canon MF camera coming?

[uaiomex]

I just read it.Revolving rectangular or square sensor is the only way to stop bothering with the anoying going and coming from verticals to horizontals. If Canon has accomplished anoher notch in reducing their costs in sensor manufacturing, the square sensor is the way to go! Shoot now, crop later!

Listed as ONLY a rumor

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-2010-roadmap-cr1/

BC

[JeffKohn]

It amazes me how many people fail to understand basic geometry. You can't plug a 36x36mm sensor into a 24x36 camera system.

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes it is different ... in a way that makes it far less profitable than MF film:
- The "elitist" pricing is the consequence of greatly reduced sales volume, due to the combination of far higher unit unit costs and the greater range of photographic needs now met by 35mm and even smaller formats, not due to MF makers suddenly getting greedier than before;
- the "hundreds of thousands of photographers worldwide who think they need the MF" are mostly talking but not buying, and never will buy, due to the inherently far high prices.
- The tripling of lens prices (and similar increases in prices of bodies, apart from back costs) is primarily the inevitable consequence of declining sales volume, though it starts a vicious spiral through depressing sales volume further.

Yes, you have just made a perfect case explaining why cheaper MF could significantrly increase volumes to the point of making the deal profitable. Do you think for a second that a dying company like Pentax would bother releasing a 40MP 645D if it didn't see an important market in Japan?

- The prices of the high end DSLR's are not going down one iota: every high end, high res. 35mm format DSLR from the original 1Ds to the 1DsMkIII and D3X has come to market at the same US$8000. The less expensive, lower spec. 35mm format models like the 5DMkII sell in such greater volume that 35mm format DSLR is overall probably far more profitable than it was in the era before the 5D: that increased volume is how Canon and Nikon expand their revenue, not by investing in a very small and shrinking market sector.

I was not refering specifically to high end. The average price of the DSLR sold these past years has kept decreasing very significantly and the margin of the companies is seriously decreasing also.

You can do more today with a 600 US$ GF1 than you could 6 years ago with a 3000 US$ Nikon D100.

Another factor is that people will soon stop upgrading at the same high pace they have done in the past. If you own a 5DII today, what could you drive you to buy a 30MP 5DIII?

Regards,
Bernard

[BJL]

It amazes me how many people fail to understand basic geometry. You can't plug a 36x36mm sensor into a 24x36 camera system.

Doubly so in an SLR, due to extra 12mm of mirror box space that would needed.

But fanciful rumors of square sensors are persistent and unfulfilled as those of Canon and Nikon entering the MF market, not hindered by the move of MF away from square formats that has been going on for some time now, and the complete failure of the 35mm and smaller SLR market to ever go square.

[brianc1959]

I think a format larger than 24x36mm from Canon would be unlikely.  Far more likely is a high MP 24x36 camera.

The sensor density on the current Canon 7D, which has excellent noise characteristics BTW, would give 46 megapixels on 24x36 format.  Think about that for a few seconds!

What do you suppose will happen to the medium format market when the highest resolutions in 35mm format exceed that of medium format?  It *will* happen, and my guess is that it will happen at ~ 100 megapixels within ~3 years.

Would a 100 megapixel 35mm camera need great lenses?  Hell yes, but lenses for the 35mm format *have* been getting pretty great of late!

[brianc1959]

Another factor is that people will soon stop upgrading at the same high pace they have done in the past. If you own a 5DII today, what could you drive you to buy a 30MP 5DIII?

Regards,
Bernard

What if it were a 46MP 5DIII?

[BernardLanguillier]

What if it were a 46MP 5DIII?

Considering how challenging it alreasy is for Canon to keep clean shadows at 22MP, I would call a 46MP a disaster.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Kirk Gittings]

Another factor is that people will soon stop upgrading at the same high pace they have done in the past. If you own a 5DII today, what could you drive you to buy a 30MP 5DIII?

IQ

[CBarrett]

IQ

Funny thing is, the P65+ with new digital glass is greater IQ than what I've been used to for the last 18 odd years.  Given that, I must surely be done buying digi gear for the next decade if not the rest of my career.  Right?  Right???!!!!!

