Just got some information on 10D replacement... and some new lenses.

Ill be the first to say....April Fools Day is in April not July.

The next pixel fix is on the horizon, buffer me pixels laddie.

<<I just went to a camera shop to buy a PowerShot S50 for my wife.>>

How much did they give you for her?

Now why would they come out with an 8.3mp, 5fps, bigger buffer, 10d replacement? If they did that it would compete with the Mark II's sales and chew into them. It would obviously be considerably more expensive as well. I doubt that was true. Just my .02 cents though who knows!

Canon don't usually give out their trade secrets to a bunch of dealers months before products are officially announced, at least not here in the US. Maybe it's different in Europe, though I doubt it.

I'll leave this rumor around for a day or so in case anyone can add anything concrete, but I doubt that will happen.

I expect we'll see the rumor mill start to churn quite vigorously as Photokina approaches (it opens on Sept 28th this year).

Maybe your dealer was surfing the net and found this: http://koti.mbnet.fi/studiox/eos/eos.htm

I want me a 20-50/1.8 IS.

That would make me completely happy.

That looks like a photoshop job to me ;).

if either of those lenses actually come out and are cheap like the 18-55, I will be buying and using Bob's hacksaw guide :)

I would be shocked to see a 18-85 IS zoom especially with the EF-S mount. I am not sure many ppl need IS on that small of a lens.

the 10-22 would make sense to battle the sigma 12-24 but again why in EF-S mount when EF-S bodies can take EF lenses. I hope if this does come out, that it is a constant aperture lens.

I'd be very surprised if the 10D replacement comes with an EF-S mount.

Anyway, why do they need to replace the 10D - AFAIK there's nothing wrong with it. Remember, this time last year, everyone was thinking there'd be a digital EOS3 and Canon brought out the 300D instead - surely, if they're bringing out a new digital body it'd be more likely to be between the Id mark II and the 10D.

I guess we'll find out in September - or we won't.

If this is the 8.3 MP, then wouldn't it be a 1.3x crop? Or I guess it could be a new 8.x MP chip of same size as current 6MP sensor... If so, how much noise will creep in due to more densely packed pixels? The lenses look like they could be good; it does seem like Canon needs to offer such lenses, although I still have mixed feelings about the bifurcation of the EOS system...

I hope IS true, then I'll not be tempted to upgrade from my 10D.

"..the 10-22 would make sense to battle the sigma 12-24 but again why in EF-S mount when EF-S bodies can take EF lenses..."

Cuz I'm sure it's pretty tough to get a 10mm to cover full frame (well that is).

All of this is just wild speculation, but I'll make a technical point.

EFS lenses get closer to the film plane because the 1.6x sensor is small, and this allows the use of a small reflex mirror, which in turn allows the lens to stick further into the camera body.

It's quite likely that you couldn't mount an EFS lens on a camera with a 1.3x sensor, because the larger reflex mirror would hit the back of the lens.

So IF canon did make the 10D replacement with a 1.3x sensor, it would them mean the only EFS capable camera would be the 300D, which could seriously limit their market for EFS lenses.

So the most logical move would be to leave the 300D alone (or maybe give it a firmware tweak) and bring in a 10D upgrade with a 1.6x sensor. 8MP would be a very good marketing move, even though it's only a 10% increase in linear resolution. I don't think it's technically significant or necessary, but it would sell more cameras. It means developing a new sensor, but then it could also be used in the 300D upgrade which is no doubt in the works for 2005.

Bringing out a new EFS compatible 10D replacement along with several new EFS lenses would also be a smart move, since it would provide an incentive for 10D users to upgrade in order to use the lenses, even if the improvements in the camera itself weren't enough to get users to fork out another $1500!

If this rumor-oid is true, I guess it means that the fabled "3D" aka 1DmkII lite with the 8.3 MP 1.3 crop sensor will be pushed out to 2005, if we ever see it at all.

I have a feeling that with its very low noise, mag construction etc. the current 10D may become a sort of cult classic.

Anyone got a 200 1.8L for sale?

No, it will be the same camera but released with minor upgrades: E-TTL II, ECF and now made in Taiwan. Oh, street price of $999.

I doubt Canon would introduce an upgraded 10D at $999. They'd kill the sales of the 300D. More likely a significant upgrade and a price in the $1200-$1500 range.

The way I see it is this. The factories that trun out the sensors can't produce enougth at the moment. Canon, Nikon et all, can only just about keep up with demand. Canon will be watching sales of the D70 very closely, it's a stunning camera, those looking for a digital SLR without already having a SLR system will be drawn to the D70.

Basically with sales holding up, the factories running flat, Canon doesn't need to do anything at the moment.

As sales beging to slow over the next 12-24 months and with the D70 being the star of the buget digital SLRs, the D300 may get a slight upgrade and a price reduction. With luck the D10 will get the 8mpixel 1.3 crop sensor with reduced processing power when compared to the D1(2) and may retail at about double the D300 price.

Anyway who knows, why did I just bother to post this nonsense?

