A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
... I'm one more pro hoping and wishing the rumor turns into reality... I know... get in (the very long) line... ;D
But what smells "fishy" to me is that an announcement would come next month. Why not make a development announcement at Photokina? Why not announce/leak/promise something in August?
... and speaking of "soon to be announced at Photokina" rumors... what happened to:
Sigma - Art 85mm? Art 24-70 f/2?
Sony - Curved sensor Wonder Cameras? Medium Format mirrorless?
Fuji - Medium Format camera? 24mpixel 100T?
At least those seemed plausible, didn't they? Yet, where are they? Has camera/gear sales dropped so fast that no one is investing in R&D like they used to?
But what smells "fishy" to me is that an announcement would come next month. Why not make a development announcement at Photokina? Why not announce/leak/promise something in August?
... and speaking of "soon to be announced at Photokina" rumors... what happened to:
Sigma - Art 85mm? Art 24-70 f/2?
Sony - Curved sensor Wonder Cameras? Medium Format mirrorless?
Fuji - Medium Format camera? 24mpixel 100T?
At least those seemed plausible, didn't they? Yet, where are they? Has camera/gear sales dropped so fast that no one is investing in R&D like they used to?
Upvote
0
tomscott
Photographer & Graphic Designer
I think everyone is getting carried away here.
I can't see Canon creating this camera. Even if it is a pro body the price is too high and the game has changed and Canon needs to move with it.
Why would they introduce a new sensor tech and left the 7DMKII for the next 5 years with a modified last gen sensor. Doesn't make sense to me…
Canon need to respond but the fact we've barely heard anything about this camera since the 1Ds MKIII was discontinued…
Don't get your hopes up… again.
I can't see Canon creating this camera. Even if it is a pro body the price is too high and the game has changed and Canon needs to move with it.
Why would they introduce a new sensor tech and left the 7DMKII for the next 5 years with a modified last gen sensor. Doesn't make sense to me…
Canon need to respond but the fact we've barely heard anything about this camera since the 1Ds MKIII was discontinued…
Don't get your hopes up… again.
Upvote
0
I don't care how many megapixels it has, it's the quality of those pixels.
If Canon made a camera that was 18mp and totally clean ISO up to 51200 I'd pay 10k for that in a heartbeat.
If Canon made a camera that was 18mp and totally clean ISO up to 51200 I'd pay 10k for that in a heartbeat.
Upvote
0
I paid USD 8249 for my 1dX two years ago, today it's USD 8249, there's a reason they can do that. And I think it's a smart move by Canon, because when the new model comes out I still get a lot back for my 1dx and can afford to upgrade, if it dropped, the used priced dropped and I would NEVER be able justify buying the new one. I can sell my 1dx here tomorrow for USD 6300.
Upvote
0
A quick 2 questions:
1) Has anyone asked Canon directly why they don't offer a higher-mpixel camera? Asking someone other than a marketing guy, that is.
2) Has anyone from Canon provided a clear, reasonable reply to why their current product offering is as good, if not better than Nikon/Sony at 36mpixel (rumored to soon go to 46mpixel)?
A link to something (Presentation? Whitepaper? Engineering paper?) would be great. I'd like to take the time to understand (as best I can) why Canon is "stuck" in it's current position.
1) Has anyone asked Canon directly why they don't offer a higher-mpixel camera? Asking someone other than a marketing guy, that is.
2) Has anyone from Canon provided a clear, reasonable reply to why their current product offering is as good, if not better than Nikon/Sony at 36mpixel (rumored to soon go to 46mpixel)?
A link to something (Presentation? Whitepaper? Engineering paper?) would be great. I'd like to take the time to understand (as best I can) why Canon is "stuck" in it's current position.
Upvote
0
ChristopherMarkPerez said:
1) Only public relation persons are allowed to speak to the public. If an engineer answers he'll lose his job and possibly get a big lawsuit.
2) It still sells well enough, so it must be good enough. Looking at the sensor alone, Canon is way behind in some important areas. In my opinion they should adapt a Sony sensor for a high density studio/landscaping body. This would make many people happy.
Upvote
0
1) I realize that folks can't talk "off the record" without getting canned. But having worked for high tech companies (semi-conductors, test and measurement gear) sometimes engineers or scientists are sent around to explain things at a level of detail that the marketing guys can't.
2) Indeed, if things are selling well, why worry? That's to be expected. And yet Sony continues to innovate.
OK. I did some more research after posting my questions. I feel comfortable with the answers I found.
Basically, what it comes down to is this: Photo-sensor production is a highly skilled, very costly process. Some years ago Canon said just one of the machines in their fab cost upwards of 30million USD each. They needed 20 to meet production goals. And like all micro-electronics, the entire process is a nightmare to manage all the variables that _will_ get you (one way or another).
