Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Henrik Paul on April 04, 2007, 09:50:36 am
-
[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']I need to warn upfront that this article might be a bit harsh in some people's minds, and therefore I won't react to any critique concerning my opinions. Bear in mind that I am using Nikon also. Logics and reasoning, erroneous facts and grammatical errors are naturally something that I'd love to get pointed out.[/span]
After the last PMA2007, my fears about Nikon are only growing stronger and I thought to write down what I thought about Nikon.
"I'm a Nikonian. I currently photograph with a Nikon D200 and a handful of Nikkor lenses and no third party lenses. My first Nikon camera was the popular D70. The only reason I bought a Nikon instead of a Canon was that it incorporated true spot metering in-camera. Although the reasoning behind buying Nikon wasn't too strong at the time, once I began photographing with the body, I was very thankful that I chose Nikon over Canon. The D70 was like made from a mold of my hand - the ergonomics were perfect, and the construction and materials (considering it was mainly plastic) were superlative. I was convinced that Nikon was a company that understood the true needs of a photographer, and was less inclined to look pretty on paper. I was a proud Nikon owner, and quietly felt pity for those who bought Canons in their ignorance. I was a true Nikonian. I was a proud Nikonian.
Recently, I've been wondering about some choices Nikon has made. At first, I thought it was just odd marketing, but now, as those trends persist, I can't help but wonder."
The rest is available on my webpage (http://henrik.paul.fi/articles.php?a=12)
-
A lot of it is valid, but the full frame sensor had a variety of advantages including lower noise and larger pixel size giving a wider dynamic range.
-
Yes that's actually a good point that I somehow failed to think about. But I'd like to try to counter that on-the-run: The ratio between megapixels and sensor area seems not to vary all too much to make a significant difference.
Example: Canon 5D is full frame and 13.3mpix. That divided by 1.5, the crop factor of Nikon bodies, sums up to 8.9mpix, which isn't all too far away from either 6mpix and 10mpix. Canon 1D Mark III is 1.3 crop factor at 10.7mpix - that converted to a 1.5 crop sensor is 9.2mpix, again not too different from 10mpix. Sure, lower, but I'm not sure how much difference that makes in practice.
As a side note, I previously compared (http://henrik.paul.fi/articles.php?a=3) Nikon's D80 (10mpix) and D70 (6mpix) noise attributes, and came to the (subjective) conclusion, that the relative noise profiles on a denser (and newer-generation) sensor aren't necessarily noisier - when compared at same image dimensions, noise profiles aren't that distinct.
Edit: Oh, and yes, that dynamic range most probably holds true - sensors from the same generation but with different cell sizes, most probably the one with bigger pixels produces a better dynamic range.
-
Example: Canon 5D is full frame and 13.3mpix. That divided by 1.5, the crop factor of Nikon bodies, sums up to 8.9mpix, which isn't all too far away from either 6mpix and 10mpix. Canon 1D Mark III is 1.3 crop factor at 10.7mpix - that converted to a 1.5 crop sensor is 9.2mpix, again not too different from 10mpix. Sure, lower, but I'm not sure how much difference that makes in practice.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=110634\")
Worrying about pixel count is missing a major point of having a larger sensor.
Sensor size directly affects image appearence. This is why films made with 35mm look so different to those made on HD cameras. See page link for some movies showing the difference and it's a big differeence.
[a href=\"http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technology/pvr/7749.html]http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technology/pvr/7749.html[/url]
I have a crop sensor and a FF camera. I've never used the crop sensor since acquiring the FF and it's nothing to do with the quality. And then there's the lack of fast wideangles for crop sensor cameras.
So for those reasons, the crop factor of Nikons that you champion in your article , is precisely, why I would never buy them, as I cannot take many of my images with those limitations. I like wideangles and shallow depth of field, so Nikon's are of no use to me.
Oh and Nikons have poorer noise performance at high ISOs compared to Canon too. Bigger sensors help there as well.
-
I'm not sure if you understood my point.
The point I was trying to make in my article was for Nikon to market their DX-format as a format on its own, just as 35mm is a distinct format from, say, 645 medium format. Sure, there's differences in image attributes (primarily depth of field), but that's what you get. I wish Nikon to keep DX as a marketing point, and educate people that it's not as simple as "better" and "worse".
Would bigger always be better, why aren't we all photographing with medium format digital, or even scan back large format?
And yes, Nikon has lesser noise performance compared to Canon, but that's hardly any news to anybody?
-
And yes, Nikon has lesser noise performance compared to Canon, but that's hardly any news to anybody?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, an objective comparison of the latest offerings of Nikon and Canon in the consumer area (D40, D80, 400D, 30D...) shows that the gap between Nikon and Canon in terms of high iso noise is now very slim.
