End of the APS-H sized CMOS?

[Stone]

I don't believe APS-H is going anywhere.  The only way Canon could shelve the tech is if APS-C IQ and dynamic range can somehow exceed that of APS-H.

As others have said, Canon's lenses aren't range-specific to APS-H so there are no system-related exit barriers for APS-H. Surely it's only a matter of time (possibly very soon) before we see a very high resolution full-frame camera capable of 10FPS. Then what would be the point of APS-H?

I agree, that lenses are definitely not an exit barrier, I consider high iso performance, dynamic range and to a lesser extend dof control to be the barriers, APS-C just isn't that close to APS-H right now.

I'm sure Canon is now capable of pushing FF images at 10 fps, actually that's the body I'm waiting to buy and I won't be purchasing another camera from Canon until I can get it.  The only benefits of APS-H at that time would be the potentially lower price point and yes the 1.3 crop which is still desirable for some sports and wildlife photogs.  Looking at Nikon's lineup, it certainly seem possible to release a ~5K high performance FF.  I think Canon's answer would need to be in the $5K range and have a built in crop mode or APS-H still remains a viable option, that's why I'm still skeptical that the 1DIV gets replaced anytime soon.

[Ivar]

Using the same technology, ALWAYS the bigger sensor wins in high ISO due to be able to collect more light.
As for actual products, it seems to me that the 1.3x is not the best option out there concerning high ISO, where did you get this idea? Also, frame rate has only to do with the amount of data to move, not to the sensor size. Imaginable 16MP FF 1D MK4 could have easily done the same 10fps as it does currently with the crop.

Simple really...   Take a look at the current camera body specs.

While the numbers are the same, the Nikon D3s looks better to me. If the 1D mk4 would have been a FF body, it had performed better for sure (=more light better image for the same technology). If you meant a comparison between the 1D & 1Ds then they are optimized for different purposes thus being different technology.

To answer your second part, a 16mp frame will be saved to a memory device quicker than a 21mp frame - it's about 75 % of the size, the 16mp frame will also be processed quicker than the 21mp frame for a given picture process engine.  Mixing in the Digic 4 process engine over the Digic 3 of the FF camera, is why the current 1.3x 1D has a frame rate roughly twice the speed of the current 1Ds.

This is what I said, the only limiter at least for 10fps was data and nothing else, sensor size doesn't matter.

With regard to the first point about ISO, again, read the specs, the newer 1D has a much greater performance in terms of ISO than the full frame sensor in the 1Ds or the later 5D.  I'm not a image sensor expert, I design roads for a living, but it seems plausible that the 1.3 crop sensor in the 1D has been optimised to provide better ISO performance than the then current full frame technology.  Should full frame technology be released in the next 12 months that match the 1.3 crop, I'm pretty sure the techniques will be deployed in the next 1.3 crop sensor to great affect.

As said, the technology is different. Apples to apples would be ISO optimized cameras, and there the Nikon D3s performs better.

Canon wouldn't be selling a £4k1.3 crop product if there wasn't demand for it's benefits, similarly they wouldn't by selling the £6k full frame product if everyone wanted the 5D instead.  Each camera has it's own advantages, it seems more implausible to imagine a gap between a 5D Mk3 at say £2.5k and a replacement 1Ds at a launch price of say £7-8k, the 1D sites slap bang in the middle. 

I didn't argue about the demand, I said Canon is having a bigger margin what concerns the cropper.

Sticking my neck out, I'd suggest that there is as much chance of the 1.3 crop disappearing as a 1.6 crop 1Dx in the future or a 3D appearing.

For me, for the former the probability is at least 2x higher if not more.

[YoukY63]

I still don't understand something, so please people help me.

Why do you think Canon should stop APS-H sensors? What is the interest for Canon?

I can understand that you want the best of the 2 worlds (1Ds FF sensor with 1D performances), but that is just "not possible" (at least not for an affordable price). So, why Canon should try to mix the 2 lines, removing all the specific superiority of each body (1D= crop + speed; 1Ds= resolution + image quality) to get an average one?

What is the point for Canon to do that?

