More New Full Frame Rumors [CR1]

[Dave]

I love the word "Nikon Killer"

Bascially somebody saw the "Less pixels are better" comment from Canon and thought "hey you know what I'll submit a rumour"

I don't think so. This is the logical conclusion: It's actually exactly what I wrote yesterday:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,1670.msg24418.html#msg24418

And actually... Canon really NEEDS a "Nikon Killer"

 

[dgsphto]

And actually... Canon really NEEDS a "Nikon Killer"

Well said. Canon's been way to greedy for long and have not been fair to their customers based on how they have segmented their product lines and features.

Nikon, on the other hand, packs in everything that they can at a given price point. Just look at what the D7000 brought to the table!

The 5D Classic was revolutionary in what it brought to the table. I am yet to see customers being treated fairly after then in the Canon camp. And based on what I am reading, the tip-over point has been reached now! So yes, they only have one shot at it to get it right, especially when Nikon seemingly has replacements planned for the D300s and the D700.

 

[UncleFester]

I'd be willing to bet most people couldn't tell the difference between D3 and 5DII images. Or 5DII to a 7D, or a 1DIV to a 5D. These cameras are all too close and the look of the image is down to the photographers.

So, one killing the other? I get the impression they're building the same cameras.

 

[Meh]

[/quote]
My1DII has only 8.2mp and it still works great. But, I'm sure that the 1DIV has better dynamic range, even if it has more mega-pixel...
[/quote]

Yes, it does. The reason being the 1DIV has much lower noise due to the modern electronics in the sensor.

[/quote]
Would a camera produced today with 8mp have a better dynamic range than the current 1DIV?... Probably.
[/quote]

Yes, it would. The larger pixels would each collect more light and the sensor, due to current electronics, would have lower noise.

 

[wockawocka]

I'd be willing to bet most people couldn't tell the difference between D3 and 5DII images. Or 5DII to a 7D, or a 1DIV to a 5D.

At 100%, manually exposed with the same settings... hell yeah I could.

 

[Bruce Photography]

Reply to Uncle Fester: I probably am not most people and therefore you could be right about not being able to tell the difference between images from camera. I own several x0D cameras, a 5D, 5D MK II as well as a 7D. In all cases I can easily tell the differences between a FF camera and an aps-c sized camera. Just go to 100% in camera raw in photoshop and start doing sharpening. You'll see it in the noise level at even moderate ISO such as 800. My standard prints are 17x25 and the amount of extra work I need to do to make an acceptable aps-c print at that size is significantly more than a FF image. I would never know on a Web image or even a screen image on my computer but in working with large prints I can easily see a difference even using the same lenes at the same ISO and exposure settings. For now, my 5DMK II is king of IQ. I just wish the autofocus was more advanced. I am confident that Canon will come up with a 21MP+ pro camera that fully competes with the Nikon D3X before we once again play the game of leap frog. I am hoping for a tiltable LCD. If not I'm planing on using a portable external monitor for my low and high angle shots.

 

[J. McCabe]

well, clearly this is evolutionary. let me wager and outrageously accurate and educated prediction.

a fanciful 5dmkIII with the following:
55MP full frame image with 28 stops of dynamic range and a noiseless ISO range from 25 to 102,400.

No, that wouldn't cut it. Need 200MP to print those B0 posters at 300DPI.

 

[koolman]

<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; margin: 70px 0 0 0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/more-new-full-frame-rumors-cr1/\"></glusone></div><div id=\"fb_share_1\" style=\"float: right; margin: 0 -50px 0 10px;\"><a name=\"fb_share\" type=\"box_count\" share_url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/more-new-full-frame-rumors-cr1/\" href=\"http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php\">Share</a></div><div><script src=\"http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share\" type=\"text/javascript\"></script></div><div class=\"tweetmeme_button\" style=\"float: right; margin-left: 10px;\"><a class=\"tm_button\" rel=\"&style=normal&b=2\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/more-new-full-frame-rumors-cr1/\"></a></div>
I received two other emails today talking about what could be coming in October from Canon.</p>
<p>According to one of the emails:</p>
<blockquote><p>Canon will be launching a new camera later in October. Already in production and described internally as a “Nikon-killer”, it is reportedly a camera with lower megapixels than might be expected for a new release, but with excellent dynamic range and ISO performance.</p></blockquote>
<p>No one has come forward in the last while to say a new 1Ds Mark IV or 5D Mark III were in the immediate pipeline, for the moment this appears to be it.</p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>

Canon's main advantage is its L line of lenses. For crop cameras - the L's focal Lengths are a bit ridicules - as the 24 is not wide, the 16-35 is a fortune and not ultra wide, the older fast primes preform mediocre on the crops.
The 24-70 - behave differently on a crop - as the longer end was not made to focus at such a magnification (you need to stand further away from your subject).

