danmitchell wrote:
"I find myself in the minority. I do not want more MP. I think we have more than enough. I'd welcome improvements in other areas such as DR, brighter viewfinders, programmable buttons etc."
Does one have to preclude the other?
Not at all but people tend to forget that more MP is not necessarily better. It also means bigger cards, more computer memory, bigger HD etc. All this cost extra money.
so a sensor with moving parts? i dont like that idea ...
No, electrochromatic controlled filters. No mechanical/moving parts there. At least for most of the patent. Part of the patent vectors off into color wheel filter territory.
pmnx wrote:
I don't think the only problem of this hybrid size 36x25.5mm sensor is the compatibility with Zeiss and Leca lenses. I think there are many other technical (and cultural) barriers that prevent Canon engineers to built such a camera.
If they make it, this camera would be revolutionnary and if the sensor image quality is high, it would be the ultimate tool for many pros.
And Canon would be very pleased to sell you razorsharp lenses: that's their business.
You may be interested to note that the 1DII is the largest CMOS size Canon can make unstitched. Two of these stitched is 36.2 x 28.7
dcmiller wrote:
I'm not following all this logic, but
40D - 3872 x 2592
There's a chance it remains at 3504 x 2336
Remember on both cameras that Canon hasn't told it outsiders WHY the files look so much better.
Don't confuse pixels with sensors. Sigma SD9 is a 3.54 mp camera with about 9 million photodetectors. The information contained in each pixel is worth about twice what a good bayer camera delivers.
We are talking about a qualitative improvement per pixel.
Yeah, we all seem to be confusing each other!
Simply though, the SD9 with 2572 by 1512 pixels gives around 3MP, and a 7MB RAW file
So if you are saying that the Canon has the equivalent of 3872 by 2592 counted the same way as the Sigma that gives 10MP, and a likely RAW file of around 20MB - that 's a lot of data to shove around at a likely 5fps - 100MB/sec - for comparison the 1DII with 8MP bayer at 8fps and a 8MB RAW file has to move data at around 64MB/sec.
The CF/SD cards would also appear to be in trouble coping with that.
Not trying to say that fyou are not corect, just checking that we understand what you are saying.
Could you confrim your sources?
Have you handled one yourself? Or the IDsIII?
Thanks for your info.
Regards,
DaveMart
pmnx wrote:
I don't think the only problem of this hybrid size 36x25.5mm sensor is the compatibility with Zeiss and Leca lenses. I think there are many other technical (and cultural) barriers that prevent Canon engineers to built such a camera.
If they make it, this camera would be revolutionnary and if the sensor image quality is high, it would be the ultimate tool for many pros.
And Canon would be very pleased to sell you razorsharp lenses: that's their business.
Haven't done the math, but 4x5 may also fit at 20mp.
I don't think Canon would be too upset about Zeiss and Leica glass not working.
You may be interested to note that the 1DII is the largest CMOS size Canon can make unstitched. Two of these stitched is 36.2 x 28.7
According to Canon it takes 3 exposures, and thus 3 masks, to properly expose a full frame sensor. Each completed sweep of a 7 or 8 by 26 mm slit exposes a 33 by 26 mm area.
At least that's what they state in their piece of PR, the full frame white paper
Wondering whether this topic will reach 200 pages before March 1?
At the rate of 15-20 new pages per day, I think it should be closer to 400 pages or even beyond by the time Canon officially unveils its latest EOS DSLR!
Yakim Peled wrote:
Not at all but people tend to forget that more MP is not necessarily better. It also means bigger cards, more computer memory, bigger HD etc. All this cost extra money.
16 to 20 is only 25%. Storage price/performance and processor has almost doubled since the 1DsII. So Canon is falling under the curve.
It's a little more complicated comparison if Canon has gone 16bit, considering binary files and loseless compression. But once into photoshop the 25% is accurate.
Wondering whether this topic will reach 200 pages before March 1?
At the rate of 15-20 new pages per day, I think it should be closer to 400 pages or even beyond by the time Canon officially unveils its latest EOS DSLR!
But if we cut out GPS and psychic abilities, it's only three pages.
I think that trying to explain to consumers that a sensor with fewer pixels is "better" might be an extraordinary challenge for Canon's (or anyone else's) marketing department at this point. The logic that a sensor with "full color" photosites (or multiple sites at the same location) may be fine, but there are other things at work here.
Just look at reviews of the existing Foveon sensor bodies and the convoluted explanations.
Again, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on whether a 6.3 MP full color sensor out-resolves a 10MP traditional sensor or not. I am taking a position on how this would play in the marketing of actual cameras.
On another topic, regarding "MP vs. Everything Else" someone wrote: "... people tend to forget that more MP ... also means bigger cards, more computer memory, bigger HD etc. All this cost extra money."
Maybe, and maybe not. Cards, memory, and hard drives are all much less expensive now than when 8MP cameras were introduced. I'd wager that a card holding 200 RAW 16MP images today costs less (in real and in inflation adjusted dollars) than a card holding 200 RAW 8MP images cost when 8MP cameras were introduced. The same is certainly true of hard drives.
Its the same issue that AMD went through with their processors in competition with Intel. Intel had 3.0GHz and AMD could complete the same number of command instructions with a processor running at 2.0GHz. So they came up with a new number system and called their processors 3800+ and so forth to represent the speed of the intel chip that the AMD model would compete with. I'm not sure how successful it was. But, I can say as an educated consumer that my 1.86GHz Intel Core 2 Duo machine smokes my old 2.66GHz Celeron system.
Edited by mrladewig on Feb 06, 2007 at 10:22 AM GMT
Not to mention that it's the second time he tries to plug the site...
Regarding 1DsII and 5D sensor: Canon claims it can expose a swath of 26x33 mm, slit is 26 mm wide, wafer displacement during mask projection is 33 mm. I don't know if these numbers are entirely correct, but Canon says it has to use 3 exposures and 3 masks per layer to make a full frame sensor. Allthough 2 seems possible.
danmitchell wrote:
I think that trying to explain to consumers that a sensor with fewer pixels is "better" might be an extraordinary challenge for Canon's (or anyone else's) marketing department at this point. The logic that a sensor with "full color" photosites (or multiple sites at the same location) may be fine, but there are other things at work here.
Just look at reviews of the existing Foveon sensor bodies and the convoluted explanations.
Again, I'm not taking a position one way or the other on whether a 6.3 MP full color sensor out-resolves a 10MP traditional sensor or not. I am taking a position on how this would play in the marketing of actual cameras.
On another topic, regarding "MP vs. Everything Else" someone wrote: "... people tend to forget that more MP ... also means bigger cards, more computer memory, bigger HD etc. All this cost extra money."
Maybe, and maybe not. Cards, memory, and hard drives are all much less expensive now than when 8MP cameras were introduced. I'd wager that a card holding 200 RAW 16MP images today costs less (in real and in inflation adjusted dollars) than a card holding 200 RAW 8MP images cost when 8MP cameras were introduced. The same is certainly true of hard drives....Show more →
It is all very true that the same amount of money buys you today more than yesterday but you still need to buy it.
You can always use more or less dirty marketing tricks, and call it for example "3x6.3 Mpixel". Haven't someone done something like that in video cameras?
