CF is also a paralell interface that is at its absolute limit before crosstalk, signal skew/jitter, attentuation, and other abberations associated with parallel interfaces overwhelm signal integrity. SD, as a serial interface, does not suffer from such problems and is consequently scalable to much higher transfer speeds.
It's not as grim as you paint the picture, CF is nowhere near the limit of parallel transfer.
Like I said, CF is based on the IDE/ATA protocol. That's why it's pin-compatible with IDE hard disk controllers. Simple 40-wire ATA cables can pass 66 MB/sec over 18" of flat non-single ended cable, UDMA4/ATA66. UDMA5/ATA100 and UDMA6/ATA133 need 80-wire flatcables. That's 100 or 133 MB/sec over 18" of 80-wire flatcable. 300x CF cards push 40 to 45 MB/sec. At the limit? No way.
cogitech wrote:
That's not much more than I paid for my 5D.
Considering that the 5D successor will be coming after about 3 years I don't find the rumoured specs that great. The most interesting point would be the 1.7 stops gain in sensor sensitivity, but that is just in line with Moore's law.
Whether sealing? Pentax has it in cameras below 1000 €/$.
Lens adjustment? 6 fps? 3.0" LCD with 922,000 pixels? The Nikon D300 has it for half the price.
EOS Integrated Cleaning System? Live View? 14 bit A/D conversion?
These are Rebel level features today.
29 point AF system? I think we better wait and see what a new Canon AF system will deliver (-: Again: The D300 AF has 51 points and is really fast, for half the price.
15.3 mpix sensor coming from 12.8 is fine for me, but really nothing to rave about.
So the question is: Why should that camera in 2008 cost more than the 5D in 2005? We have seen massive changes in the DSLR market and will see more of them with more FF cameras. I don't see a reason to pay twice the price of a D300 for that rumoured camera.
Tentacle wrote:
And that can somehow retroactively shorten and intensify a product development cycle that's fully scheduled, planned, backup-planned and already underway? Any idea how drastic, not to mention risky, such a reaction is?
Don't get me wrong, there is a possibility that you're right, but you shouldn't underestimate the massive shift in resources that it needs.
Think about it, by PMA 2009, the 1D III will be 2 years old, so that's not exactly a quick turn-around.
As for the 5D II, I think the reason Canon didn't offer it at PMA 2008 was because what they originally had planned - a 5D with all the 40D upgrades - wouldn't have cut the mustard. They quickly claimed they didn't need to update as it had no competition, but that's a smoke screen IMO, whereas in fact they bought themselves another 6 months to be able to offer things like the VGA LCD, sealing, better AF (surely they have been working on this even if they weren't going to offer it yet). many of the changes are more about them changing their attitude to what should and should not be offered in a pro camera rather than technical hurdles.
Sure they are just like the pentagon with 1002 warplan scenarios. Canon has a mr potatohead camera room with 1002 cool bits and bites that they add or subtract and play with. Boss comes in one day and says finalize it you bozo's(I'm sure it sounds more flowery and gentle in Japanese) and they she's a done. Juice it up or puller back.
brunobarolo wrote:
Considering that the 5D successor will be coming after about 3 years I don't find the rumoured specs that great. The most interesting point would be the 1.7 stops gain in sensor sensitivity, but that is just in line with Moore's law.
Whether sealing? Pentax has it in cameras below 1000 €/$.
Lens adjustment? 6 fps? 3.0" LCD with 922,000 pixels? The Nikon D300 has it for half the price.
EOS Integrated Cleaning System? Live View? 14 bit A/D conversion?
These are Rebel level features today.
29 point AF system? I think we better wait and see what a new Canon AF system will deliver (-: Again: The D300 AF has 51 points and is really fast, for half the price.
15.3 mpix sensor coming from 12.8 is fine for me, but really nothing to rave about.
So the question is: Why should that camera in 2008 cost more than the 5D in 2005? We have seen massive changes in the DSLR market and will see more of them with more FF cameras. I don't see a reason to pay twice the price of a D300 for that rumoured camera.
I think your assessment is pretty close, but I also think you may be underestimating that new sensor and related technologies. Not to mention that we are talking about a completely different camera format than any of the ones you mentioned, which offers a whole gamut of benefits.
No matter what the FF sensor still costs a lot more than a 1/5x or 1.6x crop sensor. How much do you think a D300 would cost with a FF sensor? Given the price of the D3 it's impossible for Nikon to argue it could be less than $3K or they would have to admit the D3 is a ripoff.
Considering that the 5D successor will be coming after about 3 years I don't find the rumoured specs that great. The most interesting point would be the 1.7 stops gain in sensor sensitivity, but that is just in line with Moore's law.
[...]
