Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2]

[Meh]

I have only one question.. Why, why WHY?
Why do they even need to update the series? Cameras are not old, are not outdated, and it just seems stupid to release a new camera, just because of higher mp count. There's no real improvement. And there's a product for everyone. What do you miss? What kind of camera? Don't tell me, that anyone actually waits impatiently for a new rebel or xxD camera?
The only hole in canon's body lineup might be an affordable FF camera, but even so, 5dII is still selling well.

The Rebels are very capable cameras as anyone reading this site knows. We know that image quality comes first and we can easily know what are real and worthwhile upgrades. However, the Rebel line right up the T3i is primarily positioned as a consumer level / entry level DSLR. The bulk of the purchasers are buying their first DSLR, don't have any investment in lenses, and are comparing to all other brands. Most consumers don't want to buy "last year's model". I don't think there's much more than that to the annual refresh.

 

[Meh]

Entry-level customers and parents won't typically know anything about ISO performance, dynamic range or diffraction limits. They just know megapixels and want more of them.

Exactly. Even on this site we all know about ISO, DR, noise, diffraction, etc. and still get into debates about them before Neuro sets us straight.

 

[AprilForever]

I wonder what on earth could be improved in the new rebel> I had an XSI, have a family member with a T1i... Big change between the two, bigger still with the T2i... didn't seem to be a lot new with the T3i... What could be advanced on the T4i? An MP count increase would not at all surprise me...

 

[CarebbianTraveler]

The Rebels are very capable cameras as anyone reading this site knows. We know that image quality comes first and we can easily know what are real and worthwhile upgrades. However, the Rebel line right up the T3i is primarily positioned as a consumer level / entry level DSLR. The bulk of the purchasers are buying their first DSLR, don't have any investment in lenses, and are comparing to all other brands. Most consumers don't want to buy "last year's model". I don't think there's much more than that to the annual refresh.

That's a good point and the reason why the next Rebel needs a new sensor with more megapixels. Sony for example is now trying to reach exactly this consumers with pretty a aggressive features/price, since they have no high-end consumers to loose. But to gain new ones that don't care much about the high-ISO IQ.
So Canon has to react and needs at least to increase the MP, even when the 18MP sensor still beats Sony's IQ. MP obviously still sell, otherwise 16MP compacts can't be explained.
I personally would rather appreciate other improvements like weather-sealing or a better AF, but this features are reserved for the higher end canons.

 

[Stone]

I think this rumor is very plausible, to the average consumer coming from a P&S, the more MP the better. Canon almost has to up the MP count just to match specs. The advertised improvements in jpg noise reduction in the digic V would probably make entry level consumers very happy with the MP increase.

I think the 70D would get the same 24MP sensor, single digic V and the 7D's 19pt af to make the upgrade to an XXD series worth it in the eyes of people looking for a clear upgrade path. I also think we'll see a more affordable XXD FF camera from Canon in the next year or so

Canon could take the 1Dx approach with the 7D II and make it a real upgrade over the XXD bodies. They should keep the 18MP sensor and improve the DR & ISO performance to set a new IQ standard for crop bodies. I certainly would not complain about a 7D II with 18MP, greatly improved DR, 1-2 stops for a clean ISO 6400 & usable ISO 12K, 10 fps and a 30+ pt af system.

 

[Meh]

Entry-level customers and parents won't typically know anything about ISO performance, dynamic range or diffraction limits. They just know megapixels and want more of them.

Exactly. Even on this site we all know about ISO, DR, noise, diffraction, etc. and still get into debates about them before Neuro sets us straight.

I think that even if there was a Neuro in every BestBuy store to "educate" customers that a significant portion of them would still buy the camera with more MP. After all, he'd just be another salesman.

+1 Good Point!

 

[thepancakeman]

Entry-level customers and parents won't typically know anything about ISO performance, dynamic range or diffraction limits. They just know megapixels and want more of them.

Exactly. Even on this site we all know about ISO, DR, noise, diffraction, etc. and still get into debates about them before Neuro sets us straight.

I think that even if there was a Neuro in every BestBuy store to "educate" customers that a significant portion of them would still buy the camera with more MP. After all, he'd just be another salesman.

Wait a minute...how do we know he's not already moonlighting at the local Best Buy...

