New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]

[Don Haines]

Guesses as to just what a high-megapixel camera will be?

My bet is it will have dual pixel technology... probably every FF and APS-C camera from here on will have it....

Some say the frame rate will be slow.... but there is no reason to expect this. The latest variant of Compact Flash can write at 350Mbytes per second....and that is with the cards that are out now. It will get faster... Some say you can not read the sensor that quickly.... but if a 5D2 can read 18Mpixels 60 times per second or if my p/s camera can read 16Mpixels 240 times per second, there is nothing that says a new model of camera can not keep up with a paltry 15 frames per second... the limitation is now shutter and mirror, not reading the sensor...

None of us know what canon plans to bring out next.... we are guessing. How many of us predicted dual-pixel? Canon has thousands of patents, but for various reasons only a few of them make it to market... The dropped ideas are not from some complex conspiracy theory, they get dropped for practical reasons.. thinks like yes, we COULD make a 240Mpixel sensor, but the yields are so low as to be impractical and the rest of the hardware is not ready to keep up to it... A camera is a system, not a collection of parts. You get to see new technology when it can be integrated into the system at a reasonable cost.

 

[unfocused]

Canon has officially, publicly announced the technology: August 31st, 2010 ...
...ANY given company has its Business Plan ahead for 1,2,3,5, 10 & 20 years. Each one in its own pace and milestones. Each subject to some extend to modification. What I mean is that we might be seeing technology developed as early as 2006.

My problem with this general line of reasoning is that it assumes that Canon (or any other company) purposely withholds a new technology in order to boost profits.

First, I don't know that that is a particularly good strategy for any company. Especially for a technology company because there is no way to prevent competitors from releasing the same or better technology while you sit on it.

Second, while Canon's research with high resolution sensors is well documented, it is exactly that – research.

Getting that technology ready for market, identifying and correcting problems that may crop up, and developing the necessary manufacturing base to mass produce the product all take time and don't constitute sitting on or withholding technology. A company like Canon or Nikon cannot afford to bring a product to market before it is perfected. They have too much riding on their reputation. So, a research announcement or a prototype built specifically for a trade show is a far cry from a product that is ready for market.

Finally, what no one on this forum knows or can know is whether or not the market exists for a high megapixel DSLR. In fact, what evidence we have suggests that the one relatively high megapixel DSLR out there (Nikon's D800) has not been particularly successful.

The D800 is positioned in Nikon's lineup as a competitor to the 5DIII. All available figures would indicate that the 5DIII is significantly outselling the D800.

People accuse Canon of all sorts of ulterior motives, but their reluctance to release a high megapixel camera may simply be because they are not certain that a large enough target market exists.

Many times people on this forum throw out the term "marketing" as though it is some kind of pejorative. But, marketing's primary goal is always to make sure that a product can sell. The first question that must be answered is: is there a market for this product?

If Canon does release a high megapixel body in the next year, we will have the answer to that question. If they do not, we will also have the answer to that question. They are not being "mean" and they are not "losing," they are doing their due diligence to determine if they can sell the product.

This isn't just about company profits for stockholders. If Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic or anyone else releases a product that cannot sell and loses money for the company, that diminishes their ability to offer other products that can sell at a price point that we all benefit from.

(By the way, a 120 APS-H sensor would actually scale out to about 203 megapixels – 120 x 1.3 x 1.3)

 

[Orangutan]

First, I don't know that that is a particularly good strategy for any company. Especially for a technology company because there is no way to prevent competitors from releasing the same or better technology while you sit on it.

In general I agree with your post. However, I'm told by a "reliable source" that IBM made a lot of money doing exactly this in the '60s and '70s. Because they had a dedicated customer base, they could trickle out the technology advances and make profits on each fractional upgrade. Eventually this caught up with them, but not before they'd made a bunch of profit.

I'm told, again by a "reliable source," that it's cheaper to tweak old tech than to roll out truly new tech because newer tech invariably has hurdles to overcome, which cost money and time. Tweaking older tech is not free, but is more predictable in terms of schedule and money.

Take all this with the requisite half-ton of salt. It is conceivable that Canon is withholding tech. Even so, it's irrelevant due to the business reasoning behind it. Their job is to make money. When they believe it's in their interest to release new tech they will do so if they can.

