I believe the question was merging the two cameras not dropping the 1.3 crop. If Canon would maintain two bodies, I would agree with everything you have said. However, as I said earlier, PJs and sports shooters do not list FF as their most wanted in the next Canon camera. Higher ISO performance, updates to a rather old AF system, reduced weight seem to top the list not FF.
Richard K.
Actually, there are two questions. The most recent statement is that the topline cameras would all be full frame.
It's probably possible with all the extra processing power of the DIGIC III (which has power luxury enough to do face recognition on a P&S camera) to have two cameras, both with 24x36mm sensors, one at 12 or 16mp and 8 fps, the other at 20+mp and 3 to 5 fps.
Remember that the earlier two statements were both over two years ago...a long, long time in computer years.
Hammerli wrote:
But not everyone is as enamored with full frame as you seem to be, and the current IIN has more than enough pixels(and resulting file size) for its intended use.
If I am enamored with full frame it's for two reasons. First, I like that all the lenses I own have the same character now with my 5D that they had on my film cameras. I was weaned on 35mm film photography and have an intuitive sense of the focal lengths and the character of each lens in that format. Second, because I like both 12.7 megapixels and the high ISO/low-noise performance the 5D sensor delivers. I was skeptical before I got my 5D that I would find much benefit over the 8 megapixels I already had, but all that vanished with the first image (yes, the very first test shot) I got out of the 5D.
However I wouldn't say I'm enamored with the full frame to the point that I dislike smaller frames. I like that when I put my 300/4L on my 20D I get the reach (FOV) of a nearly 500mm lens with it.
The 1.3x sensor just seems like a compromise to me. It's not full frame so that intuitive sense of focal lengths and the 12.7 quality megapixels aren't there. And the telephoto booster effect isn't as effective as it is with the 1.6x crop cameras.
As many others have mentioned, I'd prefer the 1.3X stay, and I'd like to see improvements to AF, dynamic range, battery system and quality control.
I honestly have no real preference one way or another -- my comments on this thread are speculation on what I think will happen and why I think it will happen. However if one of the things you'd like to see is an improvement in dynamic range, the jump to a bigger sensor can help that. Bigger photosites allow for greater dynamic range, all else being equal.
I believe if Canon put the 5D sensor into a 1-series body and was able to deliver the same or better AF and frame rate as is currently seen with the Mk2n, the majority of PJs and sports shooters would snap them up in a heartbeat. Everybody says they don't need more megapixels than they already have until they get a camera with more megapixels. I thought the same way until I got my 5D.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I have never met or talked to a PJ or Sports Shooter who listed FF as a "must have" in their next 1 Series camera. In sports shooting the moto is "shoot tight and crop tighter". How can a FF camera help me. Remember the pixel size of the 5D and the MKII are the same. I do not believe PJ or Sports Shooters would snap up a Mark II with the only improvement being the 5D sensor. I have heard people say they would like to see more pixels on the 1.3 sensor, but only if the ISO performance was unchanged or improved. The reason; to crop tighter.
I didn't say FF is a "must have" for PJs or sports shooters. But I still believe they would snap up such a camera, all else being equal. Of course if the only motto is "shoot tight and crop tighter," then why aren't they all demanding the 20D/30D sensor in a 1 series body?
Well, I don't think I said it was the "only" motto but it is what you will get from many Photo Editor. A 1 Series camera with a 20D sensor already exsists. It's sold by Nikon.
gml1 wrote:
Yep, that's certainly the most sensible thing to expect. Now that they've tested their 'cheap'/high margin FF sensor with the 5D, there's no reason why they shouldn't put it in the next 1D camera.
I am expecting the exact same thing: EOS-1D Mark III with the 5D's sensor and 8+fps.
moondigger wrote:
I didn't say FF is a "must have" for PJs or sports shooters. But I still believe they would snap up such a camera, all else being equal. Of course if the only motto is "shoot tight and crop tighter," then why aren't they all demanding the 20D/30D sensor in a 1 series body?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I have never met or talked to a PJ or Sports Shooter who listed FF as a "must have" in their next 1 Series camera. In sports shooting the moto is "shoot tight and crop tighter". How can a FF camera help me. Remember the pixel size of the 5D and the MKII are the same. I do not believe PJ or Sports Shooters would snap up a Mark II with the only improvement being the 5D sensor. I have heard people say they would like to see more pixels on the 1.3 sensor, but only if the ISO performance was unchanged or improved. The reason; to crop tighter.
