Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I just dont get this 'No Video' thing. you are just going to have to get used to the fact its here and its here to stay. if they put it in the 500D then every new thing that comes above (and probably below) will have it, it will just be a case of how much quality each variant will be capable of.
seem to remember the same things being said about Live View.
I am just saying no video so it would be cheaper. I camera that would feature for feature compare the to d700 but be cheaper. If they gave it a full frame sensor w/ video it would directly compete with the 5dmk2.
George.ML wrote:
But on countless occassions I wished that my ISO 800+ photos were cleaner.
That's why Canon makes the 5D and 1D bodies. You didn't think you won't have to pay extra for better performance did you?
For all intent and purposes, the Rebel and xxD bodies are aimed at entry level customers whom I suspect are used to P&S. For these people, the image quality they get from Rebel & xxD bodies are much better than the quality they're used to from a P&S. I don't think Canon will give them any better quality than they think they can get away with. Canon will only give it a noticeable improvement if they think they're losing to the competition.
artsupreme wrote:
I hope Canon listens to their customers and doesn't blow it with the 60D...all we ask for it 12-15MP, 1D2 quality AF system, HD video, and decent high ISO performance...the current fps of the 50D would work. I would be willing to pay 2K for this body if they nailed it.
It would actually be cool to see Canon step back to 12MP and focus on image quality and low light performance...but I doubt they will. Instead, they will probably try to cram more MP on the already overcrowded sensor...
So it should be out this fall correct?
The 50D already has decent high ISO performance. You won't see a 1D2 quality AF system in the 60D. Sounds like you should spend your money on a 50D or a 1D2 and be happy.
George.ML wrote:
But on countless occassions I wished that my ISO 800+ photos were cleaner.
How do you convert and process?
Because I can easily achieve essentially noise-free images well north of 800 ISO with my 40D by converting in Caprture One 4 or Raw Therapee and PPing in PSP X2 (with a dab of Neat Image if needed - which it usually isn't)
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I just dont get this 'No Video' thing. you are just going to have to get used to the fact its here and its here to stay.
It's simple, Ian: I don't want it, I don't need it, I'll never use it - why would I welcome it on any body I use?
The fact that to all intents and purposes it's just lines of code in firmware, and that I don't have to use it, doesn't matter: the time and resources used by Canon to develop it could have been better expended elsewhere for me.
It's not the end of the world, but the same time and resources might have been used to code and implement a Nikon-identical Auto ISO, or the ability for XXD bodies to AF at f/8.
aladyforty wrote:
all I care about is having higher ISO with less noise. I have the 40D and I'm happy with it except I would love the ability to shoot really high ISO with little or no noise
Seam question to you - how do you convert/process?
The 40D is not a noisy camera, even at higher ISOs.
keithreeder wrote:
How do you convert and process?
Because I can easily achieve essentially noise-free images well north of 800 ISO with my 40D by converting in Caprture One 4 or Raw Therapee and PPing in PSP X2 (with a dab of Neat Image if needed - which it usually isn't)
I'll bet you're using ACR/PS.
Care to provide some information on your image cleaning workflow?
Gochugogi wrote:
Canon advertised the EOS 3 has having similar materials, construction and sealing as the 1N. I have the 1998 EOS 3 brochure and it states this and even has a picture of the EOS 3 covered with rain drops. And the brochure certainly heralds the EOS 3 as a pro body. So the EOS 3 had pro body construction via EOS 1/1N standards. However the 1V one upped it with magnesium body, even better seals and twin CPUs.
jam51 wrote:
Not really. If I recall correctly, the prosumer EOS 3 was released with a better AF system, updated flash system and equivalent weathersealing versus the flagship pro camera at the time, the 1N. The EOS 3's build is not quite as rugged, it doesn't have a built-in diopter and only has 97% viewfinder coverage. The EOS 3s AF system and weathersealing were only superseded by the 1V couple of years later. A full-frame digital version of the EOS 3 has been on wish lists long before the 5D came out. I don't think we'll see one from Canon for at least two years if the 5D upgrade cycle holds....Show more →
Bear in mind that when the EOS 3 was released, the 1N was an aging body. The 1N was released in 94 and the 3 was released in 98. The 3 was sort of a dry-run for newer technologies that were eventually to be placed in the 1V which was released only about 1-1.5 years later. Comparing the 3 to the 1N is similar to comparing the 5D to the 1D (or maybe even the 1DS). While the pro would probably more likely go with the 1 series body, the semi-pro body could just as easily be used in many situations (and is frequently used in pro situations). I know I frequently read of people using a 5D as a backup body.
keithreeder wrote:
Yep, that's the point - it's not "don't give us more mps", it's "don't give us more mps at the expense of noise and DR performance".
