| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/21/2006 01:10:34 PM · #1 |
Latest Rumours (or guesses...)
For Photokina canon will introduce:
Rebel XTi - 10.1 mp, 3fps, Sensor cleaning unit(ultrasonic vibrations on low pass filter), digic ii not iii - probably $899-999
And 2 new lenses
50mm 1.2L (might be really price, like $1600)
70-200mm 4L IS
and check out The X
I think it's for a new line of MF digital stuff. |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 01:16:18 PM · #2 |
Has Canon ever made medium format, or lenses for anything but 35mm and APS-C? I wouldn't think they'd roll out a whole new line rather than focus on full frame, lower the price of the current cameras and release new ones, but I could be wrong...
Maybe they're introducing a new naming convention, that would be great. The conventions they use now are a little confusing... 1D, 1Dmk2, 1Dmk2N, etc.. maybe next is 1Dmk2V, since the 1 went 1, 1N, 1V? |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 01:22:21 PM · #3 |
teh lense throw a circular pool of light, er, image. if the image circle covers 35mm wide, it will logically cover that vertically too. So take the current lenses, make a 35mmx35mm square 22mp sensor, low ISO and not many FPS, perhaps throw in a HD instead of CF and you got a pretty neat MF system - L glass and flash already there to support it. Digital from the ground up, design wise, and a nice little boost to your whole line of camera, reputation wise.
Weddings used to be shot in MF so there was a market for it at one time - whether it might return is harder call as 8mp works pretty well, but many like the 12mp 5D and some use the 1Ds - so there is a market, not sure how big though.
Just a rumour I read about MF and Canon and my speculation on how they could do it cheap and fast. |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 01:29:45 PM · #4 |
| That's a good point, but since the current sensors are 3:2, it would only be a 33% increase in size, and since you'd have to crop to print standard sizes, it doesn't seem like it would be much of a benefit. Hasn't medium format typically been 70x60 or 60x60mm? |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 01:35:17 PM · #5 |
| I wouldn't think they would enter into the MF market with just 22 MP. The Phase One P45 is 39 MP. The MF market is also tiny compared to 35mm. Though I would be happy to move to MF if the prices weren't so astronomical. |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 01:35:22 PM · #6 |
I've seen folks who imply they have inside knowledge post that there are either 1 or 2 bodies in the announcement queue from Canon... a 22-24Mpx FF Pro body, and an updated Rebel (10Mpx) are the oft-quoted possibilities. The 1-series body may not be available until early '07, according to some. Time shall tell.
|
|
|
|
08/21/2006 01:35:31 PM · #7 |
40 x 50mm i thought was 645 film?
edit: i guess that 60mm x 45mm makes more sense lol...
Message edited by author 2006-08-21 13:41:47. |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 01:42:02 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
That's a good point, but since the current sensors are 3:2, it would only be a 33% increase in size, and since you'd have to crop to print standard sizes, it doesn't seem like it would be much of a benefit. Hasn't medium format typically been 70x60 or 60x60mm? |
Actually, you simply cannot increase the area of the sensor much at all within the current image circle. Going to a square format yields the greatest area, but is only an 8% increase over the 3:2 format. Cropping would eliminate any pixel advantage, but it would be interesting since there would be no need to rotate the cam at all for portrait vs. landscape.
Another impediment to this line of thinking is that many of the current lenses have built-in masking of the area outside of the 35mm frame to reduce stray light entering the camera body. |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 01:48:31 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
teh lense throw a circular pool of light, er, image. if the image circle covers 35mm wide, it will logically cover that vertically too. So take the current lenses, make a 35mmx35mm square 22mp sensor, low ISO and not many FPS, perhaps throw in a HD instead of CF and you got a pretty neat MF system - L glass and flash already there to support it. Digital from the ground up, design wise, and a nice little boost to your whole line of camera, reputation wise. |
Still, the Image circle only contains so much area. Changing the diagonals doesn't really provide any more surface area to the sensor.
I tried to to the math, but got to the point where I had to go to pen and paper, not worth it. Really, you're looking at a 44mm diagonal X, whether the ends for a square or rectangle is irrelavant.
