canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: jakeymate on June 29, 2011, 07:17:20 PM

Title: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: jakeymate on June 29, 2011, 07:17:20 PM
Too many muppets who don't have the first clue.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: hlphoto on June 29, 2011, 07:55:12 PM
You forgot to add "Japan - the home of Canon - got struck by the power of nature and is dangerous nucleair territory in one part & out of power in another" in your line-up of world events.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: AG on June 29, 2011, 08:56:22 PM
You forgot to add "Japan - the home of Canon - got struck by the power of nature and is dangerous nucleair territory in one part & out of power in another" in your line-up of world events.

I think you missed the OP's point.

OP: i Agree with you about 80%.

The 20% that i don't agree with is the part about we are willing to buy a new camera every 2 years. I feel that in all seriousness most DSLR users will hold onto a camera for a few years (say 3-4) and then upgrade.
BUT in that time they also want to see significant improvement and not just a minor refresh when they do come to making the upgrade.

Current 5D2 shooters will want something that either radically changes the way the camera works or has a feature that revolutionises the way they use the it and not just a few more MP etc. Otherwise the bitching you will hear will be so loud the recent Final Cut Pro X debacle will seem like nothing.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: gene_can_sing on June 29, 2011, 09:16:35 PM
I wonder about that too. The crazy thing is the 5D2 is just a derivative of the last 1D which was 4 years ago, so yeah.... it's been a really long time. I'm seriously wondering if Canon plans on releasing anything at all this year, or even next year since they're moving so slow now. 5D3 in 2014.

As for the earthquake excuse, I'm not buying that one. Sony just released some insane video cameras and are continuing to put out stuff, so there's no reason Canon shouldn't.

I honestly think that Canon, like Apple, has began to / or already abandon the Pro market. Which really sucks for me because I have too many Canon lenses. There's a lot more money in selling cameras to Mom and Dad, then the camera nerds. The only camera in Canon's line that gets a regular update is the Rebel, and that is not exciting in the least.

And yes, I got the Canon DSLRs for the video which was amazing at the time, and it's really aged at this point.

As a company, Canon makes me sad...... :(
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: hlphoto on June 29, 2011, 09:54:03 PM
Sarcastic bugger? Give me a better reason why there isn't a single 5D Mk2 in stores in all kinds of places all over the planet & all these new lenses are so hard to find. Everything is being delayed, delayed, delayed, prices are going up, up, up and all decent rumours sources have gone silent.

As far as I'm concerned one thing has really happened in DSLR land and that's the announcement of the Sigma SD1.

Furthermore, I do think the 5D series of cams was actually on a three year refresh schedule, but things got messed up due to the earthquake. Actually, also the 1D and 1Ds were on a three-year schedule so the only thing already late as we speak is the 1Ds Mk4.

Do note though, Canon can still make it to keep to a close-to-exact three year schedule simply by releasing a Mk3 before Q4-2011.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Canon_DSLR_cameras

PS: Just wondering, did you take your 2-year trade-up scheme from buying lower-specced cams? >> Canon has always refreshed the xxxD series (Rebels in America, I believe?) within the year. The xxD series are on an 18 month sched.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: Haydn1971 on June 30, 2011, 12:57:48 AM
All product cycles are driven by market competition, at the moment, regardless of attempts by Sony, there are two key players, who are really pushing the game to any degree, because they don't make big money from high end products. 

I read yesterday that industry analysts are suggesting that Apple is considering a range of two, perhaps three phones to increase it's market share, as currently their product only really sells via contracts which represent something like 25% of the world market, so the suggested plan is to sell a cut back version that looks the same, but uses tech from a few years back, probably the 3GS tech in a 4 case.  What struck me was how big that market was - 5.7Bn people !  Now if the digital camera market is lets guess, just a tenth of that, that's a bloody lot of cameras being sold, so making an extra £10 per point and shoot becomes much more critical than making a high end camera that they can sell for £500 more than an existing product.

Essentially, until such time that the high end DSLR market is offering little benefit over the ranges below, there is little real business sense in moving forward - I suspect there is good reason the whole current crop range is just 18mp, as it's a good step below the high end full frame products, so once the big step comes, which I expect to be a real step up of at least 25-50% performance gain in a key area - most likely pixel count, expect a rush of step upgrades to the crop bodies, each one being 5-10% each cycle.

Canon and Nikon will have the tech now, but are playing a game of Mexican standoff until one breaks due to a drop in sales of their entry level products.  Nikon currently has a tad more headroom, so I expect Canon to jump first, closely followed by a slightly better spec Nikon product.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: DEngle on June 30, 2011, 01:48:35 AM
I don't know squat.  But my guess is that, in response to the competition, canon scrapped one or two products late in the design process and started over.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: aldvan on June 30, 2011, 02:14:10 AM
I'll try on the optimistic side: should the Mankind be getting wiser?
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: bycostello on June 30, 2011, 03:48:09 AM
same as any developed market.. camera development is slowing down, there isn't much more you need on there.... 
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: Hillsilly on June 30, 2011, 04:58:27 AM
Very interesting question.  The last decade has been very exciting, with so many improvements and developments in digital photograpy.   But, over time, the changes have become evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.  I suspect that we'll have to get use to 3 - 4 year gaps between new models.  And in some point in the near future, sensor development will play a minor role in new model releases.  The new features and improvments are more likely to involve new processors, connections (eg whatever replaces HDMI, bluetooth and WIFI) and autofocus improvments, rather than sensor upgrades. 

