The Dawn of a New Digital Resolution

[Canon Rumors]

<p>CPN Europe Jumps The Gun on the EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R Announcement.</p>
<p><img class="alignnone wp-image-18613 size-large" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IMG_0664-576x1024.png" alt="IMG_0664" width="576" height="1024" /></p>
<p><em>thanks Stefano</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Hector1970]

I can't find that header at the moment. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong spot.
Hardly the dawn of a new Digital Resolution.
More of a catch up with Nikon. It will be interesting to see the exact specs and sample photos for the new cameras.
I've been disappointed with the 7D Mark II and it's image quality (maybe expecting too much from an APS-C sensor).
It will be great if it is actually a fantastic camera.
I'm surprised Canon don't look for a sensor bigger than full frame but smaller than medium format.
Maybe it's too tricky to invent a new format.

 

[Stu_bert]

it's gone now....

 

[ijohnsson]

I'm surprised Canon don't look for a sensor bigger than full frame but smaller than medium format.
Maybe it's too tricky to invent a new format.

Then they would have to also produce a whole new range of lenses with a larger image circle. Doesn't make much sense.

 

[3kramd5]

I'm surprised Canon don't look for a sensor bigger than full frame but smaller than medium format.
Maybe it's too tricky to invent a new format.

Then they would have to also produce a whole new range of lenses with a larger image circle. Doesn't make much sense.

Yup. They could probably get away with the TSE lenses in their un-shifted, un-tilted position, but everything else would heavily vignette at best.

Maybe the cinema lenses are larger too, but I imagine they're designed for the 3:2 35mm frame.

 

[BeenThere]

A square 35mm x 35mm would be larger and use the same lenses. OK maybe slight corner clipping.

 

[3kramd5]

A square 35mm x 35mm would be larger and use the same lenses. OK maybe slight corner clipping.

Slight? The diameter of a circle circumscribed by a 36mmX24mm frame is about 43-1/4mm. Likely EF lenses project a slightly bigger one to avoid severe corner vignetting, but let's take that as the actual.

A 35mmX35mm square is 49-1/2mm diagonally. So you're clipping over 3mm from each corner. Is that really usable?

To scale, it would roughly look like this:

 

[Glider]

Hi All


Why did they use the plural when referring to the picture of the cameras when one was a 1DX is that getting a boost as well????


Regards

Jon

EDIT it looks like that image refers to the sidebar not the headline sorry

 

[PureClassA]

Hi All


Why did they use the plural when referring to the picture of the cameras when one was a 1DX is that getting a boost as well????


Regards

Jon

Eh. It's a 5D3 and 1DX. Stock images? Unrelated to the headline link? Wouldn't read much into that. Yes the 1DX is getting revamped, likely this year, but nothing has even remotely surfaced to suggest it's coming right now. I'd guess it comes with the 5D4 in the fall.

 

[Orangutan]

A square 35mm x 35mm would be larger and use the same lenses. OK maybe slight corner clipping.

Slight? The diameter of a circle circumscribed by a 36mmX24mm frame is about 43-1/4mm. Likely EF lenses project a slightly bigger one to avoid severe corner vignetting, but let's take that as the actual.

A 35mmX35mm square is 49-1/2mm diagonally. So you're clipping over 3mm from each corner. Is that really usable?

As it is now, we're clipping a lot more than than. I'd rather have them use a full-coverage square sensor, and then crop in post. That completely eliminates the need for vertical orientation -- you can decide landscape vs. portrait in PP.

As far as I know, there are but two fundamental problems with a large square sensor: Wasted pixels, and complexities of the mirror assembly due to the need for a larger mirror. I don't know if the mirror assembly could be re-engineered to accommodate the larger sensor, but a full-coverage square sensor becomes feasible when (!) FF mirrorless becomes reality.

 

[Stu_bert]

Hi All


Why did they use the plural when referring to the picture of the cameras when one was a 1DX is that getting a boost as well????


Regards

Jon

EDIT it looks like that image refers to the sidebar not the headline sorry

The CPN site had multiple headlines. The picture of the 5D III & 1DX refers to the new firmware release.

Over the top, there was a "newsflash" about the Dawn....

 

[3kramd5]

As it is now, we're clipping a lot more than than. I'd rather have them use a full-coverage square sensor, and then crop in post. That completely eliminates the need for vertical orientation -- you can decide landscape vs. portrait in PP.

The biggest square that will fit is 30-1/2mm on the side, which sure, is 7% more area than a Full Frame, but if you then crop it to a common aspect ratio rectangle like 5X4, you're actually a good 13% smaller than Full Frame (30.5X24.4), although you have the advantage of cropping off center in one axis. If you crop it to 3X2, you're smaller yet, roughly 30% so (30.5X20.3).

Personally, I'd rather rotate my camera.

 

[Orangutan]

As it is now, we're clipping a lot more than than. I'd rather have them use a full-coverage square sensor, and then crop in post. That completely eliminates the need for vertical orientation -- you can decide landscape vs. portrait in PP.

