Future Sensor Sizes - Canon's Westfall...

The December 2006 Tech Tips by Chuck Westfall has been posted on

DigitalJournalist.org and Westfall answers this Q: <b>"</b><i>At the present

time Canon has 35mm full-frame sensors, 1.3x sensors, and 1.6x sensors, a lineup

of three different sizes. End users have various complaints about this, such as

lenses behaving differently depending on the body, and difficulty switching

between high-end and low-end bodies. Do you have any plans to consolidate your

sensor offerings into either 1 or 2 sizes?</i><b>"</b><p>

 

Read the answer here:<br>

<a

href="http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0612/tech-tips.html">http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0612/tech-tips.html</a><p>--

I talked with Chuck myself about this back in November.

 

He said that he still saw value in the 1.3x sensor size. However I don't think he's in a position to say what Canon's plans actually are and I'm sure he's not the one making the backroom decisions. All that goes in in Japan, not in the US.

 

I didn't take his answer as suggesting either that the 1.3x sensor size would be dropped or that it would be kept. I saw it as kind of neutral, but that he currently saw the 1.3x sensor as certainly viable.

 

My own view is that I think the 1.3x sensor is probably on the way out unless it's really needed for speed issues. The major problem with 1.3x is that EF-S lenses won't fit it and EF lenses suffer a 1.3x multiplier, making the widest available zoom (the 16-35) produce an FOV equal to that of a 21-46 on full frame.

 

Canon can clearly make a 12MP full frame sensor camera and sell it for close to $2000 without losing money (I'd assume they are still making a profit from the EOS 5D with $600 rebate). How much could they save by putting a 1.3x sensor in it? If people are waiting, thay are waiting for a sub-$2000 full frame camera, not a sub-$2000 1.3x camera. I suppose if Canon could make a 1.3x body for $1500 they might sell some, but I think a 1x body at $2000 would sell better, the though being that sooner or later the 1.3x format would be dropped.

 

If you never need a wideangle zoom that goes past 21mm, the 1.3x format does offer the advantages of using the "sweet spot" of full frame lenses and giving you a modest telephoto advantage. There are just no wide, fast lenses. The 35/1.4 becomes a 46/1.4 and the 50/1.2 becomes a 65/1.2 in terms of FOV.

 

By the end of February, we should have a much better idea of Canon's plans.

I strongly sympathize with the <i>End users have various complaints about this, such as lenses behaving differently depending on the body</i> statement inasmuch as having to <i>see</i> things differently.<br><br>

 

I shot on slide film for umpteen years on my faithful EOS 5 before investing in the Canon EOS 10D. The first lens that went onto the new body was my favourite EF 20-35. Considering all the years I'd been shooting with that lens, I did tend to 'see the wider picture' better. Went out of the window with the 10D! Had to learn a whole new way of seeing! And did I miss my wide perspective!<br><br>

 

Invested in a 5D a while back as a second body, plugged in the 20-35 with great anticipation. Boy, did I rejoice to 'see' the lens work as I liked it to before the advent of digital. Till I went out and shot, that is...<br><br>

 

Having not shot at the widest end for a while (the 20mm was effectively 32mm on the 10D), I'd stopped visualizing things in terms of the 20mm perspective! End result - I needed to start [learning to] seeing things again as my 20mm would.<br><br>

 

So yes, as far as I see it, the biggest issue of lens behaving differently is the perspective...

 

... at least that's my perspective ;) <br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.nevillebulsara.com">Neville Bulsara</a><br>

Travel & Documentary Photography

The 1.3x sensor is the only one in jeopardy, if at all. Canon has just released its fastest, most expensive EF-S zoom lens, so the EF-S mount -- with its attendant 1.6x sensor -- surely has a long life ahead.

I agree... the 1.3 sensor is not long for this world....it will boil down to two sensors IMHO: 1.6 and the full frame. Because Canon could create a fullframe that can be "cropped down" for speedier frames per second, it seems no longer a need for a 1.3 sensor.

 

I would like to see a future 1D series that merges the D and DS lines into one body, and using a fullframe sensor. The 1.6 sensors for the consumer market.

