Whats going on with Canon?!!!

topcatproduction

topcatproduction

Messages
500
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm struggling to see why Canon have bought out the 550D (what seems like) so soon after the 500D, is it to try and reclaim their place in the Canon Nikon battle of entry level SLR's?

I can't see why a basic DSLR needs 18mp, and wondering what unbelievably amazing trick they are going to have to pull out of the bag when it comes to releasing the 60D!!!

The only thing I can see people possibly overlooking is the sensor. The 400D and 40D when launched had the same amount of mp, similar this and that- but the 40D is a legend- mainly because of a much better sensor? Can one assume that the 550D will have a less superior sensor to the 50D and (when it comes out) 60D?

When basic DSLR's are advancing this quickly I struggle to see how they are going to have much of a range left in a couple of years- maybe the choice will just be crop or full frame :lol::lol::lol:

I'm troubled because I'm planning on selling my 400D to move into the semi pro type world- but what good is that when the damned basic one might be better :bang:
 
As a Nikon user I wonder the same thing. Surely no one needs an 18mp crop frame sensor? It must be diffraction limited by F8 or even earlier, require pro-spec lenses and a powerful pc to shove the files around. Most of the time I more than happy with the results from a 12mp sensor although there are occasions that I do wish that Nikon would get a move on and release a D700 sized 24mp camera. For me though, the best dynamic range and low light performance will easily outstrip megapixels when it comes to selecting a camera.
 
The 550D with a better sensor and body is effectively the 7D. No room for a 60D in there as far as I can see. Maybe the more technically minded have some idea?
 
Agreed, although it's not limited to just Canon; they all seem to be firing models out of a mass production cannon ('scuse the pun) left, right and centre.

I know commercialism and consumerism go hand in hand and are snowballing as technology advances, but for the layman it ain't half a confusing situation - do i go for a 500D or a 550D? What's the difference between a D5000 and a D3000? why should I buy an A450 over an A380?

Lenses are pretty straightforward in that you look at A) focal length (and how it's converted on a crop Vs FX body), B) maximum aperture and C) value for money overall. With camera bodies it's a world of confusion with regard to sensor type, sensor sensitivity, ISO noise, AF points, buffer speed and so on, and so on...

Personally i'd like Nikon to have kept some kind of DX-format, gripped pro model but seeing as they used the D3 nametag on an FX body, there was no way to go forward with that idea. At least Canon have the FF and 1.3x variants within the 1D range....
 
The only reason I can see- is that a lot of people that have little idea about photography think more mp is better, so make a basic camera with 18mp and WOW- it must be the best! It also does HD video! Funny that the most expensive camera's dont even have a built in flash- let alone do video.

Maybe the 60D (?) will be more like a 7D, and a 7Dmk2 will be released sometime in the near future.

Does anyone have info on the 550D sensor compared to the 50D? Apart from the body itself it may be the only worthwhile difference..?

Where will it stop :shake: I want my xxD upgrade to be awesome- not already beaten by another damned xxxD!!!! It's exactly like Canon releasing say a 22-75 f/1.8 with no red ring- so its £400 cheaper but how would people who were about to buy the 24-70L feel?!
 
infra_dread said:
As a Nikon user I wonder the same thing. Surely no one needs an 18mp crop frame sensor? It must be diffraction limited by F8 or even earlier, require pro-spec lenses and a powerful pc to shove the files around. Most of the time I more than happy with the results from a 12mp sensor although there are occasions that I do wish that Nikon would get a move on and release a D700 sized 24mp camera. For me though, the best dynamic range and low light performance will easily outstrip megapixels when it comes to selecting a camera.
Click to expand...

theoretically this makes sense when you look at the big picture, if a consumer buys an entry level DSLR, chances are there going to have a basic PC so it doesnt help out the consumer when they need to replace a PC aswell because files are too big.
 
topcatproduction said:
The only reason I can see- is that a lot of people that have little idea about photography think more mp is better, so make a basic camera with 18mp and WOW- it must be the best! It also does HD video! Funny that the most expensive camera's dont even have a built in flash- let alone do video.