It is becoming more a matter of what type of noise you like/dislike.
The 5D/1DIII are currently best in class, but I do personnally expect the next generation high end Nikons to be in the same ball park at the 5D and 1dIII.
Then again, noise at high iso is just one variable among many others than enable successful images to be taken. Even today, the low light AF capability of Nikon bodies appears to be overall higher and I personnally prefer a sharp image with a bit more noise rather than a blurred one because the AF couldn't converge.
The truth is, most of us could optimze the use of our current gear in many different ways, and get much better results. The key is to look at our images in an objective way, identify where they lack most, and focus on improving that. I know that for me, the lack of performance of my cameras is far down the list.
Regards,
Bernard
-
The point I was trying to make in my article was for Nikon to market their DX-format as a format on its own, just as 35mm is a distinct format from, say, 645 medium format.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's problematic. The difference in format size between Nikon sensors and FF 35mm sensors is too small to warrant a distinct format with its own set of lenses and a compatibility break with older FF Nikkor lenses.
The Olympus 4/3rds format, less than 1/4 the area of FF 35mm, is a reasonable size difference.
-
My little contribution to this thread must be that Nikon shot itself in both feet a long time ago when it failed to keep up with Canon and introduce a RANGE of T/S lenses. I know more than one pro who has chosen Canon over Nikon for that reason and also because the failure to market FF would have made the use of such T/S lenses, had they existed, hardly worth the bother.
Having said that, I'm still using Nikon, but mainly because I still have a film body too as well as some primes and have little intention of investing in two small-format systems at the same time.
It probably didn't have to be so for Nikon, but I wonder if they didn't fall to their own hubris...
Ciao - Rob C
-
Worrying about pixel count is missing a major point of having a larger sensor.
Sensor size directly affects image appearence. This is why films made with 35mm look so different to those made on HD cameras. See page link for some movies showing the difference and it's a big differeence.
I have a crop sensor and a FF camera. I've never used the crop sensor since acquiring the FF and it's nothing to do with the quality. And then there's the lack of fast wideangles for crop sensor cameras.
So for those reasons, the crop factor of Nikons that you champion in your article , is precisely, why I would never buy them, as I cannot take many of my images with those limitations. I like wideangles and shallow depth of field, so Nikon's are of no use to me.
Oh and Nikons have poorer noise performance at high ISOs compared to Canon too. Bigger sensors help there as well.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=110660\")
jjj,
Your comparisons make some sense but are one sided and misleading.
I'm not so sure that your analogy with movie cameras is appropriate, since the ratios of the crop factors may be different. The Nikon crop factor (as compared to full frame 35 mm) is 1.5:1. What is it for the movie cameras you are comparing? I suspect the difference in depth of field is not so marked between the two still camera formats. Also, one can decrease the depth of field by opening up the lens with the cropped sensor. You decry the lack of fast wide angle lenses for the cropped sensor, but current Canon full frame sensor/lens combinations give suboptimal sharpness towards the edges of the image. There is a trade off here that you do not mention.
You seem to prefer a shallow depth of field, but in many situations increased depth of field is a desirable attribute rather than a liability, for example in landscape photography. You also ignore this fact.
The 1.5 crop factor can be an advantage for telephoto work. Large aperture telephoto lenses are quite expensive and bulky. With the cropped sensor one can save on cost and bulk, and this may compensate for the issues with wide angle; again, you do not mention this.
The larger pixel size of full frame does give a higher signal to noise ratio, especially at high ISO, but at base ISOs noise is not a problem with the Nikon even at large picture sizes. Dynamic range correlates only loosely with pixel size at base ISO, but becomes more of an issue at high ISO (see [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/]Roger Clark's[/url] figures 4 and 5 in the link.
While I agree that Nikon has to come with a full frame sensor for those who need it, the cropped sensor works quite well for many applications and is cost effective for many of us. Thus far, full frame is a niche even for Canon.
Bill
-
Bill - it's a little dishonest to advocate crop factors on under FF bodies as being an advantage with longer focal lengths: these are tricks of cropping what's available from a primary image circle and are simply mechanical results of that. They do not create longer focal lengths - these remain the same - only a reduced part of what the lens is rendering possible can be used and unlike comparing focal lengths on the SAME format there is no sensible comparison that can be made using smaller than FF formats with FF. The only logical way to look at formats is as totally independent entities; to mix them up together and try formulating comparisons is meaningless and can only lead to confusion and misunderstanding.
When using 35mm film bodies and also 6x6 and 6x7 one seldom found need to compare them in the way that digital formats get compared. Each was understood from experience and its best features used because they existed. This was probably because such working came from long-established practice; with the newness (comparatively) of digital such confidence is lacking. But it will come.