There are several threads in the 10D forum at dpreview about this. The only one that has real credibility was started by Paul Pope, who has a track record of inside information on other cameras. All he was able to say is that the 10D replacement has gone into production, with no details as to its specifications. Announcement is supposed to be Sept, with availability Oct/Nov,according to Paul. The 3000D also referred to in the link Bob gave also seems credible - and has been rumoured in Chasseur D'Images as coming in at about 600 Euros (not clear if this includes a lens, but it will include VAT, so $499). It is noticeable in the UK that prices for both 10D and 300D have been dropping, and although the 300D may not explicitly be replaced at this point, it seems as though the Nikon D70 may have forced Canon's hand on pricing and model replacement. Nikon are rumoured (reported in Chasseur d'Images) to have both a better (D90) and a cheaper (D50) DSLR in the wings, probably not for release until next year's PMA though.

Another rumour prices the 20D with 18-55 EF-S kit lens at $1599.99 (this from a store employee browsing the store's database) - make of that what you will so far as specifications are concerned.

Gareth: I'm with you. Why, I too wonder, did I bother?

To paraphrase Theodore Sturgeon in Amok Time -- when it comes to information about new Canon products -- "having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."

On a more factual note: Season Series One of the orginal Star Trek comes out on August 31. (North America) Now there is at least one fact in this thread.

It doesn;t make sence for Canon to come out with many more EF-S lenses since they do not have one standard senser size for their digital cameras. If they were to come out with such a lens it would only be a kit lens like on the 300D.

But if they stick with the 1.6x sensor as "standard" on their consumer DSLRs (which I strongly suspect thay will do), they can use the EFS mount and sell consumers EFS lenses. Hence sticking with 1.6x for any 10D replacement. They can then use the 1.3x sensor on their mid range models and the 1x sensor on the "top of the line" models. No need for EFS on a 1x camera, plus if you're paying $8000 for the body you're probably not going to be using a $100 plastic lens anyway. Ditto for the mid range.

Few days ago I bought my second 10D for 1150 plus 10 bucks shipping, brand new, US warranty from the net dealer. It came in two days with no hassle or offers to buy extras with it. 4 months ago first one cost me 1500. Big price drop in just a few months.

Who cares a D20 at 1.6X and 8Mp doesn't buy a thing over the current 10D, infact the current 10D will have better noise performance.

I want a 1.3X, 6Mp, with 45 point focus system.

Gerry

Ever notice there seems to be more interest in the next new digital camera than interest in actually taking photographs? I think its the geek/photo thing rearing its ugly head, its not the image its the pixels.

Gary, I brought that up once before and had my head ripped off. Since this is a hardware forum, I was told "it's all about the gear." Considering you'll find people out there making money with their D30's and D60's, ya gotta wonder.

There was a time not long ago that "pixellated" (sp?) meant crazy....

Okay, still OT, according to a dictionary, "pixilated" means either full of fun and high spirits, or impish and playful, or very drunk. Hmmm.

A DSLR for $600? Where do I sign?!?

Ever notice that this is the "CANON EOS FORUM" not the "Taking Pictures Forum"? On every one of these forums there are always one or two posturing narcissists who make the same almost-verbatim castigation of everyone else gathered on forums with the name of a *gear brand* clearly spelled out in the title, evidently out of some perverse need to be condescending.

Far out brother, a '60s stream of consciousness. You're showing your age. Peace!

Some interesting new toys if they do indeed arrive.
Bob has some sensible points:
a) It's very likely won't release a cheap 10D replacement-more likely they'll imrove it and keep the same price.It's obvious now that DSLR prices are getting close to as low as they can go
b)They might indeed settle on 1.6 crop for all future amatuer models.It will be interesting to see where they go with that one!

BTW - the camera shown in the link posted by Bob not only is a terrible Photoshop manipulation but, whoever did it left the 50 Mk*I* on the camera...

" It's very likely won't release a cheap 10D replacement-more likely they'll imrove it and keep the same price.It's obvious now that DSLR prices are getting close to as low as they can go "

DSLR's as cheap as they can go? What nonsense. Remember the PC boom od the late 90's early 00's (well that's when it happened in the UK). Once a sizeable proportion of the population had a PC, not that many people were interested in upgrading to the lasted billion hz, flat screened dvd durning wonder. They had a PC, they could send e-mail, surf the web, do word processing, spread sheets, burn CD's, play games and fiddle with photos etc. For many their year 2000 PC did what they needed it to do and still does. Result, sudden plunge in demand, followed by a plunge in prices. The same thing will happen with digital cameras. Will those masses who have spent 200-500 pounds on a digital camera be in a hurry to replace it in the next 24-48 mnths, I don't think so. Supply and demand will drive prices.

Gosh I paid 250 pounds for my first SCSI CD burner. Now I can buy a DVD burner for 40 quid and I don't even need a SCSI card for it.

<<Puppy Face , jul 25, 2004; 01:52 a.m. Far out brother, a '60s stream of consciousness. You're showing your age. Peace!>>

An 80's stream of unconsciousness, you're showing your age as well. Peace on you too.

