Hi there - the EOS 700D has manual as well as auto levels of audio adjustment, and the max recording time is 29 minutes 59 seconds. Many thanks, The Canon team.
Hi there - just to clarify - the EOS 700D and EOS 650D share the same newly developed sensor (2012) and DiG!C5 image processing. This sensor is capable of Hybrid AF. The EOS 600D and EOS 550D shared the same sensor (2010-2011) and DiG!C4 image processing. The Image processing in the EOS 600D was also improved over the EOS 550D. The EOS 100D sensor is actually a newly developed (2013) 18.0MP sensor with Hybrid CMOS II AF (80% coverage in live view) capabilities. Many thanks, The Canon team.
Hi there - just to clarify, the sensor in the EOS 700D was developed in 2012 (same sensor in the EOS 650D). This sensor is capable of Hybrid AF. Additionally, the sensor in the EOS 100D is a newly developed (2013) 18.0MP sensor with Hybrid CMOS II AF (80% coverage in live view) capabilities. Many thanks, the Canon team.
Hi there - just to clarify, the EOS 600D and EOS 550D shared the same sensor and DiG!C4 image processing (2010-2011). The Image processing in the EOS 600D was improved over the EOS 550D. The EOS 700D and EOS 650D share the same newly developed sensor (2012) and DiG!C5 image processing. This sensor is capable of Hybrid AF. Additionally, the EOS 100D sensor is a newly developed (2013) 18.0MP sensor with Hybrid CMOS II AF (80% coverage in live view) capabilities. Many thanks, the Canon team.
Hi sotroof - just to clarify as per our previous comments, the EOS 700D and EOS 650D share the same newly developed sensor (2012) and DiG!C5 image processing. This sensor is capable of Hybrid AF. The sensor in the EOS 100D is also a newly developed 18.0MP sensor (2013) with Hybrid CMOS II AF (80% coverage in live view) capabilities. Many thanks, the Canon team.
I have been using Canon EOS products for over 13 years. Many of the features I have never even tried, but I just LOVE these amazing tutorials, made me excited about photography and looking forward to experimenting with some shots!
Hi alancik123 - just to clarify, the EOS 600D and EOS 550D shared the same sensor and DiG!C4 image processing (2010-2011). The Image processing in the EOS 600D was improved over the EOS 550D. The EOS 700D and EOS 650D share the same newly developed sensor (2012) and DiG!C5 image processing. This sensor is capable of Hybrid AF. Many thanks, the Canon team.
We're not arguing. :) I agree with most of what you just said. 18mp will get the job done for most people. But the reason you see so many Canons out there, is that in the early days, they were better, so we committed and bought Canon Glass. Now, it is Nikon that is pushing digital. Non Pro's should be stoked on these cameras. Pro's, and serious amateurs have a right to ask for more. Few people will need 12fps in a 1Dx. 10fps and a 24mp camera would have been far more useful.
What I'm saying is that the lenses can't resolve 36mp in small format. In medium format they can resolve higher because the physical lens is bigger. If you look at lenses that have their best performance at f11 (virtually all lenses, regardless of cost) MF can in theory resolve up to about 32 MP. FF can resolve up to 16 MP and APS-C can resolve up to about 7 MP. There may be some resolution benefit if you can find a lens that performs best at 5.6 but the DOF would be hair thin at that res.
Absolutely. Only get the 700D if you want the 18-55mm STM kit lens (vs the 18-55mm kit on the 650D). That's pretty much the only major difference other than the texture of the surface on the 700D.
I have a 650D. Although I don't think an upgrade to a 700D is wise (better spend on some Glass) my 650D proved me that it was better than I expected. Don't forget these are ENTRY Level shooters. The 650D is amazing. And believe me... 18 Million Pixels, are more than enough. Glass matters the most. These cameras are not going to bottleneck you. Your skill will. ( since they are for amateurs and people who are entering the DSLR world right now ) ( I need a 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS fast )
Can you tell us if 70D will have a new sensor? By new I mean an actually new sensor with improvements to noise performance and image quality and dynamic range.
The image at 2:27 must be wrong - the 700D has to have a higher RAW burst rate than the 100D. 100D looks interesting and one I'd recommend to my friends.
I honestly wouldn't need a 5D mark III megapixel-wise, but it's just the speed of it which attracts me (as well as the ISO quality). I wouldn't mind still using a 1D mark III as well for the 10 fps and 1.3x crop.
I use Phase One (rented) when the budget allows. But there's nothing wrong with 35mm: - particularly when you are talking about the D800E, without the anti aliasing filter and 36mp, which trumps even most Medium format out there. Yes, sensor size is important, but medium format is clunky to focus next to a 5d3 or a D800 with all those focus points, and 6.5-12fps improves my chances of success far more than a MF sensor would. Plus, I don't have $50K laying around. Do you?
