20D announcement and 10-22 wide, and 17-85 IS lens!

[randy_almquist]

http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/rumors.html here it

is everybody!! the new 20d and two new lenses. a 17-85 IS and a 10-

22 WIDE ANGLE!!!!!!!!!!!! yipeee

[casey mcallister]

Dude; old news...

[david_lau3]

This is not exciting at all. 8MP is good but still 1.6X chop factor. 10-22 may help for the wide end but this is a consumer grade zoom lens, still no match for 16-35/f2.8 or the prime wide angles for film or full frame sensor.

 

I guess Canon wish to maintain 2-3 brandings of product so that they can ask for more if you want the top grade. If you want true and high performing wide angle then you need to pay $6,000 for 1Ds. The worst is that there is still no competition from Nikon or others to make Canon to lower the price.

[PuppyDigs]

Actually Pentax, Sigma and Olympus all have nice DSLRs. However, photographers are very conservative and most of the crowd will go with Canon or Nikon too matter how good the competition gets...

[vatovec]

Yes, but nobody (except Kodak) with a full frame 11 Mpix sensor,...

[matthewkane]

Whhhoooop deee dooo you can look at a 8mp 8x12 and a 6mp 8x12 and you couldn't t

ell the difference. I wasn't expecting an upgrade yet, but at any rate it isn't much of o

ne IMO.

[tom_burke3]

It's an incremental upgrade - a bit more resolution, a bit better processing (DIGIC 2 as

against original DIGIC), E-TTL2 as against E-TTL, a bit better buffering, etc, etc. As such

it's a worth-while move. We may be past the days of huge jumps in digital functionality!

 

But I agree that the continuation of the 1.6 CF is the most important point. The fact that

there will be three EF-S lenses suggests to me that we will keep the 1.6 CF for quite a long

time - 5 years?. ie, that there will be at least one canon DSLR with a 1.6 CF available for

that length of time. And presumably the new EF-S lenses will be generally available, not

sold solely as part of a kit.

[johnrwoods]

Eh, ill stick with my 10D.

[gaius1]

Anyone got a URL for an announcement on an actual Canon website?

[daniel_taylor]

Wow...what a bunch of wet blankets.

 

This is a good upgrade for Canon. It's not Earth shattering, but the 10D is already so good that Earth shattering is a bit difficult to achieve. It does raise the bar for DSLR's at this price point, and clearly re-establishes the xxD series as top of the line for the non-pro. No more stupid "D70 vs. 10D" threads. Nikon has to play catch up again.

 

Canon has finally dealt with the wide angle issue for the average DSLR buyer, a critical sticking point IMHO. Complain that the new lenses are "consumer glass" all you want, but consumers need that glass. Those of us who want higher quality glass have always had the 17-40L and various primes/third party zooms for wider work.

 

The one thing that tempts me to upgrade is the buffer. If it's really 5 fps/25 frames for RAW, that's pretty impressive for digital at this price point. While I've been very happy with 3 fps/9 frames and DIGIC's ability to keep the buffer clear, on occasion it's limiting.

 

The other points are minor, but nice. E-TTL II might actually tempt some to upgrade. I personally don't have that many problems with E-TTL I, but some do.

 

At any rate, the 10D remains a strong contender and seller after all this time. That means the 20D is going to be a hit. I probably won't upgrade, but I am impressed. Canon is serious about being the undisputed champion of the DSLR market. The 1D mkII and 20D make that clear.

[steve_rutledge]

Hmmm.. Canon frequently updates thier line of cameras and lenses and provides it's

customers with more options for dSLRs that anyone else on the market and some of

you guys are complaining?

 

Fill the shoes of someone with thousands $$ invested in Minolta or Pentax lenses and

you'll see what Canon really has.

 

I came from 2 big pelican cases full of Minolta AF lenses and bodies and have been

waiting and waiting for ANY dSLR that I could mount my lenses to. I sold everything

when I looked closely at what Canon had to offer:

 

D30, D60, 10D, Drebel, 1D, 1Ds, 1Dmk2 and now possibly a 20D

 

I got a 1Dmk2 two days ago (it's been backordered for months now) so I doubt I'd buy

the 20d, but it's certianly a worthwhile upgrade to the 10d and should create a bigger

list of converts like me.

-S

[tom_burke3]

The big drawback to the EF-S lenses is that unless users are prepared to take a chance

and butcher them, they're not compatible with existing 10D, D60 or D30

cameras.

 

Hey - you don't suppose Canon did this deliberately to give owners of those cameras

another incentive to upgrade?

