wickerprints
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: EOS 1D-X! March 2012! | |
My personal vision of the future of the EOS product line is guided by the driving force behind lower sensor cost per unit area. While APS-C is here to stay, it is important to understand that APS-H was initially introduced because a 24x36mm full frame sensor was still prohibitively expensive to manufacture. Now that the 5D-series bodies demonstrate that full frame sensor production is reasonably economical, there is less and less reason to continue with APS-H, also considering that no EF lenses exist that precisely fit that format\'s image circle.
So what I hope to see for the future is a branching into three full frame product lines, in decreasing order of price:
1. high ISO, high DR, high frame rate, but moderate resolution pro body (i.e., 1DX)
2. moderate ISO, moderate DR, low frame rate, but extremely high resolution body (5D3? 3D?)
3. very high ISO, very high DR, low frame rate, but low resolution budget body emphasizing video (7D2?)
This way, all the single-digit series bodies are full frame, but each line is built to different shooting needs. The first is for the pros who don\'t need maximum resolution, but do need the camera to be absolutely reliable under a wide variety of conditions. The second is for the studio photographers who need to extract as much resolving power for large prints, but don\'t need insane AF tracking or high ISO. But it will have very precise AF for shooting with fast-aperture primes. And the third is for those who are looking to step up from APS-C but can\'t afford the other two bodies; as well as the HD video shooters. This last body has serviceable AF.
I hope this is what Canon also sees. Despite the popularity of micro 4/3rds, mirrorless bodies, and the NEX system, full frame is the future of DSLRs. If you\'re going to buy something with a mirror, it might as well have the biggest sensor you can put into it. APS-C DSLRs are merely the gateway drug, so to speak; get consumers hooked on the lenses, because the optics is one area in which the micro formats inherently cannot compete. Instead of trying to compete in an increasingly crowded field (Nikon 1? Micro 4/3rds? NEX?), it makes much more sense to serve the variety of working professionals and image connoisseurs by elevating and differentiating the DSLR from these compact bodies with tiny pixels.
It\'s important to look at the big picture--no pun intended. When I look at the road ahead, I see that the (D)SLR concept is one that not only needs to continually proclaim its relevancy, but also needs to establish its primacy as the serious photographer\'s tool of choice. It is a paradigm that has survived the tumultuous transition from film to digital; it has grown and adapted to suit the photographer\'s needs. As I think this thread so clearly demonstrates, it is often all too easy to look at a single body and get mired in the details--to the point that the slightest controversy over a single feature can get blown completely out of proportion. In the grand scheme of things, these details really aren\'t all that important.
As photographers, we are all so fond of saying \"it\'s the photographer, not the camera.\" We want the public to understand that it\'s our artistic contribution that makes the image what it is, and we take offense when people ignorantly comment how amazing our tools must be to have gotten the shot we did. And then, in the comfort of such forums, we proceed to turn around and try to divine some kind of inviolable truth from press releases of the latest camera or lens, reading the tea leaves as if it means all the difference to our work. Perhaps we might have better success in conveying the value of our artistic vision if we first practice amongst ourselves what we preach to the rest of the world.
|