Too true. Alas, when I was buying my first DSLR, I was choosing between the 60D and Nikon D7000. And being the naive teenager and inexperienced photographer I was, I chose the 60D because of the higher MP. Now, I own a 5D mark III, and yes it has a 22.3mp sensor, but I chose it for everything else other than that. It could have a 16mp sensor and I'd still absolutely adore it! :)
Supposedly, they have 3 different high mp cameras in testing but yeah I think the 42 mp would be the one released. Although, 39mp (I think) was mentioned too and that would still be good. And maybe not you, but there sure were some people who did so.
Hi Canon team, You probably won't reply to this (or see this), but I think the problem everyone has with the 700D is that it is virtually identical to the 650D: same sensor, same ISO range, same autofocus system, same almost everything, except the mode dial and slightly larger autofocus area in live view and movie mode. So, many people are confused as to why more substantial advanced weren't made with the 700D. Could we have an honest answer? R&D budget limits maybe?
I agree with you that Canon no longer have their fingers on the pulse for pro requirements. Do the least effort and produce a 700D that would only interest anyone upgrading from a XXXXD range. I think these should be officially released April 1st because only a fool would throw money at these. I love my 7D and 550D but none of these new releases have tempted me to upgrade my 550D backup DSLR
To each their own. My old 8mp 20D was great... until it wasn't. I did use it professionally, but when 600D's started having more mp for a lower cost (plus noise improvements etc), it was time to upgrade. Also... try doing a professional shoot in front of an art director with a 6mp camera. Try shooting a wedding with a 700D, when the uncle with an interest in photography is using a 5D3. You'll see what I mean.
They were actually right. 12 MP is probably enough. Certainly for an APS-C camera (such as the subject of this video) it's plenty. In full frame probably 16 is as many as you need, simply because that's all the lenses can produce.
All I'm trying to say is that for an entry level camera 18MP is more than enough. As it is for any non-professional photographer who doesn't print large. How we got to comparing top-of-the-line cameras with 600$ ones is beyond my understanding. We agree and yet it seems like we 're arguing. Cheers
In regards to the fact of it's superior build quality, speed features, a couple of extra buttons on the front and other minor details, according to Canon the 1Dx IS worth the $4k more :) but I'd settle for my 5D 3
At this point I know I wouldn't need anything more than a 5D mk II. I owned a Nikon D80, which I chose just because of the larger grip than the smaller D40/60 and now I own a nex-5 because of the compatibility with older lenses. I like the 14MP but I know I wouldn't have much use of something higher. A 5D mk II would suit me perfectly for many years to come, that is if I could afford one. All that came from many hours of research and not falling into any marketing traps.
I wouldn't complain about the 24-70 II. It is definitely a hell of a lot sharper than the mark I from what I can see. I own the 24-70 II and i use my friend's mark I when he's using my mark II. And considering I don't have a 70-200 f/2.8, it's easier to share the 82mm filters between my 24-70 II and 16-35 II
Probably where you're coming from yes, but I've been in so many situations with my 60D in previous years where I needed to use 3200 or higher, and I couldn't stand it. I'm not afraid to shoot at ISO 8000 on my 5D3 now.
Canon keeps putting new cameras with the tinniest updates. I remember the gold old days when the canon 550d first came out! But, this also makes me more happy that I have the 650d!
I still maintain *all* small format is for amateur photographers. Apart from news and sports, the pro's use medium format or bigger. These little cameras are great, but saying they need to be made more different from the "pro" gear is makes no sense because the gear you want it more different from isn't real pro gear. It just couldn't be any more different to real pro gear.
So the issue is for the top end cameras to 'appear' more advanced and not the entry level camera needing more megapixel. A professional wouldn't need a 100D would he?
My point exactly. The 1Dx is less than a year old and clocks in at 18mp. Which is far too low next to this consumer camera. Pro end Canon cameras need to step up.
I curse their lack of innovation and creative control, but I couldn't give a toss about more MP. I'd be perfectly happy with a 12mp FF. An 18mp MF camera (real MF not crop MF) would have me in paroxims of delight and a 4x5 25mp is my dream camera.
This doesn't make sense, they made the new Powershot the Digic 6 sensor and not the 700D? There is no point in buying this cameras at all, the Powershot now records 1080p@60fps! I'll definitely wait for the 70D to come out hopefully with the new sensor
Back then we didn't. as computer hardware was quite slow at that moment of time. Now 18 to 24mp is mainstream now. And computer hardware is powerful enough to cope with 24 or 36mp. Also i've heard canon is going to release 42mp camera this year. :)
You don't know me then. You don't know Ken Rockwell either. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's right when he says there are more than enough MP in any modern camera. 6 is plenty (I have a 6mp that won a competition as a big print). 12 is more than plenty. 18 is stupid overkill. I don't wish for more MP than I have from my 5d2 and I don't envy the Nikon green cast Nikon d800. Even the best glass for small format can't keep up. Who wants more pixels of colour fringe?
