The new Canon 40D

[Bearface]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Patrick, you're right on the money there. It's not about whether a feature takes anything away from a camera (or "ruins" it, as Ian suggested...), but whether it's any use to those the products are aimed at.

Sure, on a compact the live view makes perfect sense, because they don't have true TTL viewfinders and therefore composing / focusing by using the screen (or by a digital viewfinder...) is often the only way to go. However the very fact that an SLR allows you to see what the camera sees via it's TTL viewfinder is precisely why Live View isn't needed.

With the best will in the world, how can a one-dimensional, 3" digital image be preferable to looking directly at the real thing in 3D? Frankly I'm stunned that Canon (assuming that the info is correct) are going to spec the 1Ds MkIII with a Live View screen and the Picture Style functions, but perhaps they know something about the needs of pro / expert photographers that I don't...

[yoshi]

Re: The new Canon 40D

I'll prefer to see the final press release

Ian

One of our rumours says the official announcement is scheduled on Aug.21st in London.

yoshi

[Ian]

Re: The new Canon 40D

One of our rumours says the official announcement is scheduled on Aug.21st in London.

yoshi

Hi Yoshi, there is a press event here in London this morning. There is no press embargo that I am aware of, but neither has any information been distributed officially!

Sometimes when we arrive at press events like this there is a non disclosure agreement for us to sign. We'll see!

Ian

[Ian]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Tim, the problem is that you are coming across as disapproving of a feature choice that Canon and other manufacturers have decided on implementing. I respect your right to disapprove, but that opinion is a very personal one and it disregards the potential value to other people.

Where have I ever said that an optical TTL viewfinder is inferior to Live View? I have consistently said that it has its uses in specific situations. I and many others who have used it find it very useful for critical focus work on a tripod, like with macro work, for example. For low angle and over the head shooting, it's a great asset, as well as with candid shots. I photograph a lot of products in a small studio setup and I find live view can be preferable during set up and compositioon. You see 100% of the frame in Live View; relatively few cameras offer this via the TTL finder. The ability to estimate exposure and white balance in real time using Live View can be undeniably useful. All this has some real value to many photographers, both pro and amateur.

I'm not saying Live View is an alternative to the traditional optical finder - it's complementary. If it was an expensive technology to include, sure, I'd be more cautious, but it's not. If you don't want to use it, you don' have to. So what's wrong with that?

Ian

[yoshi]

Re: The new Canon 40D

It looks almost certain the new Canon 40D will be announced on Monday.
Patrick

Hi Patric,
yes, you are right! Here!

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=15653

no official announcement yet at Japanese site but in the US.

yoshi

[yoshi]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Hi Patric,
yes, you are right! Here!

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=15653

no official announcement yet at Japanese site but in the US.

yoshi

Somehow I can not get pics of the new model from the US site. Well, is it still too early? Before they delete them i think it better to copy and paste the text part.

***********


The Spirit of Photography.
Welcome to the next generation of digital SLR photography-the Canon EOS 40D. The EOS 40D combines Canon's tremendous know-how in both the digital and photographic worlds, creating a camera that not only does everything one would expect of a traditional digital SLR, but one that incorporates staggering leaps forward in technological innovation. With new features like Canon's EOS Integrated Cleaning System, Live View Function, a more powerful DIGIC III Image Processor, plus a 10.1-megapixel CMOS sensor, a 3.0-inch LCD monitor and more, the EOS 40D elevates digital photography to new heights, enhancing the shooting experience, and delivering images one could only expect from a Canon.

*********

yoshi

[yoshi]

Re: The new Canon 40D

The only pic I could get from the Canon US site. - "what's in the Box?"

yoshi

[yoshi]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Now we can see the pic of the new model at the US site. Maybe when I tried before, the site was still in work-in-progress. No fear of deletion - maybe.

yoshi

[Stephen]

Re: The new Canon 40D

In fact are now a lot of new models of digital compacts loosing RAW because the market they generally appeal too are not interested in RAW. An example of a feature thought to be valuable and is to a large number of DSLR users, but not necessarily compact users.

Oddly enough I would have leaned towards this opinion myself until I see that Canon have just announced the new G9 and have reinstated the Raw mode. I always suspected that they should not have taken it out of the G7. Granted it is a high end compact but it perhaps shows the weight of opinion for Raw in such cameras and Canon has listened.

[Pops]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Just knew I shouldn't have thrown out that old bean counter.

[Patrick]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Oddly enough I would have leaned towards this opinion myself until I see that Canon have just announced the new G9 and have reinstated the Raw mode. I always suspected that they should not have taken it out of the G7. Granted it is a high end compact but it perhaps shows the weight of opinion for Raw in such cameras and Canon has listened.

On the Northlight Image site Park Cameras have an advert taking orders for the 40D. It appeared after midnight last night.

Waisted no time have they?

Patrick

[Bearface]

Re: The new Canon 40D

Tim, the problem is that you are coming across as disapproving of a feature choice that Canon and other manufacturers have decided on implementing. I respect your right to disapprove, but that opinion is a very personal one and it disregards the potential value to other people.

Ian, it isn't a "problem" at all; I just don't see the point in it! I've explained (quite clearly, I thought...) that I understood the benefits of Live View in compacts, however not for serious photography using a DSLR, where the real-life, 3-dimensional view offered by the TTL viewfinder is clearly superior in every way.

Where have I ever said that an optical TTL viewfinder is inferior to Live View?

