Canon Announces EOS 60D

[Son of Daguerre]

Actually, I think we're both wrong!

My new calculation is giving me

Approx. 2.88in² for the T2i and 60D
Approx. 1.56in² for the 40D and later

Somewhere, we're messing up...

I am right and you are  wrong.

just take out your 40D or later model. Measure the screen.  You will have the width of the screen with is about 2.4 in. and the height of the screen is about 1.8 in.

Truth be told, while I can understand the vitriol spewed at Uchida & Co., as many "50D+" waiters were disappointed, nevertheless, I think this will definitely sell well as a step-up camera. The LCD crushes all competition, with the dual-front attack of both the 3:2/1040k and the Vari-Angle rotation. As well, if I were not aiming for the 7D (surprise, surprise - I have never owned an SLR, but I'm not a noob as I've shot with a 20D and 7D and I know my stuff), I would go for this, as others probably will, because the Rebels are too plasticky (externally, that is - you can't deny that the 60D has a slightly better build than the T2i) and lack the heft. Plus, my atrophied muscles could probably do better with the 60D, which is a full 9 oz. lighter than the flagship APS-C (I'm stubborn). But for those who aren't stubborn, and want the scene modes (bleh! I'm a full-Manual guy on my SX10 IS), this will be a great cam.

The trapezoidal status LCD is a nice aesthetic touch, in my opinion.

I don't own one. Anyways, look at the post before that, then. The result is the same as yours.

[Son of Daguerre]

I'll elaborate:

3:2 ratio

3" is the diagonal of the screen. Since the Pythagorean Theorem states that the hypotenuse squared equals the sum of the other two sides in a right triangle, ergo, 3" squared (9) is 3 horizontal parts squared plus 2 vertical parts squared (3²+2²), which equals 13 divisions (9+4=13).

So... we divide 9 by 13 to get the GCF (Greatest Common Factor) of both the height and the width.

9÷13=0.69230769230769230769230769230769

Then, instead of multiplying this number by two and by three and multiplying the results by each other, we can just multiply by six, which is 3×2.

0.69230769230769230769230769230769×6=4.1538461538461538461538461538462

To the hundredth place estimate, that's 4.15.
Thus, a 3" screen with a 3:2 ratio has an area of approximately 4.15in².

4:3 ratio

3" is the diagonal of the screen. Since this is a screen with four horizontal units and three vertical units, ergo, 3" squared (9) is 4 horizontal parts squared plus 3 vertical parts squared (4²+3²), which equals 25 divisions (16+9=25).

So... we divide 9 by 25 to get the GCF (Greatest Common Factor) of both the height and the width.

9÷25=0.36

Then, instead of multiplying this number by three and by four and multiplying the results by each other, we can just multiply by twelve, which is 4×3.

0.36×12=4.32

Thus, a 3" screen with a 4:3 ratio has an area of 4.32in².

Now does my earlier post before?

[Son of Daguerre]

I don't own one. Anyways, look at the post before that, then. The result is the same as yours.

The post before that is done by me. It must be the same.

Your last calculation is wasting of time It is hard for others to understand, except yourself. GFC is not the term should be used in your calculation.  All the posts by you after my calculation is just to try prove that you are  better than me with the stupid and confusing way of calculation. You cannot even use Algebra.  Let us stop the whole thing and not to waste people's time.

The post before that was not done by you, but whatever. If you can't be civil I am going to wash my hands of this conversation. And yes, I know how to do algebra.

(a+b)²=2(a²+b²)-(a-b)²

[Son of Daguerre]

Take another look, the post in front is done by me. I am the only one that have done the calculation after your wrong calculation. Your  Algebric formula needed o be correcrted too. The formula should be:(a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2
If your are so good, would you like to calcaulate the pixel count onthe width of the displayed picture on both the 3:2 and 4:3 LCD

Pardon, but this post was certainly written by moi.

The 3:2 width is obviously 720 pixels. The 4:3 is 639x426, I'm assuming?

And I'm aware that (a+b)²=a²+b²+2ab, but my formula works as well. Don't knock it 'till you try it, Rocky.

