kanfive wrote:
There's still a large gap between 40D and 1D Mark III, when not counting 5D.
Let me remind you that the 40D is hypothetical, as is the 1D Mark III. Future Nikon models are hypothetical. Canon may surprise you and release no new DSLR this show. Canon may also surprise you and release revolutionary DSLR systems this show Further, there is no reason not to count the 5D.
Let me remind you that the 40D is hypothetical, as is the 1D Mark III. Future Nikon models are hypothetical. Canon may surprise you and release no new DSLR this show. Canon may also surprise you and release revolutionary DSLR systems this show Further, there is no reason not to count the 5D.
Now, while I can't argue against your logic, it is pretty safe to say that the likelyhood of the 40D coming out this year is so high that it borders on certainty. 30D sales are hurting, that has been shown several times already. The competition has surpassed it on all sides, most importantly the pixel count. A potential xxD user switching brands hurts more than just the loss of the sale of one body, it will also hurt in lost lens sales.
The 30D is still using the same sensor as the 20D (as far as I know, save a few tiny tweaks maybe) so that particular sensor technology is definately 2.5 years old. Ample time to complete the bump to a new resolution.
I see two scenarios: One is that Canon does the disappointing stop-gap trick and simply catches up with the rest, 10.2 mpixel CMOS bayer sensor, and it will leave it at that. The other one is that Canon gets its act together and jumps ahead in terms of technology. This could be going to APS-H, with all the associated benefits and, admittedly, drawbacks, or it could be stepping away from a traditional Bayer sensor to a TrueColor/Foveon sensor. Either way, it would leave the current 10 Mpixel dSLR competition in the dust.
kanfive wrote:
What? The 40D is only 10.3MP?? In another few months Nikon is going to release D200's successor. This means basically that the 40D class is being lowered to be pitted against the Nikon D80. You'll have 400D and 40D versus the D80. I don't think the price difference between 400D and 40D is justifiable then if both are 10MP. It's true that MP isn't everything, but I think the 40D should definitely be in the 12MP area.
There's still a large gap between 40D and 1D Mark III, when not counting 5D.
Thats a weird statement, "when not counting 5D"? Anyway, Nikon won't release a D300 for another 1 year and a half or 2, probably around Photokina 2008. 'Should' Canon release something now or soon, it will be marketed either: better in price than the D200 ... or be higher spec'd than the D200 and subsequently cost more. A mini 1DS (as previously mentioned, saw this in my tea leaf reading).
dcmiller wrote:
I forgot to add that the 1 series is switchable between 2/3 and 3/4 with supported lenses. (Will not shoot 3/4 with unrecognized lenses unless disabled in custom function). Both formats make a 20mp file. The sensor has 22mp.
Some lenses work fine. Some with internal baffling don't work at 3/4. Some are borderline, but will not be recognized as 3/4 capable.
Canon didn't tell the non-Canon test shooters that it has full color pixels. I don't believe the 40D has been shown outside Canon.
I wonder, that nobody really has responded to this, except the syntax!
It would be a nice feature: if I want to frame close to the square, I have to cut less pixels (I mean stays more ).
I did some calculation:
If the effective pixel count in both case is 10.67MP (I love this number, becouse it's so unreal, that could be true ), it means the 3:2 picture would be ~5568x3712, and the 4:3 would be ~5250x3937. Since this would be one sensor, it should have at least 5568x3937 resolution, which is ~21.92MP, that is the 22MP sensor we were heard about...
Interesting, isn't it?
Also it needs a longer shutter and mirror, so it could affect the speed (both sync speed and the FPS)...
FDR. wrote:
[I wonder, that nobody really has responded to this, except the syntax!
It would be a nice feature: if I want to frame close to the square, I have to cut less pixels (I mean stays more ).
I did some calculation:
If the effective pixel count in both case is 10.67MP (I love this number, becouse it's so unreal, that could be true ), it means the 3:2 picture would be ~5568x3712, and the 4:3 would be ~5250x3937. Since this would be one sensor, it should have at least 5568x3937 resolution, which is ~21.92MP, that is the 22MP sensor we were heard about...
