Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by furious, Aug 21, 2008.
Boing Boing link
This makes little sense but is interesting.
Which part doesn't make sense?
canon now have 1000d 400d 450d plus the 40d in the consumer market plus this (50d) camera and all their p&s cameras.
If i was canon I would focus on the 5d replacement and the other pro cameras. I think they have the consumer market full for now.
But, wouldn't the 50D be a replacement for the 40D?
the 40d has been for only 12 months. Why replace it?
Because despite the price difference, people view the D300 as a far superior camera. Sure, you get what you pay for, but I think even if the 40D were $100-200 more expensive, the same people who have bought one wouldn't have hesitated on spending an extra $100-200 if its performance was a bit more like the D300.
And a 15 MP APS-C sensor (technically, it's smaller than APS-C...) that goes to ISO 12800? This I've got to see.
Because it's been out for 12 months. I guess they're on a yearly schedule for upgrades ...
so it has 50% more pixels and the ISO can be 4 times higher than the 40D, as well has having mini HDMI output.
Nice, but I'm not going to sell my 40D for it.
Because you can get a 13-megapixel point and shoot for less than $300.
I won't be upgrading. I have two 40D bodies and a 20D and they all do exactly what I need them to. I'm kind of treating it like the 30D - a refresh.
Great... another crop body.....
Where's that darn 5D update...
Nothing wrong with crop bodies, but I wont be replcaing my ancient 10D until I can afford a FF body (I have invested in good glass, so I'm ready for FF). Yes, the 10D is slow, but it does everything else I want, and takes great shots up to and including ISO400. I just can't see replacing it with another 1.6x crop sensor body.
EDIT: Well, I might consider a 1.3x crop, since it comes with the wonderful 1D body
I don't quite see the relevance of this comment... I can't imagine you are thinking the 13 megapixels on a P&S sensor is at all comparable to 10 or 12 megapixels on a (slightly smaller than) APS-C sensor. So could you expand on what you meant? (or maybe I'm just being dense)
I cannot imagine that anyone in the market for a 40D/50D/XXD would seriously think that a 13MP P&S is functionally equivalent, even in IQ alone, to a prosumer dSLR.
It's obvious canon is desperate about the D300.
And now about the D700.
It's obvious that Canon is considering replacing a product within the confines of it's normal upgrade schedule of 12-18 months.
Since when Canon's renewal schedule reaches as low as 12 months?
I'm talking about the perception of the "general" consumer market that doesn't know the difference.
Canon 40D - announced Aug 20, 2007 (18 months from 30D)
Canon 30D - announced Feb 21, 2006 (18 months from 20D)
Canon 20D - announced Aug 19, 2004 (18 months from 10D)
Canon 10D - announced Feb 27, 2003
18 months is the standard for the XXD-series.
But wait, I feel like we're forgetting something here......
what is it????
...oh yeah, the 50D DOESN'T EXIST YET!
There is no question that what Nikon has been able to do with the D300 is amazing (in terms of high-ISO noise, especially). But stating that Canon are 'desperate' is a bit much.
Someone walking in to a camera shop, who is willing to spend >$1000 on a mid-range (not even basic) dSLR is not also thinking "but wait, for 1/3 the money, I can get a P&S with better specs...man, this dSLR thing is a scam!"
Perhaps it works that way when you think of it the other way round (i.e. P&S buyers thinking that dSLRs are a rip-off because they cost 3x the price for the same number of pixels), but I cannot conceive of any potential 40D buyers doing the reverse.
They need to update both the 5D and 40D, Nikon has them in both categories.
However I think we need more camera's moving to the FF architecture, I think most people who own Crop sensor DSLR's would certainly consider upgrading to FF.
As has been pointed out in other threads, this is unlikely for two reasons:
1. It will ALWAYS be more cost-effective to produce crop sensors vs. FF sensors, simply because you can cut more crop sensors from the same amount of silicon. The only way FF becomes profitable is if you can charge an appropriate amount extra to cover the loss from printing the FF sensor in the first place vs. printing the crop sensor. This keeps the price of a FF sensor body higher than a comparable crop sensor body.
2. A wide-spread move to FF will result in many people, who don't know better, being unsatisfied with their images. People will want to know why they have 1.6x less reach on their telephoto lenses. People will want to know why the corners of their images are soft and have massive vignetting. Basically, people will have to buy longer, more expensive lenses and relearn techniques like "stopping down".
I, too, would love to see more options in FF sensor bodies. And my next purchase will be FF. But I have good glass; I already stop down my lenses; and I know the downsides and can live with them (most of my photos are cityscape/landscape, for which FF is ideal, and I have little need for v. long focal lengths)
What I'm really waiting for is sony to make a camera with a Full Frame as it would really benefit me for landscape shots. It will affect people but I'm just waiting for cameras in the Prosumer lineup to get Full Frame Sensors. I wouldn't buy another Camera unless it was Full Frame.
Exactly. Nowhere has been Canon renewing a model after about 12 months.
But the 50D already appeared on Canon's Chinese site.
Then I stand corrected re: the release schedule. We can debate the role of the D300 in this, however.