Well I submitted a response and forgot to confirm it. Too ticked off to retype, I'll just say what I said in bullet form At DPreview.com - reliable source says 10 replacement in production, will be anounced in Sept, and ship october/november - a month ago, another source of unknown reliability said he head from director at Canon Inc Panama the same info, plus it will have 1D Mk II sensor, option for 5 fps, 20JPEG buffer, 1/6000 max shutter, and $2200 USD price tag.

Like Gareth Harper, I think it's nonsense that dSLR prices have bottomed out.

The intrinsic value of the materials in any electronic product are next to nothing: the manufacturing costs are driven by investments in R&D and production facilities, and the price is sustained only by demand. So long as demand is sufficient to maintain prices profitably above development and manufacturing costs, the devices will continue to be produced. As manufacturers amortize their R&D costs, improve production yields and drive down their cost per unit, they can continue to reduce prices to stimulate additional demand.

The sub-full frame digital sensors will exist only as long as the cost to manufacture full-frame sensors remains high; again, this is a manufacturing yield issue, not a matter of instrinsic cost of materials. Assuming that production yields will increase and fabrication costs will decline over time (and this is a very reasonable assumption), the 1.3x and 1.6x sensors will eventually vanish from future dSLR models.

reliable source says 10 replacement in production, will be anounced in Sept... plus it will have 1D Mk II sensor, option for 5 fps, 20JPEG buffer, 1/6000 max shutter, and $2200 USD price tag.

I think this is nonesense. If Canon drop the 10D, they aren't going to replace it with a $2200 body. That would leave the $1500 market wide open for Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and whoever else wants to join in the game.

It's possible Canon WILL replace the 10D with something in the $1300-$1500 price range AND also bring out something in the $2000-$2500 range of course.

If I were Canon I'd try to bring out the following:

• A 300D with a firmware upgrade (costs nothing) and lower price.
• A 10D with a firmware and hardware upgrade at around $1300.
• An "EOS-3D" with an 8MP 1.3x sensor at around $2500.

True apologies to all (especially Bob) but I can't resist . . .

"Please note that chat threads and speculative posts about what Canon might or might not be planning, . . . given a short life . . . and nobody who knows what Canon are planning will post that information in a public forum. Most of the information posted in such threads will be wrong and misleading anyway!"

Ha!

Jon, what the "full frame believers" fail to realise is that with technology making higher yields and and bigger sensors possible, the quality of smaller sensors will increase to. There was medium format before 35mm and is still miles ahead in image quality. So why is 35mm so popular? Size, weight and price! A smaller sensor needs only a smaller lens, which is cheaper. The same will probably prove true for digital. And considering that they still could not put a full frame sensor in their latest $3500 pro camera, I doubt full frame at 10D prices will be here any time soon. And even when it arrives, it won't make the 24-70/2.8 any cheaper or less of a back breaker.

Even if the "news" announced here is true, it's too little too late. I have sold all my Canon gear and bought into Olympus' E-1 system - two affordable, fast and high quality lenses is all you need to cover a 28-400mm equivalent range. A 10D with EF-S would be great, but by the sounds of it, the "announced" lenses will be of the not-sharp-until-stopped-down-to-F8 consumer variety.

Keith - how do you know this thread doesn't have a short life? It's only been here 24hrs...

"Even if the "news" announced here is true, it's too little too late. I have sold all my Canon gear and bought into Olympus' E-1 system - two affordable, fast and high quality lenses is all you need to cover a 28-400mm equivalent range. A 10D with EF-S would be great, but by the sounds of it, the "announced" lenses will be of the not-sharp-until-stopped-down-to-F8 consumer variety."

Sheesh, that's a 2.0x cropping factor in a body the same size as a 10D! What was Olympus thinking?

I wasn't comparing bodies, Pup. The 10D in many ways is clearly a superior body. Too bad Canon doesn't have lenses to match that ordinary people can afford or want to lug around... (and don't mind eternaly swapping lenses!)

"What the 'full frame believers' fail to realise is that with technology making higher yields and and [sic] bigger sensors possible, the quality of smaller sensors will increase to [sic]."

Bas: I agree, but so what? Virtually everyone that owns a dRebel or 10D who's weighed in on the subject here would like to have a larger sensor, so that their wide-angle lenses will actually yield wide-angle images.

And while it's true that small-sensor dSLRs mated to telephoto lenses yield fields of view equivalent to full-frame bodies mated to significantly longer lenses, you don't see anyone here clamoring for an even *smaller* sensor, do you?

Making the medium format vs 35mm is creative, but irrelevant. No one's mating medium format lenses to their 35mm bodies. We're trying to stay "in-system" here, and in the land of the Canon EOS system, nearly everyone I've read wants a full-frame sensor!

Many 35mm SLR photographers -- particularly those accustomed to film -- want their lenses to yield the same field of view, DOF, etc., regardless to which body they mate them.

Your size, weight and price comparisons between 35mm and MF are also specious; again, since we're staying "in system." And the comment about the price and size of the 24-70 f/2.8L couldn't be less germane.

Oh, wait a minute: I see you've sold all your Canon gear and bought into Olympus' E-1 system. I now understand your bias -- you're trying to rationalize your risky photographic investment, hoping like hell that the Four Thirds system survives.

