Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3

5 end

Archive 2005 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

I do think the FF difference is something Canon feels they need to advertise if they intend to market 5D and future sub-$3000, sub-$2000 FF cameras to the masses. The concept is not so obvious to the entire photography market, especially to the people who are finally thinking about getting into DSLR.

We have to be careful not to read too much into the existance of this web site.

It's just a web site, and only one of Canon's several web sites. One of the good and bad things about web sites is that they aren't supremely difficult or expensive to set up....which means it shouldn't take too much of a marketing business case for a given division of Canon to say, "Hey, let's have a website about our new product." This is not necessarily a harbinger of Canon's total future direction.

Fielding a website is an activity out of petty cash for a company like Canon, and this is just one of Canon's several web sites.

It doesn't mean the APS-C camera division isn't buzzing along with just as much activity or that they've been told they're all facing sunset.

Sep 12, 2005 at 07:15 AM

PParker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

The reason I was wondering if Canon might produce a slightly larger sensor than the standard full frame would be to boost wide angle lens performance.

Sep 12, 2005 at 09:19 AM

bogatyr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

uz2work wrote:
With regard to the APS sized sensor, I will be shocked if it isn't around for a long time.

No doubt there will be a place for several sensor sizes, just as there was and is a place for different film formats. There are advantages to each sensor format according to the type of photography it is suited for.

The great thing is that with digital SLR's we can have a system with lenses that are compatible with all sensor sizes from the same manufacturer.

That is choice, folks. Be assured that we will have that selection to choose from, and more than likely there will be 1-series cameras with an APS/1.6 crop-sensor side by side with the 24 x 36 mm "Full Frame" versions.

Bogatyr

Sep 12, 2005 at 11:44 AM

Rodney_Gold
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

Venus wrote:
What are they going to do with the thousands of angry 20D users if they dumped all the smaller sensors and only produce FF in future?? Many might jump ship and cross over to Nikon. Hopefully these guys at Canon wouldn't be so impetuous.
I will keep my 20d and get a 5d or some other FF - I then have the best of both worlds. I have got some very good glass and system accesories and it will be great for me , Perhaps a 20d user with a lesser investment in the system might jump ship. I bought into the system more than just the camera.

Sep 12, 2005 at 11:54 AM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

Steve_T90 wrote:
35mm lenses, not to mention that they all waste a huge portion of those lenses' image circles. If the "sweet spot" rhetoric was much more than mere spin, Canonians would all be mounting Hasselblad lenses on their 1DsII's, wouldn't they?

Nothing to gain by doing this. MF (and LF) lenses are not designed to resolve as highly as 35mm lenses. However, there is a huge advantage in using a higher quality 35mm lens such as Leica or Contax/Zeiss.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/277617/0

Sep 12, 2005 at 12:00 PM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

alvit wrote:
At this point could be interesting a super FF 36x36 !!!!

Can't happen. That would be bigger than the circle of illumination produced by modern 35mm lenses. The 24mm x 36mm frame fits snuggly within a circle of illumination with a diamter of approximatley 44mm(minimum). A 36mm x 36mm frame would need an image circle with a diameter of approximately 51mm(minimum).

Plus, the mirror would have to be extended out more, and would probably hit the back of some lenses.

Sep 12, 2005 at 12:09 PM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

ISO1600 wrote:
its my understanding that a major player in the poor performance of WA lenses on FF digital isn't JUST from the lens itself. You have to think about how the digital sensor works, compared to film. Film doesn't care what direction light it hitting it at, but digital sensors (want) to pick up light optimally, from straight-on. So in the corners, when the light is coming in at an extreme angle, the sensor doesn't see the spectrum as well.

This is a myth based on the poor performance of Canon wide angle lenses. They are playing the blame game here. Leica, Contax/Zeiss, and some OlympusOM wides perform quite better than Canon wides. Just look and see how many people are buying the above lenses here on the Buuy/Sell Forum!

Sep 12, 2005 at 12:13 PM

pascal03
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

Whew... got thru all the pages here and man... that's a lot of speculation from a single web page. The best part of this whole post to me was finally figuring out that the TINSTAAFL was

Speculating... and some real world facts: if Canon is listing a camera's list price at $3200 and it sells for around $2800-$3000 at stores, the cost to Canon for mass production of the body is less than half of what you and I buy it at a store for.
Think about it. I am willing to bet Canon's cost of production of each 1Ds Mk II body is no more than $3500 - $4500 and the cost of production for the 5D will be no more than $1200-$1400 if at all that much. Add another $100 per body sold to cover the cost of R&D and look at how much profit you can make with every consumer waiting in line for the "new and improved" body

Mass Manufacture does wonders. Add the laws of supply and demand to it and you can pretty much set an item to whatever price you like as long as you have a product a competitor does not. The stores place their own markups and that's the price you pay for it. I know from one store owner, his markup for a 1Ds body was little over 20%...

Sep 12, 2005 at 12:18 PM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

PParker wrote:
The reason I was wondering if Canon might produce a slightly larger sensor than the standard full frame would be to boost wide angle lens performance.

How would this help?

The worlds' best wide angle lenses (Leica, CZ, Oly) that produce the highest resolved images you can achieve today, are designed to throw a circle of illumination with a diameter of slightly larger than 44mm, which covers a standard 24mm x 36mm frame. You could have a square sensor, or one that is a bit taller, while not quite as wide, but its diagonal cannot exceed 44mm in any situation. (44mm is the diagonal of the current FF 35 sensor.)