Amen. :) They've stopped pushing. And it extends across most of their range. Not sure if they've hit a technological wall or what, but they are losing customers to Nikon, and they aren't winning any new fans amongst existing Canon users. The 650 to the 700 is a nothing jump. The 5D2 to the 5D3 was similar, with some good autofocus being the only welcome upgrade. The 1dx is good on paper, but dropping 3mp stopped a lot of pros from upgrading. Is it too much to ask for another 5D to 5D2 size jump?
I'd feel safer shooting at ISO 8000 on my 5D 3 than using a D800. And I'm not completely wrong, I may just not be completely right. But you're wrong in the sense saying the 5D 3 is a multimedia/video camera. If that were true, it would be pointless having it's speed features e.g. 61 point AF and 6 FPS. If I were to focus on landscapes alone, I would absolutely adore the D800. Each has it's perks. In reality, as a whole package neither is better than the other.
There's no point in having more than 12 MP in a crop camera as the lenses can't resolve more than that. They could doubtless build a 100 MP crop sensor, but it would be terrible. We haven't needed more MP since the 400D came out.
it's funny how people a re arguing over nikon/canon. Professionals don't usually watch youtube reviews, they go out and check the cameras for themselves. As far as ametures are concerned, you wont regret buying any of these cameras until 3 years from now, i.e., when they get absolutely obsolete.
As it seems, not only those looking to get their first dSLR look at the MP count. More and more people are falling into the megapixel 'trap' and often forget it's no use counting the megapixels in an entry-level body. Alas the MP count is a marketing scheme which I think is coming to an end since noone really wants more than what is offered today.
Literally there has been almost no change between the 700D and the old 550D that I have..Just add 1more fps shoot speed, rotating LCD, and "stepping motor" which is useless for people who know what they are doing. Why haven't they updated the sensor yet?
Well in fairness, the number of people who buy Rebel camera's vastly outnumber the number of people who buy the top-of-the-range models, so its understandable that Canon keep releasing these (not to mention Rebels have an annual release schedule compared to bi-annual or less for other ranges, due to longer R&D time for those models). Also, just cause I have a 650D DOESN'T mean I don't know how to use a camera, thankyouverymuch. 'bells and whistles' don't make a good photographer.
Are there any real differences between the 700d and the 650d? I am confused Canon, why would you do this? Just give us the 70d or the 7d Mark II please!!!!
I've got good news for you. Your 5d3 and 16-35 IS pro gear, and if you're any good, you should get a folio together. Add a 70-200 to that, and you've got everything you need. You can rent the rest (Like pros do with 80% of their non essential gear). Very few "pros" own Medium format (At least not the latest), as $50k to be on the cutting edge is just too much. And given that 5D's and 1D's are pro gear, yes, I still maintain that they should be significantly better than a 700D MP wise. Ask Nikon.
A 12mp file prints 16x24". (40x60cm) Is that big enough for all applications? Bus stop outdoor ads? Big art prints? Severe crops? 36mp probably IS overkill But the point is that they're pushing what's possible. It's like when people COMPLAIN that their still cameras don't "need" video. WHY NOT?! It's a feature included to add value! And it, (Like the extra 18mp WILL come in handy for MANY people. Can show me a 36mp Nikon vs an 18mp Canon file, and point out a loss of quality on the Nikon?
i had to chuckle when your filming with one camera and looking at the other(o canon)and there was times when i thought bec had a gun pointed at her with her expressions.
I have bought the 700D and i guess i m doing a pretty good job with it. IT is highly recommended for beginners, and i m doing a lot withh the Creative Filters
OK.... and Medium format STARTS at 20mp. The biggest out there is a massive 80mp. Still think megapixels don't matter to Pros? Mind if I ask you one thing? Do you shoot (or assist), or are you in any way involved with professional photography? I can give you names of people shooting for BIG clients, and HIGH END Mags (Vogue, Harpers etc) shooting on Canon/Nikon. They use Phase/Blad when the situation calls for it, but really... it's 80% show to impress clients. Plus, they can charge more.
Sad, Canon is kidding no one with these cameras. I hope the competitors will show them. And this comes from a Canon shooter. If I wouldn't have invested in Canon glass I would have jumped the boat already. Just get your act together, so we can keep handing you the money. Please, would you be so kind Canon?
please keep making videos!!! maybe do some invterviews with some other canon photographers. not just famous ones but people in the real world...(like me XD)
The problem with canon actually start with the 5d3 which stuck in 22mp. That is a huge marketing failure. Therefore, all upcoming canon apsc sensor dslr would suppress their mpx under 22. If the dynamic range and the noise performance of the sensor is nt getting any better, i can say canon will bcum the nxt kodak
Not all about the megapixel. Just saying. The 5D3 blows the D800 out of the water because of it's low light capabilities and the 1Dx is the fastest DSLR on the market.
When a shot is printed the size of a building, then the printing process has dots bigger than a 20 cent coin. A 6mp camera is plenty. If you had a bill board 30 metres wide, the pixels would be only 1 cm across, smaller than the resolution of the printing process. In comparison a D800 would have pixels half that size or 5mm across. Who gives a toss? Either camera out resolves the glass.
