Canon Slowly Releases New Products Prior to Photokina

[GTaudiophile]

Although not yet official, Canon's big announcements were leaked by its Canadian web site yesterday and confirmed today by their Australian web site.

The successor to the EOS-350D/Rebel XT has been annouced: EOS-400D.

No major updates to the body. Major updates include a new 10.1 Megapixel CMOS sensor, 2.5" LCD, and a built-in sensor cleaning system.

In addition to this new entry-level DSLR, Canon is introducing two new lenses:

EF 70-200 F4L IS (Rumored MSRP of $1250)
EF 50 1.2L (Rumored MSRP of $1600).

Canon is also releasing products for the non-DSLR users:

PowerShot A710 IS (Official Release)
PowerShot A630/A640 (Official Release)

And for the PIXMA printer fans, Canon is also releasing a whole-new lineup of them. Read Here!

Stay tuned for more Canon information from Photokina!

My personal comments:

• Where does the EOS-400D leave the EOS-30D? Who is going to pay more for fewer megapixels?
  Canon is being greedy: no way the 70-200 F4L IS should cost double the non-IS version!
  Instead of a $1600 EF 50 F1.2L, I would have preferred a $400 EF 50 F1.4 MkII with ring-type USM and digital lens elements.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Here are the pics!

Photochopped?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Official Specs from the Canon Australia Web Site:

EF 70-200 F4L IS

EF 50 F1.2L

EOS-400D Specs

Pricing information is still unavailable.

 

[yllus]

Can't say I'm that excited by either lens.

EF 50 F1.2L...I have a 50mm f1.8 already and don't really need to step up to the f1.4 or this f1.2.

The EF 70-200 F4L IS is interesting because it should depress the price of the EF 70-200 F4L (without IS) a bit. They'll have to price it pretty close to that older lens, or people will just step up to the f2.8 or f2.8 IS anyways. Or the Sigma 70-200m f2.8.

 

[vi edit]

That 70-200 will probably cost more than my mortgage. :\

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
That 70-200 will cost more than my mortgage. :\

Fixed. I deleted the word "probably" for you .

The 50 f/1.2 looks nice, but you know you are deep into photography when you can see what a 1.2 will do for you over a 1.8.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Rumor has the following MSRP prices:

$1600 for the EF 50 F1.2L and $1250 for the 70-200 F4L IS (almost double the non-IS version). As usual, Canon is being greedy.

Instead of the 1.2L, I would have preferred a $400 EF 50 F1.4 MkII with new ring-type USM and newer, digital lens elements.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: vi_edit
That 70-200 will cost more than my mortgage. :\

Fixed. I deleted the word "probably" for you .

The 50 f/1.2 looks nice, but you know you are deep into photography when you can see what a 1.2 will do for you over a 1.8.

I have to ask myself, is this new Canon really worth the 2x-3x premium over my lowly Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

 

[vi edit]

And holy crap...I'll stick with about 3% the price of the 1.2 and keep the old nifty fifty 1.8 in the bag.

$1600 bucks! Great googly moogly.

 

[Rubycon]

Sounds like a good match for my 5D.

 

[Czar]

The only thing interesting so far from canon is the 400d

a 10mpix camera which is good
but not so good when their very very new higher up version the 30d is only 8mpix

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: vi_edit
That 70-200 will cost more than my mortgage. :\

Fixed. I deleted the word "probably" for you .

The 50 f/1.2 looks nice, but you know you are deep into photography when you can see what a 1.2 will do for you over a 1.8.

I have to ask myself, is this new Canon really worth the 2x-3x premium over my lowly Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

All depends on what you do with your photography, and what you want out of it. If it's simply a hobby for you, surely the Sigma will be perfectly fine and reasonably sharp (especially with PP). If you are a professional, looking to sell high-quality prints, then I'm sure Canon's offering will be very intriguing and worth the price.

Just by looking at the specs, I'd rather save the money and keep the Sigma f/2.8 than spend more for a f/4 that may have marginally better IQ. Of course, that remains to be seen until it's released.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: vi_edit
That 70-200 will cost more than my mortgage. :\

Fixed. I deleted the word "probably" for you .

The 50 f/1.2 looks nice, but you know you are deep into photography when you can see what a 1.2 will do for you over a 1.8.

