Canon Crop Sensor Future

[pgranone]

<p>The futures so bright I gotta wear shades<br>

The 7D is a serious 1.6 crop camera. Excellent image quality and focus.<br>

plenty of affordable 1.6 crop cameras for new owners (digital rebels)<br>

1.6 crop is thriving</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<p>3D. Don't know how they will do it, but lots of 3D (capable) TVs were out at CES this year. Maybe it's something you neither want nor need, but advertising and marketing is going to eventually feel like you're missing out of you don't have it.</p>

<p>More pixels. You may neither want it nor need it, but that doesn't mean you won't buy it.</p>

<p>More wireless capability. Built in Wi-Fi. Maybe direct phone type connection so you can transfer your images to your home PC whenever you are in range of a cell tower.</p>

<p>Built in GPS. Trivial technology so they must be saving this one for when they run out of other stuff.</p>

<p>Active AF tracking in video modes. It has to come. Camcorders have it. DSLRs will too.</p>

<p>Tilt, swivel and swing out LCD screen. Maybe even a detachable screen. Easy to do, so it's another one they are saving to part you from your money at some future date.</p>

<p>There's really no end to the crap they can stuff into a camera that you don't need but that it's possible to convince you that you want.</p>

<p>Of course they can lower noise, increase ISO, expand dynamic range etc. , but those things don't really sell cameras to the public as well as extra bells and whistles do.</p>

<p>Personally I want to see a B&W DSLR, maybe with a removal IR blocking filter, but that wouldn't sell cameras either.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>I would guess within five years, perhaps less, we'll see so-called prosumer cameras, such as the 7D, being able to shoot 4K video. This will attract more film and video shooters as commercial digital cinema moves to 4K and even 8K resolution.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>At some point, probably in the next couple of years...Canon and Nikon will realize that the market is out there for a $1000 Full frame sensor body. At that point the APS sensor will be a moot point. They have already squeezed more megapixels into that APS sensor than it can handle. With the economy down, people are beginning to see that there is just not enough improvement between the new 50D and the older 40D, or even the 30D. So they are waiting and lusting after the full frame sensors which are out of the prosumers price range for now. Very soon Canon will learn how to make an affordable full frame body and then people will line up.</p>

[robert_armstrong2]

<p>I agree with Nirza David's last comment regarding Canon going back to basics. As Bob says, manufacturers are hell-bent on stuffing cameras full of unecessary crap in order to create a need and to push up sales. <br>

What I would really like is a full-frame fully manual camera (the size of the 5D) with split prism focusing screen (or one with 19+ cross sensor AF points) with black and white capability and the option to use bulb mode without the need for battery power.<br>

As others have said, I suspect we have reached the limit of the amount of pixels that can be crammed in on any given sensor and I only wish Canon improved on the basics rather than inventing new gimmicks. Mind you, if it made the tea whilst out on location, I wouldn't mind...<br>

Just my tuppence worth...</p>

<p> </p>

[silverfox]

<p>Russ, your point is exactly why I wont buy any lenses intended for APS-C sensors only. I want to go full frame but I simply cannot afford to. I could do with an ultra wide lens like the 10-22mm but instead I will go for the 17-40 (similar price) and put up without the wider end until they do bring out a full frame cam which doesnt cost the price of second hand car.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I didn't say less MP would increase the burst rate, I said it would increase the limit, meaning the buffer could handle more files, especially useful for RAW shooters.</em></p>

<p>The JPEG buffer is already so deep, and card write times so fast, that it's effectively endless.</p>

<p>In RAW the 7D can shoot 15 frames (roughly 2 seconds). In MRAW, which is 10 MP, the buffer is 24 frames (roughly 3 seconds). If the 7D sensor were 10 MP you would have what you have now in MRAW, a 3 second buffer at 8 fps. I'm rather happy I can choose MRAW or RAW, because generally speaking the 18 MP means more to me than the extra second.</p>

<p><em>Pixel size does affect noise,</em></p>

<p>What I'm trying to get across is that smaller pixels are not enlarged as much. If a smaller pixel has 2x the noise but is only enlarged 0.5x as much to achieve the same print/screen size, then the noise is essentially equal for the image. A 10 MP 7D would not have any noise advantage over the 18 MP one. In print the impression of noise would be the same, but the 18 MP version would have more fine detail.</p>

