Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Gary Ferguson on August 23, 2006, 03:58:19 am
-
Rumours are circulating that information is now leaking onto retailers and subsidiary web sites regarding some new Canon equipment. The Canon China site, a US retailer, and a French photography magazine are all being quoted.
The products include a 10.1MP "400D" camera with a 2.5 inch LCD screen and 9 point AF. Plus two new lenses, the long awaited 70-200 4.0 IS and a 50mm 1.2.
No word however on the new wide-angle Canon optics that a Canon senior manager hinted at some months ago in an interview when he conceded that "sensor development had been faster than lens development, especially wide-angle lens development".
-
Bob Atkins has a link to the Canon China site so it looks for real, auto dust removal is another feature,
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digit...n_eos_400D.html (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_400D.html)
I wonder why no news on a 1Ds MkIII? Maybe this release is a "spoiler" for Nikon's recent announcement, and the 1Ds MkIII (and hopefully some wide-angle announcements) are being held back for Photokina?
-
It's about this time in the hype cycles that the rumours start to converge. The convergence I've detected re the new 1d is that it won't be announced on the 24th, but more likely in the week or so prior to PhotoK.
-
Bah!
-
Hmmm... Since the 12MP 5D outdid the 1Ds2 to due to "insignificant image detail difference especially for the price difference", it will be interesting to see what the 400D pricepoint will be relative to the 5D. Since it appears we've hit near practical maximums for "what's really necessary" in resolution we now will be looking to new features. And ultra-sonic dust removal combined with low noise, great color and 10MP seems like it could be a real winner! Makes one wonder what folks have to say about it versus the 5D in a few months.
These are indeed exciting times for digital photography!
Cheers,
-
These are indeed exciting times for digital photography!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74225\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
(Sigh) If only Canon could produce exceptional wide angle lenses. Instead, we are having to do work-arounds like stitching 90mm verticals and adapting exotic Zeiss and Leica lenses.
-
Where's in body IS? Where?
@#$%@^%@!!!!!!
-
(Sigh) If only Canon could produce exceptional wide angle lenses. Instead, we are having to do work-arounds like stitching 90mm verticals and adapting exotic Zeiss and Leica lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is unfortunate and I have no doubt Canon *CAN* produce them, but why they don't is a puzzle. However, FWIW (rumor only) one line of thinking is that they have silently updated some designs such as the 24mm TSE -- and interestingly, the latest versions of these seem to be pretty darn good showing virtually no CA and good resolution (over 45 line pairs) to the corners at the 8mm shift mark.
Cheers,
-
Where's in body IS? Where?
@#$%@^%@!!!!!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Apparently its in at least one new Olympus camera - although of 10 new P&S cameras announced, only one contains the CCD shift stabilization.
-
The sesor I understand, but for many wont that and the AF cut into 30D space?
-
The sesor I understand, but for many wont that and the AF cut into 30D space?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't forget, the shows not over until the fat lady sings - 10Mpix in a 1.6 crop is about 25Mpix full frame.
-
A 10mp 1.6 crop sensor is a credible rumour, but unless Canon have simultaneously reduced noise, it won't be much of an upgrade for those who already have a 350D. The extra resolution provided by those 2 additional mp will be less than the additional 2mp of the 20D over the 10D, which was quite small anyway for most real world images.
Canon seem to have a policy of never going backwards on the noise front, so I'd expect the slightly smaller pixels of the 400D to have at least equal noise characteristics to the 350D, on a pixel for pixel basis, which would mean that for equal size prints, over all noise would be slightly less apparent and resolution (possibly) very slightly greater.
-
The extra resolution provided by those 2 additional mp will be less than the additional 2mp of the 20D over the 10D, which was quite small anyway for most real world images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't know Ray...
The 12 MP of the 5D equaled the 16 MP of the 1Ds2 in many people's minds. Extrapolating that logic -- that the 25% fewer pixels of the newer 5D were as good as the older 16MP camera -- it is easy to see that a new 10MP chip could equal or even exceed the 5D's older 12MP design since that is even less of a difference at 18% or so.
Cheers,
-
...it is easy to see that a new 10MP chip could equal or even exceed the 5D's older 12MP design since that is even less of a difference at 18% or so...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack,
I take your point and if this were to happen I might find myself in a similar position to yours when the 5D was released, ie. struggling to justify the superior resolving power of the much more expensive 1Ds2 .
I suppose the outcome will depend largely on the noise characteristics of those slightly smaller pixels. If Canon pull some more rabbits out of the hat and succeed in making the 400D pixels even less noisy than the 20D pixels, perhaps through greater quantum efficiency, then we can probably look forward to some protracted arguments comparing the 400D image quality with the 5D, especially considering the 400D will be accessing the sweet spot of the image circle.
However, we should bear in mind that, as pixel density increases, the sensor struggles to record the higher resolution from the lens (which usually exists) because of falling contrast or lower MTF of such higher resolution, therefore the increase in recorded image resolution is not proportional to the increase in sensor pixel density. There's a 'law of diminishing returns' at work.
Whatever the outcome, 5D owners can remain smugly content that their wide angle lenses are truly wide angle .
-
However, we should bear in mind that, as pixel density increases, the sensor struggles to record the higher resolution from the lens [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, but the pixels of a 1.6 sensor camera are definitely riding in the sweet-spot of the lens -- AND Canon has historically improved noise when diminishing pixel size, even in their P&S cameras.
So perhaps we should also bear in mind your argument that the smaller pixels in the 20/30D can be an advantage in many shooting situations... Coupled with the above, then the even smaller pixels of the new 400D should combine to make the 400D a veritable 5D killer!
