eabbadessa wrote:
I think im the idiot because I was under the impression that this website was an infomational one not a bitch one..you guys are all caught up in the he said she said crap and your missing what these pages on this site are all about..YOU know what they are so stop acting like a BABY..........
What is it that you don't understand about the CAPS'ed RUMOR in the topic title I mean, if you don't like this thread, then don't read here, let alone post here.
Definition rumour UK, US rumor
noun
An unofficial interesting story or piece of news that might be true or invented, which quickly spreads from person to person
OK, here's a juicy rumor for those in the US: Terrel Owens tried to off himself because Canon did not release a new 22MP 8fps merged 1Ds/1D. Apparently he was distraught that no one could take even more perfect pictures of him showboating and shooting his mouth off!
timbop wrote:
OK, here's a juicy rumor for those in the US: Terrel Owens tried to off himself because Canon did not release a new 22MP 8fps merged 1Ds/1D. Apparently he was distraught that no one could take even more perfect pictures of him showboating and shooting his mouth off!
Obviously a fellow Eagles fan. Thanks for the explanation, it is the first time that anyone has been able to offer a valid reason for anything he did / does.
Leica or not, I'm so summilux'ed that my extender won't shift. Nothing left to do but get Magnificantly lit, 8 an apple and 3 lenses and then donate to Guys workshop at Olympian proportions for a Macro amount of T/S. =)
jamesf99 wrote:
I think that the reason there's no new 1 series is that it's simply not ready.
Perhaps, but I think a bigger reason is that it doesn't have to be ready.
The linear difference between 16.7 and 22 megapixels is really small, just do the math.
Without interpolation, the 1Ds Mark II will produce a 16x11 inch 300 dpi image from its native pixels.
If you had a 22 megapixel camera, which would be approximately 5745x3830 pixels, you could make a 19x13 inch 300 dpi print without upressing.
So you get yourself a print that's 15% longer in each dimension, but this is not even close to the difference between two standard enlargements.
While an upgraded 1-series camera would certainly be better in any number of respects, the current 1-series cameras are certainly well past the point where people are happy making them their career camera bodies.
And in the absence of credible competition I'm not sure what would really push Canon to introduce a new product now as opposed to a year from now.
There's now way Nikon will be able to make a camera with resolution comparable to the 1DsII unless they can offer a full frame chip. That isn't happening in the near future. Maybe some day Sigma will make a pro body for its foveon chip (and 14 foveon megapixels may actually outresolve 22 bayer-interpolated megapixels), but the other features of its body aren't really a competition.
So I think Canon has the luxury of time. They're so far ahead with the 1Ds Mark II that the other companies won't catch up even if they devote another year to R+D. And besides, they're not losing money. I'd bet that each one of the new point and shoots they released will revenue more for them than a new 1-series would.
DrPablo wrote:
There's now way Nikon will be able to make a camera with resolution comparable to the 1DsII unless they can offer a full frame chip. That isn't happening in the near future.
IF nikon decides to go FF what will be the addict of her DX support until now with PRO lenses (>1000$)?
All Nikon Pro photographers will have to buy new glass? Don't think so. They will LOOSE them.
I'd like to ask all these people that expect a 22mp 1Ds3: which camera will sell better - a $8/10K 22mp or a $5K 16mp.
Canon is an extremely market savvy company and to maximize their profits they will do whatever the market is asking them to do. I think the answer to the question above is also the answer to the question about what we are going to see in the next 1-series camera.
DrPablo wrote:
Perhaps, but I think a bigger reason is that it doesn't have to be ready.
The linear difference between 16.7 and 22 megapixels is really small, just do the math.
Without interpolation, the 1Ds Mark II will produce a 16x11 inch 300 dpi image from its native pixels.
If you had a 22 megapixel camera, which would be approximately 5745x3830 pixels, you could make a 19x13 inch 300 dpi print without upressing.
So you get yourself a print that's 15% longer in each dimension, but this is not even close to the difference between two standard enlargements.
There's actually more to it than that. Once you get to the 22MP point, there's absolutely no pixel density (PD) advantage over a 20d/30d 8.2MP sensor (the old, non 1 series standard). The 1.6x crowd always sat in the "cheap" seats and threw stuff, vociferously screaming that their sensor was better because the density was higher.
If you do the quick math (probably not 100% accurate) and say the new 400d sensor is the new standard, the density must rise to around 25 MP to have equal PD (and this is theoretically possible now since you have a 10.1MP 400d sensor in the market. I think this point alone is more important for perception if nothing else. It will drive a stake into the heart of the 1.6 crowd though and they'll be crushed.
While an upgraded 1-series camera would certainly be better in any number of respects, the current 1-series cameras are certainly well past the point where people are happy making them their career camera bodies.
I'm not, I want increased DR right away. This is the most important thing I think they can add.
And in the absence of credible competition I'm not sure what would really push Canon to introduce a new product now as opposed to a year from now.