 

[jrista]

Canon has officially, publicly announced the technology: August 31st, 2010 ...
...ANY given company has its Business Plan ahead for 1,2,3,5, 10 & 20 years. Each one in its own pace and milestones. Each subject to some extend to modification. What I mean is that we might be seeing technology developed as early as 2006.

My problem with this general line of reasoning is that it assumes that Canon (or any other company) purposely withholds a new technology in order to boost profits.

First, I don't know that that is a particularly good strategy for any company. Especially for a technology company because there is no way to prevent competitors from releasing the same or better technology while you sit on it.

Second, while Canon's research with high resolution sensors is well documented, it is exactly that – research.

Getting that technology ready for market, identifying and correcting problems that may crop up, and developing the necessary manufacturing base to mass produce the product all take time and don't constitute sitting on or withholding technology. A company like Canon or Nikon cannot afford to bring a product to market before it is perfected. They have too much riding on their reputation. So, a research announcement or a prototype built specifically for a trade show is a far cry from a product that is ready for market.

Finally, what no one on this forum knows or can know is whether or not the market exists for a high megapixel DSLR. In fact, what evidence we have suggests that the one relatively high megapixel DSLR out there (Nikon's D800) has not been particularly successful.

The D800 is positioned in Nikon's lineup as a competitor to the 5DIII. All available figures would indicate that the 5DIII is significantly outselling the D800.

People accuse Canon of all sorts of ulterior motives, but their reluctance to release a high megapixel camera may simply be because they are not certain that a large enough target market exists.

Many times people on this forum throw out the term "marketing" as though it is some kind of pejorative. But, marketing's primary goal is always to make sure that a product can sell. The first question that must be answered is: is there a market for this product?

If Canon does release a high megapixel body in the next year, we will have the answer to that question. If they do not, we will also have the answer to that question. They are not being "mean" and they are not "losing," they are doing their due diligence to determine if they can sell the product.

This isn't just about company profits for stockholders. If Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic or anyone else releases a product that cannot sell and loses money for the company, that diminishes their ability to offer other products that can sell at a price point that we all benefit from.

(By the way, a 120 APS-H sensor would actually scale out to about 203 megapixels – 120 x 1.3 x 1.3)

+1 Well said! Completely agree.

 

[Loswr]

Canon has officially, publicly announced the technology: August 31st, 2010 (actually quite before that, but I seem to be unable to find the info on the net now).

Let us calculate, Neuro feel free to correct me: if APS-H is 120 MPs then FF would go to about 150 or so.

Now putting into consideration Dual Pixel Tech we might need to divide them by 2 (actually the DPAF is not like that but for the sake of simplicity... :-( ) that would make about 75 MPs.

Now we are talking about Emerging tech in 2010. And that article in July 2013 if less than a real product I would call CANON total bunch of hypocrites looking ONLY for profit.

That means 1DXs shouldn't be less than that! IF it is, it would be marketing's dep. fault that would claim that if they release 45 MPs now and 75 MPs in 2017 Canon would make way more money.

Your logic is flawed. You're assuming that something done once as a one-off R&D project can immediately be done at production scale in a profitable manner. Further, you're suggesting the only reason that technology isn't in consumers' hands is that the company is withholding it.

So...we landed on the moon in 1969, and the only reason we haven't had colonies there with routine shuttle flights back and forth for 40 years is that the US Government is withholding the technology from the tax paying citizens of the country. Okay-dokey-fine-n-dandy, you go on believing that.

 

[Eldar]

Canon has officially, publicly announced the technology: August 31st, 2010 (actually quite before that, but I seem to be unable to find the info on the net now).

Let us calculate, Neuro feel free to correct me: if APS-H is 120 MPs then FF would go to about 150 or so.

Now putting into consideration Dual Pixel Tech we might need to divide them by 2 (actually the DPAF is not like that but for the sake of simplicity... :-( ) that would make about 75 MPs.

Now we are talking about Emerging tech in 2010. And that article in July 2013 if less than a real product I would call CANON total bunch of hypocrites looking ONLY for profit.

That means 1DXs shouldn't be less than that! IF it is, it would be marketing's dep. fault that would claim that if they release 45 MPs now and 75 MPs in 2017 Canon would make way more money.