Maybe the 60D (?) will be more like a 7D, and a 7Dmk2 will be released sometime in the near future.

Does anyone have info on the 550D sensor compared to the 50D? Apart from the body itself it may be the only worthwhile difference..?

Where will it stop :shake: I want my xxD upgrade to be awesome- not already beaten by another damned xxxD!!!! It's exactly like Canon releasing say a 22-75 f/1.8 with no red ring- so its £400 cheaper but how would people who were about to buy the 24-70L feel?!
Click to expand...

I think there no more to it than that - most people do believe that more mp is better (and on the evidence so far, it generally is) so that's what Canon, and every other manufacturer, gives them.

How much better, well that's the question (honest answer, not much by itself) but new models do not make your current camera perform any worse. If you are happy with what you can buy today, then get it. But you can be certain that, sooner rather than later, there will be a new/bigger/better/faster model along to 'upgrade' it :)
 
The bottom line is that the decision to market the camera is driven by exactly the same principle that drives the marketing of anything.
Their market research indicates that sufficent numbers will be sold to make a worthwhile profit.
 
The 50D has more to it than just megapixels though, in terms of features and adjustments you can make (such as micro adjusting lenses, metering etc). I would be interested in knowing the differences in the sensors though, as I'd like to assume the 50D, as a prosumer model, would have the edge there!

I think the range started to become a little off the rails when the 1000d came out (not that there's anything wrong with the 1000d of course) giving a third line in the range with 4 figures when we thought the xxxd were the entry level cameras... I wonder what the 2000d will be like??!
 
Well, if we compare the 50D and 500D then the 50D has a few more pro features than the 'entry level' 500D

AF is slightly better, faster shutter speed available (1/8000 v 1/4000 and 6.3 fps v 3.4fps), different viewfinder (95% magnification v 87%), better weather proofing.

50D takes CF cards, 500D takes SD. 50D is larger and heavier.
500D has video

There's probably more differences

For me, the 50D balances better with the larger L lenses on, they just look and feel too big on a 400/500D
 
according to DXO mark sensor 50D, 550D and 7D have a very similar sensor. Maybe the latter two are very slightly improved. If you compare that to D90 or full frame cameras it becomes apparent that things could look better. Ironically, D90 is the cheapest of the lot. When will consumers get it?
 
I think perhaps soon the only real difference between the pro/sumer level of DSLR's and top of the line pro models is going to be AF and shooting speed.
Obviously i know nothing of pro level gear (I aint that rich! :P),but it seems that technology is moving along fast,and in a consumer driven market the manufacturer offering those little improvements over their rivals will come out on top..
Does kinda leave you wondering just how much range will be left,though i suspect the majority of those buying wont be complaining.
(Unless you just spent a fortune on a new body,only to find a month later a "lower" end model trounces it in most areas!)
Surely with sensors at the MP and quality we have now,there cant be THAT much room for improvement?-Well..not that would make a significant difference to IQ for the vast majority of users?
Like others,i would like to upgrade my body in the near future,to an xxD..
But-Im having trouble distinguishing which to go for,and of course,releases like the 550D make that choice even more unclear.
 
malla1962 said:
megapixels sell cameras.;)
Click to expand...

yes, have you seen the adverts by places like argos and all they say is "look at this amazing canon compact camera with 10 MP" and thats all they say because it will make the people think "wow that must be good because its a canon and it has 10MP" when in reality there both wrong.

megapixels sell, canon's dont:lol::lol:
 
mastertrinity said:
yes, have you seen the adverts by places like argos and all they say is "look at this amazing canon compact camera with 10 MP" and thats all they say because it will make the people think "wow that must be good because its a canon and it has 10MP" when in reality there both wrong.

megapixels sell, canon's dont:lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Spot on. High ISO is another marketing tool, hopefully next will be latitude which to me, what really matters.
 
malla1962 said:
megapixels sell cameras.;)
Click to expand...

