However you look at it, an APS-H sensor based camera will always be able to have higher frame rates than a FF camera - until you hit the limit on how fast the shutter/mirror can cycle. You probably could up the frame rate on a 1Dsm2 to 8fps with the digic 3, but that also means an APS-H based camera could do 10 or 12 fps with exactly the same processing engine.

To put it another way, if you have to trim image size from your full frame sensor to get the fps rate you need, then why would you pay for the FF sensor in the first place? What it comes down to is that technologically AND marketing-wise it doesn't make sense to merge the 2 cameras, because sports shooters and portrait photogs have divergent primary needs.

JohnJ80 wrote:


not so if you have these mega die sizes. It is all about getting the defect density down. Historically, that has come down much, much slower than the density has gone up.
The reason that you get more profitable and the yield goes up over time is that you do die shrinks to reduce the die size (getting the same amount in a smaller die size) and the gains that you get from beating the defect density. Yield enhancement on larger die that don't change size, does not parallel what happens in the merchant IC world where you are buying, say, the same size DRAM for a much lower price 6 months later. You do get yield benefits from learning curve etc... but those are smaller (a lot smaller) than what you get from die shrinks.
Die shrinking on a FF sensor is meaningless since it would no longer be a FF sensor then. In point of fact, the "major" cost reduction that was done in DSLRs was going to the crop formats.
Talking to a Phd friend of mine who designed and processed camera sensors for years, the sensor still is coming in at about 55% of the cost of the camera (that's cost, not retail sellign price).
J.

From reading the infamous white paper from Canon on their full frame sensor technology they mention a very good reason for choosing the APS-H size. It is the largest sensor size that can be made by a Stepper (chip laser etching machine) with one single exposure. I guess that allows for signficantly faster production that a FF sensor requiring 2-3 separate exposures?

On the more aesthetic side of things many readers/writers to FM seem to indicate that they are very happy with the 1.3 crop on the 1DMk2N as the perfect compromise - a bit more reach but not too significant reduction in wide-angle, good speed capability etc.

On the downside it does prevent access to the increasingly useful range of EF-S lenses which is perhaps not that big an issue for those who will budget for L-glass anyhow?

Having started down this route with FF, APS-C and APS-H sensors perhaps each has their market and Canon dont want to risk cutting out of a market segment without very thorough understanding of what the risks are.

John, I understand what you're saying about die size and manufacturing, etc. When I mentioned Moore's law it was only in reference to the CPU and processing power of the camera.

Talking to a Phd friend of mine who designed and processed camera sensors for years, the sensor still is coming in at about 55% of the cost of the camera (that's cost, not retail sellign price).

We know for a fact that Canon can profitably sell a full-frame camera for well under $3000, given the current double rebate price of a 5D. Heck, after Dell's double discount day a couple weeks ago we discovered that the 5D could be profitably sold for under $2000.

What I'm suggesting is that given improvements in CPU power and memory, 8 FPS or faster could be achieved with full-frame sensors in the 12-13 megapixel range. I further believe that such a camera could be based on the 5D sensor, and that it could be very profitably sold for a retail price in the same ballpark as the current 1DMk2n. I'm not saying the super-high megapixel 1Ds-type camera would go away, only that the 1.3x crop camera would go away. Presumably the next 1Ds style camera would be 3-5 FPS and around 20-22 megapixels.

timbop wrote:
However you look at it, an APS-H sensor based camera will always be able to have higher frame rates than a FF camera - until you hit the limit on how fast the shutter/mirror can cycle.

Off the top of my head, the fastest EOS body ever was the 1D RS -- it achieved 10 FPS but it used a pellicle mirror that didn't have to move. The image was projected through the semi-transparent mirror, at the expense of 2/3 stop of light. Given that precedent, it seems likely that 8 FPS is the design limit for a camera with a moving mirror.

You probably could up the frame rate on a 1Dsm2 to 8fps with the digic 3, but that also means an APS-H based camera could do 10 or 12 fps with exactly the same processing engine.

The ability to process frames has nothing to do with physical sensor size -- 1.3x is irrelevant to the question. It has to do with the sheer number of pixels. If Canon wants to maintain the good noise properties of the 1D series cameras, but up the resolution, they'll likely have to go to a full-frame sensor. The 5D sensor has the same size pixels (and therefore the same light-gathering ability) as the 1DMk2n. Stick that sensor into an 8 FPS body with a redesigned mirror/shutter and you now have a 1DMk3 with full-frame and 8 FPS. Who wouldn't like that?

What it comes down to is that technologically AND marketing-wise it doesn't make sense to merge the 2 cameras, because sports shooters and portrait photogs have divergent primary needs.

I'm not saying they should merge the two cameras; I'm saying they should eliminate the 1.3X crop and go totally full-frame in the 1 series. You would still have a choice between lower resolution (12-16 megapixels) high-frame rate and high resolution (20-22 megapixels) lower frame rate. It's just that both would be full-frame.

