New Canon Camera Rumours

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_questions_eos30d.html' target='_blank'>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_questions_eos30d.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Here's a picture that's currently floating around the Internet. Is it real? I don't know. I'm sure that the EOS 35D (30D) will look much like the EOS 20D so it's certainly reasonable. To be honest the only real unknowns here are the actual name (35D/30D) and the shape and placement of the number! Otherwise it's going to look like a 20D. We will know for sure on or around February 20/21st when Canon seem to have scheduled some press conferences prior to the opening of PMA on February 26th."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/eos_35d_photo.jpg" /><br /><br />Oh my! Lots of new rumours about what's coming up from Canon lately. There are also rumours about the <a href="http://www.dphotojournal.com/canon-eos-3d/">Canon 3D</a>, <a href="http://www.dphotojournal.com/canon-eos-30d/">Canon 30D</a>, and the <a href="http://www.dphotojournal.com/canon-eos-35d/">Canon 35D</a>. Looks like there's going to be a lot of big Canon news a week from now. That's great, now I know I have something to wait for. If the rumours are true, the 30D looks like what I'd be most interested in. We'll see!

[[email protected]]

3D :werenotworthy:

To bad it's totally out of my reach at inbetween $3300 and $7150.

What's this eye control business? Will it see what I'm looking at?

Malte

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Eye control will scan to see where your pupil is pointed at and select the AF points you're looking through, so the theory goes. In reality it's not quite perfect, and if you wear glasses even going through the calibration process may not help. The EOS 30 I recall had decent success with it, but that only had 7 AF points. It says something when the flagship professional EOS 1v didn't have Eye Control even though it debuted much earlier on the EOS 3 and shared the same 45 AF point pattern.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I am still hoping for a Pro2, but I am tempted by the 30D/35D. Lets see what they announce. 8)

[[email protected]]

I am still hoping for a Pro2, but I am tempted by the 30D/35D. Lets see what they announce. 8)

Sorry, what is Pro2?

Malte

[Jonathon Watkins]

Sorry, what is Pro2?

An upgrade of the wonderfull Pro1 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonpro1/)

[SassKwatch]

Looks like the rumors are over.....

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022114canoneos30d.asp

Canon has *FINALLY* decided to include a true spot meter on something other than it's highest end dslr's.

[Jason Dunn]

Canon has *FINALLY* decided to include a true spot meter on something other than it's highest end dslr's.

I don't know that much about spot meters - why is this an important thing for Canon to add beyond what I probably have in my 300D?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Spot meter allows you to accurate meter a very small portion of the frame, so that you can use it as a reference point to determine how you want to expose for the scene. Despite what most say, it's an advanced tool and not many can make the full use of it. I generally don't bother and use matrix metering.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Despite what most say, it's an advanced tool and not many can make the full use of it. I generally don't bother and use matrix metering.

I used it a Lot at the Greenbelt Festival for concert photography. It's great to take readings of faces and be able expose the scene correctly/appropriately.

Quite a disappointing lineup by Canon overall. OK, the 30D will probably produce better quality images than the Nikon D200 (especially at high ISOs), but removing RAW from all their compact lineup is a *stupid* move. People looking for a compact camera are not going to be forced up to a dSLR to get RAW. They will buy a Nikon or (shudder) Sony instead.

I really hope Canon change their mind on this and add the functionality back via a firmware upgrade. :?

[SassKwatch]

...but removing RAW from all their compact lineup is a *stupid* move. People looking for a compact camera are not going to be forced up to a dSLR to get RAW. ....

A yr ago, I would have agreed wholeheartedly. These days, I'm not so sure. Entry level DLSR's are getting almost cheap enough that one almost has to wonder why someone who might have been sufficiently interested in photography to purchase a film SLR 'back in the day' would not purchase a SLR today.(?)

Of course, I half suspect that in a couple yr, a camera the quality of the 5D will probably sell for less than the 20D does today. So, perhaps there are a lot of folks still waiting for the market to sufficiently mature that every round of new devices doesn't include a significant price drop from the last round.

[SassKwatch]

I don't know that much about spot meters - why is this an important thing for Canon to add beyond what I probably have in my 300D?

In addition to what Lee suggested, it was also important for Canon to do because, as far as I know, *every* other mfr out there included same....and many even in their digicam lineup. I always kinda believed it was something of a cheesy marketing gimmick on Canon's part to get those who wanted such a feature to move up to their higher end gear. But I could be wrong.

