The Land of Crazy or.... ? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
B
Bob Howland
Guest
neuroanatomist said:
I have a couple problems with in-camera cropping. If the FF camera can go 10FPS and cropping to APS-H doesn't speed things up, then why crop? Sure the file size will be smaller but, in this day and age of 600X CF cards, so what? Also, if the camera is going to crop, I want the viewfinder masked so that the crop area is glaringly apparent. This is also true for in-camera video cropping, which I think is going to happen really soon.
The big advantage of a dedicated crop camera, APS-C or APS-H, is that for a given price and resolution, it can be faster and, for a given speed and resolution, it can be cheaper. The tradeoff, in both cases, is that more light is required to get a good image, which is why I specified "in good light".
APS-H always seemed like a bad compromise. (Obviously, a lot of people disagree.) I'd rather have a FF 8FPS, 16MP lord of darkness camera and a 12FPS, 16MP APS-C sports speed demon than a couple 10FPS, 16MP APS-H cameras. Currently, I use a 4-year old 40D and 6-year old 5D; both are getting near their end of life.
Upvote
0
It might sound odd, but I have been completely forgetting about the "London Olympics" when thinking about the cameras Canon are likely to release next.
Did'nt the 1D got updated in time for the last Winter Games which I imagine means it's OK as it stands? But the 1Ds is a completely different kettle of fish, its so ancient it needs a walking frame. It MUST be getting a new lease of life (or a replacement) before the Olympics actually start! And I for one will be seriously annoyed if 32mp is all we see in the "merged 1D line" when other manufacturers will be offering 40 or more mp.
Did'nt the 1D got updated in time for the last Winter Games which I imagine means it's OK as it stands? But the 1Ds is a completely different kettle of fish, its so ancient it needs a walking frame. It MUST be getting a new lease of life (or a replacement) before the Olympics actually start! And I for one will be seriously annoyed if 32mp is all we see in the "merged 1D line" when other manufacturers will be offering 40 or more mp.
Upvote
0
If there is a 1D1V replacement in the pipeline and I still have my doubts about that, it would definitely be announced and released before the 2012 Olympics, Canon wouldn't miss the opportunity to have it's new sports flagship in the hands of all those photogs, you just can't buy advertising like that. I'm sure all the new long primes will be ready for the Olympics though.
As for the merging of the 1 series, how do you market a more than likely 6-8K body that competes against both a cheaper D4 & equally priced D4x. That wouldn't be much incentive for me to switch if I were a Nikon shooter, there has to be a new model in there somewhere for this strategy to work. You just can't go from a 2.5K 5 series body to a 6-8K 1 series body with no intermediate upgrade. Canon NEEDS 3 FF bodies going forward to be competitive, but I still think they're at a disadvantage if Nikon manages to nail video this time around.
5DIII vs D800: Assuming Nikon gets comparable video, the D800 still has a large af & fps edge and I don't see that changing Canon's just too conservative with those features. In the past, the D700 has always been the better value of the two, it's the closest thing to a do it all camera in this price range.
1DV vs D4: A FF 1DV is probably a wash against a new D4. Comparable size, weight, af & fps. It probably boils down to how much you have invested in glass from either manufacturer. I don't see either stealing customers in this price range.
1DsIV vs D4x: Prices are both similarly high, D3x is currently the high iso, dynamic range champ so Canon is already playing catch up here. However; these customers generally want the best they can get short of moving to MF and they can likely afford to switch systems more easily than us mere mortals but only if Canon can exceed the stellar performance of a new D4x which won't be easy. I still think it boils down to how much glass you own and that not many will switch in this market either.
A FF 7D makes absolutely no sense. If the rumor called for an APS-H 7D, then I could see the possibility because then the 70D could adopt many of the features found in the current 7D. The 7DII could move up a bit and wouldn't step on the toes of the entry level 5D FF, I actually like this scenario very much. Plus the IQ of APS-H is very, very good, comparable to FF in many cases. I can't see Canon shelving APS-H even if they've made great progress on APS-C & FF sensors.
As for the merging of the 1 series, how do you market a more than likely 6-8K body that competes against both a cheaper D4 & equally priced D4x. That wouldn't be much incentive for me to switch if I were a Nikon shooter, there has to be a new model in there somewhere for this strategy to work. You just can't go from a 2.5K 5 series body to a 6-8K 1 series body with no intermediate upgrade. Canon NEEDS 3 FF bodies going forward to be competitive, but I still think they're at a disadvantage if Nikon manages to nail video this time around.
5DIII vs D800: Assuming Nikon gets comparable video, the D800 still has a large af & fps edge and I don't see that changing Canon's just too conservative with those features. In the past, the D700 has always been the better value of the two, it's the closest thing to a do it all camera in this price range.
