Another reason I believe the 1.3 crop is gone is that Westfall has strongly implied that 1.3 will stay, as recently as last December. In a sense it does stay. But he simply can't telegraphing the future to users in articles, and also in line with Canon's new super secrecy agenda. Yes, perverted logic. But I'm sticking with it.
I'm not saying he lied. He didn't, whichever sensor size is produced. But he's learned some things from his bosses about talking around important subjects.
Where did the assumption come from that the 5D would retain the current 12.8mp sensor? Why not use the 16.7mp sensor from the 1DsmkII?
Maybe the 5D was always destined to have a 2 year production cycle.
Maybe the 1DmkIII will simply have an upgraded 3" LCD, DIGIC III & 10FPS.
Maybe the 40D won't be released till the 30D is 18 months old. (esp. if the 400D is selling so well)
Maybe Canon see the greatest returns from an xxxxD - a P&S with interchangeable lenses.
However, I think we'll see both 1 series updated very shortly, possibly the 30D (not really sure), and the 5D will wait till autumn or even later before it gets a makeover.
No one has mentioned EF-S lenses either. I think there is a possibility of a EF-S 50-150 f4 to compliment the 17-55 & 10-22, which will basically complete the lineup
tentacle wrote: "That's beside the point I was trying to make. Full Frame sensors are not 2.5 times more expensive than their APS-C counterparts (just the area increase, (1.6)² = 2.56) but more in the order of 10 to 20 times more expensive."
Admittedly sensor production costs do not follow exactly the same trend lines as other kinds of devices whose size decreases and/or density increases to provide more capability. But their costs do seem to drop over time nonetheless. You wouldn't claim that the cost of an 8MP APS-C sensor (which, by definition has not changed size) is the same today as it was four years ago. Costs for full frame sensors will be subject to the same factors that have lowered the costs of other sensor sizes.
To say it simply, your statement could be correct, but less relevant. If the cost of the smaller sensors has come down, the cost of a "10 to 20 times more expensive" full frame sensor also decreases.
And, no, I cannot give you the exact data. It is a thought experiment.
jthrasher wrote much, a sample of which includes: "um... helloooo"
So, is that your pronouncements are based upon srong self-confidence and belief, or do you have hard evidence that your views are accurate? Not unexpectedly, there is lots of speculation in this thread, based on a combination of old news, hopes, various hints, and personal preferences... but very little on hard evidence of the actual features of new products.
Is yours the former or the latter?
If the former, there is no need to be condescending in your posts. Having an alternative set of hopes and preferences regarding Canon cameras is not certain evidence of naivete.
dcmiller wrote: "Yes, perverted logic. But I'm sticking with it."
I love it! That should be the theme song of this thread! :-)
Dan
Edited by danmitchell on Feb 13, 2007 at 07:35 AM GMT
Tentacle wrote
5D Mk II: 12 Mpixel entry level full frame
1D Mk III: 12 Mpixel 8-10 fps full frame sports shooter in pro body
1Ds Mk III: 22 Mpixel 4 fps full frame studio / reportage shooter in pro body
3 full frame cameras, without internal conflict or competition, 3 separated markets.
And what's going to change in this 5D Mk II, given that the 5D is 12 MP FF already?
Mark Shaxted wrote:
Where did the assumption come from that the 5D would retain the current 12.8mp sensor? Why not use the 16.7mp sensor from the 1DsmkII?
Because that's a 3+ year old sensor. Canon will have made quite a bit of progress since then, so it'd be silly to use a 3 year old sensor. A new one would perform much better and be cheaper because yields would be better.
The 5D has no competition whatsoever. None. No full frame camera is available for that price. So why bother upping the resolution? It would only canibalize the 1DsII sales. A 20-30D like upgrade for the 5D, some added features, no reso bump and production streamlining to reduce costs, is all it needs.
Maybe the 5D was always destined to have a 2 year production cycle.
Maybe the 1DmkIII will simply have an upgraded 3" LCD, DIGIC III & 10FPS.
Maybe the 40D won't be released till the 30D is 18 months old. (esp. if the 400D is selling so well)
Maybe Canon see the greatest returns from an xxxxD - a P&S with interchangeable lenses.
The 30D is getting its ass kicked. A well-selling 400D is a different price range and market segment, so that will have very little to do with how 30D sales have gone down the drain.
However, I think we'll see both 1 series updated very shortly, possibly the 30D (not really sure), and the 5D will wait till autumn or even later before it gets a makeover.
No one has mentioned EF-S lenses either. I think there is a possibility of a EF-S 50-150 f4 to compliment the 17-55 & 10-22, which will basically complete the lineup
If Canon sticks to its commitment to full frame, then don't expect too much additions to the EF-S line-up. But, it's possible. In fact, the 50-150 would make a very nice lens for crop. Tele lenses don't really need the short backfocus, so it remains to be seen if there will ever be tele zooms for EF-S.
Erik Barzeski wrote:
And what's going to change in this 5D Mk II, given that the 5D is 12 MP FF already?