The body race is in the field of electronics (sensor and processor development). It makes much sense for Canon to introduce more affordable FF bodies. This will achieve a few things simultaneously:

1) Give this FF body a substantial advantage over all the MFT new bodies FLOODING the market - who's IQ is quite near (if not even better) then the crops.

2) Open the L lens market to many more consumers.

3) Allow a real jump in DR - which again will "jump" the canon body way ahead of what crops can do.

In other words - the rumor of an affordable FF - in my opinion - reflect a wise business move.

 

[ranplett]

Re: More New Full Frame Rumors [CR 0.001]

I may sound really cynical here, but this post just screams of fanboy with the mention of "Nikon killer." This is the language of gear buyers that want to prove they have the best stuff.

Also, yet another wishlist type of rumor where photogs, or want-to-be-photogs cheerleading for certain features. It seems that everyone in the forums wants different features. Guess what? I want 40mp. So Canon... build a 40mp camera! But please, do away with that annoying flash hotshoe. I'd buy it right away!!

Do you really think the Canon marketing division won't kibosh less MP? It's going to be 24 - 28MP.

 

[Bob Howland]

I am hoping for a tiltable LCD. If not I'm planing on using a portable external monitor for my low angle shots.

You could always use an angle finder:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183200-REG/Canon_2882A001_Angle_Finder_C.html

 

[lol]

To me the angle finder is no substitute to a tilty screen. I got the official Canon one to use for macro, and ended up not really using it as it just wasn't nice to use. The biggest problem being you need to get your eye near it, and it is similarly limiting to the normal viewfinder. A tilty screen gives you so much more freedom of movement.

 

[UncleFester]

Reply to Uncle Fester: I probably am not most people and therefore you could be right about not being able to tell the difference between images from camera. I own several x0D cameras, a 5D, 5D MK II as well as a 7D. In all cases I can easily tell the differences between a FF camera and an aps-c sized camera. Just go to 100% in camera raw in photoshop and start doing sharpening. You'll see it in the noise level at even moderate ISO such as 800. My standard prints are 17x25 and the amount of extra work I need to do to make an acceptable aps-c print at that size is significantly more than a FF image. I would never now on a Web image or even a screen image on my computer but in working with large prints I can easily see a difference even using the same lenes as the same ISO and exposure settings. For now, my 5DMK II is king of IQ. I just wish the autofocus was more advanced. I am confident that Canon will come up with a 21MP+ pro camera that fully competes with the Nikon D3X before we once again play the game of leap frog. I am hoping for a tiltable LCD. If not I'm planing on using a portable external monitor for my low angle shots.

My point exactly.

 

[V8Beast]

Also most of people can tell the picture from a P &S from a APS_C, let alone FF.We should not assume that they are that naive. Also Canon can always educate people in their advertisement and literatures.

I beg to differ. IMHO, people that have owned both FF and crop sensor bodies can easily spot the difference in image quality between the two. However, there are at least a half-dozen posts made here daily that claim their 7D or xxD body produces images on par with a FF body. They even post the indisputable evidence (links to some yahoo's blog "testing" FF and crop sensor bodies back-to-back by taking photos of bookshelves and their girlfriend's hairy arm pits) to back up their claims

When I'm on assignment, people are shocked to find out that I keep a lowly 12.8 mp 5DC as a backup body. They're stunned that a working pro has a body with fewer megapixels than their Rebel or 7D. You're kidding yourself if these kind of consumers have any idea of the different sensor sizes manufacturers offer. They just put their cameras in full Auto mode, and fire away.

If you can't distinguish the difference in image quality between a 1.6:1 and full-frame body, why spend the premium for a FF body? It's the same reason why I talk people out of buying DSLRs and suggest that they stick with point-and-shoots, on countless occasions. If this rumored entry-level, "lower mp" camera is real, that's the question Canon's marketing department is going to have to answer.

 

[Rocky]

[When I'm on assignment, people are shocked to find out that I keep a lowly 12.8 mp 5DC as a backup body. They're stunned that a working pro has a body with fewer megapixels than their Rebel or 7D. If this rumored entry-level, "lower mp" camera is real, that's the question Canon's marketing department is going to have to answer.

If you keep your lowly12.8 MP 5DC as back up, would you like to have a New 12.8MP FF (with all the new Technology from the 7D snsor) to give you better DR, lower noise, even if it is a low priced body as your back up???
I think Canon is right to have a lower MP FF with better DR better noise than the existing 5D II. Whether it is low prince or not, it remained to be seen. If Canon can make a $600 Rebel, I am sure tha tit Canon make a $1500 FF. It is just depends on how canon play the marketing game. The $600 Rebel has not kill the $1600 7D yet.

