Chuck Westfall hints more 1.3 crop bodies to come...

[mark u]

See this article:

 

http://news.com.com/Digital+SLRs+bring+lens+quandary+-+page+2/2100-1041_3-6068289-2.html?tag=st.next

[John Crowe]

The engineers must be having a hard time developing the software/hardware that would allow a full frame body to meet competitor's specs in the sports photography market.

 

 

The marketing people must still want more differentiation between their sports camera and the 1.6x bodies so they can justify charging twice as much for it. Canon wants to reap the benefits of having a distinct class system within their DSLR product line, which is obviously working well for them.

[beauh44]

Interesting article. I didn't know this: "Canon must make full-frame sensors by joining several smaller ones."

[peter_white2]

The writer makes that statemenmt without attribution. It seems unlikely that Canon makes a 1DsMKII or 5D sensor out of multiple chips.

[dave_trayers]

At least one manufacturer is stitching smaller sensors together:<p>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dalsa.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dalsa.shtml</a>

[mark u]

Snesor "stitching" is merely a question of aligning two exposures per mask: Canon has technology to do this with an accuracy of a handful of nanometers:

 

http://www.canon.com/technology/step/01.html

[jim_larson1]

The 1.3 crop is not dead with the advent of the 5D?

 

Huh.

 

<rant>I think this is a continuation of the trend started by the 30D. Nikon has not really stepping up as a competitor to Canon in the dSLR market, Canon has the luxury of reducing R&D effort in the dSLR arena. I suspect that the next version of the 1D-IIn will sport the identical sensor to the current 1D-IIn. Why? Because no one has yet developed a serious competitive offering to this camera. On the one hand. . . . I no longer have to figure on buying a "better" dSLR every three years (I passed on the 30D). On the other hand. . . .I want a better dSLR at the $1500 price point. </rant>

[kelly_flanigan1]

If folks would buy a 2x sensor, ie 12x18mm, then canon would make a body like this too. <BR><BR>The general peanut gallery thinks that GM is hiding 100mpg carburetors, and that Canon and Nikon will magically release low cost "full frame" dslrs soon. Living in a fantasy world allows alot of dreaming, and ignoring sensor costs.<BR><BR> A decade ago folks were wishing for full frame low cost dslr's too. Do you really think that they will ever be low cost? The phase "next year when yields are better costs will be lower" is shop worn, a decade plus old. Maybe GM will do this magic too, and their stock price will hit 100 dollars?. <BR><BR>What if "full frame" percentage of dslr sales drops, and your dream "full frame" cameras get even more expensive? Those who think "full frame" will magically get cheaper should go work for Ford, then you can make SUVs that are twice as big, and get twice the gas mileage. <BR><BR>Most dlsr's sold are sub full frame. The larger digital "full frame" is the minority, less sold camera size, ie the "freak" size that has a greater tooling and development cost per unit sold.

[yakim_peled1]

As a 1D owner I must say that I am very happy to hear this surprising statement.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[digitmstr]

>>The writer makes that statemenmt without attribution<<

 

That's how countless rumors get started on the net. "I read somewhere...etc...etc..."

 

The entire article is nothing: yes we have cropped sensors, yes it's hard to predict the future, yes the companies will go where the sales are. Wow, what news! The writer must be up for a Pulitzer, no doubt.

[ilkka_nissila]

I recall seeing a noise pattern image from the 1Ds (taken with a long exposure, cap on) which suggested that it was stitched from several smaller pieces.

[mark u]

I'm not sure what point Mr. Flanigan is trying to make. Kodak offered a new full frame sensor inclusive of installation for less than $1500 over two years ago, since when we have the 5D which has been selling for as little as $2300 equivalent, and other evidence suggests that sensor cost is now below $1,000. This is way, way down on the $7-8,000 for original new 1Ds or Kodak full frame cameras. 1.3 crop sensors should be no more than half the cost of a full frame one, so that allows a more competitive price point. There is no sign that full frame sensor yields are stagnating (although there are rumours that Canon has been having difficulty raising yields on the new design of sensor for the next 1 series body - which may also employ some new technology (Foveonesque?), making a comparison of yield inappropriate).

