Canon USA Announces Five New PowerShot Cameras

kphoto99

EOS RP
Nov 7, 2012
317
1
chromophore said:
Zoom ratios are exactly that: a lens like a 70-200mm has a zoom ratio of approximately 200/70 = 2.85714x at infinity focus, and the general formula is zoom ratio = (longest focal length)/(shortest focal length); therefore, a lens with only one focal length, say an 85mm prime, has a zoom ratio of 85/85 = 1x.

Technically that is correct, but what people want to know is how much closer something will appear when using this lens compared to a "standard" lens. For FF a "standard" lens would be 43mm (diagonal of the sensor size), so a 70-200 would be a 1.6-4.6x (IMHO).
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,098
4,677
kphoto99 said:
chromophore said:
Zoom ratios are exactly that: a lens like a 70-200mm has a zoom ratio of approximately 200/70 = 2.85714x at infinity focus, and the general formula is zoom ratio = (longest focal length)/(shortest focal length); therefore, a lens with only one focal length, say an 85mm prime, has a zoom ratio of 85/85 = 1x.

Technically that is correct, but what people want to know is how much closer something will appear when using this lens compared to a "standard" lens. For FF a "standard" lens would be 43mm (diagonal of the sensor size), so a 70-200 would be a 1.6-4.6x (IMHO).

Erm...no.

ELPH 180, 8x zoom, FFeq FoV 28-224mm, 224 / 28 = 8

ELPH 190, 10x zoom, FFeq FoV 24-240mm, 240 / 24 = 10

ELPH 360, 12x zoom, FFeq FoV 25-300mm, 300 / 25 = 12

Do you see the pattern?

Sorry, but most P&S buyers today wouldn't know a comparison to what you call a 'standard' lens (43mm on FF) if it bit them on the ass. To most, a 'standard' lens is the ~30mm FFeq FoV they get with their smartphone camera.
 

bsbeamer

EOS RP
Nov 5, 2011
303
34
I get that Canon doesn't treat CES as anything "worth" making a legitimate announcement at, but look at Nikon and Panasonic. Canon is bragging about their 720P video features on consumer-oriented cameras and Panasonic is bragging about 4K and "post focus" technology on theirs. Nikon is announcing the D5 with 4K, QXD, USB3, more AF points than I'd ever need, and a touchscreen... legitimate upgrade options are out there.
 

kphoto99

EOS RP
Nov 7, 2012
317
1
neuroanatomist said:
kphoto99 said:
chromophore said:
Zoom ratios are exactly that: a lens like a 70-200mm has a zoom ratio of approximately 200/70 = 2.85714x at infinity focus, and the general formula is zoom ratio = (longest focal length)/(shortest focal length); therefore, a lens with only one focal length, say an 85mm prime, has a zoom ratio of 85/85 = 1x.

Technically that is correct, but what people want to know is how much closer something will appear when using this lens compared to a "standard" lens. For FF a "standard" lens would be 43mm (diagonal of the sensor size), so a 70-200 would be a 1.6-4.6x (IMHO).

Erm...no.

ELPH 180, 8x zoom, FFeq FoV 28-224mm, 224 / 28 = 8

ELPH 190, 10x zoom, FFeq FoV 24-240mm, 240 / 24 = 10

ELPH 360, 12x zoom, FFeq FoV 25-300mm, 300 / 25 = 12

Do you see the pattern?

Sorry, but most P&S buyers today wouldn't know a comparison to what you call a 'standard' lens (43mm on FF) if it bit them on the ass. To most, a 'standard' lens is the ~30mm FFeq FoV they get with their smartphone camera.

I think you are confusing marketing with reality.

For a different way of looking at the X times, look how it is applied to binoculars.
I would expect that most people would want to know how many times "larger" something appears compared to looking at it with plain eyes. That is a more useful number then what is the ratio between the two ends of a zoom.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,098
4,677
kphoto99 said:
neuroanatomist said:
kphoto99 said:
chromophore said:
Zoom ratios are exactly that: a lens like a 70-200mm has a zoom ratio of approximately 200/70 = 2.85714x at infinity focus, and the general formula is zoom ratio = (longest focal length)/(shortest focal length); therefore, a lens with only one focal length, say an 85mm prime, has a zoom ratio of 85/85 = 1x.