The 100D looks very interesting, but what was the point of releasing the 700D? O.o its virtually identical to the 650D except a new mode dial. What gives, Canon? Why not just release the 100D, let it shine in its own light, and spend more R&D on the 700D?
Why does Canon love 18mp so much?! Same resolution as a 1Dx? Why would I buy a 1Dx? Or even a 5D3? or a 7D? Nikon's D800 is the benchmark. You need to lift your game.
Why do people care so much about low light photography? Yes, it's important. But even my 5D2 did a serviceable job, and next to Film, it's amazing. How often do we really shoot at high ISO's? Sports guys, wedding guys... sure. But 99% of photography will be done between 100 and 400, and any camera is capable of that. If this 18mp in a 4/3 sensor is good, then that translates to roughly 29mp at full frame. And you wouldn't hear me complaining about that. May not be 36, but it's a start.
It's funny, when you think about it though. Nikon users would always say "hmph we don't need the high MP that Canon has blah blah blah" and now they BRAG about the D800 having 36mp.
I am that uncle. I'm liable to turn up at a wedding with my normal walkaround kit which is a 5d2 with a 16-35 II L. As I said, if you want to look like a pro because of your gear, get pro gear not amature gear which is what a 5d3 actually is. What I'm saying is that 18 is *more* than plenty, there's no point in the 36 of a D800. You were saying Canon is lagging behind, but it's lagging behind something that's not important. In colour all the Canons are streets ahead of the D800
Computers might be able to cope, and mass storage is cheap, but the physics of light preclude it being worth while. A 42 MP camera won't produce an image any different from the current cameras. Google Airy disk. If the pixel is smaller than 5 um then they're smaller than the lenses can physically produce a point of light. If you want more MP then the sensor has to be bigger. There's just no getting around it. Interestingly, these cameras at 4.22 um are pointlessly high resolution
You got to admit, these cameras are targeting those who just want to upgrade to a DSLR camera. The first thing people look at (when they don't know a lot about cameras) is how high the megapixel is. I bet someone with a lot of money has bought a 'blad thinking "oh look at all these megapixels. This will impress everyone for sure"... and they have no idea how to use it lol
There's no point in an APC-C sensor of more than 22MP because the lenses can't resolve that much. A 7MP APS-C will out resolve any zoom lens. These 18MP cameras will already out resolve any lens you can put on them. They're already far too high and only 18 for marketing reasons. DR and noise suffers when you increase the MP count. 12 would be a senible maximum for APS-C
Entry level cameras can have as many MP as they want. Anyone who thinks these 2 cameras look great is 100% correct in my opinion. But don't you think the extra $6K of a 1Dx is worth a few more megapixels than the cheapest camera in the canon line up? Not even remotely trying to argue that these cameras compare with the high end of Canon. But they're way too close in some areas for comfort. And next to a Nikon, they fail. 36mp beats 18mp. And Nikon didn't compromise on quality to get there.
They were right, yes, but I find it ironic how now they brag so much about having the 36mp option. Even though I've got a 5D 3 (22.3), I wouldn't mind a 14 to 18 mp camera (Full Frame of course). I was even on the verge of possibly just buying a used 1Ds II because of how cheap it is now and the fact that it's a 16.2mp full frame camera.
I know more than you think dude. Never said they were in the same league. Read my last post. I just think that the 700D is a great camera. But the Pro cameras, starting at the 5d3 are sub par compared to what else is out there. And these 2 new cameras blur the line too much. No Canon shooter I know (me included) doesn't want more from Canon. And we all drool over the D800 and wonder "what if".
Hi there - the EOS 700D has manual as well as auto levels of audio adjustment, and the max recording time is 29 minutes 59 seconds.
Many thanks,
The Canon team.
Hi there - just to clarify - the EOS 700D and EOS 650D share the same newly developed sensor (2012) and DiG!C5 image processing. This sensor is capable of Hybrid AF. The EOS 600D and EOS 550D shared the same sensor (2010-2011) and DiG!C4 image processing. The Image processing in the EOS 600D was also improved over the EOS 550D.
The EOS 100D sensor is actually a newly developed (2013) 18.0MP sensor with Hybrid CMOS II AF (80% coverage in live view) capabilities.
Many thanks,
The Canon team.
Hi there - just to clarify, the sensor in the EOS 700D was developed in 2012 (same sensor in the EOS 650D). This sensor is capable of Hybrid AF.
Additionally, the sensor in the EOS 100D is a newly developed (2013) 18.0MP sensor with Hybrid CMOS II AF (80% coverage in live view) capabilities.
Many thanks, the Canon team.
Hi there - just to clarify, the EOS 600D and EOS 550D shared the same sensor and DiG!C4 image processing (2010-2011). The Image processing in the EOS 600D was improved over the EOS 550D.
