You say that Canon doesn't need to introduce anything significantly better than its current specs because it has no competition, then you say that if they do leapfrog their current specs, they won't be able to do it again. That's fuzzy logic, a technological Maginot Line.
I'll rephrase: Canon will have to improve on their current specs. They have to continue to be attractive to buyers. This means they have to improve ENOUGH to keep this status. Case in point? The gradual evolution from 10D to 20D/30D to 40D. (Please note that I've combined the 20D and 30D because the 30D is what has been described as "holding pattern model".)
What would happen if Canon smacks a 18 mpixel 1.3x crop sensor into the 40D? Yes, it will blindside the competition. It will keep the xxD series attractive. But, it would have been enough if they jump to 1.6x crop and 12 mpixel. A huge jump to 18 mpixel and APS-H would be overkill and very much a waste of resources. Not to mention that it would invade in 1DII and 5D territory, so those would need a disproportionately big increase too.
A really big change will not bring extra benefit over a "good enough" improvement, but it WILL put more pressure on the R&D section. Because in 18 months time the public would expect another successor. That is what I meant with being able to improve after an over-extended evolutionary jump. If you completely eke out every possible engineering trick now, it will take longer R&D time to advance beyond that.
[...]
Comparing the camera industry to the microprocessor industry is a misleading analogy. There are no wildcard players in the processor industry and a lot less chance of being blindsided by disruptive technology (like Minolta's introduction of marketable autofocusing, which obsoleted Canon's T90 a year before the T90 even hit the streets), nor are end-consumers the major customers of processor manufacturers--the "value-adding" computer manufactures make a difference.
I doubt Canon ever forgets the Maxuum 7000 or the possibility that something like it could happen again, any more than nations put trust in the Maginot Line concept.
Ok, while I concede that the analogy may go limp under detailed scrutiny, I disagree that the CPU and GPU industry doesn't have it's disruptive jumps. Intel bet on Netburst and ran head-first into the thermal wall. Intel still bets on a cramped front side bus. Then AMD puts the memory controller on the die and gives the CPU unheard of bandwith. AMD got more than 25% of the server market from scratch. 2 years later and Intel still has no anser in the 4-socket server market.
ATi and nVidia trump each other with new architectures every year.
But these observations do not invalidate the fact that each CPU manufacturer will just intro new speeds which are FAST ENOUGH to make them attractive. The actual speeds the new Intel Core 2 Duo can do, on stock cooling, exceeds their stock speeds by up to 50%. But it's beating AMD's offering already (in the single and dual socket market, not in 4S) so Intel puts the processors on the market underspecced.
DaveMart wrote:
All a bit depressing really, as there is no real increase in DR or high ISO noise performance talked about there, only fooling around with it some more in software - let's hope that they don't just end up with watercolours.
I suppose though strictly speaking you asked about DIGICIII, and a real increase in high ISO or DR would be as a result of a different sensor.
Thanks for your information, which I certainly find credible.
Regards,
DaveMart
Not true. Canon said earlier this year that 2007 would see a focus on IQ and issues such as DR and noise. Whether they deliver remains to be seen but they strongly implied next year will see a big improvement in several areas.
I can see the benefit of going mirrorless EVF in the bottom budget segment. It's an introductory tool for EF(S) lenses. But what would be the point of going mirrorless APS-H EVF in the 2k budget?
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there IS no point, it's just that I don't see a point.
Corne wrote:
I might be a bit slow here but has anyone noticed the new Pentax has 9 cross sensors in its AF system. Or am I reading it wrong? this can only mean super AF system and I hope Canon will follow in their thinking.
I still feel the Dustbuster should remain where it is at the moment at entry level. I don't see the need for it and find it so easy to keep my sensor clean.
Also any one at Canon reading this Pleas follow and weather seal the body. I would love to buy a 5D but it wont improve my photos only time and practice will, I can't warrant spending NZ$5 000....Show more →
you might not need the anti dust device, but oh lord i sure do, im a photojournalist who is out in the field everyday and night, my sensor has gotten horribly dusty to a point i gave up trying to clean it over and over with the copperhill method and other ways, canon will clean my sensor for free, they will even remove dust that gotten under the AA filter, but i dont have three days currently to give them my camera, this anti dust device (if it works) would be a total plus for me
Tentacle wrote:
I can see the benefit of going mirrorless EVF in the bottom budget segment. It's an introductory tool for EF(S) lenses. But what would be the point of going mirrorless APS-H EVF in the 2k budget?
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there IS no point, it's just that I don't see a point.
Glad you asked.
There would be some benefits, with APS-H or FF:
- it would be the obvious way to make 5D smaller and cheaper - this is one answer to the question presented here earlier: what is there left in 5D to strip away to decrease its price
- this would be the lightest possible back-up camera to drag along with your heavy Canon artillery
- with a movable/foldable EVF and real-time output (with or without WLAN) this camera would not only backup your heavy 1D(s) III or whatever but also bring along extra features both for field & studio work
- would also work as a high-profile walk-around camera for everyone who can afford it
I don't claim there is an iron-clad business case for such a camera, but at least I would be very tempted to save for it, if the EVF is very good.
KIDERAL wrote:
you could also get a high shooting speed.
The mirror motion certainly limits the number of shots per second.
WIthout the mirror, that could increase...
How many fps do you need? The film based Canon EOS 1V could do 10 fps and the 1Ds Mk II has a mirror blackout of 87 ms, which means 11.4 fps, IF the DIGIC xx chip can handle the I/O and shuttertimes are very short.
