[Dorian Gray]

Canon announced a major new product today: the Canon EOS 1000D digital SLR, to be known as the Digital Rebel XS in the US and the Kiss F in Japan. It's an obvious attempt to win back the budget DSLR buyers that Canon owned with the 300D/Digital Rebel.

What's noteworthy is that, as with the 300D, Canon seems to have deliberately "crippled" this body to prevent cannibalisation of its more expensive models. The clearest example of this is that the RAW shooting speed is limited to 1.5 fps for 5 frames, which compares poorly with the Nikon D60's 3 fps for 7 frames in RAW (1.2 fps with full buffer).

But RAW shooting speed is often more important on paper than in reality, and the 1000D looks like a nice camera overall. It's compact, has the competent 10-megapixel sensor from earlier Canon DSLRs, features live preview (important for point-and-shooters moving up to a SLR), and it weighs just 450 grams, which is lighter than a D60. The camera is available as a kit with an image-stabilised lens, as is the D60.

All that said, the price is not spectacular. Amazon.co.uk is taking pre-orders for the Canon 1000D kit at £579.99, while the Nikon D60 kit (with VR lens) is selling for just £409 (can that be right?). The 6-megapixel Nikon D40 kit is just £272.16! The D40X kit should be somewhere in between, though I don't see it on Amazon.co.uk at the moment (from Amazon itself).

More details on the Canon UK website here and here.

Thoughts?

[nikstar101]

I'm not sure where this fits in with the current EOS 400D and 450D. They seem to cover these specs for the same price apart the SD slot. So my questions is why?

[torifile]

SD rather than CF? Why would they do something like that?

[PKIDelirium]

Because CF is a dying medium. Literally NO non-pro cameras use them anymore.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Thoughts?

10 vs 12 mp. Big deal.
2.5 vs 3 inch LCD. Big deal.
7-point vs 9-point AF. I might notice this.
1.5 FPS. I'd notice this, but most people aren't going to shoot raw.

It seems like this is going to hit the US for $700+ with the 18-55mm IS lens. In the end it's a far better deal than the XSi/450D, but Canon's new offerings are not competitive on price when compared to...every other competitor. Everyone thought the camera kit was going to break the $500 barrier.

From Amazon...
Nikon D40 kit: $465
Nikon D60 kit: $640
Olympus E-420 kit: $560
Olympus E-520 kit: $700
Pentax K200D kit : $675
Sony A200K kit: $500
Sony A300K kit: $600

Originally Posted by torifile SD rather than CF? Why would they do something like that?

Why wouldn't they? Most people are going to enjoy the size advantage of SD vs CF without really noticing the drawbacks.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by PKIDelirium Because CF is a dying medium. Literally NO non-pro cameras use them anymore.

UDMA support in cameras and CF cards would indicate the format is not dying at all. It will remain the pro camera format of choice for years to come.

[wecallitfall]

I agree the 1000D seems to have all it's features/price point covered currently by the 400D/450D/40D

Strange...

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by nikstar101 I'm not sure where this fits in with the current EOS 400D and 450D. They seem to cover these specs for the same price apart the SD slot. So my questions is why?

Despite what I said above, I think the price will drop to a more competitive level. Looks like Amazon.co.uk is selling the 450D kit for less than they're charging for pre-orders on the 1000D kit. So clearly the Amazon price will have to come down.

Originally Posted by torifile SD rather than CF? Why would they do something like that?

Nothing wrong with SD cards. The more expensive Canon 450D also uses SD, as do practically all competing cameras.

Originally Posted by Eugene Canon's new offerings are not competitive on price when compared to...every other competitor. Everyone thought the camera kit was going to break the $500 barrier.

Yes, I was expecting the price to be about 20-25% lower (with fewer features if required). But the Canon brand is incredibly strong and many people are willing to pay more than a camera is worth on paper, simply because it's a Canon. A recent Reader's Digest survey (well, it's something!) suggested that Canon is the "most trusted" camera brand in 13 out of 16 European countries. Which is surprising considering that Nikon often does better in customer satisfaction surveys, has a 2-year warranty in several countries versus Canon's 1-year warranty, etc.

Originally Posted by wecallitfall I agree the 1000D seems to have all it's features/price point covered currently by the 400D/450D/40D Strange...