So what are you doing in this EOS forum, anyway?

I really doubt that either sensor size or price (or pixel count, for that matter) are anywhere close to stabilized in the dSLR market. With digital, the upgrade/price curve that we've long associated with computers has now found its way into photography, which to me is both exciting and annoying. In one sense it's fun, because better and better things are always coming along for less and less, but it's also frustrating because it means that nothing you buy will hold a shred of resale value, and for those people who always want to have relatively current technology, it means constant upgrading.

Considering that the closest digital EOS match I can find to my Contax Aria and Contax 50/1.4 combo ($925 new - I paid $500 used) is $1920 for a 300D and 35/1.4L, dSLR still has a ways to fall on price/performance before we can say that it's filled the market space film now occupies for amateurs. Note that I would be making several serious personal compromises in the 300D system that I'm not yet prepared to make, either (e.g. no manual focus screens), but I'll ignore that for this comparison, in light of all the digital benefits that we all know about (e.g. no scanning, instant feedback, material costs, etc). Yes, I'm comparing a manual focus film system to an auto-focus digital system, but please save your breath, because that's the point.

I wonder if there will ever be a serious digital SLR offering for those of us who still prefer manual focusing - maybe in several years, when digital is the norm, but maybe manual focus will get lost altogether, and we'll be left with LEDs as manual focus aids, and focus rings on lens that are short and light enough for fast AF, but feel horrible for manual focusing.

I do hope that Canon and the other vendors don't standardize on different sensor sizes for different target markets in the dSLR lines. The thing I hate about Nikon and Canon's film offerings is that (for example), I have to spend $1000 on a body before I can get a focus screen I like, but the nice thing about them is that you can use the same glass across their product lines. If they standardize on 1.6x for consumers and 1.3x or 1x for "prosumer" or pro, then the lens lines will also diverge, which I don't think is best for the consumer population as a whole.

As an aside (and hopefully not too off-topic), does anyone know why it's so difficult/expensive to make a full-frame sensor? It seems that in general, when it comes to semiconductors, SMALLER is harder/pricier, while bigger is usually easier/cheaper. Intuitively, it would seem that putting the same number of pixels onto a bigger sensor would be easier and cheaper. Does anyone know why this isn't the case?

If you're waiting for a totally manual focus digital SLR I hope you're not holding your breath. It will never happen. Best you can do is mount Nikon MF lenses on a Nikon AF DSLR.

Sure DSLRs cost more, but if you actually do any photography, once you've made your equipment "investment" there's no film to buy and get processed. I've now shot 3000 exposures in my 10D. That's 83 rolls of film (36exp). I'd say typical film and processing costs (including mailing expenses etc.) might be $10/roll, so that's $830 I haven't spent on film. You can say you need memory cards etc., but even so I have them now, so I don't have to buy them again, and they cost me a LOT less than $830 anyway.

Bigger is more difficult when it comes to sensor chips because yield goes down as size increases. 24mm x 36mm is a HUGE chip and right now it's not easy to fabricate in high yield. One day it will be, but not today.

I think it would be fair to add the cost of making prints or producing "slide shows" on the wall when one compares digital with film. Otherwise, it sounds like the computer screen is the only output device which will ever be used. :)

Bob -

Thanks for the explanation about sensor sizes. I guess that makes sense, if you're talking about sensor per wafer yield, as opposed to defect count. If we're talking CMOS, I don't see why you'd get appreciably more defects per wafer for larger image sensors, given a fixed pixel count(in fact, I'd imagine you'd get fewer), but yes, of course you'll get fewer chips from a given wafer, as the chips get larger, and a given defect means you'll throw away more silicon.

If that is what is driving the price difference, though, then I'm not sure how rapidly the price on larger sensors will fall. I'd guess not very, since by now we must be at the shallower end of the curve as far as silicon handling and doping is concerned. The major advancements in CMOS fab have seemed to revolve around lithography and masking improvements resulting in smaller processes - which I don't think will help us get larger image sensors. What do you see as the trend that will drive down the price of larger image sensors? Do you think we'll make some advancements in how we get from unprocessed silicon to wafers ready for lithography? Or, do you think it's just a simple demand problem?

As to manual focus dSLRs - I'd have hoped it was clear from my post that I'm not holding my breath by any means - I guess it wasn't.

Also, yes, I mentioned material costs. Note though, that I also said "amateur." $10 / roll seems about right, but I'd still have to shoot between 100 and 150 rolls, in this (highly personal and unscientific) comparison, depending on the new/used variable, which equates to a 2-3 year ROI, at the rate I currently shoot. I hope this isn't coming off like a film vs. digital debate; it isn't - all I meant to say is that I still see a big gap in the amateur SLR market between film and digital, and I personally expect to see that gap close quickly - evidence that there should still be major movements to come for dSLR on the price/performance curve.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Bob Atkins, there will be a totally manual focus digital camera shortly. Leica is making a digital back for the R9 and it will be manual focus only. Also, like I said I don't know about the reliability of the 10D replacement's specs, but a reliable source says there will be some sort of 10D replacement in september. Richard

My theory on why everybody wants full frame is one of these: 1) Because when DSLRs first came out nobody realised that smaller lenses would be possible and they would stop using film completely anyway, taking away the need for one size of lenses that fits all. Now they are just stuck in that frame of mind. And 2) They just _need_ that 3.06Ghz Hyper Threading P4 because a 2.8 would be WAAAAAY too slow to edit their holiday snaps. (what the original owner of this site would call "dickless yuppie syndrome")

To put things into perspective, lets go shopping. In the Canon world, if I were to buy a 10D, I would want the 17-40/4, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/4 and TC 1.4x. This would set me back GBP3487 and weigh 3165 grams.