Have Canon already stopped Full Frame sensor development?  Probably not.  But how much better can sensors become?  And how much of Canon's resources are going to be allocated to FF R & D going forward?

The other big question - If the 5Diii is everything that everyone hopes, how much better would a 5Div need to be to encourage people to upgrade?  A lot of people out there must be thinking that a 5Diii might be the last camera they will need to buy for a long, long time.  Will this push Canon on to new heights in sensor development to generate more sales?  Or will we just get minor tweaks?
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: NXT1000 on June 30, 2011, 05:52:30 AM
Two years cycle for a brand new full frame camera, i do not want such short product cycle. I want one 4 years at least, it is not a cheap product that changes every other year. No way i want that.

The earthquake was so strong it move earth axis by a few mrad.
The nuclear disaster really mess up their so call JIT, Just in time production.
Please give the Japanese some time to recover from this disaster and stop asking the impossible. 5D2 was brillant 3 years ago and will be just as brillant 3 years later from now. It is an amazing camera (except the focusing). Where are the competition to beat 5D2? Nikon, sony, pentax, olympus, dun make me laugh.


Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: neskvik on June 30, 2011, 06:40:05 AM
this is the biggest tabloid about canon...not any better then UK´s SUN, not even for fun
waste of time
flutter like chickens in the market
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: Rowbear on June 30, 2011, 07:08:24 AM
I honestly think that Canon, like Apple, has began to / or already abandon the Pro market.

And all those new long lens (3,4,5 and 6oomm) announced aren't for Pros ? How about the 200-400 in developpement ? The 8-15 fisheye ?
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: hlphoto on June 30, 2011, 07:11:52 AM
I'm really starting to think some of you guys need a decent lesson in Photoshop.
I don't ever hesitate to go up to ISO 6400, 5000 for a wedding, on a 5D Mark II.
When I see I need 12800 I take a good look at the colours in my picture-to-be and then decide if I'll bump up & shoot or risk a little movement in my picture.

I have an f/2.8 1/30s ISO 4000 print that came out of a Nikon D90 on my wall that looks more than fine (yes, from a concert).

Would like to see a new model camera myself, but you guys are just nagging too much and not thinking straight. Why ever would Canon want to upgrade a camera already at the end of it's lifecycle which will keep people from buying the model really following up?
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: hlphoto on June 30, 2011, 08:14:30 AM
I guess it really depends on what you want to use it for, but a bit of noise never seemed to bother any of my events clients, yet I find a blurry image within three clicks in the portfolio on your website (events, third picture, far from sharp).

I guess that image says we're never too old to learn.

As for your "ISO 1600 is not even good enough"-story: This made it to a (HUGE!) print and it's an ISO 2000 shot from the 5D Mark II.

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/5170091132_94a1ae0e2b_b.jpg)
Shot with an 85mm f/1.8 @ f/2.2

At ISO 6400, and - apart from blowing out a stagelight (which it would also do at ISO 200 and I actually even remember the light being extremely bright in the show) - it holds on to the colours very well and noiselevels are more than acceptable. Fine detail in both microphone, face and guitar were fine.

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5086339520_b81c0abf54_b.jpg)
Shot with a 70-200 f/2.8 L USM wide open

I think this can also be called a very acceptable image considering the (extremely dark) circumstances. The guitarist was standing out of the stagelights all the time and since he's quite well known as a solo artist around here I decided to try and shoot a few of him performing anyway. Have a guess at which ISO this picture was taken.

(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4125/5085742145_e356c9c13b_b.jpg)
Shot with a 70-200 f/2.8 L USM @ 200mm wide open

Concerning pushing it too hard... 5D Mark II with 35mm f/1.4 L USM at ISO 25600, believe at f/2 and I had to push exposure 2/3 of a stop in post:

(http://i56.tinypic.com/2hhpwnn.jpg)
Edit: Correction. Image above = ISO 25600 pushed 2/3 stop, f/1.4 (wide open) at 35mm.

No camera has really blown away the 5D Mark II for image noise yet, but the D3s. Even the D700 and the D3 are only slightly better under the right circumstances, but if you say you need large prints I can imagine 12mp not being enough for you either.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: hlphoto on June 30, 2011, 09:33:29 AM
Hey jakeymate, relax dude! Damn, you should be a novelist :D

First of all, I said the last image wasn't acceptable in the first place. I gave it to them anyway, because I didn't have any better possibilities to shoot there as it was dark as hell. They didn't pay for that image though :) 

And of course.. I would like for ISO 12800 to be cleaner, and I would like to see it with all the megapixels we have now, and I do like working with a D3s for the image quality (the only reason I haven't bought one - or actually - why I have switched to Canon is for 1080p video).

What you fail to see is that the OLD 5D Mark II (which it is) can despite it's age still beat everything that has hit the market since it came out but the D3s for IQ. The D700/D3 are only slightly better and have a lot less resolution, the D3s is a lot better BUT has a lot less resolution.

You argue the fact of having trouble editing noisier files... Upsizing a D700 image for a large print puts you in a disadvantage already and then you still have to start editing.

I say stop complaining, use the tools you have and if you prefer a D3s... buy one. I bet the only reason we are all waiting is because Canon is R&Ding the crap out of itself trying to come up with something that will keep both people searching for high resolutions happy and people like us who are on the "darkside" happy.

If Canon manages to come up with the rumored 26.4mp sensor and it gives me the same noise characteristics Nikon has + decent autofocus (like that of the 7D)... I'm buying. Deffo.

