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

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by hannahthiem, Feb 8, 2010.

  1. There's a new Rebel on the horizon. The Rebel T2i shares characteristics of both the EOS 7D and the T1i.
    Read the Rebel T2i preview.
     
  2. Am I missing something, or is this just another way to eek more money out of the public unawares? There used to be two tiers of cameras: amateur and professional. Then three: entry-level, amateur, professional. Then four, when they introduced "prosumer". Now professional is in two categories: "full frame" and "cropped", prosumer has two: "Full frame" and "cropped", there's still an amateur level, and now entry level has four grades? That's a total of, what a minute....carry the three....multiply by pi....9 tiers?!?
    1Ds
    1D
    5D
    7D
    50D
    T2i
    T1i
    XSi
    XS
    This is just getting stupid. I get that there are several levels of photographers with varying budgets...but 9 levels? Maybe I could believe 3 or 4, but 9? Let's not be suckers. I don't see anything about this T2i that the T1i couldn't do.
     
  3. Shelf-stuffing is the name of the game. Sony has an equally absurd number of bodies.
     
  4. 18MP? When will this stop? And why discontinue the XSI? I would think the XS would be the body to be discontinued.
     
  5. Since most of you will only buy one camera, why is it a problem if you have more choices. By the camera that best fits your needs and move on...
     
  6. Since most of you will only buy one camera, why is it a problem if you have more choices. By the camera that best fits your needs and move on...
    Dan
    (Who did get a laugh out of reading in one thread that there are too many model but that Canon should continue to make the XSi...)
     
  7. It makes sense that they keep their XS it's the cheapest camera in the line up and fills the shelves of nearly any box store that sells cameras. And it's a great way to get people shooting SLRs for about the same money as a newer P&S. I will assume they will phase out the T1i slowly as they do with most of their cameras.
    On a side note I was really hoping for a new lens announcement today or something to wet my whistle but the consumer market charges on.
     
  8. T1i will be staying in the range for the rest of 2010 (at, I presume , near XSi price point ) , and I fail to see the problem with more choices .
     
  9. Any word on whether it has manual control over shutter speed and aperture in movie mode? That's the main thing i thought was missing from my T1i.
     
  10. Yes Adam I believe it does offer manual controls in video ( which I agree is a big plus )
    http://www.canonrumors.com/
    I really don't see why many look at this as a bad thing, it looks like a nice camera and if I was looking for an advanced consumer level body, I would take a long look at this.
     
  11. This is just getting stupid. I get that there are several levels of photographers with varying budgets...but 9 levels?​
    Sheesh, choice is good in nearly everything in life. The more the merrier. Besides consumer products are self regulating. If the market doesn't like it, it will quickly disappear.
     
  12. I kinda agree with Hal. And the way it was announced seemed to indicate another level of consumers as evident from canon usa site
    " the new Rebel T2i succeeds in bridging the gap between an entry-level camera and a true pro-sumer camera."
    If it is an entry level camera with pro-sumer capabilities, why call it entry level in the first place? It is nothing but a marketing strategy to me.
     
  13. I can see Hal B's point, but I think it's a sign of the ipod-24-hour-instant entertainment times. (Many) people are more impressed by words like Digic and huge numbers of megapixels than learning photography. What do I know I'm using a 10d and my original F1n.
     
  14. If the market doesn't like it, it will quickly disappear.​
    Should read: If the marketing department finds that it doesn't sell well enough, it will disappear without regard to those consumers who actually like it. In other words: choice is conditioned.
     
  15. It's a good move by Canon. It puts them at the top of the pile in the class with the 1080 HD video and 18MP 7D sensor.
     
