eosfun wrote:
Yeah way! The face detection statement should act like Bullshitt detections.
I don't know if I agree. The new Nikon D700 full frame camera has face detection (and 51 point AF), all for $3000 if I'm not mistaken.
Check this out for innovation:
"A human recognition system detects skin tones in the image and starts to center the focusing and metering on that area. The system can intelligently discern between people in the foreground and similarly colored objects in the middle or background and using the scene recognition system, will analyze information from the focus and metering system. It will then be able to calculate that the skin colored object in the distance isn't a face and prioritize the object in the foreground."
Although, to suggest that Canon were going to innovate this much might be a bit of a stretch, so maybe it IS bs.
eosfun wrote:
Yeah way! The face detection statement should act like Bullshitt detections.
Some of you have come close to the specs though. Remember Nikon and Sony are going to reveal their top tier full frames for which the main components (read sensor) specs have already been announced more than a year ago. You think Canon has been doing nothing but implementing face detection and a few more pixels? This show Photokina is not going to be for Canon like some years before when they showed their technological leadership in the D-SLR segment. I am sure we are gonna see I will switch Sony now posts or finally I took the plunge and went Nikon. But still most of us are not willing to take the big step and dump our glass because Canon are the only one that gives us the real EOSfun
We are photographers and we see only part of the game but remember this is a business and CANON made a big mistake with the 40 D and the 1D MKIII, in both I think they cripple the features on both cameras as the they have been doing in past due to the incremental features policy, and they open the door to NIKON to came with better cameras to the market.
So CANON has two choices to keep the incremental policy or go aggressive and takes back the leadership on the market, don’t forget that in the horizon are rising several 20+ MP cameras from NIKON and SONY. CANON doesn’t have another choice they will go aggressive and bring the two cameras with very high resolutions (with great IQ) and features to stay as a leader on the market.
Juan55 wrote:
An APS-C sensor with 15 Mpx ... whats about noise, AA filter, resolution with the actual lenses ?? I would expect IQ problems...
The G9 has a far denser sensor than 15Mpx 1.6 crop. It seems to sell well. The challenge is making good enough lenses to make all the pixels count, but consumers don't seem to care about that, they just want megapixels so they can say mine's got more.
As regards noise, again, noise is primarily a factor of sensor SIZE, NOT DENSITY, so noise will be perfectly ok AS LONG AS YOU MEASURE IT BY LOOKING AT IMAGES instead of zooming to 100%. Most consumers are quite happy with the 800 iso performance of their IXUSes. In short, expect your high iso images to be far less noisy than a G9 at the same iso, and also expect PER IMAGE (not per pixel) noise performance to be as good, if not better, than any APS-C Canon so far. Cell density is NOT a deciding factor with noise. Sensor size, micro-lens efficiency, electronics efficiency and noise reduction are way more important.
In other words, there will not be any IQ problems except that 50D buyers will see a great benefit in sharpness if they decide to buy a super-duper new Canon prime or zoom, which Canon will obviously be very unhappy about.
> I'd be amazed if they replaced the 40D after a mere 12 months and many won't like what that'll do to the value of their 40D
I know that quote is from way back, but I keep reading this sentiment and just don't understand it. The existing 40D's will go on working just as well as they do when a new camera comes out. There is no penalty for Canon in accelerating it's development as long as the new camera will sell well. In recent times the market has been growing well, so those who want camera development to cease with their existing model can safely be ignored.
one thing that will definitely happen with shorter product cycles is that the prices of 'used' cameras will tend towards other electronics and depreciate faster. Which in my humble opinion makes sense - i still dont understand how people choose to buy 2nd hand bodies when saving tiny amounts :S
brainiac wrote:
The G9 has a far denser sensor than 15Mpx 1.6 crop. It seems to sell well. The challenge is making good enough lenses to make all the pixels count, but consumers don't seem to care about that, they just want megapixels so they can say mine's got more.
As regards noise, again, noise is primarily a factor of sensor SIZE, NOT DENSITY, so noise will be perfectly ok AS LONG AS YOU MEASURE IT BY LOOKING AT IMAGES instead of zooming to 100%. Most consumers are quite happy with the 800 iso performance of their IXUSes. In short, expect your high iso images to be far less noisy than a G9 at the same iso, and also expect PER IMAGE (not per pixel) noise performance to be as good, if not better, than any APS-C Canon so far. Cell density is NOT a deciding factor with noise. Sensor size, micro-lens efficiency, electronics efficiency and noise reduction are way more important.
In other words, there will not be any IQ problems except that 50D buyers will see a great benefit in sharpness if they decide to buy a super-duper new Canon prime or zoom, which Canon will obviously be very unhappy about. ...Show more →
Most of us don't want ISO performance on par with a G9, we want it on par with or even better than the 5D but in an APS-C format. Your statement about image size is correct - an 8x10 is always an 8x10, and more smaller pixels should come out to a similar net result. However, 2 small blobs of noise combined together isn't better than 1 larger blob, and that's where my concern is. I have a bad feeling that ISO 6400+ on this new sensor is simply going to be a gimmick, and at 3200 not perform any better than my 20D.
Face detection... really? People seem to think it'd be easy in a DSLR, but am I the only one that realizes that the focus mechanism in a DSLR is completely different than in a point and shoot? I could see them doing face detection in Live VIew, but I don't see how focus points could see heads and faces... I don't think it's possible unless you had many many more focus points. Live View maybe though since the camera is seeing the complete image rather than little dots of it.
timbop wrote:
Most of us don't want ISO performance on par with a G9...
