and Rebel XT, the D80 and the Rebel XTi, the D200 and the 30D and the D2X and the 1DMKIIN.

EOS20 wrote:
Everyone is saying that the D200 is the biggest threat to Canon and the 40D, Also don't forget about the new Pentax K10D which makes the 30D look old and lacking alot of features! And then concider how much Pentax is charging for the K10D (Which is much cheaper then the D200 and 30D and around the price as the 400D).


According to
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/digital-cameras/news/98143/nikon-views-market-share-for-the-d40-dslr.html
"With 20 per cent of DSLR sales sat in the sub £400 ($700) range, and 40 per cent below £500 ($900), the D40 is Nikon's assault unit and key to its plans to take 35 per cent market share this year and 40 per cent in 2007. "
The low end is by far the largest sales volume, fastest growing segment and perhaps it makes sense for Canon to focus on this - a direct competition to the Nikon D40 would make sense if its sales are as successful as they claim.

When you look on any of the German internet price search engines or camera online stores the hottest selling items are the Sony A100 and Pentax K100D. Perhaps this confirms that the 10MP market is intense and no longer dominated by Canon & Nikon. Sony have a very strong brand, and Pentax a very strong product and history.
Whatever most of us would like to see Canon might be better off concentrating (or focusing!) on a low-end entry-level model (3000D?) and the real upgrade to the 20D (30D doesn't count) in the 40D. In the FF price segment (>$1500) Canon have their USP and sales of 5D, 1D(N) are probably much less of a worry right now.
My guess for PMA is 40D and 3000D (D40 competitor @ $500).

I read the whole thread and I`m interested mainly in the next 1 series cameras. In my opinion, the 1dsmkIII with 22 mp bayer sensor wont happen.
Although it have been largely ignored here, 1dTC (true colour) seriously debated at dpreview is most veridic rumour.
I say this because canon R&D had al the time (5 years since the original 1ds) to develod a radical new product such the 1dTC and not only a mild upgrade as the 1dsIII might be.

Yes, they (along with the other camera manufacturers) compete for market share, but my point is, that they do not currently spec the cameras the same and they price them accordingly. For example, I've heard it over and over that the Canon 5D has no competitor.

None of the cameras that have been mentioned are spec'd the same and they certainly have different prices. All the cameras are 'tweeners'.

I think maybe the rest of my post may have been missed here and the reason I made the statement. So to clarify, I'm only illustrating strategy so as to show cause for what may happen with something like the 40D.

slyves wrote:
I read the whole thread and I`m interested mainly in the next 1 series cameras. In my opinion, the 1dsmkIII with 22 mp bayer sensor wont happen.
Although it have been largely ignored here, 1dTC (true colour) seriously debated at dpreview is most veridic rumour.
I say this because canon R&D had al the time (5 years since the original 1ds) to develod a radical new product such the 1dTC and not only a mild upgrade as the 1dsIII might be.

Has Canon's R&D been successful? This is the fundamental issue. If they've hit a 'dead end', then there's a good chance that Canon users will be looking at other camera makers in the next few years.
It's interesting that so many people insist that 35mm digital is becoming lens-limited, when every color in a Canon or Nikon image is estimated. There's a lot of information in a 35mm image circle that is left to be captured.
2007 will be an important transitional year. I expect a full frame from Nikon that will be impressive. Look at the resolution they are getting out of the D200.

You`re quite right on this one. I really hope that Canon R&D is succesful on the next generation imager. In my opinion the DSLR market is matured enough to look beyond the insane megapixel war which took place in the last period and it is demanding something else like better colours and wider DR.