  16. I'm going to sell my 7D, and I'm going to buy this cam instead.
     
  17. The increase in choices does not come free. This represents compromises within the company. A company cannot maintain 9 unique products with as much quality control as they could with only 3 unique products. This is a basic truth of manufacturing and has to do with how a company uses its resources. Another consequence is that as the variety increases, so does the per unit cost. 3 unique models could be presented at a lower average cost than 9 unique models, as the quantity output of each model would increase.
    Also, notice that the XSi has been a wildly popular camera, seemingly more popular than the XS. Many consumers who are prepared to spend $500 on a camera will sacrifice to spend $600 if they perceive they are getting something alot better for just a little more money. The XSi is a vastly improved camera, and probably hits the mark for the best entry-level option. Instead, Canon wants to push that portion of the market to make an even more expensive purchase with the T1i, just as soon as they can get rid of the XSi. And they want to snag more sales with the XS, stealing away from the long-zoom P&S category by getting those consumers to upgrade to dSLR.
    The problem is that by trying to please a larger portion of the market with more "choices", they are only creating a situation where no one camera does, or is expected to do, everything. The cameras at every level are neglected somewhat by the engineers, as they are working with the premise that each camera has its own specialty. This creates a situation at every price level where you have to make a compromise when you buy your camera. The consumer is led to believe that, even at the pro level, you can't have a camera that can shoot full frame AND hit 10 FPS. At the entry level, the consumer must believe that he can't have video capability (even though his P&S does). Somewhere in the middle, you are led to pay extra for 1080p video, while you could save some money by settling for only 720p video. These are just a couple examples, but this extends into every feature available on cameras today.
    Features are only invented to create a price separation between camera models. The only reason dSLR's have video mode now is so that the manufacturers can continue to justify the disparity in cost between low-end and high-end cameras. Once consumers start demanding high quality and full-featured cameras for low prices, the manufacturers have to invent new features so they can restructure their price scheme and keep you paying top-dollar for the new releases.
    Have you noticed how this has happened with TV's? Plasma, LCD, and now LED and oLED. 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz, and now 600Hz. This is all to justify a whole range of TV's everywhere from $500 to $6000. If a customer is willing to part with $3000, a TV must be provided that costs $3000 or else that customer will only buy a $2000 TV, and $1000 is left on the table. If the competition has a $3000 TV that boasts an extra 60Hz, that's where the customer's money will go.
    It doesn't mean that any of these features are necessary, cost any more to manufacture, or even make a difference. It's just another reason for a manufacturer to not include hi-tech features in low-priced models. That's what the consumer really wants, but the current system does everything in its power to avoid it.
     
  18. zml

    zml

    Features are only invented to create a price separation between camera models.​
    Yeah, them capitalist pigs deliver a variety of camera models with a variety of features at different price points. What a shame - how dare they!
    reason for a manufacturer to not include hi-tech features in low-priced models.​
    In the world of cameras (at least on Earth) features do cost, and that's why there are $500 cameras, $1000 cameras, $3000 cameras and $8000 cameras...
     
  19. Hal, I really don't understand how additional models undermine quality control. Your logic is strained at best and rests on a whole bunch of unwarranted assumptions.
    I do think that the proliferation of bodies is market segmentation at its finest, but as long as we are a bunch of self-centered egotistical pigs, the marketers will continue to take "advantage" by providing the products we "want." Blame the consumers not the producers.
     
  20. Hal B - you have none of the information necessary to determine if Canon can maintain quality control or not with additional models. For all you know they have the resources to maintain 20 camera bodies at once with no loss of QC. (Look at the number of lenses they support.)
    And I honestly can't believe that you are complaining that these cameras are feature limited by engineering after everything Canon put in the Ti2. Canon put the sensor, metering, and video from the pro 7D in the amateur Ti2, gave it a better screen (!), 3.7 fps, and pretty decent AF for the price point. What more do you want?
     
  21. Once consumers start demanding high quality and full-featured cameras for low prices, the manufacturers have to invent new features so they can restructure their price scheme and keep you paying top-dollar for the new releases.
    If the Rebel Ti2 sensor is anything like the 7D sensor then we now have an $800 body (Adorama) that offers 95% of the image quality of the Canon 5D2 at low to mid ISO. A few years ago you had to be rich to be able to afford a DSLR that could produce the size and quality of prints that the Ti2 will today. The AF and fps is superior to what a professional EOS 1n had out of the box in the 1990's, and the metering is the best Canon currently offers.
    Not to mention the improved UI, screen, wireless support via Eye-Fi, video, etc, etc.
    What exactly would you consider a "high quality, full featured" camera for $800? 40 MP FF that shoots 15 fps?
     
