What next in EOS series

[olli.pekonen]

I'm contemplating the purchase of 10+Mpixel camera in

EOS range, leading to 5D or 1DsMII. 5D is a very recent

release with 12+Mpixels and a price tag around 3000?. 1DsMII

is about 16+Mpixels, and 7000? in Finland, released about a

year ago.

 

Questions:

 

a) do you foresee that Canon will continue the pushing of the pixel

range in conjunction with increasing camera price. So far this has

been the case in any release of the EOS range (even with 10D -> 20D).

Thus, if I wait for a new model of 1DsMII in the hope of a

better resolution, I will get it, but I will also pay more.

Is this so?

 

b) Are there any rumors of upcoming DSLR EOS releases after the 5D?

 

BR,

 

Olli Pekonen

Petrilux Inc.

[yakim_peled1]

a) Yes.

 

b) Yes.

 

:-)

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jespdj]

If the 16.7 megapixels of the 1Ds Mark II is not enough for you, you should consider shooting medium format film and scanning it, or using a medium format digital back if you are really rich (have a look at <a href="http://www.phaseone.com">Phase One</a> for one of those, for example).

<p>Probably the next time Canon will release a DSLR will be next February, and it will probably be the successor to the 20D. Nobody knows what its features will be yet. My guess is that it's going to be called 50D, it will be an 1.6x crop factor camera, around 10 megapixels, 5 fps like the 20D, and the new big LCD that's also on the 5D and 1D Mark II N now.

<p>The successor to the 1Ds Mark II will probably have around 22 megapixels and will cost about 8000 dollars or euros, the same as the introduction price of the 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II.

<p>It's all just guessing, ofcourse.

[olli.pekonen]

OK... so what are the rumors, Yakim? The 22Meg 1Ds

sounds really nice... but the price does not, of course...

[henrik.ploug]

a) Buying a digital camera is much like buying a computer. Pixel count increases in DSLRs just like MHz increases in the computers CPU. In two years I'm sure you will be able to buy a 12 Mpixel camera for less than 1500 $.

 

But instead of waiting for the next top-model - and the next - my advice would be to find out what your needs are, and what you can afford.

 

If you are a professional photographer or a millionaire go ahead and buy the 1DsMII. But if you are a poor amateur, and you never print photos larger than A3-format, then I see no reason to throw money after a 12+Mpixels camera.

 

b) I haven't heard any rumours about new DSLRs from Canon.

[wickerman_wickerman1]

Can i ask what is the point?

 

Unless you want photo's the size of a house what stage do you stop increasing the camera's pixels?

 

If the majoriaty of use of photo's is more than quality wise acceptable to our naked eye with what we have at the moment and maybe the next step up then when do we stop the pixel increase?

 

99% of people never bother with any pics bigger than 6x4 and stop at A4 or A3 sizes.

 

Most prints in publications are very rarely bigger than A4 and in all these cases the quality to the naked eye is already there in pixel count so much so that wedding photographers have dropped the medium format for a 20d and to most people the only time they would have photo's bigger than 6x4 is in their wedding pics.

 

Perhaps pixel count is not the way forward, perhaps we are nearly at the limit now.

[audun_sjoeseth1]

"Perhaps pixel count is not the way forward, perhaps we are nearly at the limit now."

 

I've seen numbers like this mentioned:

APS-C/DX: 16-20MP

Full Frame: 25-40MP

[jon_austin]

"... do you foresee that Canon will continue the pushing of the pixel range in conjunction with increasing camera price. So far this has been the case in any release of the EOS range (even with 10D -> 20D)."

 

I don't know what the pricing history is in Finland, but in the US, the 20D debuted at the same price as the 10D, and its street price dropped more quickly (if I recall correctly).

 

Everyone's needs are different, or so it seems, but even the bottom-of-the-line dSLRs have more than enough resolution for me. I've printed images from my old Kodak DC4800 3.1MP P&S up to 12x18 on my 3+ year-old Canon S9000 (using Canon inks and their best paper), and the results are excellent.