Technically that is correct, but what people want to know is how much closer something will appear when using this lens compared to a "standard" lens. For FF a "standard" lens would be 43mm (diagonal of the sensor size), so a 70-200 would be a 1.6-4.6x (IMHO).

Erm...no.

ELPH 180, 8x zoom, FFeq FoV 28-224mm, 224 / 28 = 8

ELPH 190, 10x zoom, FFeq FoV 24-240mm, 240 / 24 = 10

ELPH 360, 12x zoom, FFeq FoV 25-300mm, 300 / 25 = 12

Do you see the pattern?

Sorry, but most P&S buyers today wouldn't know a comparison to what you call a 'standard' lens (43mm on FF) if it bit them on the ass. To most, a 'standard' lens is the ~30mm FFeq FoV they get with their smartphone camera.

I think you are confusing marketing with reality.

For a different way of looking at the X times, look how it is applied to binoculars.
I would expect that most people would want to know how many times "larger" something appears compared to looking at it with plain eyes. That is a more useful number then what is the ratio between the two ends of a zoom.

Nope, I'm not confused. But maybe marketing is missing an opportunity. They should adopt your logic – the ELPH 360 would then go from 0.58-7x, that sounds much better than 12x. Or not.

They should start calling them varifocal lenses, too. People will want to know that they're not buying real zoom lenses.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,898
1,046
UK
www.flickr.com
kphoto99 said:
neuroanatomist said:
kphoto99 said:
chromophore said:
Zoom ratios are exactly that: a lens like a 70-200mm has a zoom ratio of approximately 200/70 = 2.85714x at infinity focus, and the general formula is zoom ratio = (longest focal length)/(shortest focal length); therefore, a lens with only one focal length, say an 85mm prime, has a zoom ratio of 85/85 = 1x.

Technically that is correct, but what people want to know is how much closer something will appear when using this lens compared to a "standard" lens. For FF a "standard" lens would be 43mm (diagonal of the sensor size), so a 70-200 would be a 1.6-4.6x (IMHO).

Erm...no.

ELPH 180, 8x zoom, FFeq FoV 28-224mm, 224 / 28 = 8

ELPH 190, 10x zoom, FFeq FoV 24-240mm, 240 / 24 = 10

ELPH 360, 12x zoom, FFeq FoV 25-300mm, 300 / 25 = 12

Do you see the pattern?

Sorry, but most P&S buyers today wouldn't know a comparison to what you call a 'standard' lens (43mm on FF) if it bit them on the ass. To most, a 'standard' lens is the ~30mm FFeq FoV they get with their smartphone camera.

I think you are confusing marketing with reality.

For a different way of looking at the X times, look how it is applied to binoculars.
I would expect that most people would want to know how many times "larger" something appears compared to looking at it with plain eyes. That is a more useful number then what is the ratio between the two ends of a zoom.

Zoom/magnification are dealt with differently in cameras compared to other optical devices, no? I have 18x50 binoculars. It actually equates to approximately the same as my 1000mm lens setup on full frame, but the figures are not interchangeable - a formula could probably be devised but I'm not aware anyone has done this. Similarly, a 1x (or 1:1) macro lens is very different to a 1x magnification on a microscope.
 

kphoto99

EOS RP
Nov 7, 2012
317
1
scyrene said:
kphoto99 said:
neuroanatomist said:
kphoto99 said:
chromophore said:
Zoom ratios are exactly that: a lens like a 70-200mm has a zoom ratio of approximately 200/70 = 2.85714x at infinity focus, and the general formula is zoom ratio = (longest focal length)/(shortest focal length); therefore, a lens with only one focal length, say an 85mm prime, has a zoom ratio of 85/85 = 1x.

Technically that is correct, but what people want to know is how much closer something will appear when using this lens compared to a "standard" lens. For FF a "standard" lens would be 43mm (diagonal of the sensor size), so a 70-200 would be a 1.6-4.6x (IMHO).

Erm...no.

