Idea for Canon?

[Tcapp]

Here are 2 of Canon's old tech sensors.
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html This is an APS-H 120 mega pixel CMOS sensor from 2010.
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug31e.html This is Canon's largest CMOS sensor at 202 x 205mm. It shows a standard full frame sensor next to it. This is from 2010 also.
Canon has the sensors and tech to do what every they want that is profitable.

Imagine the DoF you could get with that 205mm sensor, and a 85 1.2 lens! Sure, you would probably be looking at a couple hundred thousand $$ worth of equipment, but wow that would give some stunning images.

 

[untitled10]

But why on earth would a $20k digital back use such outdated tech. You would think they would improve it over the years? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just really curious as to why! If such a sensor existed, even I would buy one. I would take out a loan if I had to. So if that is true that they could have advanced MF tech but didn't, that seems like the biggest marketing oops of all time, no? They don't want to expand the tiny MF market into something resembling the 1dx/D4 market, which I assume is many times bigger?

Fact is, Leica (S2), Pentax (P645), Leaf, Phase One, Hasselblad, probably put them all together and their sensor R&D budgets wouldn't go anywhere near that of Canon or Sony.
It's unfortunate, but MF technology is going to lag further and further behind, if not least because of their lower budgets. Take the latest sensors, the D800, D4, 5D3, and compare them on a *pixel level* (100%) to an MF sensor, half the time the 35mm outperforms the MF, and that's despite the individual pixels being a crudload smaller and closer together, and despite the MF sensors costing as much as a small house.

If Canon or Sony took what they'd learned from making APS-C and FF sensors, and put the same tech into an MF, that would be phenomenal. Take the low-light performance of the 5D3 and make those pixels twice the size again? Take the DR of the D800 and double or triple their full-well capacity and increase another 1 or 2 bits? Even take an MF sensor now and add gapless microlenses would bump up performance a stop or two.
I don't care how expensive that sensor would be, it would be phenomenal and leave even the IQ180 for dust.

Canon should make a 5d2 of the MF world. Something that is affordable enough for the masses, but super amazing. I don't see why they can't, but I know they wont.

The coverage of their lenses dont go over FF , no way is canon making a new lens range (and possibly mount too)

 

[Tcapp]

But why on earth would a $20k digital back use such outdated tech. You would think they would improve it over the years? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just really curious as to why! If such a sensor existed, even I would buy one. I would take out a loan if I had to. So if that is true that they could have advanced MF tech but didn't, that seems like the biggest marketing oops of all time, no? They don't want to expand the tiny MF market into something resembling the 1dx/D4 market, which I assume is many times bigger?

Fact is, Leica (S2), Pentax (P645), Leaf, Phase One, Hasselblad, probably put them all together and their sensor R&D budgets wouldn't go anywhere near that of Canon or Sony.
It's unfortunate, but MF technology is going to lag further and further behind, if not least because of their lower budgets. Take the latest sensors, the D800, D4, 5D3, and compare them on a *pixel level* (100%) to an MF sensor, half the time the 35mm outperforms the MF, and that's despite the individual pixels being a crudload smaller and closer together, and despite the MF sensors costing as much as a small house.

If Canon or Sony took what they'd learned from making APS-C and FF sensors, and put the same tech into an MF, that would be phenomenal. Take the low-light performance of the 5D3 and make those pixels twice the size again? Take the DR of the D800 and double or triple their full-well capacity and increase another 1 or 2 bits? Even take an MF sensor now and add gapless microlenses would bump up performance a stop or two.
I don't care how expensive that sensor would be, it would be phenomenal and leave even the IQ180 for dust.

Canon should make a 5d2 of the MF world. Something that is affordable enough for the masses, but super amazing. I don't see why they can't, but I know they wont.

The coverage of their lenses dont go over FF , no way is canon making a new lens range (and possibly mount too)

Well, new lens range = more sales opportunities.

