chez wrote:
All you guys salivating with your wallets full of cash held open just hoping Canon would announce another camera that you can upgrade to. Talk about a manufacturer having their marketing done just right. They will bleed out their cameras one at a time with everyone jumping on the next camera not wanting to be left behind. They will not blow their entire R&D effort on just one big upgrade. They will want to get every dollar out of your pockets as they slowly come out with new features. I'm sure they already have new prototypes out for the 2010 Photokina, but won't release that camera until they had released the previous 10 versions....Show more →
In some cases, you might be right about the salivating open-wallet masses. In my case, I will not be looking for a new camera until christmas 07 or february 08 - my next camera purchases are glass. I am hoping that by then used 1dm2's will be in the $1200 to $1500 price range - and the only way that is going to happen is if the 1dsm2 and 1dm2n are replaced in the next 6 months. So my personal interest is purely speculative.
On the subject of canon having prototypes through 2010, I must say that is not the case. They have plans and proposed specifications, but they do NOT have the products "ready". Some say Moore's law is finally dead for CPU's, but I have to say it is alive and kicking in the sensor world. Moore's law is the principle that the number of transisters that can be placed on a given slice of silicon doubles every 18 months, and it has held true since the late 70's. THIS is why they can come out with a new whizbang sensor every 18 months - it has nothing to do with greed. As for the other elements, such as better AF or dustshaking or whatever, that stuff follows the sensor cycle because that is logical. It wouldn't make sense to start shipping a 6 or 12 month old sensor design, because it is already obsolete. The pro bodies do follow a longer cycle, but I think that is more a case of rigorous testing and validation of a design.
With that said, I have no idea why there is no new pro body now. It is probably because one of the non-sensor related features either had a problem or needed to be added.
Just got back from helping my Mom move and hadn't had a chance to see what was introduced at Photokina. Two words describe my feelings - disappointed and boring. With the exception of the M-8 this may have to go down as one of the most lackluster shows ever. 400D and the D80. Big whoop. OK, maybe the 50 F1.2 is nice but I don't need it and the 70-200 F4 IS is probably a pretty good lens but it is way more than a little over priced. I think I'll go pout for awhile and maybe I'll feel better in the morning. May have to see if EB still has his 1DsMkII available.
"Good performance at ISO 3200 would be Wonderful, for available light, quality, high resolution photography."
So far, "good performance" at ISO 3200 (or 1600 or, arguably, 800) is not a reality. These cameras will capture images at those ISOs but the quality is only "good" in the sense that it is better to capture some image than no image, I suppose.
"That may be true, but having spent a lot of time in the last 6 months actually working with my XT on a near daily basis, i've really kicked myself for not buying the 20D (which I could have, but I was trying to save money)."
Interesting how opinions differ. I've used my 350D heavily for 18 months now. Before I purchased it I went back and forth between the 350D and the 20D, finally settling on the 350D because the differences did not seem compelling to me. In particular, the image quality is indistinguishable.
I have absolutely no regrets about picking the 350D. In fact, if someone offered to trade a 20D for my 350D I would keep the 350D - in much of my photography the light weight and small size is an advantage.
BTW, I'm not saying the the 350D is the be-all and end-all of DSLRs. While it is the equal in image quality of other Canon crop sensor DSLRs, I would consider a full-frame body with more megapixels to be worth the upgrade, even at the expense of additional size and weight.
Proving once again that...
... YMMV.
"Back when we shot film, it didn't matter what camera you had because the recording medium was independent of your body. Us amateurs could buy the same film the pros used."
Yes, exactly! This is why I'm a bit more forgiving of people buying high end cameras for non-professional use. Can you imagine if during the film days that cameras had been configured so that you could only use the best films in so-called "pro" cameras?
My response has been to try to hit a sweet spot of relatively low cost and relatively high performance - and then plan to upgrade the camera body somewhat frequently, perhaps every 18-24 months as new releases warrant. This is part of the reason I went with the 350D over the 20D, by the way.
A. Print 13x19" @ 300dpi, it requires 22.23MP, Which also means that I produce 16x24" prints at 240dpi; I need this capability, and do not want to turn to medium-format to get this resolving capability.
Why be happy with 13x19 @ 300dpi? Why not dream of 600dpi? 240dpi is plenty for 'most' people. You may want/need more, but then given the aspect ratio of most medium format frames, a 13*19 is an odd size
Canon are addressing the mass market in this release. That's it. Done. Perhaps PMA will fulfill your dreams, but for now my 1Ds2 gets me where I need to go. The only real additions I would like are the anti dust mechanism, and perhaps more DR. Personally I don't 'need' more resolution (want is not the same as need). My customers have never said "Hmmm.... nice shot, shame it's only printed at 240dpi", because they were looking at the photograph, and not the method used to make it
For those who 'need' more, have patience, your time will come. However, I would be careful about wishing for too much. You want 22MP AND low noise ISO 3200? Hmmm.... not sure you will get that in one generation. People assume this this stuff can be done, and expect them to do it on the next sensor, but the laws of physics are harder to break than most people realise
How many medium format sensors (with larger photo cells) actually even do ISO 3200, let alone ISO 3200 with low noise? And you want this on a smaller frame yet?
How many medium format sensors (with larger photo cells) actually even do ISO 3200, let alone ISO 3200 with low noise? And you want this on a smaller frame yet?