But soon at a significantly lower price than the 450D, and far lower than the 40D (which is a very different camera). The 400D is an "old" camera that's been on the market for a while. Customers probably want something fresh even if it's no better or even slightly worse in some ways.

DPReview has put up a photo of the front and back of the camera, plus a "preview" (elaborate spec list, basically). I think Canon's swoopy styling looks better on these little SLRs than on their pro models.

[Dorian Gray]

Strangely, Canon USA has still not made an announcement about the 1000D (or XS, rather) to the best of my knowledge. Neither has Amazon or B&H listed the XS, so we still don't know what the US price will be.

But I guess it's safe to assume that the main competition of the 1000D will be the Nikon D60. Below are some comparisons of the two cameras, taken from press images.

Front, equipped with their respective optical image stabilising kit lenses:





Back, showing the screen and button layout:





Top:





I think they're both handsome and well-designed in their own ways. The Nikon perhaps looks a bit more rugged and business-like, thanks to its crinkled finish and fatter grip. But the penta-mirror housing adds a touch of elegance too. The Canon's smooth, slouched shoulders have never appealed to me, but I do like its overall clean appearance. And the kit lens looks a little shorter, which is always nice.

Hmm. I'm probably going to end up with an SLR in this price-range when I finally run out of more urgent things to use my money on.

[Eugene]

Canon's random button placement really annoys me. They seem to have no qualms with moving buttons wherever there's room, rather than where it makes sense to put them.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Eugene Canon's random button placement really annoys me. They seem to have no qualms with moving buttons wherever there's room, rather than where it makes sense to put them.

Elaborate, please. Nikon has made some shaky button-placement decisions too, in my opinion. For example, I used a D70S for a couple of weeks and found the AE-L/AF-L button (used for almost all my auto-exposed shots) quite a stretch for my normal hand-holding position:



Much too high and too far inboard. Perhaps it would be fine for someone with very large hands. Your D200 doesn't seem much better either:



A bit lower, but still too far inboard. The D60's button is better simply because the camera is smaller. By the way, how does one lock exposure and focus independently on a 450D or 1000D? Custom function?

Canon has made the buttons on the 1000D bigger and less shrouded by annoying plastic ridges compared to the 450D, which has to have one of the worst rear designs I've seen on an SLR. But I bet the buttons still feel delicate and fussy compared to Nikon's rock-solid buttons. On the other hand, Canon understands the importance of having dedicated buttons for ISO and white-balance, bizarrely absent from the Nikon D60.

[Mac+]

Originally Posted by DG By the way, how does one lock exposure and focus independently on a 450D or 1000D? Custom function?

On my film bodies I use a custom function to have the rear * button lock focus and a half depression of the shutter button lock exposure. I suspect it's the same for the other non EOS-1 digital bodies too. On the recent 1 series models, I think there is a dedicated AF-ON button on the rear these days.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Mac+ On my film bodies I use a custom function to have the rear * button lock focus and a half depression of the shutter button lock exposure. I suspect it's the same for the other non EOS-1 digital bodies too. On the recent 1 series models, I think there is a dedicated AF-ON button on the rear these days.

Okay, so not difficult at all. And the * button on the 1000D looks easily accessible from the normal hand position.

Still a couple of us holding out with film. Though at this point I'd really like a good digital camera in addition. The problem is cash.

Are you waiting to see what the 5D replacement looks like, Mac+?

[Mac+]

Absolutely, DG. I have held out this long so I can afford to wait a bit longer. Mind you, I'm not averse to making the switch to a Nikon full frame body depending on what is released.

[Matsu]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Still a couple of us holding out with film. Though at this point I'd really like a good digital camera in addition. The problem is cash. Are you waiting to see what the 5D replacement looks like, Mac+?

There seems to be a relatively credible D700 rumor afoot aswell. 12MP FX sensor Nikon... You'll know for sure if Chasseur rumors it. Our in house photographer shoots portraits with a 5D and the files are wonderful. I've seen everything from head shots to body length bus-stop sized billboards. Based on D3 samples, Nikon's FX (35mm) 12MP CMOS seems a bit better than the Cannon's for ISO range and DR.

I wonder what a D700 would cost, probably $3000 to the D3's $5000 ?

Anyway, it looks to me like the output of 12MP FX sized sensors is more than a match for 35mm film by most metrics. The problem is still cash, but less so with every generation.