The EOS 700D and EOS 650D share the same newly developed sensor (2012) and DiG!C5 image processing. This sensor is capable of Hybrid AF.
Additionally, the EOS 100D sensor is a newly developed (2013) 18.0MP sensor with Hybrid CMOS II AF (80% coverage in live view) capabilities.
Many thanks, the Canon team.
Hi sotroof - just to clarify as per our previous comments, the EOS 700D and EOS 650D share the same newly developed sensor (2012) and DiG!C5 image processing. This sensor is capable of Hybrid AF.
The sensor in the EOS 100D is also a newly developed 18.0MP sensor (2013) with Hybrid CMOS II AF (80% coverage in live view) capabilities.
Many thanks, the Canon team.
I have been using Canon EOS products for over 13 years. Many of the features I have never even tried, but I just LOVE these amazing tutorials, made me excited about photography and looking forward to experimenting with some shots!
Hi alancik123 - just to clarify, the EOS 600D and EOS 550D shared the same sensor and DiG!C4 image processing (2010-2011). The Image processing in the EOS 600D was improved over the EOS 550D.
The EOS 700D and EOS 650D share the same newly developed sensor (2012) and DiG!C5 image processing. This sensor is capable of Hybrid AF.
Many thanks, the Canon team.
So a 700D is a 650D with more creative filters? Canon, you are freakin kidding me.
We're not arguing. :) I agree with most of what you just said. 18mp will get the job done for most people.
But the reason you see so many Canons out there, is that in the early days, they were better, so we committed and bought Canon Glass. Now, it is Nikon that is pushing digital.
Non Pro's should be stoked on these cameras. Pro's, and serious amateurs have a right to ask for more.
Few people will need 12fps in a 1Dx. 10fps and a 24mp camera would have been far more useful.
What I'm saying is that the lenses can't resolve 36mp in small format. In medium format they can resolve higher because the physical lens is bigger. If you look at lenses that have their best performance at f11 (virtually all lenses, regardless of cost) MF can in theory resolve up to about 32 MP. FF can resolve up to 16 MP and APS-C can resolve up to about 7 MP. There may be some resolution benefit if you can find a lens that performs best at 5.6 but the DOF would be hair thin at that res.
Absolutely. Only get the 700D if you want the 18-55mm STM kit lens (vs the 18-55mm kit on the 650D). That's pretty much the only major difference other than the texture of the surface on the 700D.
So, if I buy myself the 650D instead of the 700D I practically get the same camera?
I have a 650D. Although I don't think an upgrade to a 700D is wise (better spend on some Glass) my 650D proved me that it was better than I expected.
Don't forget these are ENTRY Level shooters.
The 650D is amazing. And believe me... 18 Million Pixels, are more than enough. Glass matters the most. These cameras are not going to bottleneck you. Your skill will. ( since they are for amateurs and people who are entering the DSLR world right now )
( I need a 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS fast )
Can you tell us if 70D will have a new sensor? By new I mean an actually new sensor with improvements to noise performance and image quality and dynamic range.
The image at 2:27 must be wrong - the 700D has to have a higher RAW burst rate than the 100D. 100D looks interesting and one I'd recommend to my friends.
I honestly wouldn't need a 5D mark III megapixel-wise, but it's just the speed of it which attracts me (as well as the ISO quality). I wouldn't mind still using a 1D mark III as well for the 10 fps and 1.3x crop.
Tiene buena pinta, a ver si pronto la podemos probar.
Seems like they decided to update only to get the new 18-55 stm lens out in a new kit
I use Phase One (rented) when the budget allows. But there's nothing wrong with 35mm: - particularly when you are talking about the D800E, without the anti aliasing filter and 36mp, which trumps even most Medium format out there. Yes, sensor size is important, but medium format is clunky to focus next to a 5d3 or a D800 with all those focus points, and 6.5-12fps improves my chances of success far more than a MF sensor would.
Plus, I don't have $50K laying around. Do you?
It's in the Digital Photo Professional package that came with your camera.
is the 700d's sensor cropped?
i want to get 60d but i cant decide if i should get 700d or 60d plz help!
Too true. Alas, when I was buying my first DSLR, I was choosing between the 60D and Nikon D7000. And being the naive teenager and inexperienced photographer I was, I chose the 60D because of the higher MP. Now, I own a 5D mark III, and yes it has a 22.3mp sensor, but I chose it for everything else other than that. It could have a 16mp sensor and I'd still absolutely adore it! :)
Supposedly, they have 3 different high mp cameras in testing but yeah I think the 42 mp would be the one released. Although, 39mp (I think) was mentioned too and that would still be good. And maybe not you, but there sure were some people who did so.
Hi Kellan - please contact your authorised local Canon dealers for more information. Many thanks.
Great work Canon!!!
Im keen to get my hands on a 100D for travel and the movie ability!
Would you need more than 18MP?
