fraga wrote:
Canon as officially stated that in a not so far away future their DSLR lineup will be made up entirely of FF cameras, with the entry level body being the only exception.
Unless I haven't been reading the same things as you, I don't think they've ever said that it will only ONE body which remains APS-C.
The xxxD & xxD are both still "entry level" cameras, and would both still exist quite happily within Canons vision for the future!
Why do people buy a 400D? Most of them because of the low price, no doubt.
Now, how many of those 400D buyers will also buy a 10-22mm wide angle zoom which costs as much as the camera? And how many of them will buy a 17-55 standard zoom which costs 50% more than the camera? Very few, I suppose.
But Canon wants to sell those lenses, so they will supply a camera adequate to those lenses, for a couple of years at least.
Canon as officially stated that in a not so far away future their DSLR lineup will be made up entirely of FF cameras, with the entry level body being the only exception.
Unless I haven't been reading the same things as you, I don't think they've ever said that it will only ONE body which remains APS-C.
The xxxD & xxD are both still "entry level" cameras, and would both still exist quite happily within Canons vision for the future!
fraga wrote:
Canon as officially stated that in a not so far away future their DSLR lineup will be made up entirely of FF cameras, with the entry level body being the only exception.
Could you provide a link to this statement? I think you have your facts mixed up.
Canon is now in the position AFAIK of making a fullframe sensor with one single exposure per mask layer. Prices should start falling, and also maybe the CCD will make a comeback.
eronald wrote:
Canon is now in the position AFAIK of making a fullframe sensor with one single exposure per mask layer. Prices should start falling, and also maybe the CCD will make a comeback.
Do you mean to say that Canon can now produce FF sensors without the yield-crushing Field Stitching? Can you give the source for that?
As for CCD use... Read the white paper on Full Frame sensors and be amazed. It's an easy find if you google for "Canon Full Frame White Paper". Canon does not foresee a comeback for CCD in dSLR because of negative characteristics inherent to CCD, like power consumption and required cooling.
eronald wrote:
Canon is now in the position AFAIK of making a fullframe sensor with one single exposure per mask layer. Prices should start falling, and also maybe the CCD will make a comeback.
Edmund
Is this just assumption or do you have a actual information about Canon's manufacturing processes? I'd love to see the source info for a statement like that.
Along the vein of APS-H (aka 1.3x crop)... How likely is that format to stay?
If the 1Ds III is going to have a high-speed crop mode a la the Nikon D2x series, what will be the fate of the 1D Mk II ?
If you want A) more pixels, B) increased dynamic range and/or C) more sensitivity/less noise, you --ultimately-- need more silicon real estate in the sensor department. But the field stitching that is required above the 1.3x crop is playing havoc with yields, and thus costs. Economically speaking, the APS-H sensor sits at the sweet spot. Or am I missing something?
Tentacle wrote:
From the 250 nm to the 180 node, or perhaps even from 180 nm to 130 nm.
Depending on who does the fab, I wouldn't be surprised to see 90nm on a recently done chip. If Canon likes to push technology and the chip is in deed recent it could even be smaller than 90nm.
eronald wrote:
Canon is now in the position AFAIK of making a fullframe sensor with one single exposure per mask layer. Prices should start falling, and also maybe the CCD will make a comeback.
Edmund
Not according to their White Paper they are not.
Regards,
DaveMart
Depending on who does the fab, I wouldn't be surprised to see 90nm on a recently done chip. If Canon likes to push technology and the chip is in deed recent it could even be smaller than 90nm.
Who knows? Usually you see the smallest litho processes for the most intensive and powerhungry chips. Those chips, GPUs and CPUs, are screaming performance and screaming for power. Some peg the latest of ATi and nVidia at 150+ watt. Netburst peaked at 130 watt too. So Intel is at 65 nm, AMD is about to get there, and both ATi and nVidia (read: TSMC and UMC) play with 90 and 80 nm.
But not every type of chip is in the 50-100 watt range. For instance, Intel is known to produce its own chipsets at one or two nodes behind their CPU production line. Chipsets sit in the 10-30 watt range, and they are not as big as CPUs or GPUs, so they don't need to be made at the most current litho process. And there's a whole bunch of chips in the 1-5 watt range.
I would expect the same philosophy for the likes of DIGIC: There is no dire need to get to the smallest available litho proces because that sort of chip isn't churning though one or lightbulbs of power.