I'm not aware that I said you did. However the implication has been that it serves as a true alternative to a TTL viewfinder and I'm saying that a 230,000 pixel, one-dimensional, 3" image does not represent a viable alternative to the real thing.

I have consistently said that it has its uses in specific situations. I and many others who have used it find it very useful for critical focus work on a tripod, like with macro work, for example. For low angle and over the head shooting, it's a great asset, as well as with candid shots. I photograph a lot of products in a small studio setup and I find live view can be preferable during set up and compositioon. You see 100% of the frame in Live View; relatively few cameras offer this via the TTL finder. The ability to estimate exposure and white balance in real time using Live View can be undeniably useful. All this has some real value to many photographers, both pro and amateur.

All this conveniently ignores the fundamental differences between 3D real view and the one-dimensional, digital view. Critical focus work in studio conditions is something I'm vaguely familiar with ( ) and a true view of proceedings is absolutely essential, unless of course the only options are the digital viewfinders or live screen of compact cameras. If you're using a DSLR, the best view of proceedings is going to be via the TTL viewfinder and if you're being completely honest, you know that's the case.

Candid work? Well nobody is going to convince me that it's easy to shoot candids with the large conspicuous chunk of plastic and metal that is the modern DSLR! The minute folk see one they're aware of your presence and no live-view screen is going to change that. Stephen and I developed a technique whereby one shoots literally from the hip while looking the other way from close-range, which wouldn't be possible with live view because you'd er........still have to compose and gawp into your LCD screen and that would still make you stand out like a sore thumb!

Low angle work? Er.........have you tried kneeling or crouching? Or lying flat? Ok, if someone has physical difficulty getting low to the ground, I can see the benefit, but otherwise I don't think it's necessary. I regularly take shots from ground level and I've yet to have any problems, despite the fact that I don't have Live View.

I'm not saying Live View is an alternative to the traditional optical finder - it's complementary. If it was an expensive technology to include, sure, I'd be more cautious, but it's not. If you don't want to use it, you don' have to. So what's wrong with that?

Ok, but your arguments have suggested that Live View is an alternative. Despite my cynicism, it's perfectly obvious to me that such a feature is complementary, but what I'm saying is that in DSLRs I fail to see the point of it. As I said earlier, I'm aware that their are many gadget freaks and gizmo addicts who like to wax lyrical down at the pub about the features their cameras, cars and computers have - and they'll undoubtedly convince themselves that Live View is important to their photography - but serious photographers (pro or otherwise) prefer to use their naked eyes to focus and compose, and Live View - by virtue of it's limitations - denies them that.

I'm sorry Ian, but I'm not convinced.

[StuartR]

Re: The new Canon 40D

A few more questions then, mainly as a response to Tim's last post, to keep things bubbling along....

1) Why did Canon implement Live View on a pro model? One assumes they researched their existing user base and the potential market before deciding how they spend their development budget. I would also assume that a significant number, if not the majority, of pro users would have indicated that they wanted Live View or Canon wouldn't have bothered?

2) Live View, without the benefit of a variable angle screen, doesn't actually help that much when it comes to low angle work. I'm still going to have to use my angle finder or go prone and crick my neck.

3) I've always assumed that a mirror and a TV were 2 dimensional and applied this belief to LCD screens and optical SLR viewfinders? I'll have to google and read up on the subject.

One of the problems with working this forum from work (lunch hour!) are that frequent interruptions mean that it can take half an hour or more to get a reply posted - by which time half the questions have been asked by someone else . Let's see if I'm right....

[StuartR]

Re: The new Canon 40D

One of the problems with working this forum from work (lunch hour!) are that frequent interruptions mean that it can take half an hour or more to get a reply posted - by which time half the questions have been asked by someone else : . Let's see if I'm right....

I was wrong, there's a first

[Bearface]

Re: The new Canon 40D

A few more questions then, mainly as a response to Tim's last post, to keep things bubbling along....

Like your style

1) Why did Canon implement Live View on a pro model? One assumes they researched their existing user base and the potential market before deciding how they spend their development budget.

Only Canon can answer this. Do I think that because a major manufacturer chooses to implement a feature on a professional camera that the decision must be based on customer feedback or market research? Not always, no; manufacturers often introduce features or technology that their markets haven't demanded - I know this because my Ma runs a market research consultancy and she tells me that manufacturers often introduce new features to the market with a view to convincing folk that they need it, rather than in response to demand for it.

I would also assume that a significant number, if not the majority, of pro users would have indicated that they wanted Live View or Canon wouldn't have bothered?

Well I know quite a few pros, and none of them has expressed any interest in Live View, despite the fact that new technology is regularly discussed. In fact, of those I've discussed it with, nobody actually sees the point, at least in the context of DSLRs and professional photography.

2) Live View, without the benefit of a variable angle screen, doesn't actually help that much when it comes to low angle work. I'm still going to have to use my angle finder or go prone and crick my neck.

And therefore the same applies with overhead and even candid work, too. Good point.

3) I've always assumed that a mirror and a TV were 2 dimensional and applied this belief to LCD screens and optical SLR viewfinders? I'll have to google and read up on the subject.

Mirrors show you precisely what the naked eye sees, albeit in reflected / inverted form. What you see through the viewfinder is 3 dimensional, whereas what you see on a TV or LCD screen is one-dimensional, mainly because the impression of depth is an illusion, which isn't the case with a mirror. This is why focusing and composing through the viewfinder is the optimal route to take; you're seeing everything first-hand.

And this is before we even touch on the quality of the reproduction a TV or LCD gives you, relative to a mirror image of reality...