Jessops theory of evolution

[perfect_pixel]

This has probably already been heard and written but just in case:

I was in Jessops today and was quite confidently told they had been informed that the 40D would be released in April 2007. Sensor from the 400D (10.1MP) and anti-dust but no more fundamental changes. Also that the 1Dmk3 would be released at the same time but not any upgrade to the 5D.

As I say normally I don't listen to the rumor's but the salesman said this with a LOT of conviction....



Steve

[EOSAddict]

Lol, pinch of salt over here please ;)

[perfect_pixel]

Well, I believed him....:rolleyes:

Now where did I put that £300 18-55 he sold me...? :lol:

[EOSAddict]

More likely to believe 1D rumour but its possible.

[ipacmm]

I hope it is true, I am waiting for the 1ds mk III and wouldn't mind my 5D lasting a little londer before it gets outdated but I guess we will find out next year.

[basroil]

This has probably already been heard and written but just in case:

I was in Jessops today and was quite confidently told they had been informed that the 40D would be released in April 2007. Sensor from the 400D (10.1MP) and anti-dust but no more fundamental changes. Also that the 1Dmk3 would be released at the same time but not any upgrade to the 5D.

As I say normally I don't listen to the rumor's but the salesman said this with a LOT of conviction....



Steve


that would be plain impossible... canon's marketing side would not allow the 40d to be a larger, more expensive 400d. think of it this way, 10d and rebel/xt share the same AF, 20d/30d and xti share same AF (sensor for both, not necissarily the algorithims), so expect a new AF system at least (i put my bet down for 11 point af with 5 crosstypes). if it did not have at least a better af and larger buffer (now that prices on memory have dropped, and digic III supports ddr2 ram, it would not have a large effect on profits). digic III is almost a must a well, if not, there would be no reason for people to replace existing bodies. any one of the three things is nice, but unless 2 or more are added to the camera, it would not be very profitable in the long run.

5d still has a bit of time left, though if it follows the 18 month cycle like most cameras, it will be updated (though possibly not upgraded, as happened with 20d)

[BradT0517]

that would be plain impossible... canon's marketing side would not allow the 40d to be a larger, more expensive 400d. think of it this way, 10d and rebel/xt share the same AF, 20d/30d and xti share same AF (sensor for both, not necissarily the algorithims), so expect a new AF system at least (i put my bet down for 11 point af with 5 crosstypes). if it did not have at least a better af and larger buffer (now that prices on memory have dropped, and digic III supports ddr2 ram, it would not have a large effect on profits). digic III is almost a must a well, if not, there would be no reason for people to replace existing bodies. any one of the three things is nice, but unless 2 or more are added to the camera, it would not be very profitable in the long run.

5d still has a bit of time left, though if it follows the 18 month cycle like most cameras, it will be updated (though possibly not upgraded, as happened with 20d)

Like Said I would deffinalty toss my XTi for a 40D with 5fps Digic 3 10.5 MP slightly larger buffer 3200 ISO Capabilty Dust free large screen and a better flash on top

[bildeb0rg]

A 40D with 5fps Digic 3 10.5 MP slightly larger buffer 3200 ISO Capabilty Dust free large screen and a better flash on top

Please, let this be right...

[AdamJL]

An upgraded 5D.. please let him be WRONG.

[neil_r]

and wouldn't mind my 5D lasting a little londer before it gets out dated but I guess we will find out next year.

Interesting cooncept "out dated"

[canoflan]

I agree with the sentiments that the 40D will not have the same sensor as the XTi, nor the 1D Mark III. It will just be a larger megapixel version of the 30D with better AF sensors and other bells and whistles.

The 5D is in a class on its own for awhile since no one else can come close to it. It has such high demand, it shouldn't need an upgrade for at least another 2 years.

The way I see these cameras is that the highest end models go the longest between upgrades, therefore, the rebels will always be upgraded probably 2.5 to 3 times for a 1D or 5D, and a 30D will be upgraded 1.5 to 2 times before a 1D or 5D.

But, I am back to my original thought that I posted on before that they need to go easier on the cameras and focus more on lenses.:confused:

[DrPablo]

IThe 5D is in a class on its own for awhile since no one else can come close to it. It has such high demand, it shouldn't need an upgrade for at least another 2 years.

Its price has dropped an awful lot for such a 'high demand' camera.

It's not the demand that's standing in the way of an upgrade, it's the lack of competition.

The lack of competition is precisely because the market is too small for competitors to feel like going for a piece of that pie.

