Had the new Rebel in my hands today...500D

[jc_stark_arts]

<p>i can't process the images i took with it in lightroom 2 so unfortunately I don't have a way to show them to you but I will say it has a nice feel - it is a bit deeper in the grip than the xsi. the screen is the same as the 5DII and the rep said it has the exact same sensor as the 50D. I can say that on the screen it looked clean at 1600 - i took pics at 1600 and 3200 and they both looked good. will try to process in PS CS4 but I'm not holding my breath...</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Cool, looks like a nice camera. All it needs is a QCD and it would be the bee's friggen knees!</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>Actually, it's not *exactly* the same sensor as the 50D in that the 500D microlenses have gaps whereas the 50D boasts a 'gapless' design. This affects noise and IQ nominally. Canon had to do something to 'lower' it in respect to the 50D otherwise no one would buy the 50D. As it is, I think some people may well opt for the 500D over the 50D.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>" Canon had to do something to 'lower' it in respect to the 50D otherwise no one would buy the 50D."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So Canon spent research time and money and set up a new sensor production to worsen their product to stop canibalsing 50D sales? If true its a dumb move on their part, but typical of their thinking lately.<br>

No wonder they have fallen behind Nikon.</p>

[kari v]

<p>Giampi, are you sure, that sounds really stupid trick and expensive too. All the previous xxxD models have had xxD sensor (or the other way around).<br>

500D is so different that it's hard to see how it would cannibalize 50D.</p>

[delwyn_ching]

<p>JC: How was the video function of the 500D (that's T1i in the USA)?</p>

[robert_johnstone]

<p>personally for me the size of the rebels are way too small for my average sized hands. i even found my 50d to be to a bit on the small side so i bought a grip straight away, it made it so much easier to hold.</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>Yes, according to an interview I have seen with the Canon rep from the UK. He clearly stated that the 50D has a gapless design whereas the 500D doesn't - My assumption about lowering is obviously NOT to be taken as anything more than MY assumption, nothing more. There may be a technical reason for the differences. We can only SPECULATE as to why.</p>

<p>When I find a link to the interview I will post it. I can't remember who the journalist/interviewer was...but, it will come back to me soon enough. I will be out all day today but, if all goes well I should have a link by Thursday.</p>

<p> </p>

[digitmstr]

<p>Alright, faster than I thought. <a href="http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1568178603?bctid=17506054001">THIS</a> should be the link to the interview video. They start talking about the sensor right away so, you don't have to wait long :)</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, it's not *exactly* the same sensor as the 50D in that the 500D microlenses have gaps whereas the 50D boasts a 'gapless' design. This affects noise and IQ nominally. Canon had to do something to 'lower' it in respect to the 50D otherwise no one would buy the 50D. As it is, I think some people may well opt for the 500D over the 50D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>After watching the video, I read it differently - they both have 15 MP so I am not sure how the gaps will necessarily 'lower it' in relation to the 50D. <br>

As I understand it (and I may be wrong) the noise can come from 2 sourced: reducing the size of the photosites increases noise in relation to the strength of the signal generated by photon capture, and the proximity of photosites where a photosite picks up noise from its neighbours. So gaps on the same size sensor suggests smaller photosites separated from their neighbours and maybe they are trying a different compromise. And if they have managed to improve the photon-sensitivity of the photosite then it could be a benefit.</p>

<p> </p>

[digitmstr]

<p>As I mentioned, it's only MY assumption - I was basing it ALSO on the fact that they crippled the 1080p frame rate on the 500D to an almost USELESS 20fps! Even though it uses the Digic 4, same as the 5D MKII.</p>

<p>My assumption is as follows: Canon is introducing video slowly but surely to all their lines so...</p>

<p>The next 60D (or whatever will come after the 50D) will have more video controls than both the 5D MKII and the 500D. It will have 1080p at 30fps as well. The sensor however, will probably be the same as the 50D.</p>

<p>The new 1Dxxx will also have increased video control and of course full 1080p at 30fps and maybe even a 24fps mode.</p>

<p>Following that logic, it makes sense to assume that Canon is 'crippling' the Rebel line in some form or another. They have always done that, lest we forget the XT and subsequent software hack that 'revived' the crippled features.</p>

<p>For example: there is no reason for Canon to omit manual K setting on the NEW 500D and/or the 30fps at full 1080p resolution since it uses the NEW Digic 4, same as 5D MK II - except, to maintain some sort of market division among the model lines.</p>

<p>Another form of 'crippling' is the omission of the PC contact from all the Digital Rebel line! What's up with that? How much would that cost to add... I mean, it's not like PC contacts are still in R&D. The darn things have been standard on cameras for decades! It's just that Canon WANTS to force the hand of more experienced buyers toward the more expensive xxD line. I see no other reason, personally.</p>

<p>Canon is basically trying to maintain profits, which is a vital part of the equation. No profits, no company...</p>

<p>So, it makes 'some' sense that the Rebel line will always be 'crippled' compared to the xxD line. The xxD line will be below the xD line. Three distinct lines in body and features.</p>

<p>Again, that's all my thinking...</p>

[i._l.]