PS: No thanks & By the way, you do have a goodlooking daughter ;)
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: Stu_bert on June 30, 2011, 10:07:25 AM
I think there are a number of interesting points raised in this thread, and a lot of passion  ;D

The fact is, in the higher ends of the dSLR market the manufacturers do not make much money at all - margins are perhaps higher, volumes are a lot lower. Economics dictate that you focus on the markets which generate you the most money. The same is true of Photographers. Do you want to make money, or make an occasional shot which people admire but sells very little?

The development cycle for the higher end cameras is constrained by a number of things
- They won't release another camera until they recoup from the previous.
- I'm not sure how many Pro's upgrade that quick. Given the variety of photographers and therefore requirements, I'm not sure why Canon would focus on one sector who may want great video, super high iso etc.
- They won't want mega video capabilities overnight in their dSLR as this would just kill their Pro video camera market - it's a case of evolve products and maintain the status quo across your lines. Nikon does not sell video cameras so they're fine. Startups have no legacy nor breadth of products so they're ok as well
- Significant jumps in technology are not a 1 year development cycle. 2 at a push. And for what? For the small high end market?

Look at the tech in smartphones or indeed in PCs. Think they have changed much in the past 3 years? A faster processor, bit more memory, better screen. Revolution? Nope, not since Apple defined that market. Where there is benefit, and where all the Camera makers should take cue is from the software. iOS and Android continue to develop SW features as they're a lot easier to do. Canon et al should develop the same ecosystem. Either in the camera (touch screen, BT, wifi) or through SDKs available on smartphones.

Do I want better DR, better focusing, better ISO (higher & lower), perhaps even a few more MP - sure do.

But I also want

- Bring back tech into the camera such as the Depth mode that we had on Film cameras, or provide this in a nice I/F on the back of the screen
- Introduce tech such as voice control so I can focus on my subject and just tell it ISO 1600 or high burst. Not convinced about eye focus, but VC I think would be good for sports & nature and perhaps even paparazzi/wedding
- Consider square sensors - no rotation problems, higher quality MP
- Simple HDR to extend the DR
- Focus stacking tech - the camera provides focus bracketing, and SW stacks it all together
- Proper Auto-ISO where I can define what parameters I want to vary, what my min and max are for each parameter.
- Allow me to assign any button any function I want.
- Better quality screens - always articulated, and preferably touch sensitive.

So who does Canon listen to ?

I do like the idea of incremental upgrades to an existing model - nothing massive, but gives a mid-life kick to ensure the high end cameras are never over-shadowed by the entry level models. Even better, I would like replaceable backs (dealer only fitting is fine) so I don't have to replace the whole kit.

I personally think Canon and others need to simplify all their lines. Keeping all the models they have is just bewildering and must have a high overhead. Standardising on the underlying OS would be good for them across all models - again, to reduce the effort to maintain all the models. Plus if you open up the ecosystem to 3rd parties then they will not want to deal with such diversity - witness Google's attempts now to harmonise their OS across all phones.

The HW tech will continue to advance, never as quick as we would like it to, but I think the factors which affect this are a lot more complex and varied then we would like to think it is.

My hope is that when Nikon kicked Canon's butt 3 years ago (and I reckon that took Nikon 5+ years to develop), then Canon stepped back, looked at not only what they would need to do to match Nikon, but take into account that Nikon would not stand still. So the new Canon's need to develop 2 gens of technology to match what Nikon will release with the D4 series, or 3 to leapfrog them. I doubt they will leapfrog - technology takes longer than that to develop, but I hope they will match the D4 and come up with some innovations of their own.

FF will not die - the tech is no different from APS. In fact APS is more difficult, so the FF sensors will always benefit. Manufacturing & yeilds are the only challenges for FF. If I was Canon, I would drop APS, make the capabilities present in the Sensor / Digic V or VI, then have 1 sensor type across all their dSLR and 2nd for all their compact ranges. Simplify your development, drop 1 range of lenses in a single action and help you focus on maintaining a smaller, but quicker evolving range of cameras. They won't of course. Their mantra is to offer a wide range in the hope that someone will want *that* particular model and not from a rival. And until the profits falter significantly then the strategy will not change. Nikon's changed in the early 00's as they had no choice.

August / September will be an interesting month.

Ps. I don't subscribe to the view about tied to Canon because of the glass investment. There is a booming 2nd hand market and if you really believe after the new releases that Canon has lost it's way, then selling up and moving is the thing to do. Sticking with Canon if you feel Nikon has the better strategy is a bad idea IMHO. And yes, I have > £10K of Canon lenses.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: kubelik on June 30, 2011, 10:22:09 AM
I'd like three cams:

1) A killer 5-10 meg cam with flawless video sampled from the whole sensor. I'd lay down $4,000 for one right now as it would be in Red territory, and cheaper than an EX1. A no brainer for every video production house on a budget.

2) A 10-15 meg FF with excellent 12800 ISO and a good spread of cross focus points. I'll have one of those right now too. $3000 no problem.

I'm still paying less than a Nikon D3x and I've got two cameras, tailored for their purpose, instead of a jack of all trades.

3) A 20-35 meg camera with flawless 100 ISO and good noise to 1600, maybe 3200. I'd go $3000 on that one too.

