There are many people that WILL buy a crop camera and have benefit for it. More 400D's are sold than any other camera. There are many photos taken with a 30D that are great photos. In one sentence, you make it sound as if this is a disaster. Or can I state that no-one with a 30D has taken a good photo.
I simply pointed out that there is a camera for you. Why? Was I wrong
And in fact , you were taking about buying a camera with a 'crop mode'. What if all future cameras had a 'crop mode'? You don't have to actually use it , you know.
I think that canon really did drop the ball with the 30D and I just hope that they pick it up again with the 40D. My thoughts on the matter are that Canon didn't give us the 3D that we all wanted a few years back, so Nikon capitalised on that and brought out their version of it, the D200. They just listened to what their buyers wanted. I'm not sure if Nikon will get a FF camera to the market this year, it sort of depends on Sony to make the chip first and that also raises a question about Sony wanting to let Nikon use their flagship chip?
I can see Canon wanting to make the 1DIII a sports/full frame camera, it would make a logical inclusion in their DSLR product line.
But I think the time has come for the XXD line up to be weather sealed, even though none of the ef-s lenses are weather sealed (a bit like Nikon).
Lets face it, the cropped sensor does have some serious advantages and some big disavantages too. Why not have both in one body? Wouldn't it be interesting if Canon makes a FF camera that has a higher pixel density in the crop area? FF one pixel density, APS-C higher density but simular mp? I'm sure it can be done. It's an intersting thought don't you think? All on one FF chip.
My sense is that this is all about how one thinks about the new Camera... _peace_
If you are an existing 1D Mark II user it is a faster, more flexible camera with unlimited shot depth and better high ISO as well as a great range of accessories (e.g. wifi). And should you wish to take your sports camera to a wedding etc it can be a better than 5D quality FF camera... But you NEVER EVER have to use this FF mode if you don't want...
Equally if you are a 1V Film user or a 30D/30D/5D who wants to step up to a pro style FF digital body it's a low cost way of getting the legendary 1 series ergonimics, build quality etc. And it's fast, flexible and with a great range of accessories etc... An just in case you want to take it to a sports game etc or wildlife hunting where you want either the extra reach or a really fasf FPS rate, then you can engage the crop mode... Again you NEVER EVER have to use this Crop mode if you don't want to!
Of course it also makes a great second body for those who have bought a 1Ds Mark II (or 1D Mark II N)
Sounds smart to me
Of course if you really want the ultimate in resolution then the 1Ds Mark II replacement awaits Oh and most of the accessories etc are sharable for those pros with dual bodies (which of course is most pros!)
My sense is that this is all about how one thinks about the new Camera... _peace_
If you are an existing 1D Mark II user it is a faster, more flexible camera with unlimited shot depth and better high ISO as well as a great range of accessories (e.g. wifi). And should you wish to take your sports camera to a wedding etc it can be a better than 5D quality FF camera... But you NEVER EVER have to use this FF mode if you don't want...
Equally if you are a 1V Film user or a 30D/30D/5D who wants to step up to a pro style FF digital body it's a low cost way of getting the legendary 1 series ergonimics, build quality etc. And it's fast, flexible and with a great range of accessories etc... An just in case you want to take it to a sports game etc or wildlife hunting where you want either the extra reach or a really fasf FPS rate, then you can engage the crop mode... Again you NEVER EVER have to use this Crop mode if you don't want to!
Sounds smart to me
Of course if you really want the ultimate in resolution then the 1Ds Mark II replacement awaits Oh and most of the accessories etc are sharable for those pros with dual bodies (which of course is most pros!)...Show more →
Thanks for the info Geoff!
I am surprised that more excitement has not been caused byt the lift in high ISO capability by around 1 stop from the already excellent 5D - amazing for sports and event photographers.
Any comment on the suggestion that the D1s at least may have variable aspect ratios?
I am also curious if it is correct that the new lenses will have additional contacts, and if so what they are for?
Any more info would be appreciated!
Regards,
Lets face it, the cropped sensor does have some serious advantages and some big disavantages too. Why not have both in one body? Wouldn't it be interesting if Canon makes a FF camera that has a higher pixel density in the crop area? FF one pixel density, APS-C higher density but simular mp? I'm sure it can be done. It's an intersting thought don't you think? All on one FF chip.
Now that would be interesting. And tricky/difficult. And have some different drawbacks.