My E-1 + 14-54/2.8-3.5 + 50-200/2.8-3.5 cost me only GBP2000 and weighs 2165 grams.

So I've saved almost 1500 pounds and taken off over a third in weight, having to lug a Kilo less gear around! At the same time I also only have to carry one lens for a day's holiday shooting and be able to do 90% of what I want.

All those bonusses for a trivial drop in sensor quality and a not very great (but still very usable) histogram.

Like I said before: Canon bodies and lenses are great, it's just their system is lacking. I hope, and predict Canon will come to their senses at some point and I was they had already done so so I could stay with them. But I don't feel like buying lenses specificaly now and keep changing them until Canon finaly realise what it exactly is they want. Wouldn't that be a risky investment too?

Say all you want about the four thirds system, but I bet Olympus will stick with it and bring out a couple of more bodies in the next few years. Even if they drop it then, it will probably have more than than enough momentum to keep me entertained for the next, say, 10 years. And after that long a write off period, I have no problems switching systems again, if needed.

And as for being on the Canon EOS forum, blame Brian. His crappy software isn't linked in directly into eBay to detect what equipment I have sold and automaticaly take the right forums out of the unified view...

Bas, you have choosen Olympus and made the switch. Be happy with it and don't try to justify your purchase to EOS users!

The Canon EOS system is a system that will last for many years to come. So when investing in Canon lenses now, that is an investment in the future. The fact that Canon won't be changing to some other system is just great to know and a great relief. And besides, there is more to the Canon EOS system then just lenses.

About the upcoming new models. Yes, the 10D is up for at least a facelift. Bringing out new cameras is about as much (maybe even more) about marketing (competition with Nikon) as it is about technique.

So I do expect there will also be a EOS-1Ds Mk.II as there now finally is some competition from the EOS-mount Kodak.

Hans, I am not trying to justify anything. Why would I? Just joining in on the "should Canon do more with EF-S" discussion, using the E-1 system as an example how good an idea it really is. My point is that canon HAS changed to a different system. The 24-70 and 70-200 was a very usefull combo in the 35mm world as with two lenses, it covered probably 90% of 90% of photographers' needs. Now you need to add more lenses, carry more around and switch lenses more often.

Canon's primes still do what they do best, be sharp and fast and it's easy enough to use a 35/1.8 instead of a 50/1.4 or the 85mm as portrait lens instead of your 100mm. But when it comes to zoom, the system needs fixing.

There are two ways to do it: do nothing and wait for full frame sensors to become somewhat affordable but keep the system as expensive as it ever was. This will take a couple of years. Or fix it this year by making an EF-S 17-70/2.8 L lens. That's all the system needs. It's only a 4 time zoom factor, it should be possible and if not, make it 2.8-3.5 or something. But that won't happen, as that would be a "pro" lens and pro Canon DSLRs have a 1.3 crop factor that won't work with EF-S.

So Canon is stuck between a rock and a hard place they won't find a way out of so easily.

There were/are some 35mm rangefinder style cameras with interchangeable lenses -- the Konica Hexar 35 comes to mind as a recent example. These systems could have compact fast lenses that support a full 35mm frame because they did not have to clear the distance of an interposing mirror. Imho a compact interchangeable lens digital camera will become interesting when the EVF and LCD become workable enough (resolution, contrast, dynamic range) to dispense with the interposing mirror. Design the lens locking system from the ground up and use an inerlocking lens exhange system that closes off the body chamber before opening up to release the lens, sort of an airlock system. Use one of the current 1.6-crop sensors.

As an interested observer, my impression is that the E-1 and 4/3 system is not a radical enough departure from current 35mm systems to make it worthwhile, at least for me. (But to the E-1 user who posted: I'm glad you're enjoying yours!)

If I were Canon I'd try to bring out the following:

A 300D with a firmware upgrade (costs nothing) and lower price. A 10D with a firmware and hardware upgrade at around $1300. An "EOS-3D" with an 8MP 1.3x sensor at around $2500.

Makes sense. The obvious hardware upgrades are probably 8mp and E-TTL2. 8mp is critical to get an edge over Nikon *and* all the 8mp P&S cameras.

As for price, they are coming down. I am actually surprised it has taken this long.

The one thing I hope for (and few besides Jay talk about) is improved dynamic range relative to the current crop of cameras.

>>An "EOS-3D" with an 8MP 1.3x sensor at around $2500.<<

I don't know about that - it might put the MKII in peril... :)

I think most industries learned the lesson of DAT machines: they were supposed to be a consumer thing instead they replaced (at a mere avg of $1,500.00) mastering decks (costing several 10s of thousands of dollars) in every recording studio in the world and became the standard for CD masters, almost overnight. They are still used in some studios today.