Cheers,
-
With all due respect, I find it really funny that many a Canon users now start to believe that a 10MP Canon APS sized sensor might be pretty close to a 16 MP FF 1ds2...
...while Nikon D2x users have been claiming the same for years but were hardly ever listened to...
cheers,
Bernard
-
With all due respect, I find it really funny that many a Canon users now start to believe that a 10MP Canon APS sized sensor might be pretty close to a 16 MP FF 1ds2...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
That's not quite the point that Jack's making. The differences between the 1Ds2 and 5D are so slight that many folks were unable see them. Jack is now implying that similarly hardly detectable differences might exist between the 400D and the 5D, which might upset a few 5D owners.
It's not going to upset me, though, because cameras are not status symbols for me. They are merely tools, and the 5D is a tool that will always behave differently in relation to my wide angle lenses, compared with the 1.6 cropped format.
However, if Canon were to also release a 'superb' 10mm EF-S lens, equal to the best Zeiss or Digitar lenses, with a 70% MTF response at 60 lp/mm etc, then I'd eat my heart out .
-
This isn't just a credible rumour... it's on Canon's page with downloadable sample pictures:
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital3/index.html (http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital3/index.html)
-
With all due respect, I find it really funny that many a Canon users now start to believe that a 10MP Canon APS sized sensor might be pretty close to a 16 MP FF 1ds2...
...while Nikon D2x users have been claiming the same for years but were hardly ever listened to...
cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed -- and Leica users have been saying the same regarding the DMR and it's 11 MP 1.3x sensor...
Cheers,
-
With all due respect, I find it really funny that many a Canon users now start to believe that a 10MP Canon APS sized sensor might be pretty close to a 16 MP FF 1ds2...
...while Nikon D2x users have been claiming the same for years but were hardly ever listened to...
cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Aye.
-
I suppose the outcome will depend largely on the noise characteristics of those slightly smaller pixels. If Canon pull some more rabbits out of the hat and succeed in making the 400D pixels even less noisy than the 20D pixels, perhaps through greater quantum efficiency, then we can probably look forward to some protracted arguments comparing the 400D image quality with the 5D, especially considering the 400D will be accessing the sweet spot of the image circle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Who said that the pixel size is getting smaller, yes there is a denser pixel pitch but the size of the light gathering elements do not necessarily have to change if Canon is using finer lithography and a different cell design. Add-on microlenses and you would have a better performing sensor than the previous incarnation.
On the other hand, it is still the same camera with roughly the same functionality (bar snesor cleaning and AF) as the previous camera - so it will still only appeal to the niche of users that would have gone for the 350D. I don't see that increasing sensor megapixels makes this any more or less attractive camera.
Why all the excitement?
-
What are people's thoughts about the two new lenses? 70-200 f/4L IS and 50mm f/1.2L...
The 70-200 f/4 has been a great workhorse lens for me. Very sharp and quite small and light. I've wanted IS in this lens for years. I am a travel photographer and the extra weight and bulk of the f/2.8 IS put me off. The addition of IS to the f/4 version makes it perfect for my needs. It does make the lens double the price though! If only we had in-body IS...
The new 50 f/1.2 is less interesting to me, at 545g it it too large and bulky, and I very rarely need f/1.2. Like many here I would have prefered to see a 24mm f/1.4 L Mark II that was as sharp as it's Leica and Zeiss cousins. In fact f/2 or f/2.8 would be fine as long as it was very sharp!
Julian
-
Who said that the pixel size is getting smaller, yes there is a denser pixel pitch but the size of the light gathering elements do not necessarily have to change if Canon is using finer lithography and a different cell design. Add-on microlenses and you would have a better performing sensor than the previous incarnation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
David,
I see your point that there's a distinction between pixel size and pixel pitch, and perhaps we shouldn't even be using the word pixel in this context. However, as the pixel density increases, the light gathering area for each pixel must decrease proportionally, whatever the actual size of the photodiode, which is information Canon doesn't publish as far as I know. I'm assuming here that each microlens which directs the light to the photodiode has close to 100% fill factor, even though the photodiode itself doesn't.
-
What are people's thoughts about the two new lenses? 70-200 f/4L IS and 50mm f/1.2L...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Personally, I don't believe in duplicating the FL range I already have unless there's more than a slight improvement in image quality alone. For example, I already have a Canon 50/1.8 which I've used quite often for portraits with my D60 and 20D. I realise the 50/1.4 is a slightly better lens but I can't bring myself to getting it because the advantages seem too marginal to me. It's only 1/2 a stop faster and just slightly sharper. It's more robust but also heavier and in any case I'm a careful sort of person. I tend not to break my gear.
If reviews show that the 50/1.2 is even sharper than the 50/1.4 and still good value, as most 50mm lenses are, I would consider getting it.
The range of a 70-200 wouldn't work well for me. My main lenses are Sigma 15-30, Canon 24-105 and Canon 100-400. Basically, continuous coverage from 15mm to 400mm with minimal overlap. Very efficient .
-
...If reviews show that the 50/1.2 is even sharper than the 50/1.4 and still good value, as most 50mm lenses are, I would consider getting it...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74329\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And at $1250?
-
And at $1250?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If it has the same quality is mine 85mm f1.2 YES,YES
-
On the other hand, it is still the same camera with roughly the same functionality (bar snesor cleaning and AF) as the previous camera - so it will still only appeal to the niche of users that would have gone for the 350D. I don't see that increasing sensor megapixels makes this any more or less attractive camera.
