The idea of a pro 1.6 body is interesting... and far from being wild conjecture.

Another thing 1.6 has going for it is that the great majority of new DSLR users are introduced to the SLR world through the eye of a crop body. Be it Canon's equipment, Nikon's or any other manufacturer. For these folks, an 85mm lens is only an 85mm lens when it's on crop body, and it will be unnatural to shoot an 85mm on a FF. It's the exact same thing as many people who grew up on FF feel about 1.6x.

Canon is all but forced to keep a crop line around now that Nikon has committed to 1.5x long term. If Canon were to try to go completely FF, there would be no way to compete with Nikon in the entry level market because they couldn't hit the same price point with FF.

There's always the argument that most of the lenses were designed around the 35mm format. But you can't forget that almost all of these lenses work great on a crop body as well.

I think that those are prediciting a pro 1.6 crop body are spot on the mark. I won't even guess when we'll see it but I think it is going to happen, sooner rather than later. I think Sam pegged it, there are going to be 2 distinct lines of digital SLR in Canon's line, the crop, 1.5 or 1.6 and FF.

I think there is definitely a market for a 1.6 crop 1-series body. I think the apparent success of the D200 and D2X illustrate that. I'm sure there are more than a few canon shooters who have a 20d along side their 1 series that would love to have a 1.6 crop with the same interface as their 1 series.

I myself, think FF or 1.3x at the most is the way to go for me. I've been using FF film for too long to think of my lenses in a crop format. When I see a scene I can pretty much tell what lens I'll need to get the composition I want, don't really feel like adjusting to a crop. But like its been said before, there are plenty of people that only know the view of a lenses as a cropped lens. There's a market for both and I think we'll eventually see parallel lines, atleast from the advanced amateur to pro lines of FF and 1.6 crop.

SKPhoton wrote:
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.

So let's call this the "inertia factor", there's all this glass out there designed for 35mm. While this format isn't etched in stone, it's served us pretty well for a long period, and there IS all this glass out there there designed for the format serving as a ball & chain that stops momentum for a new digital format. The 1.6x is great for tele shooters, sports, nature/animals, there's good reason to like that format, it accidently has some advantages, and some limitations.

On the other hand, why re-invent the wheel with a new digital format. Olympus thought this was a good idea, but it doesn't seem to have made them an industry leader. Further, Nikon seems to be having a hard time just staying in the 1.5x game with noise problems, banding, etc. I'd bet Nikon doesn't have a FF sensor because they can't get it to work. Canon had to manufacture their own FF sensor, undoubtedly because they couldn't get the quality they demanded from an outside supplier.

Canon has a monopoly on FF, which is Christmas for them all year! Until another manufacturer show's up with FF, Canon rolls in dough, and 1.6 stays around. If/when the competition gets it together and delivers their FF product then FF price goes down, and 1.6x starts to go away. A) The manufacturers can concentrate on one size sensor driving unit price down, B) Consumers will buy the camera that gives them tele and WA for the same price. If Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, whatever Konica/Minolta turns into, and the other manufacturers don't make FF work, Canon continues unchallenged as industry leader and the FF & 1.6 formats continue indefinately.

Hmm, is there any possibility that Nikon announces a say... 8mm to 15mm lens, or a 10 - 20 f2.8.... then the 'wide angle' limitation on cropped bodies will vanish. Other than pixel size allowed to be larger (which can be solved on cropped bodies via better electronics) and a larger/brighter viewfinder, there'd be no advantage to a full frame. However what you gain is more on the tele's end, cheaper lenses (cuz smaller sensor), cheaper sensors, smaller body size, perhaps smaller lenses also.

I know 8mm is hard to make, but when you want it only on a cropped sensor, they might be able to do it within reasonable cost?

Canon might be gambling on the possibility that crop sensor does have the potential to take over, reserving FF just for pros. Or in reverse, dropping FF when the crop sensor format reaches dominance. eg. in a day where all the FF L's work on cropped (already does), they have G series wides down to 8mm.... there are pro-bodies for crop sensors.........

