Nikon has a D40, not a 40D so i do not think this will deter Canon anymore then Canon's 300D will deter Nikon from calling their upcoming prosumer D300.
mfurman wrote:
I am certain then that you do not care about pixel density (for maximum magnification). After initial enthusiasm about 5D (I am a long time film camera user) I realized that 1.6 crop gives me what I really want. If 40D does not have very good low light capabilities and and new (better) focusing with f/4.0 triple sensitivity, I will go with my original plan to get 1 D MkIII (after it is "fixed") but never FF!
I don't understand--except for shooting extreme telephoto, or perhaps great concern about wide open vignetting, I can't see why 1.6 crop would be 'what you want.' What is it about pixel density that is better than the same number of pixels spread over a larger sensor?
Tom_W wrote:
And Canon still has the XT in it's lineup, which competes directly with the inexpensive Nikon(s).
I think he meant the number 40 was in use by Nikon, albeit the D40/D40x instead of 40D. I've wondered about this as well, or at least if canon is concerned about consumers being confused by such similar naming.
timbop wrote:
I think he meant the number 40 was in use by Nikon, albeit the D40/D40x instead of 40D. I've wondered about this as well, or at least if canon is concerned about consumers being confused by such similar naming.
I agree with 40D being confusing possibly to consumers since Nikon has 2 of them. If Canon's is indeed 40D, then there will be A D40, D40x, and a 40D!
I've wondered before about a 30D MkII. That would work I would think. But, that may tie it too close to the 30D I guess.
millsbury said:
I don't understand--except for shooting extreme telephoto,
Do you mean that you do not use your lenses at close to MFD? What maximum magnification, do you think you get from (as an example) 135 f2.0 L lens at its MFD of 0.9 m, when used on 5D or 400D? Do you consider 400 mm as "extreme tele"? Once again compare 5D and 400D with a 400 mm lens.
millsbury wrote:
I don't understand--except for shooting extreme telephoto, or perhaps great concern about wide open vignetting, I can't see why 1.6 crop would be 'what you want.' What is it about pixel density that is better than the same number of pixels spread over a larger sensor?
I'm not sure if thats supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. There is a benefit for pixel density. Ask any bird photographer. More pixels per bird, especially when you have to crop in and extract as much detail as possible.
timbop wrote:
I think he meant the number 40 was in use by Nikon, albeit the D40/D40x instead of 40D. I've wondered about this as well, or at least if canon is concerned about consumers being confused by such similar naming.
Oops - you're probably right. I misinterpreted his message.
Perhaps Canon will name it something else like a 60D (yes, that's a rumour on another site).
I heard that the number 4 was unlucky in Japan. That Canon would never use that number. Oh, by the way its Aug 2 and still no announcement on a 30D replacement. Just goes to show........rumors are just that..........rumors.
Here's the scoop for those full-frame addicts and need-more-hard-drive-space victims, myself included. Canon is going to surprise you this fall and make you buy even more hard drives this coming fall. You didn't hear this from me
Canon 10D wrote:
Here's the scoop for those full-frame addicts and need-more-hard-drive-space victims, myself included. Canon is going to surprise you this fall and make you buy even more hard drives this coming fall. You didn't hear this from me
No info for 40D.
What, they're going to start writing in TIFF format?
Don't think this is what you're talking about, but they are coming out with some HD camcorders that record directly to hard disk. Don't know if that was a secret or not...
Can't see them unilaterally going with their own compressed format (outside of say lossless compression for RAW) and to get one ratified as a proper standard and then accepted as a defacto standard can take years.
mfurman wrote:
I am certain then that you do not care about pixel density (for maximum magnification). After initial enthusiasm about 5D (I am a long time film camera user) I realized that 1.6 crop gives me what I really want. If 40D does not have very good low light capabilities and and new (better) focusing with f/4.0 triple sensitivity, I will go with my original plan to get 1 D MkIII (after it is "fixed") but never FF!
I care very deeply about pixel density- i want a LOWER pixel count.
If canon dropped a FF 8mpx tomorrow, i'd sell my 1DII and 135L for it haha.
Canon 10D wrote:
Lol. not quite. Think big, think MP, and think DR
Canon is already thinking about new compression algorithm for next year.
Canon, just like any digital camera manufacturer who does in-house development, will think about new compression tricks all the time, so that's a bit of an empty statement, isn't it?
Big, MP, DR... Will there be a 1Ds III? Yes, there will be. That will have more MP (no-brainer really) and, given that the 1D Mk III has 14-bit depth, it will have bigger files too. If the increased bit depth leads to usable higher DR remains to be seen, but it's reasonable to expect it does.
And then there are the ever present rumours that Canon will move into Medium Format cameras... Possible for sure. Big? Check. Lots of pixels? Check. Insane DR? Check again. (The PhaseOne P45 digiback with 39 Mpixel Kodak MF sensor does 12 stops DR... to give you an idea of what can be had from a 49.1 x 36.8 mm sensor.)
But what does all this have to do with the speculation on the 30D successor? It will not be 8 Mpixel but at least 10. So the fact that we'll need more CF and HD capacity to store the same amount of shots is ... again... a no brainer.
Even if the 40D will jump to 12 Mpixel and 14-bit precision, that'll put it it at an expected ( 12/8 * 14/12 = 1.75 ) 75% increase in file size.
