Tentacle wrote:
Because that's a 3+ year old sensor. Canon will have made quite a bit of progress since then, so it'd be silly to use a 3 year old sensor. A new one would perform much better and be cheaper because yields would be better.
The 5D has no competition whatsoever. None. No full frame camera is available for that price. So why bother upping the resolution? It would only canibalize the 1DsII sales. A 20-30D like upgrade for the 5D, some added features, no reso bump and production streamlining to reduce costs, is all it needs.
The 30D is getting its ass kicked. A well-selling 400D is a different price range and market segment, so that will have very little to do with how 30D sales have gone down the drain.
If Canon sticks to its commitment to full frame, then don't expect too much additions to the EF-S line-up. But, it's possible. In fact, the 50-150 would make a very nice lens for crop. Tele lenses don't really need the short backfocus, so it remains to be seen if there will ever be tele zooms for EF-S. ...Show more →
You are correct the 30D is basically over, which is the reason for the rebates. The D400 is wonderful, and received most it the 30D features with a better resolution and ISO performance. Go to www.416-1100.com to see test images.
ALSO, Canon knows that the 30D is over, which is why you'll see the 40D come out at PMA,2007.
Tentacle wrote:
Because that's a 3+ year old sensor. Canon will have made quite a bit of progress since then, so it'd be silly to use a 3 year old sensor. A new one would perform much better and be cheaper because yields would be better.
The 5D has no competition whatsoever. None. No full frame camera is available for that price. So why bother upping the resolution? It would only canibalize the 1DsII sales. A 20-30D like upgrade for the 5D, some added features, no reso bump and production streamlining to reduce costs, is all it needs.
The 30D is getting its ass kicked. A well-selling 400D is a different price range and market segment, so that will have very little to do with how 30D sales have gone down the drain.
If Canon sticks to its commitment to full frame, then don't expect too much additions to the EF-S line-up. But, it's possible. In fact, the 50-150 would make a very nice lens for crop. Tele lenses don't really need the short backfocus, so it remains to be seen if there will ever be tele zooms for EF-S. ...Show more →
You are correct the 30D is basically over, which is the reason for the rebates. The D400 is wonderful, and received many of the 30D features with better resolution and low noise ISO performance.
Go to www.416-1100.com to see our test images.
ALSO, Canon knows that the 30D is over, which is why you'll see the 40D come out at PMA,2007.
Remember the 70% center of a FF imager is equivalent to the 1.3 factor you're speaking of. So anyone that wants the sweet middle (or the not so middle) of a shot can simply crop to the sweet-spot. This is the reason Canon will DROP the 1.3x imager. It was a temporary imager until Canon could improve its fabrication capability and costs thereof, including the processor capacity which I believe the DIGIC-III is designed to handle; Timing, this upcomming 2007 release or the release thereafter.
[...]
I hate to squeal on you Jim, but can you use the quote tags next time to isolate your own reply from the part you are quoting? And please stay away from the bold tags and marker tags unless something is really really vital. Now you just appear to be doing the equivalent of screaming your lungs out.
But, once more, DIGIC processing capacity has little to do with cropfactor and little to do with framerate.
An 8 Mpixel APS-C sensor will spew out its data as fast as an 8 Mpixel full frame sensor, if they both have the same number of output channels and if the front-end processing circuit runs at the same clockspeed. The sensor dimensions do not matter.
(A 1DsII sensor has 8 channels and is clocked at 16 Mhz. A 1DII(N) sensor also has 8 channels, also clocked at 16 MHz. The number of pixels per second they put out is as good as identical.)
danmitchell wrote:
"The 5D has no competition whatsoever. None."
I did not write that.
"If we were to really to believe that Canon has all this foresight and is constantly staying ahead of the rest... how can we explain the 30D at this point in time?"
Touche...We can't... ;-)
I don't understand that introduction, except to say that it was a set of minor but interesting improvements but not a real upgrade. Nothing wrong with that I guess.
"And... to add some wild guessing to the mix... Wouldn't it be interesting if the 30D replacement was FF and/or there were a FF Canon camera with a feature set similar to the 30D, but had a FF sensor and/or a much better sensor then the current 30D has, yet still cost under $1500"
Such a camera wouldn't surprise me at all, but I am not confident that the time is quite right or that the price will be quite that low - not that I'd mind!
Dan
Edited by danmitchell on Feb 13, 2007 at 09:20 AM GMT
And... to add some wild guessing to the mix... Wouldn't it be interesting if the 30D replacement was FF and/or there were a FF Canon camera with a feature set similar to the 30D, but had a FF sensor and/or a much better sensor then the current 30D has, yet still cost under $1500
[...]
Forget FF for the 40D at under $1500. All the educated guesswork on margins and costs lead me to believe that that's not possible yet. After all, a 5D isn't much more than a slightly bigger 30D with a full frame sensor. But I've been musing along the very lines you just dotted out, but then with the much more cost-efficient APS-H sensor instead of full frame.
