Canon 60D - Predictions?

[alexniedra]

Hey Guys


Just want to see what you would all expect from the successor of the 40D and 50D. Although we'd all like to see a 40MP 60D with ISO 51200 with a 17-400 2.8 IS kit lens for $1,200, it just ain't gonna happen.


So, explain what you'd like to see in the new camera - cosmetic or technical changes.


What I would like to see:




ISO 100-6400 (L50, H1-12800, H2-25600)
More MP than the 50D
HD Video
6-6.5 fps
Deeper buffer, to yield a frame rate this fast at such a high resolution,
Digic V Processor



Body/Cosmetic changes, IMHO, would be small if any.

[samoksner]

I'd like to see a nicer viewfinder and a miniature vertical grip available... Something that doesn't turn the camera into a tank but allows for shotting portraits.

[Oren]

17-400 2.8 IS non-L?? that's too bad, I won't buy this lens [:P]


Now seriously... why would you want more than 15mp? I think that 50D's 15mp is a bit too much for such a sensor (22.3 x 14.9mm) already.

[alexniedra]

Sorry, I meant to say






EF 17-400 f/2.8 L IS

[Oren]

Now you're talking...[Y]

[alexniedra]

I agree - the 10MP of my 40D does me fine - but I feel that the market might call for it. If Nikon and Sony hold off on the MP race, then the 60D will maintain 15MP.

[Oren]

I don't expect 60D to have a MP drop - it will surely have at least 15mp since that's what the 50D has, but Canon, please - we don't won't more pixels (unless the sensor itself gets bigger :P).


The MP race is bs - if a XXD (or better bodies) owner think they need more and more MP then they'd better off doing something else - rather than being a photographer [:D]


MP race is bs and we've talked about it (and agreed that it's bs) before - I won't bother to talk about it anymore - in this thread at least.

[alexniedra]

Yeah I've seen the endless discussion in the "$1800 Full-Frame DSLR" thread already.



All we can do is wait and see...





Come to think about it, the 60D will most likely stay at 15MP, and then from there Canon should consider sensor size cangements - and lens changes.





A change in the sensor size - say to 1.3x FOVCF - would require Canon to phase out it's current EF-S lenses, which toss an image circle the size of the 1.6x crop sensor.


Canon can release new EF-S lenses along with the 60D, to ease this process of sensor switch, if it were to happen.

[Alan]

EF 17-400 f/2.8 L IS
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





It's gonna cost a bundle and weigh a ton!

[Erich Anderson]

I say keepthe specs the sameas on the 50D, maybe improve the sensor for less noise, and increase the buffer size...


AND ADD ECF (Eye-Controlled Focus) like Canon did on their film cameras many many years ago. For the life of me I don't know why they haven't brought this technology over to their Digital SLR cameras.

[Tom Alicoate]

The 60D will have minimal improvements and I think will come out on the 12 month mark. Improvements being 1080P Video and some minimal improvements to noise via new micro lenses or a better noise reduction algorithm(very little tangible difference though). Changes to AF, MP, or Weather proofing seem unlikely.

[alexniedra]

To me, even if I was shooting on a Rebel body, I wouldn't see an upgrade to the 60D as practical - I'd be buying it for the feel of the body and top LCD. I would be much better with a 5D II.


It seems to ma that Canon would have to come out with something spectacular to get my attention.

[Daniel Browning]

My expectations and predictions are relatively bleak compared to what I would like to see.


Everyone comes out with a lackluster upgrade once and a while, and after a nice run of cameras I think it's about time for Canon to release a boring one, like the 30D was. If that's true, the 60D will probably just add the 500D video feature (20 FPS 1080p with aliasing artifacts) and a few other trinkets, but keep the sensor and most everything else the same. Or perhaps they'll do 18 MP. I would love it if they jumped to 40 MP.


In either case, I'm not getting my hopes up that Canon will implement any of the features that are of interest to me:

Allow Raw RGB histograms.
Allow metadata-based ISO settings (up to 5 stops more highlight headroom with the same noise).
Allow Auto ISO in Manual mode and with flash.
Allow bit depth per ISO setting
Allow the raw format to remain unmodified under f/2.8.
Implement simple nonlinear file formats for lossless compression
Move the hidden "dead pixel remap" feature from "manual sensor clean" to its own menu item.



I also have a lot of desires for the video feature that I hope is coming in the 60D.