Ciao - Rob C
-
When using 35mm film bodies and also 6x6 and 6x7 one seldom found need to compare them in the way that digital formats get compared. Each was understood from experience and its best features used because they existed. This was probably because such working came from long-established practice; with the newness (comparatively) of digital such confidence is lacking. But it will come.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob,
The reason for this is that effectively, with digital cameras, we have a situation where larger format film cameras can't take fine grained film. If this had been the situation in the old days of film, there would have been much more concern and scrutiny comparing fast but coarse grained film on 6x4.5cm format, for example, with fine grained film on 35mm format.
People like BJL would be making the point (and a valid point too) that the speed advantage of the lower resolution, high speed film is at least partially offset by the need to use bigger f stops with the larger format to get equivalent DoF, and the resolution advantage of the slower, fine-grained film in smaller formats is partially offset by the bigger size of the larger format which can accommodate a greater number of grains in total even though the individual grains are bigger.
As digital sensor technology progresses to the point where pixel density can be more or less equal whatever the format, then comparisons will be as clear cut as they were in those ancients days of film.
-
"My little contribution to this thread must be that Nikon shot itself in both feet a long time ago when it failed to keep up with Canon and introduce a RANGE of T/S lenses. I know more than one pro who has chosen Canon over Nikon for that reason........"
If you add to that superior long exposure noise reduction, you describe why virtually every professional architectural photographer I know (which because of my teaching and lecturing all over the country is quite a few) when buying a DSLR buy Canon.
-
Bill - it's a little dishonest to advocate crop factors on under FF bodies as being an advantage with longer focal lengths: these are tricks of cropping what's available from a primary image circle and are simply mechanical results of that. They do not create longer focal lengths - these remain the same - only a reduced part of what the lens is rendering possible can be used and unlike comparing focal lengths on the SAME format there is no sensible comparison that can be made using smaller than FF formats with FF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think there is anything dishonest about my post, but your reply is confused. Of course you can always crop the image with a full frame camera to get the same field of view that you would get with the smaller sensor, but the results could be disappointing since the full frame sensor may not have sufficient pixel density to capture the detail. For a concrete example, the Canon 5D has a Nyquist frequency of 61 lp/mm, whereas the Nikon D2x gives 91 lp/mm. If you have a 300 mm lenses of equal quality, you will get better results from the D2X than a cropped area of the 5D. If you used a 500 mm lens on the Canon and utilized the full frame, the results might be different.
With film cameras, the sensor (film) was similar in all cameras, but this is not the case with digital. Of course, 35 mm photographers did not have the luxury of using non-fine grain film, but users of larger formats could use fine grain film also and get improved results. It all depends on whether the system is limited by the sensor or the lens.
You conveniently failed to respond to my other criticisms.
Bill
-
"My little contribution to this thread must be that Nikon shot itself in both feet a long time ago when it failed to keep up with Canon and introduce a RANGE of T/S lenses. I know more than one pro who has chosen Canon over Nikon for that reason........"
If you add to that superior long exposure noise reduction, you describe why virtually every professional architectural photographer I know (which because of my teaching and lecturing all over the country is quite a few) when buying a DSLR buy Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd love the topic to remain on the topics described in the article, and not in tooting one's own horn or trying to figure out which camera is the best.
-
If you add to that superior long exposure noise reduction, you describe why virtually every professional architectural photographer I know (which because of my teaching and lecturing all over the country is quite a few) when buying a DSLR buy Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am with you on the lack of T/S lenses, but have personnally never found the D2x to be lacking in terms of long exposures. I have made 3 minutes exposures using very dense ND filters that are perfectly clean.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I don't think there is anything dishonest about my post, but your reply is confused. Of course you can always crop the image with a full frame camera to get the same field of view that you would get with the smaller sensor, but the results could be disappointing since the full frame sensor may not have sufficient pixel density to capture the detail. For a concrete example, the Canon 5D has a Nyquist frequency of 61 lp/mm, whereas the Nikon D2x gives 91 lp/mm. If you have a 300 mm lenses of equal quality, you will get better results from the D2X than a cropped area of the 5D. If you used a 500 mm lens on the Canon and utilized the full frame, the results might be different.
With film cameras, the sensor (film) was similar in all cameras, but this is not the case with digital. Of course, 35 mm photographers did not have the luxury of using non-fine grain film, but users of larger formats could use fine grain film also and get improved results. It all depends on whether the system is limited by the sensor or the lens.
You conveniently failed to respond to my other criticisms.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"You conveniently failed to respond to my other criticisms."
