Canon Pro1 Press Release

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by deryck lant, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    deryck lant, Feb 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. deryck  lant

    LLutton Guest

    LLutton, Feb 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    from (LLutton) contains these words:

    > >http://dcresource.com/specials/PMA2004/canon/pro1.shtml
    > >
    > >8 Meg
    > >28-200 f2.4/3.5
    > >1.2in Super Macro only at 5 Meg Res.
    > >Low chromatic aberration
    > >999USD April
    > >
    > >Deryck


    > Thanks Deryck. Anxiously awaiting test results.
    > Lynn


    With the L-series lens technology the camera will probably
    have much lower colour fringing than the Sony F828 and might
    provide the best image quality of the present crop of new
    8 Meg 2/3 inch sensor cameras. The noise should be no worse
    than the G5. Recent Canon G series cameras gave beautiful
    colour quality. Some CA and noise with the G5.
    Of course a Canon 300D or Nikon D70 would provide a magnum
    improvement in image quality and speed and prove a better
    long-term investment.
    But for a compact camera . . .

    Deryck
    deryck lant, Feb 9, 2004
    #3
  4. deryck  lant

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Ahhh, for all of us wondering if Canon was indeed going to end the line
    that included the previous Pro90IS, the answer is now clear. This makes
    the Pro90 look like the Pro .9 :)

    Lisa

    deryck lant wrote:
    >
    > http://dcresource.com/specials/PMA2004/canon/pro1.shtml
    >
    > 8 Meg
    > 28-200 f2.4/3.5
    > 1.2in Super Macro only at 5 Meg Res.
    > Low chromatic aberration
    > 999USD April
    >
    > Deryck
    Lisa Horton, Feb 9, 2004
    #4
  5. deryck  lant

    AArDvarK Guest

    "deryck lant"
    > With the L-series lens technology the camera will probably
    > have much lower colour fringing than the Sony F828 and might
    > provide the best image quality of the present crop of new
    > 8 Meg 2/3 inch sensor cameras. The noise should be no worse
    > than the G5. Recent Canon G series cameras gave beautiful
    > colour quality. Some CA and noise with the G5.
    > Of course a Canon 300D or Nikon D70 would provide a magnum
    > improvement in image quality and speed and prove a better
    > long-term investment.
    > But for a compact camera . . .
    >
    > Deryck


    ....for a compact camera it's the same prie as a 300D and it's
    CMOS sensor, and basic lens. I wonder which one I should
    get.

    Alex
    AArDvarK, Feb 9, 2004
    #5
  6. deryck  lant

    JackD Guest

    "AArDvarK" <> wrote in message
    news:pjTVb.12256$IF1.5548@fed1read01...
    >
    > "deryck lant"
    > > With the L-series lens technology the camera will probably
    > > have much lower colour fringing than the Sony F828 and might
    > > provide the best image quality of the present crop of new
    > > 8 Meg 2/3 inch sensor cameras. The noise should be no worse
    > > than the G5. Recent Canon G series cameras gave beautiful
    > > colour quality. Some CA and noise with the G5.
    > > Of course a Canon 300D or Nikon D70 would provide a magnum
    > > improvement in image quality and speed and prove a better
    > > long-term investment.
    > > But for a compact camera . . .
    > >
    > > Deryck

    >
    > ...for a compact camera it's the same prie as a 300D and it's
    > CMOS sensor, and basic lens. I wonder which one I should
    > get.
    >
    > Alex


    Same price as a 300D without lens.
    Of course this is a "Basic" L series lens. If that makes a difference to
    you.
    To me it is interesting due to how compact it is.