There's now way Nikon will be able to make a camera with resolution comparable to the 1DsII unless they can offer a full frame chip. That isn't happening in the near future. Maybe some day Sigma will make a pro body for its foveon chip (and 14 foveon megapixels may actually outresolve 22 bayer-interpolated megapixels), but the other features of its body aren't really a competition.
So I think Canon has the luxury of time. They're so far ahead with the 1Ds Mark II that the other companies won't catch up even if they devote another year to R+D. And besides, they're not losing money. I'd bet that each one of the new point and shoots they released will revenue more for them than a new 1-series would....Show more →
I have to agree with you. Nikon, after drinking their own bathwater for several years now, definitely always finishes second in a field of two. The other players are second-tier and not viable leadership candidates IMO.
If new sensor technology does come out, that could completely upset the apple cart and you could have someone else on top. BTW, if the Hassy chip is 2x the size of the Canon (I have no idea how large it is) then they already have the PD crown.
gml1 wrote:
Canon is an extremely market savvy company and to maximize their profits they will do whatever the market is asking them to do.
Unless, of course, it cuts into their bottome line...
People have been 'asking' for (and expecting) a price reduction in the Ds-Series flagship for years, and that hasn't happened yet.
DrPablo wrote:
And in the absence of credible competition I'm not sure what would really push Canon to introduce a new product now as opposed to a year from now.
There's now way Nikon will be able to make a camera with resolution comparable to the 1DsII unless they can offer a full frame chip...
...So I think Canon has the luxury of time. They're so far ahead with the 1Ds Mark II that the other companies won't catch up even if they devote another year to R+D.
I have to humbly disagree that Canon continues to sit at the top of the heap. The D2x was Nikon's first significant sign of turnaround, and the D200 absolutely sealed it. That Canon effectively has no equivalent for these two market segments (in their price range) isn't typical of a company that is sitting in a commanding lead, and it may be indicative of a company who is caught sleeping at the wheel. Nikon doesn't 'need' a 16MP camera to 'compete'.
Reference the entire Nikon lineup, aside from the D2h. The D50 is cheaper than the 400D, and basically does the same thing. The D80 is $400 cheaper than the 30D, and effectively does the same thing, or better. The D200 is cheaper than the 5D, lacks full frame, though is weather-sealed; a true 'pro' alternative in a small package (Canon has no equivalent option). The D2x could effectively serve as a '2 in 1' camera, for $3000 less than the 1DsMkII. I won't bother comparing the 1DMkIIn to the D2Hs, as there is no comparison. Even disregarding Nikon, witness the Pentax K10D, a 10MP machine WITH weather sealing, for less than $1000!
You can argue specifics of the two companies products all you want, all day and all night long (here on the internet), but the bottom line is that the what was once Canon's significant technological gap has now closed. If everyone else can do it cheaper than Canon, just what does that say? Either they are 'all' fronting loss-leaders to gain market share, or Canon's prices are inflated.
I think Canons competition with the 1DsII comes more from Hasselblad than Nikon. I don't think people might shift to Nikon because they're impatient with update of the 1DsII, but I think many may take a look at medium format. The new 3HD looks impressive. http://www.hasselblad.se/promotion/h3d.aspx
Since when did companies wait for an anniversary to release products? I can understand the release of a special edition camera or product, but if competition is stiff, to heck with anniversaries! Release it now!
Canon bought time with the 30D and the 1D IIn. Apparently, they didn't buy quite enough as they haven't brought out anything new in that range. As Jeff said, the middle market alternatives like the D200 are strong competitors, despite the deficiencies in high-ISO. I'm not sure that the advertised weather seals are significant, but I'm sure that the feature set of the D-200 is substantial regardless.
Canon needs to pull out a major advance - there's no time to rest on ones' laurels when the market is moving so quickly.
jamesf99 wrote:
The 1.6x crowd always sat in the "cheap" seats and threw stuff, vociferously screaming that their sensor was better because the density was higher.
If you do the quick math (probably not 100% accurate) and say the new 400d sensor is the new standard, the density must rise to around 25 MP to have equal PD (and this is theoretically possible now since you have a 10.1MP 400d sensor in the market. I think this point alone is more important for perception if nothing else. It will drive a stake into the heart of the 1.6 crowd though and they'll be crushed. ...Show more →
Jim,
The pixel density argument is pretty specious in my opinion, especially when you consider that the 5D has a pixel density far lower than the 20D and even lower than the 10D/300D. And yet the 5D has the best high ISO performance of the entire Canon lineup. And there are a lot of people who argue for the superiority of the 5D images.
I'm also not convinced that a higher pixel density gets you better crops unless you're doing extreme cropping -- because the pixel density doesn't change however much you crop. The 5D has a pixel density of 14,400 photosites/square mm, and that's true whether you crop 0 or 90%.
