For me, the 1.3X crop on a FF sensor is a gimmick. By switching from FF to 1.3X crop will not by us anything except a smaller file size and a narrower angle of view. We can do the same thing at post process by cropping the FF picture.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Which isn't an issue with a reputable airline.
IMO the most sensible thing to do would be to have an EF-S compatible system, similar to Sony NEX.The mgic word here is "compact camera system". So in order for it to be compact, the camera needed to be a lot thinner than the existing EOS DSLR. Also due to thinner body, the lens can be made shorter and smaller. Also the EF-S or EF lens mount is relatively big. That will also defeat the "compact" purpose. So the new system needed to be with all new system lens to make it compact. However, an EF-S/EF lens adapter should be available for people that do not care about size and want to use the existing lens.
Canon would sell more EF-S lenses, and folks with DSLR bodies might be tempted to pick up a mirror-less body as an addition to the kit.
A mirror-less body coupled with plastic lenses like 18-55 would be pretty compact and light.
Now, Canon, let's please see some light EF-S primes!
Olympus has an acceptable swivel screen, something akin would work for a7DII/5DIII.EF-S lens will not work right with APS-H sensor due the the image circle of the EF-S lens is not large enough for the APS-H sensor.
Ad APS-H, mirrors and LV: how about dropping the rigid EF/EF-s seperation? Give the mirror also a powerless resting MLU-mode that retracts a locking pin that would prevent bad matching between modes and lenses. For the viewfinder a beam splitter that merges/switches between the images from the mirror and a display would be an option that also opens a door for lots of other uses. Or simply use just the rear display as a screen for EF-s lenses. With the 10-22 it wouldn't hurt and with the standard zooms we're at least close.
Bonus points for merging the AF sensors into the imaging sensor, thus allowing PDAF in LV and movie modes.
Here is a Canon white paper about manufacturing sensors.
I've always wondered how large part of the cost of the camera that is the sensor. Does anyone know? It seems to me that if you buy a 5D a much larger part of the money goes to finance the sensor than if you buy a 7D.
The white paper says that a full-frame sensor can be 20 times more expensive than APS-C. The 5D is about $2500 and the 7D $1500. Is the 5D sensor as much as $1000, or even more?
At the risk of violating my own rule about not discussing pixel size I wonder which is more likely to occur: cost reductions in the manufacture of sensors so as to allow larger sensors at less cost or improvements in imaging technology to allow improved image quality from smaller sensors.
Last night I was looking at the noise performance (only) of 40D, 7D and 60D with DXOmark. At ISO1600 and 3200, 40D is the best performer by a slight margin. This says a lot about the noise and pixel size.
I would like to add that personal attack should be banned.QuoteI'm going to vote agree on one condition/criteria.. if there is a thread started *specifically* to discuss the merits or lack thereof of MP counts, then said thread is immune from said action.
Works for me.