1Ds Mk II Speculation

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

besides I wouldn't know what to do with 21 megapixels ;-)

Ha, ha, ha.  You could learn right quickly.  At one point Bill Gates couldn't imagine what people would do with a whole megabyte of PC memory.  Could you live with much under a gigabyte?  The universal LAW is that there's never enough speed, enough storage space, enough RAM, enough pixels.  In any case, as long as digital cameras continue to fall short of 8x10 view camera resolution, I'll certainly want to keep having more and more pixels!  The camera manufacturers depend on pixel lust to keep it all going in any case. [/font]

[BJL]

[font color=\'#000000\']Many people express a strange dichotomy: optimistic or even completely certain about a move towards ever bigger sensors at ever lower prices, and yet simultaneously so pessimistic about the possibility of improving the performance of existing or smaller sensor sizes by improving noise, sensitivity and dynamic range at a given pixel size.

This fascinates me, because it goes againsts almost all visible trends in the photographic industry, which are overwhelmingly in the direction of improving performance at a given sensor size, and then using the same or smaller sensor size for a given market sector. The only partial exception is in the market for backward compatability with existing collections of 35mm and MF (645 at least) lenses, and once MF back sensors grow the last few millimetres to reach full 645 frame size (42x56mm), I expect that sensor size growth will be finished.

From the top down

- The medium format industry has put virtually all of its recent development efforts into their smallest format, 645, with for example four new AF systems, two of them involving completely new camera systems. Clearly, the MF industry does not expect sensors to get big enough to require 6x6 or larger body formats.

- Canon has joined every other major 35mm camera maker in aiming its "APS-C" format bodies and associated lens selection (EF-S) at the great majority of the SLR market, not just the entry level: they fairly describe the 20D as being for "semi-professional and serious amateur photographers", and that $800 11-22mm ultra-wide zoom in particular is aimed at far above entry-level. Part of this involves reducing their photosites to 3/4 of their previous size while if anything improving "pixel quality".

- Canon did not increase sensor size in the upgrade from 1D to 1D Mark II, or from D30 to D60 to 10D to 20D, despite endless predictions of something like an EOS-3D using 1.3x or larger format. Nor of course have Nikon or Fuji budged on sensor size with their successive updates (five sensors for Nikon, a third coming for Fuji), and Olympus is heavily committed to 4/3. In fact, the most recent sensors, for the 20D, D2H and S2 are all a hair smaller than previous models!

- The fixed lens digicam market has not increased its largest sensor size beyond 11mm diagonal format (2/3") for about four years now; a very long time in the history of digital photography, so I doubt that "digicam" sensors will ever get bigger.[/font]

[Sfleming]

[font color=\'#000000\']****Trying to second guess what the specification of a new camera sensor design and its performance is like trying to be is like trying to pee into a thimble from a moving train with the lights off.****

Now THAT'S an anology![/font]

[Scott_H]

[font color=\'#000000\']Are the lights off outside, or inside the train?[/font]

[Steve Kerman]

[font color=\'#000000\']If I did the math right, a full-frame camera with the pixel density of the new EOS 20D would have just shy of 21 megapixels.

Food for thought?...[/font]

[gmitchel]

[font color=\'#000000\']My Canon dealer speculates that a 1Ds replacement will be 15-16MP, have DIGIC II and E-TTL II, and be priced $1000-1500 less than a 1Ds.

1Ds build and speed, great resolution, etc. 15-16MP would allow for 250-280 ppi for a 12x18 print withou upsizing. Since I do all of my custom prints on 13x19 stock, it doesn't get much better!

Plus, you should be able to use lower resolution modes and get Foveon-like images that use multiple photosites per pixel. A 6-8MP image should be exquisite with a 15-16MP sensor.

That's a lot of camera for approx $6500 US.

I'm #2 or #3 on the waiting list at my dealer!

Cheers,

Mitch[/font]

[gmitchel]

[font color=\'#000000\']As Micahel point out in one of his reviews, probably for the 1Ds, the high end DSLRs like the 1Ds are approaching the limits of what a 35mm lens can adequately resolve.

Plus, more pixels in the same size sensor, usually means less sensitivity and more noise. Canon (and others) are doing a lot to improve the microlenses, digital signal processing, etc. to squeeze more pixels and actually improve sensitivity.

You gotta love those engineers!

Cheers,

Mitch[/font]

[Leej]

[font color=\'#000000\']Interesting comments about larger image sensors for the future.  I, like others, was a bit disappointed that Canon didn't go with a larger sensor in the 20D.   Looks like the 1.6X sensor size will be with us for awhile - and it gives lens manufacturers something new to build and sell!     [/font]

[DiaAzul]

[font color=\'#000000\']If I did the math right, a full-frame camera with the pixel density of the new EOS 20D would have just shy of 21 megapixels.

Food for thought?...[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Technically your maths is correct, however, there are issues to do with clocking information off the chip. As the sensor size increases so does its capacitance. This means that a higher current is required to drive the clock signal into the chip and also the clocking signals become squewed. Whilst it is possible to drive the APS-C sensor with a reasonable current and clock speed to achieve 5fps, if that same sensor design is scaled up to full frame then it may only be possible to clock data off the chip at 1-3fps (or maybe even less given the amount of data that must be retrieved at 21Mpix). This low frame rate is unlikely to be acceptable for a professional camera.[/font]

[BJL]

[font color=\'#000000\']... there are issues to do with clocking information off the chip. As the sensor size increases so does its capacitance ... if that same sensor design is scaled up to full frame then it may only be possible to clock data off the chip at 1-3fps[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Interesting; the only relevant speed limit I knew of was the "pixels per second" capability of the DIGIC II processor.