  22. What more do you want?​
    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? All I want is to see a full frame sensor stuffed into a body that was engineered over 10 years ago. I'm tired of being patronized with cropped sensors, when all of my lenses are made for full frame. I have no use for that at all. I'm tired of being treated like full frame is a privilege for the wealthy and the working professionals only. I deserve it, too, and I deserve it for a reasonable price. They can keep their professional version for $4000 if they want, but I have to see one finally produced for under $500 before I go all ga-ga over a new camera that does less than my current cameras.
    I had a Digital Rebel XTi (and it was awesome!) for a couple years. It cost me $350 and I sold it for $325. It was cool while it lasted, but the cropped sensor was always a limitation and kept me pining for a full frame. 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. 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.
     
  23. Hal -- to some extent, I feel the same way: why is full frame so expensive?
    -- so I just bought an EOS 1v :)
     
  24. I like it. It'll be quite a capabilities upgrade from the XT I'm still shooting with.
    The increase in pixel count is appreciated - more's the better. Add to it the 30fps 1080p video and it's very enticing indeed.
     
  25. 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.​
    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?
     
  26. Even ignoring the marketing issues, and basic supply/demand economic theory...
    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.
    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.
     
  27. So what I want is a brand new, retail, full frame digital SLR, AF, 3fps, for $400-$500. Why should I expect anything less?
    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.
    All I want is to see a full frame sensor stuffed into a body that was engineered over 10 years ago.
    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?).
     
  28. 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?​
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  29. So when can I buy one?
     
  30. "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."​
    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.
    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!
     
  31. 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.
     
  32. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    And where is my in-body IS?
     
  33. 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.
     
  34. And where is my in-body IS?​
    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.

    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.
     
  35. Something slightly larger with a metal skin and a better viewfinder and some weather sealing would have been far preferable to me​
    Of course it would...and that's why Canon have the EOS 7D.
     
  36. 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.
     
  37. Looks like Canon has hit another home run.
     
  38. Ignore the double post
     
  39. As long as they still offer silver I'm good,....heeeeey, maybe they can resurrect the matching silver kit lenses,...hmmmmm.
    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.
    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.
    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..... ;-)
    J
     
  40. 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.​
    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?
    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.
    Of course it would...and that's why Canon have the EOS 7D.​
    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.
    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.
     
  41. 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 ? ;-)
    J
     
  42. 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​
    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.
    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.
    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!
     
  43. Yep I don't blame Canon for charging what they can get away with.
    But it is my duty as a consumer to demand companies compete and offer more for less.
     
  44. 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.
     
  45. 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.
    Hi Geoff,
    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.
    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.
     
  46. 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!​
    There you go again, confusing the issue with facts.
     
  47. 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.
    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.
     
  48. I really like the 2:3 screen size. I wish my 7D had one of these.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  49. 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.
     
  50. My simple question is even though bodies keep improving (much faster than lenses) are we at the point where camera quality improvements are not distinguishable in the final product i.e. the picture. After all Monte Zucker was producing winners with an EOS 10D before he passed away? There is a point of diminishing returns where image improvements are hardly, if at all, distinguishable. How close are we to that?
     