All follows from the fact that you'd have photo sites that are not equal in size. One could build the APS-C region with photo sites that are, say, half the size of the outer photo sites, but that would cause a decrease in dynamic range and it would worsen the noise in Crop mode. In FF mode, each pair of photo sites within the APS-C region can be binned, so you'd recover most of the DR and noise performance and make it identical to the performance of the outside region.
But, in order to allow pair-binning, you'd end up with non-square photo sites in one of the two modes. Either you make the photo sites in the APS-C zone rectangular, which means that binning would create elongated photo sites, or you could create elongated sites which combine to a square, when binned.
Can you think of the trouble you'd have, trying to explain that either the vertical or horizontal resolving power differs between crop and full frame mode? And even worse, if you are in FF mode, then it's the center area that's non-uniformly resolving in one of the two scenarios.
There's been a lot of talk about Sony maybe not letting Nikon use their top CCD in the future. Sony wouldn't make nearly the profit they do if the other camera manufactures didn't buy it in the first place. Sony makes (last I heard) 50% of the CCD's for the point-and-shoot market. This is what they do. They make HUGE amounts of money from this.
A mini 1Ds is just what the doctor ordered for Canon (whatever name we label it with). I don't think Canon saw the D200 coming (well, no-one did, even the Nikon folk), and new cameras take a while to develop too. So they can't just make a super duper D200 killer over night. I'm sure they are working very hard to make an even better camera to compete in this market segment.
Canon has been at the forefront of technology and development, that its seems almost unthinkable that someone may have developed a better strategy, for a time. Would I or any other one else be disappointed if Canon and Nikon had 40% each of the market share, with the remainder elsewhere. THAT is what I call competition. A good, solid fight for out $dosh. Bring on the 3D.
nikt wrote:
There's been a lot of talk about Sony maybe not letting Nikon use their top CCD in the future. Sony wouldn't make nearly the profit they do if the other camera manufactures didn't buy it in the first place. Sony makes (last I heard) 50% of the CCD's for the point-and-shoot market. This is what they do. They make HUGE amounts of money from this.
A mini 1Ds is just what the doctor ordered for Canon (whatever name we label it with). I don't think Canon saw the D200 coming (well, no-one did, even the Nikon folk), and new cameras take a while to develop too. So they can't just make a super duper D200 killer over night. I'm sure they are working very hard to make an even better camera to compete in this market segment.
Canon has been at the forefront of technology and development, that its seems almost unthinkable that someone may have developed a better strategy, for a time. Would I or any other one else be disappointed if Canon and Nikon had 40% each of the market share, with the remainder elsewhere. THAT is what I call competition. A good, solid fight for out $dosh. Bring on the 3D. ...Show more →
It does seem a no-brainer doesn't it - for a replacement strateegy for the 5D.
One camera, lower level, in the present body, a second in the 3 series body - a less fps unsealed D1.
It's lower down the model range, getting the 40D right that Canon has more issues, it seems to me - they don't seem to wnt to put in all the goodies that are in the D200 into the lower range at a 1.6
Regards,
DaveMart wrote:
Of course they could - they bow only to Pentax for daft model designations!
Regards,
Yeah... you're right. They could. I actually mean to say "MORE" infuriating. :: Everyday I discuss differences between the 1D , 1Ds, 1Ds Mk II, 1D MK II n. And sometimes we go on tangents because someone thought we were talking about the other camera.
PS. What clown said "why don't we call it a '*IST'". They must have got that from Prince changing his name to the symbol.
Doesn't Canon run the risk to get into too many models for the dSLR range?
- xxxxD, non existent sofar. Think mirror-less (small, cheap) live viewfinder, EF/EF-S
- xxxD, 300/350/400D, no explanation needed.
- xxD, 10/20/30D and soon to be 40D.
- 5D
- 1D, currenly Mark II, time for a Mk III
- 1Ds, ditto.
Now, if the 5D gets split into two models, it will add yet another layer into the price/performance structure. Isn't this getting a bit overboard?
Some might say that the next 1-series camera will merge the D and Ds, but that takes out the "entry level" professional camera. A big gaping hole at the 1DII point. Does Canon want to piss off any aspiring professional that needs all the 1-series features, but can't shell out 1Ds money? There is roughly a factor of 2 between the two right now.
Compare this to the Nikon line-up: D40/50, D70/80, D100/200, D1/D2x/h. 4 price performance points.
