What products would you launch if you were Canon?

Started Sep 15, 2010 | Discussions
fyngyrz Senior Member • Posts: 1,606
Re: I'd launch a low-light line

Split answer, STUPID 6000 char limit

Daniel Lee Taylor wrote:

fyngyrz wrote:

...something with very large, quiet sensels, about 5mp in APS-C or perhaps 12mp in FF.

This would make no difference. Total sensor surface area is the primary factor in high ISO

No, it isn't. This is one of the many tech-myths that float around here, pushed by some very confused people. Noise is all about the size of a sensel, everything else being equal. If you take an 8mp crop of a 5DmkII sensor, the noise per pixel in the crop will be exactly the same as the noise per pixel in that region before you cropped it. Cropping doesn't change pixels. But the size has changed (to APS-C, coincidentally.) So, continuing, if you put that 8mp slice in a APSC camera, you'd have the center of the 5DmkII image, same noise per pixel and per image noise for the 5DmkII's cropped area - absolutely no way to tell them apart - the original crop and the smaller sensor. This demonstrates conclusively that noise follows pixel size, NOT image size.

What a larger sensor gets you, though, is the opportunity to put a lot of larger pixels in there. And that's what we see with the 5DmkII. The pixels are MUCH larger, for instance, than the 50Ds, but are of a quite comparable level of technology. And, no surprise, they're quieter.

, followed by technology level. Pixel size is not a significant factor because smaller pixels are magnified less in print, offsetting any losses in per pixel noise.

Not to put too fine a point on it, print is something you do. It's not something I do. Ever. I don't even own a printer. So clearly, print is entirely irrelevant in determining noise.

In fact, noise is quantified by the amount of actual image information as compared to the non-image information in each pixel. Not by printing.

Consequently, the way one reduces noise is to change that ratio. A larger pixel in a given area (like FF) means that there are fewer pixels. This means that the external noise of the read, which is independent of the content of the pixel, is added fewer times. This means there is less of it. Yet there is still the same amount of light collected, so you get the effect of binning: If you have 1/4th the pixels, you'll have 1/2 the noise (sqrt(bin_count)). BUT! Because the external noise is added after the bin, which is done just by a larger pixel, the ratio of image noise to light noise drops. And we want the light noise - it's really a part of what we are imaging. Even so, because we bin 4x the amount, it settles out to a more even representation of what we're looking at.

The down side, of course, is you also get 4x less detail. But I'm ok with that, and you know why? Longer lenses.

If engineers at Canon, Sony, or Nikon could achieve leaps in high ISO with a 5 MP DX sensor, we would already have it.

We do. It's called the Nikon D3(s?), it goes to ISO 102k, it's FF and 12 mp, and it's awesome .

With gapless microlenses the amount of light captured depends entirely on the surface area of the sensor, not the pixel size.

Yes, the amount of light, but not the electronic noise. With gapless microlenses, the size of the pixel is the size of the microlens, that's all. When you have pixels with 4x the area, you also have microlenses that are designed to capture 4x the area, which they do, and so at the high end, you have the same amount of light, and at the low end you have the sum of the original four pixels before the external read noise gets added, so the ratio of external to internal noise drops at the same time that the average light level settles down (because there is 4x the area feeding the single pixel read.)

Lower MP images have some other beneficial side effects, too; they can be processed a lot faster by the camera, leading to potentially higher frame rates;

...continued

-- hide signature --
 fyngyrz's gear list:fyngyrz's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +12 more
fyngyrz Senior Member • Posts: 1,606
answers continued

...continuation - STUPID 6000 character limit

The upper bound here is the mirror motor, not processing. Canon went through a lot of effort to reach 8 fps in the 7D body size off one battery. Notice the D300s needs a grip to hit 8 fps.

Nope. Raise the mirror, leave it up. No longer an issue in any way. The major issue here is the number of bits headed for processing and storage. The cue that this is so is the fact that Canons routinely capture 60 fps right now (video), over 10x the frame rate of my 50D; but these are low res shots, that is, fewer pixels. So it's all about pixel count, just as I said.

Computer speed and storage increases by the month. Once you take a shot you can never go back to that exact same moment and take another, higher resolution one.

