Kevin Sherman wrote:
What do you mean? The D300s is priced at $1799, this is rumored to hit at $1999...
the only price I saw floating around was the $2699 figure for a née body in the best buy system. Where does the 1999 number other than somebody yanking either from their behind or thin air .. Whichever is more convenient.
haijak wrote:
I have no special info, but it will never have a 1 series AF, that's just dreaming.
It won't be $2700. That's the list for the 5D, and the 7D will be a lesser model line.
- It will be around 12 to 16mp.
- Full Frame is unlikely, I would expect a 1.3x crop sensor. (explanation further down)
- Video and a pop-up flash is virtually guaranteed, by the convincing body badge photo.
- It will be around $1700. (competition for the D300)
- OLED is doubtful, but not impossible.
Finally (and this is purely my wild speculation) I'm not sure this is the 50D replacement.
Everybody is expecting a 1Dm4 to be announced early Sep, with a new 1.3x sensor. I would bet the 7D will have the same sensor. So the 7D and 5D are budget versions of the 1D and 1Ds.
The 1.3x crop sensor means it can't be a replacement for the 50D. After the 50D came out, it was suggested that the xxD line will be moved from a 12 to an 18 month cycle. That leaves the door open for a 9D to be the successor to the 50D in the spring. something in the $1000 to $1200 range.
So the final lineup has:
The "super res" 1Ds line
The "super speed" 1D line
Their budget siblings, the 5D and 7D lines, respectively
And finally the "entry prosumer" 9D
At least that sounds logical to me anyway. Isn't Wild speculation fun!...Show more →
Haijak, Agree 99.9%, of all the speculations on these pages so far yours makes the most sense. With a designation of 7D it would be positioned bettween the 50D and the 5D2. Just as the 5D2 is a "Mini" 1Ds3, the 7D would be a "Mini" 1D3, just the thing for the soccer moms to use photographing their kids at play!
The only item I disagree on is using 9D as a model number, I still believe the 1.6 crop cameras will carry the 50D-60D-70D to designate that series of cameras.
roanjohnnyc wrote:
Why not just go full frame? 1.3x vs 1.6x is such a minimal difference. For me, it's either full frame with 1.6x high speed mode................. or fast 1.3x crop and thats it.
For one thing, it seems perfectly clear - to me - that the camera top plate image which was posted (if real) is not from a full frame body. APS-H sits squarely in the middle between APS-C and FF, so if the difference between APS-C and APS-H is miniscule, so is the difference between APS-H and FF. And I doubt that a FF mirror could be made to clear the back of an EF-S lens without a very complex mechanical linkage, which would reduce reliablility and frame rate.
brainiac wrote:
That's a very good point. Does the picture of the top-plate categorically rule out full-frame? It seems like it does, but we don't really have an indication of the height of the prism.
it seems to unless it is a really low end FF with super low mag, etc. but how could they charge $2500 for that?
Do you not agree that Canon tends to play this a bit more than other manufacturers? Canon releases gear, and then they don't manufacture to demand. They've actually brought the numbers down, to the point that even if demand is less, there's still a perceived demand because they simply aren't cranking the gear out fast enough.
No, I don't agree, not at all. For every manufacturer, especially for Canon and Nikon, there is rather short supply in the first months when demand seems to be frantic ("seems" because web hysteria makes it seem worse than it is), then demand levels off to meet the planned supply.
Manufacturers will not size production capacity to meet that initial demand. That would be stupid resource management to set up assembly floorspace, hire and train additional skilled workers, et cetera, just to mollify 30-60 days of silly Westerners kvetching on the Internet.
In this current economic situation, Canon is doing the same thing most manufacturers are doing--reducing the workforce, cutting assembly lines. They've laid off thousands of workers in "offshore" plants and moved assembly of many of those devices to Japan. They've stalled plans to build at least one new plant, and are likely reserving floorspace in existing plants for the devices they would have built in the new plant. All of that portends less manufacturing of many lines.
