There is a thread on another board which has a similar topic. A poster said 8/20 would be the announcement date. I asked his source and he said:
"The date was printed in a swedish photo mag and are said the source is a official fax from Canon inviting them to a realease party for "sumthing" on the 20'th. The rumors says that is the 40D we can only wait and see."
Ron
PS: I think this is my first post here ~ R
Oi, we are being cynical! I don't know if you moticed, but the 1dm3 and XTi are 10MP NOT 12MP, so being annoyed that canon made a 12mp 40D might be premature. There is little chance that it will be 12MP, so don't get pissed about it. Canon's best chance to sell a lot of cameras is to have high quality and good features. For the last 7 years Canon has produced the best IQ in each market segment, with the least noise for comparative density.
I am not a fanboy, but there is no point getting mad at canon because of a potential mistake they may or may not have made before you know.
DynoMoHum wrote:
Yes... I agree that Canon will likely do what is best to sell cameras... and I also sadly agree that many camera buyers don't or would not understand that 12MP is not necesasarlly any better then 10MP. I do however have some small hope that Canon actually would rather make a camera that has the best IQ possible, and if that is done with 10MP as opposed to 12MP, then I wish they would do the right thing and educate people about things, rather then just market the extra 2MP that didn't really do anything for IQ.
Well, the RAW files are compressed, so the 2 'empty' bits in the 16 bit representation will not have any effect. So that's not the reason DynoMoHum wrote:
Oh, by the way... I think maybe I figured out why the 1DM3 uses close to 13MB per RAW image doing it's 14bit color... Here's my theory...
Hexadecimal numbers consist of four bits each. 12 bits consist of 3 hexadecimal numbers... to add two more bits, you really need to go to 4 hexadecimal digits. So, the file size probably increases by 33%, not 17% as previously thought by myself.
Xti's RAW size is 9.8MB, multiply that by 1.33, you get 13MB, which is exactly the size Canon says the 1DM3 RAW files are...
So... if the 40D is 10MP and 14bit color data... it would likely end up with RAW files that are close to 13MB.
You are so right! We don't know anything yet. We have some suggestions, but they actually might very well be wrong.
But my point was actually more that I believe the difference between 10 and 12 megapixels just doesn't matter for anyone, except for the guy trying to sell the camera. (It's a little less than 10% more resolution in each of the 2 directions). Take a 10 megapixel image, enlarger it to 12 megapixels in PS and ask people to compare. I believe than none can see the difference.
But I think the same think is true for IQ. The 10 megapixel camera will have an higher IQ, - but the difference will, I am quite sure, be so small that you wouldn't be able to tell.
Making 100% crop and having both pictures side by side might show you that the 10 megapixel camera is better, but even then I think that small unwanted changes in settings, cameracondition etc. would be bigger not to mention changes in the noice reduction, AA-filtering or other part of the image creating process in the camera.
timbop wrote:
Oi, we are being cynical! I don't know if you moticed, but the 1dm3 and XTi are 10MP NOT 12MP, so being annoyed that canon made a 12mp 40D might be premature. There is little chance that it will be 12MP, so don't get pissed about it. Canon's best chance to sell a lot of cameras is to have high quality and good features. For the last 7 years Canon has produced the best IQ in each market segment, with the least noise for comparative density.
I am not a fanboy, but there is no point getting mad at canon because of a potential mistake they may or may not have made before you know.
for those who are interested, my sources inform me that the 40D will be in stores by the end of this month.
Apologies if this has been posted as I have not read the entire thread.
astrolucida wrote:
I don't believe that the embedded preview JPEG inside the RAW takes that much space. In 30D, when I take a Small Normal JPEG, it is typically 200-400 kB. However, when I zoom in using the back LCD, the resolution is worse for RAW-only images than RAW+S normal JPEG. Hence, I would assume that the preview image takes even less space than 200-400 kB (in 30D, with 1DM3 it might be a bit more, but not 1.4 MB).
The embedded preview jpg is something like 1536x1024 so it should have a size of about
1536x1024x3 = 479kB
but that's uncompressed; so it will be much smaller.
Canon reps probably do read our forums, but I don't think we can change anything now. The cameras must be ready... just sitting somewhere waiting for the announcement.
I asked every rep I know that comes into our store, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, Olympus, etc etc etc. Not one of them reads the forums. So maybe someone else at the head offices does, but not the reps. At least not in Australia.
Rubber Soul wrote:
I have to disagree. I think that in this particular case, 12 megapixels would've made a significant difference.
The people looking to buy an EOS 40D won't be upgrading from a 10 MP Digital Rebel XTi. That model is less than a year old, and few people would upgrade so quickly. Most of the prospective 40D buyers will be coming from 8 MP dSLRs like the 30D, 20D, and 350D.
The jump from 8 MP to 10 MP is insignificant. That will not factor into anybody's decision to upgrade. But the leap from 8 MP to 12 MP can be *very* enticing, assuming they manage to keep noise levels under control. The difference in 8 MP and 12 MP will be noticeable for people that print larger than A4. It's similar to the difference in resolution between a 20D and a 5D, for example. At the very least, 12 MP is like having a flawless 1.25x teleconverter on a 8 MP camera.
Regardless, I'm just hoping that these "rumors" are in fact leaks from Canon marketing. I'll take 14-bit RAW, weather sealing, 6.5 fps, and live preview over 12 megapixels any day....Show more →
The 40D may have a superior AA filter and deliver increased per pixel sharpness than the 400D. The jump is not great, but Canon can do better than the 400D.
A 10.1MP 1.6x crop already gives an effective 1.4x multiplier compared to a 5D/1D II and 1.28x compared to the 1D III/1Ds II.
I thought about that... but still, if they compress those two empty bits, then I can not explain why the 1DMII's 10MP file is so big.
DaDane wrote:
Well, the RAW files are compressed, so the 2 'empty' bits in the 16 bit representation will not have any effect. So that's not the reason
Firstly, there are no 'empty' bits! Current cameras are either 12 or 14 bits, no more no less
Put simply, image data is encoded using huffman compression, which calculates the frequency of each possible raw value, and assigns fewer bits to represent the most common values, and more bits to represent the least common frequencies.
Now, there are two possible ways of doing this - you either compress the actual values, or you compress the 'difference' between values - either produce good compression, but the difference method is most effective on slowly altering tonal values (eg photographs). However, these small differences break down with higher ISOs because noise adds a randomness to each raw value, which is why high ISO images don't compress as well.
I *think* in reality, because cameras have limited processing facilities, the bit tables are predetermined by analysing lots of typical images, and these tables are stored in the firmware.
Edited by Mark Shaxted on Aug 06, 2007 at 02:41 PM GMT
I know one Canon guy in Mexico, who actually works in technical services, who says that he gets all his "insider information" from forums such as this one.
we can only wait and see."