Russ,

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.

As I recall the big question a year or two ago when one of the interviews was published was not about the particular cameras, but about whether Canon would eliminate the 1.3x crop leaving only 1.6x (EF-S) and full-frame. My comments are based on that speculation.

As for what PJs and sports shooters want, I would think they'd like more megapixels without a low-light noise penalty. The full-frame would give them that, assuming all else (frame rates, etc) could be kept constant.

moondigger wrote:
John, I understand what you're saying about die size and manufacturing, etc. When I mentioned Moore's law it was only in reference to the CPU and processing power of the camera.

Talking to a Phd friend of mine who designed and processed camera sensors for years, the sensor still is coming in at about 55% of the cost of the camera (that's cost, not retail sellign price).

We know for a fact that Canon can profitably sell a full-frame camera for well under $3000, given the current double rebate price of a 5D. Heck, after Dell's double discount day a couple weeks ago we discovered that the 5D could be profitably sold for under $2000.

What I'm suggesting is that given improvements in CPU power and memory, 8 FPS or faster could be achieved with full-frame sensors in the 12-13 megapixel range. I further believe that such a camera could be based on the 5D sensor, and that it could be very profitably sold for a retail price in the same ballpark as the current 1DMk2n. I'm not saying the super-high megapixel 1Ds-type camera would go away, only that the 1.3x crop camera would go away. Presumably the next 1Ds style camera would be 3-5 FPS and around 20-22 megapixels.

I'm agreeing with this.

Doesn't Nikon have the option to reduce the file size and essentially turn it into a smaller sensor and then pick up the frame rate? I'm wondering that would not be a great compromise - 8MP at 8fps or 13MP at 5fps (or even 3).

J.

moondigger wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that given improvements in CPU power and memory, 8 FPS or faster could be achieved with full-frame sensors in the 12-13 megapixel range. I further believe that such a camera could be based on the 5D sensor, and that it could be very profitably sold for a retail price in the same ballpark as the current 1DMk2n.

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.

MPerdomo wrote:
Maybe this will teach everyone not to treat Chuck Westfall's word as gospel


Are you kidding? In some ways, Canon users are worse than 16 year old readers of tabloid magazines...rumors are a dime a dozen. Just look at all the speculation threads and the "key players" in each one of those threads. It's like those people live to make guesses about Canon's next move/product offering. If there is ANYTHING they can use as material to make further guesses, you can bet that they'll quote it and make it support their prediction.

"Actually, the second interview with the exec backs up chuck's comments. He also addresses the first who seemed to indicate that a merge would happen (simple 'yes' answer to a question that was two parts, non native english speakers). So we have:"

There's been more posted online interviews out there backing the one body comment up. Chuck works for Canon and he's going parrot the corporate line if he wishes to keep his job. If you've followed this stuff over the many years, you would know the truth of what I write in regard to Chuck's ability to comment in regard to product releases (non-disclosure) and what really happens.

You're welcome to believe anything you wish, cause come PMA or when ever Canon Execs, not Chuck, decide to announce, they will.

The ability to process frames has nothing to do with physical sensor size -- 1.3x is irrelevant to the question. It has to do with the sheer number of pixels.


Yes, exactly. A FF sensor has a much larger area than a 1.3 crop camera, and assuming a roughly similar pixel density the FF camera's bus has to push a lot more pixels.

I do see your point about mirror movement rates, but canon is not precluded from putting an electronic shutter back into the 1 series (a la 1D).

Another Canon Exec, interview. Gleen from it what you will as it's a bit aged.

http://hobday.net/canon/

timbop wrote:
canon is not precluded from putting an electronic shutter back into the 1 series (a la 1D).

I don't see Canon going back to CCD sensors just to have an electronic shutter.

moondigger wrote:
As for what PJs and sports shooters want, I would think they'd like more megapixels without a low-light noise penalty. The full-frame would give them that, assuming all else (frame rates, etc) could be kept constant.

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. 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.

Given how carefully Westfall parses his words, I think he could have a future in law or politics... :-)

My hunch is still that at some point we'll see something like the Rebel XTi as the high end crop sensor camera, and that we'll see the niche currently filled by the crop sensor 30D be filled by a full frame camera that is initially somewhat more expensive than a 30D type camera and less expensive than the current 5D, but whose price will eventually drop to a point that is competitive with current high end crop sensor models.

Yup, speculation... :-)

Dan

mill4570 wrote:
Russ,

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.

Russ,

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.


Richard K.

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:
moondigger wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that given improvements in CPU power and memory, 8 FPS or faster could be achieved with full-frame sensors in the 12-13 megapixel range. I further believe that such a camera could be based on the 5D sensor, and that it could be very profitably sold for a retail price in the same ballpark as the current 1DMk2n.

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?

Exactly.

mill4570 wrote:
Russ,

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.


Richard K.

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.

Cheers...