It seems like some out there refuse to accept the fact that Full Frame is clearly not Canon's sole strategy for the future. Today's events verify this easily - an incremental improvement to one of Canon's most successful dSLRs with neither an increase in MP nor change in crop factor, an introduction of a mid-range zoom for EF-S lenses to compete directly with Nikon's fine 17-55/2.8, and a upgrade of one of Canon's premier EF lenses.

I've long held that 1.6 crop is not going anywhere, and I feel that even more strongly after today. With Nikon's DX success, and the eager acceptance by many sports and wildlife shooters of 1.5 and 1.6 crop cameras, it seems to me that crop cameras are simply establishing themselves as a legitimate format in their own right. Their extended DoF, kindness to less than perfect glass, and cheap telephoto extension give them their own set of advantages over Full Frame bodies and lenses.

While there are many valid arguments in favor of Full Frame vs. 1.6 crop, those very same arguments can be made regarding Medium Format digital vs. Full Frame, and so on. However, just as Full Frame 35mm sensor system offer advantages over Medium Format, crop system offer similar advantages over Full Frame. It seems that Nikon acknowledges this, and Canon's introduction of the 17-55/2.8G to me indicates that Canon knows it too.

So, welcome to the dual-format dSLR world folks. Don't limit yourself to establishing the absolute superiority of each format - just know the ins and outs of each format and what each can provide you.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - this time with a bit more firm prediction: Within a year's time we will see an announcement from Canon for a 1.6 format professional dSLR - most like as a mini-1 Series. Sign me up!

Yee haa!

ooo a 1 series 1.6 crop. that would be nice. I could see that.

I see canon with a few lines... the xxxD, xxD, xD, 1Dx mark x. maybe a xxxxD line too. maybe a 1.0 and a 1.6 in all line except the cheapest ones.

Only time will tell.

Well said!!! We should consider ourselves lucky. Try to share a lens between a medium format camera and a 35mm camera 10 years ago!

Nowadays, full frame and APS-C has the exact same bayonet mount. Think of that as a blessing instead of keep on discussing why APS-C or full frame is better. (Just like arguing 35mn vs medium format 10 years ago.)

True, you can buy a EF-S lens today and that is usable only on 1.6x crop camera, but 10 years ago you could equally buy a 135 lens and it fits only on 135. At least today, any EF lens can be shared without any adapters or any glitches. That IMO is a blessing.

In three or four years (maybe less) Canon will have 20 megapixel full frame for $1500 and it will even have a popup flash.

APS digital will last as long as APS film. About 10 years.

30D proves nothing more than there is still a market for 1.6x cameras. Until prices on full frame come down enough to allow entry level users to afford them there is a place for 1.6x.

1.6x basically is a dSLR w/ a built-in extender that appeals to people who shoot certain types of photography. It exists because of full frame sensor economics, not because Canon or any other manufacturer wanted to build a camera that boosted long lens work but hindered WA work.

In fact, I would expect Canon is anxious to get rid of the 1.6x as soon as possible so that consumers are motivated/forced to buy the more expensive longer zooms and/or primes.

Just my opinion, certainly not an insider. Simply seems to me you're reading a lot into the 30D.

Bobster2 wrote:
In three or four years (maybe less) Canon will have 20 megapixel full frame for $1500 and it will even have a popup flash.

APS digital will last as long as APS film. About 10 years.




I disagree, and think Mr. Bennett has things right.

Resolution has "jumped the shark" for the majority of photographers. Crop and Full Frame 35mm sensors are both capable of giving top notch large prints, and because of this, the incentive to upgrade to the "next best thing" is getting lower and lower.

And APS digital has caught on with a lot of photographers, who dont necessarily want to pay the price premium for a huge wafer, or pay the costs of power usage, storage space, longer lenses, etc.

There is a quite a bit of profit generated from the mass consumer base purchasing the lower end dSLR's and the lenses that accompany them. The professional market is a niche, much smaller market than the general public, and thus I do not see a reason why Canon would try and force it's largest customer base into purchasing gear and upgrades that they can not afford, not interested in.


They need the mid level playing field, you can't have Digital Rebel - 1D MKII, you have to have those cameras in between, for prosumers, sermi-ametuers, parents who know a little bit, college students, pros with specific needs, and various other reasons.

Canon will not force anyone to buy anything, and in attempting this move they would lose a large customer base to Nikon, Pentax, and possibly Sony.

Not everyone wants, nor cares for full frame- remember there are 10's of thousands of people with dSLR's who do not post on these forums that are entirely happy just to be shooting an SLR over a point and shoot.

The # of bodies sold is the way it is for a reason, without the low and middle end cash cows Canon would have no money for R&D on their pro gear.