Yep, somebody was telling me that thier P&S had more megapixels than "Your big flash camera", I told them I was very pleased for them.....:)
 
fracster said:
Yep, somebody was telling me that thier P&S had more megapixels than "Your big flash camera", I told them I was very pleased for them.....:)
Click to expand...

yeah someone said to me that there camera phone has 12 megapixels so its better than mine and less bulky and i simply said "if that was true then we would see professionals running around with phones in there hands"
 
Canon aren't daft, they know very well what they are doing. First they increase the megapixels in their cameras. Many consumers buy into the "more megapixels is better" idea along with people who dont want a second hand body and buy whatever is available new. The market will soon be full of people with a high pixel density camera and lenses that have a hard time resolving enough detail. This in turn will result in a demand for lenses that can make the most of these high pixel density cameras and I'm sure Canon will not disappoint.

Of course that will mean that to get the most from your new camera you will have to buy more new lenses, of course at higher than current prices. Take the new 15-85 IS USM and 70-200 f2.8L II as examples. Canon are creating a demand and then satisfying that demand resulting in lots of money for them. Of course it means we as consumers get even better photography equipment but at a price.
 
Mischief said:
(Unless you just spent a fortune on a new body,only to find a month later a "lower" end model trounces it in most areas!)
Click to expand...

This happened to me when the D90 came out and I had my D200. The D90 didn't trounce it but the quality was higher with more pixels to play with. But then I thought.... Why care? The D200 was a superb camera when I bought it and a new camera coming out does not change that. The control is much better on my D200 and it is built better. Do I care?..... Absolutely not. So much so that I have not been in a hurry to change it. I might well buy a D300 to replace the D200 at some point soon but that will be for the higher ISO. I did buy a D1x as my second camera and used this for some time being pleased with the result.

The reality is that things do not get worse when new stuff comes out.

I have a 2 year old 17" macbook pro.... It has the higher 1920x1200 matte screen with 4Gb of RAM and a 2.5GHz penryn core 2 duo processor. New machines have come out and a new one is due very soon but will this affect my machine NO. I have just stuck a 500Gb 7200rpm hard drive in it at half three this morning and it now has more space, again no reason to change anything.

As for Mpx. There are 2 reasons for needing higher megapixels these are cropping a good picture from a badly composed one and blowing a picture up to a ridiculous size. I learnt from owning the D1x that you really do not need more than 5 million pixels for most images.
 
Edtog said:
Spot on. High ISO is another marketing tool, hopefully next will be latitude which to me, what really matters.
Click to expand...

Not really in the same way mega-pixelage is. The average punter hasn't got a clue about ISO; they will just assume that if their P&S has 15MP it must be good, and all other functions will be up to scratch. As we know, more mega-pixels does not a great image make. However, high ISO performance is certainly a selling point for enthusiasts, like fps and AF ability are, because better ISO perfomance means unequivocal gains, but it's meaningless for the people at the thin end of the marketer's wedge ;)
 
I'm a Canon user and I can't see any Canon offering that tempts me at the moment. I haven't tried a 7D myself yet and I am put off by a lot of the images on line, for every good one there's at least one that makes me think that the 7D isn't for me. Somehow higher ISO performance seems to be at the detriment of lower ISO.

A 5DII would be the obvious move, but I've never owned an SLR without a flash and the horror stories of failing units and Canon's seeming unwillingness to accept responsibility are a big put off. I was thinking about getting one in a few weeks but after reading horror stories in a thread on LL I've scrapped the idea.

I've actually been thinking about selling all of my Canon gear and replacing it all starting with a D700 but I'll probably just hang in and hope that Canon bring out a reliable camera that I want.
 