<p>You only get away from this at the extremes. So if Canon made a 3 MP APS sensor with modern technology I might expect a clear noise advantage in print. Or if they shoved 50 MP on the same sensor I might expect worse noise in print. But 10 vs. 18? The noise would be the same unless you're obsessed with studying images at 100% all the time.</p>

<p>And if you are obsessed with that, reduce your images to 10 MP and view the reductions on screen at 100%.</p>

<p><em>I'm just saying that if you really want to take full advantage of ridiculous amounts of MPs, get a 5D MkII, no contest. </em></p>

<p>If it was no contest I would have a 5D2. I have a 7D because I can't see any difference between 30" prints from a 7D and a 5D2, and the 7D handles action as well as landscapes.</p>

<p>A better sports camera? Right now I'm not sure what justifies the $3,200 difference between a 7D and a 1D. What could be better?</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>There are tons of full frame Canon cameras all over ebay and craigslist for less than $100; you just have to put film in them. I hear so many people say they want to go full frame but can't afford it. Get on craigslist and pick up an old Elan for $20, Voila!, now you have a full frame camera and can use your wide angle lenses for their intended purposes. I don't know how we ever made it 10 years ago.</p>

[dmanthree]

<p>I'd like to see two bodies with build quality similar to the current 7D:<br>

Fewer pixels but much better high ISO IQ and higher speed. With a working AF system, or course. (just grousing; mine didn't have one) And skip the video, swing out LCDs and gimmicks, just give me a body that can focus and shoot at high speeds reliably under adverse conditions. Like that damned game I shot in December with a 35F driving rain that turned to snow.<br>

Something similar to the current 7D but optimized for situations requiring great detail at low ISOs. Maybe 18MP is enough?</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>I wonder how many decades we are going to hear that APS-C sensors are on the way out and that they can't get any more resolution. The 7D appears to have a lot more resolving power than a 20D (2500 vertical lines for the 7D vs 1850 lines for the 20D according to DPR). The G10 and G1 resolve more than a 20D, for that matter. </p>

<p>That Canon has weather sealed the 7D and given it a pro AF system seems to suggests that Canon is accepting APS-C as a viable platform for professionals. </p>

<p>BTW, how long until we get an APS-C electronic viewfinder out of Canon? </p>

[nathangardner]

<p><em>The JPEG buffer is already so deep, and card write times so fast, that it's effectively endless.</em><br>

Right, but who shoots Jpeg? 2 seconds of RAW shooting isn't that long. Sure its 16 shots, but what if you're shooting a 5 second sequence.</p>

<p>Also, reducing the resolution to 10MP on the 7D will not make a difference b/c it won't change the physical pixel size, it will just use less of the tiny pixels. Like I said before we could go all day, but until we have a real world side by side example, it doesn't really matter. We can recite all the numbers we want, but they're just that, numbers. Maybe less MP would improve noise, maybe it wouldn't, we really can't tell as there is no 10MP dual Digic 4 camera to compare it to. The 40D is 10MP, but doesn't have the same processing power, however, I've used both the 40D and 50D and I do believe the 40D handles noise better at high ISOs. I know this has been argued both ways to no end, but if there was one clear cut answer one way or another there would be no arguement, so maybe both sides are correct. I'm going googling.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I couldn't find a side by side high ISO noise example of the 40D vs the 7D, but there were different claims from photographers that the noise of the 7D and 50D were very similar, some favoring the 7D, others favoring the 50D. I think this is a subjective issue so our arguing isn't going to do any good, but for me personally, if a 10 or 15MP camera is claimed to have similar or better noise levels than an 18MP camera with a newer processor, I would have to believe that even a difference of a few MP <em>could</em> have an affect on noise. I'm not saying it certainly makes a difference, but its definitely a possibility in certain situations, otherwise there would be no debates, it would be factual and everyone would accept it. </p>

[mjferron]

<p>You've already got fine 7D & 5D cameras for serious amateurs and some pros. The next big rage will be smaller no mirror cameras like the EP2 and GF1. Great image quality, quiet and a fine build. Also the EP2's electronic finder is to die for. Cameras like these will be the next big rage.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I am with Michael Ferron, a no mirror camera like the the GF1.</p>

<p>Hopefully, they will include in-body image stabilization. The system should default to in-lens stabilization if available and detected on a give lens mounted to the camera, and then use in-body image stabilization as a backup. They should also provide the ability for the user to over ride in-lens stabilization and switch to in-body stabilization or no stabilization.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

