Upcoming from Canon

[Rex914]

One aspect of Canon that we can all agree upon is that Canon has massive R&D budget that no other company in the industry has. Thankfully, it's being put to good use. What is Canon coming up with next?

One thing that Canon is currently testing is a fuel-cell battery that will completely render lithium-ion batteries obsolete. Fuel cell batteries provide far, far better battery life and are environmentally sound. Canon has already developed working prototypes of fuel cells and is hoping to bring the first fuel-cell powered camera and printer models to the market in just 3 years.

The second major innovation (which Kodak actually jumped the gun on 2 years ago in their LS633) is the in-house use of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays. In layman's terms, think of these as a precursor to electronic paper. They are thinner, lighter, have a wider viewing angle, are more durable than LCD's and don't need a backlight! That translates to lower costs and batter battery life.

It's innovations like these rather than megapixels and gimmicks which will differentiate consumer level digi cams in the next few years.

[TheObiJuan]

One aspect of Canon that we can all agree upon is that Canon has massive R&D budget that no other company in the industry has. Thankfully, it's being put to good use. What is Canon coming up with next?

One thing that Canon is currently testing is a fuel-cell battery that will completely render lithium-ion batteries obsolete. Fuel cell batteries provide far, far better battery life and are environmentally sound. Canon has already developed working prototypes of fuel cells and is hoping to bring the first fuel-cell powered camera and printer models to the market in just 3 years.

The second major innovation (which Kodak actually jumped the gun on 2 years ago in their LS633) is the in-house use of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays. In layman's terms, think of these as a precursor to electronic paper. They are thinner, lighter, have a wider viewing angle, are more durable than LCD's and don't need a backlight! That translates to lower costs and batter battery life.

It's innovations like these rather than megapixels and gimmicks which will differentiate consumer level digi cams in the next few years.

this sounds interesting and exciting.

[Rex914]

It does. I can imagine that even in DSLR's, they could include larger fuel-cells, driving battery life through the roof! (2000, 3000 shots one charge anyone? )

[ReValveiT]

Cool...

Now if only they could throw some glass in a tube and come up with a decent and genuinely consistent wide-angle zoom, we'd be laughing!

Just venting.

[Coltess]

As long as they don't use a flamable fluid/gas to generate the power. That might get you bared from from all flights

[timmciglobal]

Let's not forget that canon not only has excelent skills in glass production but also in sensor design.

I think the only thing holding canon back in some areas is product timetables and not wanting to hurt their own sales by introducing products far superior then what is currently out there.

Lenses like the 24-105 F4 IS L lens gives you the type of quality canon can produce, you have to wonder why there isn't a "pro2" like that outside of the obvious reason that people wouldn't buy a XT + a bunch of lenses if they just make a "pro2" with that level of quality. (Of course many would but why cut off 25% of your sales for a high margin dSLR with another product)

Tim

[Rummager]

Yah.. Nice to see canon getting in on the scene with OLED, ive had my eye in that area for monitors waiting for it to ripen.

Some amazing things can be done with it, cant wait for it to become mainstream!

[coldrain]

Let's not forget that canon not only has excelent skills in glass production but also in sensor design.

I think the only thing holding canon back in some areas is product timetables and not wanting to hurt their own sales by introducing products far superior then what is currently out there.

Lenses like the 24-105 F4 IS L lens gives you the type of quality canon can produce, you have to wonder why there isn't a "pro2" like that outside of the obvious reason that people wouldn't buy a XT + a bunch of lenses if they just make a "pro2" with that level of quality. (Of course many would but why cut off 25% of your sales for a high margin dSLR with another product)

Tim

Did you see the price of the 24-105 f4 IS L? It is very expensive to make a lens like that, plain and simple. The zoom range is not exactly a zoom range popular with the ultra zoom rage on the moment. The very small sensors of that type of camera make lens design very different than for SLR's.

So all in all, you can not say just put a 24-105 on a prosumer digital compact/bridge camera and that is that. A lens like that, with a good camera on/in it with an aps-c sensor, will give you something like the Sony R1, without movie mode, without panorama mode, without permanent live preview. And the price would be over 1500$. Not a very attractive offering in todays market, people who would want to spend that money would rather go for an EOS 350D with that lens, so they can actually exchange lenses when wanted.

The pro1 actually has a very nice lens, it is the 8mp sensor that lets it (and all other 8mp prosumer cameras) down a bit.

[erichlund]

One thing that Canon is currently testing is a fuel-cell battery that will completely render lithium-ion batteries obsolete. Fuel cell batteries provide far, far better battery life and are environmentally sound. Canon has already developed working prototypes of fuel cells and is hoping to bring the first fuel-cell powered camera and printer models to the market in just 3 years.

It's innovations like these rather than megapixels and gimmicks which will differentiate consumer level digi cams in the next few years.

OK, but I still have questions.

First, most fuel cell research today involves Hydrogen / Oxygen, because seawater is free (sort of). But extracting hydrogen from seawater is not free, nor is it currently non-polluting. Many estimates indicate that while the energy conversion in the fuel cell is very efficient, the energy cost to produce the fuel reduces the efficiency to less than that of internal combustion engines. Also, Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas, and some naturally escapes in the production process.

Second, if you seal a fuel cell, it's really just a battery, and a non-rechargeable one, at that. The real advantage of a fuel cell over a battery is that the fuel (Hydrogen, for instance) can be replaced. Since the reaction is catalytic, it is nearly totally non-destructive to the components of the cell. Hence, a fuel cell can last a long time. However, how do you replace the fuel in a cell the size of a camera battery. If they are just non-rechargeable batteries, even if they last three times what a Lithium battery lasts, the Li battery can be recharged many, many times. I once did the math and estimated I'd be hip deep in a 10' x 10' room using non-rechargeable alkaline batteries instead of 3 sets NiMH AA cells. That was based on regular usage and rated life, which most of us don't get, because we don't use them enough for them to get the rated recharges. But you get the idea. Same thing applies to ANY non-rechargeable device. Think landfill.

Third, a fuel cell must exhaust water. If it cannot get rid of the byproduct of its chemical reaction, then the water will build up and flood the electrodes. This will render the cell inert (as will too little water). Do you really want water inside your camera?

Fourth, and related to the second issue, other forms of fuel could be used in the fuel cell. A liquid fuel could be used, which could be injected into the cell by a "recharge" device. This could even work with hydrogen, with distilled water (minimizing buildup of undesired minerals within the device) as the input and electrolysis as the primary production means. I have no idea how large such a device would have to be, nor how much water you would have to provide, and it would still have to be plugged into the wall, as electrolysis is powered by electricity (though about 80% efficient in a sufficient scale of operation). Still, it seems a lot less convenient than Lithium ion cells which are pretty much plug and play, and easy to recharge, even on the road.

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I'm not particularly comfortable with storing hydrogen in an electrical device, unnattended in my home. Think Hindenburg on a small scale.

Like I said, I have questions.

Cheers,
Eric

[coldrain]

Hydrogen is not a greenhouse gas. It is a very reactive gas that will react with O2 to form water or react with something else. It is not so poluting to make from H20 (water) H and O2 (oxigen). The only problem is that you will not be able to fill up your fuel cells yourself, like you can put electricity into NiMH or lithium ion batteries.

The problem is logistical, not a poluting problem.