 

[smirkypants]

this is not the droid camera you are looking for.

 

[roland]

My wishful thinking: a more modest increase (21 mp) or no increase (keep at 18 mp) for the 7DII with improvements in noise, dynamic range and ISO. This allows clear differentiation between the 7D and the Rebel line.

IMHO I'd even love to see a 7DII with a reduction to, say, 15MP and corresponding improvements to dynamic range and high-ISO performance. Throw in a few AF/metering improvements and maybe ergonomic improvements like a swiveling LCD and it would be an awesome body (for me).

 

[holmes201]

Are you kidding??!! Way to give Canon the message that they don't need to innovate and do much to make customers happy. Yes I am impatiently waiting for a new xxxD or xxD camera. What do they need to update? How about trying to match Nikon's dynamic range, better AF, cleaner high ISO, putting autofocus on video, allowing micro-adjust, giving a custom C option on the dial, giving more flexibility to specify how Auto-ISO works with limits etc., adding an intervalometer, and allowing you to choose different aspect ratios (come on, point and shoots half a decade ago could do that. I would like to be able to choose from 1x1, 16x9, 2x1, 2.5x1, 1.5x1, 1.333x1 and customx1. It's not hard to implement, it's just firmware. Don't tell me to crop afterwards, I want to be able to compose and expose correctly on the spot for the target aspect ratio.)

I've been a faithful Canon owner but don't try to say there's nothing that need improving and nobody is waiting for those improvements.

I have only one question.. Why, why WHY?
Why do they even need to update the series? Cameras are not old, are not outdated, and it just seems stupid to release a new camera, just because of higher mp count. There's no real improvement. And there's a product for everyone. What do you miss? What kind of camera? Don't tell me, that anyone actually waits impatiently for a new rebel or xxD camera?
The only hole in canon's body lineup might be an affordable FF camera, but even so, 5dII is still selling well.

 

[Wuweiwarrior]

I dunno why some people are complaining about an upgrade to the Rebel line. Camera companies upgrade. Thats what they do.

Besides, if you think an upgrade to the t3i is pointless...you will be able to pick up a discounted one when the T4i comes out.

I was going to buy a T3i for alot of traveling i plan to do next year. But i will wait and see what features the T4i has before I decide. Personally, like some here, i don't care too much about MORE mega pixels on an APS-C dslr. I think 18 is fine. I'm don't know what other upgrades they will include....

If the difference is negligable, i will nab the T3i. But if they manage to squeeze some cool upgrades into the T4i, i may nab one of those too.

Right now i am using my iphone 4S for all my travel photography. It's my favorite carry always camera hands down. But having a Rebel with a 10-22mm for awesome landscape travel photos....and a nifty fifty for portraits with lushous bokuh is tempting.

Nothing fancy. Just something to give my travel photos that extra umph!

 

[pedro]

Re: So, the 5D3 seems to be a Photokina announcement....

8) or did I miss something in this thread?

 

[skrettis]

I really want REBEL T4i to have a fast GPS hybrid or A-GPS!!

Tday I am running Magic Lantern with AudioMonitor and follow-focus firmware ;D on 550D / Rebel2i and I cannot find any other reason to change to a newer Canon exept having a GPS for my Nature Pictures / Geo pictures.

A Canon SLR / Rebel.. with GPS NATIVE and not as a SNAP ON! Like the newest SONY!

Native support for REMOTE MIC and flash would also be a nice feature that would make change now..

Any lobbyists? 8)

 

[Nejko]

anyone thinking somewhat in this way:

7D mk2: the old 45-AF from the 1D and 8-10fps - to better kick the D400
70D: the 19-AF from the 7D mk1 and 6fps - to rival the D7100
650D: the xxD line 9-AF point system and say.. 4fps


Even if they remain having the same sensor.. the AF + build factor make all the difference you need.
The 7D mk2 would be around 1400€.. about the same than the D300s with the AF of the D3s.. stands to reason?

If I were Canon... ^^

 

[JR]

anyone thinking somewhat in this way:

7D mk2: the old 45-AF from the 1D and 8-10fps - to better kick the D400
70D: the 19-AF from the 7D mk1 and 6fps - to rival the D7100
650D: the xxD line 9-AF point system and say.. 4fps


Even if they remain having the same sensor.. the AF + build factor make all the difference you need.
The 7D mk2 would be around 1400€.. about the same than the D300s with the AF of the D3s.. stands to reason?