What did the first Kodak 35mm digital cameras cost? the cost of "full frame" seems to have dropped substantially in the last few years. From about $8000, to about $2500 (Canon 5D). The next few years will probably drop into the 1500-2000 range, maybe even less...

[Dorian Gray]

Interesting rumour about the D700, Matsui. Thanks for mentioning it. I wonder if it would be enough to compete with Canon's offering? I'm expecting something really good from Canon to replace the 5D. They've had three years or so since the launch of the 5D to get something ready, and I get the feeling Canon as a camera company has felt the heat from competitors in the last couple of years. A stunning 5D replacement would do a lot to re-establish Canon as a strong leader in price and innovation in people's minds. The question is, will Canon have the guts to cannibalise the 1D(s) market?

A full-frame DSLR is completely out of my price-range for the foreseeable future, but it's interesting to keep an eye on the market. I think Nikon really needs to invest heavily in lenses for the next year or two, in addition to normal camera development (including new full-frame cameras). What I see as missing are:

• A set of fast AF-S primes with good optical quality. Canon has proved that photographers still care a lot about fast primes, with their new f/1.2 50 mm and 85 mm lenses, the f/1.4 35 mm, the f/2 135 mm, and a couple of others. A couple of really good f/1.4 AF-S Nikkors and an f/2 24 mm with top-notch optical quality would go a long way towards rectifying Nikon's prime lens situation.
  
• A couple of good fixed-f/4 zooms to compete with Canon's L-branded equivalents.

These lenses should be flat-out attempts at creating the best optical performance possible, even if they must initially be priced slightly higher than desired.

With tons of internet sites providing deep lens tests free of charge, everyone thinking of spending $1k on a lens soon learns the shortcomings of every lens on the market. These lens tests are hugely influential. Canon's first version of the f/2.8 16-35 mm lens was doomed from the moment it became widely known that it fared badly against the 17-35 mm Nikkor equivalent. And recently every photo forum has been ablaze with discussion about the poor corner performance of the f/2.8 70-200 mm Nikkor AF-S.

The days of people trusting a lens just because Nikon or Canon makes it are over, thanks to much better information. And with high-res digital SLRs making it easy to see every flaw in a lens, even the idea that all lenses are equal at f/8 doesn't hold much currency anymore.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray [...] The days of people trusting a lens just because Nikon or Canon makes it are over, thanks to much better information. And with high-res digital SLRs making it easy to see every flaw in a lens, even the idea that all lenses are equal at f/8 doesn't hold much currency anymore.

Do some people just buy the body and look elsewhere for the lenses? My recent DP1 purchase - and a full page Sigma lens ad I saw in our newspaper last week (is this level of promotion something new for them?) - made me wonder if third-party lenses have much of an impact on the market.

Somebody must be buying them. Kind of pricey though. Some of those advertised lenses cost more than a new camera (at least mine)!

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Chinney Do some people just buy the body and look elsewhere for the lenses? My recent DP1 purchase - and a full page Sigma lens ad I saw in our newspaper last week (is this level of promotion something new for them?) - made me wonder if third-party lenses have much of an impact on the market. Somebody must be buying them. Kind of pricey though. Some of those advertised lenses cost more than a new camera (at least mine)!

Sigma has advertised fairly frequently in the dedicated photographic press for years, though I don't think I've ever seen a Sigma ad in a newspaper.

Some people do of course buy an SLR camera and then get lenses from a third-party. But what I meant was that having "Nikkor" on a lens is no longer sufficient to make people buy it. They might buy a third-party lens instead, or they might simply plan their lens purchases to avoid certain poor Nikon lenses (buying slightly different focal lengths instead, for example). In extreme cases they might switch to another brand to get a camera that can take the lens of their dreams.

Poor lenses at $1k flop these days, because the people buying them know too much to fall for a brand name that doesn't have performance to match. Just ten years ago it was almost impossible to get reliable information about optical performance. You'd have needed your own optical bench to get the kind of information anyone can get nowadays for free on a dozen websites. The exception was the German brands, that published (and publish) comprehensive measured distortion/fall-off/MTF curves for their lenses.

The lens on the Sigma DP1 is of stellar quality: much better than the kit zooms of the D60 and 1000D I posted above, though obviously less flexible. I wonder how much of the purchase price of the DP1 is the lens.

