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:
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.

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.

What's not equal?

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.

"It is widely believed, ..."

Yes, ya got me on that one sport. I've reading 22MP.


Either which way, you're right as to it being a new sensor and until Canon quits jacking up the pixel count, one body isn't going be a reality unless Canon decides to do the software crop thingy and put the one body on the market for under a $4,500.00 (USD) street price.

Any bets on that happening?

------------------------------------

"It also occurs to me that Canon would make more money selling two or three camera bodies at different price points ..."

To be offset by additional manufacturing costs Vs profits of a one product manufacturing line.

If I lose one sale, because I charge twenty dollars more for my services, it will take eight additional service calls, at the twenty dollar more price point, to simply make up for that one lost sale. So, as you probably already know, in business, less can be more.

If Canon can sell an equal number of bodies, at lesser profit, yet not have the manufacturing costs of several body lines, they're money ahead because of what they've saved in manufacturing/administrative costs. One product line costs tens of millions of dollars to set up and tens of millions of dollars to maintain. Two seperate lines cost more than one plus one cause you have administrative overhead; economy of scale isn't always a gimme. It's a pyramid's nightmare if you throw a third/fourth manufacturing line into the mix cause now you're managment intensive as wall as being buried by part manufacturing/supply administrative details. Simple is good.

Edited by BeeMan458 on Dec 05, 2006 at 06:48 AM GMT

I doubt it. If one body did it all, what would people have to upgrade to?

"I doubt it. If one body did it all, what would people have to upgrade to?"

Better quality lenses and MF bodies and backs. Can you say 39MP's?

Okay, got greedy on that one. I'll just be happy with better WA lenses.

Heard a rumor from someone working in Cxxxn that the following is a spec for the 1DIII...

- 21mp
- FF / 2x mode
- 4 fps @ FF ... 10 fps @ 2x

......

Momma! We're talking 100+MP TIFF files. Momma!

Can you say, major HDD upgrade. Will a 500gig drive be enough or will one need four 500gig drives for storage and backup?

cljtam wrote:
Heard a rumor from someone working in Cxxxn that the following is a spec for the 1DIII...

- 21mp
- FF / 2x mode
- 4 fps @ FF ... 10 fps @ 2x

Seems unlikely to me. 2X crop would mean the 10 fps pictures would be about 5 megapixels; an awfully big reduction from 21 megapixels.

"Can you say, major HDD upgrade. Will a 500gig drive be enough or will one need four 500gig drives for storage and backup? "

Drives are cheap and getting cheaper all the time, and are readily available now is sizes up to 700+ GB. I would wager that the cost for storing, say, a 16MP RAW files is now less than when the first 16MP DSLRs were available.

"I would wager that the cost for storing, say, a 16MP RAW files is now less than when the first 16MP DSLRs were available."

What I was asking about is in regard to the amount of storage as opposed to cost of storage.

500gigs seems might small when compared to hundred plus magabyte TIFF files. It would talke 4000 files to fill a HDD and some folks take that many shots in a week.

moondigger wrote:
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.

Absolutely true statement. Canon either has to charge $8000 for the new camera, in which case many sports/bird shooters won't buy it; or, they will charge $4000 which means all those 1Ds shooters get a huge price cut. Either way they lose money. It doesn't make economic sense to reduce a highly successful product line.

"or, they will charge $4000 which means all those 1Ds shooters get a huge price cut. Either way they lose money."

Canon charged $3,000.00 for the D30 and charges how much for the 30D?

Canon charged, $6,500.00 for the 1D and charges how much for the 1DMkII?

Canon charged, $8,000.00 for the 1Ds and charges how much for the 1DsMkII?

The point, Canon has been cutting it's pricing (things are even cheaper if inflation is taken into consideration) all along as they develop and pay for their R&D.

moondigger wrote:
cljtam wrote:
Heard a rumor from someone working in Cxxxn that the following is a spec for the 1DIII...

- 21mp
- FF / 2x mode
- 4 fps @ FF ... 10 fps @ 2x

Seems unlikely to me. 2X crop would mean the 10 fps pictures would be about 5 megapixels; an awfully big reduction from 21 megapixels.

My first thought was also "Why to go so low as 2.0 crop?" However, there are two possible technical explanations for it (just possible, not trying to claim that they would be probable):
1. It would be very straightforward to implement 2.0 crop in software, i.e. to calculate the mean value (or even something a bit more sophisticated) of 4 pixels, or
2. It might alternatively be feasible to implement 2.0 crop directly in the sensor, i.e. to calculate the mean value on the sensor chip.

Both methods are inherently simpler in 2.0 crop than in 1.6/1.5/1.25 crop. Both methods also help in reducing the noise, since they effectively quadruple the pixel size.

Koivulehto wrote:
1. It would be very straightforward to implement 2.0 crop in software, i.e. to calculate the mean value (or even something a bit more sophisticated) of 4 pixels, or

That's not a 2.0x crop. It's averaging a 2x2 matrix of pixels into a single large pixel, sometimes referred to as binning. It wouldn't result in a 2.0x crop factor -- the full image circle would still be used, and the only difference between an image taken in "regular" mode and an image taken in this mode would be that this mode is lower resolution (5 megapixels) with (possibly) better low-light performance. There would be no telephoto effect at all. It would also be a lot more work for the CPU to handle, as it would have to capture all the pixels then perform calculations on each 4x4 matrix prior to writing to the card. Seems counterproductive if the idea is to increase frame rate.

2. It might alternatively be feasible to implement 2.0 crop directly in the sensor, i.e. to calculate the mean value on the sensor chip.

This would avoid the CPU overhead problem, but again isn't actually a crop.

moondigger wrote:
Obviously a full-frame sensor costs more to manufacture than an APS-C or APS-H sensor, and yields are lower. But the cost comes down steadily over time as processes improve. The cost difference between a 1DsMk2 and a 1DMk2N is not solely due to sensor size. A significant part of it is simply profit padding. You want the highest resolution? You pay a premium.

Actually there is a significant difference between FF and 1.3 and 1.6 crops.

According to the Canon CMOS sensor white paper the 1.3 is the largest size sensor which can be imaged from a single die exposure. The Canon FF sensors are made by superimposing three separate dies exposures, multiplying the number of manf. steps x 3 and greatly increasing the defect rate.

alot of people in this thread have posted saying that a merged high speed ultra high res camera would not be a good idea being sports and photojournalists would have to huge a file to deal with and also that studio photogs dont need the speed, i agree with these things but the merged camera would be great for both if canon designed it right...meaning that for sports/pj's there would be a reduced resolution mode which produced smaller files for them to transmit , and for the studio photog all he would have to do is lower the frame rate setting....so how can this not be a good thing, if canon designed the reduced resolution mode then this camera would be perfect for both studio and sports/pj's alike, as for the cost i would hope it stays at its regularly introduced price of $8000 or less.
when i speak of reduced resolution mode im not talking about jpeg compression, im talking in that the feature would have variable pixel settings such as 3024x2016 and 3504x2336 ect.

With the price of the 5D full frame going lower and lower Canon could use its FF sensor in a new sports/press (midrange cost) body with faster frame and focusing speeds.