Your logic is flawed. You're assuming that something done once as a one-off R&D project can immediately be done at production scale in a profitable manner. Further, you're suggesting the only reason that technology isn't in consumers' hands is that the company is withholding it.

So...we landed on the moon in 1969, and the only reason we haven't had colonies there with routine shuttle flights back and forth for 40 years is that the US Government is withholding the technology from the tax paying citizens of the country. Okay-dokey-fine-n-dandy, you go on believing that.

Just to add to this. I was an IC designer from the early 80s, into the 90s (dinosaur) and I have worked in or managed electronics and IT companies ever since (and still do). I will be very surprised if Canon didn´t have working prototypes of all key technologies we will see in the next body in 2010 or even before that. It is in most cases a tremendous job to bring it from prototype to industrialized product, unless it is an iteration of an existing technology. With the geometries required to produce the next high resolution sensor chip (with improved DR), they will have significant yield issues. They will also face significant challenges in getting even performance from the chips over the entire wafer.

On top of the pure sensor production issues, they have to improve all the surrounding electronics, the signal processing etc. etc. We may argue that a $7k body is expensive. But considering all the electronics, firmware, software, mechanics etc. we need, in a very compact and weather sealed package, they need to control every element of that chain to perfection in order to make money, even with that price tag. That is why they test their products to death before they are released for volume sales.

A fair guess is that Nikon released their 800/800E too early, because they had to, but it showed up in the feedback from the customers thereafter. How many 5DIII and 1DX complaints have we seen that can be related to a poor industrialization process? I would say none. That is one of the reasons why Canon make more money than the others.

Consider also that a Phase One 80MP package has a price tag of +$40k. In principle it is a same same product, with a body, sensor, mirror, shutter, nobs, firmware, software etc. for shooting images. The price difference is primarily caused by obvious yield issues with the sensor, a less perfected production process and lower volume to carry the R&D expenses.

 

[jrista]

...from the early 80ties, into the 90ties (dinosaur)...

LOL. ;D

Sorry, just thought I'd point this out. As written, that reads:

"...from the early eightyties to the ninetyties (dinosaur)..."

I think you wanted:

"...from the early 80s to the 90s (dinosaur)..."

Although, technically, the correct thing would be to spell the words out (which is usually correct for numbers over ten):

"...from the early eighties to the nineties (dinosaur)..."

Again, sorry, don't mean to be rude, but that gave me a pretty good laugh.

 

[Eldar]

Thanks Jrista, the only way to learn is to be corrected

 

[AvTvM]

Developing, manufacturing and marketing innovative imaging gear may be a challenging task but it is still a fairly trivialenterptise compared to "rocket science", space ships and colonies on the moon. So i think, we should not use these as relevant comparisons.

The truth is much simpler. 2 japanes companies live in a cosy duopoly. Both managed by a team of old, conservative by nature management teams. Innovation is a bad word in their circles. Maintaining the status quo rules their thinking. Even the most modest improvements of old technologies and products [e.g. mirrorslapping DSLRs] is meted out only in tiny, fractional doses. Anything that even remotely smells of "disruptive technology" [e.g. Mirroless cameras, not to mention things like lightfield imaging or holographic Technologies or glassless optics to name just a few]senfs cold shivers down their spines.

And the same is true for their ultra-conservative clientele well in their 50s, 60s and beyond, that is over-represented here and in many other similar forums.

Rather than challenging the suppliers of our imaging gear to give us far better tools for our money, many of us here excuse these suppliers in advance for their failure to do so. And worry more about those suppliers profitsthan about the value of their products for our creative tasks and ambitions - whether they be professional or for pleasure.

Instead we shoul push canon far mire. On a daily basis. With words and with our wallets. To deliver far better, far more enabling tools than just delivering a digital "rebel" in white plastic or a new 1Dx that is only marginally better than the last one was or than nikons next d4s is.

That is "the forest" we are looking at.

Heck, why dont we push canon more to at least pursue the 2 outstanding USPs they currently have over all other competitors? Technologically easy, no disruptive technology neede, no lunar landingscrequired, but lots of value to many of us and lots of profits for canon to be made:

1. radio-controlled wireless flash
Why still no RT controller built into every single EOS camera? Why still no 430EX-RT? Why still no 49 usd transceiver allowing us to integrate at least 580/430 IIs into an RT controlled flash setup? Not to even think of studio szrobes. Why wait until yongnuo does it? Why not be proactive and completely zrash nikon, sony and everybody else in the field of small flash?