Since you mention MF and photodiode size, consider this: The Phase One P45 digiback claims an impressive 12 stops DR, eeked out from photo sites of 6.8x6.8 µm. Contrast this to a 8 stop (and a bit) DR from the 5D (8.2x8.2 µm) and 20/30D (6.4x6.4 µm) In theory you can under expose the P45 3 full stops and still have more range than a 5D or 20/30D to push to ISO3200.
Which just goes to show that we're not seeing the full potential of sensor technology in current dSLR sensors.
I really think Canon blew it this time. Maybe they had problems with the new camera and just didn't want to announce it and not be able to deliver. But seeing a prototype of something fantastic would have been exciting.
I see no advantage to keeping great specs a secret. I don't think too many pros are still buying new 1Ds MkII's with the 5D producing better images for the past year now.
But I do think that many, (me included), would hold off on buying a MF camera if we were sure that Canon had a great high MP camera around the corner.
Leica is probably going to sell a lot of M8's to people waiting on the 1Ds MKII replacement, (me included here too), as long as the images are better than my 5D :-)
I wonder what is going on at Canon? Are they giving up on the pro market?
M8 and 5D are two different cameras. Like comparing Apples and Toothbrushes.
I still find it completely rediculous that people are demanding that canon replace the 1DSII... these same people are (probably) the ones using CZ21's.... clearly the issue isn't the need for a new camera, but better lenses and sensor tecnology. We don't need more resolution, we need more advances in general light-handling abilities. And an 18mm F2L would be nice too.
canon could deliver much better and cheaper cameras today ...if they wanted.
so as a customer i may demand, that they do so.
in my eyes, that canon does not care much about customers is one of several reasons why many photographers do not have any "emotional" tie to canon....as they do in other brands (within and without photography). that will certainly (or should i say hopefully) be quite a disadvantage if/once they will loose technology lead.
phil
would you rather canon offer a similar lineup to Pentax? a bunch of cool cheap APS-C cameras, but nothing "full-on professional"? or do you want them to keep leading the pack with big(ger) sensors than the rest of the market?
Basically- if you don't like what they have to offer, go somewhere else.
I agree with Chris Lynch, and do not see the disaffected Canon owner that you describe. On the contrary, I mostly see people who own other maker's cameras comparing their cameras to Canon.
The wonderful thing about the market place is that people are free to choose what to buy and there are lots of choices, but there is only one company offering full frame DSLR bodies.
Just imagine that if Canon had already started producing this camera that supposedly they pulled the plug on. That means they have to unbox, disassemble, reassemble with upgraded parts, update the manual, update their website, ads, literature, software, and everything else that goes along with a new top of the line product. That would be a serious setup.
If that one story is true about them not incorporating the sensor cleaning mechanism and being told by dealers it was a mistake, some poor marketing bloke is probably peddling for pennies right now
philllie1 wrote:
canon could deliver much better and cheaper cameras today ...if they wanted.
so as a customer i may demand, that they do so.
in my eyes, that canon does not care much about customers is one of several reasons why many photographers do not have any "emotional" tie to canon....as they do in other brands (within and without photography). that will certainly (or should i say hopefully) be quite a disadvantage if/once they will loose technology lead.
phil
I understand what you are saying, and I can empathize with you. But, let's be honest: this stuff costs a boatload of cash to develop and produce, and canon isn't extorting money from anyone. Yes their new pro lenses and pro cameras are very expensive, but you really do get what you pay for. If you want cheap consumer grade equipment, there is plenty available from Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax, etc.
The whole point of "pro" gear is that it is designed for people who get paid for what they do, and thus need a level of performance beyond what most require. That costs money, and frankly supply and demand is and should be part of the equation.
What it comes down to is that 2006 was an OK year for Canon's product line - they added a little pro glass and a couple consumer bodies. That just means that next year will be a monster year for them. If it isn't, then they lose their position. Regardless of how betrayed you personally feel, Canon management and employees are going to feel it much worse. You and I have no idea if 5D's are killing 1Dsm2 sales, but I guarantee you that the guys on the 1 series development teams know it - and are trying their best to do something about it if true.
philllie1 wrote:
canon could deliver much better and cheaper cameras today ...if they wanted.
so as a customer i may demand, that they do so.
in my eyes, that canon does not care much about customers is one of several reasons why many photographers do not have any "emotional" tie to canon....as they do in other brands (within and without photography). that will certainly (or should i say hopefully) be quite a disadvantage if/once they will loose technology lead.
phil
When was the last time you priced out a nice chunk of apocromatic 'glass' (ed or flourite?), ground to a quarter wavelength of blue light specification?
When was the last time you priced out the cost to build a sensor with 8-12 million pixels, tested?
Gimme a break. Canon gear is great gear, and it's incredible what we get for what we pay. Even their best pro gear is inexpensive when one considers the quality and functionality. Next time you see a perfectly focused shot of a bird flying directly at the photographer just consider what it would have taken to get that shot ten years ago.
Canon leads the market--for good reason. If you don't like them, get a Nikon and bitch about them.
That's two new bodies, four L glasses, and an EFS lens everybody says is L quality optics. Not bad, eh?
In other words, there are four 50mm lenses (2.5, 1.8, 1.4, 1.2) to choose from, four 70-200L zooms (plus some consumer 70-300s), and in the wide/normal range (for APS-C) there are 17-55, 17-85, 18-55, 17-40, and 16-35 lenses. Canon does give us a lot of choices.