 

<p><em>The JPEG buffer is already so deep, and card write times so fast, that it's effectively endless.</em> <br /> <em>Right, but who shoots Jpeg?</em></p>

<p>In my experience most situations where you want 8 fps don't benefit from RAW. I use JPEG for sports and action.</p>

<p><em>2 seconds of RAW shooting isn't that long. Sure its 16 shots, but what if you're shooting a 5 second sequence.</em></p>

<p>Then you're out of luck with any body on the market if you insist on smashing the button down for the full 5 seconds and shooting RAW. The new Nikon D3s will do 4.5 seconds. The Canon 1D mkIV will only do 3.</p>

<p><em>Also, reducing the resolution to 10MP on the 7D will not make a difference b/c it won't change the physical pixel size, it will just use less of the tiny pixels.</em></p>

<p>You said one benefit of a 10 MP 7D would be a deeper RAW buffer. I was pointing out you can have that with the current 7D just by changing to MRAW (15 > 24 frames). I wouldn't expect a 10 MP only 7D to do any better. Canon would not stuff additional RAM in such a machine.</p>

<p><em>Like I said before we could go all day, but until we have a real world side by side example, it doesn't really matter.</em></p>

<p>ImagingResource.com. Don't forget to equalize the image sizes before judging. I would provide sample crops for you, but photo.net has a restrictive policy when it comes to posting anything you didn't personally shoot such that even tiny test crops from a test site are off limits. You'll just have to do the leg work yourself. Suffice it to say that once equalized to the same size, the noise differences are very minor between the 7D / 50D / 40D, and they go in roughly that order in terms of performance with NR on, and are pretty much the same with it off. If the 40D had the latest processing it would be equal in noise, but still have less detail.</p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">If this thread is about what we want with future bodies - rather than what we think will happen - then I want Canon to go MILC (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Compacts) a-la MFT. Reminder, look at the end of <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302_canoninterview.asp">this review</a>. Sadly, next year (2009) is over. :-(</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<div></div>

[nirza_david]

<p>Yes Yes.. Go Mirrorles, with adapters for current lenses. I'm sure there's a market for it. Even I have thought of ditching the DSLR and going for the GF1.</p>

[lalon_karim]

<p>These r the things that I would like to see from Canon (not what Canon is actually going to do):<br>

1. A professional grade 55-200mm f/2.8 lens for APS-C (large constant aperture lens, yet portable, unlike 70-200mm f/2.8)<br>

2. A better quality 18-200mm lens.<br>

3. Weather sealed APS-C body that is lighter than 7D<br>

4. Dedicated in body focus assist lamp.</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>I'm done arguing. Although I love a healthy debate, we're just going in circles. As far as what I'd like to see in the future, this isn't just for crop sensors, but all cameras...MIRROR LOCK UP BUTTON! Also, although I never used it, I know some of the Canon film cameras had AF point selection that was determined by where your eye was looking, why haven't they done this with digital?</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Canon film cameras had AF point selection that was determined by where your eye was looking, why haven't they done this with digital?]]</p>

<p>http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0912/tech-tips.html</p>

 

[simon_t1]

<p>Probably the back screen could be a touch screen, therefore less push buttons.</p>

<ol>

<li>Higher MP's? you never now.</li>

<li>Higher ISO? probably.</li>

<li>Better video? most probably. </li>

</ol>

[lalon_karim]

<p>1 more thing I would like to see: 4:3 mode and automatic masking on viewfinder for this. 3:2 aspect ratio does not look good to me for portraits (in both landscape and portrait orientation). 4:3 makes nice composition for portraits easy. </p>

[jkaufman]

<p>Marvin,<br>

I do not know what will actually transpire, but it would make sense for Canon to continuing improving sensor response at high-ISO. ISO 1600 on my 450D pales in comparison to the same setting on my friend's 7D. I look forward to the day when I can shoot at ISO 3200-6400, and the results are effectively comparable to today's ISO 100.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Jason</p>

 

[daveinwilton]

<p>I am in for a mirror lock-up button and eye controlled AF point selection and DOF preview simular to that on the A2E.</p>

<p>-Dave</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>Regarding the "more MP" thing: What does it help to increase the number of pixels if you can hardly find a lens that delivers a high enough resolution, especially in the low end at that we are looking regarding crop cameras?<br>

Better dynamic range and lower noise at high ISO seem to be more interesting.</p>