Manual control of shutter, aperture, and ISO.
Record longer than 12 minutes by starting a new file at 4 GB limit.
Manual control of audio gain.
Option to re-configure the AV output jack as a headphone audio monitor.
Option to truly disable noise reduction (currently NR is applied even when set to "off")
LCD Display of audio levels, focal length, exposure index bar, and I.S. indicator.
Ability to toggle exposure lock
Zebras
RGB histogram
Peaking
24p
(The rest of the items are pie-in-the-sky dreaming):
Magnification while recording.
Focus distance.
Live HDMI output of 720p or 1080p.
Live composite output of 480psf anamorphic 16:9.
Read the entire sensor instead of skipping two out of three lines.
Improved read-reset (skew, wobble, jello, etc.).
Faster contrast-detect autofocus

[ShutterbugJohan]

Real weathersealing (1D-level)
Gray or black mode dial. (Anything other than another silver mode dial.) [:(]
HD video would be nice.

[Jon Ruyle]

Okay, I'll bite.



Allow metadata-based ISO settings (up to 5 stops more highlight headroom with the same noise).


What is a metadata-based ISO setting, and why does it give you 5 stops more highlight headroom? ("Metadata based ISO" sounds to me like what some people call "fake iso", ie the way highest iso settings work on most (all?) canon cameras. Presumably this isn't what you mean.)



Allow bit depth per ISO setting


You mean you want more bit depth in some iso settings than others?



Allow the raw format to remain unmodified under f/2.8.


I didn't know it was modified. How? Why?


A friend of mine is always going on about how someone should make an
open source camera. Presumably if canon did this (no chance of this-
we'll get magnification while recording video first [:)]), someone would write software to do
all of these things you're asking for.

[Daniel Browning]

What is a metadata-based ISO setting?

Let me lay a little groundwork first.

In-camera ISO is just gain. It can be digital or analog. If the gain is digital, then all it is doing is mangling and deleting the raw data. One stop of digital gain (ISO) literally deletes one stop of highlights, with absolutely no improvement in read noise or quantization error.

If the gain is analog, it still deletes highlights, but there are two possible benefits: less read noise and/or less quantization error.

Digital gain never does either of those things, so it's always bad to use on raw data: it should only be for JPEG embedded previews. On all well designed cameras, quantization error is not a problem, so that's not a reason. So the only good time to ever use gain is to get less read noise.

The only time you get less read noise on Canon cameras is at ISO 200-1600. ISO 3200 is analog, but the read noise does not improve. ISO 6400-25600 are just digital and never have purpose.

So metadata-based ISO is separate from and in addition to the analog ISO. It's just a recommendation to the raw converter to apply exposure compensation. For example, if you want to shoot an ultra low light portrait at ISO 25600. With Canon's current cameras, you have two choices:

1. Set the ISO to 25600. This causes the camera to use an analog gain of 3200, then apply a digital four stop push, deleting four stops of highlight data, blowing and clipping important details all over the scene, as well as doubling or tripling the file size.
2. Set the ISO to 1600, which is the highest useful analog gain. This is 4 stops away from the desired gain, so the exposure meter, autoexposure system, and LCD review will all be useless. In post-production, nonlinear exposure compensation may be used to apply the gain without deleting the highlights needlessly: saving all four stops of information, and keeping the filesize small as a bonus.

What I would like is a third option:

3. Set the analog ISO to 1600 and the metadata ISO to 25600. This causes a highlight-preserving EC to be used for in-camera JPEG (or even a linear EC) while leaving the raw alone. This is the best of all worlds: it retains the highlight data, file size, AE system, and LCD review.


This feature would also unlock the possibility of getting more highlight headroom even at low ISO. Right now, if you want to shoot ISO 1600 with the highlight headroom of ISO 200, you have to give up auto exposure, metering, LCD preview, etc. and just shoot analog ISO 200. With metadata ISO, you could get all those features back by just setting the metadata ISO to 1600.


So it's not just for super high ISO, it's useful at *anything* over ISO 100 when you want more highlight headroom.


Canon had this feature in the 10D. ISO 1600 was analog ISO 800 with "+1 EC" metadata that was applied to the jpeg preview and in-camera LCD and for autoexposure metering and review, but did not mangle the raw data. All subsequent cameras had this feature removed, and instead began deleting highlights from the raw data.