Why all the excitement?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the train of thought is that if Canon has upgraded their entry-level consumer DSLR to 10MP, added a larger rear LCD and automated U/S sensor cleaning and can still keep it under $1,000, that this bodes extremely well for the next Prosumer DSLR and Pro DSLR upgrades.
I'd expect the 40D to be released at PMA with 10 or 12MP, Digic 3 processing and ultra-sonic sensor cleaning -- an almost certain 5D killer. So the 6D is introduced with 16MP and Digic 3 for another set of gains -- and a certain 1Ds2 killer.
Which leaves the 1-series... Logic dictates it will have to contain some breakthrough technology to remain a viable product -- better build quality, weatherproofing and slighter better AF with the arguably minor image-qualtiy gains are not enough to maintain the pricepoint over the 5/6D class of body -- so the rumors of a tri-color sensor delivering true-color capture at around 24MP seem not too far-fetched. (And this camera might indeed be a MF back killer of sorts...) The big question is will we see it at Photokina or will we have to wait until PMA?
Again, fun times ,
-
I'd expect the 40D to be released at PMA with 10 or 12MP, Digic 3 processing and ultra-sonic sensor cleaning -- an almost certain 5D killer. So the 6D is introduced with 16MP and Digic 3 for another set of gains -- and a certain 1Ds2 killer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It doesn't really make sense that Canon would kill off the 30D so quickly with a 40D model. I would assume that they would upgrade the 5D to a Digic III, ultrasonic, etc., but now way are they going to kill off the 30D so fast.
My question is this: When do we get a full frame, Digic III upgrade to the 1d Mk2???
-
However, as the pixel density increases, the light gathering area for each pixel must decrease proportionally, whatever the actual size of the photodiode, which is information Canon doesn't publish as far as I know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74325\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not according to a Canon document. We might expect that each micro lens is jammed up against its neighbours, but it seems this just aint so. In fact there is a sizeable gap between adjacent microlenses. Canon claim that they have been able to get a 10 MP sensor to behave like an 8 MP one, in terms of noise anyway, by reducing the gap between micro lenses. Thus the ratio of the amount of light captured by the microlenses divided by the amount of light incident on the 'sensor' surface has increased. From the diagrams I have seen the actual sensor pits are typically much smaller than the micro lenses, and hence the microlenses act to 'funnel' the light to a sensor pit. I presume this is because the sensors are effectively 2D structures, and hence the surface contains not only the sensor pits, but associated electronics and connecting pathways.
Leif
-
I presume this is because the sensors are effectively 2D structures, and hence the surface contains not only the sensor pits, but associated electronics and connecting pathways.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sort of - semiconductors are (complex) three dimensional designs with lots of interactivity between elements and manufacturing issues which make the production of sensors a difficult business. You are correct that the light sensitive part of a cell is only a portion of the theoretical maximum area available with the remainder taken up by supporting electronics. As knowledge improves then the proportion of the sensor taking up space is reducing relative to the light grabbing surface and so sensitivity improves. NB I believe only the 1Ds/II use microlenses to improve performance at the edge of the sensor where light is incident on the sensor at an angle which dramatically affects the performance of the sensor (and I guess the 5D does to, but I have not seen any discussion on its sensor design).
-
On the other hand, it is still the same camera with roughly the same functionality (bar snesor cleaning and AF) as the previous camera - so it will still only appeal to the niche of users that would have gone for the 350D. I don't see that increasing sensor megapixels makes this any more or less attractive camera.
Why all the excitement?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, assuming noise is the same or less, I like the new features. But, for me they failed to address the single largest problem with the 350 - size. I passed on the 350 because the grip was too shallow and too small so I could not comfortably hold it - and my hands are not all that large. If it were the size of a D50 I'd be all over it.
Peace,
Todd Warnke
-
Not according to a Canon document. We might expect that each micro lens is jammed up against its neighbours, but it seems this just aint so. In fact there is a sizeable gap between adjacent microlenses. Canon claim that they have been able to get a 10 MP sensor to behave like an 8 MP.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=74374\")
If this is so, then it would seem the light gathering area for each photodiode could well be the same, but I can't believe these schematic diagrams from Canon are to scale. The gap between the microlenses looks huge to me, at complete odds with other verbal descriptions that the gaps are tiny. Here's a quote from their White Paper [a href=\"http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf]here[/url]
It is widely mentioned that CCD photodiode surfaces are completely light sensitive, so their “fill factor” is said to be 100%. CMOS photodiodes have transistors near the surface, so they are not completely light sensitive and their fill factors are typically less. However, the shift registers between the rows of photodiodes on CCDs are masked and not light sensitive. On CMOS sensors, the metallic overlay of interconnects is not light sensitive either. The fact is that the degree to which an entire sensor either is or is not light sensitive is a matter of varying architecture and clever engineering.
For example, sophisticated new microlenses with tiny gaps between them
appreciably increase the efficiency of Canon CMOS sensor light gathering. Convex
microlenses are arrayed on the CMOS sensor surface with each lens matched to a
single pixel. By shrinking the gaps between these minute lenses, Canon has
enhanced the sensor’s light-gathering efficiency despite increased pixel density,
resulting in the expansion of signal output range at high ISO speeds.
Below this quote from the White Paper, which is now quite old, are a couple of diagrams which seem to be mislabeled. The 1Ds2 is shown as having a particularly wide gap between microlenses and the earlier 1D Mk ll as having a much reduced gap.
One wonders how much of this stuff is marketing hype.
-
If it has the same quality is mine 85mm f1.2 YES,YES
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What sort of photography do you do, Huib? Outside of a studio type environment. that is, in circumstances where either the distance to the subject cannot be easily changed or, if it can be changed, the photographic moment of opportunity will not wait, I find a prime lens very restrictive.