So the approach is _not_ much different than that taken by Intel or AMD or HP or IBM. Since I feel I understand the various arguments for/against new equipment purchases in chip production, I also feel I can understand why a company would be shy about sinking more money into fab gear, until, that is, the sharp pointy pencil guys "upstairs" say the cost tradeoffs are in line with projected revenue gains.
Yes, there is MUCH more to it than all this, but this is a start.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Sony wanted to get into the photo-imaging game. Let's say they were willing to make a fresh/new investment in the latest sensor fab technologies. Let's say they have deep/rich history in electronics (which they clearly do) and can manage an entire process of design, raw materials, supplier relationships, and quality control (which, to varying degrees of success, they can). Let's say they knew 8inch wafer fabs were being replaced by 12 inch fab lines, so they buy whatever was the latest and greatest. Their production capacity would be greatly increased over someone still running an 8inch wafter fab.
We know Canon was running sensor production on 8inch wafters back at the introduction of the 5D and 1Ds cameras. We also know that Canon could only get 20 FF sensors off an 8inch wafer. If any one of those parts were defective, the yields would drop through the floor. We also know that Canon could get well over 200 APS-C sensors off the same sized wafer. If a few parts failed QA, yields might not be impacted too terribly while the process engineers sort out what's gone wrong.
The question I now have is did they spend the money on 12 fabs (or larger) or are they STILL running the old, small tech?
Let's say for the sake of argument that Sony figured out a way to design a circuit that helped manage random noise (which is a real bugger, apparently) that shows up in CMOS sensors. Let's also say that Canon has yet to find the same "magic" electronics circuit answer.
I can't imagine what Sony has invested in their sensor fab. They clearly knew the costs and wanted to balance the risks. They're making it work, perhaps in part due to their ability to offer finished product (sensors) to anyone who's willing to pay their parts prices. Canon, OTOH, doesn't seem to sell their sensors to anyone else. Their sales opportunities are limited to their own production.
This back of the envelope argument makes sense to me in light of Canon's current inability to keep up with Sony.
When in a niche market that is in the state of decline, it's a very very tough "sell" to the sharp-pointy-pencil guys on the need to open the purse and fund yet more R&D and more hugely costly tools of production.
But... the more I think about it, this _is_, afterall, Canon's chosen line of work. So I'll assume for a moment that their sensor fab tech is fine. If it is, my guess is Canon is having difficulty with the process itself. Something about too few good parts or needing to iron out a few wrinkles that inevitably arise when you try to scale technologies like these.
Still, if Canon hasn't found a way to offer a commercial product with more pixels and Sony (already) has, I'll likely add more Sony gear to my pool of toys. Afterall, if they've figured out how to keep us happy in the Banner Specs Wars, why not? Right?
2) Indeed, if things are selling well, why worry? That's to be expected. And yet Sony continues to innovate.
OK. I did some more research after posting my questions. I feel comfortable with the answers I found.
Basically, what it comes down to is this: Photo-sensor production is a highly skilled, very costly process. Some years ago Canon said just one of the machines in their fab cost upwards of 30million USD each. They needed 20 to meet production goals. And like all micro-electronics, the entire process is a nightmare to manage all the variables that _will_ get you (one way or another).
So the approach is _not_ much different than that taken by Intel or AMD or HP or IBM. Since I feel I understand the various arguments for/against new equipment purchases in chip production, I also feel I can understand why a company would be shy about sinking more money into fab gear, until, that is, the sharp pointy pencil guys "upstairs" say the cost tradeoffs are in line with projected revenue gains.
Yes, there is MUCH more to it than all this, but this is a start.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Sony wanted to get into the photo-imaging game. Let's say they were willing to make a fresh/new investment in the latest sensor fab technologies. Let's say they have deep/rich history in electronics (which they clearly do) and can manage an entire process of design, raw materials, supplier relationships, and quality control (which, to varying degrees of success, they can). Let's say they knew 8inch wafer fabs were being replaced by 12 inch fab lines, so they buy whatever was the latest and greatest. Their production capacity would be greatly increased over someone still running an 8inch wafter fab.
We know Canon was running sensor production on 8inch wafters back at the introduction of the 5D and 1Ds cameras. We also know that Canon could only get 20 FF sensors off an 8inch wafer. If any one of those parts were defective, the yields would drop through the floor. We also know that Canon could get well over 200 APS-C sensors off the same sized wafer. If a few parts failed QA, yields might not be impacted too terribly while the process engineers sort out what's gone wrong.