All of Nikon's DSLR's are crop bodies. Not every one needs or wants a full frame sensor. The are many cameras out there with high MP sensors. Canon will keep the 1.6x consumer bodies and the 1.0/1.3 cameras for the Pro's. The 1.3 may go away with the drop in FF sensors, but those crop sensors have allowed the DSLR to drop prices into P&S camera range. With a DSLR the owner needs more lenses and accessories than the P&S.

It is usually more lucrative to segment a market than to compress it - especially if you have a complete monopoly on one of the segments. Canon has that monopoly with FF and a customer base willing to pay a premium for it. They have little incentive to bring FF to the $1500 price point any time soon. I think we will see FF price settle out at the $2250-$2500 price point for a very long time.

Sam, an excellent articulation of some market dynamics that seem so often overlooked.

I take roughly 500 photographs at 70-400mm for every photograph I take at <50mm.

Forget 1.5x and 1.6x sensors. If Canon can make a 4x sensor that resolves like the 20D, I'll buy one. (They can't, but you get the idea.)

The 30D is much more of a confusion to me. The $1150 17-55 EF-S lens is by all measures an "expensive" lens. I don't see a big market for this because of the risk of the EF-S mount going obsolete. It's not that Canon will abandon the 1.6x crop body, but that they will not bring the 1.6x crop to the high-end.

That is, there are no high-end Canon bodies with the 1.6x crop. Nikon DX lenses can sell in the >$1K range because you can get your weather sealed, 8 fps professional grade D-SLR that works with DX lenses. So even if you're just a D200 owner, you do not run the immediate risk of having a lens go obsolete.

AlanD wrote:
That is, there are no high-end Canon bodies with the 1.6x crop. Nikon DX lenses can sell in the >$1K range because you can get your weather sealed, 8 fps professional grade D-SLR that works with DX lenses. So even if you're just a D200 owner, you do not run the immediate risk of having a lens go obsolete.

Did you bother reading my post?

The point is that I'm predicting that today's announcements verify Canon's commitment to EF-S, by providing what looks like an incredibly capable lens and portends future professional EF-S dSLR bodies.

Regardless, there a lot of users out there who really don't get what EF-S really is. To them, there's no disadvantage. What they see is the focal-range, the aperture, and IS more than anything.

Ok, this may be turning into a APS vs FF thread, even though the original poster of this thread clearly told us "Don't limit yourself to establishing the absolute superiority of each format - just know the ins and outs of each format and what each can provide you."

So here we go.

It is certainly possible that 3 or 4 years from now Canon will have 20MP full frame for $1,500. But we have to remember that APS is not standing still ! In 3 or 4 years we may have 15MP APS digital for $300.

Right, the crop sensors will always be cheaper. But I don't want to dilute the more important point - regardless of cost, some users will specifically want to use crop sensors, regardless of the tradeoffs. I will still want the option to shoot with greater DoF in low light while shooting wide-open - crop formats give me that.

Now, I think what's also likely is that we'll see cameras like the D2x that give you a range of cropping modes. I would love to have the option to shoot at a variable crop factor within a given camera. If someone could make a "scalable" focus point array with variable crop so framing can stay identical... I'd be in heaven. But until that day comes (years from now), I'd be happy to simply have two cameras - one for FF when I need it, one for 1.6 when I need it. I like having 1.3 and 1.6 at this point.

If they would have added the 5D's additional focul points, weathersealing, and made the pop up flash a master for wireless to the 30D it would have murdered the D200. I would love a pro 1.6 crop body for around the D200 price. I have no use for full frame or 12mp. The photoshopped pics of the 3D that are floating around the web is what they need to make but with a 1.6 crop sensor and the above improvements. Nikon and minolta both have wireless controlers built into their camera bodys pop up flash, canon needs to make this improvement to their future cameras.

AlanD wrote:
The 30D is much more of a confusion to me. The $1150 17-55 EF-S lens is by all measures an "expensive" lens. I don't see a big market for this because of the risk of the EF-S mount going obsolete. It's not that Canon will abandon the 1.6x crop body, but that they will not bring the 1.6x crop to the high-end.

I don't understand it when people keep saying this. What would make the EF-S mount obselete is if *Canon* themselves chose to drop it.

And why would they when there is a market to be tapped of 1) hobbyists who don't earn 6-figures and 2) people who would buy a dSLR because it "gets better pictures" and then shoot in Auto anyway, as in the days of film?


That is, there are no high-end Canon bodies with the 1.6x crop. Nikon DX lenses can sell in the >$1K range because you can get your weather sealed, 8 fps professional grade D-SLR that works with DX lenses. So even if you're just a D200 owner, you do not run the immediate risk of having a lens go obsolete.

No, there are no high-end Canon bodies with the 1.6x crop YET. Patience!