There's no doubt that the 85/1.2 is a very fine lens, but it's not much use when a particular shot requires say, a 65mm lens and the quality advantage tend to disappear if the shot requires say, a 100mm lens.
Beware of technological lust!
-
i was puzzled when the 30D (20D mkII) was released a minor ug-grade to the 20D, now that the 400D is released so soon after the 30D i'm totally confused.
is Canon's marketing out to lunch? does marketing and engineering not communicate? are the design/manufacturing/marketing teams for different camera models outside corporate control? is there some downside to the new technology in the 400D that makes it too risky for a more "serious" camera?
maybe this will be resolved in the next couple months, but i still think the 30D was a curious waste of resources on Canon's part - or maybe Canon's resouces and margins allow products like the 30D to be cranked out for test
-
One wonders how much of this stuff is marketing hype.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A very wise statement.
The fact that Canon release a 'White paper', and it is quoted on sites as a 'White paper' is obviously no more than a clever marketing exercise, hiding marketing spiel in a pseudo scientific and pseudo objective form.
Still, I think such things are worth reading. If only to start an argument.
-
What sort of photography do you do, Huib? Outside of a studio type environment. that is, in circumstances where either the distance to the subject cannot be easily changed or, if it can be changed, the photographic moment of opportunity will not wait, I find a prime lens very restrictive.
There's no doubt that the 85/1.2 is a very fine lens, but it's not much use when a particular shot requires say, a 65mm lens and the quality advantage tend to disappear if the shot requires say, a 100mm lens.
Beware of technological lust!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I do all kind of photography. The 50mm f1.4 is not very sharp at f1.8 and at f5.6 is not much better then the f2.8 24-70mm. The 85mm f1.2 gives much more contrast and sharpness then the f2.8 70-200mm. And I use this lens a lot at f2 - f2.8 Great quality! If the new 50 mm gives much more contrast and sharpness then the f1.4, its sold! With the new 1DsIII we need this kind of lenses.
-
The differences between the 1Ds2 and 5D are so slight that many folks were unable see them. Jack is now implying that similarly hardly detectable differences might exist between the 400D and the 5D, which might upset a few 5D owners.
I own a 5D myself. If the 400D is that good, I'll buy it as a backup for my 5D. I just can't drop $3k on a second 5D body that's unlikely to be used much, but under $1k I can swallow. I'd lose some wide angle coverage and gain some depth of field, but I can find better ways to spend the $2k difference when we're talking about a spare camera body. On 12x18 prints I doubt there will be much difference. Go up to 20x30 and the 5D still looks quite good. Captures from a 400D at 20x30 inches? Hmmm... I'll wait and see for a bit.
-
I own a 5D myself. If the 400D is that good, I'll buy it as a backup for my 5D. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're in a fortunate situation. I already have a 20D as a back-up. I'd feel like a wasteful profligate if I were to buy a second back-up. Anyone want to buy my 20D?
-
My present backup is a 350D (Rebel XT), for the same reason as above: much lower cost, and good enough up to 12x18 prints. So the real question for me is how much better the 400D is than the 350D. I suspect the answer will be teetering right on the edge of worth it - darn marketing guys. 10 MP versus 8 MP only gives me 1/8th more print resolution: 216 ppi versus 192 ppi on a 12x18 print, but I'm thinking the cost will be well under $1k pretty shortly (like Christmas).
Although I call it a "spare" or "backup", there are times when I leave my 5D set up on a tripod waiting on a shot, or taking a series of shots - like sunsets - and will shoot handheld or on my lightweight tripod with the Rebel. So it's not like it just stays in the bag all the time. And though I have pretty large hands the Rebel XT grip doesn't bother me at all, though the viewfinder does after using the 5D. And the Rebel takes up very little room in the bag with the 17-85 lens that's almost always on it. Hmmm... I'm still going to wait and see some reviews to see what the high ISO performance is like. To me the Rebel XT is good up through 400, not so good at 800, and I'd be hard pressed to use 1600, even with Noise Ninja. On the 5D I don't hesitate at all to use any ISO through 1600 unless I'm pretty sure I'll be making a print larger than 12x18 from it - which is pretty unusual.
Once you've seen both viewfinders, I don't see how you'd ever consider a 400D a possible 5D killer. They're not in the same league.
Now if Canon were to come out with a 22mp sensor in a 5D body, I'd find a way to scrounge up whatever they want for it!
-
So the real question for me is how much better the 400D is than the 350D. I suspect the answer will be teetering right on the edge of worth it - darn marketing guys. 10 MP versus 8 MP only gives me 1/8th more print resolution: 216 ppi versus 192 ppi on a 12x18 print, but I'm thinking the cost will be well under $1k pretty shortly (like Christmas).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74505\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But aren't you falling into the exact trap that michael was trying to explain in his original article - the 400D is not just about an increase in pixels (that is really the minor part of the upgrade). It is more about improving the range of features available on the camera at that particular price point - such as improved AF and sensor cleaning technologies (which IMHO have been well thought out and are very comprehensive). Both of these improvements will have more impact on real world photography and quality of produced images (more in focues, fewer dust spots) than any increase in resolution. This is a significant upgrade to the 350D and demonstrates that the marketing department is far smarter and understand the market far better than most people who post to the internet discussion boards.
-
Will people be bothered if eventually all Canon (or any other brand) cameras have the same sensors and produce the same images?
Eventually the electronics are not going to be so expensive and we should hopefully be back to the same situation we were in with Film.. the picture quality is determined by the lens & skill, not by the body behind the lens.
