Archive | March, 2013

Putting the Canon 100D into perspective

26 Mar

I just looked up some of the actual stats of Pentax cameras gone by, and Canon’s claim to have made the smallest DSLR seems much thinner and to come at far more sacrifice than has been pointed out so far.

Leaving aside the fact that the Olympus E-620 is a thinner camera of otherwise similar dimensions but higher crop factor, the Pentax K-x and K-m seem to be its closest competitors in APS-C size terms, where Canon’s offering measures 117*91*69 (millimetres) and Pentax’ 122.5*91.5*67.5. So basically, the 100D is a little less wide (by 6mm), and that’s it. With a battery life of 380 shots per charge vs. between 550 and 1100 depending on the type of (I remind you: AA) batteries used with the K-x, I think even the additional weight of 580g vs. 407g is quickly put into perspective. (Battery life source:

Furthermore, the fact that in a camera whose depth is hardly any greater than the 100D (the Pentax K-30, depth 71mm), Pentax can offer a bright pentaprism viewfinder with 100% coverage (vs. a darker pentamirror viewfinder with only 95% coverage in the 100D) actually makes the 100D look a bit of a dud. And let’s not talk about image quality, grip depth, or the fact that Pentax’ cameras include stabilisation.

I think the truth – that Canon’s entry level line with the new 700D is a bigger camera than Pentax’ APS-C professional offering, the K-5 (Canikon’s enthusiast and semi-professional models are generally bigger and heavier than those at entry level) – shows that in the 100D, Canon is erecting a Potemkin village. It’s as if Pentax had released the iPod nano two and a half years ago, and now Canon is releasing the shuffle, just to say, “look, we can do small” or perhaps more desperately, “look we’re still here”. But the regret here is not that Canon are late to try this, but rather, that they’ve not managed to put everything in that belongs, nor, so far, nailed a price point that looks appealing. Expect discounts soon!