1DV vs D4: A FF 1DV is probably a wash against a new D4. Comparable size, weight, af & fps. It probably boils down to how much you have invested in glass from either manufacturer. I don't see either stealing customers in this price range.
1DsIV vs D4x: Prices are both similarly high, D3x is currently the high iso, dynamic range champ so Canon is already playing catch up here. However; these customers generally want the best they can get short of moving to MF and they can likely afford to switch systems more easily than us mere mortals but only if Canon can exceed the stellar performance of a new D4x which won't be easy. I still think it boils down to how much glass you own and that not many will switch in this market either.
A FF 7D makes absolutely no sense. If the rumor called for an APS-H 7D, then I could see the possibility because then the 70D could adopt many of the features found in the current 7D. The 7DII could move up a bit and wouldn't step on the toes of the entry level 5D FF, I actually like this scenario very much. Plus the IQ of APS-H is very, very good, comparable to FF in many cases. I can't see Canon shelving APS-H even if they've made great progress on APS-C & FF sensors.
Upvote
0
Bob Howland said:
APS-H has always been a specialty sensor exclusive to Canon's defacto high performance sports body. More than likely, there's not been enough demand by sports photogs and people who require such performance for an ultra wide angle solution.
APS-C & FF buyers shoot everything from a to z hence the need for an ultra wide-angle solution. A better question would be when is Canon finally going to go true ultra wide and release a 12 or 14 mm zoom....
Upvote
0
Stone said:
APS-H cameras
1.3ׇ — Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, 1D Mark III†, 1D Mark II†(and Mark II N), EOS-1D?, Kodak DCS 460†, DCS 560†, DCS 660†, DCS 760†, Leica M8, M8.2
My Kodak DCS 460 which sold originally for $35,000 was APS-H before Canon ever made digital SLR's. A 6.2 mp sensor in 1995 was astounding technology. even the Original Canon 1D years later did not have 6mp.
http://www.mount-spokane-photography.com/Photography/DCS-460/DCS-460KodakDCS460001/863351237_Aqype-X2.jpg
Upvote
0
Bob Howland said:
I've seen pro photojournalists use everything from rebels to 1Ds bodies. The camera used is not what makes one a professional, but you knew that already
If I had to pick the Canon cameras I've seem used the most for photojournalism, it would be 5D bodies. When I was in Dubai, even though Nikon seemed to rule there, I saw an above average number of 1D bodies being used by the press, considering the weather conditions, that made perfect sense. There is a 3rd party option in the Sigma 12-24 if you need ultra wide on a 1.3, honestly I've never seen a photojournalist that lives exclusively in the ultra wide realm, they tend work throughout the zoom range. Your experience may be different.
I think you miss the point of my original post, so I'll restate it in a different way. The IQ of Canon's APS-H sensor is far better than it's APS-C sensor and gets very close to it's current FF sensor. Unless Canon makes great strides in it's next iteration of APS-C, I personally don't see the logic in shelving APS-H when it could be moved into another body and still give excellent IQ. If it's cost prohibitive to continue manufacturing APS-H sensors, then I can see why they would shelve the tech. I don't work for Canon and neither do you, these are my opinions only......
Upvote
0
Is there a need for anything wider than a 10-something for crops?
Even the 16-35 is stupidly wide on fullframe and as I remember was only made because sensors were crop.
Regarding the 1D V:
35Mp let's say 50Mb for a raw @ 10+ fps = wat?
That will be something around 600mb/s (including overhead) - how is that possible? The you need a crazy fast CF-card - what about heat and power consumption?
Or do you switch to crop/every other pixel turned off? Well, we'll see.
If it's 35mp @ 10 FPS then Canon has come up with some clever tech.
Even the 16-35 is stupidly wide on fullframe and as I remember was only made because sensors were crop.
Regarding the 1D V:
35Mp let's say 50Mb for a raw @ 10+ fps = wat?
That will be something around 600mb/s (including overhead) - how is that possible? The you need a crazy fast CF-card - what about heat and power consumption?
Or do you switch to crop/every other pixel turned off? Well, we'll see.
If it's 35mp @ 10 FPS then Canon has come up with some clever tech.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
RuneL said:
I don't think so. The 16-35mm MkI was released in 2001, and while that was just after the D30, the 16-35mm was the successor to the 17-35mm f/2.8L, and that lens (released in 1996) predates commercially-available dSLRs. The fact that the 16-35 is slightly wider than the 17-35 was probably just Canon pushing the envelope.
Upvote
0
> August 2011 7D Mark II
> • 24 Mega pixel Full Frame
> • Dual Digic V
> • Will be a partial replacement for the discontinued 1D Mark IV
It would certainly seem odd for Canon to make this camera and call it "7D Mk II." But whatever they call it (7Ds, maybe?), Canon does need to make this camera.
