Richard Steer wrote:
From my understanding, the 400D sensor has a two-channel read out, as has the sensor in the 350D. The 20D and 30D have four-channel read out, so it's not unreasonable to expect the 40D to have the same. This means that even if it's 10MP, the 40D will not be merely a repackaged 400D sensor.
Richard
Not sure about the two-channel part but the sensor in the 400D/350D have a different pixel size form the 20D/30D. I posted this on page 18 of this thread it is from the marketing blurb of the 1dMK111. How many different 10MP sensors with different size pixels are they likely to make and is there a pattern developing in the ISO speed. Would not mind seeing the same data for discontinued models starting at the D30-D60-D10 and the 1 series to see the evolution of the sensors
DaDane wrote:
Well, - all three this fall. I don't think so. All three are due, but we wouldn't get all three at the same time.
Why would the 1D mk II (or IIn) be easier to improve on than the 30D (or 20D, - same sensor)?
because even though the 1DMkII had a much bigger sensor than the 20D, it didn't really have much better high ISO, it had a rather ineffecient sensor and reading electronics. so it is almost like in 1 case improving from a 20D to a 1.3 sensor camera and in the other improving from a 20D to another 1.6 sensor, they would have to make the 40D sensor even better, which is awfully unlikely. actually i haven't comapred mkii to 20D, but i have been told taht it is not really any better at high ISO, and some even say worse!
Richard Steer wrote:
From my understanding, the 400D sensor has a two-channel read out, as has the sensor in the 350D. The 20D and 30D have four-channel read out, so it's not unreasonable to expect the 40D to have the same. This means that even if it's 10MP, the 40D will not be merely a repackaged 400D sensor.
Richard
if the 6.5fps and all are true it will have even more than 4 channel readout.
skibum5 wrote:
if the 6.5fps and all are true it will have even more than 4 channel readout.
Maybe, but unlikely in my opinion. It depends on where the limitation is on FPS. Comparing the 1D2 to the 1D3 (both with eight channels IIRC) shows that Digic III is able to process more data faster than Digic II could. Perhaps that increase in performance is enough to allow Canon to increase the FPS despite the fact that it also has to move 10MP worth of data per frame. Remember that the 400D has a Digic II chip yet can still process 10MP at 3fps. Bump that due to having twice as many pipes out of the sensor, and bump it again for upgrading to Digic III, and you could easily believe 6.5fps.
JohnnyGCanon wrote:
I still believe the rumors I read about 3 DSLR's this fall. Replacements for the 40D, 5D, and 1DS MKII with the 40D first and the other two a little later.
Canon is going to blow the competition away, at least for now!
I also see it exactly like you.
Remember guys: joke's over now it's Sony and Nikon together!
Look at camcorder release history this year:
first HV20 (mine ) and HR10 ... AND HG10
I just hope tsiphoto it right about AF better in 40D than in D200.
My 1D2N AF sucks in low light compared to 20D, not to mention my friend's D70.
They should make 40D with all the features from 20D+MKIII. I love how small my 20D is compared to MKII,which is hard to handhold for many hours. It also would be nice to have a 40Ds version with maybe 16mp...
I found I have been hooked by these rumors & felt obliged to check whenever possible to make sure I'm not missing anything.... how about you??
Anyway I sat outside this afternoon & took stock of all this - please go and sit out in the fresh air if you haven't done so already!!
Canon weren't ready when the 30D was due to be released so they braced themselves & released the best they could at the time, meanwhile the real successor to the 20D was continued to be worked on & NOW they are ready & there will be a breath of fresh air available to the Canon faithfuls that have patiently waited for a true advancement......
Well lets hope anyway bring on Mondays announcement!!
TRY THIS: Go back to "Canon Mount SLR's" main page & hit refresh your not alone!!! watch the views jumping for this topic lol
I don't see it this way. I was a 10D owner (still am) and was not impressed with the 20D due to the poor focussing and lockups etc. The camera did improve in production but it was really the 30D that ironed out the problems and settled into a great camera sufficient to attract many (not all) of the left over 10D upgraders.