If you instead start with the 8MP and 8fps of the 1D mark II and allow for the 1.7x increase in sensor area from there to full 24x36mm frame size, what frame rate limit do you get with about 21 million of those 6.4 micron pixels?

What frame rate if Canon goes instead with the 1DMkII's 8.2 micron pixel size, getting about 13.5MP in 24x36mm format?[/font]

[DiaAzul]

[font color=\'#000000\']It all depends...changing the design of the chip so that it can be clocked faster will obviously increase the frame rate, which as Canon get more experience with sensor design they are bound to be able to do. The other option is to read data from the chip in parallel, the 1DII reads 8 values at a time, the 20D reads 4 values at a time (if I have read all the information correctly). If the 1Ds is designed to read 8, 16 or more values at a time then it is possible to increase the frame rate, though for more cost and complexity.

Trying to second guess what the specification of a new camera sensor design and its performance is like trying to be is like trying to pee into a thimble from a moving train with the lights off.[/font]

[Jonathan Wienke]

[font color=\'#000000\']I love it!!![/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Trying to second guess what the specification of a new camera sensor design and its performance is like trying to be is like trying to pee into a thimble from a moving train with the lights off.

Tsk, this is such a technologically intensive forum and you're overlooking a simple technological solution.  You pass the stream of liquid into an ultra-atomizing device so that a thin mist spreads out so that anything within 20 feet ends up getting hit.

So, that re-establishes credibility and plausibility to our guesses.[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

You peeing guys have to stick together.

Darned right.  Most claims of any sort of male superiority are suspect at best or mere stupid pride for attributes that we should rather be ashamed of, but when it comes to standing and aiming our superiority is beyond question. [/font]

[JeroenM]

[font color=\'#000000\']not food for thought for my wallet ;-)

I'm more "following" the speculations that the 300D and 10D will be replaced by a 200D, 20D and a 2D so the 20D is not the replacement for the 10D but something new (which is in between the current 300D and 10D).
those are just wild, wild guesses but if it happens that way I sure hope the 2D will be way too expensive for me because the 1600 EUR price tag of the 20D is just right (well, not really "right". more "the max I want to give for it") for me.

besides I wouldn't know what to do with 21 megapixels ;-)
a 2D with about 12 MP and a 1.3 crop for the price of 2000 EUR would make me get one though.[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

the high end DSLRs like the 1Ds are approaching the limits of what a 35mm lens can adequately resolve.

This is especially true for wide angle lenses and for wide angle zooms (especially ultrazooms), the best lenses already fall short of being good enough for the present model of 1ds.  That's why I only use Zeiss distagon prime wide angle lenses for my 1ds.  The most expensive Nikon or Canon ulltrawide lenses show substantial corner weakness and edge CA, as well as being prone to substantial sample variations.  These wonderful microlenses are still all speculation and "vaporware" where the wide angle range is concerned.  Nothing actually available comes close to the quality of the best Zeiss distagon wide and ultrawide lenses.  Since about 90% of what I shoot is wide angle, the failure of Japanese designers to produce good quality wide angle lenses is not a trivial issue for me.

However, why do digital cameras have to remain limited to 35mm format forever?  Right now full frame 35mm sensors seem to be right at the limit of what can be manufactured in a mass production way and even at that the cost for a 1ds is so exhorbitant that it's out of reach for most people.  However, the one thing that's reliably predictable about technology is that today's limitations are not going to be limitations tomorrow.  It's only a question of time, and no one can predict the rate of progress for particular areas of technology.

I figure that the next big breakthrough will be cheaper larger sensors.  Remember how for years LCD computer displays were super expensive and not very good quality?  Then Apple made that huge LCD display breakthrough with LCD monitors that are bigger and brighter and just plain better than any CRT displays.  I'd be willing to bet that within 5 years there will be a medium format digital SLR that won't weigh or cost as much as the the present 1ds.  If not 5 years, then certainly eventually.  How could it not happen?  Then we can all start all over again with a new lens collection.  I'd expect such a system to be quite close to 4x5 quality, just as a present 1ds is closer to MF quality than 35mm slide quality.  I just hope that lens design and manufacturing (especially wide and ultrawide) catches up to sensor capabilities.  Lenses are lagging behind now and the gap could grow much larger.[/font]

[rickster]

[font color=\'#000000\']I read these speculative posts reminding myself that in my own industry (RF semi-conductors), that we work on designs that are five or more generations away from production.  I’m sure that Canon and the like do the same. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a totally different concept in image capture devices. Don’t constrain yourselves to dreaming about the state of today’s art, tomorrow’s state of the art is already being built.[/font]

[Sfleming]

[font color=\'#000000\']I love it!!![/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']You peeing guys have to stick together. [/font]

[boku]

[font color=\'#000000\']when it comes to standing and aiming our superiority is beyond question. [/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']That depends on your age.  :cool:[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

That depends on your age.

Um, yeah, I reckon.  However, I hope that before I reach the stage of losing this one advantage over the female types, I'll die a sudden but non traumatic death on a remote wilderness excursion where my body will never even be found.   [/font]