Yeah, and once you take a high res image with X noise in it, you can never go back and get less noise. It just depends on what you'd rather have; more noisy dots, or quieter, fewer dots. I prefer the latter, you prefer the former. I like the latter, because if I want more detail, I'll choose a longer lens. But if I go your way, and I want lower noise... I have no way to get it.

I'd provide the ability for the user to define the in-camera push; all the way to the last bit - 13 stops -- if that's what they wanted. So standard (analog) ISO of perhaps 12800 or 25600,

We have that now. Larger pixels won't change the limits we're hitting today.

Sorry, what? In what camera can you define push to the last bit??? And larger pixels DO change those limits. Naturally and without a doubt. Go look at images from a Nikon D3s. The first pushed ISO on that thing is 25k! And why? because it's 12 mp, that's why. Nothing magic about it: Just larger, fewer pixels. Still FF, yet it totally outperforms everything else out there, hands down. Which should remind you to go back up and read what I explained about larger pixels. That's the key to low noise with any one tech. Sure, you gather more light (microlenses covering interstitial gaps) and you'll gain. Develop a sensor where the wells have fewer random avalanches, and you'll gain. Develop a sensor with less external read noise, and you'll gain. But if all these factors remain the same, and you scale the pixels, the more there are, the more noise will be in each one and the rougher the light reading will be in each one. The fewer, the quieter, and the smoother.

Wireless charging; wireless image uploading; wireless everything. The only things hanging off the camera should be lens/tripod and/or a camera strap. Nothing to forget, nothing to hook up. It just works.

Some how I don't think wireless charging will work.

Works fine. Just ask my toothbrush. There are some systems coming online now for cellphones, too. I would love to be able to drop my DSLR in a cradle and have it charge at the same time its dumping images out. Isn't that what devices are for, to save us work?

-- hide signature --
 fyngyrz's gear list:fyngyrz's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +12 more
fyngyrz Senior Member • Posts: 1,606
Re: Nikon has really...

Daniel Lee Taylor wrote:

fyngyrz wrote:

But I can buy the D7000 and a decent lens (or two) for it for less than the 7D,

$300 is not going to get you much in terms of glass.

See my other posts. Already addressed.

and get features that are more useful to me than the (IMHO) really poor set of changes the 7D offers over my 50D.

You're not making sense. The 7D and the D7000 out perform the 50D in the same areas. If the 7D has a "poor set" of changes over the 50D, then so does the D7000.

No, I'm making sense, you're not paying attention.

D7000: ISO 25k
7D: ISO 12800.
50D: ISO 12800.

I can reduce noise almost indefinitely by stacking.

I can't shoot any faster than the camera will let while seeing what I'm doing.

So my ultimate limit is ISO. The D7000 wins. The 7D offers nothing.

Quite frankly if you think the changes in the 7D are poor vs the 50D, you haven't been paying attention to the 7D's reviews and you certainly have not used a 7D.

They're irrelevant to me. I need higher ISO. The 7D doesn't offer it. That's the end of it.

I seriously doubt there's any great gain in high ISO with the D7000 vs the 7D. I could be wrong.

You are. The D7000 can shoot twice as fast in the field. That's what I need. I can get lower noise by shooting twice; but I can't kick up the ISO without going blind - the preview becomes worthless.

and probably focuses better to boot.

Than your 50D? In situations that call for more points (i.e. BiF), yes. Otherwise, debatable. And not better than the 7D.

I like the D7000 center arrangement. That's in line with how I work. YMMV.

It's going to cause Canon to be more aggressive in their next update. Which is good for everyone.

Yep.

They could make a great camera if they stop trying to jam in more MP and concentrate on higher quality pixels instead. Outside the line, they could come with a low-light specialized camera and I'd be interested. But the current APS-C lineup... 60D, 7D... no thank you.

Here we go with this fallacy again...

Nope. Just your misunderstanding.

  • The D7000 packs about as many pixels on APS-C as the 7D and 60D. So if you don't like what Canon did there, you better stay far away from the D7000.

Different technologies, my friend. The 7D sensor is not Nikon's tech. Nikon would do even better with fewer pixels. See the D3s, for instance. Which beats anything Canon has out today. Doesn't matter anyway; I just need higher ISO.

  • Pixel size is not the primary factor in high ISO because smaller pixels are magnified less when printed.

