timbop wrote:
I understand what you are saying, but they can't just "drop-in" a new sensor to the 30D without renaming it in some way. So, it would at least have to be the 30Dn or mk2 or something. But that is beside the point, the real crux of what I was trying to say is that I can't see them coming out with what amounts to 2 fairly cosmetic changes to the 20D in the same year. IF they do update/replace the 30D in such a short time period IMHO it would have to have a lot more going for it than a 10MP self clean sensor. It would almost certainly have to be something more significant, perhaps an AF upgrade to the 5D, or maybe better ISO3200/ISO6400. But, if they did that then they would now have a $1500 camera that's arguably "better" than the 5D or even 1dm2n!
It just doesn't make sense to me for canon to try to push out a minor 30D update, even if you do call it an update to the 20D. I think it is far more likely that a 3d/5d replacement is looming on the horizon. They can live with slumping 30D sales until PMA, but not 1dm2n AND 5d sales....Show more →
You might want to go back and read my thoughts on it. The 30D was likely not feature complete (i.e. it was supposed to be 10MP and Digic III from the start) but production problems forced them to release a new body with old guts.
Think about it, they would have changed the body design in preparation for the new 30D with a body that has the larger LCD, but problems with either CMOS or Digic chip production forced them to just give the 20D guts a firmware update at the last minute and continue using them. BTW, LCD's are one of the components that Canon doesn't manufacture and they rely on a third party source for them. I suspect the castings for the body are outsourced as well.
This leads to a very basic logistics dillema: There are new bodies and LCDs on the way from third party suppliers and the old bodies and LCDs are not in the supply chain anymore, but the new guts aren't ready...what do you do?
Supply chain logistics 101: It costs more to cancel orders of new components and go back to old components - due to a production issue - than it does to just partially update an old design.
Simply put, Canon made a business choice to put old guts in a new body and the most likely reason was a production induced logistics issue. So, we get two updates in 6 months. I don't know why everyone is trying to crucify Canon over this.
If you were a 20D owner (like me) the 30D may have been or probably wasn't a decent upgrade for you. If you were like me, you didn't bite at the apple and hedged that a better camera was just around the corner. This would make a 40D/50D/30Dn/30DmkII/40Dmk1nopqrstuv/whatever the camera that most people wanted in the first place. Coincidentally, it is very likely what Canon had planned all along. The 30D was just a stop-gap measure.
timbop wrote:
OH, I also forgot to point out that the 20D has better high ISO perf than the 350, so one would expect a 40D to have better high ISO sensor than the sensor placed in the 400. If the same sensor is used then at the very least they would have to enable ISO3200 on the 40D, which would make it seem odd that the 400 only goes to 1600. It could happen that the same sensor is in both, but it would seem odd to me. I am not sure, but I don't think they did this with anything but the 20d/30d. Not sure about the 10D and original d-reb....Show more →
You forget the DIGICII in the 400D. I'd guess a 40D will be DIGICIII powered
Possibly that additional calculation power is needed to reach more ISO or use additional sensor provided DR ...
I can't imagine them replacing the 30D after 6 months for a minor sensor upgrade either. Don't jump down my throat about 10MPX being a leap in technology; it just wouldn't make sense to me for them to spend the R&D and any retooling effort to replace the 20D twice in 1 year.
Well, the 30D wasn't really much of a retooling of the 20D - just a minor upgrade. I doubt that the expense was very significant.
What I fear though is that this would be nothing but a 30D with a new sensor and little else changed. I'm not convinced that the 400D matches the noise and sharpness characteristics of the 350D yet, and without some significant changes besides the sensor, a 10 mpx version of the 30D would not constitute a significant improvement either.
Richie S wrote:
I'd want to crucify Canon if I'd have made a 20D to 30D upgrade already, and a couple of months later they give us the 40D.
I understand the need for some secrecy, I guess calling it the 20Dn or whatever might have helped give people a clue that the 30D wasn't here to stay.
Well hopefully they'll shoot themselves in the foot at some point as they do seem a little intent on treating their customers like mushrooms.
I'm not singling you out, but you raise a point that many have alluded to in this thread...
Could you provide an example of a company that makes their future product roadmap available to anyone that wants it? That sure seems to be a great way to hand your marketing strategy to your competition on a silver platter.
EVERY company treats customers like mushrooms. Think about it: there always seems to be a better TV or computer or refrigerator available 6 months after you just bought a new one...Right?
Again, why crucify Canon? Or more to the point, if this is the POV, why _only_ crucify Canon? I could type out a laundry list of companies that to precisely the same thing...Of course it would be easier just to hotlink the Global Fortune 500 list.
I can explain to you a clear picture of how a company has handled upgrades differently. I'm not expecting Canon to lay out their exact plans to consumers but there are certainly ways they could have handled this upgrade better with a view to longer-term loyalty from their customer base.
Nikon - the 70D to D70s upgrade. They didn't call it a new model number and they offered a free firmware upgrade to add some of the features of the update to the older camera.
They also didn't go around talking about how they couldn't get more MP on a sensor that size without it being detrimental to image quality. Something that simply wasn't true as the 10MP sensor they've now installed must have been in advanced development.
1.6x 10M CMOS senor
Anti-dust feature
2.5 inch LCD
9 focus points
5 fps
CF '
From :http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=19890732
For those who are not familiar with him, he often although not always seems to have good intel.
Personally, it think it sounds dreary, and the high ISO performance of the 400D does not encourage me to expect much- can't understand why Canon would bother doing an upgrade after only 6 months if that is all it is.