And without competition, Canon can keep selling the same old 5D for years, not modifying anything except its price, until the 30D-series begins to catch up with it.


We all know the argument about Canon making their own sensors and Nikon not. But who are we kidding, I mean Nikon gets their sensors by contract -- and if they wanted a full frame sensor they could have one. After all, their APS-C sensors are priced pretty competitively with Canon (and in fact they're larger at 1.5x and not 1.6x) -- they could do it with FF if they wanted. They're letting Canon keep the FF market because they've already done the math.

[CoolToolGuy]

We all know the argument about Canon making their own sensors and Nikon not. But who are we kidding, I mean Nikon gets their sensors by contract -- and if they wanted a full frame sensor they could have one. After all, their APS-C sensors are priced pretty competitively with Canon (and in fact they're larger at 1.5x and not 1.6x) -- they could do it with FF if they wanted. They're letting Canon keep the FF market because they've already done the math.

Nikon may have done some math, and if they did they would have realized that if they wanted a full frame sensor under contract, the firm that would manufacture it would probably also want to utilize it in their own product line(unless it was Kodak). So then there would be two more players in the full frame market, not one:shock: That market is small enough at this point in time that two new players may not survive, and chances are good the folks that make the sensor can put it in a camera for less money than the folks they are selling it to. . .

Have Fun,

[AdamJL]

The 5D is in a class on its own for awhile since no one else can come close to it. It has such high demand, it shouldn't need an upgrade for at least another 2 years.

Highly unlikely.
The 5D is indeed an awesome camera, but sales WILL drop eventually if they don't upgrade. The 5D was created after listenting to feedback from the Pro market more than anything. They wanted a light, portable, full-frame camera and they got a light, portable, full-frame camera. If the pros want something more to add to it, Canon WILL upgrade it soon.

[ipacmm]

I am sure Canon will update the 5D but I just don't think it will happen before the 1Ds Mark II, that camera is over 2 years old and still no update. The 1Ds is really missing some of the newer features on today’s cameras. The 5D is still pretty up-to-date when you look at the competition. Yes, the price has dropped, but that is on any camera, the 1Ds Mark II was $8k when it first came out and now you can buy one for around $6,700, the 1D Mark II N was $3,999 and now you can find it for less then $3K. So I think the lowering of prices are nice but I just don't see Canon coming out with an update before the 1-series cameras.

[DrPablo]

Nikon may have done some math, and if they did they would have realized that if they wanted a full frame sensor under contract, the firm that would manufacture it would probably also want to utilize it in their own product line(unless it was Kodak). So then there would be two more players in the full frame market, not one:shock: That market is small enough at this point in time that two new players may not survive, and chances are good the folks that make the sensor can put it in a camera for less money than the folks they are selling it to. . .

I don't buy that, I mean why would Nikon shoot themselves in the foot just to prevent Sony or Kodak from making a full frame DSLR? Sony and Kodak have never shown that they can seriously compete against Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, and Pentax in the DSLR market. Nikon has its name recognition, its record of very good pro DSLRs, its lens lineup, and a huge customer base. I'd bet that a large proportion of people who buy the Canon 5D were already Canon users beforehand (whether film or digital). Nikon already has a huge market share, including of people who shoot film and would buy into a full frame DSLR.

So again I don't think external sensor manufacturing and fear of competition from Sony, etc is what's prohibiting Nikon from making a FF DSLR. They have more to gain from biting into Canon's market share than they have to lose from the ankle-nipping of Sony and Kodak. There are only two explanations that make sense to me: 1) they were caught by surprise with Canon's full frame cameras and they're just that far behind in R+D, and 2) they don't think the full frame market share is large enough to make the effort to compete.

The answer is somewhere in between, in that Nikon has basically committed their customers to APS-C 'optimized' lenses, so their horse is a bit out of the barn now. But on the other hand, they're not going to go much beyond 12 megapixels if they don't make a full frame camera. I mean unless some miraculous new sensor shows up, they are going to see diminishing returns by putting 15, 18, whatever megapixels on an APS-C chip. Canon could go up to like 24 megapixels on full frame before matching the pixel density of the D2X.

So the niche occupied by the 5D is not necessarily a huge opportunity lost for Nikon. But they do need their D#X series to compete against Canon's 1-series, and they've already hit the technological ceiling with the D2X. As much as I hate Bayer sensors, Canon still has a lot of room to fill out the 1-series before upgrading technology.