I don't print. So what in the world would print have to do with noise? Nothing. And as it turns out, that's the right answer anyway. Noise is directly related to tech on the one hand, and sensel size on the other, and very little else.>

Total sensor surface area is, followed by technology level. Going backwards in MP would cost us resolution but would not give us better high ISO.

Yes, it would, by giving us lower noise. A lower noise source signal is easier to amplify without collecting garbage.

  • At release the 7D offered the highest IQ, including the highest resolution and best high ISO, in the APS-C class. I'm curious to see if the Nikon 16 MP sensor edges it out in high ISO (it is one year newer), but I doubt there are any leaps here.

ISO 25k, my friend. One full stop.

You're ripping on the 7D and praising the D7000 yet they are very similar cameras.

I will certainly give credit to Nikon for packing so many features in at that price point. I have no doubt the D7000 is an excellent body that will sell like hot cakes. But you act s if the 7D brings nothing to the table and that's simply false.

No - it brings nothing to the table for ME. Let's be clear here, I'm only talking about what I want.

-- hide signature --
 fyngyrz's gear list:fyngyrz's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +12 more
photog7320 Senior Member • Posts: 2,423
Re: Nikon has really...

fyngyrz wrote:

I seriously doubt there's any great gain in high ISO with the D7000 vs the 7D. I could be wrong.

You are. The D7000 can shoot twice as fast in the field.

If the noise levels are the same then no it can't.

That's what I need. I can get lower noise by shooting twice;

I thought you needed to shoot fast?

but I can't kick up the ISO without going blind - the preview becomes worthless.

-1 stop does not make a preview worthless.

  • The D7000 packs about as many pixels on APS-C as the 7D and 60D. So if you don't like what Canon did there, you better stay far away from the D7000.

Different technologies, my friend.

I highly doubt Nikon has made any technological leaps here.

The 7D sensor is not Nikon's tech. Nikon would do even better with fewer pixels. See the D3s, for instance. Which beats anything Canon has out today.

At equal magnification the D3s is only slightly better than the 5D mkII. Maybe by 1/2 stop. This is with newer sensor technology.

This proves that a) pixel size is not the primary factor, and b) Nikon sensor tech is not dramatically ahead of Canon's. (If anything, Canon seems to have an edge. Note their 18 MP DX sensor has been out for a year and Nikon is just now moving past 12 MP.)

  • Pixel size is not the primary factor in high ISO because smaller pixels are magnified less when printed.

I don't print. So what in the world would print have to do with noise?

The same is true when viewing at equal magnification on screen. (Note that I don't mean PS magnification. I mean scaled to the same physical size.)

Noise is directly related to tech on the one hand, and sensel size on the other,

Pixel size is simply not a factor at DSLR pixel densities.

ISO 25k, my friend. One full stop.

And my amplifier goes to 11.

photog7320 Senior Member • Posts: 2,423
Re: I'd launch a low-light line

fyngyrz wrote:

This would make no difference. Total sensor surface area is the primary factor in high ISO

No, it isn't.

Yes it is, and no amount of discussion or rationalization on your part changes a fact which is easily observable and verifiable comparing different bodies with varying pixel and sensor sizes.

What a larger sensor gets you, though, is the opportunity to put a lot of larger pixels in there. And that's what we see with the 5DmkII. The pixels are MUCH larger, for instance, than the 50Ds, but are of a quite comparable level of technology. And, no surprise, they're quieter.

Compare the 5D mkII to the D700. The D700 has much larger pixels, but worse high ISO. Compare the 5D mkII to the D3s. The D3s has pixels the same size as the D700, but only slightly better high ISO.

Not to put too fine a point on it, print is something you do. It's not something I do.

Scaling to screen sizes is the same thing. You don't post pixel sized crops to your flickr account, do you? And if you do, then you are losing significant magnification with lower resolutions. You can make that up with expensive glass but why not just get a tracking mount and be done with it?

In fact, noise is quantified by the amount of actual image information as compared to the non-image information in each pixel. Not by printing.

We don't stare at individual pixels.

If engineers at Canon, Sony, or Nikon could achieve leaps in high ISO with a 5 MP DX sensor, we would already have it.