I also am a 500 owner, and was also shocked when the 550 was released.

A colleague of mine gave me a call to say he'd seen one - he's still using the 350.

Was a little surprised by the price, I'm not sure I'd pay the extra for the 550, I'd probably go for the 50D instead.
 
I had a conversation last year with one of societies less brain power endowed people..... It went like this..... "Oh thats a nice camera how many mega pixels is it?" he asked {D200 with 18-200} "Err about ten" I replied. "Oh I have a @£$@£%@£ {cheapo P&S} and its 12 mega pixels you would have thought something that big would be better than mine" he replied. "YES I SUPPOSE" I said. "Anyway £@$@£$ mobile phone is about six mega pixels and I'm getting that so it will be nearly as good, I am sure Nokia will get to 10mp soon then you wont need to carry a big camera" he replied. "YES that will be really good that" came my response...... :lol:
 
cowasaki said:
I had a conversation last year with one of societies less brain power endowed people..... It went like this..... "Oh thats a nice camera how many mega pixels is it?" he asked {D200 with 18-200} "Err about ten" I replied. "Oh I have a @£$@£%@£ {cheapo P&S} and its 12 mega pixels you would have thought something that big would be better than mine" he replied. "YES I SUPPOSE" I said. "Anyway £@$@£$ mobile phone is about six mega pixels and I'm getting that so it will be nearly as good, I am sure Nokia will get to 10mp soon then you wont need to carry a big camera" he replied. "YES that will be really good that" came my response...... :lol:
Click to expand...

Why weren't you just straight up with him and call him a twot, and explain exactly why, instead of fannying about? :lol:
 
Nifkin said:
Why weren't you just straight up with him and call him a twot, and explain exactly why, instead of fannying about? :lol:
Click to expand...

He was the new partner of my god child's mum......

I think her photography education needs to be left in her god father's hands :)
 
I went down the Nikon route because I just loved the AFS105mm f2.8 macro lens and the feel of the D200. Prior to that Mrs_C had a Canon EOS 300V and I had an IXUS 500. It was a close call but I would still buy another IXUS I really did like it before it died......
 
mastertrinity said:
yeah of course but thats because punters think the same as the canon brand as they do with megapixels, as long as its canon branded and it has a billion megapixels punters think there pro's:p
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting Canon EOS owners don't consider anything beyond branding? Wow. I've come across plenty of Canon vs Nikon debates before, but that's some conceit, phew! :eek:;)
 
fracster said:
Yep, somebody was telling me that thier P&S had more megapixels than "Your big flash camera", I told them I was very pleased for them.....:)
Click to expand...

I've had that before with my friend commenting on how her phone had more megapickles than my D90. Soon shut her up when she tried to take a picture of Loch Lomond at night and got nothing but a black screen while I got a nicely exposed image.
 
Nifkin said:
Not really in the same way mega-pixelage is. The average punter hasn't got a clue about ISO; they will just assume that if their P&S has 15MP it must be good, and all other functions will be up to scratch. As we know, more mega-pixels does not a great image make. However, high ISO performance is certainly a selling point for enthusiasts, like fps and AF ability are, because better ISO perfomance means unequivocal gains, but it's meaningless for the people at the thin end of the marketer's wedge ;)
Click to expand...


No, but the point being that nowadays ISO is being pushed as the megapixels of "people in the know". The problem is that just because manufacturers are making higher ISO cameras doesn't actually mean those higher ISOs are any good (just like MP), the box says ISO12400 so that must be good right?
 
I think there are a lot of Canon users who'd consider jumping ship if they didn't have such an investment in glass already. But it's always swings and roundabouts and I'm sure that whilst Nikon have the better bodies at the moment it'll come back the other way soon enough.
 
Nifkin said:
You actually use the built in flash??!:gag:

Only pulling your leg, woof :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Actually not very often but sometimes it comes in handy when you've only gone out with the walkabout lens
i.e.
118219646.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top