Other sizes would result in mirror size changes, some may hit the rear of the lens.

Sep 12, 2005 at 12:26 PM

PParker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

My statement had to do with light hitting the micro lenses of the sensor. While there are many people believe that Canon is misleading about why there is poor wide angle performance, I tend to believe a Corporation that possesses the technology to produce the best CMOS imaging sensors in the world.

After all, Canons wide angle lenses are a compromise of price verses resolving capability. I myself are not willing to pay a huge price for a wide angle lens. I do think however, with the move to an affordable FF camera that Canon will inevitably start producing better WA lenses. This will come with a higer price tag though.

Sep 12, 2005 at 12:52 PM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

PParker wrote:
My statement had to do with light hitting the micro lenses of the sensor.

Pete-

No disrespect intended, as perhaps I am misunderstanding your question, but how does a larger sensor improve wide angle performance? In reality, that only would hinder wide angle performance as you would have to now use MF lenses to cover a larger sensor, and if you have been a regular reader of this topic and other Fred Miranda posts, there is no quality advantage in moving to MF lenses. (There are fewer MF wides to choose from anyway.)

Sep 12, 2005 at 12:59 PM

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

pascal03 wrote:
Whew... got thru all the pages here and man... that's a lot of speculation from a single web page. The best part of this whole post to me was finally figuring out that the TINSTAAFL was

Sep 12, 2005 at 01:56 PM

RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

This is a myth based on the poor performance of Canon wide angle lenses. They are playing the blame game here. Leica, Contax/Zeiss, and some OlympusOM wides perform quite better than Canon wides. Just look and see how many people are buying the above lenses here on the Buuy/Sell Forum!

It's not a myth, it's the truth based on the design of Canon and many other wide angle lenses. It's possible to design wide angles that are more "telecentric," which is what thost other designers have done, but it's the truth with regard to Canon lens designs.

Sep 12, 2005 at 01:59 PM

alvit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

jjlphoto wrote:
Can't happen. That would be bigger than the circle of illumination produced by modern 35mm lenses. The 24mm x 36mm frame fits snuggly within a circle of illumination with a diamter of approximatley 44mm(minimum). A 36mm x 36mm frame would need an image circle with a diameter of approximately 51mm(minimum).

Plus, the mirror would have to be extended out more, and would probably hit the back of some lenses.

I dont understand why the circle have to be 51mm....and I dont understand why in 2005 we have to stick to the old old film format 24x36......I understan the mirror problem

, may be I'm still in love with the square Hassy and Rollei format

Sep 12, 2005 at 02:07 PM

jdaily
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

alvit wrote:
I dont understand why the circle have to be 51mm

Consider the extreme case of a very short rectangle; width 36mm, height 0mm. Effectively a 36mm line.

In that case, the image circle would need to have a diameter of only 36mm to cover the rectangle.

As you start growing the height of that rectangle, the diameter of the required circle will also increase, because the corners of the rectangle otherwise would fall outside the original circle.

If you make the sensor taller than the standard film size, you would again push the corners outside the standard image circle.

Sep 12, 2005 at 02:21 PM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

I dont understand why the circle have to be 51mm...

Simple 10th grade Geometry regarding Right Triangles my dear Watson.
The hypotenuse is equal to square root of the sums of the squares of the shorter two sides.

A squared + B squared = C squared.

36 squared + 36 squared = C squared

1296 + 1296 = C squared

2592 = C squared

50.91 =C

The hypotenuse is our case happens to be the diameter of our circle of illumination.

Sep 12, 2005 at 02:30 PM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

I dont understand why in 2005 we have to stick to the old old film format 24x36......I understan the mirror problem

, may be I'm still in love with the square Hassy and Rollei format

Yes, you could have a square format. If you planned on using existing 35mm lenses, the sensor size would be limited to roughly 31mm x 31mm to fit inside existing 35mm lens'es circles of illumination.

31 squared + 31 squared = 44 squared (approximate)

Sep 12, 2005 at 02:38 PM

PParker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

John, no offense taken. Maybe my assumption is incorrect thinking that wide angle performance would be improved with a slightly large sensor. I talking about a minimumally larger sensor that hopefully wouldn't require a new line of lenses.

Sep 12, 2005 at 02:41 PM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

An ideal frame would be 26mm x 34mm. This is closer to that perfect 645 frame, and is closer to tabloid cover than the current 24mm x 36mm. 26m x 34mm would also fit inside current lens'es circle's of illumination, but the mirror would have to be taller, and we run into it hitting the rear of lenses. If some day, focusing become a live feed on a superb camera mounted LCD, we can dispense with the mirror, and then we are in business.

Sep 12, 2005 at 02:46 PM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · Canon pushing hard on Full Frame Sensor

PParker wrote:
John, no offense taken. Maybe my assumption is incorrect thinking that wide angle performance would be improved with a slightly large sensor. I talking about a minimumally larger sensor that hopefully wouldn't require a new line of lenses.

I guess I just don't understand. All that would do is capture areas of the lens that are soft, falling off in luminance, and not intended for capture and reproduction.

Sep 12, 2005 at 02:49 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.