[Son of Daguerre]

Take another look, the post in front is done by me. I am the only one that have done the calculation after your wrong calculation. Your  Algebric formula needed o be correcrted too. The formula should be:(a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2
If your are so good, would you like to calcaulate the pixel count onthe width of the displayed picture on both the 3:2 and 4:3 LCD

Pardon, but this post was certainly written by moi.


The 3:2 width is obviously 720 pixels. The 4:3 is 639x426, I'm assuming?

And I'm aware that (a+b)²=a²+b²+2ab, but my formula works as well. Don't knock it 'till you try it, Rocky.

You really have a never admit mistake and never say die attitude. Take another look on page 11 of this thread. My calculation is right after your wrong result and 2 position above your quoted reference. Either you cannot read or you just will not admit it. Your pixel count is wrong. If you were right, why canon put a 0.925 M and 1.02M LCD display on the 50D and the T2i? Your pixel count come up to be only 0.272 M total. Too much for a guy that claim to be full of knowledge  that do not even own the camera..
As for Your agebra, what you have shown is an equation that has been made up by you, not a formula.

You're kidding. 1,040k does not mean 1.04MP! It is 3x the actual number of pixels.

[dilbert]

Take another look, the post in front is done by me. I am the only one that have done the calculation after your wrong calculation. Your  Algebric formula needed o be correcrted too. The formula should be:(a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2
If your are so good, would you like to calcaulate the pixel count onthe width of the displayed picture on both the 3:2 and 4:3 LCD

Pardon, but this post was certainly written by moi.


The 3:2 width is obviously 720 pixels. The 4:3 is 639x426, I'm assuming?

And I'm aware that (a+b)²=a²+b²+2ab, but my formula works as well. Don't knock it 'till you try it, Rocky.

You really have a never admit mistake and never say die attitude. Take another look on page 11 of this thread. My calculation is right after your wrong result and 2 position above your quoted reference. Either you cannot read or you just will not admit it. Your pixel count is wrong. If you were right, why canon put a 0.925 M and 1.02M LCD display on the 50D and the T2i? Your pixel count come up to be only 0.272 M total. Too much for a guy that claim to be full of knowledge  that do not even own the camera..
As for Your agebra, what you have shown is an equation that has been made up by you, not a formula.

You're kidding. 1,040k does not mean 1.04MP! It is 3x the actual number of pixels.

You just cannot calculate the number of pixel on the width of the picture and come up with a B.S. number and still will not admit that you do not know. Read the specification of the 50D and T2i before you say something that you do not know and bite your tongue. I am getting tired of educating you.

Dude, get a life. This isn't the first time you've gotten entangled in a long pointless discussion thread on this website.

[kubelik]

I came across this thread and it was too amusing not to read...

I don't know why anything needs to be assumed; canon gives you the pixel counts for the screens:

1040K is 720x480
920K is 640x480

you do some math and Rocky's first-time-around numbers are correct,

1040K is 4.15 square inches,
920K is 4.32 square inches

the T2i's overall screen area size may be smaller but it's a more efficient use of space, since you're not wasting area when viewing a 3:2 image on a 4:3 screen

and trust me, the t2i's screen is VASTLY improved over the older 920K screen.  I shoot with a 5D Mark II and my wife shoots with a t2i ... she can be shooting with her Sigma 18-200 kit lens and the image will look better on her screen than my image shot with a 24-70 L.  up until we get home and put it on the same monitor, that is.  then the 5D2 and L glass difference becomes apparent.  I want to know what kind of magic sauce is in that 1040K screen besides just pixel count.

[dilbert]

[
Dude, get a life. This isn't the first time you've gotten entangled in a long pointless discussion thread on this website.

Look who is talking. You were entangled in our long discussion. discussion with a never say die and never admit mistake attitude. May be both of us "should get a life".

You are too easy.

[dilbert]

I came across this thread and it was too amusing not to read...