You could be right. Another question is what could you REMOVE from the 1D markII that could save you $2000 and so allow a 1.3x 8MP DSLR sell for $2500? Firmware costs very little and buffer memory is quite cheap, so messing with them isn't going to save you much. It's not clear how you could save much if, as I assume, much of the cost is tied up in the price of the sensor.

The presumption is that the sensor is very expensive . . .and that much of the cost is in the sensor. That may be a false presumption.

Canon has clearly indicated that the price of the 1D-II is a function of the cameras capability and presumed market value -> not actual production cost.

Consider the 10D and Drebel: Identical digital imaging technology but the 10D has a 67% higher cost. The $600 difference was clearly market driven, as the comparable Rebel and Elan film bodies are only $100 apart in price.

So, not knowing the true production cost of a 1D-II, it is not hard to imagine that a "function reduced" model could be successful (for Canon) at the $2500 price level.

Consider: if you remove the "high speed" capabilities (such as the second processor used to achieve fast AF capabilities) and produced a 3FPS camera with the 1D-II sensor and 45pt AF system, would that not be worth $2500 to many shooters?

***

But for my money, I would not invest in a 10D replacement unless I saw two things;

1) Improved dynamic range

2) ISO indication in the viewfinder.

I would agree that the pricing of the 1D Mark II -- and probably most dSLRs at this point -- is substantially more a function of value (and demand) than of production cost, although I still believe that the sensor represents the majority of the cost, both in terms of production yields and recovery of R&D investment.

Still, as you and Bob have exchanged, it is difficult to determine, presuming a new model targeted at $2.5K and featuring the 1DII's sensor, what other features would have to be removed or sufficiently diminished to deliver a body that's appealing to that segment of the market, while containing cannibalization into the 1DII's sales.

My minor contribution would be to remove the second memory card, which provides both speed and storage capacity benefits, as well as redundancy, depending how the user configures the system.

By the way, Jim: "But for my money, I would not invest in a 10D replacement unless I saw two things; 1) Improved dynamic range 2) ISO indication in the viewfinder."

You might, if you didn't already own a 10D or dRebel! I'd love to have both of these features, too; the second being clearly more easily / inexpensively implemented than the first.

John:

Oh! I agree. I own a 10D. For me, E-TTL2 and an 8mp sensor (even if 1.3 crop or full frame) would not be enough for me to upgrade.

I just spent a week in the Rockies with my 10D, 630, a friends Elan 7Ne and a slew of lenses. My biggest learnings were:

1) Darn easy to blowout a bright sky with a 10D. Any scene that included both the ground and a clear sky *required* either a) metering the sky directly or b)-1 EC. (scenes with dark skies, no sky, or all sky were best with zero EC)

2) Swapping ISO on the fly is easy. Often necessary. Remembering to swap back to ISO 100: not as easy. Having iso in the viewfinder as a cue is just as important as having EC in the viewfinder. I took too many shots at iso 400 that should have been iso 100. :(

I *personally* would like these two issues addressed in *my* next dSLR. Neither is really resolved in the 1D-II, even with the many features this camera does have.

***

But if I did not own a 10D, I would be eagerly be awaiting Photokina.

An 8mp sensor and the 45 pnt AF system would be key features to look for, and I would pay a premium for those features. If such features were not available in a new "mid tier" camera, then I would definately get a 10D (or its replacement) after photokina. I took over 800 digital pics and about 50 film images. I would never be able to (afford to) take 850 film images on a trip.

I reviewed all 800 digital images on my laptop while travelling home. I have not yet seen the film images. dSLR's are cool.

"dSLR's are cool."

DSLRs are *way* cool!

I saw the Canon EOS 20D today while assisting someone shooting a wedding. The photographer is sponsored by Canon (they use his shots for advertising). The camera looked just like the 10d except on the back panel where your right thumb sits is a cool joystick like toggle. The sensor is 8.3 MP, I don't know the crop. There was a 580ex Speedlight flash loaned to this gentleman as well which he said was more powerful than the 550ex. Also, he said they hit the market in two weeks. The consensus was that it wrote to the flash card as fast or faster than the Mark 2. RAW files popped up amazingly fast.

Did it have EF-S ?

All I know for sure is that a sales rep at my local camera store told me that they can no longer order any 10D. Production of 10D has been discontinued. We just have to wait for Canon's announcements at Photokina.

If I had a nickel for every time a 'local rep at a camera store' told me that a particular model camera had been 'discountinued', I would be rich.

It may be so, for all I know, but what I do know is that the 10D is selling like hotcakes, and a lot of stores have been on allocation for some time.

Much more likely that the rep was anxious to sell you anything, including putting you a list for a fictional 'next-generation' camera, than to let you walk out and find a 10D someplace else.

picture on Canon's site http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/ genhtml_photo/photokit_EOS20D.dcr.html

Which genius configured that web server! :)

Of note is to see the EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM mounted.

