The main upgrades which are significant :
1. 10 mega pixels with self cleaning sensor
2. 3-inch LCD with Live View.
3. There are 3 Camera User Setting (C1, C2, C3) and Flash Off mode at the main dial.
4. sRAW (small RAW) as in EOS 1D MkIII.
5. The buttons (menu, erase etc) now at the bottom
J.D.:
But it gives you some idea of how long the rumours have been around.
...and how old 20D/30D is (I mean people wanted 40D already half a year after 30D was announced). I would not buy 30D (I had two) but rather 400D if I wanted a cheap camera. The only reason to get 30D is if someone desperately needs 5 fps, 1/8000 s shutter and (problematic need) spot. The emphasis on body size and build is strange, in my mind (I have been an EOS user since 1990). 40D should have f/4.0 triple sensitivity focus and higher "ISO" sensitivity to make sense.
I still think Canon will skip 10mp and go up to 12mp in the next model. Would make more sense since Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Olympus already have 10mp models in this market segment, and will release updated models within the 40D's product cycle, Which would again leave Canon behind in the MP war (Yes MP don't really matter to most of us, But it does in marketing).
Actually I'd like to see Canon take a stand and say that 10MP is really all that is necessary... and that going beyond that just for the sake of keeping up with the Nikons, etc... is not their game. But then maybe someone can make a better argument that 12MP is actually better... so far I have not seen any compelling reason to believe we need more then 10MP on a APS-C sensor...
Oh, and I do like mfurman's idea that the 40D should have at least one high precision AF point that works at high precision with a F4.0 lens...
Some folks are making calculations from the a RAW size of 12mb and assumed 10mpx suggesting that 40D may have 14 bit a/d. Which would give better results -- 10mpx with 14 bit a/d or 12 mpx and 12 bit a/d?
I hope they don't go to 12MP. That's the same as 13.7MP on the 1.5 format and ~ 31MP FF; yikes. I'd rather see 10MP and ensure noise and DR are slightly better than current 30D.
JoeLeBlanc wrote:
Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but why would an AA filter affect the file size? RAW file size is simply pixels x bits, right?
RAW is compressed, although with a lossless compression algorithm. The sharper the RAW image is, the less it can be compressed.
An uncompressed 10Mpixel (3888x2592) 12-bit image would take 15 MB, at 14 bits 17.6 MB.
I suspect that all the 'specs' that are rumored are just that... rumors. I think there's a really good chance the mysterious photos are of a real camera... but I think all the true specs are yet to be announced.
A sample RAW image I have from the 1DM3 has a file size of 13.8MB. This includes a 1.4MB JPEG that is embedded in that file. So, minus the embedded JPEG, that's 12.4MB, which includes a little more then actual 14bit color data from the sensor, things like EXIFF and other stuff, but I think the large majority of that 12.4MB is indeed sensor data. But as far as I know there is no way to get the any Canon camera to record a RAW file that does not include some embedded JPEG... So, the idea that the 12MB rumor is the file size... would either mean it's not 14bits, or it's simply a inaccurate rumor.
The RAW files I have from a Xti I onced owned are like 12.4MB, but these include a 4MB embedded JPEG, when that is removed the remaining data is 8MB. I have not been able to figure out why these Xti RAW files have such a large embedded JPEG. When I shot them, I was using RAW+JPEG, but the camera records a totally seperate JPEG file... so why it also records a full sized JPEG embedded in the CR2 file, I have not yet figured out...
Anway, if your going to speculate on the rumors of 12MB file sizes... you should at least consider that part of the RAW file contains a embedded JPEG, and we really don't know what size that will be.
What is important is the stated Canon size of the RAW, and XTi specs on Canon Website are 9,8MB, so if the 30D is 12MB, that means:
a) 14 bits
b) weaker compression
c) bigger embed JPEG
d) other reason that I do not know
e) just a rumor
OK... here is what's listed on Canon's web page...
For the 1DM3...
RAW: Approx. 13.0MB (3,888 x 2,592)
For the Xti.
RAW: Approx. 9.8MB (3,888 x 2,592)
Apply my math to those figures...
14bit vs 12 bit...
14bits / 12bits = 1.17 increase in bit data.
9.8MB x 1.17MB = 11.5MB
12MP vs 10MP
12MP / 10MP = 1.2 in crease in MP data
9.8MP x 1.2 = 11.8MP
None of that adds up to the file size of the 1DM3... but then I can't figure out how they get to 13MB file size on that... And I fully admit that my math may be wrong...
So nothing new about 1Ds MkIII?
Is it coming with 40D in a couple o weeks?
1dMkII N came out the same day 5D was announced, so it's not
uncommon to have two big cameras come out together...
Sept 21st will be exactly 3 years since 1Ds MkII introduction...
I mean it is in traditional math, but it isn't in binary. In binary math a 13 bit number can be twice what the 12 bit is, and a 14 bit can be 4 times what the 12 bit is.
14 bit/12 bit = 4
So the math you present makes even less sense than you thought. The problem here is that the compression algorithm (even if it's lossless) is something we cannot take into account with simple math.
Thus a 12 MB RAW image could mean a 14 bit with a different compression algorithm from that of the 1DIII, or could even mean a 12 bit image with a different one from the XTi (which I don't believe could be the case here).
