Future Sensor Sizes - Canon's Westfall...

[mark_ryan2]

There is a symmetry to the Canon offerings. The 1DsMkII to the 5D and the 1DMkII to the 30D. The first pair is about max image quality, the second pair is more about speed. The pairs are just separated by cost.

 

The replacement to the 1DsMKII will probably be 22+MP. Why take all that sensor for high-speed/sports photos? The 1Ds and 1D are targeted at vastly different markets; as my friend says, "Horses for courses".

 

If anything I would see an even bigger split between the 1Ds and 1D lines. I wonder if sports shooters would accept the light loss from a pellicle mirror for 12-15 shots per second and the ability to see the shots?

 

Canon seems to like the 20D/30D line at about $1300, leaving plenty of room for a FF camera at about $2000. A 40D at 12MP and the 6D (?) at 16-18MP would be a really nice mix, and bracket the Nikon 200D really well.

[lester_wareham]

"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."

 

Yes they could, and it would be a good engineering compromise.

 

I understand some (one?) Nikon camera has the capability to use a smaller area to get speed up - so there may be patent issues which in the world of consumer electronics is a lot more important than good engineering or what the customer may want.

[jcraig]

Reasons for pro body crop camera..? Just compare the cost, size and weight of a 300 f/2.8 vs. a 500 f/4L. If I were a sports shooter.. would I rather pay for and carry the 500 f/4L to use on a FF camera, when I could do with the 300mm on an APS-C body? A 10-12mp 1.6 crop "Pro" body would be I think ideal for these shooters.. put a better viewfinder, better AF and solid construction/weather sealing all together.

[matt_sallis]

<P>"There's simply no need for full frame at the consumer or prosumer level"</P>

<P>What about the millions of lenses already owned across the world? Not everyone wants to constantly buy new lenses for a specific body.<br>As already mentioned, the change in expected FOV of our trusted old lenses is a right-royal PITA. My spectacular Zeiss 21mm became a slightly mundane 33mm on the 20D, but now restored to its intended FOV with the 5D.<br>My 85mm f1.2 never got the same look on a crop sensor because the whole limited DOF effect was reduced by the required change in perspective.</P>

<P>There are of course advantages for telephoto work with a crop sensor, and my 30D comes in very handy for bird photography, but I <i>do</i> need the option of full frame, and I'm sure hundreds of thousand of advanced amateurs would relish a cheap FF DSLR. It also means more high quality pixels can be fitted on the sensor.<br>

I'm sure the huge P&S market couldn't give a rat's about sensor size, but don't underestimate the sophistication of the world's "on -a-budget" photography enthusiasts who are keen enough to choose SLR's.<br>There is really only one argument in favour of crop-sensors, and that is money. Lower cost to the consumer, and higher profit for the manufacturer. As development costs drop, so will the crop-sensors.</P>

[mark u]

FWIW, the rumours were that Canon was having difficulty getting reasonable yields at FF with a new technology sensor, and that is what caused delay to the 1Ds replacement. I'd guess that a new technology sensor (?high dynamic range or "Foveon like") could make its entry in a 1.3 crop body as a compromise solution. It is pretty obvious that Canon has managed to improve FF yields for the "old technology" 5D significantly - there is a lot of supporting evidence in Canon's results:

 

http://www.canon.com/ir/results/2006/rslt2006q3e.pdf

 

I'd expect that given the interval since the DIGIC chip came out for the current 1 series DSLRs that development would now allow at least a doubling of data throughput rates for image processing - the speed constraint if any is going to be on readout from the sensor and will probably be addressed by doubling the number of parallel readouts.

 

That Canon has talked about multiple sensor sizes has had some speculating that Canon might even launch a new system to compete with MF backs by offering a larger sensor. Plausible (especially to anyone who has actually looked at a comparison between the 1Ds Mk II and almost any of the current MF backs for studio work), but believe it when you see it.

 

As to other uses for 1.3 crop, I think that while Chuck Westfall doesn't set Canon policy, he is more in the loop than outsiders and is always careful not to make comments that are inconsistent with Canon policy, and he is also aware of the feedback to HQ which I think he still handles for the US. 1D series shooters seem to have been able to get away with not having anything realistic wider than the 16-35 unless they opt to use the Sigma 12-24, and to handle the odd effective zoom ranges the crop factor produces - those cameras have become the PJ's workhorses. I really wouldn't be at all surprised if Canon continue to offer 1.3 crop even when the 1D MkIIN is superceded, and quite possibly it may appear at a different price point in the lineup.