I have to ask myself, is this new Canon really worth the 2x-3x premium over my lowly Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

All depends on what you do with your photography, and what you want out of it. If it's simply a hobby for you, surely the Sigma will be perfectly fine and reasonably sharp (especially with PP). If you are a professional, looking to sell high-quality prints, then I'm sure Canon's offering will be very intriguing and worth the price.

Just by looking at the specs, I'd rather save the money and keep the Sigma f/2.8 than spend more for a f/4 that may have marginally better IQ. Of course, that remains to be seen until it's released.

then I think alot of people would spend a bit more and get the canon 70-200 f2.8 instead of the f4 version with IS

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: vi_edit
That 70-200 will cost more than my mortgage. :\

Fixed. I deleted the word "probably" for you .

The 50 f/1.2 looks nice, but you know you are deep into photography when you can see what a 1.2 will do for you over a 1.8.

I have to ask myself, is this new Canon really worth the 2x-3x premium over my lowly Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

All depends on what you do with your photography, and what you want out of it. If it's simply a hobby for you, surely the Sigma will be perfectly fine and reasonably sharp (especially with PP). If you are a professional, looking to sell high-quality prints, then I'm sure Canon's offering will be very intriguing and worth the price.

Just by looking at the specs, I'd rather save the money and keep the Sigma f/2.8 than spend more for a f/4 that may have marginally better IQ. Of course, that remains to be seen until it's released.

then I think alot of people would spend a bit more and get the canon 70-200 f2.8 instead of the f4 version with IS

Comes down to a weight issue for me. The IS version of the 70-200 F4L will weigh 55 grams more (705 vs. 760), still far lighter than the F2.8 IS version. So I will buy the F4L IS.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Comes down to a weight issue for me. The IS version of the 70-200 F4L will weigh 55 grams more (705 vs. 760), still far lighter than the F2.8 IS version. So I will buy the F4L IS.

Pssssh, my wife uses the f/2.8 IS for hours at a time. Sissy.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Comes down to a weight issue for me. The IS version of the 70-200 F4L will weigh 55 grams more (705 vs. 760), still far lighter than the F2.8 IS version. So I will buy the F4L IS.

Pssssh, my wife uses the f/2.8 IS for hours at a time. Sissy.

I can barely justify the 70-200 f4 IS much less the 2.8 IS. I just want one in the bag for the rare occassion.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Comes down to a weight issue for me. The IS version of the 70-200 F4L will weigh 55 grams more (705 vs. 760), still far lighter than the F2.8 IS version. So I will buy the F4L IS.

Pssssh, my wife uses the f/2.8 IS for hours at a time. Sissy.

I can barely justify the 70-200 f4 IS much less the 2.8 IS. I just want one in the bag for the rare occassion.

Then why not just get the 70-200 f4L?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Comes down to a weight issue for me. The IS version of the 70-200 F4L will weigh 55 grams more (705 vs. 760), still far lighter than the F2.8 IS version. So I will buy the F4L IS.

Pssssh, my wife uses the f/2.8 IS for hours at a time. Sissy.

I can barely justify the 70-200 f4 IS much less the 2.8 IS. I just want one in the bag for the rare occassion.

I'm just busting your stones... we use the 70-200 a lot though. She uses it for wedding photography so she can be inconspicuous.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Comes down to a weight issue for me. The IS version of the 70-200 F4L will weigh 55 grams more (705 vs. 760), still far lighter than the F2.8 IS version. So I will buy the F4L IS.

Pssssh, my wife uses the f/2.8 IS for hours at a time. Sissy.

I can barely justify the 70-200 f4 IS much less the 2.8 IS. I just want one in the bag for the rare occassion.

Then why not just get the 70-200 f4L?

Because I have shaky hands.

 

[ElFenix]

still waiting on a powershot pro2, G7, and S85/90.

 

[ElFenix]

or maybe S100, but they already had one of those (digital elph, anyone?)

one dude out on the intarweb seems to think it'll have raw and a 4x 28 to whatever IS lens. that'd be great. probably be the most flexible pocketable camera on the market.

it'd be G10 most likely, if we're going with 10 MP 1/1.8" CCDs. wonder how noisy those will be?