But hang on, 4-5.6!? Will Canon ever come out with a _real_ EF-S lens? The slowness doesn't inspire confidence and if this really is an 8MP camera, I wonder if the resolution of the sensor might be higher than that of it's standard lens...

Don't be surprised if these two new lenses have plastic mounts. . .

Should be announced on the 20th of August. Meanwhile, here is a legit ad for the camera - at $1,495. August 18th at 3:00 pm Arizona Time.

Oh you nay sayers. Shame.

http://www.pictureline.com/digital/dcameras/dcanon/eos20D.html

That's ESTIMATED price $1495. They aren't taking orders...

Hi Bob. Well, this guy ardered one already at this price.

"It is 1495.00 I just ordered mine at Kaimuki Camera in Hononlulu. HE had lots of details and said that he will have even more info tomorrow. He said that he was promised a delivery of less than 2 weeks."

Aleksandar, I just wanted to drop back by and say that I'm glad I didn't give you a hard time, call you a troll, or accuse you of making up rumors. If the new unofficial-official announcement is true, and I believe it may be, then there are a few folks who owe you an acknowledgment for having good "inside" information.

Or "lucky" inside information.

Back when iMacs were knew, I asked an Apple representative who worked for Apple Computer about the mezzanine slot. He said "I'm not allowed to say anything specific, but yes - it's there for a reason"

He didn't know squat. He just pretended to. Same thing happens all the time in the photo world - his source may have heard it from a Canon rep, but the Canon rep may have gotten his info from a website - and not Canon - and "luck" was it was correct.

I think (tin foil hat) however that Canon did some intentional leaks to try and slow down D70 sales. While that would also slow down 10D sales, the 10D sales slowdown will be 20D buyers - so Canon would win from the leaks.

The 10Ds were already in short supply, so anything that would slow demand for 10Ds (within reason) wouldn't have cut into 10D sales anyway. It was certainly a win-win situation for Canon, no matter how you view it.

Melissa, - thanks! It's been almost a month since I posted this 10D replacement info... At first I hesitated to post, knowing that I might get flamed, but my source was one of the official dealers and it was kind of fun to (maybe) be the first person to post more or less accurate inside information.

Michael, I don't think that EF-S 10-22mm, or EF-S 18(17)-85mm with IS could be lucky guesses, since there were no information/speculation on such lenses on any "predicting" web sites or forums that I'm aware of (especially for the EF-S 10-22)!

I hope that I helped some poor souls who agonized over decision to buy 10D now, or wait for upcoming replacement. I also hope 20D will be better camera for the same money. I don't plan to upgrade my 10D, unless there is a spectacular leap in image quality. I'll save money for the 1Ds...

The consensus here seems to be that it's not worth upgrading to the 20D from the 10D unless you have $ burning a hole in your pocket. I have the 10D predecessor, the D60, and I think I will upgrade from that, even though that upgrade seems not a huge leap. Anyone else in my boat?

Well, if I was in your boat, I would consider upgrading.

The D60 to 10D upgrade was much smaller than 10D to 20D.

Besides the obvious sensor upgrade, the D60 was severely critized for poor AF. The D60 AF problem was solved in the 10D. The 20D has a much improved AF system compared to the 10D including the long lusted for high precision center focus point.

Thanks, Jim, you talked me into it. But I confess I don't know what this means: "long lusted for high precision center focus point."

There are two big differences between the EOS3 45pt AF and the 10D 7 pt AF:

1) 45 small AF points vs 7 big AF points. Obvious, huh? The key thing here is that the 10D/300D Af points are actually much bigger than the engravings on the focus screen. You may place the focus point on the eye. . .but the camera may still focus on the eyebrow if the contrasts work out against you

2) 7 of the 45 AF points on the EOS3/EOS 1/EOS1D cameras are "high precision". When used with a F2.8 lens, they are much more accurate than standard AF sensors in the rest of the array and all the sensors in the low end bodies. (I believe the center AF point on the high end cameras are high precision with F4 lenses)

By adding a high precision sensor in the center spot of the 20D, (which acts in high precision mode with F2.8 or faster lenses), this should make for better portraits where accurate DOF control is essential. A number of people have been asking for the 45 pt AF system in the mythical 3D camera. By providing this sensor on the 20D, maybe some people on the fence will jump!

Hope this helps.

My question is whether the normal precision sensors actually give anyone a problem.

I don't recall anyone every saying "my f2.8 lens is useless on my Elan 7 because the AF just isn't accurate enough".

Given that people bitch and moan about anything they find wrong, the lack of complaints suggest it's not a big deal.

I can't hnestly say I ever saw any difference bettween AF accuracy on my EOS-3 (which has HP sensors) and my Elan II (which doesn't), even when using fast lenses like the 50/1.8 or the 80-200/2.8. AF speed was different, but the accuracy of the AF, once locked on the subject, didn't.

I also tested AF on the Elan II with fast lenses and found that even with manual focus bracketing I couldn't improve on the normal AF.

So while I think HP sensors are nice to have, for me, and based only on my experience and my shooting style, I haven't found them to be particularly an advantage.

AF at f8 would have been nice though...

