Deeso: So this innovation is more useful to videographers than photographers...
I would definitely say touchscreen focusing is something that can be very useful for photographers. Sometimes you have your camera mounted on a tripod, and you're previewing the image on the rear screen. Rather than fiddling with wheels or toggles or joysticks to try to get the focus point on the area you want focused, it's a lot easier just to touch the screen exactly on the location you want the camera to focus on.
The Photo Ninja: Ok cool. However, professional shot with proper lighting and amazing stabilization equipment and rigs. Lets see how it does in run and gun shooting.
Obviously, if you're 'run and gun shooting' like a maniac, it will show in your results. Blame that on the user, not the equipment. Sloppy shooting, whether you're talking about still photography or video shooting, will obviously effect your results, and you can't just blame the camera for your own sloppy shooting. Good results, even in today's day and age, still benefit from a bit of care and consideration from the user!
Rather than saying, "Lets see how it does in run and gun shooting", I prefer to think of it this way: "In spite of the significant advancements in technology and photographic performance over the decades, lets see how bad shooters can still produce crappy results-- and still blame it on their equipment!" Maybe some day, equipment will be so amazing that you can even give it to a chimp "run and gun shooting" through a jungle, and the chimp would produce excellent results. But until then, the user's skills do still matter.
mainvision: An important feature missing is GPS. Essential in a travel camera
GPS will probably show up when the 80D replaces the 70D. Canon never shoots off all their bullets at once. Like it or not, that's just smart business. There's already plenty in this camera to attract very strong sales, so from a business perspective, it just makes smart sense to save GPS for a future model. While consumers want EVERYTHING all at once, a company like Canon needs to think long-term and pace itself. Other brands with lower marketshare desperate to attract customers are more willing to load everything they can think of into their products. But Canon doesn't need to be so desperate.
And yes, I agree, GPS is essential for a travel camera. Things like cars, phones, and cameras should all have GPS these days. It's just a huge convenience. In a camera, I don't think it's something that many photographers are used to yet, but obviously we're all quite used to having each image tagged with the *time* it was shot, so why not also the *location* where it was shot, too?
Vitruvius: FINALLY!!! I was starting to think that Canon had developed an allergy to innovation. Now they just need to retire the 1990 body design.
Why, so they can switch to an odd-ball, gimmicky, low-selling design like the Pentax K-01? Nothing wrong with continually using and refining a tried and true design.
ProfHankD: Ok. Two comments:
1. This should have a native single-shot, single-lens, stereo capture. Does it?
2. The central 80% restriction is probably due to the lenses -- most lenses have internal vignetting that crops anglular views pretty significantly. (The darker corners are darker because some rays are clipped entirely.)
This is all about OOF PSFs, which I've discussed all over the place....
"1. This should have a native single-shot, single-lens, stereo capture. Does it?"
Why, because there are two diodes at each pixel position? Well, you probably won't get much "stereo" from split diodes sitting so close together-- literally sitting next to one another! While dual diodes at each pixel is effective for AF, it would be useless for "stereo capture". Even if you shot an image with just the right diode, and then the left diode, and switched back and forth between both images, there would be no shift in perspective, which is necessary for "stereo capture." You're literally talking about sub-pixel level separation or perspective shift.
Ubilam: It smells like a 7D wannabe and is really just a 60D upgrade. 98% viewfinder? That says much. I'll keep my 7D, Mr. Canon. Upper atmosphere ISO's on a crop factor camera will always be suspect and don't sell me. How many users will be sending in there cams due to broken off screens? No thanks.
I''ve yet to see anyone ever be hindered or adversely effected by having a 98% viewfinder vs a 100% viewfinder. If anything, a 98% viewfinder just results in you capturing a bit more image area than you intended, which gives you flexibility with image cropping and image straightening later in post. In other words, it gives you a bit of wiggle room, which is an advantage! Better to have a little too much in your image than too little, or nothing extra to work with.
As for your predictions of "broken off screens"...I've yet to hear of that being an issue, even after countless millions of swivel screen cameras have been sold and put into circulation. Fearmongers used to say the similar things about pop-up flashes: they'd brake off, and you can't weatherseal them! Then the weathersealed near-pro-level 7D came out with a pop-up flash, and that shut people up! So stop with the irrational, baseless, overblown FUD already. It's just a bunch of BS.
Lyn2010: I am just thinking about buying a Tamron Macro lens. But.... will it work on the EOS 70D? The success of 70D will partly depend on the compatibility of Canon lenses and other lenses (Tamron, Sigma). Or are we going to buy new lenses too? I don't!
Third-party lens makers have done a pretty good job of maintaining lens compatibility. Besides, while Canon is improving their AF system, they haven't changed how that AF system communicates with the lens. Frankly, I don't remember the last time Canon introduced a new body that killed compatibility with third-party lenses, resulting in people having to "buy new lenses". I think that's just unfounded hysteria.