Hi Canon team,
You probably won't reply to this (or see this), but I think the problem everyone has with the 700D is that it is virtually identical to the 650D: same sensor, same ISO range, same autofocus system, same almost everything, except the mode dial and slightly larger autofocus area in live view and movie mode.
So, many people are confused as to why more substantial advanced weren't made with the 700D. Could we have an honest answer? R&D budget limits maybe?
I agree with you that Canon no longer have their fingers on the pulse for pro requirements. Do the least effort and produce a 700D that would only interest anyone upgrading from a XXXXD range. I think these should be officially released April 1st because only a fool would throw money at these. I love my 7D and 550D but none of these new releases have tempted me to upgrade my 550D backup DSLR
So ground breaking and innovative...
what do you prefer eos m or 100d ??
To each their own. My old 8mp 20D was great... until it wasn't. I did use it professionally, but when 600D's started having more mp for a lower cost (plus noise improvements etc), it was time to upgrade.
Also... try doing a professional shoot in front of an art director with a 6mp camera. Try shooting a wedding with a 700D, when the uncle with an interest in photography is using a 5D3. You'll see what I mean.
Dear CanonAustralia,
when will these two awesome cameras will be available in Indonesia?
Thanks for the answer and best regards :)
which lens is on the 100d
I also think it has a headphone jack out......... This makes me wonder if they had to fix some issues on the t4i with new hardware....
They were actually right. 12 MP is probably enough. Certainly for an APS-C camera (such as the subject of this video) it's plenty. In full frame probably 16 is as many as you need, simply because that's all the lenses can produce.
All I'm trying to say is that for an entry level camera 18MP is more than enough. As it is for any non-professional photographer who doesn't print large. How we got to comparing top-of-the-line cameras with 600$ ones is beyond my understanding. We agree and yet it seems like we 're arguing.
Cheers
In regards to the fact of it's superior build quality, speed features, a couple of extra buttons on the front and other minor details, according to Canon the 1Dx IS worth the $4k more :) but I'd settle for my 5D 3
At this point I know I wouldn't need anything more than a 5D mk II. I owned a Nikon D80, which I chose just because of the larger grip than the smaller D40/60 and now I own a nex-5 because of the compatibility with older lenses. I like the 14MP but I know I wouldn't have much use of something higher. A 5D mk II would suit me perfectly for many years to come, that is if I could afford one. All that came from many hours of research and not falling into any marketing traps.
I wouldn't complain about the 24-70 II. It is definitely a hell of a lot sharper than the mark I from what I can see. I own the 24-70 II and i use my friend's mark I when he's using my mark II. And considering I don't have a 70-200 f/2.8, it's easier to share the 82mm filters between my 24-70 II and 16-35 II
I do not understand, why some effects are in the 100D but not in the 700D?!
Yes, these are both crop sensor cameras
Probably where you're coming from yes, but I've been in so many situations with my 60D in previous years where I needed to use 3200 or higher, and I couldn't stand it. I'm not afraid to shoot at ISO 8000 on my 5D3 now.
Canon keeps putting new cameras with the tinniest updates.
I remember the gold old days when the canon 550d first came out!
But, this also makes me more happy that I have the 650d!
Vigo - miniature mode is also available in video mode on the EOS 100D: ruclips.net/video/WO-K_GXQV9w/видео.html
I still maintain *all* small format is for amateur photographers. Apart from news and sports, the pro's use medium format or bigger. These little cameras are great, but saying they need to be made more different from the "pro" gear is makes no sense because the gear you want it more different from isn't real pro gear. It just couldn't be any more different to real pro gear.
Choose 100d if your short?
how much does the 700D camera :p
So the issue is for the top end cameras to 'appear' more advanced and not the entry level camera needing more megapixel. A professional wouldn't need a 100D would he?
My point exactly. The 1Dx is less than a year old and clocks in at 18mp. Which is far too low next to this consumer camera. Pro end Canon cameras need to step up.
If it was me, I'd get a 6d. Full frame has a lot of advantages.
I curse their lack of innovation and creative control, but I couldn't give a toss about more MP. I'd be perfectly happy with a 12mp FF. An 18mp MF camera (real MF not crop MF) would have me in paroxims of delight and a 4x5 25mp is my dream camera.
This doesn't make sense, they made the new Powershot the Digic 6 sensor and not the 700D? There is no point in buying this cameras at all, the Powershot now records 1080p@60fps! I'll definitely wait for the 70D to come out hopefully with the new sensor
Back then we didn't. as computer hardware was quite slow at that moment of time. Now 18 to 24mp is mainstream now. And computer hardware is powerful enough to cope with 24 or 36mp. Also i've heard canon is going to release 42mp camera this year. :)
You don't know me then. You don't know Ken Rockwell either. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's right when he says there are more than enough MP in any modern camera. 6 is plenty (I have a 6mp that won a competition as a big print). 12 is more than plenty. 18 is stupid overkill. I don't wish for more MP than I have from my 5d2 and I don't envy the Nikon green cast Nikon d800. Even the best glass for small format can't keep up. Who wants more pixels of colour fringe?
where's my 7dMark II???? :(
i wish they have also upgraded the 700d with the new cmos af2, 700d: 38% width 26% height / 100d: 80% frame
Amen. :) They've stopped pushing. And it extends across most of their range. Not sure if they've hit a technological wall or what, but they are losing customers to Nikon, and they aren't winning any new fans amongst existing Canon users. The 650 to the 700 is a nothing jump. The 5D2 to the 5D3 was similar, with some good autofocus being the only welcome upgrade. The 1dx is good on paper, but dropping 3mp stopped a lot of pros from upgrading. Is it too much to ask for another 5D to 5D2 size jump?
