A Canon Roadmap? & CR Rating Changes [CR1]

Canon Rumors
1 Min Read

A Note about CR ratings
I changed the rating system and how it is used on the site now.

Check the graphic at the top for the new rating system. I think this is a better and more accurate way of rating stuff. I hope you agree. The old way just wasnt working.

This was the idea of a reader. Thanks!

Canon Roadmap [CR1]
I received an email outlining a Canon Roadmap

Quote:
Canon is going to put all cameras in the xD-line.

1D/1Ds for pros
3D (1D Class for semi-pros)
5D (1Ds Class for semi-pros)

7D (70D) and 9D (600D) for hobby photographers.

There will be no 70D, 600D or 3000D. The 2000D is planned for this June/July. (15.1mpx, 960p video @ 30fps, articulating screen and much cheaper than the Nikon one ;)

CR’s Tak
This seems more like a wishlist of camera models. I think there are too many. The 2000D also appears to be overspecced with the little bit of information. I’d have to see more.

An unlikely roadmap, but I passed it on anyway. Stranger things have happened.

cr

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Share This Article
66 Comments
  • It would be nice if they had something that made sense, the same for Nikon and lots of other industries.

    I don’t know about the camera business, but as a engineer for 30+ years with a major company, we had the same problem. And,the engineering bill of materials was computerized in the 1960’s, so that it required re-programming to make changes in the model assignments that cost millions to implement. although it was updated over the years, some of the software still works in a similar way.

    I suspect the same is true on a smaller scale for Canon , Nikon and the others.

  • this one makes little to no sense. the xD, xxD, xxxD & xxxxD separation of lines makes it clear as to whom canon is directing each camera. why confuse things?

    as for 960p video? that sounds like an odd marketing compromise to get the most frames per second out of that sensor since 1080p 20fps is no good to anyone.

    i’d really like to be reading rumours about full manual video control and 24fps.. at any resolution. there’s a rumour i could get excited about.

  • I think the big question is what format will the 1DIII be? Full frame or 1.3 crop? Assuming it’ll have a dual digic V processor, with a through put of 220mb/sec. Canon could easily unify the 1Ds and 1D range with a camera that has 22mp and 10 fps.

    A camera like that would allow a 5DII replacement or a new 3D model to have 22/21mp and 5fps, for a semi pro market.

    I’m only theorising and playing with math, but it makes sense.

  • Gareth, I do think the 1DIV will be full-frame (with in-camera crop option like D3), but I don’t think they’ll fuse the line. The 1D will remain for action with high frame rater and medium resolution (12fps and 16-18mp?) while the 1Ds will remain for studio work with superb image quality (30-32mp and 16 bit?).

  • Although I don’t quite believe in that road map, I think it’s entirely plausible for Canon to rename their lower end cameras. If they continue with names like 50D, 60D, 70D etc they’ll soon run out of letters/numbers.

  • Seems logical to just go back to 10D moniker after 90D calling it 10D Mark II. Next 20D Mark II, and so on.

  • I have a memory like a goldfish. I’m struggling to see the difference between the new and old rating systems. Care to expand on this?

  • heck as convoluted as Canon’s naming&numbering scheme is, I think it is still better than Nikon’s total CF number jumble…

  • The old way I was rating the rumors based on whether or not I thought they were credible. Everything was CR2 or CR4 it seemed.

    This way, I’ll let the readers know about the source and you guys/gals can decide whether or not the rumor is credible.

  • Oh my. If they just slap the “3D” sticker on the 1D body, what a disappointment it will be. We would have some “3D”, but still no EOS-3 digital.

  • I like the new ratings.

    Just a note, the “top” doesn’t show for us RSS readers, we only get the post.

    RSS has pros and cons, but I can’t live without it anymore.

  • I am going to miss the CR0 rating for 4 legged wild animal… Thanks for all the Good Work you do!

  • The simplified new system makes more sense.