    -Jack
    JackD, Feb 9, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <pjTVb.12256$IF1.5548@fed1read01>,
    "AArDvarK" <> wrote:

    > "deryck lant"
    > > With the L-series lens technology the camera will probably
    > > have much lower colour fringing than the Sony F828 and might
    > > provide the best image quality of the present crop of new
    > > 8 Meg 2/3 inch sensor cameras. The noise should be no worse
    > > than the G5. Recent Canon G series cameras gave beautiful
    > > colour quality. Some CA and noise with the G5.
    > > Of course a Canon 300D or Nikon D70 would provide a magnum
    > > improvement in image quality and speed and prove a better
    > > long-term investment.
    > > But for a compact camera . . .
    > >
    > > Deryck

    >
    > ...for a compact camera it's the same prie as a 300D and it's
    > CMOS sensor, and basic lens. I wonder which one I should
    > get.
    >
    > Alex
    >
    >


    Wait for the test results to see if it's the same class of sensor. The
    D series has unusually low noise levels and seems to be unique in its
    long exposure ability. An 8MP sensor of the same quality would be
    really impressive.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Feb 10, 2004
    #7
  8. deryck  lant

    Bob Guest

    "Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <pjTVb.12256$IF1.5548@fed1read01>,
    > "AArDvarK" <> wrote:
    >
    > > "deryck lant"
    > > > With the L-series lens technology the camera will probably
    > > > have much lower colour fringing than the Sony F828 and might
    > > > provide the best image quality of the present crop of new
    > > > 8 Meg 2/3 inch sensor cameras. The noise should be no worse
    > > > than the G5. Recent Canon G series cameras gave beautiful
    > > > colour quality. Some CA and noise with the G5.
    > > > Of course a Canon 300D or Nikon D70 would provide a magnum
    > > > improvement in image quality and speed and prove a better
    > > > long-term investment.
    > > > But for a compact camera . . .
    > > >
    > > > Deryck

    > >
    > > ...for a compact camera it's the same prie as a 300D and it's
    > > CMOS sensor, and basic lens. I wonder which one I should
    > > get.
    > >
    > > Alex
    > >

    When I first heard about the Pro1 I thought my prayers had been answered, a
    top quality non DSLR to equal or better them.
    Canon have blown it big time. Small sensor, no optical viewfinder, same old
    menu system. As others have pointed out why is anybody going to buy this
    when they can have the D300 or the new Nikon being released ?
    Somebody has written that if they put the DSLR sensor in this camera the
    lens would be 2.5 times bigger and '15 times' heavier. Yes of course it
    would. Just like the equivalent lens for the DSLR is ! Please Canon just
    produce an honest camera. A metal body with manual controls handy. A lens on
    the front that doesn't need to retract, your great swival LCD and a large
    bright optical viewfinder. And of course the proven 6mp sensor. Price about
    20% lower than the plastic 300D.
    Bob, Feb 10, 2004
    #8
  9. "Bob" <> wrote in
    news:c0ao5o$qg2$:

    > When I first heard about the Pro1 I thought my prayers had been
    > answered, a top quality non DSLR to equal or better them.
    > Canon have blown it big time. Small sensor, no optical viewfinder, same
    > old menu system. As others have pointed out why is anybody going to buy
    > this when they can have the D300 or the new Nikon being released ?
    > Somebody has written that if they put the DSLR sensor in this camera the
    > lens would be 2.5 times bigger and '15 times' heavier. Yes of course it
    > would. Just like the equivalent lens for the DSLR is ! Please Canon
    > just produce an honest camera. A metal body with manual controls handy.
    > A lens on the front that doesn't need to retract, your great swival LCD
    > and a large bright optical viewfinder. And of course the proven 6mp
    > sensor. Price about 20% lower than the plastic 300D.
    >


    Yes - I have also wondered why they don't put a quality sensor
    in a non SLR camera. Maybe it is because no quality sensor
    alows to use the LCD as iew finder.

    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Feb 10, 2004
    #9
  10. Roland Karlsson <> writes:

    >Yes - I have also wondered why they don't put a quality sensor
    >in a non SLR camera. Maybe it is because no quality sensor
    >alows to use the LCD as iew finder.