Regards,
DaveMart
hmmm... are you the same Dave Martin, who started flaming me at DPR forum when i told some guy to wait until 27/9 with 30D purchase, because of an forthcoming 30D upgrade?! What was that... ahaa.. you said that i've got "no history of predicting"!
Let me remind you: DaveMart wrote:
"Likely cameras to be replaced are usually reckoned to be the 350D and the 1DsII, neither of which would be relevant to someone considering purchasing the 30D."
And later you've even started you own 40D rumor thread over there... good work man!
It seems most are worried that Canon may not introduce anything major beyond the 400D and two lenses announced last month. I don't think you have to worry, historically Canon has introduced major releases right before Photokina as many have pointed out, so it's not a matter of "if" but a matter of "what". If Canon sticks to their historical patterns it would seem we can expect to see a new pro body or upgrade being announced, and maybe even the 200mm f/1.8 L IS that many have yearned for... who knows, we all will in a few weeks
Richie S wrote:
I'd want to crucify Canon if I'd have made a 20D to 30D upgrade already, and a couple of months later they give us the 40D.
Why? Does the release of a 40D (if it exists) stop your 30D from working? Will your pictures suddenly look terrible? I'm still using a 300D, the fact that it's since been replaced twice doesn't make it act any different from the camera I bought two years ago.
You should always buy a camera (and in fact buy everything) because it does what you want now, and accept that in this fast moving world it will sooner or later be replaced by something else.
Richie S wrote:
I can explain to you a clear picture of how a company has handled upgrades differently. I'm not expecting Canon to lay out their exact plans to consumers but there are certainly ways they could have handled this upgrade better with a view to longer-term loyalty from their customer base.
Nikon - the 70D to D70s upgrade. They didn't call it a new model number and they offered a free firmware upgrade to add some of the features of the update to the older camera.
They also didn't go around talking about how they couldn't get more MP on a sensor that size without it being detrimental to image quality. Something that simply wasn't true as the 10MP sensor they've now installed must have been in advanced development. ...Show more →
... and a bit earlier jwil wrote this, when speculating what if Canon found out too late that the new sensor and possibly the new Digic III were not ready to ship in beginning of 2006:
This leads to a very basic logistics dillema: There are new bodies and LCDs on the way from third party suppliers and the old bodies and LCDs are not in the supply chain anymore, but the new guts aren't ready...what do you do?
What if Canon already had the name 30D in the new bodies, and had no time to downgrade the name as something like 20D II?
jwil wrote:
You might want to go back and read my thoughts on it. The 30D was likely not feature complete (i.e. it was supposed to be 10MP and Digic III from the start) but production problems forced them to release a new body with old guts.
Think about it, they would have changed the body design in preparation for the new 30D with a body that has the larger LCD, but problems with either CMOS or Digic chip production forced them to just give the 20D guts a firmware update at the last minute and continue using them. BTW, LCD's are one of the components that Canon doesn't manufacture and they rely on a third party source for them. I suspect the castings for the body are outsourced as well.
This leads to a very basic logistics dillema: There are new bodies and LCDs on the way from third party suppliers and the old bodies and LCDs are not in the supply chain anymore, but the new guts aren't ready...what do you do?
Supply chain logistics 101: It costs more to cancel orders of new components and go back to old components - due to a production issue - than it does to just partially update an old design.
Simply put, Canon made a business choice to put old guts in a new body and the most likely reason was a production induced logistics issue. So, we get two updates in 6 months. I don't know why everyone is trying to crucify Canon over this.
If you were a 20D owner (like me) the 30D may have been or probably wasn't a decent upgrade for you. If you were like me, you didn't bite at the apple and hedged that a better camera was just around the corner. This would make a 40D/50D/30Dn/30DmkII/40Dmk1nopqrstuv/whatever the camera that most people wanted in the first place. Coincidentally, it is very likely what Canon had planned all along. The 30D was just a stop-gap measure....Show more →
I do understand your point, and it is absolutely plausible and maybe even likely. The last thing I want to do is start a urinary olmpics, especially since I have no expertise with any of this.
But as Richie S pointed out, there would be a lot of people really pissed about such a stunt, and I really don't think canon would make that kind of a move. They wouldn't have had to. If the sensor or digic 3 weren't available, they would not have had to engineer and begin producing an interim camera for 6 months. They simply could have "pulled a kodak" and announced in Feb for an august or october ship date.
You know a lot more about supply chain management than me, so maybe I am off my rocker or naive.
It just doesn't "feel" like a smart move to me when there was no compelling force to make them do it. The D200 is already outclassed by the 5D, and there just doesn't seem to have been that much of an urgency for the 30D. I think there is much more pressure now to update the 1's, compared to the pressure on the 20D 6 months ago. I know the 1's are in a class by themselves, but if a 10MP 1.6 crop body with digic 3 (>5 fps) is released for $1500 then the 1dm2n would begin to have serious competition from inhouse.
Richie S wrote:
They also didn't go around talking about how they couldn't get more MP on a sensor that size without it being detrimental to image quality. Something that simply wasn't true as the 10MP sensor they've now installed must have been in advanced development.
Two things - one, Nikon's 10 mpx sensor isn't as clean as Canon's 8.2 mpx sensor, and second, it remains to be seen whether any 10 mpx camera can be made that is cleaner than the 8.2. The 400D will tell if that is possible with the same generation of processing that was present on the 350D (Digic II). I have my concerns, but I will await serious controlled tests before reaching any conclusions.
