Tentacle wrote:
With LCD displays like these, every unit (so every element that can change state independently of other elements) needs it's own wire to the display controller.
So if Canon is making a custom screen to fit all the functions, and "1" (from "1600") or "A" (from "AUTO", who knows?) is all it needs at the first of the four digits, it takes just a tiny bit more resources to include the bottom element, rather than to leave it out.
I believe that these photos are genuine and purposely hide some features they don't want us to know now. Like the mysterious 3rd button at the top and I'm sure there are more.
I do know I'm getting excited and warming up my debit card!
Do you really think Canon will make the 30D mistake twice? Sadly the market apparently still measures camera performance in Megapixels, 'cause the 30D is a mighty fine camera as it stands.
Ignacio
Well I never thought the 30D was a mistake myself. A very nice camera indeed, though I used a D200 , that was a personal choice. The 30D was exactly what I thought it would be , a tweaking upgrade of a very good model (model naming aside).
What the 40D should have done, was become a 1D Mk III 'mini'. 1.6x sensor wrapped around a weatherproof body. Like a K10D.
And bring out some more high quality ..... affordable.... EF-S lenses for Petes sake.
I too can't believe anyone thought the 40D would not be a 1.6x. Look at the types of EF-s lenses Canon has made, plus the explosion of 3rd party crop lenses. They are high-quality optics, and it's a convenient format. I don't see the 1.6x sensor going away any time in the near future. In fact, it might just stick around for good. I for one am happy that my f/2.8 standard zoom doesn't way 2 pounds. Whatever the 40D is, I won't be getting one. My 30D is an extremely solid camera, and I don't see upgrading for several years.
i for one didn't think the 40D would be anything but 1.6X (hell, smaller wouldn't suprise me)- i just wish Canon (and the other companies too- they're doing just as poorly in this regard) would stop bothering w/ small sensors. It's just simple math. Yeah, they can "make up" for the increased density w/ DIGIC III, but if the sensor was just BIGGER, that would help in so many more areas.
C'mon, i know i'm not the only one that feels this way.
I believe that as any smart company, Canon must adapt to the market. That means that APS-C (or Dx) format is here to stay.
I believe there will eventually be a "crossover" where the cheapest FF offering by Canon will actually be cheaper than the most complete crop sensor camera.
I don't think Canon will go to an all FF lineup like they once talked about doing.
The thing is, APS-C gives image quality at or above most 35mm film, and it's continuing to improve. Most people don't need something like the 5D. My old DRebel made fantastic 20x30" prints and most people, even most serious photographers, rarely if ever print larger than that. Would a 5D or 1DsII print be better than my 30D print? Sure, but you probably wouldn't be able to see a difference from normal viewing distances on anything smaller than 12x18".
The fact is, full frame sensors are EXPENSIVE to make. Far more expensive than a 1.6x sensor. If you can get exceptional image quality at a far cheaper price, why not?
My guess is that, for most people, their current cameras offer more features and capabilities than they use. What Canon needs to do create a perceived need for more features/pixels/fps. I think this is most true in the prosumer class (20D, 30D, 40D). I think Canon will keep the 1.6X as the defining design for this market to protect their professional lines.
What I appreciate most is the competition in to 8-10 MP range of cameras. It has certainly driven down prices and forced some innovations. I'm eager to see how the 40D competes in this segment.
Ifeito and Jman, i'm not desiring FF for resolution or for printing purposes... hell i don't care about resolution as long as it's above 4mpx.
I just want to get rid of the crop factor. Nikon, with their "DX is the new FF" bull**** is just being naive, and so is the whole 4/3's camp. There is no reason beyond cost-cutting to go w/ smaller sensors. This is where the development should go- making the yield for larger sensors a lot better.
I know very well about film vs digital, and 1.6 vs FF. I've shot SLR's (EOS mostly) half my life, and everything from Rebels (film) to 5D's and 1D(mk1 and mkII) and 1VHS's... I know what each camera is capable of, and the 20D's sensor was wonderful... if it was merely bigger, i think these cameras would actually have a future. 10 years from now, is anybody going to care about any 1.6 camera from Canon that came before the 40D? Not likely, because they're all the same camera. The 1D's and 5D's of the world shall be remembered, because they set the pace for the future of DSLR photography (hopefully).
i'm done ranting for now, i don't think anybody here is honest enough to admit they want a bigger sensor more than anything. GIMME MORE DIRECT PRINT CANON, I LOVE KIT LENSES!
Those images are very believable. Strange photo angles for any kind of press release. I like the custom user settings, large LCD & ISO in viewfinder. But disappointed that there are no changes to the focusing points (I hate the diamond arrangement) and we don't know if the focusing has been improved. I hope it has live view and the shutter/mirror is quieter than my 20D.
Anyone notice the new moulding around the hot shoe? Perhaps weather-sealing to go with the 580EXII??
Do you really think Canon will make the 30D mistake twice? Sadly the market apparently still measures camera performance in Megapixels, 'cause the 30D is a mighty fine camera as it stands.
Ignacio
I don't think "the world" disliked the 30D for having to few megapixels. I think "the world" disliked the 30D for using the same sensor as 20D. Not because it wasn't good, but because we wanted something better (better can be many things, higher DR, higher ISO, more megapixels, less noice, ... but not an unchanged sensor).