ELPH 180, 8x zoom, FFeq FoV 28-224mm, 224 / 28 = 8

ELPH 190, 10x zoom, FFeq FoV 24-240mm, 240 / 24 = 10

ELPH 360, 12x zoom, FFeq FoV 25-300mm, 300 / 25 = 12

Do you see the pattern?

Sorry, but most P&S buyers today wouldn't know a comparison to what you call a 'standard' lens (43mm on FF) if it bit them on the ass. To most, a 'standard' lens is the ~30mm FFeq FoV they get with their smartphone camera.

I think you are confusing marketing with reality.

For a different way of looking at the X times, look how it is applied to binoculars.
I would expect that most people would want to know how many times "larger" something appears compared to looking at it with plain eyes. That is a more useful number then what is the ratio between the two ends of a zoom.

Zoom/magnification are dealt with differently in cameras compared to other optical devices, no? I have 18x50 binoculars. It actually equates to approximately the same as my 1000mm lens setup on full frame, but the figures are not interchangeable - a formula could probably be devised but I'm not aware anyone has done this. Similarly, a 1x (or 1:1) macro lens is very different to a 1x magnification on a microscope.

I think you have proven my point right now. The 18x50 means magnification of 18 times and the front element size is 50mm. 1000mm divided by 18 is 55mm, close to the 43mm, but maybe the "standard" lens is closer to 50mm or maybe you are overestimating with your 1000mm comparison.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,898
1,046
UK
www.flickr.com
kphoto99 said:
scyrene said:
kphoto99 said:
neuroanatomist said:
kphoto99 said:
chromophore said:
Zoom ratios are exactly that: a lens like a 70-200mm has a zoom ratio of approximately 200/70 = 2.85714x at infinity focus, and the general formula is zoom ratio = (longest focal length)/(shortest focal length); therefore, a lens with only one focal length, say an 85mm prime, has a zoom ratio of 85/85 = 1x.

Technically that is correct, but what people want to know is how much closer something will appear when using this lens compared to a "standard" lens. For FF a "standard" lens would be 43mm (diagonal of the sensor size), so a 70-200 would be a 1.6-4.6x (IMHO).

Erm...no.

ELPH 180, 8x zoom, FFeq FoV 28-224mm, 224 / 28 = 8

ELPH 190, 10x zoom, FFeq FoV 24-240mm, 240 / 24 = 10

ELPH 360, 12x zoom, FFeq FoV 25-300mm, 300 / 25 = 12

Do you see the pattern?

Sorry, but most P&S buyers today wouldn't know a comparison to what you call a 'standard' lens (43mm on FF) if it bit them on the ass. To most, a 'standard' lens is the ~30mm FFeq FoV they get with their smartphone camera.

I think you are confusing marketing with reality.

For a different way of looking at the X times, look how it is applied to binoculars.
I would expect that most people would want to know how many times "larger" something appears compared to looking at it with plain eyes. That is a more useful number then what is the ratio between the two ends of a zoom.

Zoom/magnification are dealt with differently in cameras compared to other optical devices, no? I have 18x50 binoculars. It actually equates to approximately the same as my 1000mm lens setup on full frame, but the figures are not interchangeable - a formula could probably be devised but I'm not aware anyone has done this. Similarly, a 1x (or 1:1) macro lens is very different to a 1x magnification on a microscope.

I think you have proven my point right now. The 18x50 means magnification of 18 times and the front element size is 50mm. 1000mm divided by 18 is 55mm, close to the 43mm, but maybe the "standard" lens is closer to 50mm or maybe you are overestimating with your 1000mm comparison.

That can't make sense. Because the magnification and the aperture are not linked - you can get 18x magnification with smaller or larger front elements (larger being brighter). By your reckoning that would alter the fov (focal length equivalent) but then the magnification would change too.
 

kphoto99

EOS RP
Nov 7, 2012
317
1
scyrene said:
That can't make sense. Because the magnification and the aperture are not linked - you can get 18x magnification with smaller or larger front elements (larger being brighter). By your reckoning that would alter the fov (focal length equivalent) but then the magnification would change too.

The size of the front element is irrelevant, just look at the "18x" part.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,898
1,046
UK
www.flickr.com
kphoto99 said:
scyrene said:
That can't make sense. Because the magnification and the aperture are not linked - you can get 18x magnification with smaller or larger front elements (larger being brighter). By your reckoning that would alter the fov (focal length equivalent) but then the magnification would change too.

