Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

New Canon
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:15 am    Post subject: New Canon Reply with quote
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012403canoneos450d.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012404canoneos450dhandson.asp


PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sad Nope 5D alternative, who know how its price will come down?
.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not yet, but 450D has some changings : SD cards replaced the CF cards, the viewfinder is bigger, has spot metering, same resolution as 5D and bigger than its "superior" brother , the 40D and the kit lens is a new (the photozone.de review says is better than the older one) one and incorporates the image stabilizer.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I will never understand Canon.
The 400D killed the 30D sales, and with these features, the 450D will greatly damage the 40D sales. What else is supposed to happen if you release a new camera that offers more resolution at a lower price than the camera you released only two months ago?
For the cost-conscious buyer, only the viewfinder could be a serious reason to spend more on the 40D, but again, most Canon users are AF users, for AF viewfinder is not so decisive.

Really weird marketing logic.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, I think they're trying to fight Nikon. They'd rather sell the 450D competing against the 40D than see customers buy the new low-end nikons.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I see the 450D has a self-cleaning sensor. One step on the way to internal Image Stabilisation. Pity they didn't take it that one step further. In light of this, my next dSLR purchase will be a used K10D, not a 450D.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Farside wrote:
I see the 450D has a self-cleaning sensor. ...
The 400D Canon has one too Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikon seems to be driving them into panic mode. Of course, having just bought the 40D I am furious.

@Orio

I suspect that when the dust settles the extra pixels will not translate into better IQ. Hara kiri is no longer fashionable - and that's what they seem to be doing.

patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think that we'll see a Canon body with Image Stabilization because they have a whole range of lenses with that feature.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Nikon seems to be driving them into panic mode. Of course, having just bought the 40D I am furious.

@Orio

I suspect that when the dust settles the extra pixels will not translate into better IQ. Hara kiri is no longer fashionable - and that's what they seem to be doing.

patrickh


It's taken Nikon a few years (20ish Laughing ) to start putting Canon under serious pressure since Nikon took there eye of the ball with AF development and consumer pricing, but with the D40/X at the base and the D3 at the top Nikon seem to be slowly getting there.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Himself wrote:
I don't think that we'll see a Canon body with Image Stabilization because they have a whole range of lenses with that feature.


Now even less with the introduction of IS on the kit lens too.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Nikon seems to be driving them into panic mode. Of course, having just bought the 40D I am furious.


You shouldn't, because given that you use a lot of manual focus lenses, for you the larger viewfinder of the 40D will be worth the difference in money, because it means better focusing and ultimately better pictures (and no need to buy wierd third party screens with the Canon Ee-s available for a few bucks and no hassle in replacement).

If instead you'd be using AF lenses, well... you would have good reasons to be furious!


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Himself wrote:
I don't think that we'll see a Canon body with Image Stabilization because they have a whole range of lenses with that feature.


Yep. They'd rather keep their users trapped in that series. All that lovely money flowing in from those who got suckered into buying them.
Ah well, my lens purchases have been mostly made with an eye to future body maker change.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Customer loyalty is well demonstrated by the ease with which all those very expensive FD lenses are used. It's amazing to me that it is easier to mount a nikkor than a canon on a canon body!


Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy patrickh

@Richard

You are quite right and it was always sad that they handed over the lens market the way they did after owning it for so long. I think they could easily get another jump by mounting IS into the body - they are so far behind in producing IS adjusted lenses they would have little to lose.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"SD / SDHC card"

Why did they do that??

It seems that I should keep my eyes open for a bargain priced 400D in some time...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
"SD / SDHC card"
Why did they do that??


To gain customers from other systems, or from compact camera owners. SD cards are now standard in most reflex bodies AND compact cameras. Evidently they plan to sell more to new Canon users than to existing ones.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Customer loyalty is well demonstrated by the ease with which all those very expensive FD lenses are used. It's amazing to me that it is easier to mount a nikkor than a canon on a canon body!