"My question is whether the normal precision sensors actually give anyone a problem. I don't recall anyone every saying "my f2.8 lens is useless on my Elan 7 because the AF just isn't accurate enough"."

On this site, there are a number of reports of 300D's at least that are not as sharp as P&S's or just not sharp. Of course, some of these cases would be due to user error, others to manufacturing defects or variances in their copies. So while we could say that the general population doesn't really need HP sensors (because the general population doesn't generally even have the limited DoF that should make a difference) it is far from the case that everyone's happy with the current focusing performance of the 10D/300D.

As usual, what I'd say here is that if it's not a problem for you then great -- you should not be concerned about this. But it might actually be a big deal for me or someone else, and in this case, I think that there are many people who want better AF performance. While Bob might just have been remarking on HP vs. non-HP sensors, which clearly only matter to those using f/2.8 lenses or faster, my reply refers to the general problems, of which the HP sensors might be a useful partial solution.

That Canon has made such an effort seems to me to be a smart move in this direction, not mere marketing hype (for which I would fail to see the reasoning -- the market in general wouldn't give a hoot about 9 AF sensors vs. 7 AF sensors or HP AF sensors vs. um, LP AF sensors, unless they saw a problem that needs some attention.)

I personally am excited about this release, and am looking forward to seeing if there's an increase in the number of pictures that look sharp from this camera vs. the 300D as I track rather fast-moving kids, etc., whatever the technology used to achieve the improvements.

The problem with the DRebel is that is sometimes sees recomposing as movement and goes into AI mode, which could mean it focusses elsewhere. It's not good, but it's operator stupidity not to notice and correct it. Other than that, if I focus on someone's eye, that's what's sharp. And ofcourse the 33 series and 10D don't have that problem as you can leave them in single shot...

Here are a couple of remarks indicating that the 20D does focus better than the 10D, from Ron Galbraith's:

"Translated, this technical gobbledygook means that with f/5.6 or faster lenses, the fact that the centre AF sensor has twice as many vertically-oriented pixels for horizontal-line detection as the 10D should result in quicker and more precise autofocus with even consumer-grade, slower-aperture glass. In our brief experience thus far, this seems to be the case. In other words, the normal precision mode of the centre AF sensor is designed to offer better AF performance than the normal precision mode of the same sensor in the 10D.

With f/2.8 or faster lenses, the 20D's centre AF sensor still uses both sets of vertically-oriented pixel arrays, but switches from the inner horizontally-oriented pixel array pair to the more widely-spaced outer pair. This puts the centre AF sensor into high-precision mode, which Canon claims is 3x more precise than the 20D's normal precision mode. We're not sure what 3x more precise should feel like, but can attest to the fact that with both wide angle and telephoto lenses whose maximum aperture is f/2.8, the speed with which the 20D acquires focus using the centre AF sensor, even in dim light, is considerably quicker than the 10D (and gives the EOS-1D Mark II a run for its money also).

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6458-7153-7161

I can't hnestly say I ever saw any difference bettween AF accuracy on my EOS-3 (which has HP sensors) and my Elan II (which doesn't), even when using fast lenses like the 50/1.8 or the 80-200/2.8. AF speed was different, but the accuracy of the AF, once locked on the subject, didn't.

Huh. I have to consider this. In my mind, shooting speed is limited by my ability to compose. . .your observation of focus speed improving but not accuracy, which appears backed up by the RG review, is intruiging.

So maybe I don't need to lust after High Precision sensors afterall! :) Good. Don't want to afford a 20D right now anyway. :)

I was amused regarding the comment that the 20D center focus point rivaling the 1DII focus speed. I would be very surprised if the sensors are substantially different. :) => Although I have heard there are two processors in the 1DII to improve AF speed (but this may be more for AI servo mode)

For the 'measurebators' --

Accuracy of focusing can be readily demonstrated by the old 'slanted meter stick' trick. If you've ever done this with any of your bodies/lenses, you will be surprised to find that typically, the AF system does not focus right on the mark, but at least almost always within some area defined by Canon for non-HP sensors. If I recall, it is essentially +/- almost the entire defined depth of field at the largest available aperture for that lens.

So that means that a particular lens/body combination may normally focus a bit behind 'dead center', but since the actual desired point is still contained in the depth of field for that lens wide open, it is deemed acceptable. The exact place where the center of the focusing region (in terms of near/far) falls will vary, depending on the exact samples of lens and/or bodies used. In other words, your 10D with 17-40mm f4L may measure consistently differently than mine (depending on how tight the factory calibration procedure was on that particular day of the week), but will still be within 'specs'.

Whether this bothers you or not, depends pretty much entirely on how fussy you are about just where your depth of field gets centered, and also whether the particular lens/body combination you are using tends to be near the limits of acceptability.

Now, for Canon's HP AF sensors, that spec is tightened up, to a maximum of about +/- 1/3 the depth of field, if I recall correctly. This means that even if you have a body/lens combination that is operating near the limits of that specification, you are much less likely to notice what appears to be a depth of field or focusing problem, even if you smash your nose in a 100% pixel view.

So, aside from speed, that's essentially what the HP AF sensors bring to the picninc.