Edited by Tentacle on Sep 15, 2006 at 04:31 PM GMT
Tentacle wrote:
Along the vein of APS-H (aka 1.3x crop)... How likely is that format to stay?
If the 1Ds III is going to have a high-speed crop mode a la the Nikon D2x series, what will be the fate of the 1D Mk II ?
If you want A) more pixels, B) increased dynamic range and/or C) more sensitivity/less noise, you --ultimately-- need more silicon real estate in the sensor department. But the field stitching that is required above the 1.3x crop is playing havoc with yields, and thus costs. Economically speaking, the APS-H sensor sits at the sweet spot. Or am I missing something?...Show more →
You are spot on with the sweet spot - as long as the white paper's statement of field stiching need applies. And it should indeed still apply - why on earth would Canon publish a white paper with such content if they would not plan to maintain a 1.25-1.3x crop body?
Simple logic based on white paper & 400D sensor:
- 1Ds's successor: about 22-27 MP FF normal speed + 13-17 MP high speed crop (with 1.25-1.3x), price much higher than Nikon D2x series
- 1D's successor: about 13-17 MP 1.25-1.3x crop high speed, price about the same than Nikon D2x series
The logic above is very simple. So simple that the simplyness itself might be a reason why Canon would not make them, but something more radical instead.
The thing is, Canon develops and makes their semiconductor manufacturing equipment (steppers and scanners) and they use their own equipment to actually manufacture semiconductors. That's also in the White Paper.
So, purely hypothetically speaking, would they be able to develop and build scanners with a larger exposure area, eliminating field stitching for full frame? Well, it sounds plausible to me. After all, they have the optics know-how and the experience.
But the fact that something is plausible/possible doesn't make it so!
Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said that it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor, but Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm sensor in the future.
This suggests to me that the APS-C format will continue. It's been said, validly, that "except the cheapest" does not preclude more than one Rebel model. However, this statement does strongly suggest there are no plans at Canon Inc to put an APS-H sensor into a new camera (which doesn't mean that the current 1D won't hobble on for another year).
This suggests to me that the APS-C format will continue. It's been said, validly, that "except the cheapest" does not preclude more than one Rebel model. However, this statement does strongly suggest there are no plans at Canon Inc to put an APS-H sensor into a new camera (which doesn't mean that the current 1D won't hobble on for another year).
I don't dispute that APS-H doesn't appear to have much of a future, but I think that reading the above quote and interpreting it to mean only Rebels will be APS-C is quite a stretch. That is my dispute with the post I originally quoted.
"Unless I haven't been reading the same things as you, I don't think they've ever said that it will only ONE body which remains APS-C"
But who is to say that the "other" APS-C body will be at a higher level in their lineup? Totally speculating, but it would not be unreasonable to find at some point that the 400D model (or similar) could be the high end APS-C model, joined by a new less expensive APS-C model. Given the other APS-C camers coming out from other vendors in this same price range, it is not hard to image a very useful "entry level" crop sensor body at an even lower price in the not-too-distant future.
"Why do people buy a 400D? Most of them because of the low price, no doubt."
That is only half of the equation. Many people buy the 400D (and, like me, bought the 350D) because of the value it provides at the low price. My 350D creates images of the same quality that I would get on a 30D at a lower price, while providing the features I really need, and allowing me to use (four, including three L zooms) high quality Canon lenses. Not all 350D/400D users limit themselves to kit lenses.
By the way, that value proposition would change if the next camera up from the 400D in the Canon line-up had a full-frame sensor rather than substantially the same 1.6x crop sensor.
Nowhere Man wrote:
How many more day until this Photokina show goes off?
Photokina will take place from 26th September to 1st October, in Koeln/Cologne, Germany. It starts in the morning, european time, so the americans will get the news before breakfast.
danmitchell wrote:
"...My 350D creates images of the same quality that I would get on a 30D at a lower price, while providing the features I really need...
This is of course assuming you do not need high ISO I actually thought of buying a 400D as a backup until I saw it's limited ISO capabilities, no doubt implemented by Canon to set apart the 30D, etc.
- as long as the white paper's statement of field stiching need applies. And it should indeed still apply - why on earth would Canon publish a white paper with such content if they would not plan to maintain a 1.25-1.3x crop body? 
I actually thought of buying a 400D as a backup until I saw it's limited ISO capabilities, no doubt implemented by Canon to set apart the 30D, etc.