2. eye control af
Nobody else has it. Canon easily could. Bring a working 21st century version of ECF. The single. Most intuitive way to control where in an image we want to position the focus plane, and which subject in a scene we want to have tracked.
Will work in dslrs with ovf and in milcs with evf. Little investment. Huge gains. For us. And for canon.

So modest and little innovation which would really help canon to stay market leader for many more years by creating true value for their clients. Thats what we should be demanding of our preferred supplier of imaging gear. And of course thete are a few more examples of such easy wins. Like 14 EV of DR. But that seems to be tougher to get from canon than a lunar landing.

 

[Orangutan]

Developing, manufacturing and marketing innovative imaging gear may be a challenging task but it is still a fairly trivialenterptise compared to "rocket science", space ships and colonies on the moon. So i think, we should not use these as relevant comparisons.

"challenge" in terms of cost is relative. I.e., why can't I buy a new, top-of-the line Porsche for $3,000? It's not rocket science.

The truth is much simpler.

And you know this how?

2 japanes companies live in a cosy duopoly.

Since it's not rocket science, we should have seen a bunch of upstart competitors jump into the marketplace. Are you proposing an international conspiracy to suppress 35mm digital camera innovation?

Both managed by a team of old, conservative by nature management teams. Innovation is a bad word in their circles. Maintaining the status quo rules their thinking. Even the most modest improvements of old technologies and products [e.g. mirrorslapping DSLRs] is meted out only in tiny, fractional doses.

I can't address Nikon with this, but Canon's other business units push tech to market pretty fast, as does Sony's. Why do you think they'd make an exception for cameras?

Anything that even remotely smells of "disruptive technology" [e.g. Mirroless cameras, not to mention things like lightfield imaging or holographic Technologies or glassless optics to name just a few]senfs cold shivers down their spines.

Other companies have tried to put out these devices and have not yet succeeded. Again, were they intimidated into silence by the DSLR Yakuza?

And the same is true for their ultra-conservative clientele well in their 50s, 60s and beyond, that is over-represented here and in many other similar forums.

The same group that buys the latest smart phones by the container-ship load?

Rather than challenging the suppliers of our imaging gear to give us far better tools for our money, many of us here excuse these suppliers in advance for their failure to do so. And worry more about those suppliers profitsthan about the value of their products for our creative tasks and ambitions - whether they be professional or for pleasure.

Instead we shoul push canon far mire. On a daily basis. With words and with our wallets. To deliver far better, far more enabling tools than just delivering a digital "rebel" in white plastic or a new 1Dx that is only marginally better than the last one was or than nikons next d4s is.

Ah, I see: you are Don Quixote. If all the posters on all the photo blogs all rose in rebellion, it would still account for a modest fraction of the sales.

1. radio-controlled wireless flash
Why still no RT controller built into every single EOS camera?

This is a simple business decision. It's the same reason I couldn't get a trunk light in the mid-level Honda Civic I bought over a decade ago. They wanted me to buy the high-end model (oxymoron?) They want to up-sell you, and it's not unique to the camera industry.

2. eye control af
Nobody else has it. Canon easily could. Bring a working 21st century version of ECF. The single. Most intuitive way to control where in an image we want to position the focus plane, and which subject in a scene we want to have tracked.

Is there really a market for it? Would customers pay the extra $$$? Dunno, but this one question has a sliver of legitimacy.

Thats what we should be demanding of our preferred supplier of imaging gear.

It's now a mass-consumer market: aficionados are no longer driving demand for this market.

Since we're now fantasizing, here's what I DEMAND from Canon: I want a mirrorless FF, with 43mm. square sensor so I can capture the full light circle and crop later. AND, instead of disposing of the space where the mirror box used to be, I want them to put in a trichroic prism so we can have a 3-chip sensor package with separate sensors for RGB. That will allow us to get rid of the Bayer filter, and could buy us >= 1-stop of additional light capture. And I DEMAND that it cost no more than $2,000, with 2-year warranty.

