bobsofpa wrote:
Wrong. When what you have is a 600mm lens, using TCs, and even then on a 1.6X camera, the bird only takes up a small portion of the frame, pixel density is a concern. On a FF camera the bird would be a dot on the image.
It really is pixel density, not sensor size -- the number of pixels you can get on the bird, assuming similar noise and dynamic range. The reason bird photographers like the 20D/30D sensor so much is that it gets many more pixels on the bird with LOWER noise than the 1dm2, and more pixels with about equal noise as the 1dsm2.
If the Idsm3 is 24 MP on full frame it will have more reach than the 30D -- more pixels on the bird. You just have to crop. But it will be very expensive, not to mention heavy, and the birder will being paying the big bucks for the parts of the image that are being cropped off.
The dominant factor in bird (and sports) photography is not being able to get close to the subject.
bobsofpa wrote:
Wrong. When what you have is a 600mm lens, using TCs, and even then on a 1.6X camera, the bird only takes up a small portion of the frame, pixel density is a concern. On a FF camera the bird would be a dot on the image.
Again, it's about being able to have a shorter/smaller lens give you the reach you need. It all boils down to that.
Lotusm50 said: Again, it's about being able to have a shorter/smaller lens give you the reach you need. It all boils down to that
You do not seem to understand that there is no Canon lens longer than 600mm. For someone who already has EF 600 f/4.0L lens, a crop camera gives a better pixel density (resolution) than 5D.
Canon would be crazy to release a medium format system with that large a lens lineup ready from the word go. If it doesn't take of that is one huge investment in lens design/tooling that goes flush down the drain.
mfurman wrote:
You do not seem to understand that there is no Canon lens longer than 600mm. For someone who already has EF 600 f/4.0L lens, a crop camera gives a better pixel density (resolution) than 5D.
Of course I understand that. That just means it's cost is infinite. Of course, you can go always out an get a third-party 1000mm lens and you can add teleconverters to that as well. It's still a cost and/or lens size/weight issue. And it's still about trade-offs no matter how you choose to look at it.
kleinssz69 wrote:
No trade offs - pixel density is what you want for birding, and not point and shoot type pixel quality either.
The 1DsMwhatever would have to have over 22M to match the pixel density (on a Bayer sensor) of my 20D.
From what I've seen from 1.5/1.6 Bayer sensors at 10+ Mpx I don't think I'd want any smaller photosites than the 8Mpx, and there's diffraction limiting waiting in the wings.
Now of it were a Foveon or the "True Color" type of sensor, that might be a different story if the the resolution was there and noise control at higher ISO was at least as good as the current Canon sensors.
DIGIC III and integrated cleaning system across the board
1DsMkIII, the 1DsMkII replacement- announced in late Feb 2007 for PMA 200 - 21.1MP FF
40D, the 30D replacement - announced in late Feb 2007 for PMA 2007 - 10.1MP APS-C
1DMkIII, the 1DMkIIn replacement - announced autumn 2007 - 10.0MP APS-H
7D, the 5D replacement - announced autumn 2007 - 15.6MP FF
500D, the 400D replacement - announced Feb 2008 for PMA 2008 - 12.5MP APS-C
john Paul wrote:
Hmm... I heard about a Canon 55MP medium format back being in development .. a multi layer sensor.. that was about three years ago though.. so,...who knows..
JP
I just don't see Canon coming out with a straight medium format system, like the ZD. If they do come out with a larger than 35mm sensor, I think it will be part of a system that can perhaps accept L glass in a crop mode. I do expect something different this year. Don't know what, but something other than the evolutionary model progression of the last few years.
The trouble with coming out with a new MF system is that it gives people who are not interested in MF a reason to look at Nikon.
Pure conjecture and 'gut feeling' on my part. It will be interesting in the future to look back and figure out if some of these rumors had any basis in fact.
I also wonder about a little 'counter-espionage' of false rumor on Canon's part, as they are much more deliberately managing information flow. I don't see this as corporate policy, but perhaps the actions of a few 'entrepreneurial' middle managers.
tgrey wrote:
To get fast through-put and high pixel density with a full-frame sensor is very costly, and unnecessarily so from the point of view of bird and (more important) sports photographers.