  51. I think we're in the sad situation of Marketing ruling logic and a Megapixel war that isn't to the shooters benefit. I agree with the post above that outlines QC and rational steps from one body to the next. Really a max of 5-6 cams is all that's needed in any line. 1 entry level with 2 step ups ending in the 7D and then the 2 Pro bodies.
    Look at it this way. They make it tougher every time for the Pro shooters they claim to support. Some hobby shooter is surely going to be out there with his new T2i claiming it's as good as that "overpriced" photographer using a MIII. We know better but does the uneducated customer?
    My thoughts on this subject:
    Canon T2i and Megapixel wars
     
  52. Dick in most ways we are already there. The cameras we have today from all brands (APSc and FF) are fantastic tools. With your point, we are lagging in the lens dept. Every brand has significant holes in the line. Lack of VR/IS on sub 100mm lenses. Old glass that needs a modern update and so on.
    But we're in a mad marketing frenzy now. Bodies that replace their predecessor in months. Have a look at all the happy posts from 7D owners who are looking at selling this morning. This almost reminds me of when the lens mounts changed. They are more concerned about body sales than the person that bought a 500 or 7D a month ago.
    It's old school, but there was a day when a solid design was current for 5+ years and lenses were the important new releases. Now it's months. Lenses used to be considered your most important tool. Good glass gave you a chance at great work. Now it's the heck with glass and just keep buying bodies till the camera takes good pictures for you.
     
  53. I like the wide screen and some of the other new features, What exactly is Eye-Fi connected functions compatibility?
     
  54. ... bodies keep improving (much faster than lenses) are we at the point where camera quality improvements are not distinguishable in the final product i.e. the picture.​
    No, not yet. Likely not by far.
    The point at which sensor resolution improvements (and these days that means camera body upgrades) stops making sense is when the lens becomes the predominant parameter in available overall system resolution. Removal of the anti-aliasing filter is one next step up as sensor density continues to increase. Let the inherent limitations of the rest of the optical path (manufacturing tolerance fudges, focusing and lens mount slop, and ultimately the lens design itself) do that functionality.
     
  55. My point is that sensors may get better but but they are IMO are already as good or better than the media used to display images except for very large prints. They are good enough for weddings and most other commercial purposes. The peripherals as Peter pointed out need to catch up. The best is the enemy of the good or the commerically adequate. Already sensors are producing files bigger than necessary for most purposes. Where does it stop. The reason we are getting video is that commercially adequate sensors and bodies already exist. Video is the next marketing gimmick to sell more bodies. Even then if I do commercial work and I am satisfying my customers why do I want that last, very expensive increment produced by continued camera body enhancement when my bottom line is ok no please don't tell me it can get better, tell me if it does get better what it does for me or my customers, or my art or most importantly for the bottom line. How does a bigger file and a sharper sensor help my family pictures or baby pictures? Video apparently is the current answer. Tell me what is next that will really make my images better not how many more pixels I will get or how big a file I can work with. I will listen. I know from my R&D work that the last 5 per cent of development of system usually costs almost as much as the whole first 95 per cent put together. I think Canon has done a great job with the Xxx series and the X2i delivers substantial capability for a very reasonable cost.
     
  56. [[What exactly is Eye-Fi connected functions compatibility?]]
    http://www.eye.fi/
    WiFi access via SD-card.
     
  57. Very cool. Thanks Rob.
     
  58. I wonder how the kit lens 18-55 would hold up with the increased resolution. I remember reading reviews of the 7D and you'll need lenses that are able to resolve those megapixels.
     
  59. We are talking camera bodies, but the bodies is what translates into lens purchases. At whatever price point the body is acceptable to the buyer, they will need lenses nonetheless.
     
  60. I would like to see a modular camera body designed to be used for over 10 years (minimum), with interchangible processors and frame sensors (make em ejectable)! Whats so hard about this. Make two or three bodies based on the consumer's proficiency, keep them until you die, and all the rest is just upgrades.
    More choice doesn't necessarily mean BETTER choice.
     
  61. I would like to see a modular camera body designed to be used for over 10 years (minimum), with interchangible processors and frame sensors (make em ejectable)!

    You may get what you wish for...
    www.red.com/cameras/
     
  62. Iwao, I'm with you, man! I wrote a lengthy article explaining my ideas with respect to modular cameras. My thoughts on when it will happen? When every other marketing scheme has been exhausted.
    You have to remember that a camera company's goal isn't to give you the camera you need, but rather to give its investors the ROI they want.
    As for the Canon T2i, I think 18MP on a 1.6x sensor in an entry-level camera is ridiculous. I think it makes complete sense from an R&D and manufacturing point of view given the savings it brings, and it also makes sense from a marketing angle, being able to say it has the same sensor as the "pro" 7D. I don't think it makes sense from the potential user's point of view...but see my previous paragraph.
     