Moore's Law is about lithography process size/scale, but given that sensors remain fixed in size and photo sites are much much bigger than the resolution of the lithography process, it has no say here.
Even the highest pixel pitch is 1.8 µm, for the latest digicompacts out there. The latest lithography processes are down to 45 nm and even 32 nm. The full frame sensors have pixel pitches of 6 to 8 µm. Difference in scale is up to 250x.
It would be very bold of Canon to retain the megapixels of existing model, but change other aspects of sensor and the camera itself to make it an up-to-date product. The pressure to increase the amount of pixels must be huge, the only thing I wish for the "7D" is Canon is somehow able to stand against it.
primeL wrote:
It would be very bold of Canon to retain the megapixels of existing model, but change other aspects of sensor and the camera itself to make it an up-to-date product. The pressure to increase the amount of pixels must be huge, the only thing I wish for the "7D" is Canon is somehow able to stand against it.
The D3 is 12 Mpixel... If the 5D2 stays at 12.8 but bumps ISO performance to ISO 6400 native and offers extended ISO 12800 then they'll be hitting a pretty sweet spot!
The 1D3 does native ISO 3200 and extended ISO 6400 for a full frame equivalent of 16 Mpixel. With bigger photo sites and a new generation of technology, having the 5D "gain" two stops (native 1600 to native 6400) isn't too far fetched.
Tantacle has hit upon a good point. Canon has/will design the next generation 5D to compete with the D3. This implies that the next 5D will need at least:
-- a big step up in low light shooting (I just hope they keep ISO 50 and 100)
-- a step up in AF (45 point would be great, but since the 5D II will be cheaper than the 3D, it just has to be better than a xxD AF. Still with the 300D, maybe Canon will just put in pro AF)
-- better build quality
-- still no pop-up flash because the competitive forces don't reward it
-- not a 100% view finder.
Conclusion: Canon is not going to make a smaller, cheaper 1Ds II. Rather, they are going to make just enough of an improvement on the 5D to keep people who are at or below the 3D price-point (around $5000) away from Nikkon and back in the Canon camp.
Tantacle has hit upon a good point. Canon has/will design the next generation 5D to compete with the D3. This implies that the next 5D will need at least:
No, the 1D Mk III competes with the D3. The sensor size difference is minor compared to the fact that otherwise the 1D and the D3 are full-bore, top-capability, totally professional PJ/sports cameras and the 5D is still just a consumer camera.
Presuming the 5D isn't a one-off (and it could be), it's going to stick to being a consumer body with the highest image quality.
RDKirk wrote:
No, the 1D Mk III competes with the D3. The sensor size difference is minor compared to the fact that otherwise the 1D and the D3 are full-bore, top-capability, totally professional PJ/sports cameras and the 5D is still just a consumer camera.
Presuming the 5D isn't a one-off (and it could be), it's going to stick to being a consumer body with the highest image quality.
Yeh, a so called consumer camera which a hell of a lot of pros making a living with.
I'll be happy when something to "replace" the 5D finally gets here, so folks can start speculating on the 4.5D & 9D.
But, I really want to see a 5D replacement soon to drive down the used 5D price to the 1K range, where I'll finally get off the dime (or $1K) and buy one.
Jasbo wrote:
....But, I really want to see a 5D replacement soon to drive down the used 5D price to the 1K range, where I'll finally get off the dime (or $1K) and buy one.
I don't think you'll find a 5D in this price range for quite a while, unless its really used. The FF sensor is just too costly to produce.
If the rumored specs are true the new 5D looks like a fantastic camera, but I'm just not willing to shell out $3500 for a dSLR at this point.
I have no idea at all, but is a FF sensor more costly to produce/develope than, say, a quad core cpu? I really, really doubt it. I realise that when amortising R&D the cpu will win (given the number of units sold), but given the high premium that's asked for a FF CMOS sensor, I suspect the sensor wins overall. Canon are laughing all the way to the bank here. Just wait till Sony enter the game for real, then I believe that suddenly all costs will suddenly tumble.
Jasbo wrote:
....But, I really want to see a 5D replacement soon to drive down the used 5D price to the 1K range, where I'll finally get off the dime (or $1K) and buy one.
michael49
I don't think you'll find a 5D in this price range for quite a while, unless its really used. The FF sensor is just too costly to produce.
If the rumored specs are true the new 5D looks like a fantastic camera, but I'm just not willing to shell out $3500 for a dSLR at this point.
Michael49 illustrates an interesting scenario: Canon makes a 5D update with lots of high-end features, and then sells it in the high-end of the possible price range (3000-4000).
One result of this would be that the bottom would not fall out of the 5D market, because many present 5D owners are happy enough to keep their excellent cameras, and wait for the 5D mk II to come down over the years. Arguably Canon could continue retailing the "old" 5D for around the same $2000 price it is at now.