Just weird thinking. Ignore me if desires~

What we really need is a 25+ mpix 1 series FF camera with a variable crop that can be reflected in the viewfinder , a digital and optical type zoom arrangement , the best of both worlds.

" Their extended DoF"

HUH

Rodney_Gold wrote:
What we really need is a 25+ mpix 1 series FF camera with a variable crop that can be reflected in the viewfinder , a digital and optical type zoom arrangement , the best of both worlds.

$, the most important spec..... and then some people already got local gym membership, so they actually want smaller cameras and lens system also....

Fluffy wrote:
I think that those are prediciting a pro 1.6 crop body are spot on the mark. I won't even guess when we'll see it but I think it is going to happen, sooner rather than later. I think Sam pegged it, there are going to be 2 distinct lines of digital SLR in Canon's line, the crop, 1.5 or 1.6 and FF.

I think there is definitely a market for a 1.6 crop 1-series body. I think the apparent success of the D200 and D2X illustrate that. I'm sure there are more than a few canon shooters who have a 20d along side their 1 series that would love to have a 1.6 crop with the same interface as their 1 series.

I myself, think FF or 1.3x at the most is the way to go for me. I've been using FF film for too long to think of my lenses in a crop format. When I see a scene I can pretty much tell what lens I'll need to get the composition I want, don't really feel like adjusting to a crop. But like its been said before, there are plenty of people that only know the view of a lenses as a cropped lens. There's a market for both and I think we'll eventually see parallel lines, atleast from the advanced amateur to pro lines of FF and 1.6 crop.

I agree there is a market for 1.6 pro Canon body but the fact that Nikon has one is a different situation. They only have the crop bodies and see it in their best interest to offer pro features at 2 price points. Canon may be less inclined to do this. I hope I am wrong but at best, they are dragging their feet.

Sam Bennett wrote:
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!

It was sad enough when some idiots were trying to start a Canon V Nikon war in this forum. Now some even bigger idiots are trying to start a Canon Full Frame V Canon 1.6 crop war.

Exactly as Jay said, reference the NY Times article on Monday showing Canon's most profitable digital camera segment is DSLR with prosumer a much larger segment than pro. Hence the 30D coming in a little, but not much cheaper than the 20D. With the success of the 5D at 3k, an eventual leveling of prosumer FF's at 2500 makes total sense. Having established an 8k price point in the pro sector, Canon will undoubtedly find ways to make us shell out big bucks for a product that will lose almost half it's value within 2-3 years.

mickr7an wrote:
Sam Bennett wrote:
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!

It was sad enough when some idiots were trying to start a Canon V Nikon war in this forum. Now some even bigger idiots are trying to start a Canon Full Frame V Canon 1.6 crop war.


If you think that my post was intended to inflame a FF vs. 1.6 crop war, you've got some major reading comprehension issues. I was proposing exactly the opposite.

calvillo wrote:
Canon has a monopoly on FF, which is Christmas for them all year! Until another manufacturer show's up with FF, Canon rolls in dough, and 1.6 stays around. If/when the competition gets it together and delivers their FF product then FF price goes down, and 1.6x starts to go away.


I just don't see crop sensors ever going away. The economics of sensor manufacturing dictate that 1.6 crop sensors will always be cheaper than FF sensors. I think we sometimes forget that at one point brand new entry level film SLRs could be had easily for $150. Given the choice, there will always be a group of people who will consistently take the cheaper camera. Getting more cameras into more hands means selling more accessories and lenses, so there's no impetus for Canon and Nikon to phase crop bodies out.