The size of the front element is irrelevant, just look at the "18x" part.

Oh, I think I misread your post. That'll be the gin... :)
 

Mancubus

EOS 90D
Nov 8, 2014
143
0
Cool, they get a flagship FF and if that's not enough they also get a surprise bonus crop sensor body with specs that obliterate anything else on the market. Despite being photo cameras, both are 4k video capable.

We get a bunch of point and shoots that combining their sensor areas probably is still less than an APS-C, and a video camera with 2008 specs. :mad:
 

aclectasis

EOS M50
Mar 20, 2014
25
0
This is my favourite part of the week- when a competitor announces some groundbreaking new product during a show, and on the same show, Canon announced a powershot. Last year it was the a7sII compared to a new EOSM, and this time it's a 3million iso Nikon, compared to a range of powershots. Well done again Canon!
 

mustafa

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 20, 2012
87
40
Agreed. If I were a Canon shareholder, I would be very worried about (a) the product planners' strategy, and (b) the marketing/PR managers who couldn't see that these announcements would produce customer indifference at best, hostility at worst. Or maybe it's the senior management that need examination.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Canon constantly manages to beat my expectations of how embarrassing a company can be. So incredibly innovative ... absolutely unbelievable ... They actually make me embarrassed for their "new" products. Makes me cringe ... "Fremdschämen" is the word in German.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,098
4,677
AvTvM said:
Canon constantly manages to beat my expectations of how embarrassing a company can be. So incredibly innovative ... absolutely unbelievable ...

Yeah...how the hell have they managed to remain the market leader for 11+ years?!? I guess they know some stuff you don't about selling cameras.
 

Orangutan

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
mustafa said:
If I were a Canon shareholder, I would be very worried about (a) the product planners' strategy, and (b) the marketing/PR managers who couldn't see that these announcements would produce customer indifference at best, hostility at worst. Or maybe it's the senior management that need examination.

If you were a well-informed shareholder, you would look at their financial history rather than their product line. Look at the American snack food and beverage industry: it effectively sells diabetes to millions of children, while raking in fortunes for its C's and shareholders.

Even if you think Canon's products are the equivalent of junk food (you would be wrong), a shareholder makes decisions in a very different way than a purchaser would.

It's also telling that Nikon chose to release two pro bodies at a consumer electronics show.

I expect that these will turn out to be great products, and I applaud Nikon for finally producing them. It will put pressure on Canon to improve its products, and that benefits customers. Nonetheless, Canon is in no financial danger due to this announcement.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,098
4,677
Orangutan said:
mustafa said:
If I were a Canon shareholder, I would be very worried about (a) the product planners' strategy, and (b) the marketing/PR managers who couldn't see that these announcements would produce customer indifference at best, hostility at worst. Or maybe it's the senior management that need examination.

If you were a well-informed shareholder, you would look at their financial history rather than their product line. Look at the American snack food and beverage industry: it effectively sells diabetes to millions of children, while raking in fortunes for its C's and shareholders.

Even if you think Canon's products are the equivalent of junk food (you would be wrong), a shareholder makes decisions in a very different way than a purchaser would.

It's also telling that Nikon chose to release two pro bodies at a consumer electronics show.

I expect that these will turn out to be great products, and I applaud Nikon for finally producing them. It will put pressure on Canon to improve its products, and that benefits customers. Nonetheless, Canon is in no financial danger due to this announcement.

Exactly. But, I've noticed many people on this forum appear to have about as much business acumen as a toad. ;)
 

Orangutan

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
neuroanatomist said:
Exactly. But, I've noticed many people on this forum appear to have about as much business acumen as a toad. ;)
Many of these hyoomäns do not have the lobes for business. :p
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,098
4,677
Orangutan said:
neuroanatomist said:
Exactly. But, I've noticed many people on this forum appear to have about as much business acumen as a toad. ;)
Many of these hyoomäns do not have the lobes for business. :p

:D

My favorite Rule of Acquisition is #208 – "Give someone a fish, you feed him for one day. Teach him how to fish, and you lose a steady customer."