Canon Rebel T2i just announced (and preview on photo.net)

<blockquote>

<p>Is there any good reason why we shouldn't see the old 5D sensor revived in a Rebel body? That technology is over 5 years old...certainly it's paid for itself by now. Oh yeah...then people would stop buying the 5D Mark II. If it makes it any easier, they can lower the resolution to 8MP, or even 6MP. Just put in a sensor that reads a 36 x 24mm image. That's all I need.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You'll probably get that when I get my Chevy Aveo with a Corvette engine in it for $10,000. I mean it's a cheap body and the 'vette engine's been around for decades. It's all old technology, so how much could it cost them to do that?</p>

<p>Even ignoring the marketing issues, and basic supply/demand economic theory...</p>

<p>Sensor price does not increase linearly with size. A fullframe sensor costs significantly more than a 1.6X sensor. In fact, I sincerely wonder if you could make a sub-$500 fullframe camera that wouldn't be so gimped in its feature set that nobody would buy it.</p>

<p>I mean, look at the Canon 5D (I). By today's standards it's not exactly brimming with sophisticated features; it's well-made and certainly very capable, but I'm not sure if there's much I would consider extraneous on it. Still costs a fair bit of money.</p>

<p><em>So what I want is a brand new, retail, full frame digital SLR, AF, 3fps, for $400-$500. Why should I expect anything less?</em></p>

<p>Because of the way microchips are manufactured, Canon would be lucky to produce a 24x36mm sensor for $400. They certainly are not going to wrap it in a camera and deliver it to you for that price.</p>

<p><em>All I want is to see a full frame sensor stuffed into a body that was engineered over 10 years ago.</em></p>

<p>Why? Full frame is nothing special. The Rebel Ti2 can out perform any 35mm film you were shooting 10 years ago or could shoot today, as well as the 12 MP FF sensors on the market today when shooting low to mid ISO (i.e. >90% of the time). And it has more features than your Elan 7. I would guess it's also built better (did the Elan have any metal other than the lens mount?).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want the camera that will finally replace my Elan 7. This is a full frame, AF camera that shoots 3 fps and cost under $400 brand new in 2000. So what I want is a brand new, retail, full frame digital SLR, AF, 3fps, for $400-$500. Why should I expect anything less?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hal, this is a flawed comparison. I shoot film too. I like it for a variety of reasons, but I have certainly considered switching over to a digital body. Part of my consideration was the cost of consumables.</p>

<p>How many rolls of film have you put through your Elan 7? 100? 500? More? A very, very conservative cost estimate for film plus develop-only processing would be about 6 bucks a roll. So to actually use the camera to shoot 100 rolls costs at least another $600 on top of the cost for the body. So, based on your numbers for the body cost, buying and using an Elan 7 to shoot 100 rolls would cost a total of $1000 or more. With a DSLR the body cost includes a battery and a memory card, and shooting the equivalent 3600 images with it will not require anythings else.</p>

<p>The way I figured the cost comparison was to figure out about how many rolls I would shoot within the likely lifetime of the camera. I considered the minimum "lifetime" to be about 3 years. Right now I shoot around 60 rolls of Velvia, TMax and Tri-X a year. Over 3 years, that's about $1000 in consumables, even before printing and mounting costs. That's already more than the cost of a Rebel T2i. Add what I spent for my used 1V and we're solidly in between 7D and 5DII territory. So, unless your Elan 7 just sits on a shelf, you aren't making a fair cost comparison.</p>

<p>So when can I buy one?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I deserve it, too, and I deserve it for a reasonable price. I'll finally make the plunge to an upgraded full frame camera when I see one for $500, the price that it should really cost."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While the tone of entitlement here is quite entertaining, it seems to me that any company that can profitably make a particular model will do so. In other words, there could be a purely financial reason Canon doesn't sell the camera that Hal wants, not some nefarious conspiracy.</p>

<p>With the 850, Sony just broke the $2000 barrier for full-frame, so I suspect the $1000 barrier will be a couple of years away and $500 will take a bit longer than that (although used 5Ds are already selling for under $1000, so that's an option for some). In the years between now and then I recommend getting a used 12mp XSi for $450 and making lots of great pictures!</p>