 

[lol]

I'd like to remind everyone the *rumour* is that the new camera might have "less than expected" MP, not "less than current". The trade-offs are not as simple as some people seem to think, and optimisations for factors other than "image quality" may bias that towards more or less MP.

Also on V8Beast's post below, personally I don't see a significant difference in "big picture" like for like comparisons between crop and FF. Yes, the differences are there at pixel level, but who looks at pixels? The big differentiator to me is the shallower DoF potential of a bigger sensor, which is harder to replicate with smaller sensors unless you use stupidly fast lenses or a bucket load of photoshop.

 

[V8Beast]

If you keep your lowly12.8 MP 5DC as back up, would you like to have a New 12.8MP FF (with all the new Technology from the 7D snsor) to give you better DR, lower noise, even if it is a low priced body as your back up???

Absolutely, but I already decided long ago that a FF sensor is better suited for what I shoot. It's not people like me Canon needs to convince. It's the people shopping for a Rebel, xxD or 7D that need to be convinced that it's worth it to pay a premium for a FF sensor. This rumored entry-level FF camera might be "low priced" compared to what photo enthusiasts are accustomed to, but if it's priced between the 7D and 5DII, it will be considered very pricy for people in the market for a Rebel or xxD.

 

[V8Beast]

Also on V8Beast's post below, personally I don't see a significant difference in "big picture" like for like comparisons between crop and FF. Yes, the differences are there at pixel level, but who looks at pixels?

It really depends what you shoot and what purpose you shoot it for. For editorial work, how the photographer envisions a story layout while looking through the viewfinder - and therefore how he composes a shot - and how the art director actually lays out the image, are often very different. As such, it's not uncommon for an image to be cropped substantially. For instance, I might compose an image to be used as a two-page spread, and leave lots of dead space around the subject for text. If the art director chooses not to use the image how I envisioned, and heavily crops into the image, then the limitations of the file become much more exaggerated.

Even so, this isn't something most people stepping up from a point-and-shoot to a Rebel/xxD need to worry about, so why pay a premium for a FF sensor? Furthermore, certain forms of photography are more demanding than others in terms of dynamic range and high ISO requirements, so it's impossible to make blanket statements like "FF sensors are always superior to 1.6:1 sensors." Most images people take these days just sit on a hard drive, and only geeks like us pixel peep, so again, Canon would have it's work cut out for it to convince people to sacrifice megapixels for sensor size.

 

[Bob Howland]

Also on V8Beast's post below, personally I don't see a significant difference in "big picture" like for like comparisons between crop and FF. Yes, the differences are there at pixel level, but who looks at pixels?

It really depends what you shoot and what purpose you shoot it for. For editorial work, how the photographer envisions a story layout while looking through the viewfinder - and therefore how he composes a shot - and how the art director actually lays out the image, are often very different. As such, it's not uncommon for an image to be cropped substantially. For instance, I might compose an image to be used as a two-page spread, and leave lots of dead space around the subject for text. If the art director chooses not to use the image how I envisioned, and heavily crops into the image, then the limitations of the file become much more exaggerated.

Even so, this isn't something most people stepping up from a point-and-shoot to a Rebel/xxD need to worry about, so why pay a premium for a FF sensor? Furthermore, certain forms of photography are more demanding than others in terms of dynamic range and high ISO requirements, so it's impossible to make blanket statements like "FF sensors are always superior to 1.6:1 sensors." Most images people take these days just sit on a hard drive, and only geeks like us pixel peep, so again, Canon would have it's work cut out for it to convince people to sacrifice megapixels for sensor size.

Which is why I think the entry level FF camera and the low MP Lord of Darkness FF camera will be two different cameras. Needing a LOD camera and being willing to give up pixels to get high ISO image quality and DR requires a level of sophistication that the average Rebel buyer just doesn't have. Most have no idea what DR is and many are surprised by the notion that different models of P&S's and DSLR's may have differently sized sensors. I think the LOD camera will be targeted toward wedding photographers.

 

[mikahyva]

I dont believe in consumer FF body in near future, simply because it would make EF-S line lenses obsolete. FF bodies are better for most purposes, but the human behind the camera is more important than the equipment in front of the human.

 

[Rocky]

I dont believe in consumer FF body in near future, simply because it would make EF-S line lenses obsolete. FF bodies are better for most purposes, but the human behind the camera is more important than the equipment in front of the human.

Just the opposite, If Canon comes up with a sub-$1200 FF boby, People will buy it. As for lenses, a lot of people are using EF (not EF-S) lens even with the APS-C sensors. Or people just buy new lenses with their new FF body. Canon will sell more EF lenses by having "reasonable priced" FF body. It is a Win-Win situation for Canon.