[ScottE]

I don't believe that we will see a meaningful upgrade to the 30D until Canon upgrades the 5D. A real upgrade to the 30D would match or exceed the abilities of the Nikon D2X. Unfortunately that means it would match or exceed the abilities of the 5D in many factors. Canon cannot sell an EF-S camera that matches the performance of their much more expensive 5D. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page29.asp

Improving the 5D presents another problem, because that would cause it to match or exceed many performance factors of the 1DsMkII. There fore one would expect to see an improved 1Ds series camera before and improved 5D.

Canon has some logistics to work out if they want to keep all their customers happy and spending money.

[DrPablo]

ICanon cannot sell an EF-S camera that matches the performance of their much more expensive 5D.

Sure they can.

The issue is not that they can't sell / market both cameras.

The issue is that Canon cannot make an EF-S camera that matches the performance of the 5D. I mean, look at the highly successful D2X, which is more expensive than the 5D, and overall a much more capable camera feature-wise. But head to head I'd put my money squarely on the image quality of the 5D, especially if I needed high ISO performance and wide angles.

So even if you have an advanced EF-S and the 5D priced similarly, people will still be choosing between them based on whether or not they need the capabilities of full frame.

[lostdoggy]

Strange thing about competition in the marketplace. Nikon as we all know as and possiblily an icon in the photo world, but in the electronic world they are a small dinosaur. Without the aility to design manufacture sensor will b their achilles heel. Sony the major player in designing and manufacturing sensors may not be as generous to Nikon now that they have control of Minolta and contract with Zeiss. If Sony is interested in manufacturing FF sensor to put into Nikon, Nikon will be own by Sony.

It is not to my believe that Nikon don't want a FF sensor its because no one else can produce one cost effectively for Nikon. 35mm size and larger sensor are out there just look at the medium Format backs, but will Nikon use it and at what cost???

[DrPablo]

the aility to design manufacture sensor will b their achilles heel.

I don't know about that, I mean Boeing seems to do fairly well in the aircraft industry even though Pratt & Whitney makes their jet engines.

It all has to do with whom they're contracting with.

CCD sensors are made by tons of different manufacturers, and there are CCDs out there that blow away the ones in digital cameras -- I mean the photo lab I use has a $100,000 Imacon scanner that uses a giant CCD. So the technology is not that elusive -- all Nikon has to do is contract with someone who doesn't make their own cameras; and given the size of Nikon's market share I'm sure they can easily attract a chip-maker to supply the Nikon SLR line.

And again, I think Nikon probably does want full frame, but not to compete against the 5D. They want full frame because that's the only way they'll be able to match the resolution of the 1Ds Mark II. Who knows, though, I mean the day of the CCD/CMOS sensors is drawing nigh, and I'm sure within a few years neither Nikon nor Canon will be putting them in their upper level SLRs anymore -- that will probably change the whole discussion.

[neil_r]

I don't know about that, I mean Boeing seems to do fairly well in the aircraft industry even though Pratt & Whitney makes their jet engines.

Don't forget this side of the pond, Rolls Royce also make engines for Boing :-)

[lostdoggy]

I don't know about that, I mean Boeing seems to do fairly well in the aircraft industry even though Pratt & Whitney makes their jet engines.

It all has to do with whom they're contracting with.

CCD sensors are made by tons of different manufacturers, and there are CCDs out there that blow away the ones in digital cameras -- I mean the photo lab I use has a $100,000 Imacon scanner that uses a giant CCD. So the technology is not that elusive -- all Nikon has to do is contract with someone who doesn't make their own cameras; and given the size of Nikon's market share I'm sure they can easily attract a chip-maker to supply the Nikon SLR line.

And again, I think Nikon probably does want full frame, but not to compete against the 5D. They want full frame because that's the only way they'll be able to match the resolution of the 1Ds Mark II. Who knows, though, I mean the day of the CCD/CMOS sensors is drawing nigh, and I'm sure within a few years neither Nikon nor Canon will be putting them in their upper level SLRs anymore -- that will probably change the whole discussion.

At what cost and how many planes does Boeing produce in a given year dictate why Pratt & Whitney design and manufacture the engines for Boeing. Strangely there is only one other major player in the commercial airline industry that is currently competive with Boeing and that is Airbus. Airbus exist because the smaller Euro company just could not compete with Boeing and therefore they join together to form Airbus.

As for sensors, I have noted that there exist 35mm and larger sensors out there that are in production from likes of PhaseOne, Leaf, Kodak, and etc. but the cost is prohibitive for Nikon to touch. Who would in there right mind will spend $15000 for a FF DSLR when one can be had for under $3000. Just check out the price of those Digital Backs. They have become so expensive that Companies have to least them out or offer potential clients trade-ups offers. If Nikon lover really want to have FF it is available as a Sinar body that accepts Nikon F lenses.