Well, Bill, I didn't particularly find a great deal to say about them in reply; the only bit which interested me was that oft touted notion about longer lenses on cropped sensor sizes - that's all there was to it, really; to compound the point further would be little more than repetition of so many other similar posts and I respect the reader's time...
Ciao - Rob C
-
Rob,
The reason for this is that effectively, with digital cameras, we have a situation where larger format film cameras can't take fine grained film. If this had been the situation in the old days of film, there would have been much more concern and scrutiny comparing fast but coarse grained film on 6x4.5cm format, for example, with fine grained film on 35mm format.
People like BJL would be making the point (and a valid point too) that the speed advantage of the lower resolution, high speed film is at least partially offset by the need to use bigger f stops with the larger format to get equivalent DoF, and the resolution advantage of the slower, fine-grained film in smaller formats is partially offset by the bigger size of the larger format which can accommodate a greater number of grains in total even though the individual grains are bigger.
As digital sensor technology progresses to the point where pixel density can be more or less equal whatever the format, then comparisons will be as clear cut as they were in those ancients days of film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray
I think you have made quite valid observations there - the only thing I'll say in my own defence is that when saying that one got used to the different film formats and knew what they offered, I was, naturally, speaking from a totally subjective point of view. For example, I used my Hass system for one b/w film only: TXP120; the colour stuff was Ektachrome. On 35mm I almost always used Ilford's FP3 and later FP4; colour was exclusively Kodachrome for people and Velvia for the other subjects (few) that came my way.
This was because I always used D76 1+1 for b/w; as a busy photographer always in a client-imposed rush it was great to have a single GP dev which only needed different times for different films and worked very well with them. On the colour, Ektachrome was shot on the Hass because of the same hurry need and the labs only did E6; Ektachrome, in my view, was far less good on people than Kodachrome and also, very importantly for me, Kodachrome travelled very well indeed and, as such, was great for non-studio work.
So, there it is - the cameras and formats were decided by needs and available films, illustrating too your point about sensor sizes and speed in the digital option.
I have no wish to hurt anyone's feelings and by responding to only one point in Bill's post no offence was intended.
Ciao - Rob C
-
I'd love the topic to remain on the topics described in the article, and not in tooting one's own horn or trying to figure out which camera is the best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Henrik -
What more can one add, strictly speaking, to that which you have already put into your article on your own site? It's all your personal take on the situation, and as such, is no more or less valid than anyone else's, short of My Nikon himself speaking to us from above. (Careful, Howie..(wink, wink!))
Any thread has to spread its wings a little or it will just die, the thing ending in two posts.
Much of what has followed in this thread has been quite interesting to me and for that, I thank you for starting it off; what more you can expect, strictly on-thread, I don't know - perhaps you might write it yourself for our edification?
Ciao - Rob C
-
What more can one add, strictly speaking, to that which you have already put into your article on your own site? It's all your personal take on the situation, and as such, is no more or less valid than anyone else's, short of My Nikon himself speaking to us from above. (Careful, Howie..(wink, wink!))
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When writing this, I was very careful not to compare Nikon to anything, because I know how things are between the Nikon and Canon camps - if someone says something bad about one, there's a throng of people giving "friendly reminders" about the other.
Therefore, I would very much want this not to turn into "Nikon stinks, Canon rules" kind of discussion. Thus far, I think the discussion has been quite good and constructive (and actually more elaborate than I thought in the beginning), but when someone comes in and glorifies how he has made good in spreading the name of Canon I thought that this could lead in a Nikon-Canon flamewar, of which I'm up to here from every other camera-related forum...
So, answering your question - there's lots to add. I just wish that opinions are backed up with reasons to why one thinks like he/she does. Kirk's input seemed volatile.
-
Henrik, in your thought provoking article you challenged Nikon's strategy, production and specifically the logic and performance of the D40/x. You make some good points. I'm not so pessimistic so I've offered my thoughts.
D40/x
Regarding the D40/x I strongly disagree with your conclusion and I can only assume that you don't have one or have not spent any meaningful time with one. My wife sold her D50 for a D40x and on a recent 2 week vacation I had the opportunity to use it alongside a D2Xs and D200. I'd urge you to spend some time with one and look at the images it can produce. An A3 print on our Epson 3800 is virtually indistinguishable from the D200 when using the same lens (17-55mm DX 2.8)
You stated that the D40/x was crippled and in one of your earlier paragraphs that the D50 is more advanced. I disagree with both points. The core features are almost identical. The only 'down' grade is the number of AF sensors. Having moved from the D70 to D200 you'll appreciate why that's not always a bad thing. Is the D50 cheeper, almost certainly, older models are be heavily discounted to reduce stock levels.
