There is no in-camera IS from the original chinese spec.



Edited by andyyau on Aug 22, 2008 at 07:28 PM GMT

I just hope it will not have 15 mpix. I checked out some samples of 14,6 mpix Pentax K20D at dpreview and it was soft thanks to NR@ISO1600. It was also soft at f10 thanks to the diffraction when doing some "landscape" stuff. Let's hope Canon will be wiser.

It also has HDMI output. For whatever reason....

Jonathan

andyyau wrote:
There is no in-camera IS from the original chinese spec.



Edited by andyyau on Aug 22, 2008 at 07:28 PM GMT


I knew that couldn't be right. There supose to come out with the 18-200 IS kit lens. Why would they have both for a kit?

cyclejoc wrote:
It also has HDMI output. For whatever reason....

Jonathan

40D already has HDMI output. Check the bottom of your camera

15.1 MP on a APS-C(1.6 CROP)sensor The pixel pitch it will be too small(4,1-4,3 qm2).I DON'T THINK THIS WILL BE GOOD!!!!!!

I think in all fairness, the Pentax chip was a CCD and a couple of generations back, Canon have always been the premier experts at noise control and uses CMOS sensors which even Nikon have had to switch to so as to get such good noise control. With Digic 4 the noise should be comparible to the 40D and that's no bad thing I suppose. It's a D90 competitor not up against the D300, a fact that will be conveniently forgotten the moment its released and the tirades begin.

This is my first participation in all this rumor/speculation threads. I saw the original web page before it was taken down and there is only mentioning of "in-lens IS", not "in-body IS" (I read Chinese).

I am pretty convinced that this is as real as many of the previous Canon leaks. Canon likes to play this kind of tricks. If the specs are true, this will be my next camera. A 5D + 50D combo is the dream combo for me: 5D for wide angle and 50D for telephoto for its pixel density.

Howard

A couple of comments that have been made here are interesting to me. The pixel pitch/density is real. I think this could turn into a real deficit with the camera. We have been fairly lucky so far to not have diffraction be a real concern for most shooters, but I think we might see it really coming into play with this new camera. Also, this will be pushing lenses. Does everyone remember how when the 1Ds came out that everyone said that it demanded the best lenses. After the 1Ds Mark II came out it everyone said that it REALLY demanded the best lenses. We are now virtually cramming the entire resolution of the Mark II into just the center of the lens. Luckily this is typically the best area of the lens, but it will still be extremely demanding of the lens. I wonder how things will fair. We might see a real barrier/downside to this megapixel race aside from the continued discussions around preferring less MPs in favor of better ISO or dynamic range.

I wouldn't assume there won't be a 5D replacement as well.

Diffraction is not an issue to be ignored though to some extent the ability to use wider lenses for a given FOV may mitigate it somewhat. 12 megapixels on FF seems to be the diffraction sweet spot, plenty good till f16 for real world use and f22 is OK-ish.

BrianP wrote:
A couple of comments that have been made here are interesting to me. The pixel pitch/density is real. I think this could turn into a real deficit with the camera. We have been fairly lucky so far to not have diffraction be a real concern for most shooters, but I think we might see it really coming into play with this new camera. Also, this will be pushing lenses. Does everyone remember how when the 1Ds came out that everyone said that it demanded the best lenses. After the 1Ds Mark II came out it everyone said that it REALLY demanded the best lenses. We are now virtually cramming the entire resolution of the Mark II into just the center of the lens. Luckily this is typically the best area of the lens, but it will still be extremely demanding of the lens. I wonder how things will fair. We might see a real barrier/downside to this megapixel race aside from the continued discussions around preferring less MPs in favor of better ISO or dynamic range.

I think that this is where the SRAW[12] modes will start really becoming useful for folks worrying about things like that. You can choose to have it behave like an 8mp camera just by changing the image type -- and you'll likely win better low noise operation (compared to normal) due to the pixel binning. I'm also wondering if you'll see improved sharpness when compared to a std 8mp camera since sraw is effectively RGB pixels (already interpolated). Be fun to find out and to compare the high mp sraws against foveons


[edit] Adding that it is things like this which could well make me consider upgrading from a 40D - 8mp sized images are about all I need. If I could shoot in sraw1 and/or medjpg and get lower noise + higher iso + improved sharpness, I'd seriously consider an upgrade.