Interesting, isn't it?
Also it needs a longer shutter and mirror, so it could affect the speed (both sync speed and the FPS)... ...Show more →
I am not sure about the longer shutter and mirror as they would be set up for the 3:2 ratio at the moment and the 4:3 would be a little shorter (as you show in your pixel sizes) but higher... I suspect you mean - a taller shutter and mirror (same issue though)
But you are right it is very interesting if real.... I kind of believe this too - since my source from mthe rumour post much earlier in this thread was on about how excited Canon was over the new 1 series (and this is exciting) The 4:3 ratio is one of the poular medium format raitos and looks visually different to 3:2. Taken with the other claimed specs (wifi, higher ISO etc) would be a nice camera...
Interesting the source was also claiming that samples of the new 1 series was out and about, which seems consistent with the various sightings people have started to see over the last couple of weeks.
I don't disagree, just don't think you can take out a model from a line up. I've said many times that I believe , when it comes, that the 40D with be a mini 1DS like the D200 is a mini D2X. Not the same but damn good compliments.
Tentacle wrote:
I see two scenarios: One is that Canon does the disappointing stop-gap trick and simply catches up with the rest, 10.2 mpixel CMOS bayer sensor, and it will leave it at that. The other one is that Canon gets its act together and jumps ahead in terms of technology. This could be going to APS-H, with all the associated benefits and, admittedly, drawbacks,
dumping ef-s in this class? never!
or it could be stepping away from a traditional Bayer sensor to a TrueColor/Foveon sensor. Either way, it would leave the current 10 Mpixel dSLR competition in the dust.
looking that the 400D i feel that Canon reached the limit of their sensor-technology. They dont have a noise-advantage in the 10mpix class thats worth to speak about.
Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said that it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor, but Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm sensor in the future.
So, for now, unless Canon does a 180 on this commitment, expect that EF-S will be relegated to xxxD level, at some point. Or even xxxxD, if Canon pulls out a 4000D to compete with the Nikon D40 and Pentax K100D.
Geoff Costello wrote:
I am not sure about the longer shutter and mirror as they would be set up for the 3:2 ratio at the moment and the 4:3 would be a little shorter (as you show in your pixel sizes) but higher... I suspect you mean - a taller shutter and mirror (same issue though)
Why would anything need to change there?
A 3:2 FF (36x24) could become a 4:3 by "cropping" the horizontal dimension of the sensor 2mm on each side resulting in a 32x24 frame.
kanfive wrote:
What? The 40D is only 10.3MP?? In another few months Nikon is going to release D200's successor. This means basically that the 40D class is being lowered to be pitted against the Nikon D80. You'll have 400D and 40D versus the D80. I don't think the price difference between 400D and 40D is justifiable then if both are 10MP. It's true that MP isn't everything, but I think the 40D should definitely be in the 12MP area.
There's still a large gap between 40D and 1D Mark III, when not counting 5D.
Letīs see what is coming up, but I ALWAYS prefer 2 Mp less and a better sensor; I means LOW NOISE that makes usable beyond the ISO1600, superior color rendering or true color sensor (it means a photo sensor per colour/pixel, not more Bayern). Related to noise, a bigger pixel -->> less noise, so letīs see.... may be a little crop factor also helps .... Just my wishes.
RJJR wrote:
Why would anything need to change there?
A 3:2 FF (36x24) could become a 4:3 by "cropping" the horizontal dimension of the sensor 2mm on each side resulting in a 32x24 frame.
Sorry, because of my english, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, also I forgot to talk about the phisical dimensions...
I meant that (as the original post wasn't about) the 4:3 format isn't achieved with cropping: in this case the 4:3 image would be smaller, but he said both have 20MP!
What I am talking about is the 3:2 image would be 36x24mm, and the 4:3 image would be about 34x25.5mm, that is the whole sensor is larger than the 35mm format: about 36x25.5mm!!!