We do. It's called the Nikon D3(s?), it goes to ISO 102k, it's FF and 12 mp, and it's awesome .

It's hideous at 102k and maybe 1/2 stop better than the 5D mkII at 12k and 25k. Due to pixel size? Unlikely since the 5D mkII out performs the D700.

photog7320 Senior Member • Posts: 2,423
Re: answers continued

fyngyrz wrote:

The upper bound here is the mirror motor, not processing. Canon went through a lot of effort to reach 8 fps in the 7D body size off one battery. Notice the D300s needs a grip to hit 8 fps.

Nope. Raise the mirror, leave it up. No longer an issue in any way.

What are you going to use to track your subject while the VF is black? The force?

Go look at images from a Nikon D3s. The first pushed ISO on that thing is 25k!

And it really doesn't look any better than a 5D mkII at that ISO. A little bit, but by your theory it should be vastly better due to the larger pixels. It's not.

Some how I don't think wireless charging will work.

Works fine. Just ask my toothbrush. There are some systems coming online now for cellphones, too. I would love to be able to drop my DSLR in a cradle and have it charge at the same time its dumping images out.

We have different definitions of "wireless".

davidonformosa New Member • Posts: 13
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

jitteringjr wrote:

EFS 15mm f2.0 USM
EFS 20mm f1.4 USM
EFS 30mm f1.4 USM
EF 50mm f1.4 USM II
EF 24-70/2.8 IS USM
EF 100-400 IS USM II

I can only say ditto to a range of EF-S primes.

It was mentioned earlier, but I think making the 1000D replacement as small as possible and combining it with a couple of pancake EF-S primes would be a great move. It would be a DSLR that would compete directly with the EVIL cameras.

-- hide signature --
 davidonformosa's gear list:davidonformosa's gear list
Olympus XZ-2 iHS Olympus OM-D E-M5
The A-Team
The A-Team Regular Member • Posts: 352
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

Comments below...

RR6 wrote:

I find all home videos so bad, I would not bother putting video on a DSLR. This is usually due to the bad sound quality (how many people use decent separate microphones), normal users do not have a steady-cam and the subjects usually don't know what to do and just wave at the camera. If you want to produce a naff video, you might as well purchase a purpose made video camera or a compact camera.

I think you're mistaken in what can be produced with DSLR video. I've seen some amazing stuff and made some of my own which I am quite proud of as well.

In terms of what I would launch...

I would replace the new 60D asap with a cut down version of 7D (same sized body but with no video, single processor, slower FPS and less weather sealing). The white balance processing (all settings) also needs to be significantly improved.

Are you kidding me? No video? That's a must have in any DSLR these days. Why do you want slower fps and less weather sealing? It's not like these features shine in the first place. The only thing they need to do to the 60D is improve the AF, add lens AF adjust, and maybe a magnesium body and bigger viewfinder. White Balance issues are ongoing and probably won't be solved anytime soon.

A good quality EF-S 100-400 IS USM is needed (the new 100-300 L lens is way too expensive for many users).

The 70-300 IS would function fine for many EF-S users. And we already have a 55-250 IS. 100-400 just sounds extreme for EF-S, there's no precedent for this lens. Although good one on Nikon for their 55-300mm VR.

Add HDR support to DPP. This would just make the workflow much easier and quicker.

-- hide signature --
Vigan Regular Member • Posts: 320
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

EF 24-80 f2.8 IS
EF 12-28 f2.8 IS
EF 50 F1
EOS 5Dm3

discopolana Senior Member • Posts: 1,457
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

EF 24-135mm f/4L IS - significantly improved @24mm, FL optical formula, take zoom ring away from camera, improve IS unit (no jumpy image in vf), f/4 CA improved.

EF 300-600mm f/5.6L IS USM - low weight birding on budget, great for 7D

ef-s 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (silver quality)

ef-s 30/1.8 IS USM $300 premium quality

and now I dream: 12 MPx FF body with biggest/brightest/grainiest VF ever made (D3s killer) with 50/F1 II, 135/2 IS, 200/4 hIS macro.