(But I will not mention the benefits and drawbacks of an APS-H'ed 40D again here.)
In the Pre-Photokina older sister of this thread, the 30D was referred to as a "holding pattern camera". Word out there (no confirmation, but at least it made some sense) was that the 30D was initially supposed to have DIGIC III and 10 Mpixel, but either one of those two, or possibly even both, were not ready at the time.
In hindsight, Canon might have been better off by stretching the 20D product cycle an additional 6 months or so, in order to give the 30D what it should have had in the first place. It is a very real possibility that they were taken completely by surprise by the D200. Many consumers were. But it's too easy to say now, 20/20 hindsight and all. Water under the proverbial bridge.
Well... I guess not even I really believe that there will be a FF DSLR announced by Canon this quarter for under $1500... Heck I'm not even sure we'd see it for less then $2000 as I've seen suggested as being the possible new price for a 5D when all is said and done this quarter...
My real point is that surely the 30D needs a upgrade... I guess Canon could go two ways with this... They could stick the 400D's sensor in a 30D body with a new OLED display on the back, etc... which would in my mind, just another minor upgrade to the 30D (since the IQ won't change all that much)... Or they could offer something somewhat revolutionary and/or surprising in a camera of this price... I'm hoping for the surprising, but also trying to figure out how I will contain my disappointment if Canon proves to be just letting things ride rather then trying to be innovative.
Also, the point was that Canon is not always ahead of the curve... and some people are starting to question if that's a pattern of them falling behind, or if they have just been holding back waiting for the big moment when they can announce something outstanding in a affordable package.
Tentacle wrote:
Forget FF for the 40D at under $1500. All the educated guesswork on margins and costs lead me to believe that that's not possible yet. After all, a 5D isn't much more than a slightly bigger 30D with a full frame sensor. But I've been musing along the very lines you just dotted out, but then with the much more cost-efficient APS-H sensor instead of full frame.
(But I will not mention the benefits and drawbacks of an APS-H'ed 40D again here.)
The D200 is a great example of positioning a product against a competitor. But at the cost of undercutting their top of the line camera. So an excellent tactic, but what's the strategy? If the strategy is to sell the good stuff at low prices for the photographer on a budget, the the D200 makes sense. Is Nikon rationalizing their product offerings, or just reacting with what they have to a changing market?
My real point is that surely the 30D needs a upgrade... I guess Canon could go two ways with this... They could stick the 400D's sensor in a 30D body with a new OLED display on the back, etc... which would in my mind, just another minor upgrade to the 30D (since the IQ won't change all that much)... Or they could offer something somewhat revolutionary and/or surprising in a camera of this price... I'm hoping for the surprising, but also trying to figure out how I will contain my disappointment if Canon proves to be just letting things ride rather then trying to be innovative.
That's a common misconception, but the xxD series doesn't carry the same sensors as the xxxD counterparts. I am not sure if it holds true for the 300D/10D, but the 350D and 20/30D do not share the same sensor, the 20/30D sensor has a 4-channel output, as opposed to a (higher clocked) dual channel output of the 350D sensor.
If a 40D is to hit 5 fps, it also needs a 4 channel output sensor. The 400D sensor is dual channel.
Likewise, a 4-channel 5D sensor can not be used in the speculated 1D Mk III because it would not be able to get to 8+ FPS without an 8-channel output. (Possibly even more channels at reduced sample rate/clock frequency.)
Hmmm.... I've always been lead to believe that the 350D and 20D/30D all used the same sensor... as well as had believed that the 10D and 300D also shared the same sensor...
Either way... I'm not all that impressed by FPS alone... and I will be disapointed with a 40D at 10MP without any better IQ then the 400D is currently showing...
I'm sure the majority of you will be happy if Canon does produce a FF 1DMKIII but I would be disappointed. Sports shooters probably could do fine with this camera but not wildlife shooters. I use a 1DMKIIn and 1DsMKII for wildlife shooting. I use the 1Ds when I'm close enough that the FOV allows for a good focus lock on my subjects head, which can be very small for a bird. But if the subject in the FOV gets too small I'm better using the "N" to assure proper focus lock. This is very important with BIF.
So it is not to get the erroneous "extra reach" of a cropped sensor but to get the FOV it provides to help focus lock.
Jim
Here you go Tentacle:
Edited by Jim Victory on Feb 13, 2007 at 11:53 AM GMT
May be first pictures of a new body from a Russian site or fake !!!!
Erhmm, could you mail that image perhaps? Because I haven't got an account at Photography-on-the-net, so I can't download the image, but I'm not going to create an account just for the purpose of getting one image.
Don't bother, it's a fake... and a really bad one at that!
I agree. The big give-away is that the "NRs" label on both bodies are not following the angled surface. There is no perspective, yet the bodies are positioned at an angle.
And I agree with the observation, both here and at photography-on-the-net, that the new flagship 1D camera would be shown with the new 50/1.2L, not with the non-L 50/1.4.
Edited by Tentacle on Feb 13, 2007 at 07:02 PM GMT