Years later, Canon added Highlight Tone Priority, but limited it to one stop and disabled it for some of the ISO settings where it would be most useful (12800 and 25600), and added it to the ISO settings where it can cause a lot of noise (especially ISO 200).


Why does metadata-based ISO give you 5 stops more highlight headroom?

If you simulate metadata ISO 25600 by doing a 5 stop push of analog ISO 800, then compare it with Canon's current ISO 25600, it has 5 stops more highlights with almost the same amount of read noise. Simulating 25600 with analog ISO 1600, the read noise is *exactly* (not almost) the same, and the difference is 4 stops of highlights.

The next question on your mind is probably this: If it were so easy for Canon to preserve 5 stops of highlights, why would they delete them? I think there are many possible reasons:

* Because they can. Customers accept all sorts of compromises at high ISO, even ones that are completely unnecessary (like this). Many photographers never even use high ISO. Canon knows that few people use it and the ones who do just have to be willing to accept the problems.

* Because of Customer Service. Some customers will have a rude awakening when they realize that Canon has been deleting 1, 2, or more stops of their highlight headroom for no reason. Even if Canon buries the metadata feature in some custom function, and provides copious documentation, many customers will get thoroughly confused about what it is or does. Misconceptions will travel rapidly on the web about it, no doubt. Even some raw processing programs might get confused by the metadata. Adobe, for example, doesn't implement HTP correctly, it just does a linear push without preserving highlights. Other converters might not apply the push at all, so customers will wonder why it's too dark.

* Because of Management. Canon had ISO metadata in the 10D, but removed it in all later cameras. That makes me think it was removed on purpose, as if by edict from Managament. Software engineers wouldn't remove a feature that was doing the obviously correct thing and replace it with the obviously incorrect thing for no good reason. A good reason would be if the manager said "cripple the camera or I break-a-you-face."

* Because of Marketing. Perhaps the feature was removed because Canon wanted to save that trick for a rainy day, so they could come out with a new camera with "4 stops more dynamic range at high ISO!" without any development cost. If they were nefarious enough, they could sell a firmware update to all cameras going back to the 20D offering ISO 25600 as metadata, with 4 stops more dynamic range accross all cameras. Sony sells $1,000 firmware upgrades on some of its high end video cameras, so there's precedent.


* Because of Engineering. It's possible that the software engineers responsible for the firmware are unaware of the issue, but given the high level of competence they've demonstrated I think that's highly unlikely. I don't think Hanlon's razor applies.

* Because of Bureaucracy. This is the most likely reason, IMHO. Many suboptimal things happen in big corporations. Maybe the 10D metadata ISO feature did not have the correct "addition of feature form" filled out, and the engineer who added it was fired because he didn't follow the correct procedure for requesting authority to add a new feature. Maybe the paperwork for removing the feature was easier than the paperwork required for leaving it in. Who knows.

In any case, after all these years, I have little hope that Canon will make an improvement in this area any time soon.

Other manufacturers, however, including many MFDB and digicams, do already implement ISO as metadata. Of course, they don't have read noise improvements at high ISO read noise, so they don't even *need* the feature like Canon cameras do. The cameras that need it don't have it. The cameras that have it don't need it. Funny world.


"Metadata based ISO" sounds to me like what some people call "fake iso", ie the way highest iso settings work on most (all?) canon cameras. Presumably this isn't what you mean.)

Most people think "fake" ISO is bad because it's its not amplified in analog. But that's not a problem, in fact, that's the most desirable state. To have a camera with such high bit depth and such low noise amplification that noise is the same at all amplification levels would yeild the highest amount of dynamic range. So in that sense, "fake" ISO is the best ISO. The problem is that the only "fake" ISO implementations that Canon uses (except once, in the Canon 10D) are done by mangling and deleting data in the raw file before it's written. It's much better to just write metadata saying "delete 5 stops of highlights because every photographer loves blown highlights", then some would get the file into post processing and change that little recommendation.



I didn't know it was modified. How? Why?

When one shoots wider than f/2.8, Canon mangles the raw data with a digital push in order to compensate for lower sensor response to light from oblique angles due to the microlenses. You can read about where it's done in the 30D here, but Canon didn't fix it for the 5D2, and I doubt the 50D or 60D will be corrected either:

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~par24/rawhistogram/CanonRawScaling/CanonRawScaling.html ("http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~par24/rawhistogram/CanonRawScaling/CanonRawScaling.html)

The reason they do this is for all the same reasons as above. Papering over the sensor angle of response with a digital push helps Customer Service issues (people don't wonder why their f/1.2 is darker than f/2.8), Marketing, Management, Beurocracy, etc. Of course, if you slightly untwist the lens so that there is no electronic communication, then the camera will not know to apply the push to your f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens, which allows you to get the unmodified raw data. There's really no good reason to mangle the raw data IMHO.


