Here it is the 50D, what's next?

**Benjamin** · 07-14-2009, 01:39 AM

**Maleko** · 07-14-2009, 05:31 AM

Interesting stuff!

I have just ordered a 50D, I currently have a 350D...Old school or what! I contemplated getting the cheaper 40D, but the 50D was more appealing. Then I thought, should I wait for the 60D/7D? Well as there is no release date yet, it could be ages! and I really wanted a new camera for the summer! (got a few weddings to do this year). Also, the price sounds like it would be a bit steaper than the current 50D?

I think the 60D/7D will have to pack a few more extras for people to think WOW at it, like HD recording etc, more features to make people see a nice upgrade from there 40/50D.

But hey, I'm looking forward to my 50D Kit and my first L lens tomorrow

**Chris White** · 07-14-2009, 08:55 AM

oNotPromoteQF />
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables />
<w:SnapToGridInCell />
<w:WrapTextWithPunct />
<w:UseAsianBreakRules />
<w

ontGrowAutofit />
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark />
<w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp />
<w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables />
<w

ontVertAlignInTxbx />
<w:Word11KerningPairs />
<w:CachedColBalance />
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math" />
<m:brkBin m:val="before" />
<m:brkBinSub m:val=" " />
<m:smallFrac m:val="off" />
<m:dispDef />
<m:lMargin m:val="0" />
<m:rMargin m:val="0" />
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup" />
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440" />
<m:intLim m:val="subSup" />
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr" />
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format

ther;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span> I moved from film
to digital (real cameras, not point & shoot) with a 50D last November and
have been very pleased. I personally do not feel the need for video from my
still camera. I am from the school of “one
size does not fit all”. In other words, I feel that in order to try to do
everything well, nothing is done exceptionally. When I want video, I grab my
video camera; sometimes – as at my kids’ school functions – I use both.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span> Since I purchased
my 50D close to the roll out, there was not a large price differential between
it and the 40D, less than $200, and I paid more than I would now. I knew that
would be the case as it always is with tech. I weighed the price against the Christmas
and school pictures I could take and feel for me it was a fair trade off verses
waiting for a lower price point.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span> Although the price
difference is more compelling now as the 40D becomes phased out, I think I would
still go with the 50D. Despite the various complaints I have seen in various
forums, in my real world applications, it still continues to make me say “WOW”.
I can see myself getting a “refurbished” 40D as a second body as the price
drops, but I am still very pleased with my 50D. With my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens
it defines crisp! I hear the f/4 version is even sharper, but I needed the f/2.8
for inside and action and it performs very well. I recently shot an anniversary
mass and reception four our pastor and took nearly 200 photos. There were very,
very few that were not keepers.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span> Like Ben, I am
always looking, but for the time being it is going to take a lot more to exceed
what I currently have.
<p class="MsoNormal"]Chris

**peety3** · 07-14-2009, 03:28 PM

I tell people that Canon has six models (nowadays):

Rugged pro FF "high res" camera

Rugged pro "half-crop" "mid res, high rate" camera

Studio FF "high res" camera

"Prosumer" crop camera

Consumer crop camera

Entry-level crop camera

The line-up (with the exception of the newer entry-level series) has been the same since the release of the 5D. Features tend to insert in the prosumer camera and then drift up before they drift down, but video took a different route as we all know.

There's a fairly obvious (and I claim logical) price tag progression through this line. Any deviations from this structure probably need a real strong motivating factor, or there's risk that the new creation might dilute the market for one of the existing models. That's not to say that the structure is perfect or even right...and I am absolutely clueless about the Nikon lineup.

**peety3** · 07-14-2009, 09:17 PM

I guess I could have and should have elaborated more on my thoughts here. It boils down to two forecasted models:

The 1D Mark IV, to me, doesn't make sense as a 16mp FF camera. Although the pixel density matches its predecessor, leading to great noise performance and diffraction threshold, I don't think FF@10fps is "easy" (and therefore feasible at the 1D price point). To get 10fps, the 1D3 needed two mirror motors, one down and one up. Most every other moving-mirror camera uses a motor and a return spring. Having to motor a FF mirror both ways at 10fps would be tough. Is the 1Ds3 a testament that it can be done, since the viewfinder blackout is (I think) the same? I don't know, but I doubt it. They also have more revenue with which to solve that problem, since the 1Ds is in a higher price category. There would also be sacrifices in x-sync speed with FF, a trade-off that likely doesn't make sense in a "reporting" camera. Speaking of, I see some challenges if Canon had three FF cameras at the existing (5D, 1D, 1Ds) price points.