Here are some of my observations:
- The buttons and switches are more robust/positive than those on the D50 making them less prone to accidental activation as they could be on the D50.
- Physically smaller, yes, but no less comfortable to hold. Like all Nikon SLR's since the F5 the ergonomics are just about perfect. It's feels very comfortable in the hand and more importantly stable. I can't disagree more strongly when you suggest that the D40 will induce poorer handling. With proper technique it doesn't.
- The brighter and larger viewfinder are significant improvements over the D50/70 viewfinder in use.
- Addition of the FUNC button is also a nice touch.
- Dynamic area AF is faster when choosing the closest subject. On the negative side I do find the need to recompose more often than on the D50 when using Single Point AF.
- The display is significantly better when checking for sharpness. This is due to increased pixel count and larger size. It also works better in bright light.
- I prefer a status LCD, It's what i've grown used to. The ststus display on the D40/x however is very functional and not something the target auidience is likely to miss. It doesn't make it any harder to capture the image.
- Support for older non motor driven Nikkors is a complete non issue for this camera. If a customer expressed an interest in using older lenses, primes or otherwise then as Nikon recommends they should be guided towards a D80.
Strategy
It's my opinion that Nikon is ill equipped to compete with the likes of Canon, Casio, Sony and Panasonic etc at the low end of the market. These products have short lifecycles, low sales prices and margins are fashion led and marketing intensive. Nikons industrial engineering led history and product design approach are not suited to these objectives/characterisitcs. Throw in increaced competition from camera phones which are slowly offering more megapixels and features and it's easy to see why Nikon may be better off leaving the digicam segments to someone else. Focusing on the more profitable DSLR market makes sense. Having a genuine entry level product makes sense.
A compact and powerful DSLR like the D40/x is just the sort of camera to appeal to digicam user wanting to 'upgrade' for a reasonable/low price. Recent lens launched also support the strategy. The excellent 18-135mm Nikkor kit lens and 70-300VR Nikkor are just the kind of lenses that will appeal to this kind of customer, and they are available! The target audience for this camera probably doesn't know what a prime lense is and most likley doesn't care preferring a more versatile zoom lens instead.
At the high end Nikon will do what it always does. Quietly develop new products which offer long life-cycles, quality, innovation and durability. Clearly there is a head of steam building behind a possible FF Nikon DSLR. Great I hope it happens, more choice is always nice. Will it be better than Canon's offering? just like today in some aspects yes and in others no. As is the case today some users will switch systems for professional and personal reasons. Core customers will upgrade as and when. The reality is these systems sell themselves.
Production
Here you have a couple of good points. In the last 5 years Nikon have announced too many important products only to end up back ordering them for months and in one or two cases, years.
Nikon's been growing DSLR market share globally despite increased competition. For this growth to be sustainable, particularly in the more consumer orientated segments they need to get a lot better at planning demand and the required production capacity.
Nikon vs. Canon
I'm not going to enter the debate about which company is ahead on the technological development curve. I'm more interested in the image than the back used to capture it. Infact the last camera bought is a Canon G7.
What I will say - as you addressed this - is like you I hope and I'm sure Nikon will continue to develop the DX format in terms of both sensors and more importantly lenses. To Nikon's credit they have been willing to produce professional grade lenses e.g 17-15mm in the DX format, I hope for more particularly with VR. Canon still don't offer an L series EF-S lens.
I'm also sure that in time a Nikon FF sensor DSLR will surface. Until then most people will continue as they always did using what they have to make the best images they can. Internet ecosystems like this one do not represent the full photographic constituency. It's my experience of busy pro shooters that they get on with shooting, whatever the equipment. Most are not glued to the www wishing for or discussing the next development from XYZ camera company.
-
One interesting consideration is that NOBODY has introduced a high-end DSLR lately. The last ones with any real innovation were the Nikon D200 and Canon 5D (almost simultaneous in late 2005). Both are wonderful cameras, but one would assume that, in a technology-driven market, someone would have updated something since then (if not those bodies, which are due, but not overdue, for an upgrade. then one of the older pro models - Nikon still has the D2hs in their line, which is pretty much a 2003 model). Canon's flagship 1Ds mk II is a 2004 model, and the 1D mk III looks like a pretty darned incremental upgrade to me, at least as far as image quality is concerned. The 2004 model D2x is also looking ready for an upgrade, not to mention that Canon still has a 2004 model with a mild facelift (30D, which is really a 20D) in the midrange.