<p>The last time I read a Canon corporate report, their gross sales worldwide for their last fiscal year was $40 Billion. They are obviously profitable and able to support a product development staff, manufacturing staff and support staff, over a wide range of product categories. Considering the complexity of many of their products for commercial and medical field applications, I doubt a small proliferation of consumer DSLR models creates any additional production issues that affect reliability.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am sure Canon will sell a ton of these as usual, but with their 9 models or whatever they are still not producing what I want. 18 megapixels is probably getting to point where the extra megapixels are a nuisance rather than a help - more computing power, more storage needed. <br>

Something slightly larger with a metal skin and a better viewfinder and some weather sealing would have been far preferable to me than shoehorning in ever more firmware driven features that I never use and simply get in the way. <br>

It is getting to the point with these cameras that I am starting to think less is more. Half the time I can't even remeber what features the dam thing has to remember to set them correctly.<br>

Alternatively they could have just dropped the price. I hope the 50D replacement does this, but somehow I think Canon will be aiming to jam more useless features into it while keeping the price as high as they can.<br>

And where is my in-body IS?</p>

 

<p>For those who want full frame and simplicity, shoot 35mm film. It is still there and it works great. I shoot lots of fiilm, and it is a lot of fun.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And where is my in-body IS?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon rejected that solution quite a ways back as you can't move the sensor enough to compensate for the motions produced when shooting the big telephotos. In-body is fine for the little stuff that doesn't need IS that badly but (according to canon and nikon at least) unworkable with the teles as you'd need an even bigger mirror box and probably even a bigger image circle.</p>

<p><br />If they start losing market share we might see some in-body IS in the coming years but I wouldn't hold my breath. If they introduce it, it will likely be on the next-generation of mirror-less cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Something slightly larger with a metal skin and a better viewfinder and some weather sealing would have been far preferable to me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course it would...and that's why Canon have the EOS 7D.</p>

<p>So, is Canon going to have to come out with a 5D Mk III and a 1Ds Mk IV soon? When the little rebel is 3 megapixels form the flagships, the flagships need to do some hustling. Paying almost $2K for three megapixels and slightly better low-light performance is a bit of a leap. </p>

<p>Looks like Canon has hit another home run.</p>

<p>Ignore the double post</p>

<p>As long as they still offer silver I'm good,....heeeeey, maybe they can resurrect the matching silver kit lenses,...hmmmmm. <br>

Generally, the rebel series have the ability to make good-great images. For the majority of consumers and some advanced amateurs in a digital age, the print quality is starting to become less emphatic beyond 12x18 at 300dpi. Besides, won't we all be viewing our images on our new HD LED HDMI monitors, at 72 dpi? 18 mp offers an outstanding resolution and, of late, pretty good low light performance. The HD video rounds the camera out for families looking for technological convergence.<br>

Things pros will require that T2i doesn't have? A more robust body, more shutter actuations, higher dynamic range, better low light /noise performance, more advanced auto focusing, 99% viewfinder coverage etc. More res depends on the type of pro.<br>

These are what the odd soccer mom/dad can live without. Couple the t2i as a second body to a 7d with some good glass and you have a decent kit for a serious but amateur wedding photographer. I did say amateur,...so go easy on me..... ;-)<br>

J</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon rejected that solution quite a ways back as you can't move the sensor enough to compensate for the motions produced when shooting the big telephotos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And which shooters use the rebel line mounted on their big telephotos? And how many users of big telephotos are there compared to users of the 50 f1.8, 35 f2, 82 f1.8, and all the other Canon primes who are denied any form of stabilisation?<br>

The most frustrating thing is that Sony/Pentax/Olympus have shown that it is cheap to do and works fine at the shorter focal lengths, yet Canon would prefer to give us more megapixels and a 3x2 LCD than something that would actually help people take better photos.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course it would...and that's why Canon have the EOS 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Too large and too expensive for my needs. The 7D sells for about $3000 in Australia compared to around $900 for the xxxD line. There is no way I am paying that kind of premium for features which at most cost an extra $200 to put in.<br>

The Pentax K7 is closest to the body I want at a price I am willing to pay. Pity they don't have Canon's lenses or I'd be there in a flash.</p>

