look into my crystal loupe
Canon Announces World’s First Full-Frame Consumer DSLR
Amstelveen, The Netherlands, Aug. 22, 2008
Today Canon introduced its EOS 500D, the first full-frame digital SLR available for under $1000. The camera squeezes 22 megapixels onto a 36x24mm CMOS sensor, in a package slightly larger than the model it replaces, the EOS 450D, previously claimed as the world’s smallest DSLR. Like its predecessor, the 500D features a 3” LCD, voice recording, and 32 creative modes. It adds 13-point autofocus, a more powerful flash, as well as an “infrared” mode, which simulates actual infrared photography. When packaged as a kit with the EF 24-105mm f/4-5.6 lens, the estimated street price will be $900. It will be offered in midnight blue, ruby red, and teal.
The announcement comes one week after Sony announced the first 16-megapixel FOVEON-based SLR, the DSC-30401A. Sony claims its 16 megapixels are equivalent to a Bayer array's 48 megapixels, since a FOVEON sensor contains three photosites at each pixel. Independent digital imaging consultant, Bernard Dijkplygger estimates, “it’s actually closer to something like 32 megapixels on a Bayer sensor, but it’s still impressive.” When asked if that will translate into better image quality than Canon’s 30-megapixel prosumer DSLRs, Dijkplygger demurred, “let’s see what the dynamic range is like first.” The Sony will retail for $2499.
Sony, which holds 2% of the $28 billion worldwide DSLR market, is hoping to break the duopoly shared by Nikon and Canon with, respectively, 21% and 74% of the market.
When asked how the new announcements would affect their future development plans, Nikon, who also introduced their $1300 16-megapixel, full-frame D90 last week, declined to comment.
In addition to the new camera body, Canon announced three new lenses: the EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6L DO IS USM telephoto zoom, the EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM macro, and the EF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM standard zoom.
Perhaps the most exciting is the much-rumored 24-105mm f/2.8L IS. Combining all the strengths of Canon’s venerable 24-70 f/2.8L with all the benefits of Canon’s most popular L lens, the 24-105 f/4L IS, many will consider this the ideal walkaround lens. This comes at a cost: a 1.1kg, 4-inch-long heft, along with an impressive $1699 MSRP.
The telephoto, the EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6L DO IS USM, utilizes Canon's controversial diffractive optics technology to produce an even shorter 3.8-inch-long lens. Like its ill-fated predecessor, the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, short does not equal light: the new lens weighs in at 1.2kg. It will retail for $1249.
The 100mm macro is essentially a new image stabilizer tacked on to the old 100mm macro. All three lenses feature fourth-generation Image Stabilization; Canon claims it can be used in 4 stops less light than without image stabilization. In addition, the 100mm macro features focus stabilization, which, instead of shifting the lens side to side, moves it backwards and forwards to maintain focus distance, critical for handheld macro photography. Canon lists the price as $499.
Asked how the new announcements fit into Canon’s future marketing strategy, European Director of Marketing Ichiro Suzuki stated, “We now have a clear advantage in lenses, sensors, and image processors, and the top-selling model in every market segment. Starting Q1 2009, we will phase out the EF-S line of lenses. After that, our plan is to cut corners and raise prices. We rule.”
Labels: Photography
posted by 1600 Squirrels at 3:01 AM
Not really related to your post but it's something that I've wanted to ask for a long time and have no answer/explanation for, so I'm wondering what you think.
I've always had problems with taking photography under low light. The trade off is between natural colors or fuzzy or grainy pictures. Flash (with low ASA) destroys natural tones but is cristal sharp, and high ASA natural color makes the tones look natural. Low light photography is difficult especially when the subject is moving, or when you don't have a tripod.
When I used film over a decade ago, I experimented with 400, 800, and 1600 push ASA. Lots of grains, yes, but at least it captures the natural essense of the subjects. With my new and cheapo point-and-shoot digital, I can only go up to 400 ASA. I do in fact see grains when I blow up the picture, but it's not too
bad when I make it small, like 800x600.
Now here is my question for you. Say you have 2 digital cams, EXACT same max ASA and exact same exposure time and aperature and focus. One is X megapixel, and the other one is Y megapixel where Y>>X. You take the 2 pictures from the two cameras under low lighting, then reduce the picture again to say, 800x600. Will the picture from Y look less grainy than X?
In another word, what is the grain a function of?
10:22 AM
Interesting question.
Judging from comparisons between various Canon EOS models (which all share, within a given generation, the same noise reduction and color processing chip): yes, I'd say the higher resolution one looks less grainy, even if you're viewing both at greater than 3000x2000.
My perception of noise is a function of both grain size (i.e., pixel resolution in the digital realm) and intensity of deviation from the true color value.
BTW, you'll find the Canon EOS line does an excellent job at retaining color accuracy even at high ISO settings. My personal evaluation is the perceived noise of the 5D @ ISO 3200 is about equivalent to the 20D @ 1600, which is equivalent to the 10D @ 800, which is roughly comparable to ISO 200-400 on film or a typical point & shoot. Try out a 5D - you'll be amazed at what ISO 1600 looks like.
10:47 AM
One more thing: I think noise perception is also related to the degree of randomness of the noise. I find the noise pattern of my Digital Rebel is not at all random. If I apply extreme brightening to a high ISO image, the noise is aligned in columns, looking like something between scratches on movie film and JPEG artifacts.
10:52 AM
Very very interesting, thanks for the reply. I've always thought that I have enough megapixels, but in the case of low light photography which is usually quite challenging, it actually helps!
4:44 PM
Actually, for a given sensor size, you may want less pixels, not more. The 5D is reputed to have lower noise than the top-of-the-line 1Ds MkII, even though they have the same sensor size and the same noise-reduction chip. This is likely due to the 5D having fewer sensels, and thus larger individual photosites, which collect more photons (signal) for a given aperture than the 1Ds MkII's photosites. More signal / same noise-producing-circuitry = more accuracy per pixel.
But the pixels are slightly larger, so that may counterbalance the lower noise per pixel. I'm guessing they're in the same ballpark of perceived noise, which is to say, the best low-light performance of any camera yet built.
8:01 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home