These companies are smart, and they have a lot of folks designing cameras, so the fact that the only 2006 or 2007 pro DSLR so far is a 10 MP Canon that mainly fixes user interface annoyances got me thinking... All these 22 MP and higher ubercameras rumored for years, yet none appearing... Have we hit a fairly fundamental limit? Will adding pixels now either out-resolve our lenses or inevitably add noise and subtract dynamic range? It seems like pixel pitches have settled down in the range of 6 to 9 microns (with the D2x pushing a little bit, to 5.5), and this is not only true of 35mm type cameras, but the MF backs as well. The first 6 micron cameras showed up in 2004, and resolution hasn't gone up since then - one would think that, if a 4 micron camera actually took better pictures, we'd have seen one by now (and a high-res D3x would have to be, if it wasn't full frame). The chip can certainly be built - 4 microns is still huge by the standards of feature sizes found on other types of chips. A 6 micron full frame camera is a 23 megapixel body, but that may be the limit of where we can go with today's Bayer sensors.
It is also interesting that Canon hasn't introduced a 23 mp camera when they have BOTH 6 micron sensors and full-frame sensors - just not a 6 micron, full-frame sensor, but that should be easy if they have both parts. The fact that Canon didn't upgrade the 1Ds at PMA makes me think there's some technical hurdle, whether they don't feel that the 6 micron sensor (which would be a full-frame version of the Rebel XTi sensor pitch) offers professional image quality or it's just too much of a challenge for the lenses.
The wild card here may be whether something other than a standard Bayer sensor can offer better quality, assuming that we've run out of room on Bayer sensors (yes, digicams use 2 micron sensors, but they're plagued with noise and dynamic range issues, plus their lenses don't need much coverage). Fuji's SuperCCD and some variant on the Foveon sensor seem like possibilities...
-Dan
-
Isn't it that both Canon and Nikon have been focussing their resources on the market segments where the real money is, meaning low and mid range DSLRs?
Considering the investements needed for high end, and the very low sales volumes, I don't believe that Canon and Nikon make so much money on their 1ds2 and D2x.
Besides they know their current top cameras are already good enough for most jobs and are very expensive devices by traditional photography standards.
My guess is that they are not willing to release new products that are not appealing enough to trigger a massive upgrade. Let's be realistic, the folks here at LL who buy anyting new because it is new are a tiny minority.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Canon's flagship 1Ds mk II is a 2004 model, and the 1D mk III looks like a pretty darned incremental upgrade to me, at least as far as image quality is concerned. The 2004 model D2x is also looking ready for an upgrade, not to mention that Canon still has a 2004 model with a mild facelift (30D, which is really a 20D) in the midrange.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Many of Canon's upgrades are incremental. A doubling of pixel count from the D30 to the D60 was a major improvement, but the next upgrade from the D60 to the 10D was incremental, the chief advance being lower noise at high ISO's. The next upgrade from the 10D to the 20D was major, resulting in both an increase in pixel count and even lower noise. That was followed by a very small incremental upgrade in the form of the 30D.
There seems to be a pattern of alternating major and minor upgrades. Perhaps we're due for a major upgrade to the 30D towards the end of this year and a minor upgrade to the 1Ds2 and 5D.
I think what is constraining Canon is its policy (I presume) of not going backwards in one area of specification as a direct consequence of an advance in another area. There's no point in increasing pixel density, for example, if the result on whatever size print you care to nominate is more noise or less dynamic range. In both the 1D3 and 400D, increased pixel count has been acheived without reducing the size of the microlenses (and possibly the photodiodes). Instead, Canon has reduced the gap between the microlenses and reduced the size of the on-chip processors.
I imagine such improvements will become increasingly more difficult. At some point there'll have to be a major breakthrough or innovation.
-
I agree completely with Ray, but I think we have ALREADY reached the point where any real improvement has become very difficult. Companies like Canon and Nikon (especially in high-end SLRs) don't want to release cameras that are improved in one way (pixel count), but suffer in others (noise or DR) for it. It may be that all the high pixel-count prototypes floating around are actually not up to standards from an image quality standpoint (plenty of reports of "I've seen the prototype of the 22 mp pro Canon", but no reports of of "I've seen a spectacular .CR2 file from said prototype and put my Phase One back on eBay"). The tradeoff of specifications for quality is happening in consumer digicams right now, where most of the 10 mp models actually have worse image quality than the preceding 7 mp generation. I wonder if someone like Sony, more marketing driven than Canon or Nikon, will release a 22 mp SLR with extremely dense pixels and compromised image quality, selling millions?
-Dan
-
If they have reached the limit, then it would be nice if they brought the cheaper models closer to that limit.
-
If they have reached the limit, then it would be nice if they brought the cheaper models closer to that limit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111882\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, Nikon is clearly moving towards that, they now have 3 cameras sharing the same sensor with a price ranging in Japan from 65.000 (D40x) to 180.000 Yen (D200).
