 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006Canon 40D... on a 1.3x crop sensor?
So what's next for Canon's 40D? Dust removal? Yawn. 10 megapixels? Too little, too late. All the other cameras will have been 10 megapixels since the previous year. Weather sealing? That's just playing catch-up to the D200. Less noise? Unlikely, since the 400D is proving that at 10 megapixels, there's little room for improvement on 1.6x crop sensors. All these things smell of "been there, done that" for the 40D... and it's unlikely to make a big splash in the market. And so I would guess that the 40D would add three drastic changes to the 30D: Dust removal, 1.3x crop sensor, and 12 megapixels. Everything else remains exactly the same. And it's going to cost $1800 for the body only --- twice the price of an entry-level dSLR, but about half the price of a full frame dSLR. After the disappointing performance of the 30D, I think this would be the only way Canon can firmly entrench itself against upcoming contenders from Nikon and Sony. It would encroach on the 5D's market, for sure. But the 6D would probably become 16 megapixels and be weather sealed and cost $3000, which means the 1Ds Mark III would have to be 22 megapixels, have a 20 fps burst mode, and be bullet proof... > So what's next for Canon's 40D? Dust removal? Yawn. 10 megapixels? > Too little, too late. All the other cameras will have been 10 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > which means the 1Ds Mark III would have to be 22 megapixels, have a 20 > fps burst mode, and be bullet proof... Dust removal? I think it's a must. Commercially, i mean. surely it will have more than 10M, since 30D is new, after a year or two 40 will have, say, 16 M while Mark III will have even more, i guess. I doubt that they will go for 1.3x crop, since this way they would render all EF-S lenses useless and thus loose too many clients. Dissapointing performance? Well, hardly, i'd say. If you compare other cameras in similar class, 30D always wins, except in very rare ocasions, which are minor. Note that if it would be better, it would be "mark II" and with it they would make Mark II buyers a.sholes, since they were stupid to give more than twice as much for a camera of same performance... I think rather that they made 350D too good for the price, so difference between two is too small.. > So what's next for Canon's 40D? Dust removal? Yawn. 10 megapixels? > Too little, too late. From a _CMOS_ sensor in this camera class? Not, it's the first. > All the other cameras will have been 10 > megapixels since the previous year. But they did not use a sensor technology worth considering in this camera class. > Weather sealing? That's just > playing catch-up to the D200. LOL. > Less noise? Unlikely, since the 400D is > proving that at 10 megapixels, there's little room for improvement on > 1.6x crop sensors. Noise technology is still _far _ from perfect. > All these things smell of "been there, done that" > for the 40D... and it's unlikely to make a big splash in the market. Foveon technology did not smell of "been there, done that". Did it make a big splash in the market? Sorry, in the current state of the market splashes happen when _Canon_ does it, regardless of whether anyone has done it before. > And so I would guess that the 40D would add three drastic changes to > the 30D: Dust removal, 1.3x crop sensor, and 12 megapixels. Everything > else remains exactly the same. And it's going to cost $1800 for the > body only --- twice the price of an entry-level dSLR, but about half > the price of a full frame dSLR. Well, look at D200's price... But anyway, most likely it will be lower than $1800. > After the disappointing performance of > the 30D, You probably meant "unbelievably and overwhelmingly triumphant performance of 30D", unless you live in some alternative universe. > I think this would be the only way Canon can firmly entrench > itself against upcoming contenders from Nikon and Sony. Ugh... They way things are today, both Nikon and Sony still have a very long way to go to become "contenders" here... > It would encroach on the 5D's market, for sure. Definitely not much. > But the 6D would > probably become 16 megapixels and be weather sealed and cost $3000, > which means the 1Ds Mark III would have to be 22 megapixels, have a 20 > fps burst mode, and be bullet proof... Who knows... >So what's next for Canon's 40D? Dust removal? Yawn. 10 megapixels? >Too little, too late. All the other cameras will have been 10 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >1.6x crop sensors. All these things smell of "been there, done that" >for the 40D... and it's unlikely to make a big splash in the market. >And so I would guess that the 40D would add three drastic changes to >the 30D: Dust removal, 1.3x crop sensor, and 12 megapixels. Everything [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the 30D, I think this would be the only way Canon can firmly entrench >itself against upcoming contenders from Nikon and Sony. >It would encroach on the 5D's market, for sure. But the 6D would >probably become 16 megapixels and be weather sealed and cost $3000, >which means the 1Ds Mark III would have to be 22 megapixels, have a 20 >fps burst mode, and be bullet proof... Please, I'm not criticizing you. But hasn't the pixel count gotten silly? Most amateurs and semi-pros never print anything over 8x10. Since printers are at best 300 dots per inch devices, that means a 3000x2400 image will easily do 8x10. That's about what you get from a SIX megapixel camera. Thus once you are in the neighborhood of 10 megapixels you are just fine. Further, a 50% increase in pixels in the camera is only about a 20% increase in picture dimensions. So if your 8 mp camera gives you a decent 8x10, a 12 mp camera will only give you a 10x12. Speaking for myself, I'd rather have less noise at high ISO settings and easy to use manual controls. ---- Paul J. Gans, founding member of the Society of the Aperture Ring > Speaking for myself, I'd rather have less noise at high > ISO settings and easy to use manual controls. Agreed, especially on the high ISO point. But I ask... are the manual controls on prosumer and professional Canon bodies that difficult? One of the reasons I switched to Canon from Nikon was because of how much more intuitive I found the large aperture wheel on Canon bodies to be, vs the twin dials of the newer Nikon bodies. Given that a return to honest-to-God aperture rings and shutter speed dials is nigh impossible from any reputable camera manufacturer these days, I think Canon's doing alright, ergonomically speaking. Will |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.