stanj wrote:
Yes. But what if the Canon rep was showing signs of relief because they're bringing out a 16MP FF 40D, which is clearly better than the 12MP D700, and was honestly thinking that therefore the Canon offering is really better? Not saying it's that way, but looking at the past, it would not surprise me the least if they didn't see the train coming until it hit them.
Yes, and because they are the marketing guys or managers, they will *generally speaking* have little clue about technical details. Like the average P&S-shooter/consumer the number of MP's is all that matters.
I dont get something here. What exactly is the downside of a FF 40D with 16MP, that everyone here seems to think it is an incremental upgrade?
As long as it has good high ISO (say usable ISO 6400), that'd be a kickass camera. The 40D is a very good body indeed and is not slouch in the AF department (I use a 1D2 as my other body, so I am used to the 1-series AF). Weather-sealing would be nice, but a shower cap costs next to nothing and probably does a better job. LCD - who gives a damn? It isnt as if a VGA LCD is going to show that much more useful info.
I'd be happier with a 40D-specced, 16MP FF body for less, than a body with weathersealing, higher-res LCD, etc, etc for more.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Let's hope your info is correct and Canon have a right to be cocky.
let's hope they weren't laughing and smiling because they were so horrified by how gret the D700 was that they had nothing to do but crack up and laugh in crazed shock
or as someone else said becuase they saw 12MP and knew they had 16MP plus and didn't care if they had worse high IOS, fps, etc. etc. but htey had those 16MP!
32067dlm wrote:
What Nikon has done with the D300, D700, and the D3 is sustantially lower their R&D costs by using a similar feature set (e.g., sensor, focus, metering, etc.). Surely they're passing those cost savings to the consumer, or at least they'll have the opportunity to significantly cut prices to better Canon. On the other hand, everyone here is demanding something completely new, something we've never seen before, yet at a price point of $2,000. It's not going to happen. Something totally new = $$$; warmed over 40D with FF will be cheaper. We can't have our cake and eat it too.
why?
they already have digic III, they can use 2 instead of 1.
they already have the 1Dmkii AF system
they have a 6fps FF shutter and mirror system
they've been working on OLED
etc.
skibum5 wrote:
why?
they already have digic III, they can use 2 instead of 1.
they already have the 1Dmkii AF system
they have a 6fps FF shutter and mirror system
they've been working on OLED
etc.
This would be a major paridigm shift for Canon (minus EOS-3). Paradigm shift = $$$$.
Hehe... but seriously, am I missing something with this whole LCD business? The only difference to my life from having a larger LCD is that more of it gets smudged by my lumpy nose. I'm finding it hard to put a positive spin on that.
Weathersealing? Bleh.
Large LCD? Bah humbug
Pop-up flash? FOAD
Face recognition? GetouttaherebeforeIkickyouinthenuts
Direct Print? Oh yeah, baby.. give me one to use with a vertical grip as well
Give me low noise, give me a 16MP sensor (so I can crop to get the angle of view of an APS-C sensor, if need be) and give me 6fps. That's a camera I can keep and use for 5+ years. A pro-level AF would be nice, as would a 30-45 AF points, but I can still get pretty decent BIF shots with a 40D (I had a very high keeper rate with the 20D, even) so it wont be the end of the world if they retain the 40D AF.
Price it at $2300 or so and I'll be a happy puppy. And that's actually my guess as to where the 5D replacement is gonna fall... occupying the gap between the D300 and the D700 (just like all Canon and Nikon bodies are sort of staggered right now).
I could live with $3500 if I got usable (ie, capable of producing A3 prints, at the very least and ideally, acceptable for stock) ISO 12800. If I have to pay $1000 extra for pointless features like weathersealing and a larger LCD, I'll get very cranky. I always thought the D300 was a nice camera but in no way was it worth the 60-70% premium over the 40D. $100 extra for it? Sure. $600? No way. I hope Canon doesnt take that route.
I've been waiting for a replacement to the 5D from the day it was released (its frame rate was too low for use as a backup wildlife body) and I've been pretty patient about it (3 years of stoic waiting now), but I am starting to get antsy now. JUST RELEASE THE DAMN THING ALREADY, CANON!!!
Anyway, for all the talk here about a zillion great features, I'd be happy with the following:
40D features
12.8 mp sensor with 2 stops advantage over the current one, i.e. usable ISO 6400
$2000
Just goes to show that not everybody is in on the ratrace. 16 mp would be nice, but for a select number of images only, maybe less than 10%. Weather sealing would be nice but then again: I never had problems with the unsealed bodies and I've been shooting in deserts and rain. Pro-AF I've got in my 1D MkIII and it does a great job in AI Servo when compared to non-pro bodies but is more or less the same in One-Shot mode which I use most. It's all kind of relative is what I mean. The camera mentioned above would more than suit my needs....
Tim Ashton wrote:
Nik is a senior and very knowledgeable salesperson with a major camera retailer in Australia.
Grow up or as I say to my sheep dogs when they are yapping too much, "Sit and shut"
Tim
ROTFLMAO!!!! Nik doesn't know crap about Canon's corporate attitude about the D700 or the upcoming 5D replacement ... he is only a chain store camera salesman! For him to make claims such as "Canon to almost laugh at the D700" is TOO FUNNY!