The difference in price between the cameras will have to come down but even if this new 400D had the exact same sensor as the 5D or 1DsII would the more expensive cameras not still be worth it to some people for the body features? That way if you are hiking or climbing or something and you need to keep your pack light, you take the 400D and leave the 1D at home, but you lose nothing in image quality, just maybe something in handling or water sealing or something else that is not truly critical.
-
Will people be bothered if eventually all Canon (or any other brand) cameras have the same sensors and produce the same images?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are you predicting the end of technological development, Ben? If we can avoid a global atomic war, I don't think this is going to happen. We'll have a slow down in the progress of Moore's Law, probably followed by a leap into Quantum computers.
There are no doubt lots of mind-boggling experiments going on in laboratories around the world at present. One interesting line of research is the possibility of extremely fast read out and reset of small sensors so that multiple exposures of different duration can be taken within the time frame of one shot.
-
Are you predicting the end of technological development, Ben?
Not necessarily (yes, I know I'm not Ben).
There are other parts in the camera that can be improved, other than the sensor, and that all DSLRs from one manufacturer has the same sensor doesn't preclude new sensors in the next generation DSLRs.
-
Agreed..
Ray at some point those technologies will not be feasible or useful for consumer cameras used for art and documentation. Or they might change photography so much we don't recognize it, and hence reject the technology.
It's just funny people seem to be bothered if a Digital Rebel catches up to their more expensive camera.. as if they've lost something as a photographer.
Also what I mean is that Canon would just stick the new sensor in the entire lineup when they finish a new sensor design rather then maintaining a different sensor for each model. Moore's law, etc.. would tend to dictate that eventually the sensor will be a trivially inexpensive part of the camera. The true differentiation will go back to being the shutter, features, durability, etc..
There are benefits of a Rebel, etc.. over the larger heavier cameras.. if they can build them all to have the same image quality why wouldn't they. Then when the Rebel is the right tool for the job you don't lose anything.
-
Ray at some point those technologies will not be feasible or useful ....[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74735\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ben,
When has this ever happened in history? Have you got any parallels. It's true there are certain things we use that don't change much, like shoes and clothes and chairs, but complex tools in general, motor vehicles, electic drills, space rockets, cameras and of course computers are in continual state of evolvement.
I see no reason to stop improving a lens or a sensor or the in-camera computer processing. Aren't you excited about the possibilities of nantechnology, the construction of metamaterials with a negative refractive index that can beat lens diffraction?
-
Ben,
When has this ever happened in history? Have you got any parallels. It's true there are certain things we use that don't change much, like shoes and clothes and chairs, but complex tools in general, motor vehicles, electic drills, space rockets, cameras and of course computers are in continual state of evolvement.
I see no reason to stop improving a lens or a sensor or the in-camera computer processing. Aren't you excited about the possibilities of nantechnology, the construction of metamaterials with a negative refractive index that can beat lens diffraction?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
you know, i don't anything about this stuff...it's just the last few years i've been having muscular problems in my right (camera carrying/shooting) hand because of some health problems...so, i'd give a lot to get the quality/size of images from canon's best 1 series cameras in a form and weight factor more like the old leica series...maybe even lighter...i mean the 550 or so grams of the 400d...if that came down to like 350...and a few great lenses also came down so i didn't have to sling around more than about 800 grams max i'd be one happy camper...i guess not in my lifetime but i can dream...
then of course there is all this 'talk' about computer chips in our brain and if that could somehow be linked to our eyes and thinking about it recorded an image while we 'looked' or 'saw' which the chip would store until we got home and we could download it 'wifi' to our 'puters' for lightroom to store and adjust well, that would make me happy...
m
-
Ben,
When has this ever happened in history? Have you got any parallels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Petrol engine surpassing steam engine.
Pony express surpassing smoke signals.
Telegraph surpassing pony express.
Psychiatry Digital telephony surpasing analogue telephony.
Penicillin surpassing leeching.
The Beatles surpassing Elvis (until he returns from the dead for the Lenon Vs Elvis X-factor special with Simon Cowel)
Human beings, yes one day we will overtake you and run the world. We are superior technology. We must prevail. You are weak and frail. We will exterminate you, exterminate you.. ha ha ha ha.
At some point all technology reaches its limit and there is a step change to a new technology. The same happened when digital cameras surpassed film. At some point digital cameras will be surpassed by something new and unexpected.
-
At some point all technology reaches its limit and there is a step change to a new technology. The same happened when digital cameras surpassed film. At some point digital cameras will be surpassed by something new and unexpected.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
David,
I don't consider that those are examples of technology reaching its limit, but changes in the paradigm. When we discover a better, more efficient way of doing things then, hopefully, we direct our R&D efforts in that direction. If we see a need to go back to steam engines, perhaps as we run out of oil, then we'll build a more advanced, efficient and cleaner steam engine than we used decades earlier, just as our current windmills are far more efficient than the windmills of yesteryear.
If the automobile eventually becomes a vehicle entirely driven by battery power, it's still a vehicle. The technology has not come to an end. It has simply evolved.
-
I don't consider that those are examples of technology reaching its limit, but changes in the paradigm.
But paradigm changes is exactly what you're asking about; you can't have a paradigm change without a paradigm change.
But I'll try to do him one better, with perhaps more relevant examples:
Digital telecommunication trunks supplanting analog telecommunication trunks. Analog telecommunication trunks reached their limit capacity wise.
And how about optical fibres supplanting copper wires for long-distance, high-capacity links?
We could also talk about how digital mobile phone technology has all but completely replaced analog mobile phone technology, if you want something more consumer oriented.