... and this is why most photographers are photographers and not businessmen.

if canon could do all these things with minimal R&D and production line costs (unlikely), and these offerings would be superior to what Nikon is offering for $8000 ... why would I low-ball myself and charge far less than I could command on those?

your camera number 1 would be a video camera, not a photo camera, and would shoot right up into the $8000 range to compete with the new Super 35 format tailored-for-video cameras that Panny and Sony have just put out.

your camera number 2 is essentially a full frame 1D Mark IV.  why would canon sell that for $3000 when they're selling an APS-H with the same specs for $5000?

your camera number 3 is the Nikon D3x.  Again, if Nikon can charge $8000 for it ... why would Canon fork it over to you for $3000?

I also contest the assertion that because you haven't gotten a new FF replacement for the 5D II in 3 years that Canon isn't doing anything with that lineup:

1st - the 3 years isn't up yet, wait until the end of 2011 before you gripe about that.
2nd - how often did you get new EOS-1 series cameras back in the 80s and 90s?  how many crapcams were introduced in the meantime?

I'm not guaranteeing you'll like what you see when the updates do come.  I don't work for canon.  if you really think Nikon is better, as someone else has noted, sell your lenses and equipment at little cost and then buy into a Nikon system.  life is simple like that.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: hlphoto on June 30, 2011, 10:30:38 AM
Read a few interesting ones in the last half hour...

...about jumping systems: True. I started my digital photography with Konica Minolta, wasn't happy about the noise. Haven't had any trouble switching systems without losing money in the past. Recently I sold a 35L, 550D and 7D for more then I bought them for (brand new...).

Prices have went up so much this actually is the time to switch if you really want to.

PS: About buying a new model of an old cam: I would. I own a 550D today, bought it new after heavy use of the first one. I sold the first one just before the 600D came out. If prices wouldn't have gone up I would have done the same to my 5D Mark II: Sell it after about a year and get a new one to replace it.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: gene_can_sing on June 30, 2011, 11:12:45 AM
I pretty much agree with everything Jakeymate (sic?) says. For me, if a camera took a big evolutionary step, I would buy a new body every single year. For me, 5K a year in camera equipment is just par for course. The current 4 to 5 year product cyle that Canon on is absolutely HORRIBLE. They should be ashamed of themselves as a company.

Canon is almost a monopoly in the camera industry. Their biggest competitor is Nikon, and they're not really even close in terms of overall camera sales. So once you buy into the Canon system, you are stuck with little to no choices.

I find it disturbing that Canon as a company, is so keen on completely milking their customers dry. It leaves a very bad taste, but there is nothing you can really do about it, because there are basically only 2 other choices, Nikon or Sony who offer a complete system.

I am a video guy, and I could get the Panasonic GH2 of AF 101 for video, which does have a better resolved picture. But at the same time, Canon has much better, faster zooms than Panny, and Canon color is so much better than Pannys. Plus, Micro 4 3rds is hard for me to swollow. But yeah, mostly it goes back to the lens question, since I'm stuck with so much money in Canon lenses.

When I bought into the system several years back, I knew there were flaws in the video, but I figured Canon knew about them and would fix them in the next camera re-hash. But it never happened. They just kept on milking and milking.

Canon needs to release something this year. Something new, not just their usual re-hash of something old. Hate to say it, but they've really become a lackluster company content to just sit on their laurels.

And NO, the earthquake has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: hlphoto on June 30, 2011, 11:37:34 AM
I don't think there is a free lunch in fixing the 5D Mk2 problems decently.
The Panasonic GH2 and AF101 both have problems of their own and both can only deliver their resolution advantage when fiddled with in the right way. It's like comparing a 5D Mk1 to a 7D for stills: Yes, 18mp is more than 12.8, now go out and make that 7D resolve more than the 5D does. I bet you'll have a hard time to say the least during most work.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: Gothmoth on June 30, 2011, 11:42:15 AM
I actually ask mostly in all seriousness, and with a little humour to boot.

I'm a pro photographer, and the last time Canon released a FF was almost 3 years ago, with the 5D Mk2. There is no 'official' word at all of any new FF, whether it's 1D, 3D, 5D etc.

i doubt you are a pro photographer.
and i now a lot because i sell gear to them.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: kubelik on June 30, 2011, 01:09:49 PM
"I also contest the assertion that because you haven't gotten a new FF replacement for the 5D II in 3 years that Canon isn't doing anything with that lineup:"

FACT: Last FF camera announced by Canon? 5D Mk2, August 2008.

yeah, so we're on the same page.  unless you find a 3 year replacement cycle surprising for some reason?  that's what canon's always run with their pro bodies.  nikon is typically 4 years.  we're in the photography market, not the desktop CPU market ... I'm just confused why you're treating this as some affront from Canon that we were suckered into.

1. FF Epic is ... $12K for body only?  from what I recall in your first post, you were saying Canon should put out a competitor at around $3000?  forgive me for not knowing anything, but last time I checked I thought only the 2/3" RED sensor bodies were down at around 3K?  don't get me wrong, I'd love to see 4:2:2 and no jello and no jaggies and 120p options and no moire in my video.  HECK YES to all that.  getting it for 3 grand, I just don't think that's realistic.

2. everyone knows that today we're no longer paying for the megapixels.  come on, you know that too.  otherwise, why is a 1D IV more expensive than a T2i?  it's all in the body, AF, build quality, etc.  I agree the D3S has some awesome noise characteristics, ridiculously clean files.  but if Nikon can go from D700 to D3S in terms of image quality per pixel, there's no reason Canon can't go the same on their 21MP sensor, in terms of per pixel IQ.  lots of demonstrations showing that the 5DII's 21MP sensor downscaled to 12MP pretty much matched the D700's 12MP sensor exactly.  so it's a wash.  I also don't think you're going to get much faster shooting rates than the 10 FPS that pro bodies are currently maxing out at.  there's a limit as to how fast you can clear electrical current from a given sensor size to prevent ghosting.

