Canon Pro1 Press Release

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

 

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

 

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"

....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

 

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

 

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

 

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

-Jack

 

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

 

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.

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

 

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.

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

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

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?

With much slower lenses, often less sharp too.

Dave

 

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.

 

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