[jim_larson1]

Oh. . I understand the point.

 

There is a fine line between "Stiving for excellence and continuous improvement" and "Incessant whining and demanding of the impossible at zero cost"

 

This has been a long argument in the dSLR realm. Almost as vehement as the "UV filter vs Hood" debate.

 

I say. . . . cameras are electronics components. All electronics components get smaller, better and cheaper over time. Computers are the classic example. Home stereo is another example. (Who would have dreamed of a consumer 6 channel system for $400 10 years ago. . .in spite of inflation?). Cameras are no exception. This is still new technology. . .and we should see continual developement in sensor technology CONCURRENT with declining prices.

 

Others say. . .Yields! Cost! There is a natural limit to what can be done. And you really can't even use the capability you already have.

 

There is a fine line between the two arguments.

[digitmstr]

I would especially NOT want to "contaminate" photography by using a car manufacturer as comparison. Ford manages to make cars today that actually "yeld" less MPG than the Model T. Figure that one out... The BIG US car manufacturers do NOT strive for NEW technology or they wouldn't make 16mpg SUVs today. People buy what's offered, not concept items.

 

In photography, companies have made great progress and have been able to keep up with markets, both consumers and pro. All in a relatively short time.

[marc_bergman1]

I think the car analogy works when you look at hybrid cars. I can't believe how fast they have gone from funky looking slow vehicles to something that is very viable to own and drive.

 

To me this is similar to DSLRs. Remember the Canon D30. It cost over 3 grand and had 3 M pixels. It cost the same as the new 5D with its 12 M pixels and full frame sensor.

 

In 4 years; I expect that Canon will have a full frame camera for well under $1500. I also expect the Canon Rebel version to be under $300. There will be viable markets for both.

[mark u]

Given that we know that Cypress (formerly FillFactory) are offering an APS sensor for just $90 in volume, including a profit for them, I think it's difficult to envisage a Rebel DSLR for under $300. Unlike full frame, APS yields have already reached fairly high levels, and the camera won't get much cheaper because of cheapening sensor costs (even if it were free, it wouldn't be cheap enough to make a large enough impact on price - and it's clear that margins aren't fat enough in this segment of the market to make up the difference). OTOH, I'd fully expect full frame prices to continue to drop - margins are fatter, due to lack of competition, and sensor costs can fall significantly with increased yields.

 

Of course, this is where the 4/3rds system may come unstuck. There is no longer enough saving to be had from making a smaller than APS sensor to give a large enough cost advantage over APS - meanwhile, there is a need to sell sufficient volume to allow lenses to be priced more competitively.

 

Canon have signalled that the limitation they perceive is with pixel size - anything smaller than the 30D's 6.4 microns comes at the expense of high ISO performance. So a smaller sensor would result in a lower pixel count (~5MP) or ISO limitations.

[brian_faini]

silly me I thought the introduction of a $1200 EFS lens was a sign of this....

 

efs 18-55mm f2.8 IS

[bobatkins]

Despite what Chuck Westfall is quoted as saying (and you have to remember that journalists sometimes quote things that people said in other contexts than the one in which the appear in an article), I doubt we'll see general purpose 1.3x DSLRs from Canon. I think 1.3x will stick around only for reasons of cost and speed - and that's pretty much the only reason people would buy one, and mainly for speed.

 

Those happy with APS-C wouldn't want 1.3x because they won't take EF-S lenses, and, by definition, they're happy with APS-C anyway! Those looking for the highest quality wouldn't want 1.3x when full frame is available (and probably at $2500 or less). 1.3x limits the ability to shoot wide. Unless you want an $1800 14/2.8 prime, the widest you can go with Canon lenses would be 16mm, which is the same FOV as 21mm fullframe. Canon would have to be out of their minds to introduce another line of special lenses for 1.3 crop factor bodies. People also wouldn't buy 1.3x because they'd probably be inclined to wait for fullframe to drop in price.

 

So I see 1.3x as a niche product, for sports and action shooters, where the reduced frame size is something of an advantage (in terms of focal length multiplication for telephotos) and the smaller file size enables very rapid frame rates.

