Well, it looks like all the stuff predicted is going to be big and heavy anyway. I sure would like to see some of there first AF primes redone(18 years later), with ring USM. I know most everyone else likes the big heavy zooms, but still, I would like to see a 24/2 USM, 35/2 USM an a 50/1.4 or 2.0, with Ring USM and all with internal focusing. An XT size body with 50-3200 ISO, 8000 sec. shutter speed, better AF, more cofortable grip and a 100% viewfinder would be nice as well.
10DFT wrote:
To compete with the Nikon D200. Canon has nothing to quite match it.
Hang on
You want the 1DIIN successor to compete against the D200? You can get about two (and one-third) D200 body for the price of a 1DIIN body. Those two are not on the same plane, market wise.
Should Canon offer something to compete against the D200? Yes. Should that be the 1DIII? No.
The 40D can give the D200 a run for its money IF Canon pours on enough special sauce, like weathersealing, or maybe the APS-H crop for better DR and high ISO performance. A 40D with APS-H sensor and the pixel density of a 20D/30D would be awesome.
Jan 15, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I agree with Rick that Canon has to do something to try and compete with the D200. The question is does it just want to match the D200 in which case they can come out with a 40D that is just a marginal improvement over the 30D. It could have 10 megapixels, slightly better autofocus, dust cleaner, etc. This should be relatively easy for them to pull off, but is more of an effort to just hold their share of the market. If they really want to compete with the D200, they will come out with a APS-H sensor with 10 megapixels and great ISO performance. A huge upgrade to the autofocus, maybe an automatic ISO adjustment mode like the D200, and put it in a 3D size body and keep it less that $1,500. Now that could really compete with the D200. I suspect they will do the former (i.e., come out with a 40D), but I would love to see them do the latter (i.e., a great 3D).
You want the 1DIIN successor to compete against the D200? You can get about two (and one-third) D200 body for the price of a 1DIIN body. Those two are not on the same plane, market wise.
Should Canon offer something to compete against the D200? Yes. Should that be the 1DIII? No.
The 40D can give the D200 a run for its money IF Canon pours on enough special sauce, like weathersealing, or maybe the APS-H crop for better DR and high ISO performance. A 40D with APS-H sensor and the pixel density of a 20D/30D would be awesome.
That's not where I was going (though I recognize that I mislead a bit) - I don't necessarily see moving the 1D2's successor down the price scale that far. Too much to give up for that. The 1-series is clearly the bulletproof leader.
My point is that Canon has nothing in the price/performance range of the D200. I'm not sure that the rumoured 40D would be the one, unless it can compete head-on from a price point of $1200-1400. If it can, that's great. I don't see Canon ignoring this vital price range.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree with Rick that Canon has to do something to try and compete with the D200. The question is does it just want to match the D200 in which case they can come out with a 40D that is just a marginal improvement over the 30D. It could have 10 megapixels, slightly better autofocus, dust cleaner, etc. This should be relatively easy for them to pull off, but is more of an effort to just hold their share of the market. If they really want to compete with the D200, they will come out with a APS-H sensor with 10 megapixels and great ISO performance. A huge upgrade to the autofocus, maybe an automatic ISO adjustment mode like the D200, and put it in a 3D size body and keep it less that $1,500. Now that could really compete with the D200. I suspect they will do the former (i.e., come out with a 40D), but I would love to see them do the latter (i.e., a great 3D). ...Show more →
I wonder how many D200's are actually selling, as compared to 30D's.
I see the 40D being closer to the D200. 10.2 mp with same great noise handling. Slightly beefier than 30/20D with partial weathersealing,dust removal, improved AF and FF viewfinder like the d200. I think the noise handling alone would help outsell the d200. Another plausable idea is a scaled down 5D or even 1D. Same incredible feel,only an APS-C sensor,3 fps, and other features removed to bring the price down. Basically a prosumer camera with the feel of a pro camera.
cactusclay wrote:
Well, it looks like all the stuff predicted is going to be big and heavy anyway. I sure would like to see some of there first AF primes redone(18 years later), with ring USM. I know most everyone else likes the big heavy zooms, but still, I would like to see a 24/2 USM, 35/2 USM an a 50/1.4 or 2.0, with Ring USM and all with internal focusing. An XT size body with 50-3200 ISO, 8000 sec. shutter speed, better AF, more cofortable grip and a 100% viewfinder would be nice as well.