3. you're right, a 5DIII is likely around the corner, and will be costing you $3000 ... but with video.  so... is there a complaint in there?  sounds pretty good to me.  again, I don't get the griping about product release timeline when it's been a fairly consistent release timeline.  it's like complaining about not seeing any birthday presents about a month ahead of your birthday... just have a wait and see.  I don't think Canon is seriously going to go another year without releasing a new-and-much-improved FF body.  if they do pull that stunt then, why yes, you're given a free pass to complain all you want, because that would be really terrible of Canon.  but do you really think you're not going to see a release announcement in august or september?
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: NXT1000 on June 30, 2011, 02:10:37 PM
I have to agree 5d2 at 3200 and above, indoor shot, look pretty noisy on LCD at 100%, when print on paper it look better though. I hope the new version can improve on that aspect. Yes, d3 is better in noise, but it also has lower resolution. Canon made more money on consumer camera than on the pro, so they are putting there eggs where it matters for them.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: gene_can_sing on June 30, 2011, 04:53:32 PM
Personally, I highly doubt the video version of the 5D3 is going to cost 3k. I personally think, and hope there will be 2 version of the 5D3 (or maybe it will be the fabled 3D which is video optimized).

4:2:2 50mb codec + possible RAW to Recorder are charged a serious premium by the competition (Panny, Sony and RED). I doubt most still photogs want to pay a couple thousand extra for those features. I know that Sony's latest video camera is a 4:2:0 codec, and you have to pay an extra 3K for a hardware un-lock to access the 4:2:2 (Or it might be 4:4:4) codec. That's a really lame way to do business, but it shows that good video codecs do not come cheap.

As for Canon announcing something this year, I have my doubts for sure because of their poor track record. The last 1D (2007) has missed it's 3 year cycle by almost 1 year now. So Canon is officially on 4 year product cycles. Super lame.

 I think if Canon did yearly updates to their pro bodies, they will sell more cameras and make more people happy. The video stuff is moving so fast, that yearly updates are necessary. For example, the video Moire problem has been around for 3 to 4 years now! It should have been fixed after 1 year. I would have gladly bought a new model and paid a premium just to have that problem fixed. Then the next year they could fix the Jello problem, and I would have gladly bought that model also.

Instead, it's their yearly releases are just cameras with minor firmware updates. Shameful.

Canon is not evolving fast enough, and they don't care because once you buy a few L lenses, they know they own you.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: hlphoto on June 30, 2011, 10:42:21 PM
If only someone made 35mm sensors that can be used in a 'proper' cinema style video cam.

Can we think of anyone?  ;)
Arri Alexa, Panavision, and a little bit of red. We all know what those cost.

As for the money the salesmen would make.. I would say do put your money where your mouth is and invest in Nikon. If there's that much to spend the little loss to your lenses shouldn't be keeping you. A colleague swapped from a 1D3 to a D3s and he's a professional soccer photographer... so he had to sell a 200 f/2, a 300 f/2.8, a 400 f/2.8, a 500 f/4 and some "normal stuff" (24-70, 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400, 17-40, 15 fish). Even he didn't lose that much - what's keeping you?
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: ronderick on June 30, 2011, 11:31:10 PM
I'm really starting to see why this profession needs some shaking up I have to say.

We are in a fast moving industry, we need tools that update faster than 3 years. And if YOU don't, what are you going to lose if they update every 18 months?

We were given a taste of video DSLR, new possibilities, then nothing.

No advances, and no fixes for obvious flaws. Again, if your happy, fine. I'm not. You can't build a new area of industry (DSLR) on a 3 year product cycle.

You know, our photography department should have you write their proposal for replacing their outdated fleet of 1DIII with the new 1DIV. I'm sure you'll be able to convince our boss the benefits of what the new bodies can do where the old ones can't.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: YoukY63 on July 01, 2011, 12:46:08 AM
Quote
You know, our photography department should have you write their proposal for replacing their outdated fleet of 1DIII with the new 1DIV. I'm sure you'll be able to convince our boss the benefits of what the new bodies can do where the old ones can't.

Getting a tad fed up of sarcastic comments. Some people it would seem would be happy if Canon updated every 20 years or so.

The 1DMk4 is hardly new, it's older than an iPad 1 at 18 months.

What about no updates, ever? Happier now? Wow, i can do sarcasm too.

As I've said repeatedly, IF YOU are happy, or your department is happy with a 3 year or longer cycle, go for it.

Keep your cam till it's dies after years and years, and replace it with the same one if you like, I couldn't care less.

I have no issue with that. It's your choice to be in that environment. I don't want that. I want to give Canon money more often, they just don't seem to want it.

And if you have do a problem getting your bosses to buy current kit, get a new boss or become your own, because the fast moving independent photographer is eating this dusty industry alive, and it's easy to see why.

What kind of improvement do you expect on a pro camera after "only" 18 months? Do you have any idea of the cost to develop new technology? Your 1 stop improvement for half step camera + 2 stops for next full step camera is just a joke and so ridiculous...
Look at the APS-C Canon cameras. They are almost all using the same sensor since 2 years now, because developing a new sensor is VERY expensive, difficult and requires time. So the only thing they improve is body/ergonomics/electronics.
So is that what you want in your 5Dm2.5? A tilting screen and 1 or 2 more buttons? Because that's all what Canon would offer to you for the same price. Then, happy you, you paid 3k dollars to have the same camera with slightly improved ergonomics. Excuse us, not so rich people, to prefer to keep or money for the next real upgrade.