Sweet dreams,
d

 discopolana's gear list:discopolana's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM +13 more
orpheo Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: I'd launch a low-light line

There is a religious war going on about that. As soon as anybody dares to say, he would prefer less MP and trade it for bigger pixels, another battle breaks loose. I'm pretty tired of that. Just so much: every test I've seen so far that measures sensor data or RAW-Images came to the same conclusion:

  • Noise Level is mostly about pixelsize (everything else beeing equal of corse)

  • Dynamic Range is closely related with pixelsize (everything else beeing....)

  • downsizing high-resolution compensates that to a certain degree

The way you argument further down you must have tested all these cameras yourself. Well I don't have that opportunity very often (but when I did, I was disappointed that downsizing didn't have a greater effect).

So if DxO measures RAW-data and then computes the values after downsizing, that will not always be VERY exact. But exact enough to tell that the 7D is certainly not way better than my original 5D at 3200 ISO.

And, why don't you simply respect that some people would prefer another compromise between pixelsize and pixelcount?

Photog23 Senior Member • Posts: 1,105
Yeah, but the 60D

still has the print button. That supercedes everything doesn't it?....just saying

Come to think of it, the lack of a print button alone is a good reason to buy the D7000...

Photog23 Senior Member • Posts: 1,105
Re: Nikon has really...

Daniel Lee Taylor wrote:

You're ripping on the 7D and praising the D7000 yet they are very similar cameras . I will certainly give credit to Nikon for packing so many features in at that price point. I have no doubt the D7000 is an excellent body that will sell like hot cakes. But you act s if the 7D brings nothing to the table and that's simply false.

Oh thank you. Someone is finally admitting that Canon is price gouging on the 7D. I sincerely believe the 7D is $100 more of a camera than the D7000 (if that), but yet the price....

fyngyrz Senior Member • Posts: 1,606
Re: answers continued

Daniel Lee Taylor wrote:

What are you going to use to track your subject while the VF is black? The force?

The monitor. You know, the LCD screen on the camera? When the mirror is up, the sensor is looking right at the image. You can track at any magnification you choose.

-- hide signature --
 fyngyrz's gear list:fyngyrz's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +12 more
fyngyrz Senior Member • Posts: 1,606
Re: I'd launch a low-light line

Daniel Lee Taylor wrote:

Yes it is

Daniel, you're hilarious. It's physics. These are laws you can't break, no matter how insistent you want to get. Arguing against physics just makes it clear you don't have a clue. I'm going to go take pictures now. I hope you have a nice day. If not, just use the same method you use in your arguments: Convince yourself you're having a nice day by simply saying so, over and over.

-- hide signature --
 fyngyrz's gear list:fyngyrz's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +12 more
akin_t Veteran Member • Posts: 3,322
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

EF mount UWA .... 12-24mm f/2.8

Lower lens prices.

 akin_t's gear list:akin_t's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +4 more
40d_dane Senior Member • Posts: 1,034
If you were Canon, we'd all be sorry...

because Canon wouldn't make enough to say in busyness.

kimvette
kimvette Senior Member • Posts: 1,293
Re: I'd launch a low-light line

fyngyrz wrote:

...something with very large, quiet sensels, about 5mp in APS-C or perhaps 12mp in FF.. . . I'm thinking a 5mp shot will be quiet and good enough over a much wider range of exposures. Larger sensels are quieter, both because they reduce the noise outside the individual sensels, and because they capture more light, d. . .

5MP is too low. If you want 5MP shoot in sRaw.

Also, if you have the same noise when comparing an 18MP image and a 5MP image when each is viewed at 100%, which image will produce a better result when scaled to the final resolution?

Exactly. The 18MP image will be vastly superior.

resolution:sensor size and noise are not directly related. I see your point though. My desire it to see Canon focus more on improving S/N ratios and resolving AA issues rather than shrinking photosites.

Lower MP images have some other beneficial side effects, too;

So shoot in sRaw or low resolution jpeg.

I'd provide the ability for the user to define the in-camera push; all the way to the last bit - 13 stops -- if that's what they wanted. So standard (analog) ISO of perhaps 12800 or 25600, and pushes past that allowed right until you run out of bits to push. This is so you can see in the preview what you're going to get. Pushing later in the computer, having suffered with a dark, murky preview in the field has the very disagreeable characteristic of surprising you long after the opportunity to shoot again has gone away. . .

. . . in which case you chalk it up as a learning experience where you discover the magic of exposure bracketing.