    Would you buy a SLR-sized camera with a 28-200 mm (equivalent) zoom on
    it that could not be removed? If it's the size of a SLR, and the lens
    weighs most of what a SLR lens weighs, why not just buy a SLR?

    If the sensor uses the same large sensor as the 300D/10D, you can't
    reduce body or lens size much from the SLR models. The 2/3 inch sensor
    is *much* smaller and so allows a much smaller lighter lens - at a cost
    in sensitivity and noise.

    If I owned both a Pro1 and a 300D with a stable of lenses, there are
    times I would use each. (Unfortunately, the reality is I own neither).

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Feb 10, 2004
    #10
  11. deryck  lant

    Mark Weaver Guest

    "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message news:c0b6l2
    >
    > If the sensor uses the same large sensor as the 300D/10D, you can't
    > reduce body or lens size much from the SLR models. The 2/3 inch sensor
    > is *much* smaller and so allows a much smaller lighter lens - at a cost
    > in sensitivity and noise.
    >


    Hold on -- there are compact 35mm cameras that have MUCH larger sensors
    (e.g. film frames)than a 300D. The 300D's sensor is still only APS
    sized--no reason why a compact camera much smaller than a 35mm SLR couldn't
    handle an APS sized sensor (or, at least, there's no good reason I've heard
    yet).

    Mark
    Mark Weaver, Feb 10, 2004
    #11
  12. deryck  lant

    JackD Guest

    "Mark Weaver" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message news:c0b6l2
    > >
    > > If the sensor uses the same large sensor as the 300D/10D, you can't
    > > reduce body or lens size much from the SLR models. The 2/3 inch sensor
    > > is *much* smaller and so allows a much smaller lighter lens - at a cost
    > > in sensitivity and noise.
    > >

    >
    > Hold on -- there are compact 35mm cameras that have MUCH larger sensors
    > (e.g. film frames)than a 300D. The 300D's sensor is still only APS
    > sized--no reason why a compact camera much smaller than a 35mm SLR

    couldn't
    > handle an APS sized sensor (or, at least, there's no good reason I've

    heard
    > yet).
    >
    > Mark


    Size is still important to some people. They still want a big metal thing to
    show the world.

    -Jack
    JackD, Feb 10, 2004
    #12
  13. "Mark Weaver" <> wrote in news:4
    :

    > Hold on -- there are compact 35mm cameras that have MUCH larger sensors
    > (e.g. film frames)than a 300D. The 300D's sensor is still only APS
    > sized--no reason why a compact camera much smaller than a 35mm SLR couldn't
    > handle an APS sized sensor (or, at least, there's no good reason I've heard
    > yet).
    >


    There is unfortunately one small problem.
    The digital sensors does not perform well at large
    angles. So - you want a lens that is tele-centric.
    This means an SLR lens or a tele lens.
    So - it might not be possible to use the nice
    compact lenses used in compact 35 mm cameras.


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Feb 10, 2004
    #13
  14. "Mark Weaver" <> writes:

    >Hold on -- there are compact 35mm cameras that have MUCH larger sensors
    >(e.g. film frames)than a 300D.


    But they don't have comparable lenses. A comparable lens would be
    28-200 mm f/2.4-3.5. What compact 35 mm camera has that zoom range *and
    aperture*? If there is one at all, I guarantee that it will not be
    small or light. Most compact 35 cameras have (a) much shorter zoom
    range and (b) much smaller aperture, particularly on the tele end.

    >The 300D's sensor is still only APS
    >sized--no reason why a compact camera much smaller than a 35mm SLR couldn't
    >handle an APS sized sensor (or, at least, there's no good reason I've heard
    >yet).


    That's sort of the point of the 4/3 system - build a complete line of
    cameras and lenses specifically for a somewhat smaller sensor. Yes, you
    could do that. But what you'd end up with is still most of the size of
    the current 35-based digicams, and still quite a bit larger than the
    Pro1 will be.