A friend of mine is always going on about how someone should make an open source camera.

That would be really great. CHDK is a stellar example of what can be done even when Canon is fighting to prevent it. And here I would have thought a legion of unpaid programmers adding tremendous new features would be a good thing.


If Canon open sources their firmware, I will add the metadata ISO feature myself.

[Daniel Browning]

You mean you want more bit depth in some iso settings than others?


Yes. The bit depth needs to record a range. That range is clipping to noise floor. The range is highest at base ISO. When analog ISO is used, the range decreases, so the necessary bit depth decreases accordingly. File sizes would decrease dramatically without losing any information at all.

[KeVancity]

60d -


I would want a roll back to 12 MP to keep the low light and gain a bit of resolution over the 40d.


Weather Sealing -1ds Level.


built in st-e2.


that would be the perfect camera.

[alexniedra]

ST-E2 - Is this the Infared flash metering/triggering?


That would be really cool.

[Kristiaan Glorie]

I think the 60D is not going to be really surprising. As mentioned, they'll probably do a minor improvement on the 50D and add HD video.


From Canon's point of view, however, it would be interesting to add some really attractive new feature on the top of the line - maybe on a new 1Ds Mark IV - to gradually introduce to the lower series over the next couple of years.


Besides increased MP and HD video and exceptional high iso performance I am thinking of in-body 3-stop IS. Yes, Canon has made a commitment with it's lenses featuring IS, and yes this is most likely superior, but think of all those lenses that just don't have the IS feature (given that they are still introducing them, adding in-body IS is not such a bad option). And think of the major attraction such a body would have on the user base, justifying a solid high price. Besides they are directly adressing competition - Sony - who has already implemented the IS feature in body.


I am guessing though that they will just choose to equip all of their lenses with IS over the years, driving this option out. But still, it's good to hope isn't it?

[alexniedra]

As cool as in-body IS would be, I don't think Canon would consider it.


Why?


Because the advanced IS systems found in Canon lenses are some of the things that attract buyers to buy genuine Canon lenses.


With in-body IS, IMHO, I think buyers would take on the thought of, "I already have in-body IS. Why would I need lens IS too?".


I believe that this could direct people towards the third-party lenses of Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina.

[Keith B]

I didn't know it was modified. How? Why?

When one shoots wider than f/2.8, Canon mangles the raw data with a digital push in order to compensate for lower sensor response to light from oblique angles due to the microlenses. You can read about where it's done in the 30D here, but Canon didn't fix it for the 5D2, and I doubt the 50D or 60D will be corrected either:

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~par24/rawhistogram/CanonRawScaling/CanonRawScaling.html ("http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~par24/rawhistogram/CanonRawScaling/CanonRawScaling.html)

The reason they do this is for all the same reasons as above. Papering over the sensor angle of response with a digital push helps Customer Service issues (people don't wonder why their f/1.2 is darker than f/2.8), Marketing, Management, Beurocracy, etc. Of course, if you slightly untwist the lens so that there is no electronic communication, then the camera will not know to apply the push to your f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens, which allows you to get the unmodified raw data. There's really no good reason to mangle the raw data IMHO.


A friend of mine is always going on about how someone should make an open source camera.

That would be really great. CHDK is a stellar example of what can be done even when Canon is fighting to prevent it. And here I would have thought a legion of unpaid programmers adding tremendous new features would be a good thing.


If Canon open sources their firmware, I will add the metadata ISO feature myself.









I was happy go lucky, loving my 40D and then my 5Dmk2. Then Debbie Downer Browning came along.


Anyone wants a lightly used 5Dmk2 or a heavily used 40D they will be in my trash in front of my house.


Thanks a lot Daniel!

[Daniel Browning]

I was happy go lucky, loving my 40D and then my 5Dmk2. Then Debbie Downer Browning came along.


Anyone wants a lightly used 5Dmk2 or a heavily used 40D they will be in my trash in front of my house.


Thanks a lot Daniel!