Yes, it is going over board. Unless they split the 5D to get rid of the 40D. I can't see Canon getting rid of that segment. The 40D needs to become the mini 1Ds I mentioned. The second body for the pro shooters, like the D200 is to the D2x. The step up camera to the 400D.
Tentacle wrote:
Doesn't Canon run the risk to get into too many models for the dSLR range?
- xxxxD, non existent sofar. Think mirror-less (small, cheap) live viewfinder, EF/EF-S
- xxxD, 300/350/400D, no explanation needed.
- xxD, 10/20/30D and soon to be 40D.
- 5D
- 1D, currenly Mark II, time for a Mk III
- 1Ds, ditto.
Now, if the 5D gets split into two models, it will add yet another layer into the price/performance structure. Isn't this getting a bit overboard?
Some might say that the next 1-series camera will merge the D and Ds, but that takes out the "entry level" professional camera. A big gaping hole at the 1DII point. Does Canon want to piss off any aspiring professional that needs all the 1-series features, but can't shell out 1Ds money? There is roughly a factor of 2 between the two right now.
Compare this to the Nikon line-up: D40/50, D70/80, D100/200, D1/D2x/h. 4 price performance points. ...Show more →
The way you are counting the levels is a bit weird.
As you say, an xxxxD does not even exist yet, andd it may not happen.
It doesn't make much sensee to me to call the 1D and the 1Ds different levels, but not the D2H and the D2x - the gulf between 4 and 13MP is pretty wide.
It is also perhaps arguable that the 1Ds series sits above anything in the Nikon range, certainly when they bring out the D1 if it comes out, as it would be way higher in both price and rez than anything in the current Nikon line-up, and more truly comparable to MF cameras than the D2x
I take your basic point though, and no doubt Canon will be keen to avoid too much model proliferation, although a lot depends on how large they think the total DSLR market will get - if they can move enough people up with cheaper DSLRs then more models are bothe possible and needed.
Regards,
Tentacle wrote:
[
Can you think of the trouble you'd have, trying to explain that either the vertical or horizontal resolving power differs between crop and full frame mode? And even worse, if you are in FF mode, then it's the center area that's non-uniformly resolving in one of the two scenarios.
As I recall the Nikon D1x had exactly such rectangular photo sites providing asymmetric horizontal/vrtical resolution and folks didn't complain too much...
Tentacle wrote:
[
All follows from the fact that you'd have photo sites that are not equal in size. One could build the APS-C region with photo sites that are, say, half the size of the outer photo sites, but that would cause a decrease in dynamic range and it would worsen the noise in Crop mode. In FF mode, each pair of photo sites within the APS-C region can be binned, so you'd recover most of the DR and noise performance and make it identical to the performance of the outside region.
But, in order to allow pair-binning, you'd end up with non-square photo sites in one of the two modes. Either you make the photo sites in the APS-C zone rectangular, which means that binning would create elongated photo sites, or you could create elongated sites which combine to a square, when binned.
Can you think of the trouble you'd have, trying to explain that either the vertical or horizontal resolving power differs between crop and full frame mode? And even worse, if you are in FF mode, then it's the center area that's non-uniformly resolving in one of the two scenarios. ...Show more →
The technique of use different sensor size in the same detector is already used in medical applications like multislice CAT scanners (Computer Axial Tomography); where the central sensors has half/size than external ones and they are combined to get different resolutions. But in this case we are speaking about BIG size solid state sensors against all in 35 x 24 mm !! Electronics has to make miracles, but all is a question of time ....
DaveMart wrote:
[...]
The way you are counting the levels is a bit weird.
[...]
I was looking at price brackets.
Nikon D2x and D2h (local prices, both "s" update versions) are within 20% of each other. The 1DIIN and 1DsII are separated by almost doubling in price. But, ok, in the end that's arbitrary, the Nikon high-end could be seen as two price ranges as well.
vachss wrote:
As I recall the Nikon D1x had exactly such rectangular photo sites providing asymmetric horizontal/vrtical resolution and folks didn't complain too much...
I was thinking in terms of consistency.
I would like a camera to behave predictably on me. I know its limitations. All of a sudden I would have got an extra set of IF/THEN conditions to deal with. On high-res crop mode the high ISO noise would be worse and the DR poorer. I can no longer think, for example, "I can get away ISO 1600, always". That condition would have become setting-dependent.
Oh and most of the accessories etc are sharable for those pros with dual bodies (which of course is most pros!)
Was it such a viral typo that Erwin Puts made? 