Tim,
You need to take your own advice and consult your therapist as you suggested to others...
vkalia wrote:
I dont get something here. What exactly is the downside of a FF 40D with 16MP, that everyone here seems to think it is an incremental upgrade?
As long as it has good high ISO (say usable ISO 6400), that'd be a kickass camera. The 40D is a very good body indeed and is not slouch in the AF department (I use a 1D2 as my other body, so I am used to the 1-series AF). Weather-sealing would be nice, but a shower cap costs next to nothing and probably does a better job. LCD - who gives a damn? It isnt as if a VGA LCD is going to show that much more useful info.
I'd be happier with a 40D-specced, 16MP FF body for less, than a body with weathersealing, higher-res LCD, etc, etc for more.
What about us that actually need weather sealing and think that we deserve more than a shower cap? sony, olympus, pentax.. all make low end weather sealed bodies, I _expect_ that the new 5d is weather sealed.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
Anyway, for all the talk here about a zillion great features, I'd be happy with the following:
40D features
12.8 mp sensor with 2 stops advantage over the current one, i.e. usable ISO 6400
$2000
Just goes to show that not everybody is in on the ratrace. 16 mp would be nice, but for a select number of images only, maybe less than 10%. Weather sealing would be nice but then again: I never had problems with the unsealed bodies and I've been shooting in deserts and rain. Pro-AF I've got in my 1D MkIII and it does a great job in AI Servo when compared to non-pro bodies but is more or less the same in One-Shot mode which I use most. It's all kind of relative is what I mean. The camera mentioned above would more than suit my needs.......Show more →
Honestly, the camera mentioned above would suit my needs too. However, here's an idea; give me 16+ megapixels, then give me a 10MP sRAW!!
I don't have a problem with the size of the LCD, but more it's visibility in bright sunlight. I don't really trust either the camera's metering or my guesses in manual mode, so I like to see the histogram to feel confident about the exposure. Not being able to see anything on the current LCD is a problem for me, but not necessarily a "deal breaker".
Yes, I would be "happy" if the 5dm2 had the AF and other improvements from the 40D + ISO 6400, but not ecstatic. It would be a nice camera, and if it comes in for $2700 or so I will probably buy it.
It amazes me when people spend their time all day thinking: what if they are the manufacturers and what they should be thinking in terms of marketing strategy.
John Ferguson wrote:
ROTFLMAO!!!! Nik doesn't know crap about Canon's corporate attitude about the D700 or the upcoming 5D replacement ... he is only a chain store camera salesman! For him to make claims such as "Canon to almost laugh at the D700" is TOO FUNNY!
Tim,
You need to take your own advice and consult your therapist as you suggested to others...
Hey John, you're right. The truth is out. I'm not even just a a chain store salesman. Think lower.
I'd give me left eye to be the cashier actually. Nope, lower.
You know when people say "I heard it from my next door neighbour who works with a guy who cleans the toilet near the Canon building'........... lower!
You obviously know me on a personal level very well; could you flick me an email about some appointment I have next week, can't remember for the life of me what it was.
32067dlm wrote:
[...] However, here's an idea; give me 16+ megapixels, then give me a 10MP sRAW!!
Only sRAW is 4-to-1 pixel binning. So if you want 10 Mpixel sRAW you'd need 40 Mpixel (!!) native sensor resolution. And 16 Mpixel native would get you 4 Mpixel sRAW.
ulrikft wrote:
What about us that actually need weather sealing and think that we deserve more than a shower cap? sony, olympus, pentax.. all make low end weather sealed bodies, I _expect_ that the new 5d is weather sealed.
I am a wildlife and nature photographer and shoot in inclement weather a lot. Yeah, weather-sealing would be nice, but it is not a feature for which I want to pay $500 extra... not when a shower cap does as good a job (and even without it, my non-weathersealed bodies do just fine in shower and drizzles). About the only job I can think of which requires a lot more weathersealing would be shooting in heavy rain for extended periods of time - at which point the answer is not weathersealing but a raincoat (the lens mount is not weather sealed).
But yeah, if it is there and doesnt add to the price, why complain?
ulrikft wrote:
What about us that actually need weather sealing and think that we deserve more than a shower cap? sony, olympus, pentax.. all make low end weather sealed bodies, I _expect_ that the new 5d is weather sealed.
I am a wildlife and nature photographer and shoot in inclement weather a lot. Yeah, weather-sealing would be nice, but it is not a feature for which I want to pay $500 extra... not when a shower cap does as good a job (and even without it, my non-weathersealed bodies do just fine in shower and drizzles). About the only job I can think of which requires a lot more weathersealing would be shooting in heavy rain for extended periods of time - at which point the answer is not weathersealing but a raincoat (the lens mount is not weather sealed).
But yeah, if it is there and doesnt add to the price, why complain?
vkalia wrote:
[...] About the only job I can think of which requires a lot more weathersealing would be shooting in heavy rain for extended periods of time - at which point the answer is not weathersealing but a raincoat (the lens mount is not weather sealed).
The weathersealed L lenses (though not all L lenses are weathersealed) have a rubber ring on the lens collar which will seal off the lens collar-lens mount connection. The Mk II TCs also have the gaskets:
sony, olympus, pentax.. all make low end weather sealed bodies, I _expect_ that the new 5d is weather sealed. 