It kind of blows my mind that Canon has gone this far into the "D3 era" with no full frame "sports" camera. 1Ds MkIII has 5fps, barely adequate and at an uber-premium price and overkill resolution for those of us who shoot almost exclusively for print or web publication. 5D MkII, at about 3fps, is fine for the 7-10 times a year I do "arena" lighting, but usually stays home on most other sports assignments. (I'm actually still using the original 5D Mark nothing.)
The 8fps on 7D rarely lets me down on sports jobs. Only in diving do I ever pine for anything faster. But it would be huge if I could put a (rented) 400mm f/2.8 on a full-frame camera and have it *LOOK* like a 400 2.8 with it's beautiful razor-thin depth of field. I don't see why this shouldn't be a "pro-sumer" option for those of us in the mid-markets that don't command the kind of rates that would justify the purchase of something like the 1Ds Mark III.
> • 24 Mega pixel Full Frame
> • Dual Digic V
> • Will be a partial replacement for the discontinued 1D Mark IV
It would certainly seem odd for Canon to make this camera and call it "7D Mk II." But whatever they call it (7Ds, maybe?), Canon does need to make this camera.
It kind of blows my mind that Canon has gone this far into the "D3 era" with no full frame "sports" camera. 1Ds MkIII has 5fps, barely adequate and at an uber-premium price and overkill resolution for those of us who shoot almost exclusively for print or web publication. 5D MkII, at about 3fps, is fine for the 7-10 times a year I do "arena" lighting, but usually stays home on most other sports assignments. (I'm actually still using the original 5D Mark nothing.)
The 8fps on 7D rarely lets me down on sports jobs. Only in diving do I ever pine for anything faster. But it would be huge if I could put a (rented) 400mm f/2.8 on a full-frame camera and have it *LOOK* like a 400 2.8 with it's beautiful razor-thin depth of field. I don't see why this shouldn't be a "pro-sumer" option for those of us in the mid-markets that don't command the kind of rates that would justify the purchase of something like the 1Ds Mark III.
Upvote
0
drummstikk said:
In a nutshell, because Canon, Nikon, Sony etc. don't give a flip what you desire. They are only concerned with what you are willing to pay for. There's not a market leader in any industry that produces goods and/or services for the love of their craft. As an example, why would any big pharma cure HIV even if they could? For the good of humanity? LOL!!! There's no ongoing revenue stream in the cure but there's a constant revenue stream from the treatment, would you sacrifice your multi-billion dollar company for the good of humanity? I think not, that's why if you caught HIV 15 years ago, you'd already be dead (well except for Magic Johnson but he can afford it) but people today with the virus will more than likely make it into their 70s if they can afford the meds.....
Sometime in the 70s-90s era consumers caught amnesia and we've all been bending over ever since. It's why companies continue to spoon feed us technology instead of making huge leaps, do you really think Canon JUST figured out how to to push FF images at 10+ fps? Do you think they CAN'T make a virtually weatherproof body? People will pay for incremental advances in tech so they get incremental advances in tech. It's why Apple has made billions from a phone that only allowed you to send MMS message 3yrs ago when everyone else had been doing it for almost 8yrs. I could rant about this forever.
All it would take is 1 boycott of a major Canon product and you'd see the features you want in a more affordable body, of course it'll never happen because we've gotta have the next best thing, no matter how underwhelming the upgrade actually proves to be.....
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Stone said:
Two drugs just approved by the FDA (boceprevir and telaprevir) have a reasonable cure rate for hepatitis C. Pharma companies develop vaccines to prevent disease, because that's better than treatment. Is that for altruistic reasons? No, it's for profit. To use your example, big pharma would cure HIV if they could, again, for profit. Pharma and health insurance companies can tell you to the penny what HIV patients pay for lifelong treatment. A cure would be priced substantially higher than maintenance drugs, but still lower than lifetime cost - the result? Whichever pharma gets there first rakes in the bucks, because they get the whole pie, instead of the standard course of treatment, which comprises different drugs from different makers, and usually at least one generic that clearly eats into pharma's profits.
That's really what it's about - profit. If Canon had game-changing technology, they would bring it to market. Canon had the technology to mass produce a FF CMOS sensor. Did they sit on that? No. They released the 1Ds in 2002, and effectively monopolized the FF dSLR market share for the next 5 years, releasing MkII and MkIII versions of the 1Ds by the time Nikon made it to the FF game with the D3 in 2007. By then Canon had already scooped up two years of profits from the FF 'prosumer' market they created when they launched the 5D in 2005 - and Nikon would wait until 2008's 5DII to release their D700 into that market segment.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
It's true Canon wanted to be the first to mass market a production FF sensor, but Pentax had announced a FF sensor 2 years earlier that never went into production. I'm not arguing that companies never innovate and push the market forward but I argue that they do it at their own pace when it will have the biggest impact on their bottom line and that it has far more to do with what you as a consumer will accept as opposed to the absolute best they have to offer at any given point in time. I learned a loong time ago, that marketing guys have a saying "don't give away now what you can sell later". Throughout my 20+ year consulting career, I've done business with a large number of fortune 5s from pharmas to defense contractors. You'll just have to trust me when I say, they sit on tech all the time, choosing instead to release incremental improvements.