    I’m wondering, though, why not change [CR1] to indicate the most credible rumors and [CR3] the least credible ones.

    Having them the other way around seems counter-intuitive.

  • Yes, I like the new rating system. But there’s a graphics problem–I’ve never been able to easily see the rating numbers [CR1] etc. in the header bar–dark red numbers on black background makes them almost impossible to see. You might want to lighten the red, or even use white, and thicken the font of the rating numbers in the header to make them more solid and give more contrast.

  • The so-called marketing department working currently for Canon must be the same gang of seasoned professionals who did such a sterling job for Commodore (“If CBM got the contract to advertise Kentucky Fried Chicken, they’d call it ‘Warm Dead Bird'”). What a friggin’ mess. First of all, whose brilliant idea was it to have three different names for the “Rebel” line? Good thinking marketing, not confusing at all, semi-random three-letter names – wow, good one. And now let’s make things even more confusing.. Do you have any Nikon people working “for” you by any chance? Seems so.

  • Because it’s a graphic (and probably named the same) you may need to force your browser to refresh / clear the cache. Until I did, I saw the old rating system, which confused me too.

    To CR:
    I think the new one makes sense, but you may want to hold on to CR0 for “Joke/Hoax” to separate out the known fakes that are nonetheless interesting enough to post.

  • That will be at least 4 years into the future. Lots can happen, especially in terms of technology. I’m sure that by then Canon will have a new way of naming their lines, but it won’t anything like this rumor. It’s just too illogical.

  • Other than the chaotic Rebel line, I actually like Canon’s naming convention. As for Nikon, what a joke!

  • lol 960p is a joke, as is this whole rumor, there is no such thing as 960p – it’s 480p, 720p, or 1080p or split in half for interlaced.

  • I like the XD, XXD, XXXD, XXXXD naming, but the whole Canon obsession with Andre Agassi as the “Rebel” and you can be a rebel too if you buy this mass produced #1 selling camera that everyone else is buying so you’re really not a rebel campaign is just emabrassing – at least Andre had the decency to retire as Canon should have done with the Rebel name during the 90’s.

  • I think Canon’s numbering system is working fine… for now. Less digits, the higher up the camera is. They’re not going to run into problems for a few years, at least with the XXD line. XD just adds mark whatever. XXXD goes by 50’s so that’ll last for a while. XXXXD well that should last. At least they finally have something to compete with the D40 or D60 whatever Nikon’s lower end is. Now Nikon’s numbering system…. whole different story.

  • If the infamous 3D doesn’t have 2 lens mounts (to truly live up to its name), I will be disappointed, Har Har!

  • They should start doing half steps for the XXD line as well so the next camera should be 55D :D

  • I wonder why Canon have chosen to begin the Rebel line with 300D. One would think releasing 10D and 100D together would make more sense.

  • Yes, the 1D series resolution tends to track the XXD linage. So a dual Digic 4 1D is likely to punt 10-12fps @ 15.1mp. But the rumours are pointing to a Dual Digic 5, which allow a 10fps 22mp or 12fps 18mp…which could well be the resolution of the next xxD (60D).

  • I like your idea but be honest: even the professionals would buy the 5D MKIII or 3D because there is not really a need for a pricey 22MP/10fps monster outhere, if hou can have the same results with a smaller and lower priced body. I actually know a lot of pro’s who changed from a Ds MKI or MkII to a 5D MkII. Only sports and agency shooters are looking for high fps, but they don’t ned high resulotion because the agencies have to handle economically with their server storage. I’d rather going for better glass then to have a body with super sealing and integrated battery grip.

  • not sure i understand. so the engineering model assignments were fixed by the software, but couldn’t you still market the product by whatever name you wanted?

  • They should have started earlier, 30D would be much better off as “22D”, 40D as “27D” and maybe 50D would be a sigificant “30D”…

  • Marketing…there is a stragety of confusion for the sub $1000 kit market that is probably intentional, designed to package and combine higher profit margin items together by price point rather than quality/features.

