wtlloyd wrote:
I'm suggesting that a 1.6 crop sensor is entry level, and there will be only one model featuring that sensor in the future. All other bodies at various price points will be full frame.
Canon recently said that they 'hoped' to continue using 1.3 - that would seem to me a likelier candidate for a sensor for the 40D.
You could also sensibly put in 12MP, but keep the cost reasonable.
That would at least make partial sense of Chuck's comments that more than 8MP in a 1.6 could not be done without impacting high ISO - he said that when they brought out the 30D.
Regards,
DaveMart
dcmiller wrote:
I have no doubt Canon is capable of releasing a 22mp 5fps camera in Sept. The question is "If they don't, why?"
Because with current sensor technology the difference in noise performance between 22 and 16.7 MP might outweigh any advantage in resolution. Honestly if you think about it going from 16.7 to 22 megapixels is less than a 15% increase in linear pixel density (I'm being simple here out of laziness, but if the sensors were square it would be an increase from 4086 to 4690 pixels per side).
So the change in functional resolution would be pretty small, and the advantages might be offset by noise. Also keep in mind that there's a point at which you're limited by the physical sensor size more than you are by the pixel resolution.
It's like comparing an exquisitely fine grained film like Ilford 50 on 35mm to Ilford HP5 (ISO 400) on 6x7. The finer grained film will have better resolution per unit space, but it will still be limited by its size compared to the much larger frame size.
The point is there are diminishing returns to bumping resolution at a fixed sensor size. I don't know the science well enough to say if 22 MP is beyond that threshold, but it well may be.
But has "Legendary" just come from brief Hebrew Canon ad that we're not sure was real? Could an alternate translation "classic" also work? We're reading tea leafs here. I guess that's the point of the thread
Good point about pixel resolution - from 17 to 22 MP is not as much of an increase in image size at you would hope for - for a truly massive increase in image size we are going to have to top 30MP at least.
It's just something a local web guy made up, or
It was meant to be started the week before Photokina
Did anyone look at the javascript to see if there was a hardcoded date?
And why couldn't 'X' just be a placeholder for future copy?
I want to believe in the X, but.......
Dont know, but Canon did market a Rebel X circa 1993, maybe they are resurecting the name in the new digi rebel, who knows.
Either way id be very surprised if Canon doesnt introduce a new 1Ds, at the very least a 1Ds mk2n
Im on the fence for a medium format digital system, doing fine with my 5D (im advertising photog) but have to be perfect with my technique to get desired results. Would be nice to have a tad more leeway and a 20mp+ 1Ds with improved DR and color would be it. If its 8k doesnt matter, MF digital is just much more expensive and not as versatile.
thebeginning wrote:
I could justify spending $1200...we'll see. I'd probably end up getting somethiing like the 24L, the 50L, and the 135L for my 'trinity'. the 35 and 85 are too close to justify, and i already have the 85 1.8.
I thought the same for a long while too... but the 85 1.2 is soooo very sweet. I admit it, I had lens lust. But man did it pay off.
Intresting about the dust reduction method Canon has chosen from reading that artical. Some of it is done in camera, and some via software. I wonder if we could use the dust reduction in the updated Digital photo professional 2.2 with our current cameras?
I hope the EOS 6D has a dust reduction system when its released next year!
Is the difference between 9.1 and 9.8 (or whatever the f/1.2L will be) worth $900?
And don't forget that at f/1.4 you've got a 2 inch DOF for a subject 5 feet away and a 7 inch DOF for a subject 10 feet away. Some of the complaints about sharpness wide open may have to do with its tiny depth of field at that aperture.
Hey, I hope people gobble up the 50 f/1.2L. I'd love to pick up the 50 f/1.4 for $150.
"Doesn't anyone want to see some MTF and crops and comparisons of a 50 f/1.2L to the 50 f/1.4 before spending $1200?" - No. I always regretted getting the FD 50mm 1.4 and not the FD 1.2L. Sharpness is not the reason, but I'm thinking an L series 1.2 would be sharper than either the 1.4 or the 1.0L. Now I'm ready to buy the EF 50 1.2L sight unseen. 900 bucks difference would seem like a bargin.
i didnt buy the 1ds2 in anticipation for the 1dx 22mp 8fps i held off for a year and even though im dying for this camera and would be saddened by it not being released at photokina, but i do realise that it takes time sometimes to develop a good product and im sure there are a few hurdles for canon to get over to make this merged 1d great, i definetly wouldnt want them to fast track it into production even though development was ongoing,