[jim_larson1]

I am underwhelmed as well. .. .but that is because the 20D specs match what everyone expected so darn well. EVERYONE expected 1.6 crop, ETTL2. Many (except the full frame die-hards) also expected the EF-S mount and a ultra-wide angle EF-S lens.

 

These specs are critical are CRITICAL to compete against not just the D70, but the 8mp digicams.

 

The 20D actually is a bigger step from the 10D than the 10D was from the D60.

 

What is actually disappointing is that -and I am not sure of this yet- Canon went for paper spec improvements in MP and FPS rather than real improvements such as one more stop of dynamic range and placing ISO in the viewfinder.

 

The key will be to see the price of the camera and the new lenses.

[panos_voudouris]

"Hey - you don't suppose Canon did this deliberately to give owners of those cameras another incentive to upgrade?"

 

Well, as I understand it, the EF-S lenses need a body with that special mirror the 300D has. Given that the all the other digital cameras do not have it there is the risk of the lens hitting the mirror. Maybe the 18-55 does not do it but the new ones do. Or maybe even the new ones don't but some other EF-S lens yet to be released will. But at some point, someone is bound to put an EF-S lens on a incompatible body (look at all those posts) and damage will occur.

 

If I were Canon, given the way compensation cases are going in courts nowadays, even the remote theoretical possibility of damage would be enough to make me design a new lens mount. Just for the idiots among my customers. If that makes some to upgrade to the new mount, so much the better. But if you have a D30/D10 you probably already have a lens like that. If you don't you'd be buying one of the new EF-S bodies so little harm done.

[thomas_sullivan]

I forget who said it on photo net, but their feeling was that the consumer grade 1.6x and the EF-S mount lenses were going to essentially shape the consumer grade DSLRs and that the regular Canon mount and slow move to full frame sensor was going to shape the "Pro" upper end of the DSLR market.

 

That really makes a lot of sense. Gives the "Professional", with the earnings from photography and the tax write-off, to get what they want...........and gives the "amateur hobbyist", with money only from their "other" job, the ability to have decent DSLRs. This sort of mirrors the film SLR arrangement of things, and I personnally think if it is true that it is an excellent move on Canons part.

 

Now, if they would just lower the price range of EVERYTHING to a more realistic level, that would make me truely happy ;o)

[patricks]

utterly predictable, which is kind of sad. some innovations/surprises would have been welcome, e.g. better short-cut buttons and menu system to make field use faster/easier.

 

am i the only one who is worried about the fact that the only new lenses coming our are really slow ones?

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

One of the lenses is supposed to be slow-it's a direct 1.6 crop equivilant of the very good 28-135 IS lens.

<br>As for the 10-22...fair enough i guess-i dunno.

<br>Does ANYONE make fast superwide zooms?

 

<P>And the other responses-

<br>yeah the specs were pretty much predictable but that's fine.All sensible upgrades.The main things that don't show in the specs are noise performance focus speed/acuracy and brightness capture range-we'll have to wait abit to see if they are improved.THEN we'll know how good the camera is.

<P> so far the great things are unbelievable boot time and the fact that they have decided to go with 1.6 crop for the forseeable future.That means we can at least plan ahead sensibly

[jim_larson1]

<i>am i the only one who is worried about the fact that the only new lenses coming our are really slow ones?</i><p>

Yes and no.<p>

The 10-22 EF-S is desperately needed in the Canon line. I am sure a proper EF lens would have been hideously expensive -> so naturally you get a slow, cheap, EF-S wide angle. Perfect!

<p>

The 17-85/IS: Blech. Too slow, you can't get a decent background blur at F5.6. I use F5.6 for GROUP SHOTS. And what good is IS at 30mm? Shooting at 1/15? I hope you don't have people in that shot: unless the *subjects* are still, your shots are *still* going to be blurred. I guess for twilight landscapes this lens is ok. . . otherwise a waste of catalogue space.

<p>

What really bothers me is that the last five lenses released by Canon have *zero* appeal for me.

<p>

The 17-40/4L is good. I bought one. But the two "L"s released in the spring are (IMHO) way overpriced <b>and</b> not of premium optical quality. The 18-55/EF-S and 10-22/EF-S have a place, but IMHO that place is not on a $1000+ camera body. (This statement presumes that the 10-22 is similar optically to the 18-55). The 17-85/EF-S: EWwwwhhh

<p>

Hopefully, the two new EF-S lenses are reasonably priced ($150 and $350). If these lenses turn out to be overpriced, then I will really be concerned.

<p>

So what do <b>I</b> want?. A $600 24-70/4L. A $750 70-200/4L-IS. A <b>high quality</b> 300mm/4 IS lens (either zoom or prime) under $800.