  • Thanks for the clarification. As it turns out, I was viewing a cahced version of the graphic, so the reason that I couldn’t spot the changes is that there were none!

    This new system makes a good deal of sense.

  • Actually I’ve seen some of the budget “HD” cameras in teh 100-200 dollar range offer odd video sizes.

    Primarily there is 480/720/and 1080p however there is 2160p and 4k. 4k is slightly larger than 2160p to create a safety zone for crops.

    960p might or might not be a reality in the future cams but its not totally impossible. With 960p you can shrink it down for 720 or crop it for 720 without lose of quality.

    I think Canon needs to stop thinking about meeting the competition and start beating the competition. And they’ve got a world of hurt coming their way with Red DSCM or whatever the call that thing.

  • remember the 20D -> 30D? resolution didn’t change, I think they might have noticed the massive backlash that a 15.1 MP APS-C sensor, which was advertised at low noise and only matched the performance of the previous 10 MP sensor (still quite technically impressive, actually, but the marketing department screwed that one up) caused. hopefully they will keep the same resolution and improve noise performance and dynamic range, couple that with improved AF and a slightly faster motor drive, hopefully dual card (CF and SD), though I’m sure about that (I think the 1D(s) series is going dual CF and SD) and you’ve got a model that’s very competetive with the D300/D400, which are considered to be ‘professional’ cameras (by nikon). So I also think 15.1 MP for 1D mk IV, beating the D3, and being presumably in the right place to match up with a D4

  • 960 is a Mac PowerBook G4 screen resolution (1440×960) and I know of no other use of it, but it does make sense for this hoaxter to try to make a Powerbook screen resolution out to be a real HD format and see who falls for it.

    2160p is a 4K resolution (4K being either 4096 × 1714 or 3996 × 2160) – but I have no idea what that has to do with someone hoaxing that the 2000D will make 960p video.

    Canon and RED are not competing for the same markets. The 5D2 is their highest resolution video at full HD (1920×1080), where RED cameras start at 3K on up to 28K and are priced and targeted to film makers not video makers. Unless Canon comes out with a higher end camera targeted to film making then RED is not going to hurt any of Canon’s sales.

  • I don’t know. Seems to me from a marketing standpoint they’re gonna have to top the specs on the new Rebel or face a tough time explaining to the public why they should not save $600 buying the T1i instead of the 60D. Lower noise is a wonderful thing, but it makes for a poor feature logo such as 1080p or DigicV. I’ll be surprised if they come out with a 15MP 60D even if it did make a better picture.

    For myself, unless the 60D has some greatly improved 1080p 30fps video features I’m gonna pass – that means it will have to have some manual controls, AF working in video mode, mic input, and not insult the world with a useless 20 fps capture like on the Rebel.

  • No, the vast Nikkor-wing Conspiracy has infiltrated Canon’s marketing department and leaked it to the Save The APS-H Foundation who is trying to block a secret Canon-Nikon merger that would assure the doom of APS-H and force everyone to upgrade to an all new RED killing EFN lens mount for the new Cankon 64MP medium format smoking DLSR sensor.

  • Oh, and did I mention the 1080 Quantum Focus Point System and 2160 Segment Partical Accelerated Metering System?

  • uhh david,
    have you noticed that the previous generations of 1D/XXD/rebel all have the same resolution? if AF, build quality, weather sealing, motor drive, and improved control structure aren’t sufficiently important to get some people to buy XXD bodies over rebels then how did the XXD cameras, particularly the 10, 20, and 40, come to be well sold? 15.1 MP or I’ll buy you a coke.