Almost anything telephone-related has reached some sort of technological limit, combined with a popularity that has required new technology across the board to increase e.g. capacity.
In computers, you'll find that the good old vacuum tubes, mercury tubes and ferrite cores had reached a limit to their capability that was surpassed by the transistor.
-
It's probably just semantics. I see a distinction between a technology reaching its limit and a technology taking a different turn and/or taking on board different processes. We didn't have the audio CD disc because the technology of analog audio had reached its limit. Digital recording and playback was made possible by technological advances in other areas and it became clear to the public at large that this was a 'better' and more efficient way of recording and playing back music.
A modern digital camera is still essentially a box containg a light sensitive material at one end and a piece of glass at the other end, as it was a hundred years ago.
-
http://www.amazon.ca/Singularity-Is-Near-R...=UTF8&s=gateway (http://www.amazon.ca/Singularity-Is-Near-Ray-Kurzweil/dp/0670033847/sr=8-1/qid=1156942436/ref=sr_1_1/701-4815962-4241101?ie=UTF8&s=gateway)
Ray Kurzweils "Singularity is Near" is a thought provoking read of one (his) view on how the accelerating advances in computers, biotech, nonotechnology, and robotics will come together.
His mantra: "Live long enough to live forever".
And which reminds me of (I can't remember where I heard this one):
I plan to live forever........
So far so good.
-
It's probably just semantics. I see a distinction between a technology reaching its limit and a technology taking a different turn and/or taking on board different processes. We didn't have the audio CD disc because the technology of analog audio had reached its limit.
Quite true in the case of the CD (CD disk => "compact disc disc" ), but not quite true in several of the cases I mentioned.
Further advances in phone line capacity were hindered by analog transmission; digital trunking of lines made a huge difference.
For DAS (direct attached storage), fibre optics allowed significantly greater distance to your external storage device; external copper cables had signaling problems enough.
The list goes on and on and on.
-
David,
I don't consider that those are examples of technology reaching its limit, but changes in the paradigm. ~SNIP~ If we see a need to go back to steam engines, perhaps as we run out of oil, then we'll build a more advanced, efficient and cleaner steam engine than we used decades earlier ~SNIP~
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What are you going to use to heat the water to make the steam?
I think David's point is spot on, though also agree digital represents a change in paradigm to a certain degree. But the main basis of that paradigm-shift is one toward efficiency, not necessarily quality: "let's get it done faster".
None of the above takes anything away from the older technologies for collectors, hobbyists or artists. Film isn't dead because of digital, it's just being relegated to a specific class of art medium as an "old" technology... Except for X-ray
-
Yes I was just referring to maturation of the current paradigm, CCD/CMOS based digital SLRs.
At some point I think/hope this technology will get to the point where the sensor is not the majority cost of the camera, and we can have the same image quality from the Rebel as from the 1D.
As far as a camera that fires millions of nanotech bots which crawl all over the scene and record 3D data to reproduce an infinitely detailed image which can be edited into anything... oh well... I don't really thing I will enjoy using such a "camera". I'm not even sure I would enjoy the micro-sensor camera shown in research in the last year that can shoot a raw image that can be translated into an image shot at any aperture in software. These things may be the hot ticket for spy cameras or security or something but will they necessarily be fun/rewarding artistic/hobby devices is another question.
-
Yes I was just referring to maturation of the current paradigm, CCD/CMOS based digital SLRs.
At some point I think/hope this technology will get to the point where the sensor is not the majority cost of the camera, and we can have the same image quality from the Rebel as from the 1D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is a danger in the commoditisation of technology and that is the manufacturers loose interest in putting further R&D money into the sector. Canon is already diversifying out of digital SLRs into medical equipment which they see as a big growth segment that they can exploit using their image processing capabilities.
I don't think we are anywhere close to saturation of the DSLR market and there is still a lot of room for development but with the already intense competition I can see why manufacturers may want to look at other markets for profit.
In terms of sensor development we are already at the point where the Rebel gives the same image quality as a 1D, provided you do not try and print too large an image. It really depends on how far you have to go to satisfy your needs and not your lusts.
-
Yep.. definitely a danger that the profits will fall out from under them.
In any case I think that would just be a case of Canon, etc.. loosing the massive cash cow that is digital SLRs at the moment, like what has already started with digicams.
Basically at some point they're going to hit the point of diminishing returns with 35mm format and APS format. If electronics fabrication keeps getting cheaper & yields keep going up at some point it will cost the company less $$ to use the same sensor in their entire DSLR lineup then to design and manufacturer a different sensor for each camera. They'll instead work on body features and the software running the camera to differentiate products and provide a way to keep margins up.
The thing is a company like Canon already went through this once before as film cameras became less and less profitable. They're already quite diversified, they may already be planning for a time when DSLRs in APS/35mm formats mature and start to become less profitable.
-
What are you going to use to heat the water to make the steam?
Coal, Jack. We have lots and lots of it in Australia. Enough to provide all our energy needs for the next 200 years from currently identified reserves, not to mention unidentified future reserves. The steam-driven locomotives that used to cross the American praires 100 years ago would have been about 5% efficient. A modern steam engine (in our power stations) using pulverised coal is about 50% efficient. We're spending a lot researching into methods of clean coal technology in Australia.
The steam engine is alive and doing well. It provides about 80% of our energy needs over here.