[lostdoggy]

Don't forget this side of the pond, Rolls Royce also make engines for Boing :-)

And GE on this side of the Pond.

[ScottE]

The issue is that Canon cannot make an EF-S camera that matches the performance of the 5D. I mean, look at the highly successful D2X, which is more expensive than the 5D, and overall a much more capable camera feature-wise. But head to head I'd put my money squarely on the image quality of the 5D, especially if I needed high ISO performance and wide angles.

At low ISO settings say 100 and 200 with a competently processed RAW image you can hardly tell the difference between a 5D and a D2X. If you compare out of the box JPEGs the 5D is clearly better, because it applies more in camera sharpening. This is because the D2X is a professional camera where the photographer want to control sharpening in post processing and the 5D is a consumer camera where it is important that the image looks great without any processing. Many D2X shooters wish Nikon would make a similar sharpening setting to save them time later. The point is that with ISO 100 and 200 the full frame sensor is not significantly different than the APS-C sized sensor if both images are processed the same.

At higher ISO settings the 5D has an advantage, regardless of how the image is processed. For pros who never shoot at faster than ISO 200 this is not a problem. In any case, Canon has ususally been able to better Nikon on high ISO capablilty when similar sized sensors are used. I expect that Canon could produce a 12 MP EF-S sensor that would have better high ISO perfomance than the D2X. With the new Digic 3 processor they might do even better. Whether the image would be as good as a 5D is debatable. Being better than the 30D is all that most EF-S users would want, since most don't have any problem with the images from the 30D.

In my opinion, the 5D is just the first in a series of full frame prosumer DSLRs, just like the D30 was the first in the series of affordable crop cameras made up of the D30, D60, 10D, 20D and 30D. Like the upgrade from the 3 MP D30 to the 6 MP D60, the next camera in the 5D series will likely be a significant improvement. Comparing the D2x to the 5D will become a pointless exercise when the next model in the 5D series comes out.

[DrPablo]

Scott,

I completely agree with what you've written. You have to agree, however, that the 5D is in a weird market position -- it's very expensive for amateurs (or prosumers or whatever), but on the other hand it is very limited in features for a pro camera. So it's occupying a unique niche that is probably not that big.

True pro cameras, like the 1-series and Nikon's D2X, with all their features, are an extremely important market, of course. And full frame's most crucial role is in this range. The reason is that pros need resolution in order to make and sell big enlargements that are of unquestionable quality. And you just can't go much higher than 12 megapixels with an APS-C sensor. Nikon may have no answer for the 5D right now, but what they really have no answer for is the potential 1DsII successor with 24 megapixels. The difference between 12 and 16.7 megapixels is probably not huge in practical terms -- but 12 vs 24 megapixels is a different story.

I think Canon was probably testing an idea with the 5D -- the 1DsII was already out, and Canon wanted to explore the idea of releasing a full frame camera not geared towards pros on a high budget. It was an untested market, because few 35mm SLRs have ever cost what the 5D costs. I'm not sure what Canon has concluded about the 5D's role in the market, but I also remain to be convinced that 1) Nikon feels like they're missing an important market and 2) Canon feels that the 5D is a line that's worth developing any further.

[ScottE]

DrPablo, I also agree with what you have written. I have always felt that the 5D was the first in a new prosumer line of cameras, probably Canon's method of testing the market to see what would sell. I also feel that if Canon finds there is enough market potential they will bring out an upgrade to the 5D with very significant improvements to the 5D. If they have identified a viable market, the next step is to bring out a product that will encourage new customers and repeat business from existing customers.

I have no idea what Nikon's strategy is. Nikon was very successful with 35 mm film and in my opinion the image from a D2X is better than anything 35 mm film was ever capable of. Photographers who were happy with 35 mm film should be just as happy with an APS-C sized sensor.

Neither Canon or Nikon pursued the medium format market, but the 5D and its probable successors will push the image quality the medium format film users demanded. The abililty of 35 mm photographers to buy a reasonably priced camera and use their existing lenses and approach medim format quality may force Nikon to reconsider their plans.

