EOS 3D... september speculations.

[jmublueduck]

big rumor discussion going on @ dpreview:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5021953

[David Lawson]

Paul Pope is usually right. He stated this a while back as well.

[hugodrax]

I wonder if it will sell in the 2100 dollar range.


I would not be surprised to see a Rebel D sub 1000 with lens kit from canon. a lightweight plastic body and small.


Wow nikon had nothing to report. Weird I guess nikon really is not as interested in DSLRs as Canon which is a mistake since more and more new users will switch from film to digital and canon has a nicer lineup and once people go to canon they will not go back to nikon after investing in lenses. A dangerous longterm situation for nikon especially if canon releases a sub 999 body

[sanford]

Thanks for keeping this one list people posted. I'm keeping the box to my 10D close.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Interesting reading. Me i'm happy with my 10D but it is wild to see Canon moving so fast in the DSLR market. They will own it if Nikon sits too long.

I think he is underestimating the Olympus DSLR with interchangable lenses though.

Although this may not be the system that breaks the mold yet it is the right direction.

For anyone with an existing investment in lenses it will have no impact,. but in the long run,. this is the direction that will make Canon and Nikons entire line of lenses obsolete (or at least "less-solete" :) ) as flim bodies.

If you fit the optimum amount of pixels needed of a high res pic into a CCD (or cmos) half the size of a 35mm film,. and then design an entire range of lkenses around that ccd (instead of using existing lenses with crop factors) than those lenses will be able to offer the same type of "35mm equivelence" at fractions of the size and cost of the existing fleets of 35mm SLR lenses.

In simple terms,. picture a DSLR with 6-14 megapixles,. whatever the future finds as the sweet spot,.. and imagine a 600mm equivelent lens that is about the same size and cost as a 75mm-300mm zoom,.. then who will be interested in the Bazookas we use today?

[lziering]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Interesting reading. Me i'm happy with my 10D but it is wild to see Canon moving so fast in the DSLR market. They will own it if Nikon sits too long.

I think he is underestimating the Olympus DSLR with interchangable lenses though.

Although this may not be the system that breaks the mold yet it is the right direction.

For anyone with an existing investment in lenses it will have no impact,. but in the long run,. this is the direction that will make Canon and Nikons entire line of lenses obsolete (or at least "less-solete" :) ) as flim bodies.

If you fit the optimum amount of pixels needed of a high res pic into a CCD (or cmos) half the size of a 35mm film,. and then design an entire range of lkenses around that ccd (instead of using existing lenses with crop factors) than those lenses will be able to offer the same type of "35mm equivelence" at fractions of the size and cost of the existing fleets of 35mm SLR lenses.

In simple terms,. picture a DSLR with 6-14 megapixles,. whatever the future finds as the sweet spot,.. and imagine a 600mm equivelent lens that is about the same size and cost as a 75mm-300mm zoom,.. then who will be interested in the Bazookas we use today?

The shorter the lens, the greater the depth of field. That is why point and shoot images look so flat and why medium format shots have so much depth. I prefer the look of an image with a larger imaging area and longer lenses. I also think that a 35mm style camera body is crowded enough with all the controls so that I wouldn't want a smaller body. In fact, I'l like a 2-3" LCD.

[hurry]

jmublueduck wrote:
big rumor discussion going on @ dpreview:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=5021953

Which camera will appear in August 2005?
Is it the long awaited CANON 17D?
How many pixels? 7.8 mega or 9.0003 mega?
Which price? $ 699.99?
What says Holy Guru Paolo Popo?

Should I wait for September 2003 or August 2005?

I cannot eat, I cannot sleep!

[hmhm]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:

I think he is underestimating the Olympus DSLR with interchangable lenses though.

Although this may not be the system that breaks the mold yet it is the right direction.


There is only 1 advantage to small sensors, and that is cost. The clear trend for sensor cost is downward. At some point the cost of this electronics reaches the point where the cost savings of smaller sensors becomes "noise" compared to the relatively fixed mechanical and optical costs.

There are advantages to being able to use smaller formats, namely that they allow long telephoto reach with smaller lenses. But a full-frame 35mm sensor has a "downsized" sensor in the middle of it, and you can just crop the outsides. So give me a full-frame 35mm sensor, when I want my 300/2.8 to be a 600/2.8, I'll crop.