    To a first approximation, camera dimensions scale proportional to sensor
    size, while lens weight scales proportional to the cube of sensor size.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Feb 10, 2004
    #14
  15. deryck  lant

    JackD Guest

    "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    news:c0blbm$hcd$...
    > "Mark Weaver" <> writes:
    >
    > >Hold on -- there are compact 35mm cameras that have MUCH larger sensors
    > >(e.g. film frames)than a 300D.

    >
    > But they don't have comparable lenses. A comparable lens would be
    > 28-200 mm f/2.4-3.5. What compact 35 mm camera has that zoom range *and
    > aperture*? If there is one at all, I guarantee that it will not be
    > small or light. Most compact 35 cameras have (a) much shorter zoom
    > range and (b) much smaller aperture, particularly on the tele end.
    >
    > >The 300D's sensor is still only APS
    > >sized--no reason why a compact camera much smaller than a 35mm SLR

    couldn't
    > >handle an APS sized sensor (or, at least, there's no good reason I've

    heard
    > >yet).

    >
    > That's sort of the point of the 4/3 system - build a complete line of
    > cameras and lenses specifically for a somewhat smaller sensor. Yes, you
    > could do that. But what you'd end up with is still most of the size of
    > the current 35-based digicams, and still quite a bit larger than the
    > Pro1 will be.
    >
    > To a first approximation, camera dimensions scale proportional to sensor
    > size, while lens weight scales proportional to the cube of sensor size.
    >
    > Dave


    The reasons these discussions end up going nowhere is that there are a
    number of different areas where tradeoffs must be made and no one agrees
    exactly where to make them. For example:

    Cost - smaller sensor is cheaper, smaller lens is cheaper, smaller body is
    cheaper
    Image noise - larger sensor is better
    pixel count - larger sensor is better
    power - smaller sensor is better
    weight - smaller sensor, lens is better

    ....and so on for probably a dozen key parameters.
    My guess is that the lenses and body don't have much room for improvement
    and that a balance will be found where the camera and lens are small enough
    to be easy to handle and sensors will improve to the point where the image
    quality delivered is adequate. There is little point in making a camera too
    small to easily use. The cellphone is an example where "hand sized" is the
    right size and the really tiny phones are dying out.

    -Jack
    JackD, Feb 10, 2004
    #15
  16. deryck  lant

    Mark Weaver Guest

    "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    news:c0blbm$hcd$...
    > "Mark Weaver" <> writes:
    >
    > >Hold on -- there are compact 35mm cameras that have MUCH larger sensors
    > >(e.g. film frames)than a 300D.

    >
    > But they don't have comparable lenses. A comparable lens would be
    > 28-200 mm f/2.4-3.5. What compact 35 mm camera has that zoom range *and
    > aperture*? If there is one at all, I guarantee that it will not be
    > small or light. Most compact 35 cameras have (a) much shorter zoom
    > range and (b) much smaller aperture, particularly on the tele end.


    Fine, so give me a G6 with the APS sized sensor and a 3x or 4x zoom like the
    compact 35s and a form factor as small as those cameras. And then, if you
    want to add a ultra zoom model that's less compact, I won't object. Still
    no reason it can't be smaller than a 35mm SLR.

    >
    > >The 300D's sensor is still only APS
    > >sized--no reason why a compact camera much smaller than a 35mm SLR

    couldn't
    > >handle an APS sized sensor (or, at least, there's no good reason I've

    heard
    > >yet).

    >
    > That's sort of the point of the 4/3 system - build a complete line of
    > cameras and lenses specifically for a somewhat smaller sensor.


    Right -- except put that concept into a compact, please.