  • The last three generations of XXD cameras have all made leaps in MP and the last four generations of Rebels all made leaps in MP: 30D was 8.2, the 40D was 10.1, and the 50D 15.1, and likewise the 350D was 8.0, the 400D was 10.1, the 450D 12.2 and the 500D is 15.1. I see no reason to assume the 60D will pause at 15.1 and not make a leap in MP.

  • the 20D was 8.2 as well for one. I see no reason why the 60D will need to advance the megapixels because it is not beaten by the rebel, normally the rebel makes the advancement in MP followed by everything else. While there is no trend for stopping the resolution, I see no reason for marketing reasons why they HAVE to increase the resolution.

    “don’t know. Seems to me from a marketing standpoint they’re gonna have to top the specs on the new Rebel or face a tough time explaining to the public why they should not save $600 buying the T1i instead of the 60D. Lower noise is a wonderful thing, but it makes for a poor feature logo such as 1080p or DigicV. I’ll be surprised if they come out with a 15MP 60D even if it did make a better picture.”

    meaning that doesn’t really have much merit. the XTi was 10MP before the 40D, and 40D sales weren’t hurt by that…

  • Going back going back to a 5 year old example is not a relevent factor when the trend for the last 3 and 4 generations is an increase in MP for XXXD and XXD lines.

    The 50D is 15MP, the Rebel is 15MP, so there you have your overlap already, and if you didn’t notice, this time the Rebel did not come out with bigger MP first, the 50D did, and they put the 50D chip in the new Rebel. So again, an increase in MP would be in line with the latest trend if the 60D increased its MP over the Rebel just as the 50D did – and it is in line with the fact the last 3 generations have increased MP.

    I will also point out Canon’s desperation for marketing features in what they did with the Rebel’s 720p capability being stretched to 1080p that they knew was unusable. Does that sound like a company about to lay down and pause on as many new features they can muster into the next camera? No, they need to give people a reason to upgrade, and status quo on the 60D as a minor upgrade would not accomplish that in the face of competion and the economy.

    So you’re just mistaken ;)

    I realize you are content with 15MP, and perhaps you think no one needs or wants more, but that’s just you. One can always set their camera to a lower resolution for casual shooting, but why begrudge the option of shooting as big a photo as we want even if that is 28MP or larger?

  • I never dare to think that I know what everyone else needs, but in all honesty if you need the largest file size possible the XXD is not the right type of camera for you, not that there shouldn’t a resolution centric camera, just that the XXD isn’t one. Although I do not believe that the majority of users will be able to see a significant advantage in the few additional MP, considering that the rate of return from increasing the resolution is logarithmic, and think that other factors of performance would be preferred. however, i begrudge that much resolution on a sensor that small, at least with current technology, including lenses, especially considering the DLA of the 15MP APS-C sensor. Improved IQ is what we want from successive generations, part of that is more resolution, but still…

    by the way david, what is your fascination with 28MP?
    you’ve mentioned it two or three times now.

  • I’m not saying the XXD is going to be “the largest” resolution, but that all the camera resolutions have been and will continue to increase and that there’s nothing wrong with that. Chip design evolves. The pro 1D was only 4MP when it came out. It’s now 21MP, and the ISO, noise, and such all got better too. You think MP’s are going to stop, I don’t.

    28MP is medium format territory, clearly beyond what 35mm film could ever match. But I’d be happy with 64MP.

  • The 1d is 10 mp, please do not try to crossover the d and Ds bodies, they are built with very different priorities.

    Also. I think resolution does have a ceiling, the maximum resolution possible from a lens, and to be honest, 15 mp aps-c is really close for everything but the beat primes, and btw additional resolution with lenses that can’t handle it is like watching sd on an he tv, you see just how bad it is.

  • When the 1D came out there was no 1Ds and it was the highest resolution Canon DSLR camera at the time.

    Well, the supposed cap on resolution is much like all the “end of the world / return of Jesus” dates that we watch come and go without incendent over the years. Time will tell, and in a couple of years from now when you’re looking at a 21MP Rebel you can remember this post and chuckle at the cap you thought was there.