The question I now have is did they spend the money on 12 fabs (or larger) or are they STILL running the old, small tech?
Let's say for the sake of argument that Sony figured out a way to design a circuit that helped manage random noise (which is a real bugger, apparently) that shows up in CMOS sensors. Let's also say that Canon has yet to find the same "magic" electronics circuit answer.
I can't imagine what Sony has invested in their sensor fab. They clearly knew the costs and wanted to balance the risks. They're making it work, perhaps in part due to their ability to offer finished product (sensors) to anyone who's willing to pay their parts prices. Canon, OTOH, doesn't seem to sell their sensors to anyone else. Their sales opportunities are limited to their own production.
This back of the envelope argument makes sense to me in light of Canon's current inability to keep up with Sony.
When in a niche market that is in the state of decline, it's a very very tough "sell" to the sharp-pointy-pencil guys on the need to open the purse and fund yet more R&D and more hugely costly tools of production.
But... the more I think about it, this _is_, afterall, Canon's chosen line of work. So I'll assume for a moment that their sensor fab tech is fine. If it is, my guess is Canon is having difficulty with the process itself. Something about too few good parts or needing to iron out a few wrinkles that inevitably arise when you try to scale technologies like these.
Still, if Canon hasn't found a way to offer a commercial product with more pixels and Sony (already) has, I'll likely add more Sony gear to my pool of toys. Afterall, if they've figured out how to keep us happy in the Banner Specs Wars, why not? Right?
heptagon said:
Upvote
0
pleasehelp said:
Read this article (google translated) to understand why it doesn't make sense to go much higher than 30-something megapixels on full frame:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photoscala.de%2FArtikel%2FWie-viele-Megapixel-verkraftet-eine-Kamera&edit-text=&act=url
It's the laws of optics you won't be able to break.
note: full frame translates to small image in the article because the german word for 24x36 is also Kleinbild.
Upvote
0
If it is meant to be a 1-series style D800, not sure it's a good sign on the potential DR front if going off that earlier post it has the same pixel density as an 18MP APS-C sensor. I don't think I need to point out what's not good on seeing that number again LOL
Upvote
0
If this were true, you'd expect the electronics/camera manufacturers to justify their 20-22mpixel mantra (I like that phrase, thanks to whomever first wrote that in this thread) based on it.
The fact is, optical physics does not work in a 1/r manner as everyone who writes these kinds of articles assumes. It's for this reason that diffraction limits come into play in current sensor sizes after f/11 and not sooner as would be expected from the formula.
Yes, you can clearly see the effects of "something" at f/22 and f/32 in the writer's example. But I can't be certain it's diffraction limiting or if it's really optical design. Why? Because the 5D MkII sensor is good for critical resolution thru f/16 (the sensor is only good for 79lpmm). I wouldn't expect to see diffraction limited images look like that (I say this after looking at resolution results from literally hundreds of lenses of all kinds and makes).
The fact is, optical physics does not work in a 1/r manner as everyone who writes these kinds of articles assumes. It's for this reason that diffraction limits come into play in current sensor sizes after f/11 and not sooner as would be expected from the formula.
Yes, you can clearly see the effects of "something" at f/22 and f/32 in the writer's example. But I can't be certain it's diffraction limiting or if it's really optical design. Why? Because the 5D MkII sensor is good for critical resolution thru f/16 (the sensor is only good for 79lpmm). I wouldn't expect to see diffraction limited images look like that (I say this after looking at resolution results from literally hundreds of lenses of all kinds and makes).
lo lite said:
Upvote
0
Potential Layered sensor...
1. I assume Canon counts their pixels spatially, i.e. not 46/(3 layers) = 15.3, or 46/(5 layers) = 9.2
2. 46 spatial pixels then no more AA filter. You can just pixel bin for video
3. No more color noise!
4. 5 Layers.. BGYM(IR)?????
High MP...
I hope that the new TS-E lenses 60(45) and 135(90) would be launched in conjunction with a high megapixel body. Shift stitch with the new TS-E lenses gives you an effective medium format digital sized sensor and all the pixels to match. Combined with accurate color that would be ideal for Landscape/Studio work. An EF 11-24mm USM with autofocus would be nice though.
1. I assume Canon counts their pixels spatially, i.e. not 46/(3 layers) = 15.3, or 46/(5 layers) = 9.2
2. 46 spatial pixels then no more AA filter. You can just pixel bin for video
3. No more color noise!
4. 5 Layers.. BGYM(IR)?????
High MP...