  63. Re: Modular camera, When time comes to upgrade your modular sensor, Some other parts of the body might be so worn out that It would make more sense to replace the entire body altogether. I'd rather have new non modular body at cheaper price.
     
  64. Okay, the Red camera is a beast. I've been wanting a modular camera for some time (still, not video). I just hope that when it shows up it's affordable.
    Note to any developers who may chance upon this thread: "Affordable" means like $200 for an entry-level body with no processor or sensor. These modules need to start around $50. If this concept hits the market in a couple years, and the only option costs $2000 for the body, $1000 for a processor, and $2000 for a sensor module, I'm not going to be impressed.
     
  65. I had modular cameras for fourteen years. They were called Bronicas. They had bodies, lenses with shutters, viewfinders, backs for film(and Hasselblads have digital backs), dark slides, add on winders and viewfinders. It was quite an investment and lasted a long time under some pretty rough use. I miss that collection of stuff. Not inexpensive but the images were very, very, good. Some are still in my PN gallery. Bronica is out of business although Hasselblad is still engaged with the H4D40 and other products. A forty megapixel digital back, integral shutter, etc. I bet the pictures are stunning. Of course it is a little more than most would like to spend. Cost is the big impediment, IMO to modular.
     
  66. There's no inherent reason why modular should cost so much more money. You replace a couple screws with snaps and you have the beginnings of a modular system. My PC is modular, and costs MUCH less money than a fully integrated Apple computer. Bronicas and Hassy's are top-notch, but the only people using them are full-time pros, so you've never seen the introduction of lesser quality, plastic-bodied models.
    In the SLR market, we should see plastic modular bodies as well as top-quality metal ones. There is a demand for cheap, plastic, modular bodies, and cheap sensors and processors.
    For me, I would be happy with a full frame sensor that matched the quality of sensors which were made years ago. I don't need 25MP. I would be happy with a 6MP sensor, or even 4MP, as long as it was the correct size. Just the physical size of that darn thing needs to be 24x36, or else it doesn't work right. It doesn't even have to have a fast processor. I can handle 1 FPS, or even 0.2 FPS. I can even wind the darn thing by hand, just so long as I can use my film lenses in the correct manner with my digital workflow. Surely manufacturing is to the point now where we can make a larger sensor pretty cheaply using old technology. After all, it's not the raw materials that cost money, it's the initial investment. They should even be able to fire up the old machine that they used to make the first full frame chips for the 1Ds (and they were 11MP!) back in 2002, and spit out chips for $10 apiece.
     
  67. Hal, I understand your thinking.
    But there is a big difference with PC and SLR, My pc is modular too, But it is composed of many manufacturers, And all those manufacturers compete with each other. BUt if it were a canon cam, And Canon doesn't want to compete with itself, Things would be very different, I'm sure you'll gonna pay price premium for going modular canon body.
    Re: FF sensor, Why not just buy used FF body, There are plenty of 5D and 1ds on ebay at affordable price.
    Even if technology reaches the point were it is possible to make $10- FF sensor, We would still pay for R&D, quality control, marketing , store mark-up and etc. In the end We would still end up with prices not much cheaper than today's prices.
     
  68. Thanks for providing that link. I hadn't seen that Ricoh camera yet. It doesn't look like a winner to me, as the sensors are linked to the lenses. I doubt that anyone is interested in combining the long-life and durability of an already expensive part like the lens with the cheap, yet overpriced, electronics in the sensor. The only appeal would be for the user to mix and match, like using different film with a different lens. Ricoh doesn't have a history of making ground-breaking introductions, although something like this could get Canon and Nikon thinking again. The market that will gain interest is where people already own the lenses, and are only looking to combine a new body with a sensor of their choice. Pay attention Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Leica and Olympus. There are alot of film users out there who are looking for sensors that will replace their ISO 50 slide film, ISO 400 daylight negative film, and ISO 800 3-stop pushable black and white film. How about a new Canon FD mount modular body that takes the same sensors as a new Canon EF mount body.
     
