Artificially constrained RAW depth - 20D

[David Goodwin]

Of course I think it is cheapening of the model not to increase the
memory that the camera has...

But maybe the CPU or the OS is only capable of addressing 64 MB of
memory?

Or maybe the rumors about 2 models replacing 10D are correct? Who
knows?

I dont think they are going to introduce a new model until at least after the new year. There is LITTLE room between the 20D and the MkII in terms of marketing, but perhaps Canon knows something about their consumer base that I do not!

I dont think the 20D CPU is capable of addressing only 64 megabytes of memory, that would make it less than a 32-bit processor (which can address up to 4GB of RAM I believe), which really in this day and age would be pretty pretty sad.

Now the OS, thats a different story. I hear they use a version of MS-DOS in their cameras, and if thats true, (and I could be wrong) I believe that sucker was limited to a max of 64 megs of addressable extended memory. Then again, its possible (and likely) that Canon has some proprietary memory management in that thing, and Im fairly positive that it can address a lot more than 64 megs.

 

[John Burns]

Call me churlish, but the 20D, even in model numbering terms,
pushes itself slightly below a 10D in Canon's historical numbering.

I think we all make to much out of the so called numbering "system" used by Canon. They put a 20D badge on the new camera so they can tell it apart from the one with the 10D badge that is sitting alongside it on a shelf.

--
John

 

[Ted W]

Call me churlish, but the 20D, even in model numbering terms,
pushes itself slightly below a 10D in Canon's historical numbering.

I think we all make to much out of the so called numbering "system"
used by Canon. They put a 20D badge on the new camera so they can
tell it apart from the one with the 10D badge that is sitting
alongside it on a shelf.

--
John

Sometimes, in marketing terms, a whole lot. Just look at BMW, another image conscious brand. Their historical numbering system consisted of a one digit model number followed by a 2 digit number indicating engine size eg. 325i is a 3-series with a 2.5 liter engine. Yet, in the late 90's they broke with tradition: the 2.5 liter car was renamed the 323i, against all Teutonic obsessive tendencies (no offence meant). Why? Because a 328i with a 2.8 liter engine came out. 325i was probably deemed too 'close' to 328i to justify the huge premium placed on the larger engined car. 323i was probably chosen because it neatly slotted half way between the base 318i and the 328i.

I believe this is the same situation with the 10D/20D. Choosing a number less than 10 for the new model doesn't give Canon much room to work with to release a new Almost-Pro-But-Not-Quite-As-Pro-As-A-1D model (let's call it a '3D'). If they had called the 20D a '5D' instead, there would not be enough market differentation to the '3D'.

I am not saying that the 3D or anything is going to be released any time soon, but calling the new camera 20D just gives Canon a few more options in the future. As you say, we may all make too much out of the numbering system, but I sure it keeps whole marketing departments awake at night !

--
Kind regards,
Ted (Sydney, Australia)
http://www.pbase.com/tedwu

 

[Guillaume paris2]

just like they couldn't call the 1D (2) the 2D, so the 10D successor could have taken the mkII badge... tatooed instead of the "digital" badge that is really useless... I still think it's weird in Canon numbering terms, to have a 20 better than a 10!! but who cares about the name, as long as people still refer to them properly... 20D, D20, D60, D70, D1, 1D... lol

Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com

 

[thx1138]

just like they couldn't call the 1D (2) the 2D, so the 10D
successor could have taken the mkII badge... tatooed instead of the
"digital" badge that is really useless... I still think it's weird
in Canon numbering terms, to have a 20 better than a 10!! but who
cares about the name, as long as people still refer to them
properly... 20D, D20, D60, D70, D1, 1D... lol

Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com

In the consumer market they would never use Mk II terminology. That would kill sales. A 10D MK II would be perceived by the uninformed masses as a minor upgrade. A 20D shouts all new camera. 10D MK II would be too risky IMO. However, in the pro world the 1D Mk II is sensible. This end of the market does their homework and also it implies that they have not done anything radical to the camera so the pros don't freak out.

 

[bill1]

I honestly think the 20D specs killed any chance of a 3D anytime soon. Of course now I've said that Canon will announce it in a week. My point is that the specs of the 20D are so good (RAW buffer depth notwithstanding) that what can they do with a 3D that sufficiently differentiates it from both the 20D and 1DMkII? I honestly think the the 20D specs are reasonably close to the 1D2 specs as is, let alone something better.

Then again there is a huge price gap between the 1D2 and 20D. Maybe Canon havew something up their sleeves. Maybe they will wait to see what Nikon does (eg D200, D2X).

Call me churlish, but the 20D, even in model numbering terms,
pushes itself slightly below a 10D in Canon's historical numbering.
The fact that it today it pushes itself ahead of a 10D in
capability is fine, but is more a case of timing I think. It
leaves more room in my opinion for the 3D, and I'm hoping for a
surprise at Photokina. I smell market and product positioning
going on, and rather than a closing of the gap to 1DMkII, I think
Canon have just opened it up a little, ready to slot something in.
I'll be selling my 10D, but I won't be ordering a 20D just yet

This has been discussed at length recentlz in anothe thread (that
is now locked at 150 posts). Canon apologist fanbozs however
insist the reasno must be technical as either a) Canon isn't
capable of duplicity or b) they learnt from their mistakes with the
300D to which I reply:

a) 300D QED; and
b) Canon don't necessarilz view their 300D cripplin as a mistake.

I'm glad someone with some stature as a reviewer has stepped into
this debate with some practical commonsense. I wonder what the
apologist fanbozs will saz now other than the ever-so-predictable:

a) He doesn't work for Canon so wouldn't know; and
b) He doesn't understand how bufering works.
--
'A colour-sense is more important, in the development of
the individual, then a sense of right or wrong.'
-- Oscar Wilde

--
See profile for my credit card legacy...

--
'A colour-sense is more important, in the development of
the individual, then a sense of right or wrong.'
-- Oscar Wilde