I use a spot meter almost exclusively.....except maybe for casual family get togethers. IMO, it's just SO important to not blow out the highlights. And I just find not doing so much easier to control with a spot meter than any of the various flavors of 'averaging' meters. YMMV, of course.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Entry level DLSR's are getting almost cheap enough that one almost has to wonder why someone who might have been sufficiently interested in photography to purchase a film SLR 'back in the day' would not purchase a SLR today.(?)

Because I and many others do NOT want a dSLR. I want a digicam. I.e. with a video-camera mode, live histogram, tilt and swivel LCD monitor, integrated ND filter, small size, no noisy slapping mirror, 4:3 aspect ratio instead of 3:2, no dust issues etc.

I can afford a very nice dSLR. I just want more than a dSLR can offer. It's a different market niche and it's a mistake to think that crippling digicams will force people to 'upgrade' to dSLRs.

[SassKwatch]

It's a different market niche and it's a mistake to think that crippling digicams will force people to 'upgrade' to dSLRs.

You could very well be right. It's just that it wouldn't be hard for me to envision Canon all but getting out of the digicam market. Granted, that notion is based on a BIG *IF*....with the if being a continued drop in prices of digital cameras across the board. *IF* DLSR's drop to the point that film SLR's can be purchased for today (easily had for &lt; $350-400), then it would seem likely the digicam market is going to get very crowded and margins will be paper thin. *IF* that all happens, I could see Canon leaving the digicam market to others.

[Jason Dunn]

*IF* DLSR's drop to the point that film SLR's can be purchased for today (easily had for &lt; $350-400), then it would seem likely the digicam market is going to get very crowded and margins will be paper thin. *IF* that all happens, I could see Canon leaving the digicam market to others.

Nah, it will never happen. There will ALWAYS be a LARGE market of people who want small cameras. Heck man, DSLR's are a niche market! Out of all my friends and family that have digital cameras, 90% of them have digicams. If Canon can make a DSLR for $500 someday, it means they'll be able to make a fantastic digicam for $300, and still make money at it. There may be higher markups in DSLRs, but the volume is in digicams.

[Jason Dunn]

Because I and many others do NOT want a dSLR. I want a digicam. I.e. with a video-camera mode, live histogram, tilt and swivel LCD monitor, integrated ND filter, small size, no noisy slapping mirror, 4:3 aspect ratio instead of 3:2, no dust issues etc.

I find this statement fascinating - you're the first person I've ever seen express that! Maybe you should write an article for us, it would make for interesting reading. ;-) Myself, I need to have both kinds of cameras, but can't imagine not having the feel of a DSLR when I'm trying to shoot "serious" pictures. Equally, I can't imagine dragging a beefy DSLR to a casual birthday party when my S500 would do just as nicely. I like having the option for video as well.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Because I and many others do NOT want a dSLR. I want a digicam. I.e. with a video-camera mode, live histogram, tilt and swivel LCD monitor, integrated ND filter, small size, no noisy slapping mirror, 4:3 aspect ratio instead of 3:2, no dust issues etc.

I find this statement fascinating - you're the first person I've ever seen express that! l.


Well, there are plenty of us with the same mindset over at www.dpreview.com. :wink: The Pro1 is probably the best out of the high end digicams. I would quite happily pay more for a high end digicam than a low end dSLR. There is considerable scope for overlap - if the manufacturers keep making them. Scarily, Sony seem to 'get' it and have produced a few tempting high end digicams recently. I hope it doesn't come to me buying a Sony rather than Canon. (Though I will never buy a memory-stick-only product). :?

[Myself, I need to have both kinds of cameras, but can't imagine not having the feel of a DSLR when I'm trying to shoot "serious" pictures. Equally, I can't imagine dragging a beefy DSLR to a casual birthday party when my S500 would do just as nicely. I like having the option for video as wel.

My wife has the S500 which is great as a 'take anywhere' compact camera. I like to think I do take 'serious' pictures with the Pro1. I had a 20D (on loan) and my Pro1 to cover the Greenbelt Music and Arts Festival (http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/gbphotos/thumbnails.php?album=search&amp;type=full&amp;search=watkins) last year and I found myself using the Pro1 a lot more than the 20D. Granted, in low light conditions the 1600 ISO of the 20D combined with my IS lens meant that I could shoot concerts handheld. But equally I really like my tripod Pro1 shots of the same concerts. During the day it was no contest. The Pro1 was compact, discreet, unobtrusive and the flip LCD meant that I could shoot from waist height while looking down, i.e. ideal for 'street portraiture'.