  69. Mass market consumer buyers look for simplicity and most buyers are electronics-illiterate. Apple has been very successful in selling expensive all-in-one integrated computer systems, as an example. Most consumers just want their cameras and computers to turn on and work. Most P&S cameras are never used in any mode other than full automatic. Selling a relatively inexpensive modular system would require consumers to actually learn and comprehend what they were buying, and how it would work as a system. It would be a nightmare for the big box stores and they would be the first line of resistance at the manufacturing level. I think product placement and sell-through would be very difficult.
    Professional and advanced amateurs certainly fall into another category but I doubt they represent enough of a potential market to make Nikon or Canon interested in the pain of creating and successfully marketing a modular product line. Product life cycles are so short today that a modular system would also require some commitment on the manufacturer's part to support the product for a number of years. Doubtful, in my opinion.
     
  70. I could also imagine that by being modular and compatible. It could pose as a hindrance to build an even more high tech camera, Cause the manufacturer must make new modules compatible with old ones, Which I could imagine becomes a drag or burden to the R&D. And Might also hinder in reducing the physical size of the camera, I'm sure, With the advancement of technology, Camera makers can make all the chip inside the camera of today into a single chip. thereby affording them to make the cam even smaller. With modular system, They can't , cause they have to make em compatible with old modules.
    So when will the t2i be available? :)
     
  71. I suspect that Canon's DSLR parts (or p&s parts for that matter) are modular. I imagine Canon has a few types of sensors, shutters, DIGIC chips, LCD displays, lens mounts, batteries and chargers, and so on. Creating new models then becomes a matter of bolting these items together.
    However I imagine it takes precision machinery to assemble the parts, and as such the modularity does not extend to the user.
    Hal: I imagine it's more expensive for Canon to produce a 11 Mpix 1Ds1 sensor than it is to produce a 5Dmk2 sensor. Reason is production volume. Maybe the right solution for you is to shop for a used 1Ds1?
     
  72. You guys can hate on me all you want. I'm only expressing what I want. This is one consumer who won't be appeased by being instructed in what "most" people want. I know I'm not alone, and I represent a (apparently) very small portion of the market share that will never be buying a new camera at retail while the makers continue to refuse to provide what I am looking for. The best I will do is buy used. Right now my best existing options are the 5D and the 1Ds. Both are years old and Canon cannot make any money from the sale of those cameras to me.
    Hal: I imagine it's more expensive for Canon to produce a 11 Mpix 1Ds1 sensor than it is to produce a 5Dmk2 sensor.​
    All we can do is speculate, until someone comes in here with hard manufacturing numbers. Personally, I doubt the actual cost is very high for either chip. Most of that money goes into R&D and initial setup costs (machinery). Once all your machines and R&D costs are written off, new production costs go down to raw materials, energy, and maintenance. My point is that the machines and R&D required for the 1Ds were written off back in 2003. If the product life cycle is only 3 years, then all costs associated with development of the product must be recovered within 3 years. Any costs that aren't must be absorbed into the corporate budget.
    The only logistical problem I see to my own suggestion is that producing a product which has already paid for itself leads the market to lower its value. The product would have to be sold for less money, and there would be less net profit for the corporation. Since Canon and Nikon are both publically traded, they have a duty to their stockholders to maximize profits. This is why they are not allowed to continue to make the same old stuff after the market has forced them to lower its price.
    This is why as soon as a particular TV model dips under $1000, they stop making it and introduce a new one that puts the price back up to $1200 where it belongs. Now that a camera with a 11-12MP full frame sensor has a market value of only $1000 (the 5D and 1Ds), Canon has an obligation to the stockholders to only make full frame cameras with over 20MP that they can sell for over $2000. This is the only way to feed all the leeches, parasites, and bottom-feeders that need to survive off the fat of a giant corporation.
    I fully acknowledge that the camera I am calling for can, and will, never be made. That doesn't stop me from insisting that it's the only camera I am willing to buy new at retail cost. Anything else that is released, including the T2i, is completely lost on me. To me, it looks just like the T1i, which looked just like the XSi, which looked just like the XS, which looked just like the XTi, which looked just like the XT, which looked just like the original Digital Rebel, which was a huge step backward from cameras we already had 10 years ago. And those are just the sub-$1k cameras. The same crap applies to the higher-end stuff, just they are less accessible. $1k used to buy you a professional camera. Now it buys you a Rebel.
     
