Future of 1.3 and 1.6 Crop Factors

I know that there is much speculation on future changes to current

digital EOS bodies, and nobody probably knows what will happen. As a

longer lens user, I don't miss a full frame censor, but the 1.6

factor of my 10D makes my 500mm f4 lens somewhat long for some types

of sport (but ideal for wildlife). I probably have a need for both a

1.3 factor body as well as a 1.6 factor body (ideally I would also

like to replace my 10D at some stage, only because of the long "wake

up time" and the limited buffer). The 1DMK2 is quite expensive and to

decide what to do, I have a few questions:

a. Will the 1DMk2 be replaced with a full frame censor, and I thus

have to buy one now to obtain a 1.3 factor body?

b. Will the 20D be replaced by another 1.6 factor body or by a 1.3

factor body? (in the latter case I have to buy a 20D to ensure that I

have a faster 1.6 crop factor body)

 

Anybody with some advice, or are we all just speculating?

Will the 1DII be replaced by a full frame sensor? Well it already has, the 1DsII range.

 

Canon will not bring out too virtually identical cameras, there is no marketing/commercial reason to. They have an action/sport/telephoto Pro spec camera, the 1D series, and the full frame studio/wedding/portrait/commercial shoot Pro camera the 1Ds series. That formulae is unlikley to change as the Pros seem quite happy with this evolutionary trend.

 

Will Canon release a ProAm 1.3 crop camera, more than likely, a 3D OR 30D type camera will come out as there probably is a demand for it.

Will Canon release a ProAm 1:1 camera - unlikley CMOS costs are too high at present. (I recently read Canon want US$3,000 for a full frame sensor?)

 

Will Canon produce Consumer Versions, No, the 1.6 crop cameras are just fine and selling like hot cakes, why should Canon change a winning formula?

 

Mike Smith

 

UK

We are just speculating.

 

No one knows exactly what's going on, but this here is my guess:

 

- The 1.6x crop will stay with us for a long time: The newly introduced EF-S 60mm macro is a sign of comittment to the APS-C sensor size. When it becomes cheaper to produce these sensors, the price for an entry level DSLR will drop and the market will increase. When they go to bigger sensors prices are likely to stay relatively high.

 

- R & D money goes mainly to the mass market: There are the very small sensors of digital P&S cameras. This kind of research will allow to squeeze more pixels and less noise from relatively small sensors. Therefore the 1.6x crop sensor most likely can be further improved, up to the limits of the best lens' resolution at reasonable noise levels.

 

- The 1.0 full size sensor is likely to stay for the professional high end market. Maybe it will be positioned against medium format. This already seems to work in some market segments. Many wedding photographers have sold their Mamiyas and Zenza Bronicas for a 1Ds.

This market will require the best technology that is available at a certain time point. I don't think that these sensors will vecome cheaper for a long time - they will become better at a high price level.

 

- The 1.3x crop sensor IMHO has the most questionable future. I dont think that the "digital Elan class" will go to larger sensors. It will be more economical to squeeze two production lines instead of three.

 

Every new introduction of a new EF-S lens will confirm that the 1.6x crop is a long term decision. The introduction of something like "digital EOS 3" would possibly indicate the future of 1.3.

 

Ulrich

Canon have the stated aim of having only one 1D series camera in the future, which will presumably combine the features of both the 1D2 and the 1Ds. It is likely that it will be full frame and the 1.3X will go. When this will happen is anyones guess.

If You buy a full frame body with f.ex. 11 mpixel, and want a 1.3 or 1.6 crop, then just crop in photoshop and You have it. Why would you want 2 extra bodies for that?

 

The crop factors are CROP factors, they don't change your lenses by some magic.

 

Poul B-H

You know. . . even photo VIEWER programs will frequently allow you to CROP images. . .

 

. . . .Heck. . .since people now claim that both chromatic aberation and Barrel distortion can be "readily be corrected in photoshop", cropping a full frame image to a smaller size is not even worth mentioning.

The difference in manufacturing costs among the 1.6, 1.3 and 1.0 sensors are in factconsiderable, as of this writing. Therefore, and until this changes, none of the three sizes will go anywhere.