I do not see the death of the 1.6x sensor at all. At one point it looked like maybe it would end up in only the Rebel series, but now I think that there will always (i.e. for the foreseeable future) be both a low end consumer 1.6x DSLR (the Rebels) probably priced around $600-$700 and a mid range "prosumer" 1.6x DSLR (the 20D/30D/40D...) probably priced around $1000-$1200

 

At some point I'd expect a sub-$2000 full frame DSLR ("son of 5D") and either one or two 1D series models. If there are two one would be optimized for speed of operation and one would be optimized for image quality. The ideal might be to borrow a page from Nikon's book and make a full frame high pixel count DSLR that could also be operated in a reduced frame size at higher speed by only using a cnetral subset of pixels. However that might put the price too high, so seperate models may be the better way to go.

 

For sports shooters who need high frame rates and shoot telephoto lenses the 1.3x sensor is no problem at all, it's maybe even an advantage over full frame, so it may well live on in that application for a while.

Good post so far. I too invested on the EF-S format and hope it will stick around for awhile. Until competitors offer a full line of full-frame sensors, I don't think Canon feels any pressure to drop a very successful crop size.

Canon was dictated to in the matter of a 10mp Rebel. The same may occur again in regard to sensor size.

By who? Nobody else even has a full frame sensor, even on their high end DSLRs.

 

APS-C will be the default standard for consumer DSLRs, just as 35mm was the default standard for film. Full frame will serve the same function as medium format did in film. Something professionals and aspiring amateurs either need or want.

 

Quite honestly, given the image quality of APS-C format DSLRs (at least Canon APS-C DSLRs...), neither consumers nor the vast majority of advanced amateurs actually need full frame, and I'd guess that APS-C quality hasn't peaked yet either.

My speculative notion is that before long we'll see something like the Rebel XTi at the high

end of the 1.6 crop sensor camera line, and we'll see cameras "above" that level using full

frame sensors.

 

In other words, the niche currently filled by the crop sensor 30D would either go away or be

replaced by a full frame sensor camera at a price that will start out somewhat higher than the

30D (but lower than the current 5D price) and gradually drop.

Dan >> I don't quite agree with you on that one. I see it almost as the other way around. I can see a use for a pro level APS-C camera for those pros that never need to shoot wide,... just long. Some sports photographers, Wildlife photographers, Bird photographers....etc. For some pros, the need to get higher FPS is more important than wide angle.

 

Bob >> You are forgetting about Kodak's full frame DSLR.

I thought Kodak's FF cameras went out of production.

 

I just wanted to point out Canon could take a loss on each 5D sold under the rebate, and easily make it back in the lenses. That's how Microsoft makes money on the XBox, and Apple makes money on the iPod. They loose money on the initial sale, and make it back on software and accessories.

I doubt that Jose....most buyers of the 5D already have a decent stable of EOS lenses...I doubt most 5D buyers are first time EOS buyers.

Most people seem to think that 1.6 size sensors are comprimise only with no benefits. However, for macro work, the smaller sensor allows for increased magnification and/or deeper depth of field than what is possible with a full frame sensor.

 

When I am shooting macro at 3x life size, I need every millimeter of DoF I can get. I don't know if I would choose a full frame camera given the equivalence in color, noise, and megapixels.

I think recent advances in fab yield have changed the big picture we were looking at 2 years ago.

 

The following sensor cost data comes from EJ Peiker.

He is a photographer and yield evaluation engineer in the

semiconductor industry.

 

Camera Sensor--------Area (mm2)-----Yield/200mm wafer*---Sensor Cost*

 

Full Frame EOS 5D ----- 864 ---------- 2.6 ---------------- $385

 

1.3x Crop EOS 1D ----- 511 ---------- 13.0 ---------------- $77

 

1.6x Crop EOS 30D ----- 338 ---------- 29.0 --------------- $34

 

* Values are an estimate based on semiconductor industry standard costs as of Sept. 2006

 

The cost for full frame sensors has dropped dramatically in 2 years!

 

Canon could easily put a 1.3X sensor in the next 40D at a price point of $1200. A 12MP 1.3X sensor based on 20D pixel spacing would out perform all current 10MP cameras by a wide margin. The question is will the marketing people let them. Only if the 5D group doesn't feel

threatened. This would probably require making the 5Dmk2 16MP. Stayed tuned, we will all know in 3 months or so. :-)

I just wonder now that P & S are putting in APSc size 10meg cmos sensors, and useing good glass such as carl zeiss 24 120 walkabout size lenses, having no dust problems and rivalling IQ of DSLR`s, will Canon & Nikon etc have to bring forward a better set of packages.?

