Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: geesbert on December 09, 2009, 03:58:14 pm
-
I've just read Michael's review of the Harblei Cam. Thos huge Image circles of Canon's latest TS/E lenses might be needed for a future Canon with a larger chip alike Leica's s2, who knows? I am pretty shure the EF mount allows for bigger sensors, seeing how small the Nikon F-mount is and they finally manage Full frame 35mm. pure speculation....
-
seeing how small the Nikon F-mount is and they finally manage Full frame 35mm.
Well that one makes sense at least, since it was a film mount.
I don't see Canon making a move into that field. It's a limited market with several well established players. But who knows. I've been wrong before (Just what is Leica thinking btw?).
-
I've just read Michael's review of the Harblei Cam. Thos huge Image circles of Canon's latest TS/E lenses might be needed for a future Canon with a larger chip alike Leica's s2, who knows? I am pretty shure the EF mount allows for bigger sensors, seeing how small the Nikon F-mount is and they finally manage Full frame 35mm. pure speculation....
You would need more than two tilt/shift lenses to successfully launch a new format, so I don't think this is likely at all.
Keep in mind the hartblei is a mirror-less design, not an SLR. If Canon were to design a MF DSLR they wouldn't be able to use the existing lens mount. And if they were going to design an EVIL MF camera they probably wouldn't want to use the existing lens mount, either since a shorter flange distance would allow for the design of better wide-angles.
So I think there's about zero percent chance of this happening.
-
I've just read Michael's review of the Harblei Cam. Thos huge Image circles of Canon's latest TS/E lenses might be needed for a future Canon with a larger chip alike Leica's s2, who knows? I am pretty shure the EF mount allows for bigger sensors, seeing how small the Nikon F-mount is and they finally manage Full frame 35mm. pure speculation....
1. Canon's lens mount is particularly ill-suited to use in a larger format SLR: the distance from flange to focal plane is less than in all other 35mm formats, leaving less room for a larger mirror. The Hartblei has no mirror of course ...
2. T/S lenses need oversized image circles to work, so this is no indication that the lens system as a whole is suited to a larger format. In fact, designing a lens system that way would be wasteful over-engineering.
3. The story about Nikon F-mont being too small for full frame was misguided nonsense from the beginning. For one thing, the first Nikon mount full frame was announced earlier than Canon mount full frame: the Kodak 14/n was announced the day before the Canon 1Ds!
4. The whole idea of Canon or Nikon diverting resources into the tiny and shrinking DMF market is a recurring and empty fantasy. C&N never bothered when MF was a far larger market in the film era, and are instead more profitably "drinking MF's milkshake" with high end 35mm gear.
-
And if they really did make a MF camera, would it be worth it. Lets remember one of the reasons 35 mm is not as expensive as MF is because more people then just pros buy these cameras allowing for a larger supply. I think a MF Canon would cancel out all of those hobbyists and amateurs as possible purchasers thus forcing Canon to have a much lower supply and charge a bigger price to make a profit.
-
I think Canon's strategy is simply to continually make 35 DSLRs that narrow the gap between and challenge the IQ of MF. Force these small companies to spent inordinate amounts on R&D to try and stay ahead until they fold. It reminds me of Reagan's strategy with the Soviet Union-push them technologically again and again and again until you bankrupt them and they collapse. Hopefully it will not work because the competition between high end DSLRs and MF helps us all.
-
You would need more than two tilt/shift lenses to successfully launch a new format, so I don't think this is likely at all.
Does Leica know this?
-
Maybe if Canon would put a damn level in some of their cameras, they would look much more attractive. I don't ask for much, nothing expensive, its not like levels are on the cutting edge of technology.
-
4. The whole idea of Canon or Nikon diverting resources into the tiny and shrinking DMF market is a recurring and empty fantasy. C&N never bothered when MF was a far larger market in the film era, and are instead more profitably "drinking MF's milkshake" with high end 35mm gear.