To recoup the development costs they would probably each cost double what the current 24/2.8, 35/2 or 50/1.4 cost (and most likely weight in at twice as much too). These are some of the best value lenses in the range - if you consider price, IQ, size/weight.
Besides, these would then cut into the more lucrative market of L-series primes (24, 35, 50 at least) which perhaps does not make marketing sense.
I agree ring USM and IF are great to have (and affordable in some lenses like EF-S 60 macro) but for me the old lenses are still great value for money, and do everything a prime should.
IraGraham wrote:
I would bet my house that this is legit and correct. it just makes sense.
This is the 100-400 I have been waiting for. It will probably loose the stupid push pull zoom............great. With IS, I will be one of the first to buy it. I will also be in line for the 10-24mm 2.8L. Then my lens line up will be complete! I will keep my 5D until it to will have 22mp like the new 1Dsmark III. I can't wait!
I doubt they'd make a 100-400 f/4 IS, but a 200-400 f/4 would be much more likely. Note how that would pair perfectly with their line of 70-200's. Also with less focal range it could be lighter, lose the push/pull, gain weather sealing, and be sharper.
Also I doubt we'll see a 400 f/4 IS, as that would cripple the DO's sales. Maybe a 400 f/5.6 IS?
I'd find it hard to believe they could make a 10-24 f/2.8 for a full frame sensor, though it sure would be pretty.
Jan 15, 2007 at 01:56 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I wonder how many D200's are actually selling, as compared to 30D's.
It is of course hard to find these numbers. The ones I could find are not that rosy for the 30D. For Q1 of 2006 the D200 was the 7th best selling digital camera and the 30D was the 14th. Of course these numbers are advantageous for the D200 given it is the quarter after its introduction.
I also found one analysis of the 2006 Japan market share for dslr's that had the D200 at 9.1% of the market and the 30D at just 2.5%.
It is always hard to know what to do with such numbers and to get any sort of real or meaningful analysis you have to pay a fair bit of money, but if these numbers are even in the ballpark it suggests that Canon needs to take the competition with the D200 pretty seriously.
IMHO there is no way Canon would switch 40D to APS-H. The proof was in 17-55/2.8 lens. Who would really think that Canon relerased it for sub-$1000 400D bosy It is definitely for $10Mp+ mid-range DSLR!
Also no doubt in Digic III. Something tells me that 40D Af is going to be same (or adoption) as 5D one. Could be also 6fps to show some "improvement" over 200D.
vyanush wrote:
IMHO there is no way Canon would switch 40D to APS-H. The proof was in 17-55/2.8 lens. Who would really think that Canon relerased it for sub-$1000 400D bosy It is definitely for $10Mp+ mid-range DSLR!
Also no doubt in Digic III. Something tells me that 40D Af is going to be same (or adoption) as 5D one. Could be also 6fps to show some "improvement" over 200D.
Agreed, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is a pretty strong indication of commitment, but in the greater picture, if Canon wants to push towards full frame (which they do) then EF-S will be relegated to entry level.
Don't forget that the price of the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is considerably lower than the EF 24-105/4L IS or the EF 24-70/2.8L. It's not that expensive. In the end, it's just one argument against a 40D going APS-H, but not a be-all end-all argument.
Tentacle wrote:
Agreed, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is a pretty strong indication of commitment, but in the greater picture, if Canon wants to push towards full frame (which they do) then EF-S will be relegated to entry level.
Don't forget that the price of the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is considerably lower than the EF 24-105/4L IS or the EF 24-70/2.8L. It's not that expensive. In the end, it's just one argument against a 40D going APS-H, but not a be-all end-all argument.
I think that Canon will keep two price levels at the APS-C size. I can't imagine people wanting to splurge for a nice 10-22 or 17-55 EF-S lens and have it only useable on the digital Rebel/400D. There needs to be an upgrade path, or Canon will be stranding (and eventually abandoning) its entry-level shooters. For that reason, I would expect any replacement for the 30D to be a 1.6X camera.
I agree that Canon seems to want to broaden the full-frame lineup but I don't see any reason to eliminate the intermediate-level APS-C body. It's possible to have some overlap even. Imagine a 400D ($700) & 40D ($1300) at 1.6X, a 70D ($1500), 5D II ($2500), and 1Ds III ($6000) at full-frame, and possible a 1D III or 3D ($3000) sports camera. (I'm speculating here, obviously - I don't know what's coming).