What you ask to canon now is to develop 4 new FF sensors every 18 months, plus the new APS-C one(s) of course that are the real one(s) to bring money to Canon. OK, so be ready to pay 10k dollars each FF camera, because that's what it would cost.

If spending 10k dollars every 18 months is not a problem for you as you suggested earlier, why don't you also buy a Nikon Camera to do the job you need in low light if not happy with Canon. That would be the price to have the full Nikon set, and for the following years you can enjoy just changing bodies when they come out from the brand having the best offer.

By the way, why do you think no still camera can offer all the video options you and some other videographers are asking? Because it is today technologically impossible! Big sensors such as FF cannot have the same read speed as small sensors (cf rolling shutter). I am not saying it will never be possible, but until today, it was not, at least not at an acceptable price. Also, I wonder why there is so many people here complaining about video abilities of DSLR. Never saw so many videographers before, probably an american specificity. In Europe and Asia, people don't really care about doing serious movies with DSLR.
DSLR are not video-camera, have never been and it will never be their main purpose. That is just an option, a possibility. Do not expect much more. Especially for 5D series, which is a (semi-)professional tool for still photography.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: NotABunny on July 01, 2011, 03:25:23 AM
Same with low light.

In truth the Mk2 didn't improve raw ISO much, maybe a stop. The D3s proved not everyone was wanting 21 meg over pure image quality.

Canon could have eaten the video market alive by releasing a DSLR with a FF low meg sensor. 12800 ISO would be a reality, no jaggies, less jello, and every cinema wannabe would have bought one, as it would be simply so far ahead of the game.

In reality HD only needs a 2 meg sensor. How sensitive would a FF sensor be with only 2 million pixels?

It could literally shoot anywhere, with any available light. An indie filmmakers wet dream.

How hard would that be technically? Not very. It's actually a step back, away from the mg war, but a good step back.

Actually, a low resolution sensor is a wet dream of people who keep dreaming that the laws of physics are bendable, and who belive there is this magic recipe for low noise levels. There is none!

In current camera sensors, the size of the pixel (or resolution) has no VISIBLE effect on the noise level of the ENTIRE photo (= it only affects the noise level of the individual pixels). The only thing that matters is the size of the sensor (well, obviously, besides technology).

The reason why there are sensors for phones, for compact cameras, for DSLRs, for medium format, and... telescopes, is the sensor size, NOT the pixel size.

It's difficult for people to understand that a bigger sensor means that the photos contain more light for the same exposure. They ask themselves where does that light go because they don't see brigther photos. The answer is simple: the photos are scaled to the same physical size (but the scale factor is different, relative to the sensor size), so the light goes into annihilating the noise.


As for the so called superiority of D3s, you can look at actual photos (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911) and see that it has the same noise level as 1D4, per area of sensor (NOT per pixel, or entire photo for that matter since the sensor of 1D4 is smaller).


Why does the light matters (rather than ISO)? I don't know for certain (I have two reasons), but you can look at this (http://www.gardenerofthoughts.org/photos/portraits/content/20101120_0461_large.html) shot taken with a 40D at ISO 3200, and at this (http://www.gardenerofthoughts.org/photos/portraits/content/20101120_0411_large.html) taken with ISO 400. If the EXIF were to not say the ISO, would you belive your eyes?
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: NotABunny on July 01, 2011, 04:02:18 AM
I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is www.deanagar.com.au

Those photos look great, but since you're shooting with controlled lighting, why do you need the high ISO improvement? Note that at low ISO, the noise in the shadows is actually higher than the one from the same area but at high ISO (Neuroanatomist posted a link, but I don't recall what it was). Weird, but true, so it seems that photographers really need to wait for a company to create a sensor that can do multiple ISOs for the same shot (which would also allow us to do hand-held HDR).
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: NotABunny on July 01, 2011, 04:12:53 AM
Quote
Actually, a low resolution sensor is a wet dream of people who keep dreaming that the laws of physics are bendable, and who belive there is this magic recipe for low noise levels. There is none!

Tell me you're joking :-)

I am not joking. I am simply stating that you're using the wrong comparison criteria: individual pixels instead of ENTIRE photos.


Is that why camera makers are increasing pixel count at the expense of clarity? Because the market doesn't realise that a clean 10 meg image trumps a noisy 20 meg image every single time?

There was some post here to a list of images of the same subject taken with cameras from (I think) 10D to 5D2. Those showed that you claim about sharpness is false. It was the opposite. The newer the technology (which coincidently also meant more pixels), the sharper the photos were.


Noise is the variation between how each photo site reads the light coming in. The smaller the site, more variation between what one pixel thinks the colour is, and what the next one thinks it is.

I don't care about pixels. I care about the ENTIRE image. (See below.)

You mean the pixels that make up the image itself has no effect on noise level in the photo?

Correct.


I give up, I truly do :-)

That's your choice, but you'll not understand the difference between what noise means for individual pixels and what it means for ENTIRE photos.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: YoukY63 on July 01, 2011, 04:42:56 AM
You only have to look at the xxxD series to see that, without even looking at the other glaring example, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 60D.

So people willing to spend $1000 or less have had 6 cameras in the same timeframe as the pros who spend $3-6000 have had 2.

Am I the only one that doesn't feel pros are a priority anymore?

