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
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 ;)
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.
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.
Camera companies donÃ‚Â´t do public roadmaps. Someone is making up BS
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.