If I were Canon... ^^

So what AF do you put into a 5D mkIII then?

 

[Nejko]

the most my logic has to dictate is a revisited 19-AF from the 7D, to cover a bigger area.. and not the 45 or 61-AF.. it´s a studio/still camera.. MF with live-view is better, not? i shoot sport..

 

[unfocused]

I consistently read two comments on this site that I'm not so sure I agree with.

1) People say that camera companies must upgrade their models every year because consumers want the latest and greatest; and

2) Many of these same folks insist that the average consumer equates more megapixels with better.

I'm just not sure either one is correct and I'd love to see some marketing research to support these viewpoints. My questions: How many average consumers even know what year a particular model of camera is released and what evidence is there that they care? It's not like Canon has ever tagged their products as "Rebels 2000." As long as the camera has features that are competitive with similar models in the store, do consumers really care? Yes, it gives salespeople a selling point, but they would just pivot to another selling point if that were not available. Again, I'm not saying this is not the case, I'm just questioning whether this is backed up by any hard evidence or if it's just internet legend.

Similarly, yes, megapixels are a handy indicator of how "powerful" a camera is. But, if that were the deciding factor, Nikon would never sell another consumer DSLR. Actually, however, my point here is maybe a bit more nuanced, as I wonder at what point camera manufacturers will face blowback from consumers for having "too many megapixels."

We all know that most consumer images today are destined for Facebook or other social media sites. Or, they can end up in a printed souvenir book using one of the many awful, corny graphic designs that are so popular among new parents, couples getting married, etc. etc.

In both cases, the size of the file is fast reaching a point where it can be a detriment to quick uploads for sharing or printing. Many of the photographers on this site have complained about the way large files hog space on their computers. What makes us think that the average consumer doesn't face this problem as well, along with the frustration of uploading large megapixel images.

While many of the users here know to downsize a file for the web, I suspect that many consumers aren't even aware of that option. I just wonder if we won't reach a point where consumers will start to complain because their 24 (or 30, or 40 or 50) megapixel images take forever to load onto Facebook and cause their computer to crash.

Just a few thoughts to encourage people to think a bit outside the box when making assumptions about consumer preferences without any solid research.

 

[wickidwombat]

My wishful thinking: a more modest increase (21 mp) or no increase (keep at 18 mp) for the 7DII with improvements in noise, dynamic range and ISO. This allows clear differentiation between the 7D and the Rebel line.

I keep asking myself, what would cause me to upgrade from a 7D to a 7DII? I'm not an anti-megapixel person, but that alone won't do it for me and I suspect it won't do it for most 7D owners.

Some argue that current 7D owners aren't the target market (Canon wants to lure Rebel and 60D owners). To some extent that may be true, but two thoughts there: First, sophisticated Rebel and 60D owners also need to be convinced that the 7D is superior enough to warrant the upgrade...

The 1D X's 12 fps opens up room for a 7DII to have up 9-10 fps, so that's one obvious possible improvement. I do think they'll improve ISO noise performance as well. They might give the 7DII a new metering sensor that's somewhere in between the 1D X's 100K RGB pixels and the current 63 dual-layer zones.

AF, frame rate, and build quality provide clear differentiator for the 7D line from the Rebel line - after all, those are the same differentiators of the 1-series from the other xD series bodies, and of the xxD line from the Rebel line as intermediate steps.

I do think that the line between the 60D and the 7D is a little blurrier, and that's the reason the 60D lacks AFMA, for example.

I sure hope you are right I'll be watching the higher iso noise carefully as i am hoping the next 7D will be the next body I buy i also hope they keep the battery the same I really want to decluter my kit and be able to use the same battery's cards, and charger, If that is a performer then my 1Dmk 3 gets some permanent IR conversion goodness

 

[JR]

I consistently read two comments on this site that I'm not so sure I agree with.

1) People say that camera companies must upgrade their models every year because consumers want the latest and greatest; and

2) Many of these same folks insist that the average consumer equates more megapixels with better.