 

The 1.3 serves a great number of people and the 1DMKKII is nearly half the price of the 1DsMKII. Decisively different markets.

 

Canon, as it stands, has covered pretty much every corner of the market with three sensors: amateur, sports/action/pj, studio, commercial.

 

All three have a very good reason to be.

Paul

 

You are correct - in an ideal world. With a pricetag of $8000 for a full frame body, it is however not practical to have two such bodies (you need a backup and when you do wildlife photography, you need two bodies all the time). The 1DsMk2 is also not fast enough for action photography, with the result that I have to work with bodies with a crop factor, and given my preferred subjects, I do not have a problem with the crop factor. My problem is that I now need to buy at least one additional body and my question is should I buy a 20D and hope that there will be a prosumer 1.3 crop factor body in future, or must I take the plunge and buy the 1DMk2 and later on a 20D, or its upgrade? The problem with the latter option is that if the 20D is replaced with a 1.3 factor body, it will probably be more expensive than the current 20D.

The big difference in the 3 sensors is the cost of manufacture, although it's coming down. However it's coming down for all of them. It is a Canon stated aim to produce only one 1 series DSLR, it might even be the next one, but it will have to have a full frame sensor and be comparable to the 1dII price.

 

The question is, will Canon carry on and put a 1.3 sensor in a cheaper body (3d?). Only Canon know and they aren't saying.

 

The 1.6 is here to stay, possibly for ever, on the grounds of lower cost. That's until we see a revolution in sensor tachnology that makes full size sensors a few hundred dollars.

 

So in answer to your question, if you want a 1.3 factor body, the 1dMkII may well be your last chance. If you want a 'better' 20d, wait 12 months and you'll probably see one, Canon's prosumer DSLR's are usually replaced every 18mths.

FWIW, I think a full-frame, 21Mp camera with performance otherwise like the 1DsII (maybe some dynamic range and high-ISO improvements), that works like the D2X, i.e., brings up the shooting speed and gives something like a 10-12 Mp 1.3-ish cropped image when shooting 'fast', would be a lovely camera...and the one worth holding for some time for a Canon shooter.

 

Shawn

I agree with those who think that the future will feature both full frame and 1.6/1/5x sensors. There's lots of good reasons for keeping the smaller sensors; lower cost and smaller cameras to name a couple. But the 1.3 is a mutt. As soon as Canon, the only seller of that size sensor, can sell the FF sensor for a competitive price, it's history. Makes no sense at all, especially when there's no matching lenses, like the 1.6/EF-S combimation.

Frankly, I think the whole sensor crop factor is a misleading metric, even if it better than focusing on megapixels. At some point using the traditional 35mm frame size as the reference point will not make sense. I'd rather see them focus on sensor size sooner rather than later, with crop factor being secondary at best.

Instead of buying several bodies of various "crops," wouldn't it be easier to just use a

full frame and crop 1.3x and 1.6x if and when you need it?

"Instead of buying several bodies of various "crops," wouldn't it be easier to just use a full frame and crop 1.3x and 1.6x if and when you need it?"

 

Except if the pixel density differs. For example, Nikon's 12 megapixel 1.5 crop might produce a more detailed image than cropping Canon's 16.7 megapixel FF to a 1.5 crop.

>> Instead of buying several bodies of various "crops," wouldn't it be easier to just use a full frame and crop 1.3x and 1.6x if and when you need it? <<

 

What I'd like to see is a camera system with a square sensor along with projectable frames in the viewfinder for various aspect ratios. "Digital zoom" (cropping) a la the Nikon D2x could be included too. No more need to flip the camera 90 degrees for a vertical shot...just switch VF frames. Save the entire square image as RAW data in case you change your mind about framing & cropping.

 

Something like this is a ways off. It would likely require an EVF to retain compatibility with 35mm-format lenses as a square reflex mirror would be too large. Using these lenses would result in vignetting in the corners with full-frame images, assuming the sensor would be in the 36x36mm range or even larger, but would still allow a 24x36mm frame. So people wedded to 35mm would be happy and people needing/wanting a larger image would get one. EVFs will need to improve *a lot* too.

 

-Dave-

Maybe the title of this thread should have been "What is the future; if any of the full frame 24x36mm sensor size"?