I've met plenty and I'm one. Sports and PJ ain't all about length. Facts are that of all Canon's cameras, it's the 1D series which loses out on ultrawide - and there's plenty of opps for ultrawide in PJ.
If you want more tele simply grab a longer lens, or if the 5D sensor is a reality for the next 1-series then just crop - you've lost nothing but gained plenty.
Again, I respectfully disagree. The cost of grabbing a 400 f2.8 is substantial vs the 300 f2.8. I have never run across an opp that my 16-35 on the N wouldn't handle on the wide end. A much cheaper solution. I just don't see the market for a 1D FF 12 megapixel camera with no other improvements over the current N.
That's nothing more than an inability to know now what you would do if you had such a camera in your hands. That's not meant as an insult. I just mean that you think right now you'd have no real use for 5 more megapixels. Yet if you actually had one you'd find plenty of uses for them. Good photojournalism isn't just about tight head shots... it's often about putting a subject into context. That 5 megapixels sitting outside the boundaries of the current 1.3x crop sensor in the 1DMk2n could capture the surroundings that put your subject into a clearer context. If you don't need them after all, you can crop them out and still have exactly what you had with the Mk2n.
You may not see this now, and you may reject the idea later if such a camera is produced. But again I believe the majority of PJs & sports shooters would upgrade almost immediately.
As cwphoto pointed out, both the 1.6x crop cameras and the full-frame cameras have a wide variety of ultra-wide angle solutions; only the 1.3x crop cameras don't.
moondigger wrote:
That's nothing more than an inability to know now what you would do if you had such a camera in your hands. That's not meant as an insult. I just mean that you think right now you'd have no real use for 5 more megapixels. Yet if you actually had one you'd find plenty of uses for them.
That is awfully presumptuous about what others besides yourself need, want, or have experience with for that matter, which similarly isn't meant as an insult.
moondigger wrote:
You may not see this now, and you may reject the idea later if such a camera is produced. But again I believe the majority of PJs & sports shooters would upgrade almost immediately.
I don't, and since all of this is discussion about what others, very few of whom frequent this board, might purchase IF a future camera is released, it would seem to me both your side and the other are a moot point.
Hammerli wrote:
That is awfully presumptuous about what others besides yourself need, want, or have experience with for that matter, which similarly isn't meant as an insult.
I don't think I phrased that very well. What I mean is that the hypothetical camera I described is pretty much exactly the same thing as the current Mk2n with a 5 megapixel border around the boundaries of the existing sensor. (This is because the Mk2n and 5D have the same pixel pitch, with only the size of the sensor differentiating them.) Suddenly all the lenses have the same FOV as they were designed to have (on a full frame sensor) and if the photographer has no use for that border in a given image, they can crop to the central 8 megapixel area and have exactly what they always had with the Mk2.
What I'm saying (and phrased poorly in my previous post) is that I believe most photographers would find that 5 megapixel bonus useful. Just because somebody doesn't think they'd find a particular feature of a particular (real or hypothetical) camera useful doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit if they actually had it in practice.
I don't, and since all of this is discussion about what others, very few of whom frequent this board, might purchase IF a future camera is released, it would seem to me both your side and the other are a moot point.
If you object to the very idea of hypothesizing about future events, then why bother participating on this thread in the first place? Clearly that's the direction this topic was taking.
What I'm saying (and phrased poorly in my previous post) is that I believe most photographers would find that 5 megapixel bonus useful. Just because somebody doesn't think they'd find a particular feature of a particular (real or hypothetical) camera useful doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit if they actually had it in practice.
I would agree with you. While I understand the slight additonal strain on resources that an extra 5 megapixels can make, I still don't really see the hordes of Canon-using PJs trading their lenses and going to Nikon because, "Doggoned Canon has too many megapixels!"
moondigger wrote:
Suddenly all the lenses have the same FOV as they were designed to have (on a full frame sensor) and if the photographer has no use for that border in a given image, they can crop to the central 8 megapixel area and have exactly what they always had with the Mk2.
That point is irrelevant to me, and many others here have expressed that same sentiment. I don't buy my lenses because of what they "should" be. Perhaps that is an age issue. What you view as an impediment (crop factor) many who own and use the 1D series view as an advantage.
moondigger wrote:
If you object to the very idea of hypothesizing about future events, then why bother participating on this thread in the first place? Clearly that's the direction this topic was taking.