That's why it needs special lenses (in fact these are the usual lenses, and the ones not support the 4:3 because of the internal buffling are the special ones ), and that's why it needs taller shutter and mirror!
FDR. wrote:
What I am talking about is the 3:2 image would be 36x24mm, and the 4:3 image would be about 34x25.5mm, that is the whole sensor is larger than the 35mm format: about 36x25.5mm!!!
phibes wrote:
looking at the 400D i feel that Canon reached the limit of their sensor-technology. They dont have a noise-advantage in the 10mpix class thats worth to speak about.
Perhaps on the Digic II platform yes. The next series of new releases should well be Digic III based and therefore take 'the next step' in noise reduction following on from the amazing 5D sensor. I would hope that we will be able to see low noise ISO 1600 and a fully usable ISO 3200. Combine this capability with the wide aperture supertelephotos and wildlife shots in lower light levels should produce much higher image quality results!
halie wrote:
This whole thread needs to be nuked so it can get a fresh start. By making it a sticky, all the interesting speculation has given way to arguing. And I miss all the "Not another rumor thread" posts.
It's ridiculously unwieldy - I totally understand wating to keep rumour threads separate, but perhaps a rumour forum is called for!
Maybe not as daft as it sounds, as it could deal with all brands, and in spite of the criticism of why not just use what you have, rumour threads are always some of the most popular.
Jeff?
Regards,
DaveMart
Alistair101 wrote:
Perhaps on the Digic II platform yes. The next series of new releases should well be Digic III based and therefore take 'the next step' in noise reduction following on from the amazing 5D sensor. I would hope that we will be able to see low noise ISO 1600 and a fully usable ISO 3200. Combine this capability with the wide aperture supertelephotos and wildlife shots in lower light levels should produce much higher image quality results!
i dont like the idea of a number cruncher taking care of the noise, i'd rather like to see a sensor that doesnt need to rely on noise-reduction. The 5D sensor is nothing special in terms of noise, it has big pixels, thats all ..
Alistair101 wrote:
Perhaps on the Digic II platform yes. The next series of new releases should well be Digic III based and therefore take 'the next step' in noise reduction following on from the amazing 5D sensor. I would hope that we will be able to see low noise ISO 1600 and a fully usable ISO 3200. Combine this capability with the wide aperture supertelephotos and wildlife shots in lower light levels should produce much higher image quality results!
Don't confuse Noise reduction with Noise prevention. One of the reasons Nikon fares so poor at high ISO is that it reduces noise, sacrificing detail in the process. Canon has traditionally had the approach of preventing noise at sensor level, rather than reducing it afterwards, by using 4T (4 transistors) photo sites which allow for more uniform pixel reset, compared to the 3T CCD that Nikon.. erhhm Sony produces.
The Canon Full Frame white paper has quite a bit of information on noise, and how several methods allow the noise floor to be lowered, rather than reduced in digital processing.
With this in mind, DIGIC III isn't going to give the relatively detail-rich high ISO images any more than DIGIC II. Lower noise and higher detail can only be achieved with sensor improvements, both in design and production. DIGIC can only work on digital data, which means any noise reduction will come at a IQ price.
Peter Gregg wrote:
Why all the curiosity on the 22mp camera?? Are most of you guys in here going to be buying an $8,000 camera? If so, then this is the biggest and most elite group of guys gathered together that I have ever seen.
It's the same thing when petrolheads rejoice about the Enzo, the Nobel M15, the MC12 corsa etc.
FDR. wrote:
What I am talking about is the 3:2 image would be 36x24mm, and the 4:3 image would be about 34x25.5mm, that is the whole sensor is larger than the 35mm format: about 36x25.5mm!!!
That's why it needs special lenses (in fact these are the usual lenses, and the ones not support the 4:3 because of the internal buffling are the special ones ), and that's why it needs taller shutter and mirror!
).