Tentacle wrote:
How many fps do you need? The film based Canon EOS 1V could do 10 fps and the 1Ds Mk II has a mirror blackout of 87 ms, which means 11.4 fps, IF the DIGIC xx chip can handle the I/O and shuttertimes are very short.
Ahaa , I can squeeze out two more benefits here:
1. You have less costs to implement high shutter speed, since you don't need a high quality high speed mirror mechanism.
2. The camera is very silent for a high speed camera - there is no execution group/machine-gun shoot-out feeling involved.
There would be some benefits, with APS-H or FF:
- it would be the obvious way to make 5D smaller and cheaper - this is one answer to the question presented here earlier: what is there left in 5D to strip away to decrease its price
- this would be the lightest possible back-up camera to drag along with your heavy Canon artillery
- with a movable/foldable EVF and real-time output (with or without WLAN) this camera would not only backup your heavy 1D(s) III or whatever but also bring along extra features both for field & studio work
- would also work as a high-profile walk-around camera for everyone who can afford it
I don't claim there is an iron-clad business case for such a camera, but at least I would be very tempted to save for it, if the EVF is very good....Show more →
In addition to these benefits you can see to focus and compose in much lower light than by OVF - you could even on my old Minolta D7, by sewitching to B & W.
You can have in-camera rather than in-lens IS, by comparing different frames just like in a video camera, without moving the sensor.
You can have real DOF preview, so you can see exactly what will be the result of your chosen aperture.
You can overlay or turn off any pattern of information easily, like grid-lines.
Lens design can be simpler, cheaper and more compact.
What can a OVF/DSLR do that a EVF can't?
Regards,
DaveMart
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not true. Canon said earlier this year that 2007 would see a focus on IQ and issues such as DR and noise. Whether they deliver remains to be seen but they strongly implied next year will see a big improvement in several areas.
The way you construct you arguments can be misleading.
You state here 'not true', which to me would imply that you had knowledge which indicated the contrary, rather than that you were choosing to interpret the same information differently.
In fact, what I was saying was that the information from Geof says nothing about a fundamental change in underlying sensor technolgy, which would mean that you can get fundamentally different data with better high ISO and DR from the chip, but rather that they were processing the same limited data so as to enhance the image, and perhaps that would also only apply to the RAW.
That would be relatively disappointing compared to a real increas in the chips sensitivity, as you would be on ahigher base level and then could still carry out any software enhancements you had available.
Unless you have contrary information indicating a fundamental change in the sesnsor sensitivity, then your 'not true' comment does not seem appropriate.
There is also the further difficulty about your posts that you gave purported information about the 3D, atating that you had documents ot support this.
I took that at the time as being an attempt at humour, and subsequent posts of yours confrim this.
However, the fact that you rather dragged the joke out leading to some possilby being misled really makes it pretty difficult to take your posts seriously - this is not a personal comment, as I quite enjoyed it, but it is a reality that any information that you mihgt have is likely to be heavily discounted.
Anyway, we are only chatting about future cameras, so let's not take it too seriously!
Regards,
DaveMart
DaveMart wrote:
What can a OVF/DSLR do that a EVF can't?
Regards,
DaveMart
I have never seen a video screen with as good resolution/live motion as an optical view. Has the technology improved to the point one can't tell if you are looking at a video versus optical? I really hate looking at video screens; I much rather look at a print than my monitor, and I do not even own a TV.
DaveMart wrote:
In addition to these benefits you can see to focus and compose in much lower light than by OVF - you could even on my old Minolta D7, by sewitching to B & W.
...
What can a OVF/DSLR do that a EVF can't?
Regards,
DaveMart
I guess you are not fully serious when asking the question above. This far no EVF which I have seen has been so real-time AND simultaneously high resolution that it wouldn't have disturbed me, whereas the OVF is real-time by definition - you know, the speed of light is 300.000 km/s ...
DaveMart wrote:
In addition to these benefits you can see to focus and compose in much lower light than by OVF - you could even on my old Minolta D7, by sewitching to B & W.
DaveMart
Dave,
I have to disagree with you based on the reverse scenario. I don't think it would be easy AT ALL to manual focus or compose in broad daylight with an LCD. Even with my old P&S I used the optical finder in daylight.
Koivulehto wrote:
I guess you are not fully serious when asking the question above. This far no EVF which I have seen has been so real-time AND simultaneously high resolution that it wouldn't have disturbed me, whereas the OVF is real-time by definition - you know, the speed of light is 300.000 km/s ...
Yeah, the ones in current cameras are not good - however, people like Joe Wisniewski, who designs specialist cameras, have used high tech EVFs, for expensive equipment at the time - you are talkinga bout an EVF with 1MP, refreshing at 60fps, and no relation to current screens.
This kind of rate should be processable by DIGICIII, so most should find little issue with using an EVF of this type.
If itt were on an entry level camera though, you might only be talking about 250,000MP and 25fps, which waould still be wy better than most EVFs on compacts, and probably OK for those ued to using them, but nowehre near what an OVF would provide.
Essentially, an EVF can do everything an OVF can and more, and we now have the processing power to cope with it, but how soon really good screens will be introduced we don't know
Regards,
DaveMart
I have to disagree with you based on the reverse scenario. I don't think it would be easy AT ALL to manual focus or compose in broad daylight with an LCD. Even with my old P&S I used the optical finder in daylight.
It was an electronic EVF I was referring to, not an LCD.
Regards,
DaveMart