That is a very good example, thank you very much. So people that bought all the XXXD or the 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 60D spent 6000+$. Finally, wat did they get? During this 6 years, they just get a camera which do not provide yet a better picture than the 3000$ 5DmI that a pro would have bought 6 years ago.
So finally, upgrading XXD bodies every year during 6 years did not even catch up the antediluvian pro body IQ, not even talking about the "old" 5DmII.

Maybe that's why real professional don't care about getting a "new" body every year.
Then, if you feel better pro with a 600D because it is more recent, please, go ahead.  ;)
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: plam_1980 on July 01, 2011, 04:48:36 AM
I could not agree more with jakeymate. I have been willing to move to FF for an year, but have been put down by the constant rumours and expectations for 5d Mk3. I am willing to do this only as a hobby, not for professional work, so I am not pressed by time and am not willing to pay that money for 5d mk2, when its replacement is (over)due
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: Kit. on July 01, 2011, 04:57:44 AM
In current camera sensors, the size of the pixel (or resolution) has no VISIBLE effect on the noise level of the ENTIRE photo (= it only affects the noise level of the individual pixels). The only thing that matters is the size of the sensor (well, obviously, besides technology).
In current camera sensors, yes. Because it's way too expensive and way too slow to have a global shutter and to average several readouts of the same pixel on 18 million pixel sensors.

But for the hypothetical 2 megapixel full-frame video sensor it's feasible. And such sensor would also not really need microlenses.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: NotABunny on July 01, 2011, 05:03:30 AM
The photo is pixels, if they are noisy, then the photo is noisy.

This is not how noise works in images. When you average noisier but MORE pixels, you get the same noise level. The noise per AREA (like square millimeter) is maintained.

All you have to do is look at actual images of the same subject shot in the same conditions.


In current camera sensors, the size of the pixel (or resolution) has no VISIBLE effect on the noise level of the ENTIRE photo (= it only affects the noise level of the individual pixels). The only thing that matters is the size of the sensor (well, obviously, besides technology).
In current camera sensors, yes. Because it's way too expensive and way too slow to have a global shutter and to average several readouts of the same pixel on 18 million pixel sensors.

But for the hypothetical 2 megapixel full-frame video sensor it's feasible. And such sensor would also not really need microlenses.

I'm not sure I understand you. By "several readouts" do you mean several "exposures"? Obviously having more light per photo gives you lower noise.

Or are you saying that averaging several reads gives a more accurate (/ average) read? (But this has nothing to do with resolution, at least not in theory, though in practice in may be the only workable way.)
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: Peter Canon on July 01, 2011, 05:14:10 AM
It's so funny to see people get so emotional over cameras.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: NotABunny on July 01, 2011, 05:21:37 AM
That said, skin in shadows looks a mess on the 5D. It doesn't fall neatly to black, but blotches horribly in the blue and red channels. They all have to be smoothed and/or crushed.

There (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3a.html) you have it. For the shadows, the image taken at ISO 1600 has a lower noise level (than the image taken at ISO 100). The guy combined two shots (ISO 100 and 1600) to get a better image across all brightnesses. Noise works in mysterious ways.


Here is the guy's explanation:

Quote
The sensor doesn't know what ISO gain is going to be used, it just records whatever photons arrive, leaving it to circuitry off the sensor to amplify the signal and digitize it. This means that the sensor sees the *entire* range of the figure -- the upper bound or "envelope" of all the different curves. The sensor has about 14 stops of DR, but the limitations of the rest of the circuits allow the final raw data to see less than twelve stops of DR, and the user is forced to choose a "window" of EV within that 14 stop range by selecting the ISO gain.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: Kit. on July 01, 2011, 05:40:18 AM
I'm not sure I understand you. By "several readouts" do you mean several "exposures"? Obviously having more light per photo gives you lower noise.
By "several readouts" I mean several readouts. I.e. several attempts to amplify and digitize the same charge accumulated by the photo cell.

Light (shot noise of the arriving photons, to be exact) is not the only source of the noise in the pictures. Another source is the read noise (thermal noise in particular) of the sensor+amplifier. And it is relatively larger for smaller cells. You can average it between several cells of a higher-resolution sensor, but you can average it between several reads of the same cell of a lower-resolution CMOS sensor as well.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: NotABunny on July 01, 2011, 05:52:27 AM
I'm not sure I understand you. By "several readouts" do you mean several "exposures"? Obviously having more light per photo gives you lower noise.
By "several readouts" I mean several readouts. I.e. several attempts to amplify and digitize the same charge accumulated by the photo cell.

Light (shot noise of the arriving photons, to be exact) is not the only source of the noise in the pictures. Another source is the read noise (thermal noise in particular) of the sensor+amplifier. And it is relatively larger for smaller cells. You can average it between several cells of a higher-resolution sensor, but you can average it between several reads of the same cell of a lower-resolution CMOS sensor as well.

That's a neat trick, but my instinct says that can't work. (Sure, my instinct said that a photo at ISO 1600 can't have a lower noise in the shadows than one at ISO 100.)

I mean, if the electrical charge sits there for longer, isn't it more affected by the thermal noise? (I mean, doesn't it degrade in time?)

Do you know of anyone who has such a sensor?
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: kirillica on July 01, 2011, 07:50:36 AM
jakeymate, I'm fan of you!  ;D post more, it's pleasure to read you :)
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: kubelik on July 01, 2011, 09:41:20 AM
Yes there's a complaint, it took 3 years, IF it arrives this year. That is my whole complaint.