  73. Hal:
    Canon cannot make any money from the sale of those cameras to me​
    Not directly, but the seller of that used 5D will probably use that money to upgrade to 5D mark II ;)
    $1k used to buy you a professional camera. Now it buys you a Rebel​
    When is "used to"? 11-12 years ago a Canon EOS 3 retails new for $1400, even that they called it semi pro since there's always the EOS 1 series for the real pro. plus the Rebel T2i will retail for $700-$800 most likely. I know the original Digital Rebel/300D retailed for $899 when new in 2003. Now both sells for about the same price about 200 bucks or less. If you're talking the 80's or even the 70's then I would have no idea, inflation and improved feature makes comparison hard.
    BTW, I want your camera too, but had to settle to something I can buy.
     
  74. Think of buying a DSLR like buying a camera body plus a huge batch of film. That's why it costs $800
    Comparing the T2i to the 400D to the 300D is like comparing the latest Fuji Sensia to 1970s technicolor films. They both capture the light but the results are somewhat different.
     
  75. More like, "Justify buying a DSLR like buying a camera body plus a huge batch of film." That's all I hear, justification and excuses. I will not be taken as a fool. It's really like buying a camera body plus a tiny computer and a CMOS sensor. The cost should be the cost of a camera body plus the cost of a tiny computer plus the cost of a CMOS sensor. This cost is blown disproportionately outside of ordinary bounds by fanaticism and clever marketing. How about Nikon's D3X for $8000? Anybody dumb enough to defend that one? Remember, Sony's top camera is only $2600, 1/2 the price of Canon's 1Ds and 1/3 the price of Nikon's D3X. I don't believe for a minute that those prices reflect ACTUAL MANUFACTURING COSTS anymore than I believe the prices for the entry-level series and mid-series cameras reflect actual costs. Only a fool would defend these companies, saying "But that's what it costs."
    If you really think the T2i is going to bring something to the table that's generations ahead of older technology like the 300D, then check out this new thread. We've been over this issue so many hundreds of times that it is honestly surprising to me when consumers religiously defend every new camera like it's going to be some grand revelation, some ethereal connection to the spirit world, or the savior of mankind. New cameras are just the same old cameras, repackaged with higher numbers. I thought everyone knew this by now, the same way I expect everyone to know that politicians lie.
     
  76. I dont believe that once the R&D are written off, new production costs go down to raw materials, energy, and maintenance. Because Canon still need to make profit to make itself grow, and to feed the families of people that work at canon. And machines breakdown too. I dont expect canon to not make profit or any company for that matter.
     
  77. About this modular camera stuff... Didn't they already do that by separating the lens from the the stuff that's likely to wear out or improve next year? ;) It ain't gonna happen your way with the very tight mechanical tolerances, and the tightly coupled electronics and noise sensitive high speed data interconnects.
    What makes a whole lot more sense is a small, simple box with a lens mount, a few knobs and buttons, and an EVF. Throw away the mirrorbox and pentaprism along with the associated mechanical complexity. Maybe keep the shutter. I'd buy it.
    Hal, what you're really saying is the pro market subsidizes the development of consumer models. It works out nicely for me. Just don't buy the 1D models if you can possibly help yourself.
     