While I agree that 1.6x is a fine format, and should exist alongside FF, I don't agree Canon has made a commitment to 1.6x yet. What they did is release a very expensive normal zoom for EF-S. A 24-70/2.8L for EF-S, if you will. This just reaffirms Canon's reluctance to bless 1.6x as a permanent format. To prove to me that they are serious about EF-S, they would have to do one of the following:

1) Release an "L" lens for EF-S. The 10-22 was a gray area; it functioned as a 10-22 in range, but not in build quality. There's room for improvement, in terms of adding a constant aperture. But the 17-55/2.8 IS? What else could Canon do for this type of lens to bless it with its "professional" badge? The lens is already >$1000, but Canon can't be bothered to call its step-child EF-S lens an "L". It doesn't even ship with a hood, I hear? To me, this is Canon's way of saying EF-S is a lesser format than FF, and if you want a high-end Canon lens, you might as well shop FF.

2) Release a 1-series body with a 1.6x sensor, or at the VERY least, a FF/APS-C combo sensor with the 1.6x being the "sports mode", similar to the D200. I agree that 1.6x is a great format, and a competitor with FF, not an inferior compromise format, but the message Canon is sending by marketing its 1.3x cameras in the face of a perfectly capable sensor like the 20D's is that 1.6x is that they want to distance their pro bodies from 1.6x; 1.6x is only to be used on cameras where price is a large part of the factor (ie: an amateur body).

3) Release a statement that 1.6x describing their intentions towards the 1.6x sensor format. Proclaim Canon is a two-format SLR company, and announce their intentions for the 1.6x format. Cheap consumer bodies? Fine. Compact bodies? Cool. Tele-oriented bodies? Awesome.

Realistically, I can't see Canon ditching 1.6x, because they'd lose the low-end market to cameras like the D50. As cheap as Canon could make a FF sensor in the future, Nikon could make a 1.5x sensor cheaper and smaller. But as a Canon DSLR shooter, I would like to know if my future EF-S purchases will be a dead end. If EF-S ends up being a format for cheap cameras in Canon-land, it will end up being pushed further and further down the low end of the body market as FF approaches the $2000 price point, and eventually the magic $1000 price point. When/if the only 1.6x bodies are cameras akin to the Rebel K2, and everything else is FF, my EF-S lenses will become worthless to me. Not usable on my future FF "90D" body, and too expensive to be attractive to people shopping the 1.6x market.

So for me, it's not a matter of IF 1.6x will be around, it's a matter of how it will be marketed.

calvillo wrote:
...Simply seems to me you're reading a lot into the 30D.

Couldnt agree more. Its just an 'update' camera. If they had just called it the 20D mkII no one would have expected so much so soon.

Its pointless to debate Canon's committment to 1.6x. They will participate in this market as long as it makes sense to them. They will hold out as long as they can in giving pro features to 1.6x and they aren't above asking premium pricing in the top end of the EF-S lenses. No brand with a premium product is going to degrade their brand by giving it away at a far lower price point.

I'm for a pro 1.6 crop body as long as it doesn't weigh like a boat anchor
and as long as it has the ever useful and ever snobbishly derided pop-up flash.

I have to agree with Sam. We should see a new pro 1.6 body soon. My guess would be in 12-18 months. Since Canon has already announced that the 1.3 crop is going away, the 1D2n is the farewell model of a 1.3 By next PMA I'm hoping for the debut of the new body.

I was very doubtful until Canon intro'ed the 17-55 f/2.8 Serious glass, at a serious price deserves a serious body. As another poster in this thread observed, 16-35L has an EFS counterpart, 10-22 now, 24-70L has a 2.8 counterpart, the 17-55 f/2.8. So, if Photokina brings a 70-210L EF-S doppelganger like a 50-135 f/2.8, or a faster MrkII 10-22 it will be all but engraved in stone.

From a marketing perpective, with the great 10-22, and now the hopefully great 17-55, Canon CANNOT afford to alienate 1.6 crop users who have invested big in the EF-S lenses. Think about it, lets say you have the 20D, a rebel 300D as backup, the 10-22, the 17-55, and the *hypothetical* 50-135. You want to get a new body to replace the aging Rebel, and let the 20D do backup duty. You find that canon has gone all full frame sensors. You would be pissed yet furious. Pissed and furious people who have to start from square one with all new equipment probably won't go Canon after being burned. If Canon lost 20% of it market share to Nikon switchers over no 1.6 body they would be in the toilet having turned away the market segment that provides most of the camera division revenue.