 

I currently have a 20D, and while I find it lacking in a few areas, the pixel count isn't one of them.

[olli.pekonen]

yes, I know... it is the old "it is not the size, it is how you use it" proposition. However, why bigger is better. Well, why do you

take pictures with 6x6 (Hassel) cameras instead of 36x24... or even do 5x4 (Linhofs)... it is not the pixel resolution... it is the

color depth, reality... the ability to "step into the picture".

 

But yes... it seems that 16 Megs should be more than adequate

for any work in prints up to A3 sizes.

[wickerman_wickerman1]

Olli i am in no way disagreeing with you but how many people use or even buy prints from a 6"x6" format camera?

 

How ever many it is i am sure that canon arent going to invest millions into producing a camera to supply the needs of those people

[bobatkins]

Pixel counts will creep up in small steps. That's how they get you to buy new models. Prices will stay the same or drop.

 

If you wait long enough you will get a camera with higher resolution than the 1Ds MkII and you will pay less for it.

 

I'd imagine consumer DSLRs (1.6x) might eventually hit 12MP and pro DSLRs (full frame) might eventually hit 24MP. There is a quantum based limit on just how small you can make a pixel and still get decent noise performance at ISO 3200. If you can live with ISO 100 you could make a 100MP sensor, though there'd be little point other than claiming "king of the hill" status. since few, if any, lenses could take advantage of it, and then only at certain apertures.

 

After the 5D there are numerous rumors of new cameras. For example, I know for sure that in 2008 there will be a.... Oh wait, if I told you that, I'd have to kill you...

[digitmstr]

When the EOS1D came out it had a low street price of around $3,600.00

 

The new 1DsMKII is selling for less than the 1Ds did when it came out. I think the trend is that you get increasingly more for increasingly (realtively) less.

[wickerman_wickerman1]

Arent you lucky you live in the states cause those prices arent like that in the EU

[gdanmitchell]

<p><i>If the majoriaty of use of photo's is more than quality wise acceptable to our

naked eye with what we have at the moment and maybe the next step up then when do we

stop the pixel increase?</i></p>

 

<p>Some responses have already been posted. Here is another reason that increased

pixel count is useful: the ability to crop an image with more flexibility.</p>

 

<p>I can get a pretty good 12x18 out of my 8 megapixel Rebel XT, especially if I put it on

a tripod, lock the mirror, and trigger remotely. However, I can't crop the image much and

still get this size print.</p>

 

<p>One might answer by suggesting that I simply take more care in framing the image at

the time I take the photo. But in the real world, one doesn't always have the opportunity -

the choice may between taking the shot with lens that is on the camera <i>now</i> or

switching to a longer lens and finding that the subject is gone.</p>

 

<p>So, all other things being equal, I would select a camera with higher pixel count for

this and other reasons. Of course, all things are not necessarily equal. But I'd still pay

some premium for higher pixel count in the ranges that we are talking about.</p>

 

Dan

[wickerman_wickerman1]

Or would your money be better spent on a higher quality zoom len's Dan? unless you already have that and i will keep quiet.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

There are a few misconceptions here<p>

<i>Olli i am in no way disagreeing with you but how many people use or even buy prints from a 6"x6" format camera?<p>

How ever many it is i am sure that canon arent going to invest millions into producing a camera to supply the needs of those people</i><p>That was 6cm x6cm as he said Hassy (short for Hasselblad), and there are still lots of people shooting with them (and larger) and lots of customers for the output. And Canon are investing millions to make the 1ds series competitive with medium format backs.<p>

 

<i>Arent you lucky you live in the states cause those prices arent like that in the EU</i><p>Prices for Canon are higher here in the EU, however the trends discussed are exactly the same. The 20d is currently cheaper than the 10d was at the point it was replaced. And if you think the 1ds mkII is expensive, have a look at the launch prices of the first Canon DCS cameras 1.3 megapixel for around 2000 euros, for a camera based on the EOS 1n.