This stuff is crazy.  When I started shooting, I got a 4x5 and 8 lenses and never considered buying another piece of camera gear until digi capture happened.

[Doug Peterson]

The sensor density on the current Canon 7D, which has excellent noise characteristics BTW, would give 46 megapixels on 24x36 format.  Think about that for a few seconds!

What do you suppose will happen to the medium format market when the highest resolutions in 35mm format exceed that of medium format?  It *will* happen, and my guess is that it will happen at ~ 100 megapixels within ~3 years.

Would a 100 megapixel 35mm camera need great lenses?  Hell yes, but lenses for the 35mm format *have* been getting pretty great of late!

Excellent compared to what? Other dSLRs?

I'm just so confused by this post. You honestly expect that Canon or Nikon will produce a system which will have higher resolution than the digital backs available at that time?

If anything, in recent years the gap in resolution has increased not decreased. It's a bit sticky to compare, since Canon/Phase rarely release new cameras the same exact year. But I think these are reasonable comparisons:
P65+ vs 1Ds III
P25/45 vs 1Ds II
H20/H25 vs 1Ds I

Right now the gap (60.5 megapixels to 22 megapixels) is the largest it's been in a while. Digital backs have the huge advantage of expanding both by decreasing pixel pitch and increasing sensor size. Nothing says that digital backs have to stick with the full-frame 645 format; but there is very good reason to think Canon/Nikon will not produce anything larger than 24x36.

I'll be very surprised if Canon elects for a 40+ megapixel sensor in their next body, much much more likely a 30 megapixel range, still with an Anti Aliasing filter, a small viewfinder, still with very few lenses which will really be able to handle that resolution, and generally speaking a greater emphasis on features than on absolute IQ.

If Canon or Nikon ever produce a camera with higher resolution than can be found from medium format I owe you a beer.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off

[Kirk Gittings]

Funny thing is, the P65+ with new digital glass is greater IQ than what I've been used to for the last 18 odd years.  Given that, I must surely be done buying digi gear for the next decade if not the rest of my career.  Right?  Right???!!!!!

This stuff is crazy.  When I started shooting, I got a 4x5 and 8 lenses and never considered buying another piece of camera gear until digi capture happened.

The last 15 years of my film shooting I used a 30 year old 4x5 and a 40 year old Hassleblad!

[uaiomex]

I don't think D35 (dslr's) will ever match DMF resolution and quality. The discussion here (I think) is that Canikson have been improving IQ and features at a very much faster rate making this gap thinner every year and at a fraction of the cost and that this phenomena seems to be accelerating. Maybe it's a dark matter issue.  


[quote name='dougpetersonci' date='Dec 9 2009, 10:32 PM' post='331404']
Excellent compared to what? Other dSLRs?

I'm just so confused by this post. You honestly expect that Canon or Nikon will produce a system which will have higher resolution than the digital backs available at that time?

If anything, in recent years the gap in resolution has increased not decreased. It's a bit sticky to compare, since Canon/Phase rarely release new cameras the same exact year. But I think these are reasonable comparisons:
P65+ vs 1Ds III
P25/45 vs 1Ds II
H20/H25 vs 1Ds I

Right now the gap (60.5 megapixels to 22 megapixels) is the largest it's been in a while. Digital backs have the huge advantage of expanding both by decreasing pixel pitch and increasing sensor size. Nothing says that digital backs have to stick with the full-frame 645 format; but there is very good reason to think Canon/Nikon will not produce anything larger than 24x36.

I'll be very surprised if Canon elects for a 40+ megapixel sensor in their next body, much much more likely a 30 megapixel range, still with an Anti Aliasing filter, a small viewfinder, still with very few lenses which will really be able to handle that resolution, and generally speaking a greater emphasis on features than on absolute IQ.

If Canon or Nikon ever produce a camera with higher resolution than can be found from medium format I owe you a beer.

[font="Arial"]Doug Peterson
_

[stevesanacore]

Excellent compared to what? Other dSLRs?