1.6 is here to stay for a very long time. Much more than the APS 10 year mark. Come on Canon, lets get that 1.6 pro body out soon!

I think crop cameras exist only because full frame sensors are so expensive to build. From what I understand of creating micochips they are always getting smaller and tighter and it is a big problem to make them bigger. I think we will continue to see 1.6 crops grow in resolution over the next 5 years. While we see the Full Frames branch off in even higher resolution models that keep a super high price, and full frames with lower resolution and faster burst.

Basically it will be like it is now for a long time, just add 2 megapixels and change the model number every year.

darknite wrote:
I have to agree with Sam. We should see a new pro 1.6 body soon. My guess I was very doubtful until Canon intro'ed the 17-55 f/2.8 Serious glass, at a serious price deserves a serious body. As another poster in this thread observed, 16-35L has an EFS counterpart, 10-22 now, 24-70L has a 2.8 counterpart, the 17-55 f/2.8. So, if Photokina brings a 70-210L EF-S doppelganger like a 50-135 f/2.8, or a faster MrkII 10-22 it will be all but engraved in stone.

I disagree. Look at all the people with expensive glass hanging off their 300D and 350D. Canon realizes that people are willing to spend a lot of money on a "permanent" piece of hardware like a lens. The 10-22 sells for $800, and "low-end" customers snap it up. Heck, I started out JUST wanting a replacement for my Oly E-10 that also gave me 300mm. I went from a 300D, 18-55, and Sigma 70-300 to about $2300 in lenses and a 350D upgrade, and I'm considering a 100-400. And *I* am a low-end customer!

Canon has thrown up a lot of inflated prices with their recent lens offerings (70-300DO, 70-300IS, 60/2.8, 17-85, 10-22, 85/1.2 Mk2) and I believe the 17-55/2.8 is just their latest spaghetti noodle. Will people buy a $1100 EF-S lens, when Canon won't even say if they will ever produce another EF-S camera? They did with the 10-22, and Canon is hoping they will with the 17-55. I'd bet on it.

What if they ditch EF-S? They take a bit of a loss on the 17-55 (R&D not fully recouped), but make a ton of money on EF-S as a whole through repurchasing (especially from people who now consider it a permanent lens format due to the 17-55, and bought other EF-S lenses.)

Sorry, until Canon commits to EF-S like I said earlier, I'm only buying EF-S for lenses that I absolutely need, and can't get in EF. My Tokina 12-24 is the only lens I need that can't be done (well) in EF. (Although I'd jump on a lightweight EF-S 20mm-ish prime.)

CKrueger wrote: when Canon won't even say if they will ever produce another EF-S camera? [...] What if they ditch EF-S? [...] Sorry, until Canon commits to EF-S like I said earlier, I'm only buying EF-S for lenses that I absolutely need, and can't get in EF.

Canon has said, in the strongest terms possible, explicitly, that it is fully committed to the EF-S line. It is not going to ditch EF-S. It has made four cameras (count 'em 4, including 30D) that use EF-S. It has six EF-S lenses, so far.

EF-S will only go away when EF goes away, and I don't expect that to happen for at least a decade.

I expect that Canon will introduce a low end low cost EF-S camera, maybe a 3000D at the Photokina in August. Just a feeling about when, but I have absolutely no doubt they will introduce one before long.

Do you have a link for that, Monito? Not doubting, I'm just curious to hear it from the horses' mouth.

I think you're right about the 3000D. I'm surprised they didn't already do it. The D50 is going for less than $600 WITH a crappy lens these days. The 350D is going for $800 with a lens. That's a huge difference for the entry level market. Every D50 sale is a Nikon system win. I'm amazed Canon hasn't at least offered rebates or something like that on the 300D or 350D.