Though, the noise performance on a per pixel level seems quite static. Or, essentially, that the noise performance isn't getting worse, but is definitely easier to recover given the greater res. The 50D does not seem like a particularly noisy camera either.
kakomu wrote:
Care to provide some information on your image cleaning workflow?
I'll sum it up very briefly - if you convert in ACR or LR, you will get more noise than if you convert in (say) Capture One 4, or Raw Therapee, or DPP.
That's it really: I've tested this to death, and there's no question but that the Adobe products result in appreciably more noise at any given ISO (and believe me, I've tried very, very hard to get the best out of LR in particular, because I love its concept).
I'm not alone in having seen this either - it has come up here more than once - and much as I appreciate the Adobe stuff for its strengths, clean RAW conversion isn't one of them.
I'm not talking about noise reduction here: ACR and LR almost seem to add noise - blotchy stuff that's not easy for PP NR to deal with.
I've been in long dialog with a friend who is very skilled with LR and is a great advocate, and even he has come to the grudging conclusion that there's something to my observations.
keithreeder wrote:
I'll sum it up very briefly - if you convert in ACR or LR, you will get more noise than if you convert in (say) Capture One 4, or Raw Therapee, or DPP.
That's it really: I've tested this to death, and there's no question but that the Adobe products result in appreciably more noise at any given ISO (and believe me, I've tried very, very hard to get the best out of LR in particular, because I love its concept).
I'm not alone in having seen this either - it has come up here more than once - and much as I appreciate the Adobe stuff for its strengths, clean RAW conversion isn't one of them.
I'm not talking about noise reduction here: ACR and LR almost seem to add noise - blotchy stuff that's not easy for PP NR to deal with.
I've been in long dialog with a friend who is very skilled with LR and is a great advocate, and even he has come to the grudging conclusion that there's something to my observations.
Somewhere in Japan, Canon's CEO is sitting behind his desk having some thoughts:
The xxD series is for amateurs... they have no need for pro features like a 45 point AF system... Amateurs shoot JPEG... Some shoot RAW and for them DPP is more than enough. Why does an amateur wants to use 3rd party software anyway... The printed output of the xxD series is more than acceptable for amateurs... What about the 60D... hmmmm... no need to change a good format... but maybe we can put some more MP's in them... MP's always sell... especially to amateurs
Daan B wrote:
Somewhere in Japan, Canon's CEO is sitting behind his desk having some thoughts:
The xxD series is for amateurs... they have no need for pro features like a 45 point AF system... Amateurs shoot JPEG... Some shoot RAW and for them DPP is more than enough. Why does an amateur wants to use 3rd party software anyway... The printed output of the xxD series is more than acceptable for amateurs... What about the 60D... hmmmm... no need to change a good format... but maybe we can put some more MP's in them... MP's always sell... especially to amateurs
And I wish he continues:
"These amateurs read too many internet tests like DXO. Now they even care about Dynamic Range, maybe we should implement a cleaner signal path. DR sells, especially to gearheads".
For low-light underwater photos and videos, I hope the 60D will have 1080 30P video so that only one waterproof housing is needed. 60D + EF-S 10-22mm WA will be perfect for filming a 20 to 30 ft (5 to 10 m) long Whale Shark or white-water rafting down Grand Canyon since no consumer HD camcorders have wide enough lenses. 500D's 1080 20P and Nikon's 720 24P are way too slow/choppy for filming fast-moving subjects so I'm pinning my hope on the 60D for now.
And I wish he continues:
"These amateurs read too many internet tests like DXO. Now they even care about Dynamic Range, maybe we should implement a cleaner signal path. DR sells, especially to gearheads".
That would be something... a cam especially designed for gearheads
Be that as it may, the 20/30/40/50D have offered a good photographic functionality for the money. No reason to believe Canon will take a step backwards there. In fact, the provision of all nine AF cross sensors has been a good step forward on 40/50D.
Stepping up FPS a bit has also been a worthwhile enhancement.
Daan B wrote:
Somewhere in Japan, Canon's CEO is sitting behind his desk having some thoughts:
The xxD series is for amateurs... they have no need for pro features like a 45 point AF system... Amateurs shoot JPEG... Some shoot RAW and for them DPP is more than enough. Why does an amateur wants to use 3rd party software anyway... The printed output of the xxD series is more than acceptable for amateurs... What about the 60D... hmmmm... no need to change a good format... but maybe we can put some more MP's in them... MP's always sell... especially to amateurs
based on my survey in the field many users think xsi have better IQ than 40D, I'm sure more MP will sell easier (because that's the first question consumer will ask when they want to shop camera)
luant16 wrote:
based on my survey in the field many users think xsi have better IQ than 40D
Yeah, but how many of those do you really think have compared the two cameras personally and come up with objective, repeatable conclusions based on extensive actual experience?
I'll bet most were just piggy-backing onto something they saw written on a website somewhere...
