Not exactly news like just out today but worth while knowing if you have not already known. So if 13 MP is all they have got to offer it will be pretty obsolete soon, wouldn't it? Is that the reason they holding back the 5D replacement? Not sure??
Sony PR [Sony]
Tokyo, Japan - Sony Corporation today announced the development of a 35mm full size (diagonal: 43.3mm/Type 2.7) 24.81 effective megapixel, ultra-high speed high image quality CMOS image sensor designed to meet the increasing requirement for rapid image capture and advanced picture quality within digital SLR cameras.
Venus wrote:
Not exactly news like just out today but worth while knowing if you have not already known. So if 13 MP is all they have got to offer it will be pretty obsolete soon, wouldn't it? Is that the reason they holding back the 5D replacement? Not sure??
[...]
Well, given that even 6 Mpixel at 8x12" prints just fine, you can seriously ask yourself if More continues to be Better.
Besides, you do need excellent glass to prevent the sensor out-resolving the glass. You could see that with the Nikon D2x already, with its full frame equivalent resolution of 27.45 Mpixel.
Speaking for myself: I much prefer a 12 Mpixel full frame sensor with high ISO capabilities over one with double the pixels but each pixel only half the size (so poorer high ISO performance).
kidtexas wrote:
I agree. While the speculations are funny, the wants/needs (really, just wants - these cameras do all we *need* them to do and a lot more) are really telling.
So many people want a digital 3. And by a digital 3, I take that to mean that they want a 5D + the 1 series weather proofing, layout, and AF. Its somewhat frustrating, because clearly Canon can fit a FF sensor in a gripless body (5D). And we know they can fit the AF of the 1 series in there (1V, 3). Just make the damn thing already.
I've got a 1V. I've got the HS grip, and every couple months, I'll put it on to see what a 1D would feel like. 20 seconds later, I take it off. I can't see myself buying a 1DIII (or II) - its just not what I want. At the same time, the 1 series layout is great - I don't particularly want to get a 5D.
So I'm waiting for Canon to release that 'pro' series body in a gripless body format. If they need to differentiate it from the 1D and 1DS, knock down its resolution. I think I would actually be happier if it was FF and only 10-12 mp instead of 16 or more. Bigger pixels are yummy.
Couldn't agree more. People keep talking about "protecting the market of the 1ds III" but I couldn't give a monkeys about that. This camera is irrelevant and ridiculously overpriced. For landscape and studio work most people don't need the extra power and weight that the permanently bolted on power booster gives. Make the power booster an option like the EOS 1V.
If 8 x 12 is all pple are after then why is MP on camera increasing all the time?
One might argue if F4 is all one needs then why a 2.8 or 2 or 1.8 or 1.4?
There are several arguements. One is neccessity, another is greed. Yet another is the human nature's strive for excellence. You have trains and you have bullet trains. Like aircrafts, you have many types. An ATR, beech or fokker will not fly faster or higher than a 737, then you have A320 Airbus, 707s, 757s. 767s, 777s, Jumbo 747s.... Then you have latest A380 that as of date only Singapore Airlines flies them, I mean soon other airlines will have them too.
If 8 x 12 is all pple are after then why is MP on camera increasing all the time?
One might argue if F4 is all one needs then why a 2.8 or 2 or 1.8 or 1.4?
[...]
Hey, if I can get more pixels without any penalty then that's great. But the reality is that there are drawbacks to high resolution. It takes up more storage, it takes more processing power, it demands higher quality lenses and, since noise and DR depend on pixel surface area, those two take a hit too.
Bottom line is that the Mpixel race is, in some ways, just like the computer Megaherz race. You don't always need it, though marketing tries to suggest that you do.
The new 5D II will not be released at Photokina, but instead will be a surprise announcement on April 22, according to a source I am unwilling to disclose.
The specs of the new camera are as follows (final name unavailable):
- 15.3 MP full frame CMOS sensor (vastly improved light-gathering capacity per pixel: improved micro lenses; miniaturized micro circuitry; enhanced signal/noise ratio)
- Weather sealing same as 1Ds Mark III
- Dual Digic III with all-new "CXR" NR system reported to best 3rd party NR software. Available as a C.F with 4 levels of customizable parameters.
14 bit A/D conversion
- ISO 12800 (C.F. up to 25600)
- Reported 1 2/3 stop sensitivity improvement
- All-new 29-point TTL CMOS sensor
with 12 cross-type for F/2.8 or faster lens
(35% faster than 40D)
- Micro lens fine adjustment for up to 14 lenses
- 300,000 exposure shutter durability
- 6.0 / 3.0 fps
- 3.0" LCD
922,000 pixels
- EOS Integrated Cleaning System
- Live View (improved from 450D; latest generation)
Tentacle wrote:
Hey, if I can get more pixels without any penalty then that's great. But the reality is that there are drawbacks to high resolution. It takes up more storage, it takes more processing power, it demands higher quality lenses and, since noise and DR depend on pixel surface area, those two take a hit too.
The 40D and the 1D3 collect the same number of photons per unit sensor area, though the 40D pixels are 60% more dense. So photon noise per unit area are the same; read noise on the 40D is slightly worse, but that is likely an issue of 1 series vs prosumer model rather than an inherent design limitation. Because the same number of photons are being collected, there is no change in DR on the image level (yes, individual pixels are noisier and have less DR, but so what -- the total image is made of the same light sample). And a FF sensor with 40D pixel density would have over 26MP.