. . . simply by mapping a nonlinear curve to the output. . .

Non-linear curves often result in posterized images unless you are very careful. I'm not sure AI is possible with Digic4 to process such complexity quickly enough, even when paired in SMP like the 7D's dual processor configuration.

I'd make sure that the camera could emulate any exposure: So if you set 8 seconds at ISO whatever and f/whatever, after 8 seconds, the LCD could show you a preview of what you'd see.

In that case, you're basically taking the shot twice. Why not exposure simulation and take the shot, and review the shot? That way if you have a model posing for a night shot for a 5min exposure (not unheard of!) the model doesn't have to hold the pose for 10 minutes? Also, you are increasing noise by heating the sensor, and you are also running into changing lighting conditions over that time if the shot will be outdoors. Not practical.

I'd make sure that the maximum shutter time was programmable, rather than limited to 30s. Why shouldn't we be able to shoot 200 seconds at f/11 if we want to?

That would be nice. However, that is what "bulb" mode + tethering or remote shutter release is for. There does have to be a limit somewhere because even in starlight the photosites will eventually reach full white.

I'd get rid of the hard-coded presets - macro, landscape, portrait, etc - and put in a whole circle of user presets that were preloaded with those settings.

C1, C2, C3

I'd build in a GPS. The user could decide if they wanted to use it, or not. Personally, I'd use it all the time, no exceptions. GPS hardware is very inexpensive these days.

And, there are those of us who do not want GPS. Keep it modular!

I'd see to it that the camera had sensor-based IS, to allow it to stabilize otherwise unstabilized primes and zooms. It would shut down in the presence of a lens that had IS, as that seems to be the better method of the two.

Normally I'd say definitely not, but you're actually onto something here. To have both, and when the lens has it disable it in body? I like that compromise. Normally I dislike in-body IS but you have a great compromise.

I'd provide for preview zoom up to 200%,. . .during live-view.

Oh goody, take pixel peeping to a while new level!

I'd fix auto-ISO so the user could set the low and high limits, including all the way into the pushed ISOs. . .

This is one I actually agree with because here you are actually making a lot of sense.

The camera would be able to enter a "shoot every X seconds for Y shots" mode for time-lapse projects.

That's what the 1D(n) is for, or a intervalometer/remote shutter control, or a third-party grip, or tethering. Canon had to limit the feature set somewhere to keep the price sane.

The camera would support -X to +X focus in Y steps; this would support focus stacking projects. Additionally, it would support driven slow manual-like microfocus, for getting macro focus just where you want it. . . .

That would actually be really neat but I really doubt that is suited for the 7D - more like 1D territory, or for a third-party controller like the Promote, or a tethered feature. Again, feature creep = greatly increased cost, extended development schedule, etc.

The camera would be able to upload images to the computer while shooting using wifi.

Wi-Fi grip or wi-fi card.

Wireless charging; wireless image uploading; wireless everything. The only things hanging off the camera should be lens/tripod and/or a camera strap. Nothing to forget, nothing to hook up. It just works.

Wired everything because when you have lots of EFI wireless features for unlicensed equipment becomes extremely unreliable, and in certain environments might not even be allowed.

There would be no print button, no matter how much the printer division wanted one.

. . . or customers wanted one. I've never used it but am glad to know it's there if I ever need it.

Much of what you're describing is 1D territory, but some items (like 5MP) are best suited for limiting via menu configuration, tethering, or third-party controllers. The reality is that there is a certain price which can support development of a certain number of features if a certain number of units is sold.

-- hide signature --

Caution: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye.

kimvette
kimvette Senior Member • Posts: 1,293
Re: Nikon has really...

Photog23 wrote:

Oh thank you. Someone is finally admitting that Canon is price gouging on the 7D. I sincerely believe the 7D is $100 more of a camera than the D7000 (if that), but yet the price....

Meh. I still think the 7D is a fantastic camera for the money, and I paid $1800 for mine months ago. It's hardly gouging. It has fantastic AF, full weather sealing, fantastic high ISO performance, great ergonomics, fast FPS, a magnesium body, a glorious viewfinder, and so on - AND Canon even throws in a decent PP suite that Nikon nickel-and-dimes for. What more do you want at its current price?

-- hide signature --

Caution: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads