70D and 7D mk ll

[klindup]

I am reading rumours about two new models namely the 70D that will a higher spec than the 60D and a new 7D that will be full frame.  Is this substance or unfounded rumour?

[Bob Atkins]

Nobody can say for use, but I'd guess at unfounded rumor if it suggests they are about to appear. I'm 100% certain that a 70D and EOS 7D MkII are planned and are probably in development at the moment. The names may not be right, but I'm sure updated versions of both the 60D and 7D have been planned for a while. I've no idea when they will appear though.

A full frame 7D is just not on. You have the 6D at the low end of FF and the 5D MkIII and 1D X at the high end. There's no room in between, plus Canon need a premium APS-C DSLR and the 7D (series) is it. So chances of a "Full frame 7D" are essentially zero.

I'd expect to see the T4i sensor (or something like it) in the 70D at least (with phase detection "helpers" built in for better AF during video). Usual tweaks to the AF system. Digic 5+ processor with HDR and multiple exposure capability. It's possible they might include some of the features of the built in Wi-Fi and/or GPS from the 6D too.

Photokina is half way through (it runs from Sept 18-23 2012) and if Canon was going to make an announcement soon, odds are they'd do it there.

There is PhotoPlus Expo in NYC in late October. It's rare that anything new appears there for the first time, though it has happened in the past. The 1D X was announced about 10 days before last year's show.

[whizkid]

This is painful to say but unless Canon can ramp it up (think sensors) it doesn't matter what they bring out.  Sony made sensors have put Nikon ahead enough to justify some better Canon R&D. Canon now has to play catch-up and I'm not sure they can do that enough to get back on top. It's not that they make bad cameras because they make fine ones but additions like built-in wi-fi (6D) are not the answer. Stepping up performance and IQ is the path.

[Bob Atkins]

I'd agree that Nikon are now very competitive. Their sensor specs to seem better than Canon's in some respects. There's a question of whether you would ever take images in conditions that would lead to the Nikon sensor giving you a better image than the Canon sensor, but that's not how most people think. They want the "better" sensor, "just in case" they need something like expanded dynamic range at low ISO settings. I don't think pixel count is an issue, at least not between cameras in the 20-24MP range, though the 36MP sensor in the D800 breaks new ground

I don't know how the AF system of the 6D and D600 will compare. That's certainly another question. Will the Nikon system with a lot more AF zones, a lot more cross sensors and AF to f8 be as good as the Canon sensor with AF down to -3EV but only one cross sensor (in the center) and AF to only f5.6? The answer is that it probably depends on what you are trying to focus on and what lens you're using to do it.

Would you prefer a built in flash which can control external wireless slaves or Wi-Fi and GPS built into the camera? Again it probably depends on the photographer and what and how they are shooting.

However you look at it though, competition between Canon and Nikon is strong these days and Sony is in there too if you want a different slant on things with their "fixed mirror" cameras, excellent sensors, good AF during video shooting and electronic viewfinders.

Whether any of this technology leads to better images is, of course, another question. Are we photographers or technographers? Are all the bells and whistles more of a distraction than a help?

[klindup]

Picking up on Bob's last point I do wonder some times if the technology is becoming more important than the image.  I learned my photography using film and a Pentax SV (42mm screw thread lens).  I still use it and I get good results.  I only used film with speeds of 125 or 400 ISO(ASA in those days) although I sometimes uprated it to 1600 by making changes to the developers and the development times.  I never had autofocus and exposure was always manual.  If we go back to Ansel Adams and other great photographers it was what was behind the camera rather than what was in it that made the difference.  I can't help thinking that many people today buy the latest camera and let it do all the work and never learn to become photographers.  I think a lot of the technology is a solution in search of a problem and is driven by the need to make exisiting cameras obsolete

Assuming that sensors have reached parity with film then further developments are not so necessary.  As for fixed mirrors or electronic viewfinders, I have to ask why?  My Rolleiflex (twin lens reflex, 12 exposures on a role of film) uses a ground glass screen for focussing and it is great to use and i get great images.  What does seem important to me is who has the best glass and I have no idea who is tops in this respect.  That said I do like the quality of the video that my wife's 600D gives and so I am planning to add a 7D  to my 40D.

[Bob Atkins]

I don't think there is any particular lens maker who makes all the best glass. Compared to any 30 year old lens, today's lenses (of a similiar type and cost) are all excellent.

Again I think we're at or approaching a point where bench tested lens performance isn't an issue. Yes, you can get slightly lower CA and slightly higher sharpness in the corners by spending an extra $1000, but who prints big enough to see the difference and looks that closely at the corners of their images?