Dave> The 36mm x 36mm sensor is what I'm hoping for in the future, for all the reasons you stated. 20-22MP would do nicely at that size. LCD viewer masks like the EOS IX, perhaps? Hmmm...I hope Canon is listening!

 

And I think the 1.3x sensor dies with the next 1D body...

 

1.6x is here to stay as the consumer format. There is no reason for it to go away. It is 40% of the FF area and will always be cheaper to make.

I doubt there will be any future full-frame DSLRs from Canon or any other. They will probably improve the 1D Mk II instead of the 1Ds Mk II since the corner image quality (and light loss) on the latter are enough to make it probably not worth while to go on with this approach, not to mention the price difference. Probably they will merge the three sensors to one size, and that would be the 1.3x.

<i>Frankly, I think the whole sensor crop factor is a misleading metric, even if it better than focusing on megapixels. At some point using the traditional 35mm frame size as the reference point will not make sense. I'd rather see them focus on sensor size sooner rather than later, with crop factor being secondary at best</i>

<p><b>WORD!</B><p>

(for those not used to US slang: "word" in this context implies a statement has been made that is very true, and should be strongly considered.)<p>

 

<i>

What I'd like to see is a camera system with a square sensor along with projectable frames in the viewfinder for various aspect ratios. "Digital zoom" (cropping) a la the Nikon D2x could be included too. No more need to flip the camera 90 degrees for a vertical shot...just switch VF frames. Save the entire square image as RAW data in case you change your mind about framing & cropping. </i><p>

<B>WORD!</b><P>

I find that most of my digital shots are cropped one way or the other. Either I force a 4x5 proportion, or I crop in a "radical" proportion based upon the actual composition. A square sensor would be optimal for my style of shooting and editing.

And with a square sensor, you'd never have to turn the camera for a vertical composition. I think you're on to something.

There is a reason why 6x6 TLRs were so popular. For lots of people, it is a lot easier to compose an image with a square format.

Sigh...

 

I've raised the question of why sensors have to follow a certain shape/aspect ratio, and said that square is better, and I get flamed to no end. It still makes sense to me to have a sensor that can capture as much of the image circle as possible.

The reason rectangular formats are dominant is simply because most people prefer rectangular prints. If you have a digital sensor which is square, you get wasted and expensive sensor space for each image that you make non-square. Before someone claims that square makes more efficient use of the image circle of the lens, that is simply not true if you make non-square prints. If you make a rectangular sensor, you can make the long dimension of the sensor longer than a square sensor filling the same image circle would have. So you actually get a larger rectangle in the same image circle than you could using a square sensor.

 

The convenience of not having to swap the camera orientation between horizontal and vertical is not enough to compensate for the inefficientcy of the square format for making rectangular prints. Sorry.

>> The convenience of not having to swap the camera orientation between horizontal and vertical is not enough to compensate for the inefficientcy of the square format for making rectangular prints. <<

 

What inefficiency? If you're satisfied with 24x36mm images you could continue to get them, ignoring the rest of the data captured by the sensor. With a 36x36mm sensor you could have 24x36, 27x36 (3:4 aspect ratio), 28.8x36 (4:5), 30.85x36 (6:7) or the full 36x36mm. In either horizontal or vertical orientation. 35mm format lenses would have problems with the larger frames, but they wouldn't be the main system lenses for such a camera anyway. You'd use 'em with an adapter (preserving AF and auto-aperture control, of course).

 

Pie in the sky stuff perhaps. But I still want it. :-)

 

-Dave-

The biggest square that can make use of 35 mm lens image circles is smaller than 36x36.

 

Also it is a historical quirk that 36x24 is used for 35 mm film. It resulted from making still cameras that could make use of 35 mm movie film with the image (in landscape mode) parallel to the film rather than perpendicular. As the quality was terrible from such a small format compared to the larger formats typically in use at the time, the format was stretched horizontally as far as practical to 36 mm into a 3x2 format. 6x4 prints have then become the industry standard for snapshots as it matches the 3x2 format of 35 mm film.

 

Most subjects are better suited to a more square format than the 35 mm standard, hence standard picture sizes are 5x7, 8x10, etc.