Maverick_: I love this new concept, but the real question here is the downside in image quality of a 40MP APS-C sensor. Canon APS-C sensors at 18 MP are obviously wonderful, but jumping that to 40?
I think this new concept will work better in FF and most probably will be applied to the next generations of FF sensors.
"the bottom line is resolution will go beyond the best naked eye, like African hunters. there is a requirement which is 100% feasible."
Yeah, that makes perfect sense...we all need resolution that goes beyond "the best naked eye." LOL. You're crazy.
You've completely left the real world. In the real world, 99.9% of images are viewed and enjoyed at much lower resolutions, on 2K displays, smart phones, tablets, modest print sizes, etc. That's the REAL world we live in, and where no one really cares how many megapixels the original image was shot in. The REALITY is that we've reached such excellent IQ levels that it's the CONTENT and ARTISTIC quality of the image that counts far more than how many pixels its made up of. Chasing more megapixels for the sake of having more megapixels is simply futile, and of far less practical benefit than you seem to realize. Clearly, you're obsessed beyond all rationality, haha.
Oh, and I hope you enjoy processing those massive 40mp RAW files.
massimogori: Whenever this dslr is not used as dslr, we can expect high performances... Well done, Canon.!
Sorry, but there are countless Canon-shooting pros around the world who are getting excellent IQ from our Canon bodies. We're delivering excellent IQ to our clients, and "that's a fact", LOL. If you like the IQ of Fuji's sensors so much more, great! But sitting around griping about differences in IQ between the various camera brands is rather silly, IMHO. Whether you're shooting Fuji, or Canon, or Nikon, or Sony, I've seen superb images with superb IQ shot by superb photographers from all these brands. That, too, is "a fact." The idea that a Canon shooter, or a Nikon shooter, or a Sony shooter, is shooting with "sub-par" IQ is just silly.
As for the notion that "only 'tyros, newbies, and wannabes' will use it most of the time on live view", you clearly have shortsighted tunnel vision. Better Live View AF performance is critical for the future, as the world steadily transitions to mirrorless cameras and fewer people want to lug around bulky DSLRs with flapping mirrors.
Donnie G: Sometimes we just have to let the pixel peepers have their way. To them, the notion of a few smarter pixels being able to do better work than adding a bizillion more pixels to the sensor could, just doesn't compute. So let them call Canon's 20mp sensor a 40 if that's what it takes to make them feel good about wanting to own one. I doubt that Canon will be offended.
@Stollen1234 - the ability for a higher resolution sensor to actually display higher resolution is dependent on your final output size. If you're doing an 11x14 print, you're not really going to see much difference in quality between a 12mp sensor and a 20mp sensor. The larger you print, the more resolution becomes beneficial. But unless you actually do those larger prints, the extra resolution is wasted. So a more accurate statement would be to say that more megapixels means bigger print sizes, rather than saying more megapixels means better image quality. Consider that even when displaying an image on a huge 4K Ultra High Definition display, the resolution of that 4K display is only 3840 x 2160 (8.3 megapixels, aspect ratio 16:9).
So unless you're displaying your photos in huge format, you can just relax about all this megapixel hysteria. And pixel peeping is not how real people view real images in the real world.
@yabokkie "why print when you can have, say 160MP flat panel displays the size of a door or bed?"
The more you post on this subject, the more ridiculous you sound. LOL. Like I said, a 4K UHDTV display has 8,294,400 pixels (8.3mp). So where is your "160MP flat panel display the size of a door or bed?" And how much does that thing cost? Show me it sitting in your house and then we'll talk. LOL.
@yabokkie - resolution is rather pointless unless A) you have the lenses that can resolve that resolution and B) you are printing large enough for that resolution to be useful. There's not much point in having 40mp if you're shooting with anything less than the best prime lenses and aren't printing 30x40. And you'd better have a computer powerful enough to handle those massive RAW files that result from a 40mp sensor! So in reality, 40mp does NOT automatically mean better image quality. Real-world image quality is determined by what the final output destination is going to be. A $30,000 4K Ultra HD television has a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160, which is only 8.3mp. And all that resolution also ends up being downsized for more moderate print sizes. So unless you're regularly printing massive department-store display images of models with flawless skin, or printing wall-sized landscapes, 40MP won't actually give you better image quality that you'll see or use.
NancyP: The 60D and 6D are reasonably sized and have lighter bodies than their more expensive brethren. As for balance, my 400mm f/5.6L balances just fine on the 60D, and my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 feels great with the 6D.
@Alec_c -- not everyone has ape hands, nor do you really need to grab the camera with all digits so tightly as if your life depended on it. Also keep in mind that, just like cars and pizzas, cameras do come in different models with different sizes to suit your preference. If the 70D is not large enough for you, Canon does offer larger cameras you can buy. In Canon's APS-C range, I'd say that the Rebel 700D, 70D, and 7D models constitute small, medium, and large camera sizes. Frankly, I can quite comfortably use all three model sizes, and I even use an even tinier Olympus E-PM1 (size extra small?) with no problems, either. I guess some of us are more adaptable and versatile than others.