As far as demanding higher quality lenses, yes and no. The 40D is not forcing people to go out and upgrade their lens kit. Maybe for lenses that get very soft in the corners on FF. It might be nice to have the optics be the limitation on resolution rather than the sensor.
Agreed on the storage and processing requirements, though.
Antony wrote:
5D will be split into 2 models. Lower end model will retail at sub $2000 and be basically a full frame 40D with a 13MP sensor, built in flash and slow frame rate (3 fps). ISO to 6400. Smaller VF image than 5D due to reduced size of prism. Camera will be pitched at the high-end amateur seeking FF over speed.
Higher end model will retail for $3199 on launch and will feature watersealing on a par with 1 series, higher frame rate (4.5 fps), and a 16MP chip. ISO to 6400. Better focus inc. focus to f/8 at centre point and x type points at the extremities of the focus ellipse (however still 9 point). Camera will be marketed as a pro model, appealling to wedding photogs and those seeking smaller form factor (similar approach to the launch of the 5D). AF micro adjustment available.
Both camera will launch at photokina. Expect a big fuss. ...Show more →
Can you tell us more about AF covering in frame Antony? It will be huge deception if 5D next-gen will only have 9 AF points and still have too centered AF points.
ejmartin wrote:
The 40D and the 1D3 collect the same number of photons per unit sensor area, though the 40D pixels are 60% more dense. So photon noise per unit area are the same; read noise on the 40D is slightly worse, but that is likely an issue of 1 series vs prosumer model rather than an inherent design limitation. Because the same number of photons are being collected, there is no change in DR on the image level (yes, individual pixels are noisier and have less DR, but so what -- the total image is made of the same light sample). And a FF sensor with 40D pixel density would have over 26MP.
Sorry, wrong. Per pixel (or rather, per photosite) you collect a certain amount of photons, which create an electric charge. This charge is, in the case of CMOS, converted into a voltage. This voltage is directly proportional to the charge, and thus the collected photons. The bigger the photosite, the bigger the resulting voltage that a given photon density creates.
Higher voltage output per photosite means you need less gain/amplification before the ADC can work on it. Smaller photosites need stronger amplification and, unfortunately, the noise gets amplified too.
Noise ties in with DR at the dark end of the range. A higher noise floor (as result of needing more amplification) means you loose DR. At the bright end of the dynamic range you are limited by the capacity of the photosite. A bigger photosite can collect more electrons before it saturates.
DR "at the image level" is nonsense, there is no such thing. It depends on what each photosite can register, that's not influenced by the rest of the image. (Unlike noise, which appearance is influenced by other pixels.)
Mark Shaxted wrote:
Yeah, but... how do you have an even number of symetrically placed 2.8 AF points? Unless the centre point isn't a 2.8 one - which is not likely.
Maybe it is 12 in addition to the center one and they want to describe it this way so they don't have to say 13 cross type sensors.
Mark Shaxted wrote:
Yeah, but... how do you have an even number of symetrically placed 2.8 AF points? Unless the centre point isn't a 2.8 one - which is not likely.
The new 5D II will not be released at Photokina, but instead will be a surprise announcement on April 22, according to a source I am unwilling to disclose.
The specs of the new camera are as follows (final name unavailable):
- 15.3 MP full frame CMOS sensor (vastly improved light-gathering capacity per pixel: improved micro lenses; miniaturized micro circuitry; enhanced signal/noise ratio)
- Weather sealing same as 1Ds Mark III
- Dual Digic III with all-new "CXR" NR system reported to best 3rd party NR software. Available as a C.F with 4 levels of customizable parameters.
14 bit A/D conversion
- ISO 12800 (C.F. up to 25600)
- Reported 1 2/3 stop sensitivity improvement
- All-new 29-point TTL CMOS sensor
with 12 cross-type for F/2.8 or faster lens
(35% faster than 40D)
- Micro lens fine adjustment for up to 14 lenses
- 300,000 exposure shutter durability
- 6.0 / 3.0 fps
- 3.0" LCD
922,000 pixels
- EOS Integrated Cleaning System
- Live View (improved from 450D; latest generation)
- 6/3 fps continuous shooting for up to 68 frames
- MSRP $3499, available June 2 ...Show more →
I am in if this is true, but most likely it's not true
Gerry
akovacsi wrote:
I can't help notice but some of the talk here about the next bodies is what really pisses me off most about Canon's releases: they hold back on features, or skimp on AF - which is MOST important I think.
So what's new? More expensive cameras always have more/better features.
The competition, not to mention names here, certainly has put an very impressive AF in their latest two cameras, and just wipes the floor with Canon's bodies when it comes to AF.
Come on; Nikon's AF certainly does not "wipe the floor" with Canon bodies. Who told you that and are they Nikon zealots or not playing with a full deck? Their D3 has their professional AF which has some good/bad points and is not perfect. Their D300 may/may not have the same AF (I've read conflicting things) and certainly does not wipe the floor with anyone. I will agree that is shatters the Canon myth of how expensive these features are to include and shows Canon to be the pikers they are sometimes.
I hope that with the next bodies Canon will not hinder the lower end body just with features and capabilities just to have that same feature in a higher end body.
I simply don't understand that sentence. Can you say that again?
I have Canon when they do not give 100% their best!
see above... what are you saying?
PS. Mark Shaxted - I agree with you - this would be an acceptable body in todays market.If you look at the specs above, it seems very impressive, but if you throw in the competition and the other options there, yes, for Canon this would be a minimum out there for a $2000 body.