The one type of external pressure that might have an effect is to compel the market participants to create a standard lens mount and interface, similar to micro four thirds, for APS-C, 35mm (and maybe MF). When we can freely mix lenses and bodies we will see more competition. We saw a bit of this in the US when cell phone carriers were required to let you keep your phone number when you changed plans.

 

[AvTvM]

Since we're now fantasizing, here's what I DEMAND from Canon: I want a mirrorless FF, with 43mm. square sensor so I can capture the full light circle and crop later. AND, instead of disposing of the space where the mirror box used to be, I want them to put in a trichroic prism so we can have a 3-chip sensor package with separate sensors for RGB. That will allow us to get rid of the Bayer filter, and could buy us >= 1-stop of additional light capture. And I DEMAND that it cost no more than $2,000, with 2-year warranty.

I'd also love a MILC with a [smaller] square sensor, since a 48x48mm would result in a body the size of a 1D DSLR and would require new, huge lenses to go with it.

Personally I don't care that much for the "prism+3-sensor" version ... but YES, that would be along the lines of true innovation that we should rightfully expect from Canon as well as other suppliers of 21st century imaging gear.

And ... such innovative cameras might even be worth asking prices of up to 7000 USD/Euro that CaNikon today are charging for only marginally improved iterations of their age-old mirrorslappers.

The one type of external pressure that might have an effect is to compel the market participants to create a standard lens mount and interface, similar to micro four thirds, for APS-C, 35mm (and maybe MF). When we can freely mix lenses and bodies we will see more competition. We saw a bit of this in the US when cell phone carriers were required to let you keep your phone number when you changed plans.

+1. Yes, absolutely. Unified lens mount [in 3 sizes for (m)FT / APS-C [1.5x] / KB sensors] plus open standard, fully documented lens-camera protocol. However, this specific demand should not be directed so much at Canon and other suppliers of imaging gear, but more at our lawmakers.

 

[jrista]

The truth is much simpler. 2 japanes companies live in a cosy duopoly. Both managed by a team of old, conservative by nature management teams. Innovation is a bad word in their circles. Maintaining the status quo rules their thinking. Even the most modest improvements of old technologies and products [e.g. mirrorslapping DSLRs] is meted out only in tiny, fractional doses. Anything that even remotely smells of "disruptive technology" [e.g. Mirroless cameras, not to mention things like lightfield imaging or holographic Technologies or glassless optics to name just a few]senfs cold shivers down their spines.

Where does this utter CRAP come from??? It's a complete fabrication.

Canon THRIVES on innovation:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/innovation

Remember, they were the first with AF sensors and electronic AF lenses. They were pioneers with the ultrasonic motor, and were the first to use it for lens focus drives. They developed diffractive optics when the rest of the industry and even scientists laughed at them and said it was impossible. They were an early pioneer in using fluorite elements in lens designs, and were the first to use artificially grown fluorite in their lenses. They pioneered low dispersion (UD) optical glass shortly after that. They were first to market with FF DSLR CMOS sensors, and they were the first to use CMOS sensors in commercially successful digital cameras. They were the first to hit 20mp in an FF CMOS sensor.

Canon has innovated like a bat out of hell for decades.

Canon also received more patents in 2012 than even SONY!! Sony, the juggernaut of the sensor and electronics industries, was outpaced by Canon when it came to innovating new technologies:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/standard_display/abtcan_in_canonInnovation_misc/abtcan_in_patents_misc

This whole post by AvTvM is a complete fabrication, pulled strait out of the dark, smelly holes no one wishes to think about. It is one thing to be frustrated that Canon doesn't have a camera with the kind of sensor you want. It is an entirely different thing to make up a fake story about "ancient conservative management" that "fears innovation", when the actual FACTS spanning decades clearly prove the opposite.



The current FACTS are that Canon is, has been, and will continue to be an innovative company. The fact is that Canon is developing photographic equipment with different goals and plans in mind than SoNikon or any other competitor. The fact is that Canon does not and has not ever shown any interest in DIRECTLY competing with specific models from competing brands. The FACT is that Canon, with their latest equipment, listened very closely and clearly to the very loud outcry from THEIR customers, the outcry for bigger pixels, better high ISO performance, better AF on the 5D and 1D lines, and faster frame rates...and they delivered, quite exquisitely, the things their customers asked for. Given Canon's TRACK RECORD of extensive innovation AND listening to their customers, I have great confidence Canon will deliver the things their customers are now currently asking for.