[KenPapai]

At least John C. said, this ,"A 10-12mp 1.6 crop 'Pro' body would be I think ideal for these shooters...

put a better viewfinder, better AF and solid construction/weather sealing all together."

 

HOWEVER APS-C and Canon and quality viewfinder is a nonstarter.

 

Once you use an EOS with a full frame viewfinder, be it film or digital, it is very hard to go back to that 10D, 20D, 30D (and impossible to a dReb).

 

And I more mean that it is hard to justify to buy an APS-C replacement body rather than wait for the (hoped for) FF sensor DSLR announcement early next year.

[gib robinson]

I prefer both the 1.3x and 1.6x to FF. Why? Because I get good results from the "belly" of the "L" zoom lenses with less distortion. The 24-105 is quite good at either 1.3x or 1.6x. I don't know that I would feel as good about it with FF. The 70-200 f/2.8 & f/4 might be OK but I'd rather stay with 1.6 & 1.3. I do enough long lens work to be a very big fan of the 1.6x.

 

I hope Canon does upgrade the resolution of the 1.6 body but still keeps the 1.3x.

[bobatkins]

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?

 

I don't think so. The P&S market is dominated by small cameras and you can't have a small camera with a big sensor. You can't place the lens as close to the sensor as you could with film so making small cameras with large sensors is very difficult. You also need a physically larger lens with a larger sensor.

 

The argument that people already have 35mm lenses and so want a full frame sensor holds some water, but it's not a deal breaker. 35mm lenses are already usable on all APS-C DSLRs. If you have a 16-35/2.8, it works just fine on your APS-C DSLR. You may need to buy one "superwide" zoom, but that's it unless you chose to do otherwise. I have the same lenses for my 20D as I had for my EOS-3, except I bought a 10-22 lens for the wide end.

[jon_austin]

Bob Atkins: "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 hope so. I'm very much ready to move from 1.6x to FF for my non-telephoto work (I'll keep my 20D for the long stuff). Since 24mm on FF is a wider FOV than 17mm on 1.6x, I'm wondering if I'll even use my 17-40 anymore after I buy a FF body. Add the latest features of the 30D (3/5 fps) and 400D (bright LCD, sensor cleaning) to the 5D successor (plus DiGiC II and pop-up flash) for this price, and I'm there with my wallet open!

 

Lester Wareham: "I understand some (one?) Nikon camera has the capability to use a smaller area to get speed up - so there may be patent issues which in the world of consumer electronics is a lot more important than good engineering or what the customer may want."

 

As long as Canon can prove that they do (essentially) the same thing using a demonstrably different methodology, there will be no patent issue: Patents are awarded for methods, processes, techniques; not ideas or capabilities.

[mark_ryan2]

To me the set-up I'd like to eventually have is my 20D with my 70-200/2.8IS and a 1.4TC at times; a FF EOS with my 17-40. Then a digital rangefinder with the Eq. of 35, 50 and 90mm lenses.

 

Right now I have the 20D set-up, but have to use my EOS630 for really wide, and a Leica CL for my rangefinder and scan the film.

 

Funny, I passed over Bob's thoughts on prices before I posted mine. I think those are the right price points, but then again, I thought the 70-200/4L IS would be $800 bucks.

 

Anyway.

 

The features are more important than the price. If it is to high, it will come down with rebates or the used market. Remote flash control through the built-in flash, auto ISO mode, better AF.

[dogbert]

To me a 40D at $1299 would be uncompetitive with the latest offerings from Nikon, Sony and Pentax. I know there are good reasons to be in the Canon system, but I think a $1299 40D would be lagging the opposition.

[robert_potts1]

There are two ways to compete. One is to cram more pixels onto current sensors. The other is to make larger sensors. The Nikon and Sony lens lines are predominantly full frame. How long do you expect them to stay that way, or why haven't they changed? Maybe they will change after they have mined-out APS-C. The company that has the most to gain and the least to lose by going to a larger sensor because of a unique niche is Fuji. Sigma could gain credibility by going larger than 1.7X. We have 1.7x, 1.6x, 1.5x, and 1.3x, so why not 1.4x and 1.2x?

[fourfa]

also 2.0x on the 4/3rds cameras...

[bloosqr]

Full frame at a $1000 please.. so us poor people can enjoy in on all the fun :)

 

actually what is this new magic chip that is even better than the canon 5d that they are

having problems with getting yields on? All the pictures i've seeing on the net of the 5d are

positively unreal.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Maybe the 500 dollar full frame digital will be like the Mustang or Camaro with 500 cid motor that passes all smog laws and gets 50mpg. ?