-
Basically at some point they're going to hit the point of diminishing returns with 35mm format and APS format. If electronics fabrication keeps getting cheaper & yields keep going up at some point it will cost the company less $$ to use the same sensor in their entire DSLR lineup then to design and manufacturer a different sensor for each camera. They'll instead work on body features and the software running the camera to differentiate products and provide a way to keep margins up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can't see it happening. There are so many different technologies that can be incorporated in a camera to improve image quality. Sensors that are particularly good at fast 'read-out and reset' for multiple different exposures during the one opening of the shutter, may not be good for the highest quality image, for example. The current size of medium format sensors is only double that of 35mm. It should be possible to eventually fit such a sensor into a body just slightly larger than a 1Ds2 and considerably lighter. When sensor technology becomes relatively cheap, some formats might even go circular. The possibility of constructing lenses from metamaterials might allow large format lenses to produce razor sharp results at f64 and the low cost of sensor fabrication might make feasible and affordable 4x5" format digital cameras that can deliver the sorts of resolution on prints that Oscar thinks is necessary for line art and text. (2400 dpi on paper ).
-
Basically at some point they're going to hit the point of diminishing returns with 35mm format and APS format. If electronics fabrication keeps getting cheaper & yields keep going up at some point it will cost the company less $$ to use the same sensor in their entire DSLR lineup then to design and manufacturer a different sensor for each camera. They'll instead work on body features and the software running the camera to differentiate products and provide a way to keep margins up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The limit is probably not really in the resolution that can or cannot be achieved by better technologies. The limit lies mostly in how flat images are used and what resolution is required for that purpose.
Once most people reach the conclusion that the camera they have is good enough for their usage, they will stop buying new stuff that bring no additional value and that will be the end of fast paced technological improvement. In my opinon, we are basically already there. Give it one or 2 more generations, 1600 ISO noiseless 10MP sensors with 2 more stops DR and 99% of photographers on earth will be happy forever.
We should not forget that we - at LL - are a tiny niche in the huge market for photographic gear. Nobody will develop specifically something for us that we can afford once the masses are happy.
We only have to look at other domains and see what drives progress there once a major paradigm change has overcome its first happy years:
- laws (automotive industry,...), especially those related to the environment,
- more of less artificially introduced constraints and demands (PC hardware reacting to less and less efficient software standards,...),
- ...
None of these apply to photography IMHO. There is probably nothing ahead of us besides millions of images taken with talent and inspiration. And I personnally find this most interesting.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The limit is probably not really in the resolution that can or cannot be achieved by better technologies. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Resolution is the major feature of the photographic process. Always has been and probably always will be. The camera has lots of useful purposes apart from snapshots for the masses. Any resolution gains will be much appreciated by astronomers and scientists in many fields. Once the technology has been developed, it will probably be made available to anyone who's prepared to pay for it, even if some or most of the people who buy it can't or don't want to fully use it.
-
Resolution is the major feature of the photographic process. Always has been and probably always will be. The camera has lots of useful purposes apart from snapshots for the masses. Any resolution gains will be much appreciated by astronomers and scientists in many fields. Once the technology has been developed, it will probably be made available to anyone who's prepared to pay for it, even if some or most of the people who buy it can't or don't want to fully use it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We will see what happens. I think that these high end gadgets will mostly never make it to the grand public, just like carbon brakes have never made it from F1 to our everyday cars.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Once most people reach the conclusion that the camera they have is good enough for their usage, they will stop buying new stuff that bring no additional value and that will be the end of fast paced technological improvement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Im not so sure Bernard...
If that were the case, nobody would have upgraded from Nikon's F4 to the F5, Hasselblad 501 to 503 or Canon EOS 1 to 1n. Take cars -- how many folks upgrade from a perfectly good 2 or 3 year old vehicle to the same newer model? My point is consumers will always consume new products, even when they contain only marginal or incremental improvements over their existing equipment. And manufacturers will always continue to offer us marginal, incremental improvements in their products for that very reason.
The lone exception is perhaps when the consumer views the device simply as a tool -- IOW a plumber is unlikely to buy a new wrench unless his existing one of that size breaks. And I would agree there are a few photographers who view their cameras as tools -- it's just that none of them participate in these forums
Cheers,
-
Resolution is the major feature of the photographic process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not really sure that I can agree with that statement - I could, however, agree with a statement along the lines of capturing the moment is the major feature of the photographic process.
Consider the rise in popularity of camera phones and there use by teenagers to take pictures and then send them via MMS to their friends, blogs and other interested parties. This is still photography and is the process of capturing and sharing a particular moment. I don't think anyone here would state that a camera phone is the tops for resolution or quality, but for the purpose of capturing and sharing the moment it beats the pants off a 1DsII (though I believe that the 1DsIII will have the same sensor but integrated bluetooth and cameraphone ;-)
As to the point that demand, or need for, a new camera will dissipate once the peoples desire for resolution (and dynamic range) is met is a fallicy which misses the dynamics of product management/marketing. There is always an improvement that can be made to a product and/or its image and latent (either realised or unrealised) demand which can be met through innovation.
As an example. If I asked do you think bluetooth would be a good addition to a Canon DSLR then most people would say no (mainly because it is associated with mobile phones and connecting a handsfree headset). However, if I then explained that you can by a bluetooth GPS receiver for USD20 which can be connected to the camera wirelessly (i.e leave the receiver in your bag and use the camera) such that your location is embedded in the image when you take the picture - then people may start to get interested in such a concept.
If you could then start using bluetooth so that you could adjust flash settings remotely, or configure the camera and release the shutter via an application on your mobile phone, then perhaps people are starting to think of other imaginative applications that can be developed just be including a USD1 Bluetooth transceiver into the camera.
It's about time we changed our concept of how the camera should work to best meet our workflow and how we can improve its usability by incorporating new technology rather than labouring on about pixel pitch, resolution and dynamic range - though still recognising that resolution is important there are other ways to differentiate a product that Sony and Samsung will be focused on long before Nikon and Canon.