 

I suppose if Canon had a 10MP 1.3x DSLR for $1000 they'd sell a boatload, but I don't really see that either. Assuming the 5D isn't a total flop (and it isn't), it would seem to point the way to a full frame DSLR at around $2000 or so within a few years. So why buy 1.3x?

[iori]

I agree that it makes no sense for Canon to continue the 1.3 sensor SLRs. If I want added telephoto reach, I would use a 1.6 sensor camera. If I want to take full advantage of ultra wide-angle EF lenses, I would switch to a FF sensor camera. The 1.3 sensor is now an answer to a question noone asked. Note that Chuck's statement, that they would like to continue it, falls far short of saying Canon is committed to the 1.3 sensor. It's certainly not the same as saying there will be new 1.3 sensor bodies in the future. It's a marketing spin that Canon needs to maintain so long as they continue to sell a 1.3 sensor camera. My guess is that Canon will phase it out after the current model.

[lovcom_photo]

What happened to that claim by Canon that the 1D and 1DS products will eventually be merged into one body? Perhaps the replacement of the 1DSM2 and the 1DM2n will be this one new body in 2007? And I wonder how much it will cost? I would suspect $4,500?

[sergey_oboguev]

Besides sports and action shooting, 1.3x is absolutely wonderful for wildlife photography. Not only you get longer reach, but also deeper DOF (or faster exposure for the same DOF).

 

At the same time, noise levels are substantially lower than on 1.6x cameras.

 

So, indeed, this is the set of customers: sports and action shooters, nature photographers and PJs.

 

This is hardly a "niche". This is exactly the customers who were making the market for 1D and 1D-II cameras and I do not see a reason why they won't continue making it at virtually the same numbers for valid causes mentioned above.

 

Personally, I have (and actively use) cameras with all three sizes of sensors, but 1.3x gets most use.

 

1.3x is not a limitation. It's a tool customers are willing to pay for.

[wirehead]

I'm sure that nobody's going to talk if they know for sure. :P I mean, of course Chuck is going to say that the 1.3x format is going to last forever, because if he doesn't, people will suddenly stop buying the 1.3x bodies. That's business.

 

Remember, Apple had MacOS X running on Intel for YEARS before the Intel-based macs were announced, but they kept it under wraps simply because they didn't want anybody to start thinking that the PowerPC processor was on the way out.

 

I mean, they've done a bang-up job of lowering the prices on FF sensors so far, so I think we're well beyond the point where you can say that it's impossible to have a FF Digital Rebel, just not likely to happen anytime soon... :P

 

The one thing I do wonder is if there's enough slop-room in the EF-S image circle for a slightly-but-noticably-bigger-sensor. Like maybe a 1.4x or so.

[jon_austin]

Mark U: "I'm not sure what point Mr. Flanigan is trying to make."

 

Me, neither. The cost of FF dSLRs has dropped substantially with the 5D, yet the quality is far superior to the failed Kodak FF line. The sub-$3K price point of the 5D represents a significantly larger market than for the much more expensive 1-series.

 

The result of this achievement will be greater FF sensor manufacturing output, steadily increasing yields and subsequently lower costs. Couple this with the increasing demand for FF dSLRs caused by the success of the 5D, and the future of affordable FF dSLRs looks bright, indeed. I both want one more and have greater hope of seeing one in the $2K range (my personal price point) sooner, since the 5D was announced.

 

I do find Mr. Flanagan's reference to carbuerators in current automotive context quaint and charming, however ...

[robert_potts1]

Full frame is better than 1.3. 1.3 is better than 1.5. 1.5 is better than 1.6. 1.6 is better than the little Olympus/sonic etc. A phase 1 would be nice, but who can afford one?

 

8mp 1.6 has been affordable for quite awhile. Everybody who wants one has one by now. If you want to sell new cameras, you introduce new cameras. By process of elimination, not much else is left. Wouldn't it be a twist if someone else introduced a 1.3? Maybe that is what Canon is afraid of.

[ilkka_nissila]

Personally I would like to see Canon forget FF and work on their 1.3x bodies. 21 mm equivalent is wide enough for anything sensible.