I'd feel safer shooting at ISO 8000 on my 5D 3 than using a D800. And I'm not completely wrong, I may just not be completely right. But you're wrong in the sense saying the 5D 3 is a multimedia/video camera. If that were true, it would be pointless having it's speed features e.g. 61 point AF and 6 FPS. If I were to focus on landscapes alone, I would absolutely adore the D800. Each has it's perks. In reality, as a whole package neither is better than the other.
There's no point in having more than 12 MP in a crop camera as the lenses can't resolve more than that. They could doubtless build a 100 MP crop sensor, but it would be terrible. We haven't needed more MP since the 400D came out.
it's funny how people a re arguing over nikon/canon. Professionals don't usually watch youtube reviews, they go out and check the cameras for themselves. As far as ametures are concerned, you wont regret buying any of these cameras until 3 years from now, i.e., when they get absolutely obsolete.
As it seems, not only those looking to get their first dSLR look at the MP count. More and more people are falling into the megapixel 'trap' and often forget it's no use counting the megapixels in an entry-level body. Alas the MP count is a marketing scheme which I think is coming to an end since noone really wants more than what is offered today.
Literally there has been almost no change between the 700D and the old 550D that I have..Just add 1more fps shoot speed, rotating LCD, and "stepping motor" which is useless for people who know what they are doing. Why haven't they updated the sensor yet?
Well in fairness, the number of people who buy Rebel camera's vastly outnumber the number of people who buy the top-of-the-range models, so its understandable that Canon keep releasing these (not to mention Rebels have an annual release schedule compared to bi-annual or less for other ranges, due to longer R&D time for those models). Also, just cause I have a 650D DOESN'T mean I don't know how to use a camera, thankyouverymuch. 'bells and whistles' don't make a good photographer.
Are there any real differences between the 700d and the 650d? I am confused Canon, why would you do this? Just give us the 70d or the 7d Mark II please!!!!
miniature mode is so dope
yes
I've got good news for you. Your 5d3 and 16-35 IS pro gear, and if you're any good, you should get a folio together. Add a 70-200 to that, and you've got everything you need. You can rent the rest (Like pros do with 80% of their non essential gear). Very few "pros" own Medium format (At least not the latest), as $50k to be on the cutting edge is just too much. And given that 5D's and 1D's are pro gear, yes, I still maintain that they should be significantly better than a 700D MP wise. Ask Nikon.
A 12mp file prints 16x24". (40x60cm) Is that big enough for all applications? Bus stop outdoor ads? Big art prints? Severe crops?
36mp probably IS overkill But the point is that they're pushing what's possible.
It's like when people COMPLAIN that their still cameras don't "need" video. WHY NOT?! It's a feature included to add value! And it, (Like the extra 18mp WILL come in handy for MANY people.
Can show me a 36mp Nikon vs an 18mp Canon file, and point out a loss of quality on the Nikon?
i had to chuckle when your filming with one camera and looking at the other(o canon)and there was times when i thought bec had a gun pointed at her with her expressions.
I have bought the 700D and i guess i m doing a pretty good job with it.
IT is highly recommended for beginners, and i m doing a lot withh the Creative Filters
700D = 650D BUT WITH NEW BUTTONS!! OMG THAT'S SO COOL I WANT ONE NOW!! =O
OK.... and Medium format STARTS at 20mp. The biggest out there is a massive 80mp. Still think megapixels don't matter to Pros?
Mind if I ask you one thing?
Do you shoot (or assist), or are you in any way involved with professional photography?
I can give you names of people shooting for BIG clients, and HIGH END Mags (Vogue, Harpers etc) shooting on Canon/Nikon. They use Phase/Blad when the situation calls for it, but really... it's 80% show to impress clients. Plus, they can charge more.
7D MARK 2 PLEASE :)
Sad, Canon is kidding no one with these cameras. I hope the competitors will show them. And this comes from a Canon shooter. If I wouldn't have invested in Canon glass I would have jumped the boat already. Just get your act together, so we can keep handing you the money. Please, would you be so kind Canon?