The biggest square that will fit is 30-1/2mm on the side, which sure, is 7% more area than a Full Frame, but if you then crop it to a common aspect ratio rectangle like 5X4, you're actually a good 13% smaller than Full Frame (30.5X24.4), although you have the advantage of cropping off center in one axis. If you crop it to 3X2, you're smaller yet, roughly 30% so (30.5X20.3).

Personally, I'd rather rotate my camera.

I assume you mean the biggest square that will fit with current mirror assembly design. Certainly there's no limit on the size of a sensor in-place.

I agree that a square sensor is not useful unless it covers the the same area that a normal sensor would cover in both orientations.

 

[Lawliet]

Maybe the cinema lenses are larger too, but I imagine they're designed for the 3:2 35mm frame.

Trying that would be a harsh surprise.
Some of the cine lenses are direct derivates from their conventional counterparts, unless they've got additional baffles they cover the same area.
The others are designed for super35 - about APS-C. Both the zoom range and the wide angle focal lengths are a good indicator, even if one doesn't want to read the data sheets.

 

[3kramd5]

I assume you mean the biggest square that will fit with current mirror assembly design. Certainly there's no limit on the size of a sensor in-place.

I mean the biggest square that will fit the image circle of EF lenses (assuming that it touches opposite corners of a 36mmX24mm frame exactly; in reality it's likely somewhat larger).

 

[Orangutan]

I assume you mean the biggest square that will fit with current mirror assembly design. Certainly there's no limit on the size of a sensor in-place.

I mean the biggest square that will fit the image circle of EF lenses (assuming that it touches opposite corners of a 36mmX24mm frame exactly; in reality it's likely somewhat larger).

Ah, I see your misunderstanding, it needs to be the other way around: the smallest square that covers the entire image circle.

 

[3kramd5]

I assume you mean the biggest square that will fit with current mirror assembly design. Certainly there's no limit on the size of a sensor in-place.

I mean the biggest square that will fit the image circle of EF lenses (assuming that it touches opposite corners of a 36mmX24mm frame exactly; in reality it's likely somewhat larger).

Ah, I see your misunderstanding, it needs to be the other way around: the smallest square that covers the entire image circle.

Ah, yes, that would be a huge (the aformentioned 43-1/4mm). Mirrorless and possibly electronic shutter would certainly be the name of the game.

 

[Orangutan]

I assume you mean the biggest square that will fit with current mirror assembly design. Certainly there's no limit on the size of a sensor in-place.

I mean the biggest square that will fit the image circle of EF lenses (assuming that it touches opposite corners of a 36mmX24mm frame exactly; in reality it's likely somewhat larger).

Ah, I see your misunderstanding, it needs to be the other way around: the smallest square that covers the entire image circle.

Ah, yes, that would be a huge (the aformentioned 43-1/4mm). Mirrorless and possibly electronic shutter would certainly be the name of the game.

To me this is one of the two big payoffs for a mature FF mirrorless body.

 

[3kramd5]

I assume you mean the biggest square that will fit with current mirror assembly design. Certainly there's no limit on the size of a sensor in-place.

I mean the biggest square that will fit the image circle of EF lenses (assuming that it touches opposite corners of a 36mmX24mm frame exactly; in reality it's likely somewhat larger).

Ah, I see your misunderstanding, it needs to be the other way around: the smallest square that covers the entire image circle.

Ah, yes, that would be a huge (the aformentioned 43-1/4mm). Mirrorless and possibly electronic shutter would certainly be the name of the game.

To me this is one of the two big payoffs for a mature FF mirrorless body.

There would naturally be the question of affordability. 43mm is longer than the short side of big-boy medium format digital (PhaseOne IQx80). I could see the premium being significantly more than that of APS-C -> FF.

Fun to think about, though.

 

[rs]

I assume you mean the biggest square that will fit with current mirror assembly design. Certainly there's no limit on the size of a sensor in-place.

I mean the biggest square that will fit the image circle of EF lenses (assuming that it touches opposite corners of a 36mmX24mm frame exactly; in reality it's likely somewhat larger).

Ah, I see your misunderstanding, it needs to be the other way around: the smallest square that covers the entire image circle.

Ah, yes, that would be a huge (the aformentioned 43-1/4mm). Mirrorless and possibly electronic shutter would certainly be the name of the game.

To me this is one of the two big payoffs for a mature FF mirrorless body.

There would naturally be the question of affordability. 43mm is longer than the short side of big-boy medium format digital (PhaseOne IQx80). I could see the premium being significantly more than that of APS-C -> FF.

Fun to think about, though.

No. The largest possible square supported by the 43.27mm image circle common across the EF lens system is just under 30.6mm x 30.6mm. Anything bigger than that would result in corner shading.

Then let's consider some other issues:

• 
  Some EF lenses have a rectangular baffle, such as the 70-200, optimised for a 3:2 image format. This would allow for a theoretical maximum 24x24mm square sensor

• Many lenses have petal shaped hoods, optimised for a 3:2 image format. This again means a 24x24mm sensor
• If using the DSLR format, the 44mm flange distance would be pushed over the limit to allow for a 36mm image height mirror - due to its 45' angle, it would have to be a minimum of 50.9mm from top to bottom - simply no room to allow it to fold out of the way. This again brings it down to around 24x24mm.