Weiyang Liu wrote: "Dan >> I don't quite agree with you on that one. I see it almost as the

other way around. I can see a use for a pro level APS-C camera for those pros that never

need to shoot wide,... just long. Some sports photographers, Wildlife photographers, Bird

photographers....etc. For some pros, the need to get higher FPS is more important than

wide angle."

 

I understand that it is easier to fill an APS-C sensor with the image projected by a shorter

lens than what would be necessary on full-frame, but I suspect that the market remaining

for professional crop sensor bodies will diminish greatly once full frame sensor bodies are

available at lower price points - to the point that it probably would not make economic

sense for Canon and other manufacturers to build a more "pro" crop sensor camera than

the ones they currently sell. Just can't see that happening, though I do sympathize with

those who would like such a critter.

 

In the worst case, folks who value the small sensor for this sort of work my just decide to

put a good lens on something like the 400D/XTi or equivalent, perhaps as a second body.

 

Still speculating... :-)

<I> the smaller sensor allows for increased magnification</i><P>

 

I know what you mean but this statement is incorrect. 'Cropped' sensors don't change the

magnification of a given lens (or lens + tubes + close-up lenses). You simply 'see' less of the

image circle. Your subject occupies more of the image area, but that's simply because the

image area is small compared to a full-frame sensor.

Miles Hecker wrote:<br>

<i>"I think recent advances in fab yield have changed the big picture we were looking at 2 years ago. The following sensor cost data comes from EJ Peiker."</i><p>

 

IIRC, Canon is using 300mm wafers now. Not sure how that would change Peiker's numbers though.<p>--

I don't see any reason to do away with either 1.6 or 1.3 sensors. Canon will likely want to go down a route of having more choice which means keeping all the sensors sizes alive.

 

1.3 sensors are popular with sports and photojournalists which make up a big portion of the professional market. 1.6 will remain popluar in the rebel line, but I also see scope to have a both a full frame 40D and a 1.6 40D in the future.

 

It is not really about what Canon wants to do, it is how they percieve they can sell more cameras, and to me this means offering more choice. They produce over 50 lenses, surely half a dozen different bodies is not overkill.

I'm not forgetting Kodak's attempt at FF. Everyone else did though and they dropped it from production. It had lots of flaws.

 

I don't think it's a question of cost anymore. Huge numbers of consumers are quite happy with tiny 5mm x 7mm sensors. APS-C is huge in comparison, so if they were happy with 5x7, they should be absolutely ecstatic with APS-C.

 

There's simply no need for full frame at the consumer or prosumer level, and given the popularity of APS-C coverage lenses there are good reasons for the camera makers to stick with it.

 

If Canon made the EOS 40D full frame, or even 1.3x, I wouldn't upgrade from my 20D. If they make it a higher pixel count 1.6x, maybe with increased dynamic range and other bells and whistles, there's a very good chance I will. I assume I'm not alone in this.

 

Canon's best bet would be a full frame DSLR at $2199.99 and a 1.6x EOS 40D priced at maybe $1299.99.

I wonder if the 30D replacement would go 1.3 or not. Somehow I suspect we'll see a bump up in rez using 1.6. Didn't someone say 1.6 is good up to 12 or 14 megapixels? All I can say is this coming February will be very interesting. I wonder if the 1DsMk3 will go up to 22/ 24 megapixels as some suggest. I'd love to have a 24 megapixels camera so I can get full rez 300dpi prints for 16x20s.

If Canon bumped the 40D to 1.3x, few people with EF-S lenses would upgrade. It would be a dumb move at this point I think. There's a LOT more mileage yet to be gained from APS-C. Only when it finally taps out (at maybe 12/14 MP?) will there be any marketing pressure to make the sensor larger and dump the EF-S lens users. By the time the 1.6x sensor tops out, the price on FF sensors may be low enough to use them in mass market cameras if the demand is there.

Bob, no longer the P & S are limited,to 5x7 with the APSC 10meg sensor now used, eg: Sony R1.will that place any pressure on the DSLR market?

>> For sports shooters who need high frame rates and shoot telephoto lenses the 1.3x sensor is no problem at all, it's maybe even an advantage over full frame, so it may well live on in that application for a while.

 

 

My thoughts exactly. And as there are plenty of sports shooters in the world, it is likely it will stay for some time, at least until Canon can achieve both high FPS and FF.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.