Indeed. If I'd been a Canon owner back then I'd have been royally pee'd off and probably never bought Canon again. Loyalty cuts both ways, as Nikon and Pentax have demonstrated with some measure of backwards compatibility, and it's ironic that the first decent SLR I owned was a Nikon - if I'd remained a Nikon owner I'd have made the transition to digital quite seamlessly.
After the Nikon period I had two OM1s in the next couple of decades and was quite happy with them. It's only that Oly were very slow to bring out half-decent dSLRs that made me look at a used Canon, else I'd have bought another Oly with backwards compatibility via adapters.

The saving grace of the EOS mount is its register distance and throat size, enabling most makes of lenses to fit. Luckily I now find myself in a situation where I'm able to change camera makers to a body that offers me what I need, complying with my long-standing camera-buying policy - never buy new.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What comes first if you want a 16 mpix Canon and what is the best choice to make? Opinions?
a) year 2011 Canon introduces 550D at about 1000 €
(is it possible to make a 16 mpix aps-size?)
b) some year 2008-2011 Canon introduces new 7D costing about 3000 €
(very possible, haven't read the rumours-section for a while)
c) wait until 1Ds Mark II is below 3000 €?
(how long does it take?)


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
What comes first if you want a 16 mpix Canon and what is the best choice to make? Opinions?


The full frame feature is much more important than the number of pixels. Full frame is what will allow you to exploit the full potential of your lenses.
I know of magazine covers made with a simple 300D.
The 5D is more than enough for that task, or for printing a 50x70 wall enlargement. Which means 99% of the needs of a professional photographer.
More than this, what there is? Printing for a billboard. But for that you will need a full large format optical bank in any case.

-


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A picture that is over 2 pages in a magazine is pretty standard use. If someone is really strict about the 300 dpi then it has to be 16 mpix. It so easy to see the size, you don't even need to open the picture, the preview icon tells it. Shocked

To be more exact, just measured a magazine in inches. It was 11 x 8,5 and that makes two pages 11 x 17. Multiplication x 300 dpi makes 3300 x 5100 = 16,83 mpix. Where did I go wrong?


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
A picture that is over 2 pages in a magazine is pretty standard use. If someone is really strict about the 300 dpi then it has to be 16 mpix. It so easy to see the size, you don't even need to open the picture, the preview icon tells it. Shocked


You would be able to appreciate a difference in image quality only if the magazine is made with the same high quality glossy paper that is used for art books such as the Electa art catalogues. How many magazines are there that use this paper? Maybe 1 or 2 over hundreds.
Most magazines, such as the female magazines, fashion magazines, gossip magazines, etc use such pulp paper that makes any quality issue completely pointless.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
Where did I go wrong?


By assuming that more mpix == better quality, always. There are plenty of 10 and 12MPx compact cameras that take far worse pictures than my 6MPx DSLR.

If you want your work published in a magazine, then saying "I don't have a 16Px camera" has probably not identified the limiting factor there. Have you had single page photos or smaller ones published in that magazine?


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I looked at some of the guidelines publishers etc. have and they want at least 300 dpi.

So I have just to convince them my art is such powerful that it ignores your petty requirements .. !


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
I looked at some of the guidelines publishers etc. have and they want at least 300 dpi.

So I have just to convince them my art is such powerful that it ignores your petty requirements .. !


Or upsample before the final sharpening step.

Do you imagine that all double-page spreads were solely made from scanned medium format images, before September 2004 and the 16MPx Canon 1Ds Mk II or before August 2007 and the Canon 1Ds MkIII ? Before that, the canon 1D Mk11 had a lowly 8 MPx and yet, double page spreads were still printed.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
I looked at some of the guidelines publishers etc. have and they want at least 300 dpi.


If you start with a good camera like the 5D, and a very good lens, you can safely upsize with Genuine Fractals and no one will question the IQ.

Apart from the fact that double pages happen maybe, I don't know, 5 times on a 100 pages magazine.

And I repeat, for the paper most magazines are printed upon, the resolution of a 5D would be more than enough. No point in going crazy about a 16 Mp machine when the paper you are going to print upon will not resolve more than -maybe- 160 or 180 ppi.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3