I'm just so confused by this post. You honestly expect that Canon or Nikon will produce a system which will have higher resolution than the digital backs available at that time?

If anything, in recent years the gap in resolution has increased not decreased. It's a bit sticky to compare, since Canon/Phase rarely release new cameras the same exact year. But I think these are reasonable comparisons:
P65+ vs 1Ds III
P25/45 vs 1Ds II
H20/H25 vs 1Ds I

Right now the gap (60.5 megapixels to 22 megapixels) is the largest it's been in a while. Digital backs have the huge advantage of expanding both by decreasing pixel pitch and increasing sensor size. Nothing says that digital backs have to stick with the full-frame 645 format; but there is very good reason to think Canon/Nikon will not produce anything larger than 24x36.

I'll be very surprised if Canon elects for a 40+ megapixel sensor in their next body, much much more likely a 30 megapixel range, still with an Anti Aliasing filter, a small viewfinder, still with very few lenses which will really be able to handle that resolution, and generally speaking a greater emphasis on features than on absolute IQ.

If Canon or Nikon ever produce a camera with higher resolution than can be found from medium format I owe you a beer.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off

Never say never. I remember a very qualified camera person telling me that they could never fit a full frame 35mm sensor in a 35mm camera body. I think 'someday' when 100MP will be possible in any size camera, large format will be irrelevant and MF digital will probably go the way of 8x10 cameras. At the same time- everything we look at will probably be on LED displays at 72dpi, where lets see - a 40x60 will only require about 12MP :-)

[LiamStrain]

Never say never. I remember a very qualified camera person telling me that they could never fit a full frame 35mm sensor in a 35mm camera body. I think 'someday' when 100MP will be possible in any size camera, large format will be irrelevant and MF digital will probably go the way of 8x10 cameras. At the same time- everything we look at will probably be on LED displays at 72dpi, where lets see - a 40x60 will only require about 12MP :-)

I won't say never, but I think we'll hit an optical limit soon where a lens will not be able to take advantage of that much resolution in that small a space (and certainly some massive shift will have to happen to break the current S/N ratio limits)

Much more likely, we'll increasingly have less need for very high resolutions as images are beamed directly to our brains, and bandwidth will be at more of a premium than extra detail.

Or something... Ray Kurtzweil probably has something on the back burner that will render all of this moot anyway.

I'll keep my 4x5 and 8x10 because I like it. Even if I have to coat my own plates (in between swapping on the newest sensor backs).

[brianc1959]

Excellent compared to what? Other dSLRs?

I'm just so confused by this post. You honestly expect that Canon or Nikon will produce a system which will have higher resolution than the digital backs available at that time?

If anything, in recent years the gap in resolution has increased not decreased. It's a bit sticky to compare, since Canon/Phase rarely release new cameras the same exact year. But I think these are reasonable comparisons:
P65+ vs 1Ds III
P25/45 vs 1Ds II
H20/H25 vs 1Ds I

Right now the gap (60.5 megapixels to 22 megapixels) is the largest it's been in a while. Digital backs have the huge advantage of expanding both by decreasing pixel pitch and increasing sensor size. Nothing says that digital backs have to stick with the full-frame 645 format; but there is very good reason to think Canon/Nikon will not produce anything larger than 24x36.

I'll be very surprised if Canon elects for a 40+ megapixel sensor in their next body, much much more likely a 30 megapixel range, still with an Anti Aliasing filter, a small viewfinder, still with very few lenses which will really be able to handle that resolution, and generally speaking a greater emphasis on features than on absolute IQ.

If Canon or Nikon ever produce a camera with higher resolution than can be found from medium format I owe you a beer.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off

Yes, I do expect that one day in the not too distant future Canon or Nikon (or Sony?) will introduce a 35mm digicam with greater resolution than any MFDB - especially if C, N, or S stick with 35mm and don't go larger.  You may be right about expanding beyond 645, but I doubt it - I suspect that the only long term advantage of MFDBs over 35mm is double the image area.  So, all a 35mm maker need do is produce a pixel size with < 0.7 times the pitch of whatever is state of the art in MFDB at that time, and bingo.

