That would really hurt the EF-S lens sortiment, and there are some people that shoot on 1.6x bodies just to get some more focal range from some telephoto lenses (like me).
Jul 26, 2007 at 08:48 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I agree that the APS-H sensor is the sweet spot in terms of performance vs. cost and I half expect Canon to come out with a 7D with one in the next 2 to 3 years, but I don't think they will use it in the 40D. I think that even an 8 megapixel APS-H sensor with 15 point autofocus, 5 or 6 fps, great high ISO performance, and a good build would be a great camera for a $1750 price point.
Ref viewfinder brightness and magnification:
In SLRs the viewfinder looks at the reflected image on the groundglass screen. The size of this is determined by the format of the camera. Its brightness is determined mainly by the wide-open aperture of the lens, and to a lesser degree by the type of groundglass screen (e.g fresnel types are somehwat brighter than plain). What you see in the viewfinder is then determined by the quality of the prism (best) or mirror arrangement (darker) and the magnification of the groundglass image through the viewfinder lenses. The more magnification, the less the brightness. "Full format" cameras will always, therefore, have either larger or brighter images in the viewfinder (or usually both) than crop-format cameras. No free lunch. The vewfinder / prism arrangement, if cheap, can downgrade the quality of the viewfinder, but otherwise its just a tradeoff between magnification and brightness.
Canon once (or many times, dunno) stated, that sooner or later all of their DSLRs are going to be FF (except for maybe entry level). I wish they would put that statement in practise with 40D and make a 8 mpix FF, DIGIC III, with clean ISO 6400 and expandable 12800. I'd get everything I ever wanted: excellent DOF control, better than ever DR, super hi-ISO performance. Ofcourse that will never happen. It wouldn't have enoug mpix .
When the 40D is released, October maybe, it's going to be another 18 months before they release the 50D. If 40D is just a minor update from 30D, IMAGINE how outdated it'll be in Spring 2009 in comparison with competition at that time. Of course it doesn't mean the 40D won't be a great camera by itself. In the end, the xxD line is the consumer line, it's not a professional line. It has to be refreshing in terms of technology. I also hope it uses a new body design, instead of reusing the 20D/30D shell.
Is there any physical, technological, or business reasons that would prevent the 40D redesigned to accommodate 10mpix APS-H and still be able to use EF-S lenses? This would clearly distinguish the 40D from the XTi and act as a transitional camera to the 1-series bodies.
najibs wrote:
EVERYTHING is a rumour until it officially is announced by Canon.
I mean, it's obvious there will be a 40D to replace the 30D. But when? THat is the magic question...
As for your source saying it'll be announced July, well, that's a guess anyone can make. But my guess will be August, since that's when Canon usually announces their products for Photokina.
Bottomline, anyone that claims they can tell you when it'll be announced and what the specs are, they're full of crap. The people that do know are under non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and they obviously won't tell you or start rumours.
There isn't a Photokina this year. It's every 2 years.
But it might be at Berlin’s IFA show (31/8/07 to 5/9/07).
It talks about the launch of the 40D around 23rd of August with the following features:
* Sensor 1.6x - 10 MP Self cleaning sensor
* 3 inch LCD with LiveView
* Formats JPG, RAW and sRAW
* ISO 100 to 1600 in steps of 1/3
* Shooting speed 6.25 fps
* Buffer 75 JPG or 17 RAW
* Available grip BG-E2
* 18-55mm lens renewed
* No weather sealing
* Possible DIGIC3
I would love these features if it has it but it's still only a rumor!
A new 18-55mm would surprise me: IIRC they already have two of them (USM and the non-USM kit lens), plus the 17-55mm/2.8. It doesn't seem to make any sense.
It seems Canon is taking the other route. They're not trying to over-feature the competition, but to offer something more or less competitive at a lower price. Check the prices, here in Europe 30D costs the same as Nikon D80 and we all know 30D is better featurewise (magnesium alloy body, 5 fps...). When looking at 40D rumored specs, all I really see ist 30D mkII, or better said 20D mkIII. But the price is probably going to be around 1100/1200 when annouinced and will drop below 1000 in another 3-4 months.
wing tong wrote:
Is there any physical, technological, or business reasons that would prevent the 40D redesigned to accommodate 10mpix APS-H and still be able to use EF-S lenses? This would clearly distinguish the 40D from the XTi and act as a transitional camera to the 1-series bodies.
Physical: Yes, the EF-s line (not the 3rd party crop-optimised lenses) allow for deeper penetration of the rear element into the mirror box. On a APS-H cam, that would likely result in mirror slapping.
Technological: Yes, as mentioned, the EF-S project to an image circle which is big enough to encircle an APS-C sensor. APS-H needs a bigger projection circle.
Business: Yes, the original idea was for EF-s to make cheaper lenses. Smaller image projection circle means smaller lens elements. So, cheaper, more compact and lower weight. Even the most expensive EF-s lens is cheaper than most Canon L glass.
When Canon introduced the 5D, they stated clearly that Canon intended to move to full frame for their complete camera line-up, except for entry level. And the xxD series definately is NOT entry level...
Tentacle wrote:
When Canon introduced the 5D, they stated clearly that Canon intended to move to full frame for their complete camera line-up, except for entry level. And the xxD series definately is NOT entry level...
I have a hard time believing that a commercial company would stick to something they said two years ago - if it later proves out that the plan was not the best possible, in commercial sense.
I think both Canon and their customers have realized that there is, indeed, use for the 1.6x crop. Canon has proved this by releasing the EF-S 17-55f2.8 IS, which has the image quality of an L lens. And the customers have two reasons for buying an 1.6x crop camera:
1) it is always significantly less expensive than an FF sensor, and
2) so far the crop cameras have the highest pixel density of all the Canon cameras. This means that when you want long glass, a 1.6x crop camera effectively makes it longer.
Why would Canon stop building a camera that is a commercial success? After all, Nikon is all over 1.5x crop. Canon can never make an equivalent full frame camera with the same price and still make it a commercial success.
Why would Canon stop building a camera that is a commercial success? After all, Nikon is all over 1.5x crop. Canon can never make an equivalent full frame camera with the same price and still make it a commercial success.
Because there is a limit to optics. It is not possible to just crank up the pixel density time and time again. You can see from the 12 Mpixel 1.5x crop D2X that you need really high quality glass to get the most out of the sensor at such high pixel densities. (27 Mpixel full frame equivalent.) Otherwise your sensor will have a resolution that the glass cannot offer.
So, Canon has moved to 10 Mpixel with the 400D. Likely it will do the same with the 40D. And that's about as far as you can push it. Sure, 12 Mpixel at APS-C will be possible. But it will not really offer you higher image quality. 16 Mpixel from APS-C? Same thing again, only worse. It's called "empty enlargement", you can up the resolution, but you will not get more detail.
Canon understands this very well, so that's why they see the future in full frame. Sure, costs are important, so entry level will not be full frame. That's no problem, entry level can make do with lower image quality.
(On a technical note, moving to a X3 Foveon type layered sensor will extend the limit on resolving power, so there may be breathing room left for quite a while.)
.
.