  78. Surely manufacturing is to the point now where we can make a larger sensor pretty cheaply using old technology. After all, it's not the raw materials that cost money, it's the initial investment. They should even be able to fire up the old machine that they used to make the first full frame chips for the 1Ds (and they were 11MP!) back in 2002, and spit out chips for $10 apiece.
    Chip price is strongly correlated with die size. It does not scale linearly with die size, it jumps dramatically as the die increases. Chips are etched on wafers that have defects. If your chips are so small that you can fit 1,000 on a wafer, and that wafer has 100 chip killing defects spread across it, you'll get at least 900 usable chips. If your chips are so large that you can only fit 100 on the wafer, then you might only get a few usable chips, or none.
    Moore's law applies to density. Density doubles every 2 years. (Performance doubles every 18 months due to additional factors.) Chips get faster and are able to do more because of increases in density, not size. Outside of sensors the push is always for smaller size to reduce power consumption and heat.
    This is why APS-C cameras are reaching upwards to compete with full frame (7D) rather than the other way around. Density for a given cost is growing by leaps and bounds. Die size for a given cost is relatively static.
    Full frame sensors will slowly come down in price over time as manufacturers learn more tricks to reduce defects or the impact of defects. But it will be a long time before anyone can fabricate a 36x24 sensor cheap enough to make a $400 body profitable. In fact, I would guess that this will require a revolution in chip fabrication. Whether the resolution is 6 MP or 25 MP has zero effect on the price. Canon can't make 11 MP 1Ds sensors any cheaper than they can make 21 MP 5D2 sensors.
    For me, I would be happy with a full frame sensor that matched the quality of sensors which were made years ago. I don't need 25MP. I would be happy with a 6MP sensor, or even 4MP, as long as it was the correct size. Just the physical size of that darn thing needs to be 24x36, or else it doesn't work right.
    So you would take a 4 MP FF sensor that would have its lunch handed to it by the 18 MP Rebel T2i to avoid...what exactly? The purchase of an ultra wide angle to fill out the wide end on APS-C?
     
  79. If you really think the T2i is going to bring something to the table that's generations ahead of older technology like the 300D, then check out this new thread .
    What was I supposed to find in that thread to convince me that a 6 MP sensor from 7 years ago could touch the 18 MP sensor in the T2i? My first DSLR was a 10D. I love the many photographs I was able to produce with it. Never the less, it cannot touch my 7D at 16x24, or ISO 6400 (which it didn't even go to). To say nothing of the better screen, 8 fps, better AF, metering, level, features, etc, etc.
     
  80. And I think that is the point. Daniel. You never get a camera with 'just more pixels'. You also get a camera with better on-sensor technology, better in-camera software, a higher quality DIGIC processor etc which all mean better noise handling, better sharpening etc etc.
    It is like you when you upgrade your printer or photocopier , you can't say 'I want one that does exactly the same but faster'. When you pay a higher price they throw in loads of functions you probably never use. Maybe it is a cynical way of getting you to pay more, maybe they are giving you more for your money but either way a simple speed-upgrade is never done.

    Now if it was possible to take the 300D and fit it with the DIGIC 4 processor that would be an interesting experiment. Equally I am sure if you put the 300D processor/software into the 7D, I am fairly sure the quality would be pretty awful due to the in-sensor noise.
     
  81. Mike - contrary to popular belief, noise is far more strongly correlated with sensor size than with pixel size. If the software and technology level were equal between 6 and 18 MP APS-C sensors, I would honestly expect noise performance to be within a stop when viewed at equal magnification.
     
  82. I am curious as to what is the length of time is between an announcement of a new camera such as Mondays of the T2i and it's becoming available for purchase.
     
  83. Daniel, I find this a fascinating debate.
    Please will you elaborate on your comment that "noise is far more strongly correlated with sensor size that pixel size". I'm at the point of buying a used 5D for portrait photography and had persuaded myself that it was better to pour the £700+ into a 7D. I currently default to a 40D which I intend to keep.
     
  84. I just wanted to chime in here that 35mm film is still relevant and I don't care how much you can compare costs, isn't it about the final image quality that matters to the photographer? Now when is my T12 gonna be shipped?
     

Share This Page