True, but the situation is very different now:
- from an economic standpoint, it is clear that the MF players still alive are not serving the market well with their elitist pricing,
- The future of these small operations is unclear and investing 60.000 US$ in those is a true act of faith,
- There are hundreds of thousands of photographers worldwide who think they need the MF look and would be interested in a more affordable solution that works,
- The prices of the lenses have doubled or tripled in 5 years,
- The prices of the DSLR are going down fast, and there is no way Canon and Nikon can hope to expand their revenue staying where they currently are, nobody is switching brand anymore...
So I am not saying this will happen, but the fact it didn't happen in the film days is IMHO no justification for this not happening now.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Maybe if Canon would put a damn level in some of their cameras, they would look much more attractive. I don't ask for much, nothing expensive, its not like levels are on the cutting edge of technology.
The one in the new 7D looks promising
-
True, but the situation is very different now:
- from an economic standpoint, it is clear that the MF players still alive are not serving the market well with their elitist pricing,
- The future of these small operations is unclear and investing 60.000 US$ in those is a true act of faith,
- There are hundreds of thousands of photographers worldwide who think they need the MF look and would be interested in a more affordable solution that works,
- The prices of the lenses have doubled or tripled in 5 years,
- The prices of the DSLR are going down fast, and there is no way Canon and Nikon can hope to expand their revenue staying where they currently are, nobody is switching brand anymore...
So I am not saying this will happen, but the fact it didn't happen in the film days is IMHO no justification for this not happening now.
Cheers,
Bernard
I sure do hope you're right. I think they could price it in a way that would bring more users into the MF fold.
-
True, but the situation is very different now:
- from an economic standpoint, it is clear that the MF players still alive are not serving the market well with their elitist pricing,
- The future of these small operations is unclear and investing 60.000 US$ in those is a true act of faith,
- There are hundreds of thousands of photographers worldwide who think they need the MF look and would be interested in a more affordable solution that works,
- The prices of the lenses have doubled or tripled in 5 years,
- The prices of the DSLR are going down fast, and there is no way Canon and Nikon can hope to expand their revenue staying where they currently are, nobody is switching brand anymore...
So I am not saying this will happen, but the fact it didn't happen in the film days is IMHO no justification for this not happening now.
Cheers,
Bernard
dSLR prices are going down? I bought a Canon 10D in May 2003 for ~$1199 USD. Today it's equivalent is a 7D which sells for ~$1499. The 1Ds was $7999; the 1Ds3 was $7999 when announced. The 1D has maintained its price point too. Lenses cost more today than they did 5-6 years ago. I think Canon has done a good job of containing price erosion. Yes, today's dollar buys more MP & larger LCDs, but the price point has not changed.
-
I agree with Bernard. Since digital this is not Kansas anymore, it's Pandora. On other hand let's remember that Nikon made a few MF optics and a complete line of superb large format glass. However, Canon is the best fighter in the arena to lessen the huge disparity in prices between formats that started with digital (imho).
Eduardo
-
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.
-
Yeh, Santas' Elf's are making them right now and should be out in time for Christmas..
Snook
-
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.
Listed as ONLY a rumor
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-2010-roadmap-cr1/ (http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-2010-roadmap-cr1/)
BC
-
You are not alone. I do miss too a more square format since using dslr's for just about everything. I miss it especially for portraits and interior photography. Canon could make a smashing hit if they come with a 4:5 proportion revolving sensor camera to used with current line of lenses. However, the problem would be the mirror box as usual. Perhaps it's due time for super fast, super resolution, super all EVF's?
Eduardo
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.
-
True, but the situation is very different now:
- from an economic standpoint, it is clear that the MF players still alive are not serving the market well with their elitist pricing,
- The future of these small operations is unclear and investing 60.000 US$ in those is a true act of faith,
- There are hundreds of thousands of photographers worldwide who think they need the MF look and would be interested in a more affordable solution that works,
- The prices of the lenses have doubled or tripled in 5 years,
- The prices of the DSLR are going down fast, and there is no way Canon and Nikon can hope to expand their revenue staying where they currently are, nobody is switching brand anymore...
So I am not saying this will happen, but the fact it didn't happen in the film days is IMHO no justification for this not happening now.
Cheers,
Bernard
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.
- 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.