Interview with Takaya Iwasaki of Canon, Oct. 2004

Jernej: Are you planing to introduce some high end EF-S lenses in the near future?

TAKAYA: Definitely. We are always planning 5 year spans so within the next 5 years we will develop high and mid end or even some completely unique EF-S lenses. But those are based on requests of professional photographers, however at the same time DSLRS are getting more popular with non professionals, therefore we have to develop lenses for both markets. It is not a question of timing, but as a leader of professional photography industry we are always thinking of high end products and new technology.

Jernej: Right now EF-S lenses are about 30% more expensive than EF counterparts. Will it stay the same or are prices going to fall?

TAKAYA: It is a matter of cost reduction and keeping the quality level. Our first priority was to achieve best possible quality. The next step will be to keep the quality and reduce the cost and achieve a more affordable price.

Very interesting. Thanks, Monito.

From that it looks to me like Canon is happy with two formats, and accepts that high-end customers might want a 1.6x camera. That's encouraging. The only thing that's discouraging is that Canon didn't stick an "L" label on this lens. If I may abuse a car analogy, look at Volkswagen. They produce an Audi A4, A6, and A8. They also produce the VW Jetta and Passat. That's cool, the VW's are cheaper and not as capable (to simplify the total package). But recently VW introduced the VW Phaeton. A car with the features and price that it should have been called an Audi. VW did it to try to push the VW nameplate upmarket (and failed miserably).

Why is Canon producing a lens that matches their "luxury lineup" in every way (price included), but still not call it an "L" lens? Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if the "L" designation went away, but I have to wonder, why did they do it? It seems to say to me "it's a nice lens, but it's not as good as our REALLY good lenses".

I really don't care how Canon markets their lenses; I'm very brand/image agnostic. But I want to make sure I don't invest in EF-S lenses only to find that in five years Canon is only making bottom-of-the-market DSLRs (ie: $500 or less, sparse features) in EF-S, and what we would call a 350D today is FF.

I doubt Canon even knows that. But I DO know that Nikon is pretty much set on 1.5x as their future format.

CKrueger wrote:
Very interesting. Thanks, Monito.

From that it looks to me like Canon is happy with two formats, and accepts that high-end customers might want a 1.6x camera. That's encouraging. The only thing that's discouraging is that Canon didn't stick an "L" label on this lens. If I may abuse a car analogy, look at Volkswagen. They produce an Audi A4, A6, and A8. They also produce the VW Jetta and Passat. That's cool, the VW's are cheaper and not as capable (to simplify the total package). But recently VW introduced the VW Phaeton. A car with the features and price that it should have been called an Audi. VW did it to try to push the VW nameplate upmarket (and failed miserably).

Why is Canon producing a lens that matches their "luxury lineup" in every way (price included), but still not call it an "L" lens? Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if the "L" designation went away, but I have to wonder, why did they do it? It seems to say to me "it's a nice lens, but it's not as good as our REALLY good lenses".

I really don't care how Canon markets their lenses; I'm very brand/image agnostic. But I want to make sure I don't invest in EF-S lenses only to find that in five years Canon is only making bottom-of-the-market DSLRs (ie: $500 or less, sparse features) in EF-S, and what we would call a 350D today is FF.

I doubt Canon even knows that. But I DO know that Nikon is pretty much set on 1.5x as their future format.


Why does it matter if it has an L label? It would only increase the price.

Sam,
Interesting post. And I have a different perspective.

The crop factor is not a key driver for Canon's product road map. What I mean is that Canon gives very little importance on 1.6x, 1.3x kind of things. They have not committed to any crop factors. What drives their road map is basically the Price and the MP. In other words, their road map in next 5 years have Products milestones, which are described as, for example, "$1,000 12MP DSLR". The road map doesn't show "1.6x 12MP DSLR", to illustrate my point clearly.

What they are releasing is NOT a 1.6x camera but a $1,500 8 MP prosumer DSLR. Canon can dump 1.6x any time as it never married to it.