The 40D would have to be extremely good now to get me to upgrade, (highly unlikely) but I predict it will attract a lot of 20D owners, most of the diehard 10D owners and a good many of the xti/300D/350D type owners.
The 30D also, on its own, attracted a good many D200 owners (not quite sure why since the D200 is such a superior camera - odd one that isn't it?) so I also predict that the 40D will attract a good many more.
So, it looks to me that Canon have played their cards very cleverly and are just about to launch a dslr that will reset the bar and earn them God knows how many millions Yen.
Sinope wrote:
I don't see it this way. I was a 10D owner (still am) and was not impressed with the 20D due to the poor focussing and lockups etc. The camera did improve in production but it was really the 30D that ironed out the problems and settled into a great camera sufficient to attract many (not all) of the left over 10D upgraders.
I'm a 10D owner looking to upgrade but I'm not sure whether I'll go the EOS 30D or a used 1D - probably the 30D at this stage. What I'm really curious about is your comment on the AF problems of the 20D. Did that also apply to the 10D?
Has anyone got any insight into the sRAW image quality and/or details on how it all works? I mean, like do they just pick fewer pixels to create the image from, or do they take a sample of all the pixels and then do some intelligent down sampling?
DynoMoHum wrote:
Has anyone got any insight into the sRAW image quality and/or details on how it all works? I mean, like do they just pick fewer pixels to create the image from, or do they take a sample of all the pixels and then do some intelligent down sampling?
That is a good question
I guess for some folks there is a need but I think it kinda defeat the purpose of RAW. Would it be that much faster? If its that big a deal couldnt one set WB correctly before shooting?
What advantage do you folks see with sRAW?
surly wrote:
That is a good question
I guess for some folks there is a need but I think it kinda defeat the purpose of RAW. Would it be that much faster? If its that big a deal couldnt one set WB correctly before shooting?
What advantage do you folks see with sRAW?
Smaller files come to mind! But, I do agree that it seems to defeat the purpose of RAW anyway by having less information. But, if it's in the Mark III which it is, it must be valid so we'll see.
I've been wondering about that format since I first saw it mentioned months ago. But I have never seen a definitive study of it comparing it to the standard RAW.
Apparently some wedding photographers want it... for taking photos at the reception, where they really don't need a 10MP image. I'm not a wedding photographer and I'm not totally sure I have any real use for sRAW either, but I am curious about it.
Originally I was thinking that the sRAW was like half the resolution and half the size of RAW... but it turns out it's 1/4 the resolution and half the size. Now that I know that, I'm even less sure I have any real use for it... I think if I were looking to save memory card space, I'd be more likely to shoot JPEG then sRAW. However I guess I'm still open to learning more about it and changing my mind...
When I original asked my question, I was somewhat thinking or wondering if maybe by some software magic, it might be possible for the real RAW data to be processed in some way that would dramatically reduce noise levels in the resulting sRAW image, or some other valuable thing like that. If there were some 'magic' like that done in the process, then I could see were the reduced resolution might somehow be worth it. But then presumably if any of this were possible you could do the same thing in post processing of the full RAW image... (but at least doing it in the camera could potentially save post processing time, if you did not need the resolution, etc...)
No, he would not... or at least I don't believe he would... he'd probably say something like 'who gives a *bleep*'. But then I'm not sure he was ever really into photography at all.
Richard Steer wrote:
Maybe, but unlikely in my opinion. It depends on where the limitation is on FPS. Comparing the 1D2 to the 1D3 (both with eight channels IIRC) shows that Digic III is able to process more data faster than Digic II could. Perhaps that increase in performance is enough to allow Canon to increase the FPS despite the fact that it also has to move 10MP worth of data per frame. Remember that the 400D has a Digic II chip yet can still process 10MP at 3fps. Bump that due to having twice as many pipes out of the sensor, and bump it again for upgrading to Digic III, and you could easily believe 6.5fps.
your not alone!!! watch the views jumping for this topic lol