[:D] Morpheus is always getting after me for disclosing the truth about The Matrix without first asking if you want to swallow the red pill. [:D]

[SRPHOTO]

15mp [same as 50D]


6.5fps w/o grip 8fps w/ grip [nikon style]





weather sealing


hd video + manual controls [hopefully the 5D mark II will get manual controls soon!]


audio input like the 5d mark II





have exceptional iso performance.. 100-6400 lo:50 hi:25600


bigger viewfinder..


pretty much ahahaha :]

[Jon Ruyle]

I just threw my 5DII in the trash and ordered a D700. [;)]



So metadata-based ISO is separate from and in addition to the analog ISO. It's just a recommendation to the raw converter to apply exposure compensation.


I thought this *was* how it worked. In fact, my open-source proponent friend hacked his 300D- I forget why- and from looking at the code, he swears on that camera iso1600 and iso3200 raws are identical. (300D doesn't have iso3200 but it shared the codebase with the 20D, which did).



When one shoots wider than f/2.8, Canon mangles the raw data with a digital push in order to compensate for lower sensor response to light from oblique angles due to the microlenses.


The disturbing part of this is the light loss, but it looks like it is only about 6% at f/2. That sucks but oh well... probably can't easily be helped. Do you know if other cameras suffer from this problem? (The fact that they mangle the raw instead of adding metadata and letting the raw converter do what it will seems wrong, but I'm not losing any sleep over that one).



Papering over the sensor angle of response with a digital push helps Customer Service issues (people don't wonder why their f/1.2 is darker than f/2.8)


With TTL metering, wouldn't you just get longer exposure times rather than darker images?



If Canon open sources their firmware, I will add the metadata ISO feature myself.


If canon open sources their firmware, I'll sprout wings and fly to the moon. [H]

[Daniel Browning]

I threw my 5D2 in the garbage as well. 70-200 is now a yard fixture.



I thought this *was* how it worked. In fact, my open-source proponent friend hacked his 300D- I forget why- and from looking at the code, he swears on that camera iso1600 and iso3200 raws are identical.


It's not necessary to look at the code: if the raws are identical then that would be obvious from looking at the raw files themselves. If instead your friend is saying that they start out identical, then the 3200 is changed digitally, then that agrees with what I'm saying.



The disturbing part of this is the light loss, but it looks like it is only about 6% at f/2.


One of these days I'll test my 24mm f/1.4 II on the 5D2; I think it will be much worse.



Do you know if other cameras suffer from this problem?


The light loss problem varies with microlens design, which is different between cameras and manufacturers. The 50D has gapless microlenses on APS-C, and the Nikon D700 has gapless microlenses that use a two-element design.

The "mangle RAW" problem seems to be something that every manufacturer does, but no two in the same way:

Canon mangles raws at wide apertures.
Nikon applies color matrix, black clip, and long exposure hot pixel abatement.
Sony does a subtle noise reduction in A900 up to ISO 800 that can't be disabled.
Pentax does an averaging-based noise reduction at ISO 1600 and clips blacks.



(The fact that they mangle the raw instead of adding metadata and letting the raw converter do what it will seems wrong, but I'm not losing any sleep over that one).


If Canon had a storage system that was evenly matched to the capability of the camera (e.g. 12 bits), it would be a problem, because mangling the raw reduces precision and introduces quantization error, which can cause additional noise and posterization in the shadows.

Fortunately, Canon's storage system is way over-spec, and whil it's nomrally just a big waste of space, the 14-bits do prevent this problem. In this case, two wrongs make a right. :)



With TTL metering, wouldn't you just get longer exposure times rather than darker images?


The light hitting the exposure meter is fine, so it would have no way to know that the sensor is going to be less responsive unless Canon programmed it with the same logic they use to modify the raw file. But then it wouldn't have any effect in manual mode. Doing it in the firmware works in manual as well as autoexposure modes.

[Jon Ruyle]

Thanks for the info, Daniel. I had no idea.



It's not necessary to look at the code: if the raws are identical then that would be obvious from looking at the raw files themselves.


We didn't have the camera :) My recollection is that he claimed the raws were identical, except metadata. Maybe he is wrong. Maybe my memory mangled what he said.





With TTL metering, wouldn't you just get longer exposure times rather than darker images?


The light hitting the exposure meter is fine, so it would have no way to know that the sensor is going to be less responsive unless Canon programmed it with the same logic they use to modify the raw file. But then it wouldn't have any effect in manual mode. Doing it in the firmware works in manual as well as autoexposure modes.