<p>PS the budding film makers out there have a an outstanding way to transition from photos to digital video. At first I though HD video was to a DSLR what a pop up flash was to a pro camera. IE the feature was there to appease the consumer while reviling the pro with it's inadequacy. Is the HD video as sophisticated or controlled as a stand-alone HD camcorder? It depends which camcorder,...entry level, consumer, prosumer, or pro ? ;-)<br>

J</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Too large and too expensive for my needs. The 7D sells for about $3000 in Australia compared to around $900 for the xxxD line. There is no way I am paying that kind of premium for features which at most cost an extra $200 to put in</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then I guess you're not going to get them, at least from Canon in the next few years. Canon is a business, not a philanthropic organization. Their goal is to make money. As long as they compete with their competitors, that's what they'll do. If they start to compete against themselves, they won't.</p>

<p>I'm afraid if you want sensor based stabilization, you'll have to jump ship and go to Pentax or Sony (or Olympus) and if you want the features of the 7D, you'll have to buy a 7D - or wait 3 or 4 years for the 7D features and technology to trickle down fully to the Rebel series bodies.</p>

<p>We can all bitch and moan about the price of this stuff, but Canon are charging what the market will support and you really can't blame them for doing that. I don't like it either, but then I don't like how much Porsche charge for their cars - so I don't buy one!</p>

<p>Yep I don't blame Canon for charging what they can get away with.<br>

But it is my duty as a consumer to demand companies compete and offer more for less.</p>

<p>This is the best digital rebel as of now, And the only worthy replacement for my excellent 350d/xt , IMO . This is the digital rebel I've been waiting for , for years. This is almost perfect.</p>

 

<p>Too large and too expensive for my needs. The 7D sells for about $3000 in Australia compared to around $900 for the xxxD line. There is no way I am paying that kind of premium for features which at most cost an extra $200 to put in.</p>

<p>Hi Geoff,</p>

<p>If you find the price or mark up of canon Australia not to your liking, You can buy it at ebay shops located in HK, For a normal price of $1,600- or less.</p>

<p>I don't know if telling someone here to buy at ebay is legal in this forum, If it is illegal , Moderator kindly delete this post, I don't own any ebay shop in HK btw. Thank you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't like it either, but then I don't like how much Porsche charge for their cars - so I don't buy one!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There you go again, confusing the issue with facts. </p>

<p><strong>So, is Canon going to have to come out with a 5D Mk III and a 1Ds Mk IV soon? When the little rebel is 3 megapixels form the flagships, the flagships need to do some hustling. Paying almost $2K for three megapixels and slightly better low-light performance is a bit of a leap.</strong><br />My reaction to Stephen's statement above is that yes, you're paying for $2K extra for three extra pixels, but those 21 pixels are on a full frame body. 21MP on a full frame is far preferable to having 18MP jammed on a 1.6 crop camera. Also, I have a feeling that after reviews are done, the Mk II will end up having much more than "slightly better low-light performance" over this new T2i.</p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I really like the 2:3 screen size. I wish my 7D had one of these.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p> After having had at least ten Canon bodies over the last twenty years, (yes I am a victim, somewhat of the Canon two year marketing cycle) I thought when they came out with the XTi four years ago they did a marvelous job with a seven hundred dollar body if you present value the money I spent for an EOS 650 in 1989.  The T2i has more features than many professional precursors, including video, but I have never used all the features on any Canon body I have owned.  I could do a wedding with Xti without batting an eyelash because the output is acceptable. You could now add video with the T2i. I could do any number of comercial jobs with it.  It is fragile for hard use.  My point is with the capabilities of current equipment, whether Nikon, Canon or Sony almost any reasonable body would work for most things at least for awhile.  My point is that everything made today has enormous capability and that extended capabiltiy has migrated into consumer cameras. They are much better than the D60 that I bought in 2002 for 2300 dollars (PV that in todays dollars) and lived with for a few years.  Yes I have full frame, yes I have used more rugged equipment professionally, but, frankly IMO for most uses, the output product of the 7D, T2i, and the full frames are not distinguishable until you get into large prints or highly critical applications.  I have been hard on equipment and like something that stands up but give me a couple of T2is. for a wedding and I will get an acceptable product.  They are all pretty damn good IMO>  Now ergonomics, durability, frame rate, etc are different questions, IMO. </p>