There is no conservative management that fears innovation at Canon...quite the opposite, actually. A company that feared innovation wouldn't be a world leader in any of the technology that Canon excels at.

 

[Loswr]

Where does this utter CRAP come from??? It's a complete fabrication.

It comes from the fact that none of Canon's many recent innovations have directly addressed his specific desires. How dare Canon not respond to him?!? :

 

[mkabi]

Where does this utter CRAP come from??? It's a complete fabrication.

It comes from the fact that none of Canon's many recent innovations have directly addressed his specific desires. How dare Canon not respond to him?!? :

lol... and he has a budget of $2000.
One man.... one dream.... and only $2000... Quick Canon, spend millions for that $2000.

 

[eml58]

the early 80s, into the 90s (dinosaur)

I don't for a moment disagree with Jrista, but I think all of us Dinosaurs write it up in a similar manner, by the time we get to become Dinosaurs we tend to be a little Lazy, 80s is just so much easier to write up than Eighties.

And if Eldar is from the Jurassic (80s & 90s), I'm from the Triassic (60s & 70s).

And I agree with your comments as well, it's a tough Game staying competitive in the Camera World, even more difficult keeping people on CR happy.

 

[eml58]

And the same is true for their ultra-conservative clientele well in their 50s, 60s and beyond, that is over-represented here

I agree with this part only because I'm Guilty, the rest ?? I need some Panadol,

 

[AvTvM]

Where does this utter CRAP come from??? It's a complete fabrication.

It comes from the fact that none of Canon's many recent innovations have directly addressed his specific desires. How dare Canon not respond to him?!? :

lol... and he has a budget of $2000.
One man.... one dream.... and only $2000... Quick Canon, spend millions for that $2000.

Rejoice! Canon will happily take 7000 $ from you fot their next iteration big bulky heavy boring as hell mirror-slapper.
Or more. ;-)

 

[eml58]

Rejoice! Canon will happily take 7000 $ from you fot their next iteration big bulky heavy boring as hell mirror-slapper.
Or more. ;-)

AvTvM, why do you bother with all this ?? Out of 605 Posts all that changes is which specific part of Canon you dislike, otherwise it's just one long + 12 month Agonised Rant against Everything Canon.

You need to lighten up Man, get a Hobby (Photography might work for you), Go out more, have a Beer, spend less time on CR, head over to SR or NR, get a girlfriend, get a friend, spread yourself around a bit.

But heck, this is just the opinion of an ultra conservative Chap in his 60s like those Chaps Managing so poorly at Canon.

 

[RLPhoto]

Rejoice! Canon will happily take 7000 $ from you fot their next iteration big bulky heavy boring as hell mirror-slapper.
Or more. ;-)

AvTvM, why do you bother with all this ?? Out of 605 Posts all that changes is which specific part of Canon you dislike, otherwise it's just one long + 12 month Agonised Rant against Everything Canon.

You need to lighten up Man, get a Hobby (Photography might work for you), Go out more, have a Beer, spend less time on CR, head over to SR or NR, get a girlfriend, get a friend, spread yourself around a bit.

But heck, this is just the opinion of an ultra conservative Chap in his 60s like those Chaps Managing so poorly at Canon.

I Concur. He hasn't posted any photography on a photography forum.

 

[jrista]

Where does this utter CRAP come from??? It's a complete fabrication.

It comes from the fact that none of Canon's many recent innovations have directly addressed his specific desires. How dare Canon not respond to him?!? :

lol... and he has a budget of $2000.
One man.... one dream.... and only $2000... Quick Canon, spend millions for that $2000.

Rejoice! Canon will happily take 7000 $ from you fot their next iteration big bulky heavy boring as hell mirror-slapper.
Or more. ;-)

Canon will also happily take $5000, $3500, $2000, $1100, $500, $250 etc. for bodies that are smaller, some of which have no mirror to slap around at all, and a few of which have very innovative technology like DPAF. Grow up man, Canon has a product line...that means more than one, and therefor at least one to fit the majority of needs.