However, if digital will allow 35 mm lenses to approach medium format film quality, it must also be possible for medium format digital to approach the quality of large format film. Competitors have been dropping out of the medium format market, so there may be a huge potential there for somebody to develop an economical digital body that will utilize existing medium format lenses and produce large format film quality results. So far the competition in this market has been for a professional market that could pay very expensive prices. What happens to the 5D/1Ds markets if Pentax (or somebody else) could bring out a digital version of their 645N or 67 II that really takes advantage of the possibilities of that format? I can imagine the internet posts, "I can crop my 645D images to get the same resolution as your 40D for telephoto shots, but I can also print full frame wall size murals where you can see the details on individual blades of grass in the background by shooting f/64. APS-C is dead."

[DrPablo]

Neither Canon or Nikon pursued the medium format market, but the 5D and its probable successors will push the image quality the medium format film users demanded. The abililty of 35 mm photographers to buy a reasonably priced camera and use their existing lenses and approach medim format quality may force Nikon to reconsider their plans.

Nikon and Canon probably can't pursue a true MF camera (or camera with a sensor that's larger than 24x36), because it would require brand new lenses with different coverage. The only Canon lenses with an image circle that may be large enough to cover MF would be the TS-E lenses, simply because you need a big image circle for movements.

However, if digital will allow 35 mm lenses to approach medium format film quality, it must also be possible for medium format digital to approach the quality of large format film. Competitors have been dropping out of the medium format market, so there may be a huge potential there for somebody to develop an economical digital body that will utilize existing medium format lenses and produce large format film quality results. So far the competition in this market has been for a professional market that could pay very expensive prices. What happens to the 5D/1Ds markets if Pentax (or somebody else) could bring out a digital version of their 645N or 67 II that really takes advantage of the possibilities of that format? I can imagine the internet posts, "I can crop my 645D images to get the same resolution as your 40D for telephoto shots, but I can also print full frame wall size murals where you can see the details on individual blades of grass in the background by shooting f/64. APS-C is dead."

You're probably correct about digital MF competing favorably against the 1Ds market (at least for portrait, landscape, and wedding photographers) if it's priced competitively. There probably are very few pros out there who shoot 35mm film, but there are a LOT who shoot MF film, because they remain unconvinced by current digital technology. You can cram an infinite number of megapixels onto a 35mm sensor, but that doesn't change the fact that there are physical constraints on the recording of tiny details, and you'll still be limited by enlargement factor and lens resolution.

Comparing the quality of all these technologies just depends by what criteria you mean 'medium format film quality' and 'large format film quality'. I mean for practical purposes even 645 will produce outstanding enlargements to 24x30. So for the applications most people need, 645, 6x7, and 4x5 LF all have functionally equivalent resolution, even though 4x5 has something like 3 times the film area even of 6x7.

Resolution is what it is, but most people shoot large format because of camera movements and special contact printing applications (I'm getting into selenium toning and cyanotyping, which you can only do with contact prints), so LF will never be threatened in the way that MF is.

But there are two big differences that will always keep larger film formats in a different league (again, only practical for certain applications), that I don't think can be surpassed with small formats:

1. resolution with even a cheap flatbed scan is unbelievable with 6x7, 4x5, and above. With a $300 desktop scanner I can pull a noise-free 200-300 megapixel image from my 4x5 negatives, and I can print at 40x50 inches / 300 dpi with no upsampling.

2. Much more important than resolution is enlargement factor -- and even if you put 30 megapixels on a 24x36mm sensor, you're still enlarging 24x to get a 24x30 print. By contrast with a 4x5 negative/scan you're only enlarging 6x to get a 24x30 print. Obviously the circle of confusion size defines the lower limit of a recordable detail on the capture medium, and this is independent of the film / sensor resolution. So the more you enlarge, the more you see the absence of teeny tiny details that can be recorded on a physically large sensor but not a physically small one.

So the competitiveness of up and coming SF technology vs MF is not so much a head to head resolution and enlargeability issue. Rather, it's a matter of the convenience and cost-effectiveness of digital, added to the fact that high end digitals are perfectly capable of matching the historic applications of MF. Head to head resolution matching is irrelevant, because people buy prints, not pixels.

[basroil]

1. resolution with even a cheap flatbed scan is unbelievable with 6x7, 4x5, and above. With a $300 desktop scanner I can pull a noise-free 200-300 megapixel image from my 4x5 negatives, and I can print at 40x50 inches / 300 dpi with no upsampling.


where can you get a scanner that can scan 4x5 at 3k dpi for under 300 bucks? i got to get one of those...;)

[DrPablo]

I use a Microtek i800f, which cost $350 new, and I can scan 4x5 at 4800 dpi. The Epson 4990 is comparably priced. On the used market you can get older models for down in the $150 range.