But I think that the 'standard' for Canon, at least back then, looked like it should be a minor change and that the major change should come now (a new cam every 18 month in this series and every other cam would be a major change). But I am now in doubt how big the difference actually will be.
The difference between the 1D mk IIn and 1D mk III wasn't all that dramatic. So it's a bit hard to keep the hope up for a dramatic change.
Still I believe in a 'baby 1D mk III', including 14 bit/channel and ISO 6400. Even though this obviosly will have a bit more noice, because the 40D sensor will (more than likely) only have 66% of the area of the 1D mk III.
ISO1600 wrote:
i for one didn't think the 40D would be anything but 1.6X (hell, smaller wouldn't suprise me)- i just wish Canon (and the other companies too- they're doing just as poorly in this regard) would stop bothering w/ small sensors. It's just simple math. Yeah, they can "make up" for the increased density w/ DIGIC III, but if the sensor was just BIGGER, that would help in so many more areas.
C'mon, i know i'm not the only one that feels this way.
I think we are served 1.6X sensors for three reasons
1) The smaller price
2) The smaller size and weight of camera as well as lenses
3) The difference isn't that big really
ad 1) I believe number one will go away (I know there are different opinions about this, and I am not sure I am right, but I still believe I am). But when the DSLRs was starting out this was an important issue. Therefor both Canon and Nikon and everybody else had to assure the world that things have changed. The 1.6 (or 1.5 for Nikon) isn't actually bad and it's the new world order!
That should communicate security to the customers.
I also believe (don't know, believe) that this is a smaller issue than it was, but still an issue. Therefor the rumors about an (almost) FF Nikon and Sony makes sense to me.
ad 2) This will continue to be an attractive feature for many! I have a very good friend who is a professional wedding photographer. He wanted better equiment than the 20D / 350D could give, but didn't want a heavy clumsy 1D. What to do? He bought a 5D.
(Yes that is a FF, but it is still smaller and less heavy).
I also believe this is more of an issue for consumers than for professionals.
So for this reason alone I believe it makes sense to have two lines.
ad 3) How much does the size of the sensor really matter?
Well, if you can make a 1.6x sensor with certain caracteristics (DR, bit/channel, noice level etc) you should be able to make a 1x sensor with 2.56 as many pixels, or probably actually less (becuase of interconnects, getting the data out etc.)
Now, does 2.56 times the amount of pixels count. Obviosly. But how much really?
Instead of course you could use it for better noice etc., - but that could be 'converted to pixels' if you wanted too. (So getting same quality noice quality as the 8 megapixel 1D mk IIn with same technology would leave the 1.6 sensor for the xxD camera with just (1.3/1.6)^2*8 megapixels = 5,3 megapixels.
But as mentioned earlier in this thread, megapixels sell. So Canon wouldn't make a nice high quality 5,3 megapixel xxD camera now. Instead we will get a 10 megapixel camera with more noise.
I don't know how to calculate the effect, but I believe it's just one ISO stop less, and the quality should (in principle) be the same. So the quality (if everything else is the same) of a 10 megapixels 400D/40D at ISO 400 would be the same as the imagequality of a 8 megapixel 1D mk II/1D mk IIn at ISO 800.
But of course everything else is not the same so it's really hard to compare.
Still - I think this should give food for thoughs.
It looks like the available LCDs are shaped in the form A888. This would allow any combination of 50 up to 1600 to be displayed. But why have an "A" shape for the first digit? If it was to represent numbers only, that shape can not be used for the number 2,3,5,6,8. So 3200 appears impossible to display with those LCDs. However, if it was only to be used for the actual letter 'A' - as someone suggested to indicate "automatic", for example - then it would not be able to indicate 1600 at the same time. And there is no ISO-priority mode on the dial.
In addition, there is no possible number that requires the lower left LCD but not the bottom LCD.
It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a hunk of plastic.
Janez Nori wrote:
Anyone seen the "40D" photos, VF schemes etc? Here they are ...
Dude these photos were posted on the Northern Light rumor website, dpreview, and here, before you posted them. Promoting your site is fine, but you are over doing it.
Edited by Jeff on Aug 19, 2007 at 07:51 AM GMT (Reason: promoting his website is NOT fine)
my guess.... there will still be a direct print button. I guess I'm the only person hoping the display won't go any larger than the 30D. I got suckered into the bigger is better, but in the end all I use it for is to see if there are problems with my composition and to check the histogram.
Well I don't agree. I sometimes use it to see that I did the focus right (zoom in a lot of course).
I saw Sony have som P&S cams with an almost 1 megapixel 3,5" screen. That would be nice I guess!
Has anyone had a close look at the buttons on the back of the (potential) 40D?
At the bottom we have from left to right....
1. playback
2. delete (trashcan)
3. jump
4. info
5. ? this does not look like the menu button...
At the top left of the body, there is definately a direct print button again :-( and the other button could be the menu button?? From the top view of the camera this could be plausible.
Noone seems to be too scepticle so far, surprising reading the rest of the posts! I for one think it's a hoax, although I keep looking back at those technical charts....
.