I don't object to discussion, it is when one side believes their's is the only "right" answer to a hypothetical question. Both sides have merit, a point you seem to have difficulty with. I can understand your side, but I'm not trying to state my case as emphatically as you.
Hammerli wrote:
That point is irrelevant to me, and many others here have expressed that same sentiment. I don't buy my lenses because of what they "should" be. Perhaps that is an age issue. What you view as an impediment (crop factor) many who own and use the 1D series view as an advantage.
As I explained previously, I have an intuitive sense of the character of each lens and their focal lengths on the full frame. In any case I do not view crop factor as an impediment -- indeed, I believe 1.6x is more useful than 1.3x, which just seems like a compromise between the utility of the full-frame for wideangles and DOF control and the 1.6x crop which provides a significant boost for telephoto users.
I don't object to discussion, it is when one side believes their's is the only "right" answer to a hypothetical question. Both sides have merit, a point you seem to have difficulty with. I can understand your side, but I'm not trying to state my case as emphatically as you.
Everybody believes that their opinions are correct. You're finding fault with me for expressing mine in an "emphatic" way? As with any such discussion, I recognize that not everybody will agree with me. But I'm not sure how else to express my opinions than to state them in plain language.
In any case that's not what you said, anyway -- you said that since few PJs or sports shooters took part in the discussion, that both sides of the discussion are moot. Again, if you find the discussion pointless I'm not sure why you're participating.
I think Canon's going do what's best for Canon's bottom line.
I think Canon's going have a software crop feature built right into the electronics. "Tain't no thang."
I think once the sensor is developed (which it already is) and R&D is paid for (which it all ready has been), it's kinda business stupid to manufacture two bodies (two production lines) when software can do the same thing with the simple flip of a personal function function.
Same lenses, one body, simple flip of the switch. Canon gets to cut production costs which hopefully they'll pass some of the savings off to the customer and everybody gets the size sensor they want, FF, 1.3X, 1.6X.
In my book that a win, win, win.
Let's see..... 1-Series body (already developed and on the market), 16MP programable sensor (sensor already developed and being produced), manageable file size (simple software upgrade) with 10 stop DR (they've had a year plus for engineering advances).... all for under $2,500.00 Okay, I got greedy on the last one but why not on the others?
BeeMan458 wrote:
I think once the sensor is developed (which it already is) and R&D is paid for (which it all ready has been), it's kinda business stupid to manufacture two bodies (two production lines) when software can do the same thing with the simple flip of a personal function function.
I'm not sure how a single sensor could satisfy both needs. The likely successor to the 1DsMk2 is likely to have 20-22 megapixels covering a full-frame. That's a new sensor, with new R&D. Given the resultant reduction in physical pixel size, it's hard to imagine it'll offer the same high-ISO, low-noise performance as the current 1DMk2n or 5D sensors. Of course, the 5D sensor development is done and paid for, which is why I believe it's a logical choice for the 1dMk3, or whatever they're going to call it. They're certainly not going to use it in the 1Ds successor, which would be a step down from the current 16 megapixel sensor.
Same lenses, one body, simple flip of the switch. Canon gets to cut production costs which hopefully they'll pass some of the savings off to the customer and everybody gets the size sensor they want, FF, 1.3X, 1.6X.
If all else were equal, I believe this would be a likely scenario. However all else isn't equal.
"I'm not sure how a single sensor could satisfy both needs."
Software crop and fps based upon sensor crop, unless Canon can processs, 8 fps at 16MP's.
"However all else isn't equal. "
What isn't equal?
Same number of pixels, due to softward cropping, as a 1.3x 1DmkII; same number of pixels as a 1.6X 30D sensor, sfotware crop, and you'd have FF like a 1DsMkII, no software crop.
1-Series body (same body for 1DmkII and 1DsMkII), one sensor; pixels is pixels when all software/electronics/pixel pitch is equal, software crop in CFn.
It is widely believed, based on previous comment and precedent, that the 1Ds successor will have more than 20 megapixels. That's a new sensor, and it isn't likely to equal the 5D sensor in terms of manufacturing cost or high-ISO performance.
It also occurs to me that Canon would make more money selling two or three camera bodies at different price points than it would selling one camera body.
Okay, I got greedy on the last one but why not on the others?