I think my point stands though, as there are countless situations where the extra resolution/reach can be invaluable. Here's an example where in the melée to shoot the bride as she went away from the church one of my photographers got me in the picture by accident. Luckily he was using a 5D2, so there's plenty of leeway for cropping
I know wedding photographers who have stopped turning their cameras vertical anymore (which has always been a hassle when a flash is attached). They just crop verticals out of horizontals, now that they have enough pixels to play with.
I'm sure they can't ignore what goes on in these forums - AF issues and high ISO banding would not have been addressed without our bitching. But this is a no win argument because there is no proof in the pudding, unless of course you work for the Canon higher-ups and have inside info
Of course they can. Three words: Invalid statistical sample. Internet forums are plain junk data for any real corporate planning.
This is not to say they don't listen to a relatively small, respected coterie of people who do use the internet--Rob Galbraith, for instance, who has had a "special relationship" with Chuck Westfall for years. But the general internet forum blather is just junk data.
But again, I am not arguing with you that the 5DMKII is a success (sales wise) - but I think this is mostly attributed to Canon lenses (that's just my opinion BTW, not a fact).
Why would anyone who had Canon lenses have bought a 5D2 if they didn't think it better than the 5D1? Professionals are leaping over crocodiles to buy the 5D2 (and did from the first day) specifically because it has finally been the camera to match medium format film cameras in both image quality and price.
I'm sure they can't ignore what goes on in these forums - AF issues and high ISO banding would not have been addressed without our bitching. But this is a no win argument because there is no proof in the pudding, unless of course you work for the Canon higher-ups and have inside info
Actually we do know that Canon got their "actionable" information on those problems from trusted sources, not from Internet forums--at least not directly. Those trusted sources might have been cued to investigate the problems based on Internet noise.
RDKirk wrote:
Of course they can. Three words: Invalid statistical sample. Internet forums are plain junk data for any real corporate planning.
This is not to say they don't listen to a relatively small, respected coterie of people who do use the internet--Rob Galbraith, for instance, who has had a "special relationship" with Chuck Westfall for years. But the general internet forum blather is just junk data.
....Actually we do know that Canon got their "actionable" information on those problems from trusted sources, not from Internet forums--at least not directly. Those trusted sources might have been cued to investigate the problems based on Internet noise.......Show more →
Make sense..........but you can't deny that forums has impacted a lot of our buying decisions which in the end impacts Canon. (from the inital popularity of the 50 f1.8.........or the L fever bug that has swept over the entry level / pro-sumer market unseen from the film days - before internet forums were popular). But yeah, maybe Canon could care less about what we say here, I still haven't seen a 24-75 f1.8 IS we've all been asking for
Why would anyone who had Canon lenses have bought a 5D2 if they didn't think it better than the 5D1? Professionals are leaping over crocodiles to buy the 5D2 (and did from the first day) specifically because it has finally been the camera to match medium format film cameras in both image quality and price.
..............what I meant to say was that a lot of Canon shooters decided to stay in the Canon camp and not jump ship to Nikon or Sony because of the lenses Canon offer. Again, this is merely my opinion. I was almost on the verge of switching when Nikon introduced the D700 but did not because of the 35 & 85 L, I had no interest in the 5DMKII because it was overcooked on some aspects and under hashed on others, + the price was above what I wanted to pay, so I'm sticking to my trusty 5D.
RDKirk wrote:
No, I don't agree, not at all. For every manufacturer, especially for Canon and Nikon, there is rather short supply in the first months when demand seems to be frantic ("seems" because web hysteria makes it seem worse than it is), then demand levels off to meet the planned supply.
Manufacturers will not size production capacity to meet that initial demand. That would be stupid resource management to set up assembly floorspace, hire and train additional skilled workers, et cetera, just to mollify 30-60 days of silly Westerners kvetching on the Internet.
Exactly correct. It is an extremely common practice for manufacturers interested in maximizing profits to begin production by making less than the market will consume. The idea is to continue that level of output until sell through demand becomes equal to the production rate. At that point, the price can be lowered, resulting in an increase in sell through demand and the manufacturer can increase production volume to correspond to the new demand level.
The idea is to milk all of the consumer surplus possible and reap the maximum profits.