There are advantages to fewer pixels, namely smaller file sizes. So give me a high res full frame sensor, and a variety of image size "modes" (I've already got this).

So I don't see how the "trend" for sensors could possibly be anything but back towards 35mm full-frame. The notion of down-sized sensors is inherently tied to today's economics. Any SLR architecture based on a downsized sensor is a dead-end, as are lenses specifically designed for them (i.e. with image circles too small for full-frame).

Keep in mind that the single defining characteristic of "small sensors" is the _lack_ of something, namely the lack of additional image sensors along the outside. It's difficult to define a lack of additional functionality as a technical advantage.
-harry

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm probably missing something in the transaltion,. I understand the electronics,. but being new to this level of photography,. I do not understand the art.

My argument was based on the idea that smaller and mor eefficient is better,. and that if the CCD could maintain a small size but still increase its density.. than the lenses could be physically smaller too. Smaller is almost allways cheaper as well,. (once you cross the intial hurdes of fabrication)

What I do not understand in my though process,. the essential gap in my thinking is that samller lenses and smaller CCD "HAVE TO" equate to lower quality image.

If this is true,. than yes,. my argument and thought process is "the wrong direction"

I have watched the computer industry,. an industry I understand ,. unlike photographic equipment,. and in computers,. samller is the end goal ALL THE TIME.

It seems to me that at some point technology is going to be able to make the same quality image that your 35mm and even medium format equipment can make, but do it in a digital apparatus smaller than a 35mm rig.

It probably won't be Olympuses first effort that acheives this,. but I am sure I will see it in my lifetime.

[Vicente]

hugodrax wrote:

I wonder if it will sell in the 2100 dollar range.



I don't think so. EOS 3 is closer EOS 1V than EOS 30 and it's price is twice EOS 30 so, EOD 3D will be 2 x EOS D10's price. I think EOS 3D will cost more than $3000, perhaps $4000 if Canon do not understand that EOS 1Ds is overpriced.

[photography By Evangelos]

Lets see the 1Ds are way way over priced. I will give it some time but canon will be the first with a full frame in the low cost range. I also think the body size for today’s D-SLR's is just the correct size. If they were any smaller it would not be easy to hold. It takes a lot more to a system for people to switch and canon has the best mix of lenses and SLR cameras in the bunch by far. Canon also is the leader in the technology by leaps and bounds. I have gotten my hands on the Kodak Pro 14N and it looks like a S2 beefed up. Also it plain sucks at the highest ISO levels it is no better than my 10D or 1D it has the Pixel count but lacks the quality of a great camera. So once more the 1Ds is over priced but is really the king in this class of today’s digital SLR cameras. And if canon can make such great cameras now I can't wait to see what they have in the next few years. The 10D is a great camera and is a great value for any level and is a price buster. Canon has set a lot of firsts and they will keep doing so. Also do not count out Nikon they also will have a new line up at the next photokina show this year so look out.

[lziering]

It seems to me that a Canon 1Ds is not overpriced. The body is the best made by any camera manufacturer and it produces a better image than any other digital camera in a "35mm style" body. You can get better digital images from a medium format back for between $14,000-22,000, but that's a lot more money. Photographers are buying all the 1Ds' that Canon can make. So how can you say it is "overpriced"?

Just because a Porsche Carrera costs $90,000 and I'd like to buy it for $10,000 does not mean it is overpriced. I'm just too poor to buy it!

[hurry]

Or not stupid enough to buy it.

Same thing with 1Ds.

[soumya63]

hurry wrote:
Or not stupid enough to buy it.
Same thing with 1Ds.

Depends upon who is thinking. Actually ID should not be compared with Carrera, but something a cross breed of Carrera and Hummer, which is still not yet manufactured by Porsche or GM.

[daveh]

hurry wrote:
Or not stupid enough to buy it.

Same thing with 1Ds.

Is there an official list of what non-stupid people buy? ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

daveh wrote:
hurry wrote:
Or not stupid enough to buy it.

Same thing with 1Ds.

Is there an official list of what non-stupid people buy? ;)


ha ha,.. it starts with fresh vegatables as opposed to "Super Sugar Crisp" lol!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Resurected just to illustrate ........ AGAIN,.. how long people have been predicting the 3D.

Folks, please give it up :)