Ah, of course. Still, I agree with you: the place for this is in metadata. They shouldn't cook the raw.

[SRPHOTO]

there is a 60D rumor of it having a "dumbed" down AF of the 1D mark III. i dont know if this is actually true.. but check it out at http://canonrumors.com/

[Benjamin]

I threw my 5D2 in the garbage as well. 70-200 is now a yard fixture.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Wow, thanks Daniel and all people here for the discussion!


You guys said you all ditched the 5D II for the D700, does Nikon use only analog ISOs or how's the D700 much better in comparison? Is there anything foundamentally different between Canon and Nikon in this regard? I know it has a larger individual pixel size and that yields a better signal collection - this is known by everybody here. I'm also deciding if i should switch to or add Nikon system, I'm reluctant to make such a move as it does not come very cheap, however, if it is worth it I will not mind to do it.


I'm confused now... Please help.

[Daniel Browning]

You guys said you all ditched the 5D II for the D700


I was joking.


Some people have a hard time hearing any criticism about their favorite brand, but most photographers have no problem discussing all the issues that plague their chosen tools. I think flaws should be discussed openly and frequently so that people don't get surprised when they occur and so they can be fixed in the next camera. Many of the flaws that bother me aren't important to other photographers.


The Nikons don't apply the angle of incidence push like Canon does, perhaps because of their dual-element microlens design allowing for improved response. However, they do not implement metadata ISO either, so they have the same
problem in that regard. They do some things better (Auto ISO, don't
apply angle of response push), but other things worse (black clip,
color matrix).


Even with the litany of imperfections that I can discuss in the 5D2, Nikon has different (and worse) trade-offs. In my case, the 5D2 is the best camera for my needs.

[peety3]

Real weathersealing (1D-level)

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Why would a prosumer model (i.e. two-digit) have weather sealing that the 5D doesn't have?


I'm renting the 5D this week and next for two jobs. It's not a bad camera, but I quickly realized that my 1D3 is my workhorse, and the 5D became the "extra" camera. Shooting in the rain yesterday? Just another day in the park. There's a long list of reasons that the 1-series is expensive...

[Jon Ruyle]

You guys said you all ditched the 5D II for the D700, does Nikon use only analog ISOs or how's the D700 much better in comparison?


I love my 5DII. It's just that I find it enjoyable to complain [:P]


For some uses (action) the D700 is probably better. I'd rather have the 5DII for macro or astrophotography. If starting from scratch and I had no lenses, I don't know which I would pick. It would be tough.

[Keith B]

For what I use my camera for, I believe the 5DmkII is better than the D700. 12MP is still kind of small to cover a magazine spread. I use it a lot for product shots and editorial stuff. I initially went with Canon for ease of use and all these little things are of little concern of mine and I'm sure Nikon has there own issues.


So if you have rooted through my trash actually looking for my Canons in there, sorry I was just kidding.

[Benjamin]

Ahh, that was my bad... I thought you guys were all moving to Nikon. [*-)]






If starting from scratch and I had no lenses, I don't know which I would pick. It would be tough.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Agree, I think I will have a hard time deciding which one to go too if I start again from scartch. Nikon and Canon are good at slightly different things but overall as good as each other.


I feel the old Nikon film manual stuff are nice to play with, but in the modern days I will still use Canon as a system.

[TimT]

What I'd like to see in a 60D is a camera that's better than my 40D in some key ways. The FPS should be better than 6.5. I'd like to see a Live View that is more usable -- the ability to lock into focus fast. A slightly bigger viewfinder. And I'd like to see way less noise across the board while maintaining at 15 MP. These requirements probably entail major improvements in the technology -- but hey, that's why it's a wish list.

[alexniedra]

Tell me what you guys think of my opinion:





As far as features go, Canon has always been a leader. And as our technological innovations advance more and more, so do our expectations. What I look forward to in the 60D is a camera that will really change the ball game - Reinvent DSLR. I feel it would be really cool to see a camera that is totally new, and brings fresh ideas and features to the market.


What I'm trying to say here is that I need to see plenty of new features in the 60D, along with many improvements to existing features, to be impressed. We saw cool things in the 50D, and it certainly attracted many customers, but I don't really want to see more "small" improvements in the 60D. What I'd like to see is a camera that will change things dramatically.





Any thoughts?