[Chinney]

Meanwhile, even some of the little snappy compacts are paying attention to their lenses, at least in their promotion. I was tempted by the Leica lenses in the little Panasonic Lumixes. I have not seen reviews of them - and once again, maybe it is just the Leica name, not necessarily the quality - but I find it interesting that a company would pay attention to that even with a little compact for the general market. I find that impressive...if the Leica lens on the Lumix lives up to its name.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Matsu There seems to be a relatively credible D700 rumor afoot aswell. 12MP FX sensor Nikon... You'll know for sure if Chasseur rumors it.

Voilà ! So you reckon it's a sure thing then?

Originally Posted by Chinney I find that impressive...if the Leica lens on the Lumix lives up to its name.

I wonder how much input Leica has in the Leica-branded Panasonic lenses. Certainly they don't make them. Do they even design them? I have my doubts. Perhaps they give some guidance to Panasonic's lens-design team (or whoever designs Panasonic's lenses). Anyway, the Leica-branded Panasonic lenses are pretty good, though not necessarily best in-class.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray And recently every photo forum has been ablaze with discussion about the poor corner performance of the f/2.8 70-200 mm Nikkor AF-S.

The review of the Nikon AF-S 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR that set this off was done by DPReview. Reading some people's comments you'd think the lens was trash. Even the DPReview conclusion strongly criticises the lens for poor corner performance.

Well, I thought I'd take a look at the DPReview data itself, compare it to its archenemy, the Canon EF 70-200 mm f/2.8 L IS USM, and draw my own conclusions.

Below are screenshots of the DPReview data for the two lenses, at the wide-open aperture of f/2.8 and various focal lengths. Differences are smaller at smaller apertures. First, performance on a crop-sensor camera:

70 mm:


105/100 mm:


135 mm:


200 mm:


As you can see, the Nikkor is clearly sharper than the Canon L at all focal lengths.

But the full-frame performance of the Nikkor is what's being so heavily criticised around the web. Have a look:

70 mm:


105/100 mm:


135 mm:


200 mm:


Not having seen these results, I was surprised at how well the Nikon lens performed. It's better than the Canon across the great majority of the frame, at all focal lengths. Only the extreme corners are poorer than the Canon (by a lot, admittedly). But far too much emphasis is being given to those extreme corners. At f/2.8 and a longish focal length, the corners are nearly always entirely out of focus anyway. Much more important in real life is the performance across the rest of the frame, where the Nikkor shines.

Not shown above is geometric distortion, where the Canon has an insignificant edge (both are excellent), and light fall-off, where the Canon has a significant advantage on full-frame, though again, only in the very extreme corners (where it doesn't matter anyway).

I guess the moral of the story is to take internet grumbling with a pinch of salt.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Not having seen these results, I was surprised at how well the Nikon lens performed. It's better than the Canon across the great majority of the frame, at all focal lengths. Only the extreme corners are poorer than the Canon (by a lot, admittedly). But far too much emphasis is being given to those extreme corners. At f/2.8 and a longish focal length, the corners are nearly always entirely out of focus anyway. Much more important in real life is the performance across the rest of the frame, where the Nikkor shines. Not shown above is geometric distortion, where the Canon has an insignificant edge (both are excellent), and light fall-off, where the Canon has a significant advantage on full-frame, though again, only in the very extreme corners (where it doesn't matter anyway). I guess the moral of the story is to take internet grumbling with a pinch of salt.

I think you're discounting the importance of corner sharpness and vignetting quite a bit. If I'm to invest in a $1200 lens, I expect it to be versatile enough to allow me to use the entire frame. Not everyone wants the artsy-fartsy soft-focus, vignetted look around the edges. If one has to crop a 12mp image down to 6mp, then what exactly is the point?

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Eugene I think you're discounting the importance of corner sharpness and vignetting quite a bit.

I am indeed. I know how 200 mm lenses are typically used at f/2.8, and vignetting or sharpness issues in the extreme corner are simply a complete non-issue. Here's one of DPReview's sample photos, taken with the full-frame D3 at 200 mm and f/2.8. Why does corner sharpness or vignetting matter here? It doesn't.