Regarding boceprevir and telaprevir, you'd be amazed at how long ago those drugs were fully developed excluding clinical trials and the time it took to gain fda approval.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
The fact that an item is announced or a prototype can be produced does not necessarily mean that the same item can be put into mass production, perhaps for technical reasons, perhaps for economic reasons. So, companies may 'sit on tech' not out of a desire to hold it back, but because it's not yet feasible to produce it. You say Pentax announced a FF sensor that never went into production. So? Canon announced a 120 MP APS-H sensor in 2010. By your logic, the 1D MkV should have that sensor, right? Else, Canon is 'sitting on their tech' and 'incrementally releasing it'. I'm pretty sure there are other factors that preclude mass production of a 120 MP APS-H camera, and will for some time to come.
No, I wouldn't - but the companies that developed them (one large pharma, one mid-sized pharma/biotech) certainly didn't 'sit on them'. In drug development, molecules that will eventually become drugs are patented long before a human is dosed with them, and every day that goes by prior to a drug launch is one less day at the other end - the patent expiration where a generic version will dramatically reduce revenues from that drug. 'Sitting on' Lipotor before it launched would mean a loss to Pfizer of $27 million per day after the patent expires this year. No one is sitting on anything in that industry.
Stone said:
No, I wouldn't - but the companies that developed them (one large pharma, one mid-sized pharma/biotech) certainly didn't 'sit on them'. In drug development, molecules that will eventually become drugs are patented long before a human is dosed with them, and every day that goes by prior to a drug launch is one less day at the other end - the patent expiration where a generic version will dramatically reduce revenues from that drug. 'Sitting on' Lipotor before it launched would mean a loss to Pfizer of $27 million per day after the patent expires this year. No one is sitting on anything in that industry.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
A prototype is a proof of concept, a display of the feasibility of a piece of tech. I'm referring completed tech that is either ready or can be immediately made ready for mass production.
As to your example, the current APS-H sensor is 16MP so you think they just decided to jump from 16 to 120? Or would it be more logical to assume that they incrementally increased the MP count until they reached the current stable maximum of 120MP? You can continue to believe that you get the absolute best that your favorite manufacturer is able to produce every year, and you would be no different than the rest of the populace that's a good thing, it means your favorite company's marketing department is doing its job. Unfortunately for me and a few of my peers, we learned differently many years ago, it really puts a damper on all these exciting press releases you see every day. We can just agree to disagree....
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
The great thing about conspiracy theories is that they can never be proven wrong, because any evidence to the contrary is just taken as further proof of how the conspirators are fooling everyone but the handful of people who "know" the truth.
It's the same whether it's 200 mpg carburetors, Elvis is still alive, black helicopters, fluoridated water or super secret superior camera technology that's being purposely withheld from consumers.
It's the same whether it's 200 mpg carburetors, Elvis is still alive, black helicopters, fluoridated water or super secret superior camera technology that's being purposely withheld from consumers.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Stone said:
I don't know that we're actually disagreeing.
My point is that a manufacturer is going to release a technology/product at the time when they predict it will yield the greatest profit. Likewise, they're not going to 'waste' money on R&D with no expectation of an ROI - and as a general rule, an early ROI is better than a delayed ROI, unless it's predicted that there's substantially more profit to be gained from a delayed release. In the example of the 120 MP APS-H sensor, I actually doubt they produced incrementally increasing versions - that may not have been cost effective. If it were my R&D money, I'd have had a team do some computer modeling to suggest the maximum feasible density, then attempted to produce three versions - that predicted max, and something lower and something higher. Three shots on goal, simultaneous, rather than racheting it up with repeated costs for each increment. But honestly, I can't speak to any sort inside knowledge of how they did it.
Certainly, in some industries technology is 'held back' - you mentioned defense, so compare consumer GPS systems with military GPS systems. The latter is always ahead of the former (although the companies are still making a profit from their technology, albeit from a different sector.
Back to releasing a product when it will generate the maximum product, I do think that's the key driver - and I definitely acknowledge that that is not always as soon as the technology is available and producible. In the specific case of boceprevir and telaprevir, and the general case of drug development, the maximum profit results from the earliest possible release. If a cure for HIV were developed (and some are being actively worked on), it would be released as soon as possible (and I do speak from direct knowledge in this case - I happen to hold a senior position in a large pharma company).
Upvote
0
- Status