Like you, I also thought the next step in 35mm would be to ~30MP, but then (just today, actually) I took a closer look at some samples from the 7D and was pretty shocked.  Canon has already designed the pixel and is in a sense "prototyping" it with the 7D, so why not scale up their APS-C version to FX to produce a 46 megapixel sensor?  That way they don't have to do anything fundamentally new with the sensor.  Jumping from 46mp to 100mp would then only be one more doubling of resolution (OK, 92mp).  

If the MFDB makers keep pace, then they would be at 200mp when the 35mm cameras are at 100mp, and both would use a 2.9 micron pixel pitch.  But I have to wonder if the MFDB makers can keep pace.  I know that 2.9 microns sounds small, but the Canon 7D is already at 4.1 microns, so we're closer than you might think!  I can easily imagine that someday the best 35mm sensors will have sub-3micron pixels while the best MFDB sensors will still be 5 microns or more.

Bear in mind that I'm currently spending hard-earned cash to develop a special lens for MFDBs, so I would really like them to have a long term future!  Maybe I'm completely wrong about all this, and next year someone will come out with a 100mp MFDB priced at ~$5k?

[Gigi]

What I hope for from Canon or Nikon is more a 6*7 frame proportion like 30*36 or something close enough. I do not like much the 24*36 proportion... But I guess I'm alone... so it won't happen.

Not alone. The 2:3 proportion grew stale for me a long time ago. Good for fun stuff, but not serious composition (flames start now....). Give me 1:1, 4:5, or even 3:4 can work. But its hard to find quality, economy and those proportions digitally today.  

[JoeKitchen]

This mega-pixel race is absurd; we already have large enough resolution in todays camera to satisfy any need.  Also, how much further down can we go given the limits of the glass.  For a 6 micron square pixel you need 90 lp for the file to come out decent which seems to be the limit (yes I know this is on the edge of the image circle, but we do need lens that can shift) unless you have NASA's budget and can afford to have diamonds made large enough for camera lenses.  

I wish they would just work with keeping the pixel size where it is and concentrate on lessening the noise.  

Also, my 5D already can tell if I am holding it horz. or vert., why the hell can Canon not just go one step further and install an optional program that can or can not be displayed on the LCD screen for leveling?

[gwhitf]

This is CrazyTalk.

Canon/Nikon is in business to make money and to please shareholders. They can sell enough bodies probably in a day, in their current mindset, more than they'd sell in a year if they made some specialty boutique camera. They leave boutique approach to the other continents. It is what it is; they'll bring out what they bring out, but by now, we know their basic mindset; if the mindset was different, we'd not be at version 1Ds3 by now. They have no interest in reinventing the wheel; there's no money in that. The 1ds4 and D4x (or whatever the name), will come out, and it'll add a few basic improvements, enough to keep everyone upgrading, and the cash flow continuing. Of course I'd like something different, but at this point, I certainly don't expect that from some giant multinational corporation. You get what you get, then you start fiddling with the knobs, and hopefully there's enough custom settings to put your own Thumbprint on it. End of story.

[Doug Peterson]

Where Canon will get the highest ROI: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/collection/...ot_cameras.html

Doug

[JonRoemer]

This is CrazyTalk.
.... it'll add a few basic improvements....

I was talking with another photographer about this.  He was saying 1DsM4 35+mp... wanted to know what I thought.

I think the writing is on the wall.  I may have my numbers slightly off but the progression with 1Ds has been ~12mp>16mp>21mp.  That's about a 33% jump each time.  So, what's a 1DsM4 likely to come in at? ~28mp.

What's it likely to have? Higher res. screen, shoot video as well as still, the new autofocus found in the 1D4, built-in level, better high ISO performance.  I wouldn't expect much else (which is fine by me.)

When's likely to come? Bumps are every 2-3 years, announcements in August to piggyback launch on back of things like PhotoPlus (if it still carries any weight as an event.) Expect an announcement of the 1DsM4 in August, 2010, at the earliest, with the first cameras becoming available late fall or early in 2011.

--
Site | Blog