    Back in the film days 35mm was not even a “pro” format except for photojournalism where you were shooting for newspaper quality or sports magazines, but medium and large format were the pro standards for studio shooting, and even Ansel Adams hauled 4×5 film cameras around in the wild, and I’m sorry but a well shot 4×5 film blows away the D3X or whatever you think the best DLSR may be. Yet here you are now that DSLR are just meeting 35mm quality saying that is enough? I don’t agree. We sould at least be able to match medium format film quality.

  • Also, weddings used to be the exclusive domain of medium format cameras, and anyone showing up to shoot a wedding with a 35mm camera was considered an amature wannabe. The fact people are using DSLR’s for weddings today because of better work flow and less expense it is at the cost of a much lower quality than medium format film. So imo DSLR’s still have quite a ways to improve.

  • When the 1D came out there was no 1Ds and it was the highest resolution Canon DSLR camera at the time.
    so… my point was you shouldn’t compare a 1D to a 1Ds to show the increase in resolution, and btw i don’t suppose that a limit on useful resolution is capped indefinitely, rather that it needs to slow less it outstrips the capability of the lenses made for it.
    thanks for the film lecture, I do not have personal experience shooting chromes with 35mm and 6×7 or 4×5 P/N. so i am unable to comprehend the concept that larger and more expensive camera lens systems would produce superior images at the reduction of speed and flexibility. (sarcasm, in case you couldn’t tell) oh, btw digital has already far surpassed all but the best 35mm slide film…
    which is the territory of the Ds and 5D bodies, since choosing which digital body one shoots with is very like choosing your film stock, and those can match the resolution of the slide film. why should we be able to get MF results with 35mm digital? why? and in case you’re wondering, if I chose a DSLR to compare a 4×5 film shot to, it would be to a mamiya with a p60 back, not a 35mm… the best DSLR depends on the specific application and changes with advances in technology, do not presume so much please…

  • The reason, Zac, that we should most certainly get medium format resolution from DSLR is because there is no reason not to – and just because you say we should not is not a good reason. Before the format was limited by film size, now it is not, it is only limited by chip design and lens quality, both of which can and will continue to improve because competition and the need for Camera companies to sell more products will drive them to do so. I do not accept your limited view of photography nor your view that if I want higher resolution I should have to buy medium format system.

    Also, you missed my point entirely about quoting the 1D, which was not to compare the 1D and 1Ds line, but only to show the FACT that chip design and resolution have evolved and will continue to do so despite your opinion the world should accept your decision DLSR’s have reached their top resolution.

  • Also, Zac, when I said DSLR’s are just now hitting 35mm quality I was referring to the likes of Dx3, 1Ds3 and the 5D2 and high quality film. Obviously I was not talking about disposable 35mm cameras nor crappy film. My point is film had an inherent resolution cap and if one wanted higher resolution the only option was bigger size film. Digital changes that, and we will be crossing the threshold that will prove it with the next generation of DLSR chips and new lenses, which is why Canon has been slowly coming out with II versions of lenses. If resolution was going to stay at 35mm quality we would not see lenses like the 24-70 L replaced with a II new version designed for higher resolutions – but we will see that, as I am right and you are not.

    :)~

  • You read too much into the statement David, me asking why we should is not me saying we shouldn’t. But a lot of the same physics applies in limiting the ultimate resolution possible, yes the envelope keeps getting pushed and lenses keep getting better, but lenses have getting better for as long as their have been lenses, and beofre digital film grain, which is basically it’s resolution was constantly improving. I never told you to go buy a MF system if you need more resolution, just not to lecture about how MF film and 4×5 givenetter results than a FF digital camera. I also never said that they have reached their top resolutions. Just that for models not based on resolution that they’re at the point of rapidly diminishing returns, at least with current technology, so then keeping the same resolution 50D to 60D to let technology mature for another year isn’t a terrible idea, and hopefully they’ll consider it. Of particular concern to me is the diffraction limited aperture, not that I see how that can get better with tech, but there probably is a way.