Beni wrote:
I think in all fairness, the Pentax chip was a CCD and a couple of generations back, Canon have always been the premier experts at noise control and uses CMOS sensors which even Nikon have had to switch to so as to get such good noise control. With Digic 4 the noise should be comparible to the 40D and that's no bad thing I suppose. It's a D90 competitor not up against the D300, a fact that will be conveniently forgotten the moment its released and the tirades begin.

You mean the "old" CMOS sensor co-developed by Samsung? Because I meant that one.

gml1 wrote:

The image quality is surely going to be great. Canon are very good at this. But is 15mp better than 12mp? And how much better is 15mp compared to 10mp?



Of course it depends. I'm a landscape photographer who likes to make 36" prints, so I'm of course excited about the 15mp possibility. "Better" is subjective. Better for me, yes. Better for you, you must know that for yourself.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

milanissimo wrote:
I just hope it will not have 15 mpix. I checked out some samples of 14,6 mpix Pentax K20D at dpreview and it was soft thanks to NR@ISO1600. It was also soft at f10 thanks to the diffraction when doing some "landscape" stuff. Let's hope Canon will be wiser.

Greater resolution is of course an advantage when making large prints. And really large prints aren't typically shot at 1600. I did a bunch of landscape work with a K20D last season and it produces remarkable 36" prints.

I think Geert is right we do not need a camera with 50% more pixels crammed on to the same space. A new generation FF would have been more welcome, perhaps Canon engineers have encountered a design problem preventing release of the next generation FF?
The 40D I have is just a few month old it works fine so way the update.

nikt wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
andrew81 wrote:
Hot tip
no in built IS...

UCSB has it right, translation was wrong. Canon won't offer in-body for a long time if ever unless it's a demanded feature and Nikon does so too.

Nah! Nikon want to push their uber expensive lenses, and take their time releasing them. Nope, I'm just hoping Sony can really get their act together and really release some good lenses and are more realistically priced. Doubt it though.


Sony lenses are dearer than both Nikon and Canon. Have a look at their 24-70 for a start.

as much as i despise the 1.6x crop factor, the high ISO is something that's rather tempting (if true)......

ChrisDM wrote:
milanissimo wrote:
I just hope it will not have 15 mpix. I checked out some samples of 14,6 mpix Pentax K20D at dpreview and it was soft thanks to NR@ISO1600. It was also soft at f10 thanks to the diffraction when doing some "landscape" stuff. Let's hope Canon will be wiser.

Greater resolution is of course an advantage when making large prints. And really large prints aren't typically shot at 1600. I did a bunch of landscape work with a K20D last season and it produces remarkable 36" prints.


Megapixels do matter, if you print large.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com


Chris, ISO 1600 and landscapes are 2 separate things. I'm saying the camera isn't really good at either. I shoot mostly landscapes and like to stop down past f8, not sure about you.

EDIT: I agree, if you print large you should have as many pixels as possible, however on APS-C we're well past the limit when many pixels are useful IMHO.

I say let's first see how well the 50D performs with 15Mp and then judge if it has too many pixels. In earlier upgrades, Canon showed that they could increase the pixel density and also improve ISO performance.

And regarding lenses: if the resolution of the sensor exceeds the resolution of the lens, you STILL gain image resolution, as showed by the formula:

1/total resolution = 1/sensor resolution + 1/lens resolution

Well I saw nothing in the 30D, 40D or this 50D to entice me to upgrade from my XT.

I'll wait to see 5D replacement specs and then buy that or an original 5D. I've no interest in marginal advancements in 1.6 crop cameras.

how many more times can canon release a marginal upgrade and charge > $1000 for it? these cameras are definitely not worth what they're selling for. how many more times are people gonna buy a device, that in the end, takes pictures!?

i hope we're getting close to market saturation point.

Does this mean 6 more months of 5DII speculation threads if one isn't released next month? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It's disappointing to see that the upgrade may still have 9 point AF. Notwithstanding the 51 points in 'comparable' Nikons, 9 isn't enough for me, especially given how little of the fov they cover.