Why all those amateur modes and filters? Food mode? Seriously? I was hoping for an upgrade for my 550D. No 50 or 60fps in 1080p, unfortunately.
please keep making videos!!! maybe do some invterviews with some other canon photographers. not just famous ones but people in the real world...(like me XD)
The problem with canon actually start with the 5d3 which stuck in 22mp. That is a huge marketing failure. Therefore, all upcoming canon apsc sensor dslr would suppress their mpx under 22. If the dynamic range and the noise performance of the sensor is nt getting any better, i can say canon will bcum the nxt kodak
The 650D went up 50D lol? whats the difference?
Not all about the megapixel. Just saying. The 5D3 blows the D800 out of the water because of it's low light capabilities and the 1Dx is the fastest DSLR on the market.
he said his name is kai?
I want Digital rev.
I'm still waiting for 70d
When a shot is printed the size of a building, then the printing process has dots bigger than a 20 cent coin. A 6mp camera is plenty. If you had a bill board 30 metres wide, the pixels would be only 1 cm across, smaller than the resolution of the printing process. In comparison a D800 would have pixels half that size or 5mm across. Who gives a toss? Either camera out resolves the glass.
The 100D looks very interesting, but what was the point of releasing the 700D? O.o its virtually identical to the 650D except a new mode dial. What gives, Canon? Why not just release the 100D, let it shine in its own light, and spend more R&D on the 700D?
Why does Canon love 18mp so much?! Same resolution as a 1Dx? Why would I buy a 1Dx? Or even a 5D3? or a 7D? Nikon's D800 is the benchmark. You need to lift your game.
Why do people care so much about low light photography? Yes, it's important. But even my 5D2 did a serviceable job, and next to Film, it's amazing. How often do we really shoot at high ISO's? Sports guys, wedding guys... sure. But 99% of photography will be done between 100 and 400, and any camera is capable of that.
If this 18mp in a 4/3 sensor is good, then that translates to roughly 29mp at full frame. And you wouldn't hear me complaining about that. May not be 36, but it's a start.
It's funny, when you think about it though. Nikon users would always say "hmph we don't need the high MP that Canon has blah blah blah" and now they BRAG about the D800 having 36mp.
What does the 700d have that the 650d doesn't have??!!
70d?
I am that uncle. I'm liable to turn up at a wedding with my normal walkaround kit which is a 5d2 with a 16-35 II L. As I said, if you want to look like a pro because of your gear, get pro gear not amature gear which is what a 5d3 actually is. What I'm saying is that 18 is *more* than plenty, there's no point in the 36 of a D800. You were saying Canon is lagging behind, but it's lagging behind something that's not important. In colour all the Canons are streets ahead of the D800
Computers might be able to cope, and mass storage is cheap, but the physics of light preclude it being worth while. A 42 MP camera won't produce an image any different from the current cameras. Google Airy disk. If the pixel is smaller than 5 um then they're smaller than the lenses can physically produce a point of light. If you want more MP then the sensor has to be bigger. There's just no getting around it. Interestingly, these cameras at 4.22 um are pointlessly high resolution
If I need a full-frame or a medium format camera I don't belong to the target audience of the 100D. Get my point?
The problem that everyone has... they're using the word "quality". The higher megapixels result in the image maintaining a higher resolution.
You got to admit, these cameras are targeting those who just want to upgrade to a DSLR camera. The first thing people look at (when they don't know a lot about cameras) is how high the megapixel is. I bet someone with a lot of money has bought a 'blad thinking "oh look at all these megapixels. This will impress everyone for sure"... and they have no idea how to use it lol
If only the SL1 with a tilling screen should have been the T5i not this one to bad the SL1 has no tilling screen that would have made it perfect.
There's no point in an APC-C sensor of more than 22MP because the lenses can't resolve that much. A 7MP APS-C will out resolve any zoom lens. These 18MP cameras will already out resolve any lens you can put on them. They're already far too high and only 18 for marketing reasons. DR and noise suffers when you increase the MP count. 12 would be a senible maximum for APS-C
Entry level cameras can have as many MP as they want. Anyone who thinks these 2 cameras look great is 100% correct in my opinion.
But don't you think the extra $6K of a 1Dx is worth a few more megapixels than the cheapest camera in the canon line up?
Not even remotely trying to argue that these cameras compare with the high end of Canon. But they're way too close in some areas for comfort. And next to a Nikon, they fail. 36mp beats 18mp. And Nikon didn't compromise on quality to get there.
where is HDR????
They were right, yes, but I find it ironic how now they brag so much about having the 36mp option. Even though I've got a 5D 3 (22.3), I wouldn't mind a 14 to 18 mp camera (Full Frame of course). I was even on the verge of possibly just buying a used 1Ds II because of how cheap it is now and the fact that it's a 16.2mp full frame camera.
I know more than you think dude. Never said they were in the same league. Read my last post. I just think that the 700D is a great camera. But the Pro cameras, starting at the 5d3 are sub par compared to what else is out there. And these 2 new cameras blur the line too much. No Canon shooter I know (me included) doesn't want more from Canon. And we all drool over the D800 and wonder "what if".