I don't know why anything needs to be assumed; canon gives you the pixel counts for the screens:

1040K is 720x480
920K is 640x480

you do some math and Rocky's first-time-around numbers are correct,

1040K is 4.15 square inches,
920K is 4.32 square inches

No, they're wrong.

A 920K screen is 4.35 square inches (I measured it)

Well, actually I measured it in mm, so it was 46x61 which is 2806sqmm and that converts to 4.349 square inches (plus change)

I'm sorry that my approach didn't require algebra and theory but actually used the physical object in question.

Don't have a camera with the 1040k screen so I can't measure that. Maybe someone that has one can? Obviously that person is not going to be either of the two that made this thread go on forever.

[dilbert]

A 920K screen is 4.35 square inches (I measured it)

Well, actually I measured it in mm, so it was 46x61 which is 2806sqmm and that converts to 4.349 square inches (plus change)

I'm sorry that my approach didn't require algebra and theory but actually used the physical object in question.

Don't have a camera with the 1040k screen so I can't measure that. Maybe someone that has one can? Obviously that person is not going to be either of the two that made this thread go on forever.

You first mention that this is pointless discussion. Now you want to jump into it. Why?
Your method is great in primary school level but not accurate enough.
1. Are you sure that the height and width of the screen are in exact mm, no more no less?? Not even off by 0.07mm 0r 1/375 of an inch Can you measure it that accurate??? I find it hard to believe.
2. You were using conversion factor of 25.4 mm to an inch. The more accurate conversion should be 25.43mm to an inch. if you use this it will be 4.335 sq. in.  A lot closer  to my 4.32 sq. in.
3. You and me are only off by 0.35%.  that may be due to measurement error (0.07mm measurement mistake will cause that error) .

Anyway, we are close enough.  So let us drop this whole treat and get on to our lives.

Actually, I didn't do the conversion, Google did. So if you're criticizing my conversion of sq mm to sq inches then you're criticizing Google's and I'm pretty sure that Google uses a much more accurate algorithm than even what you suggest. They actually have a much much longer answer but I truncated it at two decimal places for brevity. My query in Google was "convert 2806 sq mm to square inches":
2806 (sq millimeters) = 4.3493087 square inches
... try it for yourself, if you like. But really, I don't care if you want to be right, I trust the answer from Google more than I do yours.

It would seem to me that you're the one who can't stand to be wrong...

[dilbert]

A 920K screen is 4.35 square inches (I measured it)

Well, actually I measured it in mm, so it was 46x61 which is 2806sqmm and that converts to 4.349 square inches (plus change)

I'm sorry that my approach didn't require algebra and theory but actually used the physical object in question.

Don't have a camera with the 1040k screen so I can't measure that. Maybe someone that has one can? Obviously that person is not going to be either of the two that made this thread go on forever.

You first mention that this is pointless discussion. Now you want to jump into it. Why?
Your method is great in primary school level but not accurate enough.
1. Are you sure that the height and width of the screen are in exact mm, no more no less?? Not even off by 0.07mm 0r 1/375 of an inch Can you measure it that accurate??? I find it hard to believe.
2. You were using conversion factor of 25.4 mm to an inch. The more accurate conversion should be 25.43mm to an inch. if you use this it will be 4.335 sq. in.  A lot closer  to my 4.32 sq. in.
3. You and me are only off by 0.35%.  that may be due to measurement error (0.07mm measurement mistake will cause that error) .

Anyway, we are close enough.  So let us drop this whole treat and get on to our lives.

Actually, I didn't do the conversion, Google did. So if you're criticizing my conversion of sq mm to sq inches then you're criticizing Google's and I'm pretty sure that Google uses a much more accurate algorithm than even what you suggest. They actually have a much much longer answer but I truncated it at two decimal places for brevity. My query in Google was "convert 2806 sq mm to square inches":
2806 (sq millimeters) = 4.3493087 square inches
... try it for yourself, if you like. But really, I don't care if you want to be right, I trust the answer from Google more than I do yours.

It would seem to me that you're the one who can't stand to be wrong...

Can you guarantee your measurement is absolutely accurate???  You are the one that Is trying to get it going. I have already said that we are close enough and let us drop it. Who is the one that is never say die.