One last question: if Canon build a FF body with crop option to mimic the loss of APS-H bodies, who will enjoy shooting sport or wild-life with the crop mode in a half-sized ViewFinder smaller than any APS-C camera VF?

[Ivar]

Why do you think Canon should stop APS-H sensors? What is the interest for Canon?

Because Nikon gets all the benefits of having the advantage for more light. They can stuff easily more pixels, for Canon at this smaller sensor area not that much. Sports cameras are about ISO, isn't it?

As for the imaginable FF 1D price, it would still be closer to the current 1D line trend, Nikon cameras are quite good, the competition cannot be ignored.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Why do you think Canon should stop APS-H sensors? What is the interest for Canon?

Because Nikon gets all the benefits of having the advantage for more light. They can stuff easily more pixels, for Canon at this smaller sensor area not that much. Sports cameras are about ISO, isn't it?

As for the imaginable FF 1D price, it would still be closer to the current 1D line trend, Nikon cameras are quite good, the competition cannot be ignored.

A top Nikon executive in a interview for DPR stated that they had made a big mistake in sacrificing resolution for high ISO performance in the D3S.  He stated that future models would not make this same error.

So, even Nikon feels that there is more advantage to higher resolution than to the ultimate high ISO performance.

[Bob Howland]

A top Nikon executive in a interview for DPR stated that they had made a big mistake in sacrificing resolution for high ISO performance in the D3S.  He stated that future models would not make this same error.

So, even Nikon feels that there is more advantage to higher resolution than to the ultimate high ISO performance.

If we're thinking of the same quote, that's not exactly what he said. First, he didn't call it an error. Second, he implied that Nikon felt it could begin increasing resolution at the expense of further improving high ISO image quality. The expectation among Nikon users seems to be that the D4 will be as good as the D3s at high ISO but with more resolution. I know a couple wedding photographers who each use a pair of D700s (plus a D300 backup, but that's another story). They have become addicted to what the D700 can do at ISO6400 and say they would like to buy the D3s, but their business won't support it.

[Haydn1971]

Ivar, I'm not gonna get into a tit-for-tat cut and paste exercise, it's clear you disagree with my point of view.  You simply ain't gonna get the same framerates with full frame as a crop frame, the files are smaller with a crop, which is why there will always be a market for a high end crop body.

If the Nikon range is so good, maybe you need to sell your Canon kit and swap to the dark side ;-)

[x-vision]

Why do you think Canon should stop APS-H sensors? What is the interest for Canon?

Because the 1.3x sensor is a lesser sensor than FF.  This means that:

• if Canon charges more for the 1DIV than Nikon for the D3s, Canon will be overcharging for a lesser camera
  
• if Canon charges less (as is the case today), the long term perception will be that Nikon is the premium player in the market and Canon is the discount/second grade player

As you can see, Canon has no choice but to abandon the 1.3x format - unless they want to be the perceived as the discount/second grade player in the market for pro cameras.

[Haydn1971]

Because the 1.3x sensor is a lesser sensor than FF.

Nonsense !  Each has it's own advantages, it's bold sweeping statements like this that confuse new buyers and like saying a BMW M5 is a lesser car than a Rolls Royce Phantom, the M5 is better at certain things, the Rolls better at others.

[neuroanatomist]

Because the 1.3x sensor is a lesser sensor than FF.

Correct - in terms of the area dimension of the sensor, APS-H is smaller than FF.  So what?  "Full frame' is the lesser sensor when compared to MF - maybe we should all harass Phase One and Hasselblad for a 10 fps camera (or, at least, to measure frame rate in frames per second instead of seconds per frame...)?!?

APS-H meets the needs of some photographers, and not others.  It's always best to use the right tool for the job, and Canon supports that with a variety of sensor formats.

Regarding the comparisons to Nikon, I don't think those are really relevant at the top end of the line.  The market fraction that chooses one of the highest-end bodies (1D/1Ds, D3x/D3s) as their first camera must be infinitesimal.  Those who upgrade/replace into the flagship series have already bought into a system, and if they are changing systems, a cost difference in the bodies is a fraction of the total cost (new lenses, etc.).   As it stands now, the difference in price between the 1DIV and D3s is insignificant (4%), and the difference between the 1DsIII and D3x is still not that meaningful (14%).