Their vision is clearly that once we go beyond the initial phase during which sensors are still improving significantly, the main difference between top range and low end will be in the body's physical features. Basically, the film days paradigm.
It makes a lot of sense to me, they are trying to move the game back to the arena where they have always been one of the best, and can save a lot of money in design and purchasing since they buy huge volumes of a given sensor from Sony.
For marketing reasons, they have been careful to introduce new sensors in the top model first, meaning that you pay more to have access to the latest technology a bit faster, but in the end it is also made available in the lower end.
As a customer, I like this approach since I feel a healthy relationship between cost and price, and it also gived me access to great image quality at a fraction of the price.
Canon does things differently at 2 levels:
1. They use different sensors in all their bodies. Not only size, but also pixel counts,...
2. They design and manufacture in-house.
I wonder how long they'll be able to keep competing in price/value with this model. Today, they have less than 40% of DSLR market share with 4 different sensor types, all the rest being basically Sony sensors or 2 types only. I wonder if there is any truth to the supposed advantage of doing everything in-house anymore. There is at least clearly a point beyond which buying from Sony for the low end will become a better solution.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I agree Bernard. I think what you are describing is the digicam market 10-2 years ago. As I understand it sensor development is almost universally outsourced today. I'm sure we will see more and more of this in the DSLR segments.
Nikon would appear to be one or two steps ahead of the curve in this area. By chance or strategy I don't know.
More specifically I think the Nikon/Sony model/approach to the D200 will become more common in the semi-pro and pro segments. Sony developed the sensor, but Nikon developed the 4 channel DAC to get the data off the sensor, clean it up and deposit in to the buffer.
This strategy will help bring pro features and technology to a broader market.
-
I agree Bernard. I think what you are describing is the digicam market 10-2 years ago. As I understand it sensor development is almost universally outsourced today. I'm sure we will see more and more of this in the DSLR segments.
Nikon would appear to be one or two steps ahead of the curve in this area. By chance or strategy I don't know.
More specifically I think the Nikon/Sony model/approach to the D200 will become more common in the semi-pro and pro segments. Sony developed the sensor, but Nikon developed the 4 channel DAC to get the data off the sensor, clean it up and deposit in to the buffer.
This strategy will help bring pro features and technology to a broader market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's at least one major flaw in this strategy. Nikon and Sony are competitors. Even apart from this difficulty, there's a lot to be said for having complete control over the design and fabrication of a product at each stage of its development. Fine art photographers who farm out the printing of their images to a third party probably realise this and they are not even competitors.
It seems to me there's a fundamental difference between being 'given' a particular sensor design, then having to make the best of it with add-on functions, and being able to change the design at will to facilitate the best integration with other in-camera processes which are being developed within the same company.
Of course, one might presume there's a lot of discussion taking place between Nikon and Sony regarding sensor design, but full co-operation would seem to be unlikely between competitors who are marketing similar products.
-
There's at least one major flaw in this strategy. Nikon and Sony are competitors. Even apart from this difficulty, there's a lot to be said for having complete control over the design and fabrication of a product at each stage of its development.
It seems to me there's a fundamental difference between being 'given' a particular sensor design, then having to make the best of it with add-on functions, and being able to change the design at will to facilitate the best integration with other in-camera processes which are being developed within the same company.
Of course, one might presume there's a lot of discussion taking place between Nikon and Sony regarding sensor design, but full co-operation would seem to be unlikely between competitors who are marketing similar products.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
Constructing your own semiconductor FAB is a huge expense and might not be practical for Nikon, which is a smaller and less diversified company than Canon. Sony's semiconductor department is probably separate from the camera section and the former might not want to give up a huge customer (Nikon) for the benefit of the camera section, which may keep separate books. Sony's SRL cameras are not currently high volume products. Nonetheless, if I were Nikon management, I would be worried about depending on a competitor for sensors.
Dalsa and Kodak are major players in the medium format sensor market, and perhaps Nikon could hook up with one of them for future development, but Nikon still would most likely not have exclusive access to the sensor. Another possibility for Nikon would be to design their own chip and have it fabricated by a FAB (possibly FillFactory (now part of Cypress).
All in all, Canon seems to be playing with a better deck of cards.
Bill
-
There's at least one major flaw in this strategy. Nikon and Sony are competitors. Even apart from this difficulty, there's a lot to be said for having complete control over the design and fabrication of a product at each stage of its development. Fine art photographers who farm out the printing of their images to a third party probably realise this and they are not even competitors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have read this many times, but do honnestly not find this to be an issue at all. The sensor business of sony is an order of magnitude more important for them than their camera business, and it is very clear that to keep this business afloat Sony has to show to those companies that are at the same time customers and competitors that they remain a credible provider.