[jake_cole]

a) There is no reason to think that there will ever be an update to the 1DsMII that contains more pixels because the radiation increase resulting from the additional photons striking CMOS substrate would be enough for it to breach its electromagnetic shield and contaminate all matter within a 100m radius.

 

b) The only rumour is that Canon will soon be out of business. It seems that terrorists favoured their cameras and binoculars, and they will no longer be able to import goods into the US. It also turns out that the 5D was able to catch several less than flattering shots of Hollywood stars, George Bush, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby talking to Judith Miller. Since their cameras have less that 50Mp sensors though, this is really of little concern; Except if your still waiting for a rebate check.

[conraderb]

Jake - I don't follow. who is scooter libby and judith miller? are they a famous wedding couple or something? I don't get it. am I the only one here who isn't following?

[derek_c.]

I don't know who they are, and I don't care to know who they are.<br>

[derek_c.]

Isn't J.M. a reporter of some sort?<br>

If so, expect a movie to come out in a fewe years about her.

[tom_m2]

"Unless you want photo's the size of a house what stage do you stop increasing the camera's pixels?"

 

Lots of reasons. One important one is cropping--I like taking wide shots and then cropping on the computer. Another is post-processing. Perspective correction, for example, effectively loses pixels. It's easy to end up with a 2 Mpixel image from an 8 Mpixel camera.

 

Also, your 8 Mpixel camera is effectively only about 3 Mpixel, since color information is interpolated. A 22 Mpixel camera would finally give you around 8 Mpixel true resolution.

[wickerman_wickerman1]

Blah Blah Blah-----My point was ---who the hell cares?

 

Most images are only used in A4 or less and most cameras can produce images that far exceed what the majoriaty of people want and are satisfied with or can tell any difference, and are as good or even better than 35mm film.

 

Are you seriously telling me that we have to keep having mega-pixel cameras just to produce technically perfect prints just for the sake of it?

 

As Henrik Ploug said earlier about MHZ's increasing on your pc, my point is most people arent the slightest interested in going out and buying the latest model because it seems to have got the point where people are satisfied or can see no difference.

 

If 99.9% of people would only ever use 35mm film and they can see no difference with digital at that size then the only ones interested in a super dooper mega mega pixel camera are a very small technically perfect people.

 

On your principle everybody who ever picked up a camera would only be satisfied with Full Format plate type film photograph's.

[henrik.ploug]

If you are professional photographer in a competitive market, I can see a reason to always have the newest and the best. But as I'm an amateur, I have a more pragmatic view.

 

Four years ago Canons top-off-the-line-camera was the 1D. The 1D was a 4 Mpixel camera at a price of 7000 $. Today I have an 8 Mpixel 350D which has cost me 1000 $. The image quality of my 350D is much better than the 1D. So instead of buing the 1DsMII today for 7000 $ (which I don't have), I would rather buy the 16 Mpixel 350D MII in four years at a price of 1000$.

 

Besides I'm not sure, I would ever want a full frame camera. The main reason for getting a full frame was previously because of better choices between wide angle lenses. But meanwhile the wide-angle-choices today seems to be better for cropped cameras than for full frame.

 

Another advantage of cropped cameras are cheaper zoomlenses for long ranges. And a little more depth of field at large apartures like f1,4. So at the moment the only significant advantages of full frame cameras, that I can see, is more Mpixel and a little less noise at high ISOs.

[derek_linney]

Since the imminent Nikon D200 is rumoured to be 10M pixels it is a fair guess that the replacement for the 20D will have to have at least that if Canon are to keep their position in the mid market. This isn't an argument about real needs - after all look at the way P&S cameras have shot up to 8 MP very quickly - but about market / consumer perception.

[wickerman_wickerman1]

I dont doubt it Derek and i agree with Henrik except for one thing--A profesional whatever doesnt always buy the very latest/best tool, he will buy what suits the job best in his opinion.

 

But Dereks point is valid but there has to be a near limit as it is pointless inventing new cameras which produce photo's that nobody can tell the difference from the ones the two previous models produced.

 

I think unless somebody invents a whole new way of viewing pictures then we have almost reached that pixel limit except for the very small specialist market.