 

[dr croubie]

Imagine the DoF you could get with that 205mm sensor, and a 85 1.2 lens! Sure, you would probably be looking at a couple hundred thousand $$ worth of equipment, but wow that would give some stunning images.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=397
Unfortunately, the image circle of the 85 f/1.2 L II is only *just* big enough to cover FF. Sure, you could point it at a 210mm wide sensor, but the 'usable photo' size wouldn't be much bigger than 35x35mm (with room for creative cropping maybe).

Now, what you want is a Jupiter 13, 125mm f/1.5, it covers 4x5" Large Format, if you manage to get a 130x87mm 3:2 frame out of it on a huge sensor, you're looking at a 35mm-equivalent of a 50mm f/0.78.
Now *that* is a fast lens...

 

[Tcapp]

Imagine the DoF you could get with that 205mm sensor, and a 85 1.2 lens! Sure, you would probably be looking at a couple hundred thousand $$ worth of equipment, but wow that would give some stunning images.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=397
Unfortunately, the image circle of the 85 f/1.2 L II is only *just* big enough to cover FF. Sure, you could point it at a 210mm wide sensor, but the 'usable photo' size wouldn't be much bigger than 35x35mm (with room for creative cropping maybe).

Now, what you want is a Jupiter 13, 125mm f/1.5, it covers 4x5" Large Format, if you manage to get a 130x87mm 3:2 frame out of it on a huge sensor, you're looking at a 35mm-equivalent of a 50mm f/0.78.
Now *that* is a fast lens...

I was kind of thinking make a 85 1.2 lens specifically for the large sensor...

But that Jupiter 13 looks amazing. wow.

 

[plutonium10]

Don't want to derail this thread, because it's actually going in a more intelligent way than about 90% of the recent threads on this forum, but I am curious, what exactly does Canon need to "bounce back" from?

Nikon D800?

 

[unfocused]

Don't want to derail this thread, because it's actually going in a more intelligent way than about 90% of the recent threads on this forum, but I am curious, what exactly does Canon need to "bounce back" from?

Nikon D800?

And we have inside knowledge of sales figures to know how each camera is doing? And, while we're at it, how about a crystal ball to know what their total sales and net profits will be a year after the cameras have been released?

 

[Tcapp]

Don't want to derail this thread, because it's actually going in a more intelligent way than about 90% of the recent threads on this forum, but I am curious, what exactly does Canon need to "bounce back" from?

Nikon D800?

And we have inside knowledge of sales figures to know how each camera is doing? And, while we're at it, how about a crystal ball to know what their total sales and net profits will be a year after the cameras have been released?

I know the sales figures of both cameras... Sales = very very strong.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Medium format video. Bring it.

 

[Tcapp]

Medium format video. Bring it.

Heck yea! Imagine, night vision mode that functions like day mode with how sensitive the sensor could be. Forget 4k video and just make it 1080p. A 2MP medium format sensor. ISO 1 million. Bwahahahaha!

 

[plutonium10]

Don't want to derail this thread, because it's actually going in a more intelligent way than about 90% of the recent threads on this forum, but I am curious, what exactly does Canon need to "bounce back" from?

Nikon D800?

And we have inside knowledge of sales figures to know how each camera is doing? And, while we're at it, how about a crystal ball to know what their total sales and net profits will be a year after the cameras have been released?

I'm stating it as a possible explanation, not a fact. Thus the use of a question mark.

 

[Positron]

I don´t agree in "better".
CMOS advantage are the production costs!

it requires not that much energy like CCD
and the high ISO performance is better.

but color deph and DR, sharpness are definately better at CCDs

While it may not have been done yet, you're missing the flip-side of lower production costs. Namely, if you're willing to bring the production costs back up to the same level as before, you get a lot *more* performance out of it. The problem with doing that is marketing, primarily.

 

[pete vella]

cmos vs ccd is not the issue. the sensor is fine. its the adc thats old and needs to be changed to lower the read noise so it is not overpowering the midtone shadows. the only way to fix this is for dpreview and other review sites to make a new test so it becomes clear to novices that it is important. then canon will fix it pronto. we should thank the fed meranda review for bring this to light. the way is is shown is confusing and misleading. needs to be more technical test.