If the Pro2 were to have the DIGIC II processor (faster operation), better noise resonse at higher ISOs and a 24-120mm (equivelent) L-class lens then it could just about do everything that I took the 20D along for. Really.

In the end, a camera is a tool. Not everyone wants a chainsaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainsaw); some people perfer the pecistion of a Miter saw. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miter_saw) ;-)

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Most of the market demographic who buy smaller cameras will not us RAW. Note the lack of a Pro1 upgrade from Canon, or just about any other manufacturer out there. It's just how the demand for the cameras are.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Most of the market demographic who buy smaller cameras will not us RAW.

The kind of person who wants a high end digicam practically demands RAW. Compact does not necessarily equate to cheap or low end. There still is a school of thought that says that smaller and well crafted is *better*. (Think Leica etc...) ;-)

Note the lack of a Pro1 upgrade from Canon, or just about any other manufacturer out there. It's just how the demand for the cameras are.

Canon released the G6 in May last time, well after PMA. There is no current Canon compact camera that has a hotshoe. There are obvious gaps in Canon's lineup. They did say they were releasing a lot of cameras this year. I can wait............

[SassKwatch]

Nah, it will never happen. There will ALWAYS be a LARGE market of people who want small cameras.

And some day that market will be covered by devices in the $100-150 range, IMO.

Heck man, DSLR's are a niche market!

Of course they are....*today*. Very few people are willing to spend $1k and up for any camera. DLSR sales have increased dramatically over the last 1-2 yr since the intro of sub-$1k devices. And now the Pentax *ist (or whatever that stupid name is) can be had for $599....easy. In 2-3 yr, I'm betting DSLR's of that quality will be in the $3-350 range. Sales will increase commensurately with the drop in prices.

If Canon can make a DSLR for $500 someday

There's no if to it. It will happen......and I'd bet much sooner than you think.

means they'll be able to make a fantastic digicam for $300

Considerably less. Whether the margins will be sufficient to retain Canon's interest will be interesting to see.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

The limiting factor is still the tiny CCD. The end result is that a lot of the market snubs the small cameras. G series is pretty much dead, and so is the Pro1 series. The only recently announced camera was the Sony R1, and that used an APS-sized sensor, and is not a particularly small camera.

In the end, it's hard to fight with the majority of the market, even if the idea makes sense. Money wins, especially in an ever-crowded market with little profit to show for.

Finally, cameras are not processors or graphics cards. There still is a price floor, and a $100 camera is not going to come anytime soon unless there is a breakthrough in lens manufacturing process, which believe me, will take some time (optics technology is fairly mature).

[Jason Dunn]

Of course they are....*today*. Very few people are willing to spend $1k and up for any camera. DLSR sales have increased dramatically over the last 1-2 yr since the intro of sub-$1k devices. And now the Pentax *ist (or whatever that stupid name is) can be had for $599....easy. In 2-3 yr, I'm betting DSLR's of that quality will be in the $3-350 range. Sales will increase commensurately with the drop in prices.

Nope, I disagree. It has nothing to do with the price, and everything to do with the size. DSLRs will always be big - that's the whole point. Think back ten years, before digitals were everywhere. Think about all of your friends and family and the cameras they had ten years ago. Were they all using SLRs? Not the people I knew. In fact, I only had one friend who had an SLR. The rest were using various forms of compact cameras, some with zoom lenses, but all were non-SLR designs. I'm convinced we'll see exactly the same pattern play itself out in the digital world. Why wouldn't it?

[SassKwatch]

Nope, I disagree. It has nothing to do with the price, and everything to do with the size.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Yes, 10 yr ago, most everyone I knew had a small camera......mainly because it was cheap. There just weren't then many folks willing to spend $350-400 for an SLR when they could buy an upscale(?) 'instamatic' for &lt; $100 that produced family get together shots that were 'good enough' for their purposes.

Undoubtedly, there were cases in that group where size was a factor in the purchase decision, but price was more often the mitigating factor.

I hope like heck I'm wrong, but I fear the high end digicam capable of producing RAW format files that Jonathan is looking for might just get squeezed out of the market.