BTW, I have a friend who is about as tall and large as Liam Neeson (6'5"), and he comfortably shoots with a Canon Rebel 650D. Apparently, he holds the camera with a rather light touch, and therefore doesn't experience any cramp or size issues with the camera.
It's not as if the 70D is going to be a slouch in "DSLR" mode. I've had a 60D in heavy rotation ever since the 60D was introduced, and it's worked like a champ. The notion that any of today's modern DSLR bodies don't offer a high level of performance is just plain silly, because any of today's modern DSLR bodies could easily go toe-to-toe, and/or exceed, any number of pro bodies from eras past, and even very recent past. The reality is that tyros, newbies, and wannabe's are all too quick to blame the equipment, when in reality the true deficiencies are with the person behind the camera. People like yourself are all too quick to say that they don't take good pictures because their DSLR doesn't deliver "high performance", when in reality today's DSLRs pack an enormous level of high performance. It just goes to show, haters are always gonna hate, and whiners are always gonna whine.
Jurka: "Dual Pixel CMOS AF' sensor that promises..."
Just another marketing slogan. In real life AF is jumping as always.
And you know this based on "real life" experience with the 70D? Yeah, right. Apparently, you're "just another" guy on the internet who pretends to know things he doesn't really know.
Frank C.: promises promises always promises
Yeah, well, people like yourself said the same thing about: auto exposure metering, auto focus, TTL flash metering, image stabilization, digital photography...and practically every other new technology or feature that has made its way into a camera. If it were up to naysayers such as yourself, we'd all still be using all-manual film SLRs.
peevee1: "two photodiodes to be mounted within each pixel, both of which can be read independently to achieve autofocus, or together for image capture"
Why not independently for image capture then? It would be 40 Mpix...
Why, are you shooting for billboards? And how powerful is your computer to process those huge RAW files?
This comes from Luminous Landscapes:
"A 40 MP DSLR would generate approximately a 60 MB raw file, might well out-resolve all existing zoom lenses in the corners, leaving full utility only with a few primes, and would almost certainly be so sensitive to camera shake that it only achieved its full resolution on a sturdy tripod (even a 24 MP DSLR is almost tripod-dedicated, the hand holding speed on the D3x seems to be around 1/250 second). Furthermore, the print size to actually see all the detail it was capable of would be somewhere around 30x45 inches. A 44-inch printer is an ugly piece of furniture approximately the size of an upright piano, and a 30x45 inch print requires oversize mat board and a very large wall space."
For the overwhelming percentage of shooters in the world, 40mp is overkill and unnecessary, and would mainly be an ego-boosting exercise in excess.
LensHood: I just don't get it with these video capabilities. Editing video is seriously time consuming and most people I know really don't have time to do that. And besides the video it is so hard to find good music to go with it. Or is it just a sales argument for people and never use it once they have it? Maybe I'm oldfashioned, but from a hobby perspective shooting stills provides far more joy. It justbreaks my heart all the innovation goes to video instead of optimising photo more.
Even hollywood can't guarantee success after a $100 mln investement in a two hour movie. Are there really that many video amateurs that prefer DSLR over a handycam that at least has decent autofocus?
These days, a DSLR buyer is almost just as likely to be a video shooter as he is a photographer. And there are plenty of photographers who also enjoy the ability to shoot a bit of video, too.
As for the notion that "all the innovation goes to video instead of optimising photo more", I just don't buy that argument. We've enjoyed a faster progression of photo performance and quality than in any time in history...and yet, people still complain that it's still not enough! LOL. It's amazing how spoiled people are these days. If you can't get excellent image quality and performance from today's cameras, the problem is more likely with you, and not with the camera.
rarufu: Canon, i am afraid, that the times, when masses bought big and heavy DSLR stuff, are almost over.
I would not buy those again and people running arround in the city making silly photos of street cafes or of themselfes seem to be poor dinosaurs.
Second: Will those split phase detection pixels make photos better or worse from the quality aspect ?
Good luck anyway.
"Canon, i am afraid, that the times, when masses bought big and heavy DSLR stuff, are almost over."
Which is why the dual pixel sensor is so important: it works for Canon's future mirrorless cameras.
I agree, mirrored DSLRs are going to increasingly become a niche product. My philosophy, now, is that the only time I carry my DSLRs is when I'm being *paid* to carry them. Otherwise, I'd much rather go with a lighter, more compact, less obtrusive and less obvious mirrorless system. Frankly, I think amateurs "unning arround in the city" (or wherever else) with big DSLR system cameras and lenses look rather dorky now. Like someone carrying around a thick, giant, chunky laptop in the age of ultrabooks and Macbook Airs.
onlooker: Hm. Sky in this ISO 1600 shot looks pretty nasty.
Yes, because we all shoot blue skies on bright sunny days at ISO 1600.