As mentioned in the reply above:
The 5D has no competition whatsoever. None. No full frame camera is available for that price. So why bother upping the resolution? It would only canibalize the 1DsII sales. A 20-30D like upgrade for the 5D, some added features, no reso bump and production streamlining to reduce costs, is all it needs.
5D Mk II might have sensor cleaning, will very likely have DIGIC III, might have better AF, bigger buffer, faster CF write speeds and a lot of invisible internal reworkings that will allow Canon to lower production costs and reduce warranty issues. But that remains an educated guess on my part.
The "no competition for Canon" argument hasn't meant too much in the past. Canon had no competition when it moved APS-C sensors from 6MP to 8MP, when it introduced a 16MP full frame body, and so forth.
Strategically, Canon thinks beyond the existing competition and considers likely future competition, I would think. It is very unlikely that theirs will be the only full-frame sensors for much longer.
Assuming that someone else has a full frame sensor coming and that it would likely at least equal Canon's 12MP "size," Canon might be interested in upping the ante before an alternative product (that might come in at a lower cost point and/or with other interesting features) equals their offering. Canon could do this by lowering the price of 5D class full frame bodies, increasing the MP count of these bodies at about the same price, and so on.
Furthermore, if Sony and some other OEM supplier makes the FF sensor, then Pentax, Sony, Nikon and whoever else opts-in could have full frame all at the same time assuming they have a body in place. Maybe even Leica
For the 5D replacement, I expect 12 of 16mp will depend on what needs to be done to hit a fairly low price point. This is also where a FF 1Dv comes in. Look at the space Nikon and Sony have to place their product currently between ~$2200 5D and a ~$6700 1DsIII. Put a 12-16mp F cmos in a camera with your best AF system, and sell it for $4000. That will sell.
Now look at a ~$2200 5D, a $4500 1Dv, and a $8000 1Dvs. How do you place a FF camera against that? You can't go against the 1Dv and the 1Dvs. So the choice is to go against the 5D with price and/or features. But Canon is coming up on second generation 5D. So how do Nikon and Sony place their FF product? How do they place their FF product and not lose money? How do they build a FF camera to compete against the 5D, when the 5D will be replaced in the next 12 months?
The "no competition" arguments above make the assumption that FF in and of itself trumps every other feature or combination of features. The 5D has not been the hottest seller around so obviously there is competition - for the buyer's dollars - which is the only thing Canon is concerned about.
jthrasher wrote:
if you really think the 1D series cameras will be full frame, you're wrong. The 1D series camera is made for sports and it will not be FF for a long time, if ever because sports shooters love their 1.3 crop factor.
Remember the 70% center of a FF imager is equivalent to the 1.3 factor you're speaking of. So anyone that wants the sweet middle (or the not so middle) of a shot can simply crop to the sweet-spot. This is the reason Canon will DROP the 1.3x imager. It was a temporary imager until Canon could improve its fabrication capability and costs thereof, including the processor capacity which I believe the DIGIC-III is designed to handle; Timing, this upcomming 2007 release or the release thereafter.
That's why there's a 1Ds and the 5D. there's NO point to making the 1D full frame. none.
the 1Ds is a studio camera made for commercial photographers and the 5D is made for wedding photographers who wanted FF bought didn't want to spend the extra $$ for the 1Ds because they didn't really need the extra MP's either.
you heard it here first. the new 1D will NOT be full frame. get used to it. if you want FF, get a 1Ds or 5D. ...Show more →
dcmiller wrote:
For the 5D replacement, I expect 12 of 16mp will depend on what needs to be done to hit a fairly low price point. This is also where a FF 1Dv comes in. Look at the space Nikon and Sony have to place their product currently between ~$2200 5D and a ~$6700 1DsIII. Put a 12-16mp F cmos in a camera with your best AF system, and sell it for $4000. That will sell.
Now look at a ~$2200 5D, a $4500 1Dv, and a $8000 1Dvs. How do you place a FF camera against that? You can't go against the 1Dv and the 1Dvs. So the choice is to go against the 5D with price and/or features. But Canon is coming up on second generation 5D. So how do Nikon and Sony place their FF product? How do they place their FF product and not lose money? How do they build a FF camera to compete against the 5D, when the 5D will be replaced in the next 12 months?...Show more →
Canon is in a great position to update their 1Ds2 to 22MP (PMA); and update the 5D to 16MP (later this year) and give the competition a kick in the paints. The 1D2 could be upgraded to either 12MP or 16MP with imagers already in production coupled with their new DIGIC-III processor to handle the huge data flow, all of which improved for ISO 3200 capability, and would literally own the professional marketplace for another 2-3 years. With this 3200 ISO level, indoor sports is achievealbe at 1/800 with Canon's 70-200 IS 2.8L lens or 1/1000 with their 135mm f2L, depending on the arena lighting. Even with budget lighting in some venues, 1/400 exposures will give excellent press results. Wow.
Forget about the 'no competition for the 5D' for a moment... I want to discuss your comments about Canon strategically thinking beyond existing competition...