Now I was playing devil's advocate, of course, and I'm sure a better camera will be a better camera. But if you could make a non-interpolated 14 megapixel sensor with the dynamic range of negative film, I'd take that in a hot second over a 22 megapixel version of the same old Bayer CMOS.
Apparently we'll have to wait until '07 to find out what Laurels Canon really has I thought for sure Canon had something else to announce this Photokina but was obviously wrong, all those who kept saying nothing else new for '06 and '07 is Canon's year are more in the right at this point, let's hope they are right about '07 being a huge year for Canon, at that point they will definitely be overdue so I'm thinking an overhaul to their whole lineup from the 30D up...
40D
7D
1D MkIII
1Ds MkIII
and hopefully the D200 killer, a 3D based off the EOS 3 body and with a 40D sensor...
God willing all will have higher ISO capability (up to 6400) and increased DR!!!
Maybe we'll even see the hoped for 200mm f/1.8 L IS and some new L Wide Angles...
Its nice to think that Canon will release 40D, 7D, 1d3 etc but its bread and butter is surely 400D type cameras. i'm wildly guessing that maybe only 1 in a 10,000 cameras that Canon sell are pro level. I'm sure Canon had to make sure they had a hot new consumer cam out in time for Christmas. I bet there will be a lot more 400Ds filling stockings than pro level cameras.
if it means keeping the pros and rich amateurs waiting a couple more months for a new pro camera or for an answer to the fabulous D200, then so be it.
I'm sure when Canon does release a new pro camera it will blow our sox off.
Lower pixel density helps make low noise possible at high ISO. Read about it on Canon's full frame white paper.
Pixel density never changes but you lose the # of pixels quickly when you crop. Crop a 5D image down to the size of a 20/30D image and you end up with less than 6 megapixels. Compare that with 8 mp or, from the 400D, 10 mp. This only matters if you need to crop the 5D image, e.g. if you can't fill the frame with your current lenses, which is usually an issue on the long end such as if shooting birds or wildlife
wjmeyer wrote:
and hopefully the D200 killer, a 3D based off the EOS 3 body and with a 40D sensor...
Why would Canon EVER make a hypothetical "3D", which would be higher in the food chain than the FF 5d, with a dreaded little cropped sensor? Never gonna happen and thank God for that.
My vote is for no more of those cropped little sensor cameras.
I understand that, Jay, but I don't forget this: a full frame sensor is 2.4 times as large as APS-C in terms of surface area (864 vs 360 mm^2). So to crop the 5D down to APS-C size is to remove nearly 60% of it!! That's an enormous crop.
To crop an APS-C by the same amount leaves you with a sensor area that is 147 mm^2, which is roughly the size of the 8x15mm point and shoot sensors (120 mm^2).
So your point about a 5D cropped to APS-C may be true, but think about it this way. The 5D crop that leaves you with a 5.2 megapixel APS-C image is the same as a 30D crop that leaves you with a 3.3 megapixel point and shoot image. Or with the 400D it's a 4.1 megapixel APS-C image. I'd still take the 5D.
Yes, someone with a fixed lens lineup might want to crop the 5D to get the FOV of an APS-C image. But that's a different conversation, and strictly speaking full frame and APS-C call for somewhat different lens lineups
But remember that this whole conversation started with the difference between the 1Ds Mark II and its putative successor.
A 59% crop (i.e. to APS-C) from the 1Ds Mark II leaves you with a 6.8 megapixel APS-C image, and a 59% crop from a 22 MP full frame leaves you with a 9 megapixel APS-C image.
So the difference in pixel density between a 1DsII and a 22 MP 1DsIII allows you the difference of 2.2 megapixels when you crop from 864 mm^2 to 360 mm^2. In terms of enlargements, this leaves you with a native 300 dpi 8.2 x 12.2 from a cropped 'mark III' and a native 7.1 x 10.6 inch image from a similarly cropped 1DsII. So this gain in pixel density gets you very very little.
Paul, with a 1.6x crop you may not need to crop at all so comparing a cropped 1.6x image with that of a P&S isn't relevant. I shoot wildlife and I am pretty sure that I am not going to get a 500 f4 due to price and size. A 300 f4 on 1.6x gives a field of view equivalent to a 480 f4. Sure the 500 f4 is sharper but the point on needing different lens lineups for FF vs 1.6x runs into practical and fiscal barriers at some point esp if you are shooting long.
I mean, if you don't like this thread, then don't read here, let alone post here. 
Even disregarding Nikon, witness the Pentax K10D, a 10MP machine WITH weather sealing, for less than $1000! 
I thought for sure Canon had something else to announce this Photokina but was obviously wrong, all those who kept saying nothing else new for '06 and '07 is Canon's year are more in the right at this point, let's hope they are right about '07 being a huge year for Canon, at that point they will definitely be overdue so I'm thinking an overhaul to their whole lineup from the 30D up...