all 18MP bodies

[unruled]

Canon in the last few yrs has been bumping up the megapixels

could be for any number of reasons, my view is mostly that its an investment in the future. Ie. up the pixel count now, then work on ISO performance, rather than the other way around.

Aside from that though, I'm just a little confused as to why the last 3-4 camera's have all been upped to the same 18MP sensor (with maybe slight differences in revisions).

I can understand that it may be more cost effective/easier from an engineering standpoint.
from a strategical standpoint its odd though, in that you remove a big way to differentiate the productline from one another.

I would then also assume that the pro line (5d/1d/7d) will have to increase MP count even further in the next iteration to maintain at least a gap between proline and consumer slr's.


on a seperate note, all entry level stuff has now gone to SDHC/XC, including the 60d. I've been wondering if thats gonna switch over for the 1d/5d range as well then.. or if they stick to CF there.

anybody have some insights?

 

[kubelik]

my guess is the answer to these is actually fairly straightforward.

regrading the unified sensors: yes, because it is simpler and cheaper. and honestly there's no reason to have a whole bunch of nearly-similar sensor resolutions, I'm sure pretty much everyone would prefer canon spend its energy focused on just 2-4 sensors rather than mucking about with a dozen. in fact, that's one of the key complaints about the APS-H sensor used in the 1D Mark IV, is that it is consuming R&D resources that could be better dedicated to a universal FF sensor used across the canon lineup. in terms of differentation, there are plenty of other ways to differentiate cameras that are far less costly (limiting frame rates, movie implementation, prism size/type, weatherproofing seals, etc.). actually, pretty much any of the above are far cheaper to implement than developing additional sensor types.

I think everyone is pretty much expecting >21MP out of the next FF sensor, so ... yes. but again, I don't think the primary differentiation is the MP count, it's the quality of it. people are paying for a FF sensor when they buy a 5D Mark II over a 7D, not because they desperately want 3 more megapixels of resolution.

I hope (and expect) that canon will retain CF cards for their professional lineup. in terms of build quality, SD cards don't come close to CF cards, and when you're serious about the photography that does make a difference. the performance of CF cards still remains slightly ahead of SD as well (to my knowledge, I could be wrong on that one). also, SD cards have exposed contacts, which is just not reassuring if you're shooting and swapping cards in difficult locations.

 

[foobar]

Developing and manifacturing sensors is costly - we're talking millions of dollars just to get to prototype stage. Canon put a lot of effort into the 18mp sensor: Despite having the highest pixel density, it's Canon's best-performing APS-C sensor to date in terms of high-ISO.

So it makes sense to share that piece of silicon between as many camera models as possible. What Canon does at the moment seems to be exactly that. As far as I know the only things different between the 550D/60D/7D in terms of the sensor are the auxiliary components (signal amplifiers etc.).

I wouldn't be surprised to find the same sensor in the 600D as well. I don't think Canon is "forced" to replace it, yet.
For the 7D Mark II (which I don't expect before 2012), I'd like to see a revised version of the 18mp sensor, although I wouldn't hold my breath on it.

Anyway, they can't continue to play the megapixel game forever, even if they keep improving the high-ISO capabilities. At some point, any resolution gains are simply eaten up by diffraction, unless you're shooting wide open with fast lenses.

 

[Admin US West]

Nikon does the same thing, they share sensors accross as many cameras as possible. The cost to make a sensor drops as the manufacturing process matures and bugs in the process are worked out. The cost of developing a new sensor is extremely high, and Nikon as well as Canon have been reducing costs, and sharing sensors is low hanging fruit.

 

[traveller]

This is one reason that I don't see a 1000D replacement using the old 12MP sensor. Surely it must be more expensive to continue fabricating a separate sensor for one model, than to simply standardise on the 18MP sensor for all APS-C models and differentiate on other features?