To match Nikon D2Xs' pixel density with FF, one would need 1.5 by 1.5 by 12.4 MP = 28 MP. To match Nikon D2Xs' pixel density with APS-H, one would need 1.25 by 1.25 by 12.4 MP = 19.4 MP.
To match Nikon D2Xs fps wise in high speed crop mode, one would need 8 fps for 7 MP images, which is slightly less than what 1D MKII(N) has now.
To match Nikon D2Xs in pixel density in high speed crop mode, an APS-H sensor with a similar high speed crop mode would need to be 1.25 by 1.25 by 7 MP = 10.9 MP, and a FF sensor would need to be 1.5 by 1.5 by 7 MP = 15.8 MP.
Of course, manufacturers usually don't design their future products to match competitor's current products, but to exceed them at least in some respects. From this point of view, a 12-13 MP 1D3 could be sufficient, either with APS-H or with FF. If it were FF with 5D's pixels and a 1.25x high speed crop mode, the high speed crop would have exactly same sized pixels, crop factor and file size than what 1DII(N) now has.
Simon Naisbitt wrote: My predictions for Canon cameras in 2007
That’s a serious commitment to predictions, a substantial Web page with detailed graphs, charts, pictures etc all on using past EOS Canons to predict the future... Right down to trend line graphs of rates of change in pixel pitch by model range to predict new sensor densities.
It looks sensible and consistent with the 'best of' the rumours for the 2007 models. How long have you been running it and have you been right at all in the past?
Also (just for fun) if you were (as some rumour sources have suggested) to se Canon splitting the 5D into two (claim 16mp for the 3D like an still 12Mp or so for the 7D like) how would this fit into your predictions etc.
Geoff
Edited by Geoff Costello on Jan 21, 2007 at 07:32 AM GMT
is it just me? or does it seem like if Canon were to put out a 30D replacement that was 10.1 MP, then Canon would no longer be excelling, but just following the lead of other companies?
i know that MP isn't what its all about, but for a lot of new guys it is. and to simply make a replacement that seemed to merely match Nikon, Sony, etc, just seems out of character for Canon.
Andrew Dale said: is it just me? or does it seem like if Canon were to put out a 30D replacement that was 10.1 MP
I am not sure what you are suggesting. Is it a 12 MP 1.6 crop camara, you have in mind? Are you hoping for the same noise level as for 30D (at the same ISO)?
mfurman wrote:
I am not sure what you are suggesting. Is it a 12 MP 1.6 crop camara, you have in mind? Are you hoping for the same noise level as for 30D (at the same ISO)?
i don't really know. i'm not exactly an expert on all the math and etc for pixel ratio and all those other fancy terms. but i do think it'd be 1.6x to keep with the pro-sumer line. I just don't think it'd be all that good of a jump to pull another "upgrade" out when it wouldn't be a mountain-moving moment (sorry for the alliteration)
maybe that's just me wanting too much out of Canon. i guess i can hope though, right?!
mfurman wrote:
I am not sure what you are suggesting. Is it a 12 MP 1.6 crop camara, you have in mind? Are you hoping for the same noise level as for 30D (at the same ISO)?
so i did a little math. does that come out to something around a 4243x2828 resolution? maybe i'm wrong. that's about 300 pixels both ways give or take 50 or so. would that be possible for our good people at Canon?
Andrew Dale wrote:
is it just me? or does it seem like if Canon were to put out a 30D replacement that was 10.1 MP, then Canon would no longer be excelling, but just following the lead of other companies?
i know that MP isn't what its all about, but for a lot of new guys it is. and to simply make a replacement that seemed to merely match Nikon, Sony, etc, just seems out of character for Canon.
So what, it was an illusion to expect them to stay ahead of everybody forever. Nobody really needs more than 10MP in a midrange body, and to make one would be foolish. If they all make 10MP bodies and stay there, it means they will have to differentiate cameras on other counts, such as build quality, viewfinder size and brightness, weather sealing, low noise and other useful things. Good for us, bad for their profit margin, because it's cheaper to make a more MP sensor than make a better quality camera.