[tom_burke3]

Jim

 

All your points about the lenses are good ones! This is why I'm very probably going to

keep my head down for the time being and wait for a few more years. Either until the

comsumer-level cameras are better than 1.6 crop, or until I can afford a 1Ds...

[joseph_krasniewicz]

I am a Canon user but I can't help but feel Canon is giving us "just enough" in their new models to keep us interested. I don't get that feeling from Nikon. With the D70 announcement I think Nikon set out to make the best camera they could for under $1k. Canon's philosophy seems more marketing $$$ oriented. Like don't give them to much at once but remain competitive. Or leave a quirk in the lower model to entice users to upgrade. And make sure we maintain an upgrade path. 1.6, 1.3, full frame. I have never used Nikon and am just making an observation from what I read. Anyone else feel this way?

[claudinho]

"Well, as I understand it, the EF-S lenses need a body with that special mirror the 300D has"

 

But this is not enough. The body needs to have a space inside to keep special protrusion of an EF-S lens, at least 18-55 has it. That's why 10D (and any other EOS camera) doesn't accept EF-S lens.

I think new EF-S lens will be designed in the same way, so there is no risk of mistake and damage.

 

Look here

 

http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html

[r_n]

JK: I pretty much agree. Nikon's approach seems to be -- what is the greatest camera we can build at a given price point? Canon's approach seems to be -- what features would be packaged in a camera that would be consistent with the transposition of our film camera marketing plan to the digital camera world?

 

That is why we got the Digital Rebel (300D) without FEC, even though it would have cost nothing for it to be included (the bit for it was turned off in firmware.) That is why we will not ever see 45pt AF, weathersealing, spot metering, etc. in Canon's 1.6 crop models.

 

(It appears that 1.6 crop cameras are consumer level, and 1.3 crop and better are the pro line in Canon's marketing scheme (AFAIK credit Bob Atkins for that one.))

[peter_phan]

<i>JK: I pretty much agree. Nikon's approach seems to be -- what is the greatest camera we can build at a given price point? </i>

<p>

Actually, I think the D70's package was primarily market driven. Nikon had a languishing, aging D100, and nothing to offer at the sub-$1000 market while Canon was laughing all the way to the bank with the 300D. I don't think Nikon had the capacity to produce a new D200, and produce an inexpensive model to compete with the 300D. So they didn't have much choice but to consolidate it all into a D70, which keeping the price (and profit) low. If they didn't do that, and do something to entice potential buyers away from the 300D by giving a higher level of specification, they would have lost out on the low end market bigtime. I think if there never was a 300D, the D70 would have had a few more options on it (ie, anti-shock mode, vertical grip, cable release, etc, which are all available on the D100) and would have been introduced as a D200.

<p>

Given the dire market circumstances, this was simply a necessity for Nikon. If the circumstances had been different, and the 300D hadn't been as hugely popular as it was (as a result of pent-up demand for a sub-$1000 camera), which probably took the industry by surprise, I think Nikon's entry-level DSLR would have been very much like their entry-level film SLR-- which suffer from the same or greater de-featurization as any other brand. For a long time, Nikon's entry-level models have lacked standard features available on Canon's entry-level Rebel models, like a cable release socket, partial metering, FP high speed sync flash, DX override, wireless TTL flash compatibility. On Nikon's latest N75, they finally added partial metering, but the other stuff is still missing. That's hardly what I would call making "the greatest camera we can build at a given price point".

<p>

Market pressures drive most decisions. The only limiting factor is if a company can actually deliver on what they feel they need to do, and still make a decent profit. It's not merely by altruism that companies do what they do.

[bobatkins]

Everything is market driven. Any company would be nuts NOT to base new products on the market. They'd also be nuts to shoot themselves in the foot by bring out models that would reduce sales of other models. If you have a $1500 camera, you're not going to bring out a $750 camera with essentially the same features - unless your primary competitor forces you to!

 

You build the best camera you can, at a particular price point, and give it enough features to be attractive, but not so many that it kills off another product and not so many that you can't bring out an upgrade in 12-18 months. Capitalism at it's finest at work.

 

Ph.D's don't decide on products, M.B.A's do.

 

Canon have a very smart marketing department backed up by a very good R&D department. If it were a public company, I'd buy shares!

 

Nikon seem to spend their life playing catchup. On occassion they take the lead, but they rarely hold it for long. Great products, but they maybe just don't have the critical mass to be the leader anymore. Canon is a much bigger company with much larger resources.

[jim_larson1]

All hail Nikon!

 

If the D70 had not been release, you and I both *know* the 20D would have been priced at $2000+.

 

Just take a look at the pricing of the 1DII.