As far as sub-contracting is concerned, I am sure that you are aware that major sectors of our economy are based on this - the automotive world for instance - and it is not a problem at all. Very complex sub-assemblies of cars - dashboards for instance - are nowadays always sub-contracted. This is made to work - among other things - thanks to the presence on site at the OEM of several guest engineers coming from the suppliers. I am sure that you'd be less concerned to trust your printing to someone else if that guy came to your place to listen to your needs.
It seems to me there's a fundamental difference between being 'given' a particular sensor design, then having to make the best of it with add-on functions, and being able to change the design at will to facilitate the best integration with other in-camera processes which are being developed within the same company.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Relevant for the high end, not anymore for the low end now that the quality level is already clearly beyond the needs of 90% of mass market customers. Besides, large volumes will enable more investement in research.
Of course, one might presume there's a lot of discussion taking place between Nikon and Sony regarding sensor design, but full co-operation would seem to be unlikely between competitors who are marketing similar products.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
See above.
What you appear to be missing here is that sensors in the low end have basically stopped to be the most important component of the camera from which differentiation occurs. What drives the sales of low end DSLR is the brightness of the viewfinder, how well the body feels in your hand,...
We are in the very same situation as for compact digital cameras. You'll notice that Canon already uses Sony sensors in the segment. There is no fundamental difference between compact and DSLR. Until now, the higher price of DSLR enabled a company like Canon to spend time in R&D on a per camera basis, but it should be clear looking at the last 2 years that Canon has already greatly reduced their sensor investement, probably because they just cannot afford to develop a new sensor for each body while satying competitive.
Regards,
Bernard
-
What you appear to be missing here is that sensors in the low end have basically stopped to be the most important component of the camera from which differentiation occurs. What drives the sales of low end DSLR is the brightness of the viewfinder, how well the body feels in your hand,...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not for me, Bernard. Fundamental and real improvements in performance come first. Low noise, high ISO and high pixel count are the features that are going to persuade me to buy another camera. Additional brightness of viewfinder, a nice feel in the hand and other bells and whistles will not persuade me to part with another $5,000 or so.
Ultimately, I want a 35mm format camera that is better than the P45. That is, equal resolution (with improved 35mm lenses), lower noise at high ISOs (which
Canon already have) and of course greater DoF at the same f stops, plus the usual advantages of the lighter camera.
Also bear in mind that the difference in sensor size between the P45 and FF 35mm is less than the difference in size between Nikon DSLR sensors and FF 35mm.
Those who are trying to put up an argument in favour of the smaller Nikon sensor being able to equal the quality of a Canon FF 35mm sensor should be able to appreciate how realistic the goal would be to eventually produce a 35mm camera capable of similar image quality and resolution to the current P45. Of course, by the time that happens, digital medium format will also have improved, so there'll probably be no catching up.
-
Not for me, Bernard. Fundamental and real improvements in performance come first. Low noise, high ISO and high pixel count are the features that are going to persuade me to buy another camera. Additional brightness of viewfinder, a nice feel in the hand and other bells and whistles will not persuade me to part with another $5,000 or so.
Those who are trying to put up an argument in favour of the smaller Nikon sensor being able to equal the quality of a Canon FF 35mm sensor should be able to appreciate how realistic the goal would be to eventually produce a 35mm camera capable of similar image quality and resolution to the current P45. Of course, by the time that happens, digital medium format will also have improved, so there'll probably be no catching up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112770\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I might not have been clear. You are not the target for Canon's low-mid range DSLRs obviously.
I don't believe that Canon will adopt Sony sensors accross all of their models.
They'll move to standard stuff on the low end, and stick to their own on the high end.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I might not have been clear. You are not the target for Canon's low-mid range DSLRs obviously.
I don't believe that Canon will adopt Sony sensors accross all of their models.
They'll move to standard stuff on the low end, and stick to their own on the high end.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112776\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
I agree. You weren't clear . There are no Canon DSLRs at which I would turn up my nose. Their cheapest, the 400D is a marvel of quality for the price. A camera that can literally do things that not even their flagship model, the 1Ds2 can do, because it has the highest pixel density of all Canon DSLRs, yet retains that superb low noise characteristic which is a trademark of all current Canon DSLRs.
I don't need to point out that a full frame sensor with the pixel density of the 400D would be around 26mp and that the next step up from a 10mp cropped format, with a still reasonable pixel pitch of 5 microns, would be 13mp which translates to 34.5mp on a FF sensor.
The only reason I haven't bought a 400D is because I already have a 20D.