I hope that the new TS-E lenses 60(45) and 135(90) would be launched in conjunction with a high megapixel body. Shift stitch with the new TS-E lenses gives you an effective medium format digital sized sensor and all the pixels to match. Combined with accurate color that would be ideal for Landscape/Studio work. An EF 11-24mm USM with autofocus would be nice though.
Upvote
0
Reply to the 30MPix nonsense.
Current sensors have a bayer pattern providing with only 1/4th resolution in red/blue. So make that makes the 30MPix into 120MPix if you want a color sensor. But it doesn't stop there. Look at the resolution of the 300mm 2.8 IS II. It outperforms current sensors when using the 2x extender on crop. That'd be 18 MPixels times 4 (extender) times 2.56 (crop to FF area) resulting in 184 MPix. This times 4 because of the bayer pattern is 737 MPix for full color resolution.
Even though most lenses will only provide this resolution in the center of the image at the optimum aperture (<<f/8) we're far from "too many pixels on this sensor".
Admittedly fewer and fewer people will benefit from more pixels in fewer and fewer situations since you need super fast shutter speeds, perfect focus, optimum lighting etc. but if technology provides more pixels at moderate cost, why not take it to get those 10% of the shots you couldn't with the old tech?
In the end the real loser will be the 1.4x and 2x extenders which are just a magnifying glass and crop cameras for tele which just use a smaller imaging circle.
Current sensors have a bayer pattern providing with only 1/4th resolution in red/blue. So make that makes the 30MPix into 120MPix if you want a color sensor. But it doesn't stop there. Look at the resolution of the 300mm 2.8 IS II. It outperforms current sensors when using the 2x extender on crop. That'd be 18 MPixels times 4 (extender) times 2.56 (crop to FF area) resulting in 184 MPix. This times 4 because of the bayer pattern is 737 MPix for full color resolution.
Even though most lenses will only provide this resolution in the center of the image at the optimum aperture (<<f/8) we're far from "too many pixels on this sensor".
Admittedly fewer and fewer people will benefit from more pixels in fewer and fewer situations since you need super fast shutter speeds, perfect focus, optimum lighting etc. but if technology provides more pixels at moderate cost, why not take it to get those 10% of the shots you couldn't with the old tech?
In the end the real loser will be the 1.4x and 2x extenders which are just a magnifying glass and crop cameras for tele which just use a smaller imaging circle.
Upvote
0
heptagon said:
I agree that 30MP is nonsense, but how do you come to conclusion that the 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM II outperforms crop sensors with a 2xTC. Your conclusion seems orders of magnitude further out than the the 30MP result. Here are some real examples:
These TDP crops show spatial resolution on 21MP full frame vs 18MP APS-C with 2xTC:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
Admittedly the 60D has an AA-filter so this TDP crop shows 60D bare vs 60D with 2xTC. The lens does not appear to out-resolve APS-C with a 2xTC. If it did then there would not be a resolution drop when using the 2xTC.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=739&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
Lastly here is a DxO Mark, bare comparison between FF 21MP vs APS-C 20MP vs APS-C 18MP. The 300mm f/2.8 clearly out-resolves the old FF model, but does not out-resolve the newer crop bodies which apparently have weaker AA-filters.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM-versus-Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-70D-versus-Canon-EF-300mm-F28L-IS-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-700D___400_0_400_895_400_870
Upvote
0
October has to be a month where something is announced. Nikon is really taking a bite out of Canon's market share with a better 810 camera. Panasonic GH4 took a bite from the DSLR video guys. Canon needs to wake up and serve the professional market better. I have seen some of my friends make a switch to Nikon and sell all their canon gear. I do not care about the 60D's or the 7D's updates. I need a 5D Mark lV with at least 36-46mp with better low light abilities. With my work I live at ISO's higher than 2000 and right now I always have to use the noise reduction features in Lightroom to create a better file. 4K woud be nice but not as important. 90% of my work is stills.
Upvote
0
If this rumor is true, it seems like a similar strategy to what Nikon did with their D3X six years ago.
Upvote
0
Did I miss something, or isn't that Nikon that's in financial trouble?
Everything I've seen seems to imply Canon remains strong in it's number one position, with Sony coming on and Nikon fading.
I just went through Canon's Knowledge Base and remember why they're number one in photography gear. Nobody supports professionals the way Canon does. Not Nikon. Not Sony. And this is my number one concern about moving in Sony's direction. It seems like they do nothing for their pros.
Everything I've seen seems to imply Canon remains strong in it's number one position, with Sony coming on and Nikon fading.
I just went through Canon's Knowledge Base and remember why they're number one in photography gear. Nobody supports professionals the way Canon does. Not Nikon. Not Sony. And this is my number one concern about moving in Sony's direction. It seems like they do nothing for their pros.
Dphotos said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