Sam,

Well said! I do however, believe that the lower cost of the 1.6x system is a larger consideration for Canon from a business point of view. While some users like yourself may well recognise the benefits inherent in the crop system, the biggie for Canon here is the ability to segment the market and extract more sales and EOS converts.

Besides, cost is very important to me right now and in the near future

There won't be a PRO body with 1.6

When they decide to release the new PRO series 1 body it will either be 1.3 or 1.0

And I think it will be around 22 MB if they can get the electronics designed to handle
the data pump.

I'd personally like to see a Series 1 camera with 1.3 crop to help the lenses (vs 1.0)
and 22 MB sensor....

1.6 crop will stay in the advanced photo arena, not PRO , thats why Canon has not released an L type lens as an ef s designation....

Sam Bennett wrote:
AlanD wrote:
That is, there are no high-end Canon bodies with the 1.6x crop. Nikon DX lenses can sell in the >$1K range because you can get your weather sealed, 8 fps professional grade D-SLR that works with DX lenses. So even if you're just a D200 owner, you do not run the immediate risk of having a lens go obsolete.

Did you bother reading my post?

The point is that I'm predicting that today's announcements verify Canon's commitment to EF-S, by providing what looks like an incredibly capable lens and portends future professional EF-S dSLR bodies.

Regardless, there a lot of users out there who really don't get what EF-S really is. To them, there's no disadvantage. What they see is the focal-range, the aperture, and IS more than anything.

I agree Canon is committed to EF-S but part of that commitment is forced by the competition. It has to be lonely being the only mainstream camera mfg with FF. They can tout all the benefits of FF but meanwhile their competition is pushing 1.5/1.6 crop cameras which have lower costs than FF. And adding some really nice features to boot.

I am hopeful but not convinced we are going to see a 1D equivalent in a EF-S format. Canon still owns the top end and is in a position to tell us to pony up with the big bucks if we want that level of functionality. They will only go this route if forced by the competition.

Of course there will be a PRO 1.6. You're missing the fundamental point that many photographers see APS-C as a superior set of compromises to FF and no other manufacturer is in the slightest bit bothered about FF.

Also got to laugh at the 22mp comment. The one advantage FF users claim is superior image quality due to the less dense pixel structure, yet you've just advocated a FF sensor with the same density as the 20D.

well said, sam.

Sam Bennett wrote:

So, welcome to the dual-format dSLR world folks. Don't limit yourself to establishing the absolute superiority of each format - just know the ins and outs of each format and what each can provide you.

Yep - I was a skeptic in the past. If you'd have asked me prior to the 20D about what I thought, my words would have said that the 1.6X is a stop-gap measure. Once the 20D, 10-22, and 17-85 were out, I knew it was here to stay. With the new 17-55 lens, Canon is serious about this format. The two can run in parallel.

And I'm secretly thinking about having a 5D and 30D (or 20D) both in parallel at some point. Maybe.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - this time with a bit more firm prediction: Within a year's time we will see an announcement from Canon for a 1.6 format professional dSLR - most like as a mini-1 Series. Sign me up!

I half expected that at this show (of course, it's still not over) - I expected the 30D and a pro-level 1.6X camera of some sort. That would be really nice and would complete the line.

I'm visualizing two formats with overlaping lines. That is, the lowest-priced full-frame Canon being priced somewhat below the pro-level 1.6X Canon.

Sprout Crumble wrote:
Also got to laugh at the 22mp comment.

What's the joke?

A full frame with the same pixel density as the 20D would give you the best of both. People who love $1500 crop sensor cameras can buy a $1500 full frame camera and crop it. But they can also use a wide angle lens and not crop it. It's like two cameras for the price of one.

The joke is spending $8000 for 35mm lenses and using them on APS sized sensors that they weren't designed for.

Film is dying. 35mm is nothing more than a legacy at this point. The whole reason that we have 35mm digital sensors is because
a) EF lenses are designed for 35mm format and
b) people are used to thinking of focal lengths in terms of 35mm film

Now, there's nothing inherently special about 35mm sensors. Just because it was the standard for so long doesn't mean it's the "best" format or the "right" format. There's larger formats. There's smaller formats. Digital has changed many things about photography. Look at Nikon. They're dropping FF entirely now that they've stopped making film bodies and are only releasing cropped digital bodies.

FF and 1.6x bodies both have their merits and respective side-effects. No one is debating this. It seems like many people are stuck on 35mm being the "right" format because they're so used to it and because it's the "standard". Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who didn't get into photography seriously until the advent of digital cameras and consequently, I "think" of focal lengths in terms of how they look on 1.6x bodies.

So my point is that people seem to be stuck on 35mm FF bodies being the "best" because they're so used to it and because most if not all of their lenses are designed for 35mm. FF isn't inherently better than 1.6x, or vice versa. They're simply two different means to an end. 35mm isn't the end all be all of DSLRs.