    > But what you'd end up with is still most of the size of
    > the current 35-based digicams, and still quite a bit larger than the
    > Pro1 will be.
    >
    > To a first approximation, camera dimensions scale proportional to sensor
    > size, while lens weight scales proportional to the cube of sensor size.
    >


    But that does not seem to hold for compact 35s -- they're as small as
    digicams with 1/1.8" sensors.

    Mark
    Mark Weaver, Feb 11, 2004
    #16
  17. "Mark Weaver" <> wrote:
    > "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    > news:c0blbm$hcd$...
    > > "Mark Weaver" <> writes:
    > >
    > > >Hold on -- there are compact 35mm cameras that have MUCH larger sensors
    > > >(e.g. film frames)than a 300D.

    > >
    > > But they don't have comparable lenses. A comparable lens would be
    > > 28-200 mm f/2.4-3.5. What compact 35 mm camera has that zoom range *and
    > > aperture*? If there is one at all, I guarantee that it will not be
    > > small or light. Most compact 35 cameras have (a) much shorter zoom
    > > range and (b) much smaller aperture, particularly on the tele end.

    >
    > Fine, so give me a G6 with the APS sized sensor and a 3x or 4x zoom like

    the
    > compact 35s and a form factor as small as those cameras. And then, if you
    > want to add a ultra zoom model that's less compact, I won't object. Still
    > no reason it can't be smaller than a 35mm SLR.


    But there's no point to it. The consumer cameras work (relatively<g>) fine
    at ISO 50, and with an f/2.8 lens, that's fine for outdoor and flash
    photography. Even quite a bit of night photography can be done at ISO 50
    with a tripod and long exposures. (With the Sony F707, using ISO 100 and
    stopping down to f/5.6 results in very nice night shots.)

    Put an f/5.6 lens on a 1.6x sensor, shoot at ISO 400, and you are only
    slightly ahead of the consumer camera.

    If you want to take advantage of the 1.6x sensor, you need to be able to
    switch to prime lenses for the speed and improved resolution.

    Even worse, most of the f/3.5 to f/5.6 consumer zooms are real dogs, and
    using one of those with a 1.6x sensor would be worse than using the Canon G3
    or Sony F717.

    > > To a first approximation, camera dimensions scale proportional to sensor
    > > size, while lens weight scales proportional to the cube of sensor size.
    > >

    >
    > But that does not seem to hold for compact 35s -- they're as small as
    > digicams with 1/1.8" sensors.


    The compact 35mm cameras have very slow lenses, and many are not even zooms.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 11, 2004
    #17
  18. "Mark Weaver" <> writes:

    >> But they don't have comparable lenses. A comparable lens would be
    >> 28-200 mm f/2.4-3.5. What compact 35 mm camera has that zoom range *and
    >> aperture*? If there is one at all, I guarantee that it will not be
    >> small or light. Most compact 35 cameras have (a) much shorter zoom
    >> range and (b) much smaller aperture, particularly on the tele end.


    >Fine, so give me a G6 with the APS sized sensor and a 3x or 4x zoom like the
    >compact 35s and a form factor as small as those cameras. And then, if you
    >want to add a ultra zoom model that's less compact, I won't object. Still
    >no reason it can't be smaller than a 35mm SLR.


    With what lens? The G5 has a pretty large lens, and it's only f/2 and
    4X zoom with a sensor that is 1/5 the size of a 35 mm frame. The "APS
    sized" sensor in the 300D and 10D is about 5/8 the size of a 35 frame,
    or more than 3 times larger than the G5's sensor. So to scale up the
    G5 lens, you can expect elements to be 3X the diameter and the weight
    will be about 30X as much. So you don't want a scaled-up G5 lens.

    The little P&S film cameras you're thinking of do have zooms, but
    they're much slower than the f/2 of the G5 or the f/2.4 of the Pro 1.
    They get away with this by using fast film. The 300D sensor is a lot
    faster than the G5's, so you could do the same thing - but now you're
    losing some of the benefit of the large sensor. You're also losing live
    preview on the LCD. So why is this camera any better than one of the
    small-CCD cameras like the G5 or A80?

