You mean to say some bloke (tsiphoto) on the net read about some features ..... on another blog rumour site/forum.... and wrote a flimsy, regurgitated post... and he has 'spoken'. As Rubber Soul pointed out, this has been here for a while now, and seems to be the most current rumour.
Antonio Tiki wrote:
You mean to say some bloke (tsiphoto) on the net read about some features ..... on another blog rumour site/forum.... and wrote a flimsy, regurgitated post... and he has 'spoken'. As Rubber Soul pointed out, this has been here for a while now, and seems to be the most current rumour.
This confuses me. As far as I know the 30D allready wins against the D200 - certainly on sensor and AF. The only thing I have ever read that is better on the nik is flash capability and ergonomics - although I have handled one and personally found the so called ergonomics to be very irritating. Give me the Canon wheel any day.
Antonio Tiki wrote:
You mean to say some bloke (tsiphoto) on the net read about some features ..... on another blog rumour site/forum.... and wrote a flimsy, regurgitated post... and he has 'spoken'. As Rubber Soul pointed out, this has been here for a while now, and seems to be the most current rumour.
Oh my!
How embarassing :worried:
Believe it or not he is a credible source. He's the guy who announced the 16-35 mark 2 several days before release, and got berated for making such a silly prediction. Anyway, I always though the weather sealing was a stretch - from those images posted the hotshoe looks like it has it but I never saw any evidence around the buttons. So, he specifically states that it does not have weather sealing, but beats the D200 in every other category. I have suspected that the AF was going to be improved considering the 400D, so that makes sense. I think it is very safe to assume:
10.1MPX with better high ISO
better AF (6 hidden sensors or just better ones?)
6+ FPS
liveview (who cares)
more reliable grip
maybe 14 bit raw
antidust (who cares)
By the way, I took the 'tsi challenge' (you know, check his other posts, his always right), and this is what I found (on dpr);
tsiphoto wrote:
Who thinks that the new body this year(07) will include video, 1920x1080hd even... All the local newspapers for sports are showing more and more video on there web sites... It will happen soon.....
Yeah, that sounds like inside information. Maybe it will one day, but somehow doubt it will be on any DSLR in 2007.
Sinope wrote:
This confuses me. As far as I know the 30D allready wins against the D200 - certainly on sensor and AF. The only thing I have ever read that is better on the nik is flash capability and ergonomics - although I have handled one and personally found the so called ergonomics to be very irritating. Give me the Canon wheel any day.
So the 40D doesn't have to do much does it.
The D200 is a professional camera... so probably explains why you're confused.
Need I remind you of calling people "fanboys"? The D200 and 30D are not really that different; calling the D200 a professional camera and the 30D an amateur is really a bad case of fanboyism!
And just for the sake of humbleness I'll include a comparison of the great D2X against another real professional camera, the H3D, by a great photographer that normally uses the D2X and loves it.
Nice that the 40D is almost here but IMHO its a day late and a few MP short. I think almost every DSLR manufacturer has a nice 10mp DSLR out and some also have the sensor shake and even integrated image stabilizer.
According to Tsiphoto, this is the most likely feature scenario for the 40D:
- 10 MP CMOS 1.6 crop
- Digic III
- 6 fps or 3 fps with 60 shot jpeg buffer
- 3" LCD
- Sensor Dust Shaker
- 9pt 'improved' autofocus
- 30D like body size and ergonomics with dial
- ISO 100-1600 + 3200h (in viewfinder)
- 1 stop better noise per ISO than 30D
- Live view
And I'll add that it's probably going to be a 14 bit A/D conversion.
New grip coming out, but you can still fit the old one.
IFeito wrote:
And just for the sake of humbleness I'll include a comparison of the great D2X against another real professional camera, the H3D, by a great photographer that normally uses the D2X and loves it.
If those specs are true, that just made my decision that much tougher. I'm not sure I need the full frame that much more, if the 40D would have everything else, including the better noise performance. I was thinking I would hold on to my 20D until next spring, then get the 5. The only reason I mention it, is because I wonder if with this, canon is TOO close to the 5d, and might be cannibalizing that upgrade market some. Does this mean we should expect details in the near future of significant enhancements to the 5d to keep that upgrade path viable?
joekraft wrote:
If those specs are true, that just made my decision that much tougher. I'm not sure I need the full frame that much more, if the 40D would have everything else, including the better noise performance. I was thinking I would hold on to my 20D until next spring, then get the 5. The only reason I mention it, is because I wonder if with this, canon is TOO close to the 5d, and might be cannibalizing that upgrade market some. Does this mean we should expect details in the near future of significant enhancements to the 5d to keep that upgrade path viable?...Show more →
Yes. To assume that the 5D will stay where it is would not be realistic.
It the 40D gets very close to the 5D a new and better 5D will come out.
But 5D has some goods and bads that are so just because it's a fullframe.
* The lens doesn't have the 1.6 factor (good for wide, bad for tele and also it's bad if you have or want EF-S lenses)
* You will have a more shallow DOF (good for portraits, bad for group pictures, landscape etc.)
The 5D is getting pretty old. If the sensor in the 40D is improved compared to the 20D/30D (not just more megapixels, more noice) there would be a lot of sense in upgrading the 5D.
What's the impression on the 1D mk III over 1D mk IIn? I don't have either and are not that interested in this market (since I'm not going to buy a 1D anytime in the foreseeble future), but by impression is that it actually is better. Slightly more pixels (10 instead of 8) and less noice, higher ISO, more details (due to the 14 bits pr. channel). If they can do that to the 5D too it very well might be ready for an upgrade!
If not, - why would you even want an upgrade anyway?
Rumours says that Sony and soon Nikon will have (almost) fullframe cameraes ready. If that turns out to be true I guess Canon will be preasured to improve on the 5D and perhaps lower the price as well.
Who knows. Optimistictly I might go for an 5D mk II in feb. for a bit less than the 5D is now. That would be cool for me. I would prefer the 5D to the 1D and the price is also more suitable for my use.
On the other hand. Rumours might very well be wrong, and even if they are right Canon might not respond as I guessed above.
If 40D = 400D sensor in 30D body (as the converging rumors seem to indicate)then, keep 20D as wildlife body and wait until updated 16MP 5DII comes out in spring to purchase as landscape body.
If 40D = "something significantly better than 20/30D" (i.e. f/8 AF, 12 MP with no noise increase, or something similarly earth shattering) then, buy 40D in fall and either buy used 5D as 2nd body or else muddle along for another year with a single format and wait for 5DII rebates in fall 2008.