How does the 30D and/or it's replacement fit in that picture? The 20D had 8MP... it got a face lift and became the 30D, still with 8MP and/or the same sensor as the 20D had... Now the 30D is getting it's 'competitive' arse handed to Canon on a platter by the likes of Nikon, etc...
So where is all this foresight with regard to the 30D and/or the high end APS-C market segment?
If we were to really to believe that Canon has all this foresight and is constantly staying ahead of the rest... how can we explain the 30D at this point in time?
And... to add some wild guessing to the mix... Wouldn't it be interesting if the 30D replacement was FF and/or there were a FF Canon camera with a feature set similar to the 30D, but had a FF sensor and/or a much better sensor then the current 30D has, yet still cost under $1500
danmitchell wrote:
"The 5D has no competition whatsoever. None."
The "no competition for Canon" argument hasn't meant too much in the past. Canon had no competition when it moved APS-C sensors from 6MP to 8MP, when it introduced a 16MP full frame body, and so forth.
Strategically, Canon thinks beyond the existing competition and considers likely future competition, I would think. It is very unlikely that theirs will be the only full-frame sensors for much longer.
Assuming that someone else has a full frame sensor coming and that it would likely at least equal Canon's 12MP "size," Canon might be interested in upping the ante before an alternative product (that might come in at a lower cost point and/or with other interesting features) equals their offering. Canon could do this by lowering the price of 5D class full frame bodies, increasing the MP count of these bodies at about the same price, and so on....Show more →
Edited by DynoMoHum on Feb 13, 2007 at 10:01 PM GMT
I just checked the Canon web site (again) hoping for - - - anything - - - and
apart from an announcement about a laser printer, it's still silent. Then I once
again saw their flashy ELPH 10th anniversary graphic showing 1996-2006, and
thought "gee - - that's old now, they're sure making a big deal about it".
It makes me wonder how big of a deal they'll make of the 20th anniversary of
EOS - - which according to what I have read here is March 1. If the (IMHO)
relatively inconsequential ELPH gets a splash across 2 years, shouldn't EOS
get some MAJOR coverage?
Here's to hoping there are some outstanding fireworks coming!
John Black wrote:
Furthermore, if Sony and some other OEM supplier makes the FF sensor, then Pentax, Sony, Nikon and whoever else opts-in could have full frame all at the same time assuming they have a body in place. Maybe even Leica
John is on drugs, Leica is aligned with Kodak and whats there name in Europe for sensors. I do see Sony selling the FF chip to whoever wants it, simple put the more they sell the cheaper they become. In the semi industry you spend the first 6 months paying for the developement productions costs, the rest is almost ALL profit.
Hrow wrote: "The "no competition" arguments above make the assumption that FF in and of itself trumps every other feature or combination of features. The 5D has not been the hottest seller around so obviously there is competition - for the buyer's dollars - which is the only thing Canon is concerned about."
The argument does not depend upon an assumption that FF "trumps every other feature." The argument assumes that, among all camera features, FF might have a significant real (or at least peceived) value to many who now purchase an APS-C body if the price differential were to become much less significant.
Another thought experiment, admittedly different from current or near term reality: If Canon offered two cameras at the same price point that were identical in every way except that one was full frame and the other APS-C, how many photographers (for reasons good or bad) would continue to choose the APS-C sensor body?
Let me be clear. I am not proposing that the price of FF sensors is going to be the same as for cropped sensors. I'm suggesting that if the cost difference between cameras having the two sensor sizes decreases enough, significantly more people will conclude that the FF sensor provides enough value for them to pay the difference.
Depending upon what you mean by "hottest seller," the 5D has actually done quite well for a camera that costs double the price or a bit more compared to the more or less equivalent APS-C Canon DSLR. It couldn't possibly sell as many units as the 400D/30D at its current price point, so I doubt that Canon would define 5D sales success in those terms.
I don't work for Canon so I don't know their thinking any more than most on this board. However, I am confident that "success" is a more sohisticated concept than measuring which camera brings in the most "buyer's dollars" right now. Otherwise, Canon wouldn't bother with the 1-series...
Take care,
Dan
Edited by danmitchell on Feb 13, 2007 at 09:11 AM GMT
I don't see any need for Canon to do much more than a makeover for the 5D. Sensor cleaning would be nice and perhaps a custom function for changing the print button to mirror lockup.
To my mind the 5D is in a class of it's own with no direct competitors. The problem is that there is a substantial price gap between it and the D200 and I could imagine some potetental customers choose the lower priced camera for the cost of 2.7mp.
I'm sure the 5D will make it to 16mp eventually, but not until sometime after the 1Ds has moved to 22mp or whatever.
To me the 30D is the "crisis" camera in the range and needs to be replaced asap.
I would not be surprised if the 400D is upgraded before summer, just simply because of the marketing hype the new release would generate rather than the need to upgrade.
I am very interested to see an upgrade of the 1DmkIIn. I would like to replace my 5D with something more sports oriented. I am willing to give up FF but I would like more than 8mp because I like the ability to crop I have with the 5D.