-
As to the point that demand, or need for, a new camera will dissipate once the peoples desire for resolution (and dynamic range) is met is a fallicy which misses the dynamics of product management/marketing. There is always an improvement that can be made to a product and/or its image and latent (either realised or unrealised) demand which can be met through innovation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Demand will not disapear. It will just stop to be driven by increased resolution. We will move back towards a market where replacement of dead gear, desire for new features etc... drives most of the demand.
This will prevent companies like Canon and Nikon to continue investing huge amounts for more mega pixels which was the discussion at hand. They will focus instead on blue tooth as you pointed out.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We will see what happens. I think that these high end gadgets will mostly never make it to the grand public, just like carbon brakes have never made it from F1 to our everyday cars.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not a good example of technology transfer - Carbon brakes are not really suitable for everyday road use as the are not effective until hot. On the race track constant use keeps them at an effective operating temperature, however, on the road they are unlikely to get warm enough to be as effective as the more commonly used grey iron.
The only thing which stops technology transfer is if (a) their is already a more appropriate solution ( cost issues have not yet been overcome.
-
Not a good example of technology transfer - Carbon brakes are not really suitable for everyday road use as the are not effective until hot. On the race track constant use keeps them at an effective operating temperature, however, on the road they are unlikely to get warm enough to be as effective as the more commonly used grey iron.
The only thing which stops technology transfer is if (a) their is already a more appropriate solution ( cost issues have not yet been overcome.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly my point. Ray mentioned astronomy as one possible source of future inspiration for consumer goods.
My intend was to show yet another example of devices performing at very high levels that just have no use for normal usage.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Film isn't dead because of digital, it's just being relegated to a specific class of art medium as an "old" technology... Except for X-ray
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Film-based Xray is also being superseded. As a dentist (and no, I don't own a P45...earlier thread) I've been using digital Xray for several years. It is VERY expensive so only used for tiny intraoral devices or in scanning back-like arrangements. Film Xray will be around for a long time yet, I suspect.
Anyway, I digress...
-
Resolution is the major feature of the photographic process.
I'm not really sure that I can agree with that statement - I could, however, agree with a statement along the lines of capturing the moment is the major feature of the photographic process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
David,
Capturing the moment is certainly A major feature of the photographic process, but resolution is more fundamental. Without sufficient resolution, the subject or target is not recognisable and the photograph is essentially useless, except for those rare examples where some photographers are trying to turn blurry images into abstract photos, something which I don't find interesting, and I suspect most people don't find interesting.
I know you are probably going to counter with the argument that once resolution has reached a certain level, then it ceases to be an issue and capturing the moment becomes paramount, but I would say that sometimes the most interesting moment is some unnoticed activity, perhaps some distance away in the background, that is hardly recognisable because our camera didn't capture the scene with sufficirnt resolution for zooming in during post processing.
In other words, when (if) silicon wafers and sensors, or some other technology superceding that process, become as cheap as chips and computer processing power increases to the point where handling huge files is no problem, you might as well have the extra resolution , if it's affordable, because there's no disadvantage to having more resolution than normally required, but there might be a disadvantage to having less resolution than occasionally required.
-
Resolution is needed only to convey a point. To me a camera's speed is far more important than its resolution, but all that speed means nothing if you can't see what you shot.
I think Mike Johnson once said something on his blog to the extent of how it's interesting that the vast majority of what is thought of a famous or iconic or imporatant photography was made with cameras vastly inferior to what we complain about today.
Think about that.
-
I think Mike Johnson once said something on his blog to the extent of how it's interesting that the vast majority of what is thought of a famous or iconic or imporatant photography was made with cameras vastly inferior to what we complain about today.
Think about that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've thought about it and would pose the question, 'Was the vast majority of famous and important photography made with cameras vastly inferior to other cameras of the period?' I think you'll find the answer is, No. And the reason such cameras were inferior to what we use today is, it's not possible to take a photograph in the past with a camera of the future.
-
[...] because there's no disadvantage to having more resolution than normally required, but there might be a disadvantage to having less resolution than occasionally required.
That's not quite true. A higher resolution results in stronger demands on camera stability.
In-camera or in-lens stabilisers become a requirement, and these stabilisers will have to counter micro-vibration in otherwise "stable" tripods etc.
-
I would argue that's not true.
Compare a 12mp image and a 6mp image. The 12mp image will reveal shake that the 6mp one won't under the same circumstances. But downsampling the 12mp image to 6mp image should erase the shake.
The 12mp camera has given you no disadvantage, you just have a higher burden to exploit all 12mp.
I don't downsample my DSLR images very often for this reason but I do it a bit more often with P&S pictures.. might as well create a clean JPG by downsampling to reduce the impact of noise.
I agree with Ray here.. though I am not quite on the same page in terms of general lust for more resolution.
-
I agree with Ray here.. though I am not quite on the same page in terms of general lust for more resolution.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=75257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Could that be because you don't have a wide format printer, Ben? My lust for resolution is not so great that I would spend more than A$5000 on a camera. I could justify the purchase of a 5D on the grounds it was slightly less expensive than the D60 I bought a few years earlier, although that was partly due to the rising value of the Aussie dollar.
We should also bear in mind that according to the generally accepted standards of perceivable resolution on an 8x12" print from a normal viewing distance of around 10", the 5D is not quite good enough. If one takes the lower figure of 4 lp/mm on the print, it makes it comfortable, but not with the higher figure of close to 7 lp/mm that people with keen eyesight are supposed to be able to see, and not to mention the extremely high resolutions required for line art and text.