What I'd like to see would be a really small camera with simple controls (maybe even a speed dial, an ISO dial and an aperture ring!), a large sensor and small lens with a decent zoom range. At the moment the Canon G1 X probably comes closest to this goal (and I'm in the middle of reviewing it at the moment), but I'm certain that someone could do even better.

I'd like to see a digital camera that shoots great images that I can put in my pocket and which doesn't get in my way when I want to take a quick shot. And at a reasonable price. Something like the new Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1, but not costing $2800 and not with a 35/2 prime and no option to change it. Some of the MILC cameras (with EVF) come close, but the lenses are still pretty big so the cameras still don't fit in a pocket and many of them insist on pushing buttons and scrolling through menus to set the camera parameters.

The G12 I reviewed recently http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_powershot_g12_review.html is currently my "favorite" camera. There's a new Powershot G15 out which I'll be previewing soon with a 28-140/1.8-2.8 lens and it's $500. If I hadn't recently bought the G12, I'd be tempted!

[whizkid]

A quick look to DXO's sensor ratings gives you an idea of the sensor lead Sony has fathered for Nikon, Pentax and itself. I have a Canon 7D and the sensor rating is 66, that's  the same as my pocketable Sony RX100.  The RX100 is reported by NY Times tech writer David Pogue as being the best  pocketable camera ever made and I agree. I  was using a Canon S95 (a form it heavily copied) and it did well  but the RX100 just smokes it. If I'm not mistaken the G12 and the S95 share a lot (same sensor and digic 4 processor). Now Sony has formed some kind of relationship with Hasselblad (official camera on the moon people). Canon should take a hard look at what Sony is up to  and where it wants to be in 5-6 years. Remain #1 or slip to 3rd.

[Bob Atkins]

It's the size of the SX100 sensor as much as any sensor design that is responsible for its image quality. It uses the same size sensor as the Nikon 1 series camera. It has about 3x the area as the S95 (and S100/G11/G12/G15) sensor. However the G1 X sensor has about 2.5x the area of the SX100 sensor, so it would be interesting to see how those two compare!

However there is no denying that Sony sensors are very good.

[whizkid]

It is true the Sony RX100 currently has a larger sensor than anything it's size but that is not the totality of it's strength. It has rapid autofocus and imparts a DSLR like experience to the user. I'm simply awed by it and that was true the first time I used Canon's S95 which offered great WB , wysiwyg viewfinder and easily adjustable controls. I'm not sure whether Canon can take on an 800 lb gorilla like Sony but they will have to if they want to be more than just a player.

[Bob Atkins]

Well, there seem to be rumors of a 45MP DSLR to be displayed at the PhotoPlus show in NYC next month. Don't know how true they are and if such a camera would be a "prototype" in much the same way as the 200-400/4L IS 1.4X is (i.e. it's existed for several years but hasn't come to market yet). It will be interesting to see if anything shows up. Last year the EOS 1D X showed up there.

I'd agree though that Canon recently have been giving us "more of the same" and cameras like the EOS M don't bring anything new to the game. It's been a while since Canon came up with anything truly new that nobody else has. It would be nice if their engineers have been quietly working on something that will shake things up a bit.

I haven't ever handled an RX100. Sounds like an interesting camera.

[whizkid]

Last time Canon had a  show stopper was the 5DMk II of 2008 . Turns out it became a videographer's camera. Remember "Reverie" the video clip and it was also used to record an entire episode of "House". That kind of attention I'm sure pleased Canon even though it didn't get "Camera of The Year" award and IMO it should have. No doubt Canon can excite and a 45 mp camera should generate some bragging rights if it ranks well with DXO. Canon should also not hold back on features that Nikon so freely provides.

[bmpress]

In addition, I saw that Sony just purchased ten or fifteen percent of Olympus. A complete takeover is probably on the horizon. Sony is coming on strong and has the potential to upset the camera hierarchy.

[whizkid]

I agree with the last poster. Sony was a sensor provider to Minolta and we see where Minolta's camera sector ended up.

[Glenn NK]

I agree with the last poster. Sony was a sensor provider to Minolta and we see where Minolta's camera sector ended up.

Where did Minolta's camera sector end up?

Glenn

[Bob Atkins]

They ended up being Sony. Sony bought the Minolta camera division (actually the Kinoca-Minolta camera division at that time)

Olympus and Sony have already announced a joint project on compact camera development.

In the case of Konica-Minolta, Sony at that time hadn't really gotten into DSLRs, so there was no conflict. On the other hand I suppose if Sony took a controlling interest in Olympus, or absorbed it completely, the fate of the 4/3 system and the Olympus lens mount might be in question.