<p>Good stuff, Giampi. </p>

[phule]

<p>[[Following that logic, it makes sense to assume that Canon is 'crippling' the Rebel line in some form or another. They have always done that, lest we forget the XT and subsequent software hack that 'revived' the crippled features.]]</p>

<p>Just a point of clarification, that was the original Digital Rebel (300D) not the XT (350D).</p>

<p> </p>

[digitmstr]

<p>Right, the 300D...my bad!</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>"Canon is basically trying to maintain profits, which is a vital part of the equation."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They could try making the best cameras they can and sell them at a profitable markup, rather than spending money to dumb down bodies or not providing features that are essentially costless. That is being too clever by halves.</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>I know - I wish they would STOP crippling the Rebel line, at least the upper rebel line, like the 500D! I mean, why not include MANUAL K setting and a PC connection? In my mind, the ONLY possible answer is: they want you to buy the xxD if you want those features. Whereas, the extra cost should be for the stronger body and some other features. In other words, I think that at this point in time, Canon should start putting PC connection and manual K setting on ALL but the VERY bottom camera.</p>

<p>It must be working for them though.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>

<p>"It must be working for them though."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not so sure. I thought that Nikon is beating Canon the in sales and had been for the past few years. If you think back to 2004, Canon was the 2000 pound gorrilla in the DSLR market and had a massive lead on everyone and had been ahead of Nikon in sales for more than a decade.<br>

Sorry to get so far of topic, but product/coporate strategy is an interest of mine. I've been suspicious that around 2004 Canon changed its strategy a bit from aggressive competition at the entry level (think of the price break-through with the 300D) to instead trying to position its entry level APS-C/EF-S stuff at the premium end of the market (without necessarily having premium features). Though admitedly the IQ of the rebel line is as good as anything out there.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[marcos_dantas]

<p>Mike, these gaps are on the micro-lenses in front of the sensor, not in the photosites itselves.<br>

Even if the sensors are the same, the photosites on the 50D will collect more light, due theirs more effective micro-lenses, and will produce a stronger signal, with less need for artificial amplification, that is, less noise.<br>

Sorry for my broken english.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>No wonder they have fallen behind Nikon.<br /> <br /> I am not so sure. I thought that Nikon is beating Canon the in sales and had been for the past few years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The story appears to be changing. You seemed awful sure in that first post when you were damning canon for doing what all companies do when creating a product line.</p>

<p>Expensive products are where the fanciest features go. When Mercedes-Benz introduced the first electronic anti-lock braking system, it didn't put the system in it's entry level cars, it went in the high end s-class cars. That's just the way this stuff works. You wouldn't say that Honda is "crippling" the Accord LX because it comes with a 177hp engine rather then the EX's 190hp, would you? It's the same sort of comparison, after all, the R&D is all done on these engines. There's not much new in the world of 2.4 liter four cylinder engines. But that's the story, you pay more to get more features. If companies crammed everything into one "good" model, you'd have people claiming that they wanted that model but can't afford it. And when people can't afford to get into your "system" they go somewhere else. Leica has been grappling with this issue for decades.</p>

<p>Anyway, here's the answer regarding market share. For 2007 (which are the most recent stats available) Canon shipped 3.18 million DSLRs (42.7%) and Nikon shipped 2.98 million units (40%). Now, Nikon's share grew faster than Canon's in 2007, which is something to watch for 2008 (though you have to overlay the timing of new model introductions onto these stats). Though Canon still easily beat Nikon in terms of overall digital camera market share, Canon has 18.8% to Nikon's 8.4%. In fact, Nikon is behind Sony, Kodak and Samsung in terms of total market share. These facts are from IDC via CNET. CNET page is <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9882670-39.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20">here</a> . As those stats came out last April, I would expect the 2008 stats to be out pretty soon. I did fond some stats that are supposed to be from the 2008 Japanese DSLR market <a href="http://www.slashgear.com/two-big-continue-to-stomp-digital-slr-market-in-japan-3128291/">here</a> . But they are a little confusing to read, probably a result of translation at some point. But the gist of the info is that Canon and Nikon are tied in the domestic Japanese market as of the end of 2008. Which is an improvement for Canon over the end of 2007 when Nikon led Canon 43.7% to 40%. I have more faith in the IDC numbers than these numbers though.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I was not damning Canon for not putting 1D features or ABS brakes in a drebel.<br>

I was damning them for not putting in features that are either costless, such as can be done with already developed firmware. And/or actually spending effort to dumb a camera down, which are the implications of it developing a slightly worse sensor to put in its drebel line.<br>

Of course this may not be true. We may be just speculating. However, the 300D had the same senors as the 10D, whereas for some reason every drebel since has had a slightly different sensor to it xxD equivalent. Who knows why? Maybe its cheaper.<br>

I can edit my first post to no longer say "no wonder Canon have fallen behind Nikon" to "no wonder Canon has surrended a big market lead from several years ago to be just ahead of Nikon as we speak" if it will keep the photonet police happy.</p>

 

[joshroot]

<p>Heavens. Just because I disagree with your post, I'm the "photo.net police"?</p>

<p>You made a statement that I feel is incorrect, I called you on it and presented proof to the contrary. That's all. If you don't want that to happen, fact check your posts before you make them. Otherwise be prepared to have people disagree and state their case to prove it. It's no big deal and it happens to all of us, myself included.</p>

<p> </p>

[dogbert]

<p>Sorry Josh but I kinda thought you, Bob A and others were the photonet police. Anyway here in Australia we respect our police so don't be insulted. Some of them are the best money can buy!<br>

Actually I was kind of expecting my first statement to be read rhetorically.<br>

Anyway, enough of me exericising my right as a consumer to always be wanting more out of Canon. Can we get back to the orginal post before the inevitable 200 :"should I upgrade my 450D to the 500D posts begin"?</p>