...

On a 3 year cycle, you're happy but I am not. Clearly :-)

you nailed it.  I did not get that you were complaining about release cycles as a whole, big picture thing.

honestly, it makes me happy to hear that there are photographers doing well out there that have the money and inclination to purchase new gear or an annual or 18-month basis.  when all we hear about in the industry is doom and gloom and slowdown, frankly it's encouraging to see people doing well by doing good work.

I really like the work on your site; I definitely also believe we have dramatically different noise tolerances.  for instance, even at web-view sizes, you dirt biking photos show clear signs of noise reduction.  everyone's taste is different, and I'm not going to second-guess yours, since clearly you're doing strong business with the work you're putting out there.

I don't think anyone is going to deny the red-channel issues, or the banding on the 5DII.  I like the grain from the 1DIV far better and I think even that can be improved upon.

overall, I still give canon the benefit of the doubt.  I'm willing to believe that the reason they don't do annual or bi-annual updates is because they'd rather dedicate resources towards large advances instead of incremental advances that defer resources away from major breakthroughs.  I have no idea if in fact they have enough operating budget to do both.  believe me, I'd love to work in Canon's financial department for a month and see how they allocate capital.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: kirillica on July 01, 2011, 09:45:31 AM
jakeymate, I'm fan of you!  ;D post more, it's pleasure to read you :)

Really? I think I've posted more than enough for one lifetime :-)
Really. Some people have already mentioned here, that you should write poems or so  ;D
BTW, checked your site. It looks awesome, but IMO too much skin glow/toning  ::)

And (or moderator ban me for offtopic): I was waiting for 5dmIII and, disappointed, bought 5dmII approx half a year ago. Yes, I'm happy with the camera and it's fantastic. But I still ready invest some more and upgrade to 5dmIII: please deliver it until I'm not "overburned" :)
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: NotABunny on July 01, 2011, 01:51:07 PM
I'm not sure I understand you. By "several readouts" do you mean several "exposures"? Obviously having more light per photo gives you lower noise.
By "several readouts" I mean several readouts. I.e. several attempts to amplify and digitize the same charge accumulated by the photo cell.

Light (shot noise of the arriving photons, to be exact) is not the only source of the noise in the pictures. Another source is the read noise (thermal noise in particular) of the sensor+amplifier. And it is relatively larger for smaller cells. You can average it between several cells of a higher-resolution sensor, but you can average it between several reads of the same cell of a lower-resolution CMOS sensor as well.

That's a neat trick, but my instinct says that can't work. (Sure, my instinct said that a photo at ISO 1600 can't have a lower noise in the shadows than one at ISO 100.)

I mean, if the electrical charge sits there for longer, isn't it more affected by the thermal noise? (I mean, doesn't it degrade in time?)

Do you know of anyone who has such a sensor?

I realized that this goes hand in hand with the possibility to have hand-held HDR by having multiple ISO readings for the same exposure.

I don't know how the reading is actually done, so I initially thought that this can be done only by splitting the sensor in a grid 2 * 2, where each grid pixel is read with a different ISO (by a different AD converter). Of course, it might be possible to do a parallel reading (with multiple AD converters) for EVERY pixel (though I wonder if the electron charge can be properly split among all converters).

This would mean that it may be possible to have both hand-held HDR using different ISOs, and better (= averaged) reading for the same ISO.
Title: Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
Post by: japhoto on July 01, 2011, 04:39:35 PM
I guess I'm a bit late since the OP has removed his post, but I'll throw something in anyway.

I switched from Olympus to Canon last year and man was I torn between choices back then.

I didn't care so much about going with a mainstream brand, but still Canon and Nikon were the two choices. I actually wanted a good supply of used equipment since with Oly, you had to buy everything new.

I looked at both brands long and hard back then. And even though I went with Canon, I do think that Nikon makes better cameras (even with that said, I'm not switching camps any time soon though).

The gripe I had with Nikon was that damn, they don't get anything done. Canons line seemed brand spanking new at that point when compared to Nikon (at least on paper).

I actually wanted an APS-C - camera since I do mostly nature photography and the extra reach is always welcome there.

So Nikon has the D300s (no D7000 at that time), which is based on technology from the original D300 (2007) and was released in 2009. And it still hasn't been replaced. That's 4 years which needless to say is a damn long time.

My Olympus E-3 was also from 2007, so no chance I'd trade in my camera for a model which is as old as the old one.

The D700 is from 2008 and would not make me want to switch to that either. Same goes actually with the 5D MkII, so even-steven there.

If they had released the D7000 back then, I might be with Nikon now, but somehow I think I would still have wanted the D400 or what ever it may be once it's released.

It's actually funny, I stated that Nikon makes better cameras and the people who use them probably know this for a fact (otherwise nobody would buy their cameras since they are so old), but when you come from an outside brand, they just don't have an appeal.

In the end I went with the Canon 7D, quite happy (except with the low ISO noise) but that was the only APS-C - camera at that time which interested me and that hasn't changed.

After all this time, I think and at least hope that there's improvements to be put in new cameras, now all we need to do is stop the manufacturers playing the "I'll show you if you'll show me yours first" - game and get something out.

I don't think it's going to be a revolution, not anymore, but evolution is also good. On the other hand, I don't want constant updates for every little evolutionary step that comes along.

Even though the prosumer to pro market isn't that big, it's still relevant since it keeps the line-up appealing and when you get someone to buy a dslr, they are buying into a system which is important for the company.

A bit of rambling there, but that's just me :D