I didn't say the 50D noise performance PER IMAGE would be on a par with the G9. I said it would be far better. Sensor size rules when it comes to image noise.
>...we want it on par with or even better than the 5D but in an APS-C format.
Then get a 450D. The 450D has two and a half years more development behind it and already snaps at the heels of the 5D in image quality at high isos.
> Your statement about image size is correct - an 8x10 is always an 8x10, and more smaller pixels should come out to a similar net result.
Glad we agree.
> However, 2 small blobs of noise combined together isn't better than 1 larger blob, and that's where my concern is.
Well, assuming that you mean the two small blobs to take up the same area as the 1 big one, then PER IMAGE noise will be on a par, but detail will be significantly better in the two pixels, especially if you happen to set a lower iso for a change. Noise really does average out. Downrez hard and it's gone, almost. That's why pixel density is pretty much irrelevant to the noise issue.
> I have a bad feeling that ISO 6400+ on this new sensor is simply going to be a gimmick, and at 3200 not perform any better than my 20D.
If Canon has copied Nikon's plasticky chroma-noise-reduction feature in the Digic4 to enable higher isos, I think many Canon buyers will be duped too, so 6400 iso should get rave reviews. The loss of chroma detail is seldom mentioned by Nikon D3 reviewers. I only hope Canon makes sure we can turn plasticky chroma NR off. The 450D seems already to be better at iso 3200 than a 20D, and I expect the 50D will match the 450 at least, especially with the plasticman filter on.
I now is hard to belive but wait copule weeks and you will see that I'm correct.
I can't tell more because...
The 5D replacement (I don't now the name yet) will be anounce in September and will come out with even more MP (around 21).
Any other specs? FPS? Size? Price? Weather sealing? Will it look like a 5D or a 1DIII?
This would be the first time someone gets one right. Hardly the justification for the crowing.
Ben is quite right.
In addition there were correct rumors and web page leaks with the 5D and MKIIN. Both were mocked as BS. People even reposted the leaked images of the 5D, pointing to all the parts of the photos that "proved" they were fake. Of course there are a lot of false and made up rumors that come out from time to time, But instead of being open minded and trying to critically look at the source we get a lot of sarcastic reticule. ( not in the quotes above}
Mattbtn wrote:
So, a "good" friend called you today from the Canon dealer meeting, and he felt more compelled to talk to you about future P&S cameras instead of new SLRs?
Hmmm... JDSA wrote:
Exactly! Is that rotten fish that I smell?
Better check that fridge, I think it is next to the egg in yours. Sometimes information is just that; I love all the pessimists here, after the fact they silently let all their accusations and wise cracks fall off into the page history.
Hammerli wrote:
Better check that fridge, I think it is next to the egg in yours. Sometimes information is just that; I love all the pessimists here, after the fact they silently let all their accusations and wise cracks fall off into the page history.
Cicindela wrote:
Ben is quite right.
In addition there were correct rumors and web page leaks with the 5D and MKIIN. Both were mocked as BS. People even reposted the leaked images of the 5D, pointing to all the parts of the photos that "proved" they were fake. Of course there are a lot of false and made up rumors that come out from time to time, But instead of being open minded and trying to critically look at the source we get a lot of sarcastic reticule. ( not in the quotes above}
Right - so here comes the "how does my a$$ taste" posts. I will maintain that while you have it right, it's only one (or three or four) among the hundreds of similar rumors that have come up since the 5D/1d2N leaks. Crow all you want.
The fact is that information without a credible source with specific names and references is as good as any other rumor: useless. Your original post is exactly like all other like type rumors (... I have an insider source I can't name...)
You can of course have the last word. We all bow in shame.
EltonTeng wrote:
Right - so here comes the "how does my a$$ taste" posts. I will maintain that while you have it right, it's only one (or three or four) among the hundreds of similar rumors that have come up since the 5D/1d2N leaks. Crow all you want.
The fact is that information without a credible source with specific names and references is as good as any other rumor: useless. Your original post is exactly like all other like type rumors (... I have an insider source I can't name...)
You can of course have the last word. We all bow in shame.
So you would prefer only Canon corporate releases be the source of information on gear forums? The fact is at some point it is no longer rumors but fact, regardless of whether or not you like where the facts originated. What I posted was from a dealer, who was correct, and received his info from Canon, and thus what I posted were facts not rumors, again regardless of whether you find that "credible", those facts remain. In the future no need to read any of the informative threads I post as I'm sure they'll be just as irritating to you irrespective of their validity, that way you can qualify me as a rumorist and let others form their own opinions based on my history as opposed to the history of others as you have done.
Hammerli wrote:
So you would prefer only Canon corporate releases be the source of information on gear forums? The fact is at some point it is no longer rumors but fact, regardless of whether or not you like where the facts originated. What I posted was from a dealer, who was correct, and received his info from Canon, and thus what I posted were facts not rumors, again regardless of whether you find that "credible", those facts remain. In the future no need to read any of the informative threads I post as I'm sure they'll be just as irritating to you irrespective of their validity, that way you can qualify me as a rumorist and let others form their own opinions based on my history as opposed to the history of others as you have done....Show more →
On the contrary - I have vowed in another thread to run with every rumor started by anyone on this board based on your one correct rumor (which is now fact as you astitutely pointed out.)