But why do I bother: predictions of MF from Canon and Nikon have been popping up like weeds for years, and it is impossible to refute such a prediction until the word comes to an end! (Some people refuse to acknowledge that the teaser ads last year misinterpreted as being for a coming Nikon MF system were actually for the D3X!)
P.S. Nikon's making of some manual focus large format lenses has very little with the idea of developing a MF system; Nikon's discontinuation of those lenses early in the digital era is more indicative of the dominant trend away from the larger formats rather than towards them.
-
That's true I guess, but also an indicative of a missing sector for profit.
P.S. Nikon's making of some manual focus large format lenses has very little with the idea of developing a MF system; Nikon's discontinuation of those lenses early in the digital era is more indicative of the dominant trend away from the larger formats rather than towards them.
-
I've just read Michael's review of the Harblei Cam. Thos huge Image circles of Canon's latest TS/E lenses might be needed for a future Canon with a larger chip alike Leica's s2, who knows? I am pretty shure the EF mount allows for bigger sensors, seeing how small the Nikon F-mount is and they finally manage Full frame 35mm. pure speculation....
No way Canon is going to move that way when the future is probably more towards HD video/still cameras. That is where the demand is right now. As much as I want a MF (maybe an S2), for my fine art work, I don't think the future is very promising for MF camera makers. Canon is positioned very well to make a killer 35mm full frame HD video/still camera that uses EF lenses. I think that market is the only one that is desperate for new designs and solutions. Sadly, the next generation 1Ds will probably put the final nails in the MF coffin for 99.9% of the professional market.
I just read the rumor for a new canon square 35mm format - now that is an interesting thought that wouldn't require new optics as would a larger rectangular format. Sounds a bit crazy to make such a radical change to their flagship camera though. As any of us old enough to remember making a living with Hasselblad 500's the square image was almost always cropped to a rectangle so the usable area would be no better than the current 1Ds is now.
Sure makes for exciting times...
-
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/ (http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-2010-roadmap-cr1/)
BC
-
It amazes me how many people fail to understand basic geometry. You can't plug a 36x36mm sensor into a 24x36 camera system.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
-
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!
-
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 ()
_
-
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 (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
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 :-)
-
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).
-
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 (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Where Canon will get the highest ROI: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/collection/...ot_cameras.html (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/collection/1603/top_10_point_and_shoot_cameras.html)
Doug
-
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 (http://www.jonroemer.com) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
-
I wish they would offer 4:5 crop mode as in Nikon's D3 series
-
Where Canon will get the highest ROI: http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/collection/...ot_cameras.html (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/collection/1603/top_10_point_and_shoot_cameras.html)
Doug
i simply cant see the need for such high resolutions for any purposes except military or scientific.
we are not playing formel 1, but many companies and photographers think as it would be that way.
-
If anything, in recent years the gap in resolution has increased not decreased. ... 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.
There is a fairly simple pattern: from the original Canon 1Ds in 2003 to now, the minimum photosite size has been about the same in 35mm format and in the larger formats (the historic name "medium format" is so inaccurate these days!). It was 9 microns in 2003; moved to around 7 microns, and is now at 6 microns.
The percentage gap in pixel count has increased due to increases in the largest DMF sensor size, but that "huge advantage" is now very close to the wall of the 56x42mm format.
Aside: the Kodak linear CCDs uses in large format scanning backs have instead stayed at the same 9 microns for all that time, while Kodak has gone from 9 to 6.8 to 6 microns in the "array sensors" used in DMF. Does this indicate that 9 microns is more or less at the limit of the resolution of lenses covering 4x5 format? Or does it suggest that the resolution needs of most or all customers have been reached by having about 8000 pixels on the short dimension of the image? These are full three color pixels not Bayer CFA.
-
Aside: the Kodak linear CCDs uses in large format scanning backs have instead stayed at the same 9 microns for all that time, while Kodak has gone from 9 to 6.8 to 6 microns in the "array sensors" used in DMF. Does this indicate that 9 microns is more or less at the limit of the resolution of lenses covering 4x5 format? Or does it suggest that the resolution needs of most or all customers have been reached by having about 8000 pixels on the short dimension of the image? These are full three color pixels not Bayer CFA.