[Jon Ruyle]

What I'm trying to say here is that I need to see plenty of new features in the 60D, along with many improvements to existing features, to be impressed. We saw cool things in the 50D, and it certainly attracted many customers, but I don't really want to see more "small" improvements in the 60D.


Maybe my expectations weren't high enough, but I'm pretty impressed with what has happened over the last 2-3 years in the DSLR world. (Live view, video, and high iso performance improving faster than I thought). I keep thinking things are going to level off, but so far, they haven't.


Still, as a product line matures, it becomes harder to come up with something really new. If we see something shocking with the 60D, I'd be, well, shocked.

[alexniedra]

That's very true. The DSLR market has seen some very nice changes over the past couple of years, and it certainly is going to be harder to come up with totally new features. Either way, it would be nice to see some new changes and added features in the 60D.

[District_History_Fan]

Who knows what the 60D will be... To upgrade from my 40D, it would be nice to see some meaningful weathersealing, better noise control,more refinedAFand improved dynamic range. What I don't want or need is video capability (almost certain to be included) or more megapixels.

[ShutterbugJohan]

Real weathersealing (1D-level)

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Why would a prosumer model (i.e. two-digit) have weather sealing that the 5D doesn't have?





The 5D needs weathersealing, too. Canon and Nikon have treated their mid-range D-SLRs very differently: Canon treats them (40D-5D II) like high-end Rebels, and Nikon treats them (D300 &amp; D700) like low-end pro cameras. The Nikon D300 and D700 both are weathersealed and have the pro 51-point AF, but the Canon 40D-5D II cameras have "partial" weathersealing (LOL!) and 9 AF points (+6 assist points on 5D II). I just want Canon to do something similar to what Nikon has done with their mid-range cameras.

[inabottle]

well Im not going to keep upgrading my camera every few years, but invest in new lens' I have a 20D and a 1DMK II N and I havent found a need to upgrade past an 8MP sensor. Now if I were to ask for what features I want in the 60D it would be features to compete with the D300...




10 or 12 MP sensor (a decrease OH NO!)
HD Video (with audio external audio attachments)
8 FPS (D300 does it, and I know with the Digic IV processor or Digic V processor should be able to handle that)
Deep Buffer
ISO 50-25600
Weather Sealing



Now, the reason I insist on a lower MP camera is because I think 15 is too high for the sensor size, noise is becomeing more intrusive at lower ISO's and higher ISO's are looking worse and loosing detail. Now if they made a 10 or 12 MP sensor using up to date technology they have invested in there higher ISO cropped sensors imagine the Image Quality, I'd rather have a higher quality lower mega pixel image than a crappier image at Higher Resolution. Thats just me, I dont want DSLR's turning into the Point and Shoot Market.

[alexniedra]

Totally agree with you...


I think Canon should stay at 12 MP with the 60D. Better weather sealing is also welcome.

[inabottle]

I doubt it will be heard, and they will keep on upping the MP density, I think the Mega Pixel War should be left to the XXXD and the XXXXD canon camera bodies and the Prosumer Camera's Image Quality should be more important, or they should make a Cropped sensor 1DMK III similar to what they did with the 5D. Who knows.... 20D has served me good for 5 years and I am still happy with the images it pumps out.

[Daniel Browning]

I'm one of the people in the small minority who think that higher pixel density (smaller pixels) is not correlated with more noise or less dynamic range. I don't really have time to explain everything right now, someday I'll make a post explaining my position (basically it comes down to the fact that noise scales with spatial frequency), but for now I just wanted to point out my difference of opinion. (The topic should really be in its own thread anyway.)

[inabottle]

So is that why Point and Shoots with Supper High Pixel Density Look so good. Maybe your right, but maybe the technology isnt there yet. But the Fact is... 5D vs 5D MKII Dynamic Range has gone Down and compared to Lower Density Full Frame DSLRs is also lower. The 50D compared to the 40D both Dynamic Range and Noise has gotten worse. So Until they create the technology for these things to look as good or better than previous sensors they should concentrate on making them look better before looking worse.

[Daniel Browning]

But the Fact is... 5D vs 5D MKII Dynamic Range has gone Down and compared to Lower Density Full Frame DSLRs is also lower. The 50D compared to the 40D both Dynamic Range and Noise has gotten worse.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I would like to move this discussion to a new thread:


Myth busted: smaller pixels have more noise, less dynamic range... ("/forums/t/1055.aspx)


You should find my response to your points in that thread.