 

[armando]

when the 3.0 sdhc standard comes in it will be able to write 80mb, nearly on par with the 600x! the 60d supports theu uhs-1.

the 18mp is basically what current aps-c sensors are maxed out at, while the 5d mkiii everyone is guessing will have more mp because it has a little more space todo so.

 

[studio1972]

Personally, I have found SDHC cards to be much more robust than CF, where the pins inside the camera can be easily bent, requiring the camera to be sent to the manufacturer to repair. It is a fallacy to think that bigger = tougher.

I would love a 5D Mk III with 2 SD slots instead of a single CF slot.

 

[neuroanatomist]

could be for any number of reasons, my view is mostly that its an investment in the future. Ie. up the pixel count now, then work on ISO performance...

I hope so. But the pessimistic side of me just thinks they're increasing pixel count just to increase pixel count, based on marketing research that tells them 'Joe consumer' wants more More MORE megapixels.

 

[armando]

I was hoping about the 80mb write, but i think the new 3.0 sdhc uses 3 more pin, making the 60d not able to use that speed, but still use the card (backward compatible); i said wtf!

the 18mp here it is I finnaly found out whats it for.

PRINTING = 18mp so when you scroll through the different mp sizes on your camera your basically selecting what you want to print size you want. I read actually sraw produces better quality than raw.

Quality = Sensor aps-c & ff is great. the smaller sensors will not have that much quality


so when you read more mp its the ability to print out size wise on paper' i mean do you post the full size online or send that enormous size??

I mean do you post the full size online (whatever site?) even you did lol..well you'd be scrolling for a bit (really long time) in frustation to the right and down to the bottom until you got to the center of the picture.

 

[unruled]

Personally, I have found SDHC cards to be much more robust than CF, where the pins inside the camera can be easily bent, requiring the camera to be sent to the manufacturer to repair. It is a fallacy to think that bigger = tougher.

I would love a 5D Mk III with 2 SD slots instead of a single CF slot.

I guess with regards to CF or SD, there was this piece of news awhile back in the nikon camp
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/11/30/compactflash-is-not-dead-and-sandisk-sony-and-nikon-wants-to-make-it-better.aspx

 

[papa-razzi]

For most people, at some point more MPs are just a pain to deal with. The files are larger, it takes longer to upload, more storage space on your computer and CF card, and more CPU power to process. It just inherently raises the cost of everything.

More MP allows you to crop down on a photo and still have the ability to print a decent size print, and of course you can make larger and larger prints with more MP. But there is a point where it gets beyond the practical needs of the vast majority. I think we are there.

Having both a XSi and a 7D I find the SD cards much easier than the CF cards. Most laptops come with an embedded SD reader now. For CF I need an adapter. I also agree with the fragility of the CF Pins in the camera. I had a friend who had to send his camera in for repair because of bent pins. The other consideration is the investment in expensive/fast CF cards. If I had several expensive CF cards, that would make the cost of switching to a new body using SD cards that much more expensive.

I beleive I am speaking for most amatures, even the very experienced. Pros are likely another matter.

So, I see a continuation of SD moving up the product line like we saw with the 60D, but I don't think the high end cameras will switch from CF any time soon.

 

[tzalmagor]

For most people, at some point more MPs are just a pain to deal with. The files are larger, it takes longer to upload, more storage space on your computer and CF card, and more CPU power to process. It just inherently raises the cost of everything.

More MP allows you to crop down on a photo and still have the ability to print a decent size print, and of course you can make larger and larger prints with more MP. But there is a point where it gets beyond the practical needs of the vast majority. I think we are there.

I think Canon just passed "there".

With 16MP, one can crop half the pixels and still print A4 size. I'll bet that covers the needs of over 99% of photographers.

Some of my family members still print photos for kids' photo albums, etc. The only exception to 4x6 is calendars (I get 2-3 of those a year from family members), and the photos embedded in those are rarely larger than 5x7. Based on pixel count, cellular phone cameras are already there.