The 60D, to me, doesn't make sense at APS-H. Losing the EF-S capability means the widest effective focal length "loses", as it shifts from 16mm EFL (using the EF-S 10-22) to 18.2 (using the very expensive 14/2.8L prime). Folks with earlier two-digit (xxD) cameras aren't going to want to obsolete their EF-S inventory with a newer camera in the same family. If it were a 7D model, it creates an interesting three-tier line-up: gripped/rugged bodies (FF and APS-H), non-gripped bodies (FF and APS-H), and EF-S bodies. Whether that makes marketing sense is left to Canon: if we figure that the APS-H body costs about 57% ($4500 vs $8000) of the FF body, the 7D would be about $1550, and that'd be too low for them to make it a pro-caliber unit in my estimation.

When I looked into my crystal ball a year or so ago, I saw my future with two 1D bodies and one 1Ds, before eventually shifting towards two 1Ds bodies and one 1D. I see that working out, whether the 1D line stays APS-H or goes FF. Thinking about it though, a 5D/7D-type combo might work well for a lot of folks too.

**HiFiGuy1** · 07-14-2009, 09:38 PM

Ah, nothing like the smell of vaporware in the morning!

**Benjamin** · 07-14-2009, 10:26 PM

Peety,

Good point on the line up suggestion!

Originally Posted by peety3

I don't think FF@10fps is "easy" (and therefore feasible at the 1D price point). To get 10fps, the 1D3 needed two mirror motors, one down and one up. Most every other moving-mirror camera uses a motor and a return spring. Having to motor a FF mirror both ways at 10fps would be tough.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I will have to disagree with you on this.

My 1V-HS does 10FPS in ease with some minor body vibration - it is a camera from almost one decade ago. If that's not enough, the FD mount [url="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1976-1985/1984_nf1-hsmd.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1976-1985]Canon F1 from 1984[/url] with the high speed booster will do 14FPS! Though it was a ridiculous camera to shoot with and it was at a ridiculous price point, Canon has done it back then. That's why I don't quite believe that Canon does not offer FF on the 1D is because of any technical (mechanical) difficulty. The 1V's mechanism is just about good enough in my opinion, and the 1V is sold at $1700 - not even close to any 1 series digital bodies.

Nikon does 11FPS when using the crop mood on the D3, 9FPS full resolution. I think Canon should be able to keep up on this at least.

[quote=peety3]

There would also be sacrifices in x-sync speed with FF, a trade-off that likely doesn't make sense in a "reporting" camera.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

[/quote]

The flash sync speed of the 1V and 1Ds III is both at 1/250s, for the 1D III it's 1/300s. Though the 1D III is faster, I wonder if this much difference will make any practical difference at all. The original 1D camera can sync at 1/500s - that compares to the 1/250s is a whole new scale.

Originally Posted by peety3

The 60D, to me, doesn't make sense at APS-H.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Agreed. The xxD line does not make sense to jump up to APS-H at this moment yet. To introduce a new body (say 7D) with APS-H sensor makes sense since there is plenty of room between the xxD and the 5D. $1550? That would be so nice - I'll ditch my 50D right away if that happens.[

]

As I said before, a FF 1D body does not and will not hurt even as a "reporting" camera. I don't see any reason why Canon will have to make a APS-H camera if the FF one will just do the same (i.g. to have the same pixel density, same speed, etc...) at a reasonable cost. If you consider the 1Ds Mark III's 21MP sensor, I agree that a FF 16MP 1D IV will come too close. Say if the future 1Ds IV sports a 30MP sensor, a FF 16MP 1D IV will be just fine to stand behind it as the "speedy & low rez" camera.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ben

**Daniel Browning** · 07-15-2009, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Benjamin

why does the upcoming camera that replaces the current 1D III better to remain in APS-H?

We had a very similar discussion a few weeks ago:

APS-H vs FF, which makes more sense to be on the 1D Mark IV?