It suggests to me that linear CCDs aren't being developed as quickly because their primary application - film scanners - is disappearing in the marketplace.
-
I wish they would offer 4:5 crop mode as in Nikon's D3 series
Why? I would never want a camera to do any cropping for me.
I think the 7D pixel size is the answer for the future for the new 1Ds.
-
i simply cant see the need for such high resolutions for any purposes except military or scientific.
we are not playing formel 1, but many companies and photographers think as it would be that way.
Reasons for 100MP Canon and Nikon
1. Because they can
2. Clients are impressed = bigger is always better
When will it end:
They will probably reach a limit to optics at a reasonable price and will stop at that point, or video will replace still cameras for advertising work, where 4K capture , (10MP), seems to be the future newest standard for anything but high end special effects work.
Ray Kurzweil is one of my favorite writers and has taught me to think, no only out of, but way past the box.
-
Why? I would never want a camera to do any cropping for me.
Here's an experiment for you -- go buy a Hasselblad XPan. Go shoot with it for a week. Look thru that forced panoramic viewfinder, and at the end of the week, come back to me and look me in the eye and tell me that that forced proportion did not affect the way that you composed and shot.
If that doesn't do it, then go buy a 35mm Widelux and do the same thing.
The shape and size of the viewfinder is very important. Many people just feel very squeezed by the proportion of 24x36, especially in vertical orientation. Canon and Nikon approach this Aspect Ratio thing differently. Even though I'm a Canon owner, my money is that Nikon takes charge very soon and overtakes Canon. Like that old adage: "Canon designed by engineers; Nikon designed by photographers". My money is on Nikon.
-
I would like to shoot (not photographically) the person who came up with the phrase think outside the box.
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/12/09/thi...utside-the-box/ (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/12/09/thinking-outside-the-box/)
The rule of thumb on the creative side of ad agencies is that "Ye who utters an irony free 'think outside the box' is not to be trusted".
-
Why? I would never want a camera to do any cropping for me.
I for one tend to prefer the 5:4 ratio for verticals. 3:2 often feels too tall and skinny. Of course you can shoot with a 3:2 camera and just leave some extra space in the vertical dimension, but having a 5:4 viewfinder can be quite nice so that you can actually see the 5:4 composition and don't have to guess about where it will be cropped.
-
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.
you are not alone, we are at least two !
a 28x32 makes more sense, it will use the same IC as 24x36...
-
I would like to shoot (not photographically) the person who came up with the phrase think outside the box.
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/12/09/thi...utside-the-box/ (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/12/09/thinking-outside-the-box/)
http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/legend...-round/13738/P1 (http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/legendary-magazine-designer-george-loiss-last-round/13738/P1)
For reference
http://www.georgelois.com/esquire.html (http://www.georgelois.com/esquire.html)
-
maybe a canon mf camera with no mirror... only live view, could be a specialized camera for TSEII lenses !
-
I for one tend to prefer the 5:4 ratio for verticals. 3:2 often feels too tall and skinny. Of course you can shoot with a 3:2 camera and just leave some extra space in the vertical dimension, but having a 5:4 viewfinder can be quite nice so that you can actually see the 5:4 composition and don't have to guess about where it will be cropped.
Shooting with the embed aspect ratio information option on a 1Ds3 will enable crop lines in live view. I've been using the 6x6 lines to help with getting verticals straight in live view (so that I have more lines than just the default LV grid). It's not ideal but it helps a little bit.
-
http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/legend...-round/13738/P1 (http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/legendary-magazine-designer-george-loiss-last-round/13738/P1)
For reference
http://www.georgelois.com/esquire.html (http://www.georgelois.com/esquire.html)
Absolutely brilliant stuff.
Thanks!
-
When will it end:
They will probably reach a limit to optics at a reasonable price and will stop at that point, or video will replace still cameras for advertising work, where 4K capture , (10MP), seems to be the future newest standard for anything but high end special effects work.
The future is in virtual worlds. Those will have cameras too because the desire to ancher our lives in time is only a function of our mental dimension.
Cheers,
Bernard