All this to say, MF cams still have a big advantage in size and image quality. Course, that could be offset with FPS by Canon, which is why all those dudes switched to 1d MarkII's.
|
|
|
|
08/21/2006 02:19:57 PM · #10 |
For reference, the math:
36x24mm frame = 864mm^2, 43.267mm diagonal
30.6mmx30.6mm frame = 936mm^2, 43.267mm diagonal
Note I've held the diagonal measurement constant, because that's the largest measurement that's compatible with the full image circle of most 35mm format lenses. The area increase from 864 to 936 is just 8.3%, as I previously posted. |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 03:28:29 PM · #11 |
who is going to be there??? anyone out for a drinkie afterwards????
gary, me, olga and adone probably be there..... |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 03:28:53 PM · #12 |
| is there a reason you couldn't do a 36 x 36mm sensor? |
|
|
|
08/21/2006 03:54:49 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
is there a reason you couldn't do a 36 x 36mm sensor? |
No. But you'd need new lenses.
I was thinking that the 35mm lenses image circle could cover such a square sensor, BUT teh largest rectangle that fits in the image circle is the current 35mm (or FF digital) size, 35x23mm (nominally). If you make a square 35mm sensor the 4 corners would be outside the image circle... the largest square you can fit in the image circle is 30.6mm (i trust others math on this).
8% improvement in sensor size would make (at current density) the 16Mps sensor only a 17.25 Mp, and square. So if you crop that to the 3:2 apsect ratio typical of the 35mm format you end up with less Mp then you have with the 16mp camera we have now.
but then, if sony can have zeiss make lenses for them, i get canon could use someone's MF lenses if they just asked (well..paid some money that is) |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 06:42:22 AM · #14 |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 07:01:09 AM · #15 |
If the specs of the XTi are 'correct' I dont see why anyone would buy a 30D, not that I'd be complaining!
I heard the canon ef 100-400L IS may be up for an overhaul, its knocking on a bit now. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 07:43:24 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
If the specs of the XTi are 'correct' I dont see why anyone would buy a 30D, not that I'd be complaining!
I heard the canon ef 100-400L IS may be up for an overhaul, its knocking on a bit now. |
Maybe this one phrase would.
Lighter then 350D more plastic. Geeze why dont they say fisher price. The Rebel felt super tiny and cheap to me, so they make the new one even worse and more out of plastic?
MattO
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 11:07:23 AM · #17 |
Those look way photoshopped.
I hope they don't make it crappier than the XT... although they could make it lighter/the same weight while still making the grip bigger and much more ergonomic. Not that they'll probably go that route, they want people to buy the 30D.
I think I'm going to hold off upgrading to one of the consumer cams until I can afford a 1-series.. might mean waiting a few years until my XT is WAY out of date though. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 11:18:27 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Anastasia:
who is going to be there??? anyone out for a drinkie afterwards????
gary, me, olga and adone probably be there..... |
Hmm, it is only 3 hours driving. Maybe.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2006 12:07:56 PM · #19 |
| Could be the Canon MF rumor was put out to counter the Sony FF rumor, but that's all that either will be, rumors. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 12:29:32 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
If the specs of the XTi are 'correct' I dont see why anyone would buy a 30D, not that I'd be complaining!
I heard the canon ef 100-400L IS may be up for an overhaul, its knocking on a bit now. |
better build, fast FPS are at least two, and i bet spot meter, RAW+jpg and other little things will be different, perhaps even noise as the 10m sensor is more dense it is likely noisier.
Hard to say what a company's theory is - do they make more profit on the 30D than the XT? probably, but as long as buy one of them and not the alpha or D50/80 they make money so perhaps they don't care too strongly - and many 300D folks will move up to the new XTi that might not have moved to a 30D for cost or 350 for features, so they get that sale.
Lens wise I don't watch things that closely (or care than much really). If and when i can afford and justify moving on up the 70-200 2.8 IS is on the list, and maybe the 24-105 f4 IS (for for IS as much as for range and constant ap). The 17-40 f4 doesn't interest me as I have a sigma 18-50 2.8 and theres no advantage moving and perhaps disadvantage doing so. 12-24 tokina is next unless something interesting pops up. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 11:46:12 PM EST.