Originally Posted by peety3

The 1D Mark IV, to me, doesn't make sense as a 16mp FF camera...The 60D, to me, doesn't make sense at APS-H.

Agreed on both counts. I would be very surprised if Canon released a low-end 1.3X body or stopped releasing 10FPS 1.3X bodies. Things that would be nice, though: a high-end, high-speed 1.6X body and a 10FPS 1.0X body. I think the idea of using sensor size to differentiate market segments is too ingrained into the Canon marketing M.O., and even Nikon's switch will not be enough to get them to change.

Originally Posted by peety3

The 1D Mark IV, to me, doesn't make sense as a 16mp FF camera. Although the pixel density matches its predecessor, leading to great noise performance and diffraction threshold

For the benefit of the reader, I would like to point out that peety3 and I are in a state of disagreement on this matter. I think the idea that larger pixels have superior noise performance and suffer less negative effects from diffraction is a common misconception caused by erroneous image analysis. I detailed the position in the following thread with experimental evidence:

Myth busted: smaller pixels have more noise, less dynamic range, worse diffraction, etc.

However, I don't think I ever actually discussed diffraction in that thread. (I meant to, as indicated in the title, but I must have forgot.) So here's a quick description: There are many things that can affect the resolution of an image, including diffraction, aberrations, motion blur (from camera shake or subject movement), and mechanical issues such as collimation, back focus, tilt, and manufacturing tolerances.

In the face of these issues, some will claim that small pixels are actually worse than large pixels. This is easily proven false. The reality is that all of these factors may cause diminishing returns, but returns never diminish below 0%.

The most frequently misunderstood factor in diminishing returns is diffraction. As pixel size decreases there are two points: one at which diffraction is just barely beginning to noticably diminish returns (from 100% of the expected improvement, to, say, 90%); and another where the resolution improvement is so small that it's immeasurable (0-1%). One common mistake is to think both are the same point, but in reality they are often very far apart.

Another diffraction-related mistake is to think that diffraction will ever cause a small pixel sensor to have lower performance. In fact, the worst that can ever happen is for smaller pixels to have a 0% improvement. That is, for performance to be the same.

For example, anyone shooting 5 micron pixels at f/32 because they really need DOF (e.g. macro) is not going to get any benefit from smaller pixels: the returns will be close to 0%. At f/11, the returns will be diminished slightly, but an improvement can still be had from smaller pixels.

Lens aberrations can be an issue too. Usually even the cheapest lenses will have pretty good performance in the center, stopped down. But their corners wide open will sometimes not benefit very much from smaller pixels, so the returns in those mushy corners may be 0-5% due to aberrations.

And there's the mechanical issues. If the collimation is not perfect, but it's good enough for large pixels, then it will have to be better to get the full return of even smaller pixels. This relates to manufacturing tolerances of everything in the image chain: the higher the resolution, the more difficult it is to get full return from that additional resolution. Even things like tripods have to be more steady to prevent diminishing returns.

So essentially the diminishing returns depend on the circumstances, but the higher the resolution, the more often the returns will be diminished.

**Jon Ruyle** · 07-15-2009, 05:08 PM

Funny how small pixels get such a bad rap. No one ever says "the optical perfection of such and such lens is actually a disadvantage, because you need higher shutter speed/smaller pixels/larger aperture/better focus/etc to to take advantage of it." But people make the exact same argument about small pixels all the time.

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

For example, anyone shooting 5 micron pixels at f/32 because they really need DOF (e.g. macro) is not going to get any benefit from smaller pixels: the returns will be close to 0%.

In theory, one could use high pixel density to do better post-processing. For example, if one is willing to deconvolve diffraction, I believe more resolution is always better.

**Daniel Browning** · 07-15-2009, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

In theory, one could use high pixel density to do better post-processing. For example, if one is willing to deconvolve diffraction, I believe more resolution is always better.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Agreed. If sensors were advanced enough to record the actual phase of the light, then diffraction could be deconvolved perfectly (in theory). But as you point out, even without phase it's possible to get really nice results. High noise power at Nyquist can reduce the effectiveness, so it's more beneficial for low ISO shots.

Thread: Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Re: Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Re: Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Re: Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Re: Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Re: Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Re: Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Re: Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Re: Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Re: Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Posting Permissions