I'm just not sure either one is correct and I'd love to see some marketing research to support these viewpoints. My questions: How many average consumers even know what year a particular model of camera is released and what evidence is there that they care? It's not like Canon has ever tagged their products as "Rebels 2000." As long as the camera has features that are competitive with similar models in the store, do consumers really care? Yes, it gives salespeople a selling point, but they would just pivot to another selling point if that were not available. Again, I'm not saying this is not the case, I'm just questioning whether this is backed up by any hard evidence or if it's just internet legend.

Similarly, yes, megapixels are a handy indicator of how "powerful" a camera is. But, if that were the deciding factor, Nikon would never sell another consumer DSLR. Actually, however, my point here is maybe a bit more nuanced, as I wonder at what point camera manufacturers will face blowback from consumers for having "too many megapixels."

We all know that most consumer images today are destined for Facebook or other social media sites. Or, they can end up in a printed souvenir book using one of the many awful, corny graphic designs that are so popular among new parents, couples getting married, etc. etc.

In both cases, the size of the file is fast reaching a point where it can be a detriment to quick uploads for sharing or printing. Many of the photographers on this site have complained about the way large files hog space on their computers. What makes us think that the average consumer doesn't face this problem as well, along with the frustration of uploading large megapixel images.

While many of the users here know to downsize a file for the web, I suspect that many consumers aren't even aware of that option. I just wonder if we won't reach a point where consumers will start to complain because their 24 (or 30, or 40 or 50) megapixel images take forever to load onto Facebook and cause their computer to crash.

Just a few thoughts to encourage people to think a bit outside the box when making assumptions about consumer preferences without any solid research.

I am hoping that poeple paying $1000+ for cameras gear will pay closer attention the things like IQ, high ISO performance, DR, AF capability, etc, rather then focus on MP alone. I think as much as some Marketing team have banked on the MP war in the past to sell certain model, the same Marketing teams can come up with compelling strategies to convince and educate customers that the other aspects listed above are also of prime importance...

For my part I dont really car the exact number of MP for my next body, I just want it to be better then my current one!

 

[EYEONE]

I consistently read two comments on this site that I'm not so sure I agree with.

1) People say that camera companies must upgrade their models every year because consumers want the latest and greatest; and

2) Many of these same folks insist that the average consumer equates more megapixels with better.

I'm just not sure either one is correct and I'd love to see some marketing research to support these viewpoints. My questions: How many average consumers even know what year a particular model of camera is released and what evidence is there that they care? It's not like Canon has ever tagged their products as "Rebels 2000." As long as the camera has features that are competitive with similar models in the store, do consumers really care? Yes, it gives salespeople a selling point, but they would just pivot to another selling point if that were not available. Again, I'm not saying this is not the case, I'm just questioning whether this is backed up by any hard evidence or if it's just internet legend.

Similarly, yes, megapixels are a handy indicator of how "powerful" a camera is. But, if that were the deciding factor, Nikon would never sell another consumer DSLR. Actually, however, my point here is maybe a bit more nuanced, as I wonder at what point camera manufacturers will face blowback from consumers for having "too many megapixels."

We all know that most consumer images today are destined for Facebook or other social media sites. Or, they can end up in a printed souvenir book using one of the many awful, corny graphic designs that are so popular among new parents, couples getting married, etc. etc.

In both cases, the size of the file is fast reaching a point where it can be a detriment to quick uploads for sharing or printing. Many of the photographers on this site have complained about the way large files hog space on their computers. What makes us think that the average consumer doesn't face this problem as well, along with the frustration of uploading large megapixel images.

While many of the users here know to downsize a file for the web, I suspect that many consumers aren't even aware of that option. I just wonder if we won't reach a point where consumers will start to complain because their 24 (or 30, or 40 or 50) megapixel images take forever to load onto Facebook and cause their computer to crash.

Just a few thoughts to encourage people to think a bit outside the box when making assumptions about consumer preferences without any solid research.

I think the ability for the salesperson to say "This is the newest version" is a massive selling point. Huge. A lot of times the people have no idea what they are looking at and equally so the salesman doesn't know what he's selling. It's easy to just say "Newest model"

I've listened to these selling points quite a bit as I browse around the big stores. It's important.

Perhaps it wouldn't matter as much if nobody updated the lower end every year. But since one person started they all must. For the most part these consumers don't have brand loyalty.