    Personally, asa 6 film in a 6×7 will continue to own for quite some time, but it’s not practical to use at all.

    The big difference, I think, between us, is that you want very high resolutions for all cameras, where I would prefer that the 5D and Ds type cameras keep chasing resolution, while the others XXD and 1D slowly increase resolution, while concentrating on other areeaa, like noise and dynamic range, or exposure latitude :),

    About the 1d sensor versus the Ds sensor, they’re not directly comparable because they are designed for differennt purposes, the Ds is a maximum resolution possible, the resolution in the 1D is limited for additional speed, they could have put more pixels in the original 1D. But they chose not to.so comparing those to show the progress is just not a great example.

    Oh, and David, chill a little bit, I’m not personally attacking you or what you want, so if you could turn down the I’m right you’re not, particularly considering that I have trouble communicating my points to you, it would be appreciated.

  • David please read this comment stream from top, I think it help you understand the point I’m trying to make.

  • Well now you are changing your statement to limit just XXD & 1D resolution, which I’m certain will not happen, but your first declaration was “I think resolution does have a ceiling” regarding DSLR’s. I still think you are mistaken in both cases.

    You are not the only one who can use sarcasm, Zac, so when I stick my tounge out and say I’m right, which I am of course, and you’re not, it’s a jest.

    Where I think you are wrong is your assumptions are based, as you said, on current technology, which as we all know when it comes to chip design is old tech by the time we are talking about it here. You assume things as they appear in a current production model and do not factor in the rapid development and improvements being made for the next round.

    Another place you are wrong is your continued assumption that I think only resolution will increase and not other aspects of design such as noise and dynamic range also getting better. You seem to have it stuck in your head lower MP means better picture quality, which if one assumes as you seem to do that chip design will not improve, you might be correct, but I see no evidence that is going to happen – so I disagree with your assumptions and conclusions.

    The big difference in our thinking is I do not hold to old film-school thinking about what a DSLR camera “should” be or can be. I remember very clearly hearing all prophesies when the 1D came out that digital WOULD NEVER match film quality. I heard all the prophesies that they would never add video to DSLR’s, especially not a Pro DSLR. What people, and you specifically Zac, fail to realize is competitive market forces drive advancements, and because competition is not going to end, ever, neither will development of better pictures including higher MP in all cameras, and I am absolutely certain that in 10 years we will all consider what is today “state of the art” to be a total joke.

    I’m also not saying all cameras “should” increase resolution, personally I don’t care if a Rebel was still 3MP or 15MP it’s not a camera I will ever buy just because of the name, I’m saying they all WILL as a result of advancement in design and competitive market driving forces. As for some models having lower MP to increase fps to appeal to a different market segment, sure, but they will also rise in MP like all the other cameras will.

    As for lecturing, whatever…I write as I want to write, as do you I might add without my telling you how to write, and just as I do not accept your limited thinking about what a DSLR camera should be, I do not accept your opinion I can not explain my thinking, give examples, or talk about cameras or photography as I see it.

    :)~~~

  • David, I’m sorry to have offended you with the lecture comment, I did not mean that I don’t care for the information, rather that it was tangential. Please do note that immediately after mentioning the “ultimate resolution limit” I said that 15 mp in aps-c was close to it, not that all current cameras were near it. I’m sorry. I feel that I’ve made an ass of myself here in large part because I got annoyed that you didn’t understand things that I worded very poorly.

  • Oh dont take me so seriously Zac. This is a rumors site with alien technology raising megapixels on us all before the invasion begins, and I was body-snatched into a troll a long time ago ;)

  • Having a goldfish is a relaxing hobby for me. I love their bright orange color and they are not a high-maintenance pet to keep.

Leave a Reply