    >But that does not seem to hold for compact 35s -- they're as small as
    >digicams with 1/1.8" sensors.


    With much slower lenses, often less sharp too.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Feb 11, 2004
    #18
  19. deryck  lant

    Bob Guest

    I have today been talking to my Photo dealer, he has recently been on a
    course with Canon. He says there is no practical reason why Canon can't use
    the 6.3mp CMOS sensor in a non DSLR camera. Of course the camera would be
    about the same size as an equivalent 35mm one. He asked the question why don
    't they ? Reason. It would upset The DSLR uses. The market is SLR and with
    their range of lenses they wish to keep it that way. In other words. No
    choice if you want top quality you have to buy a DSLR.

    "Dave Martindale" <> wrote in message
    news:c0cs3t$qgd$...
    > "Mark Weaver" <> writes:
    >
    > >> But they don't have comparable lenses. A comparable lens would be
    > >> 28-200 mm f/2.4-3.5. What compact 35 mm camera has that zoom range

    *and
    > >> aperture*? If there is one at all, I guarantee that it will not be
    > >> small or light. Most compact 35 cameras have (a) much shorter zoom
    > >> range and (b) much smaller aperture, particularly on the tele end.

    >
    > >Fine, so give me a G6 with the APS sized sensor and a 3x or 4x zoom like

    the
    > >compact 35s and a form factor as small as those cameras. And then, if

    you
    > >want to add a ultra zoom model that's less compact, I won't object.

    Still
    > >no reason it can't be smaller than a 35mm SLR.

    >
    > With what lens? The G5 has a pretty large lens, and it's only f/2 and
    > 4X zoom with a sensor that is 1/5 the size of a 35 mm frame. The "APS
    > sized" sensor in the 300D and 10D is about 5/8 the size of a 35 frame,
    > or more than 3 times larger than the G5's sensor. So to scale up the
    > G5 lens, you can expect elements to be 3X the diameter and the weight
    > will be about 30X as much. So you don't want a scaled-up G5 lens.
    >
    > The little P&S film cameras you're thinking of do have zooms, but
    > they're much slower than the f/2 of the G5 or the f/2.4 of the Pro 1.
    > They get away with this by using fast film. The 300D sensor is a lot
    > faster than the G5's, so you could do the same thing - but now you're
    > losing some of the benefit of the large sensor. You're also losing live
    > preview on the LCD. So why is this camera any better than one of the
    > small-CCD cameras like the G5 or A80?
    >
    > >But that does not seem to hold for compact 35s -- they're as small as
    > >digicams with 1/1.8" sensors.

    >
    > With much slower lenses, often less sharp too.
    >
    > Dave
    Bob, Feb 11, 2004
    #19
  20. deryck  lant

    JC Dill Guest

    On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:41:46 GMT, deryck lant <>
    wrote:

    >But for a compact camera . . .


    No sh*t!

    I really liked my G1, but it had limitations. I'm presently looking
    at the Mark II (with the 70-200 IS USM lens) for a professional
    quality camera - but I will need a backup camera as well as a "go
    everywhere" camera, and this looks like it's a winner for both of
    those needs.

    I'm off to check and see if B&H is taking pre-orders...

    jc
    JC Dill, Feb 13, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Leadtek Press Release on 7800GTX

    Silverstrand, Jul 7, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    807
    zachig
    Jul 10, 2005
  2. Silverstrand

    Patriot PR Press release about new DDR/DDR2

    Silverstrand, Jul 7, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    775
    Silverstrand
    Jul 7, 2005
  3. Poch

    Canon PowerShot Pro1 UK release

    Poch, Feb 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    336
  4. Ray Fischer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    549
    Ray Fischer
    Oct 24, 2010
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: Canon XT - doing full press without wating at half-press

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 25, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    610
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Oct 25, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page