In the real world it's nearly impossible to even find a way to shoot a 200 mm f/2.8 with the corners in focus, short of shooting a flat wall perpendicularly, or focusing at infinity. Vastly more important is the rest of the frame, i.e. where Ken Livingstone's face is situated in the linked photo.

Corner sharpness and vignetting is much more important with wide-angle lenses, as the corners will often be in focus. Yet the symmetric designs used in the world's sharpest wide-angle lenses are easy prey to the cosine fourth law and therefore suffer heavy light fall-off. If that's acceptable for the professionals everywhere who use these lenses in commercial photography, it's surely a non-issue for a telephoto zoom.

I find this lack of context is often a problem with DPReview reviews. They nitpick over everything they discover, with little regard for how the various cameras and lenses are actually used. Would be better to present the data, with explanatory notes, and let the reader determine what's important. But I guess people want to be told what to think.

[Eugene]

How about this one, shot with the Tamron at 200mm f/2.8 on a Canon EOS 5D?

The edges are sharp, intact, and the subject is far from flat.

How soft would the hair in this photo (200mm f/4) be on the Nikkor?


And in comparison to the Canon, how blurry would the man's pants be in this sample with the Nikkor?

[Matsu]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Voilà ! So you reckon it's a sure thing then?

I do. And a D3x, and a D90.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Eugene How about this one, shot with the Tamron at 200mm f/2.8 on a Canon EOS 5D? The edges are sharp, intact, and the subject is far from flat.

The Nikkor doesn't have a problem with edges: in fact, it's sharper than the Canon L along most of the long edges of the frame. It only lacks sharpness in the extreme corners of the frame.

Anyway, the Exif data for that image says it was shot at 113 mm. Here's the image superimposed on the lens data for 105 mm (close enough to 113 mm). I'm no Photoshop jockey, so it's a bit hard to see, but you get the idea:

Originally Posted by Eugene How soft would the hair in this photo (200mm f/4) be on the Nikkor?

Totally sharp everywhere that it's in focus:

Originally Posted by Eugene And in comparison to the Canon, how blurry would the man's pants be in this sample with the Nikkor?

Hard to tell, because they're not in critical focus at the edge of the frame in that photo anyway. Perhaps a little bit more blurred. Maybe we'd have something sharp in the frame though? Here's the image compared to the data for 200 mm, though the shot was taken at 165 mm:



And in all the above examples, the actual subject would be sharper with the Nikkor, though no doubt the Canon L is quite sharp enough. Canon aren't exactly notorious for making poor telephotos.

Originally Posted by Matsu And a D3x, and a D90.

The D90 should be an interesting camera. Maybe a real challenger for Canon's 40D, which is by far the most appealing Canon DSLR versus the competition, in my opinion.

[Matsu]

Spraken ze Deutsche?

Looks like a new higher power flash gun too. Now where's my D90?

I don't spraken much, but it looks like a monster. 5fps 8 with grip if I'm reading right... FX sensor, ISO 200-6400, boost to 12800 and 25600
If sensor is the same unit as in the D3, it should have really fantastic dynamic range -- nearly as good as the expanded ISO range trickery of the fuji cameras.

It's probably the camera every wedding photographer should own... Big clean files, excellent ambient light and great flash system capabilities...

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Matsu Now where's my D90?

I'm guessing a late October appearance.

I don't spraken much, but it looks like a monster. 5fps 8 with grip if I'm reading right... FX sensor, ISO 200-6400, boost to 12800 and 25600 If sensor is the same unit as in the D3, it should have really fantastic dynamic range -- nearly as good as the expanded ISO range trickery of the fuji cameras.

Looks like they want everybody to know this is a D3 minus vertical grip and outright FPS rather than, say a 30D with a larger sensor.

[MCQ]

dpreview has a preview of the D700 now:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond700/

[Matsu]

$3000 USD for the D700 has to be something of a new price standard for a full frame 35mm DSLR. Until now, any of the more affordable 35mm DSLRs were of somewhat less robust functionality. Thinking about Canon's 5D and Kodak's 14n/14c models - limited frame rate, and/or ISO range (Kodaks), less sophisticated metering and AF, etc etc... -- they were sometimes thought of as budget full frame options.

The D700 appears to be a fully specified professional camera for $3000, which is quite a drop from the 5000-8000 previously demanded in that segment...