[Ivar]

I haven't argued what you stated - if it is possible to process only x megapixels at 10fps, then you would rather have all "the pixels" in a denser form though in a smaller sensor area.

The question is, if there is more processing power (file, data, megapixels etc as you wish), whether it makes sense to make a FF 27MP camera or make a 1.3x 27MP camera (mechanically the ability is already there, it is only about the data)

I believe currently, that with today's technology, the pixel density doesn't matter for high ISO, but the size of the light capture area does - more pixels might not contribute to the higher ISO, but the overall quality is never less than bigger pixels at the same sensor area, for both at the same size print. This is the basis for the choice - would you like to have a better ISO or more magnification, being under the data processing constraint?

Ivar, I'm not gonna get into a tit-for-tat cut and paste exercise, it's clear you disagree with my point of view.  You simply ain't gonna get the same framerates with full frame as a crop frame, the files are smaller with a crop, which is why there will always be a market for a high end crop body.

If the Nikon range is so good, maybe you need to sell your Canon kit and swap to the dark side ;-)

[Haydn1971]

I haven't argued what you stated - if it is possible to process only x megapixels at 10fps, then you would rather have all "the pixels" in a denser form though in a smaller sensor area.

The question is, if there is more processing power, whether it makes sense to make a FF 27MP camera or make a 1.3x 27MP camera.

The 1.3 crop isn't the same mp as the full frame, the pixel size is about 10% smaller, 5.7 vs 6.4, there isn't a current 1.3 crop that gives the same mp as a current full frame.  Because there are less pixels, there is less processing time required for each frame.  The 1.3 crop currently has about 25% less data to deal with, thus is faster, the pixel size is similar size, so you aren't actually losing that much except frame size.

If 1.3 crop was the same mp as a full frame, the pixel size would be about that (perhaps less) of a APS-C, which would give you just a single benefit of being able to take slightly wider angle shots than a APS-C with the same lens, but not much else, which would of course be too small a reason to spend £10's Millions in developing a specific 1.3 crop.

[Ivar]

The 1.3 crop isn't the same mp as the full frame, the pixel size is about 10% smaller, 5.7 vs 6.4, there isn't a current 1.3 crop that gives the same mp as a current full frame.  Because there are less pixels, there is less processing time required for each frame.  The 1.3 crop currently has about 25% less data to deal with, thus is faster, the pixel size is similar size, so you aren't actually losing that much except frame size.

Absolutely true. With disagreement only in the very last sentence after the last comma. This is where the potential is not yet used by Canon.

If 1.3 crop was the same mp as a full frame, the pixel size would be about that (perhaps less) of a APS-C, which would give you just a single benefit of being able to take slightly wider angle shots than a APS-C with the same lens, but not much else, which would of course be too small a reason to spend £10's Millions in developing a specific 1.3 crop.

Let's try to go to the basics - do you agree that, provided using the same (and I mean the same) technology , the bigger light capture area has better signal, thus theoretically better IQ?

[Haydn1971]

Let's not go back to basics - currently, there aren't similar mp full frame and 1.3 crop sensors, so your point is meaningless, which is why there are currently two different types of sensor and why it's unlikely that the 1.3 crop will go away.

[Rocky]

If 1.3 crop was the same mp as a full frame, the pixel size would be about that (perhaps less) of a APS-C, which would give you just a single benefit of being able to take slightly wider angle shots than a APS-C with the same lens, but not much else, which would of course be too small a reason to spend £10's Millions in developing a specific 1.3 crop.

Let's try to go to the basics - do you agree that, provided using the same (and I mean the same) technology , the bigger light capture area has better signal, thus theoretically better IQ?

"Same Technology", I am assuming you mean same pixel density.  The picture quality (noise) per pixel is identical regardless of the acyual sensor size. The FF will have more pixel than the APS-H and hence better picture quality. Hydyn1971 is half right about the comparision of APS-C ans APS-H with the same pixel density.  besides a widen angle with the same lens, The APS-H will also have a higher resolution  and hence better opicture quality.