It is pointless for me to answer this question. To most of the people reading this, my measurements using a tape measure which measures in millimeters is accurate enough. If you were as knowledgeable and smart as you try to make out to be, your comments would be completely different.

If you want a thread to die, just stop replying.

There's never any need to say "lets drop it" unless you want to have the last word.

[dilbert]

A 920K screen is 4.35 square inches (I measured it)

Well, actually I measured it in mm, so it was 46x61 which is 2806sqmm and that converts to 4.349 square inches (plus change)

I'm sorry that my approach didn't require algebra and theory but actually used the physical object in question.

Don't have a camera with the 1040k screen so I can't measure that. Maybe someone that has one can? Obviously that person is not going to be either of the two that made this thread go on forever.

You first mention that this is pointless discussion. Now you want to jump into it. Why?
Your method is great in primary school level but not accurate enough.
1. Are you sure that the height and width of the screen are in exact mm, no more no less?? Not even off by 0.13mm 0r 1/200 of an inch Can you measure it that accurate??? I find it hard to believe.
2. (has been retracted)
3. You and me are only off by 0.65%.  that may be due to measurement error (0.13mm measurement mistake will cause that error) .

Anyway, we are close enough.  So let us drop this whole treat and get on to our lives.

Gilbert, I just retract the conversion and re-done the post. Close enough is close enough, we are within 0.65%. let us drop it. The only reason why the whole thing started is someone calculated the size wrong.
If you insist on your measurement is absolutely accurate, it is okay with me. I just let your conscience be your guide.

Good thing that your error is already captured in my reply elsewhere. Heck, my name isn't even "Gilbert". I don't know if you're trying to be funny or you just can't read what's on the screen in front of you ('G' and 'D' are not even next to each other, so it isn't an easy typo.) I'd criticize your points further but I don't want to leave you with 1 or 0 statements unretracted.

[unexposure]

@Dilbert and @Rocky:
Could you please continue your private-war outside of this thread, maybe via pm, and concentrate on something more "60D-related" than just algebra for screen-measures?

[Jan]

@Dilbert and @Rocky:
Could you please continue your private-war outside of this thread, maybe via pm, and concentrate on something more "60D-related" than just algebra for screen-measures?

Ah, Dilbert & Rocky again. Could someone (Cobalt720?) do something about it?

[papa-razzi]

One point not brought up in this thread is that the US dollar has been dropping steadily since mid 2007 (from ~120 yen to 84 yen), and this isn't likely to reverse soon (why is another discussion entirely).  This amounts to the equivalent of a steady price drop in camera prices sold in the US -  as far as the money Canon brings in.  Rather than raise list prices on existing product (which is hard to do without negative backlash by consumers), Canon has been raising prices when brining new products to market.  Example is the EF 70-200 f/2.8L II.  Big price jump.

The 7D is your 50D successor, only with a price increase via a name change.  That is the camera the xxD guys wanted to see follow the 50D.  The problem is it isn't at the price point expected.  The 60D line is not dead, it has been renamed to 7D.  And unfortunately, has had a price increase partly due to exchange rates.

By naming this new camera a 60D instead of a 600D, Canon Marketing set expectations that it would be a clear advancement beyond a 50D, which it is not.  Therefore, xxD owners, and those planning to be, are appropriatly dissapointed as is understandable.

Canon built a new camera to hit a price point in their product line up.  The camera must be evaluated based upon what it offers for the price and the desires and behaivors of the consumers that purchase cameras at that price.  I'm sure the 60D name will be a branding bonus for those that now purchase this new camera.  Something a little above a Rebel.  Canon has repurposed/repositioned the 60D name.

Not withstanding the dissapointment by some - On its own merit, the 60D looks to be a good product and it will sell very well at the price point released.  (which will drop a bit once it gets to the market and all the channels have adequate inventory).

Nikon is a fine camera line as well.  Canon and Nikon will leap frog over the years.  If you don't have a lot of investment in lenses, then just go ahead and buy a Nikon if they have more of what you want at the price point you are looking at.