What is the Basis of your opinion of APS-H?

[unfocused]

Beg pardon, but I can muster no level of emotion when it comes to inanimate objects. I don't like or love or hate or care in any way about an APS-H sensor. And I'll bet the people at Canon will say the same thing.

I've repeatedly said there will be no more Canon EOS DSLR cameras using the APS-H sensor. It appears to me all the discussion on this board suggesting it would be good for Canon to use that sensor again is based solely on the personal desires of users. The simple and blatantly plain reality is that Canon no longer has any need for the APS-H sensor. There was a time when their EOS DSLR line was in some development flux and the H provided something useful. That is no longer the case, and Canon is happy to unburden itself from all the costs and demands of an entire product line.

Canon is in the business of providing performance. The full-frame and APS-C sensors have now come to a place where they can provide all the performance Canon needs to offer the marketplace. The development of somewhat better sensor technology, better and faster computer control, AF, memory systems, etc. have all contributed to this -- and in so have obviated the need for another line of sensor. It's good business sense for Canon to abandon the H sensor, along with all its concomitant costs -- and those costs are many.

It's probably fun for a lot of folks to pretend to be Canon product management and to fantasize about what could be done with those resources. None of that, however, factors in the realities of running a large complex business in a viciously competitive marketplace chockablock with uncertainties and the vagaries of newly developing technologies.

Anyway, big bands are definitely NOT coming back!!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The only opinion I have about the APS-H sensor is that it is dead. That opinion is based on the actions and statements of Canon coupled with the realities of the marketplace.

Indeed, APS-H may be "better" than either full frame or 1.6 crop sensors. But, it lost in the marketplace.

Did it lose because Canon never supported it with a single lens? Did it lose because Canon put it into only a single model and then populated the bulk of its product line with a different sensor? Did it lose because other manufacturers failed to adopt it as a standard? Did it lose because the inevitable advancement of technology left insufficient room between APS-C and Full Frame? Did it lose because the majority of consumers just aren't sufficiently discerning enough to grasp the advantages?

In the end it doesn't matter.

Of course, it is within anyone's right to disagree with my viewpoint. But, I've yet to see anyone articulate a solid financial case for the magical revival of the format. I've shaken the Magic 8 Ball dozens of times and it keeps coming up with the same answer: All signs point to No.

 

[briansquibb]

I guess you are right.

The Canon 1D4 is only just the predominent camera on the touchline of all major events - mostly because now Canon are putting their weight behind the 1DX.

Nothing to do with the users who bought it in preference to Nikon etc - but because Canon moved onwards and upwards.

We will have to agree to disagree that the APS-H would make a better entry level camera than the APS-C. Personally I would like to see Canon go out on a limb rather than follow the crowd - and a APS-H entry level camera would certainly raise the bar well above any current manufacturer.

The decision will probably depend on whether the accountants are in charge or the engineers

 

[paul13walnut5]

@briansquibb
Take your pick of any of the fast EF usm primes, or the L zooms...

The great thing about the aps-c ef-s camera is that they can use either ef-s or ef lenses, and indeed are marketed on this basis.

The downside to a theoretical 70d with an aps-h sensor is that it would need to be restricted to ef lenses.
I'm not against a return of aps-h, just don't give it a name which alludes aps-c lineage or ef-s compatibility.

 

[danski0224]

Well, if Canon could make the 7D (II) APS-C sensor equal the performance of the 1DIV sensor...

That's a big "if" though, and the other question is why would they?

If Canon did such a thing, where would the pricing be? Certainly not at the current 7D price point (or, a teensy bit more).

I do own both a new to me 1DIV and a 7D that I bought new. The difference in the quality of images off the cameras is staggering, and so is the price difference between the two cameras. The cameras are in different leagues, there really is no direct comparison.

I also agree with the points made about the lack of really good EF-S lenses. There aren't any from Canon with the exception of the 17-55 f2.8. So, we have a prosumer 7D with only one or two really good lenses from Canon that are designed to take advantage of the APS-C format. Is this really any different from the lack of "APS-H specific lenses"? There are lots of APS-C cameras out there, so one would think that there is a market for APS-C L grade lenses that would hopefully be less expensive than the full frame versions.

I am surprised that Canon has not yet created an EF-S "L" lens series.

 

[briansquibb]

@briansquibb
Take your pick of any of the fast EF usm primes, or the L zooms...

The great thing about the aps-c ef-s camera is that they can use either ef-s or ef lenses, and indeed are marketed on this basis.

The downside to a theoretical 70d with an aps-h sensor is that it would need to be restricted to ef lenses.
I'm not against a return of aps-h, just don't give it a name which alludes aps-c lineage or ef-s compatibility.

Firstly we have been talking about the 70D being an updated and renamed 7D - clearly APS-C

Secondly we have then been talking about introducing a new sports camera with an APS-H sensor. There were numerous threads on the name such as 6D (but not 3D)

I have a 7D that will be replaced at the first opportunity because it has inferior IQ compared to my other cameras(particularly low light). Canon desperately need to replace the 7D if it is to be considered a 'flagship' Even the reach is not an advantage to me as I get more from the 1D4 with its f/8 AF

 

[paul13walnut5]

great!

 

[unfocused]

To annoy everyone with one more thought: while I believe APS-H is dead, that doesn't mean I'm not a little nostalgic for what might have been.

Imagine if Canon had supported APS-H from the beginning by making a relatively simple and low-cost decision: to design its EF-S lenses with a sufficiently large image circle to cover the 1.3 crop. Now, that possibility really would excite me. All the 18mm lenses would be true wide-angles with a 24mm equivalent. The 15-85 would have a super wide angle 19mm equivalent. And so on.

The sad thing is it probably could have been done without much additional cost. Tokina has shown that the mirror clearance is not the issue, the issue is the small image circle. But, how much larger would the lenses really have to be to accommodate the 1.3 crop. Surely not that much more.

In fact, I really wonder if Canon doesn't regret not doing this. It would certainly have given them a competitive edge.

Of course, it might also have killed off full frame.

 

[distant.star]

The decision will probably depend on whether the accountants are in charge or the engineers

.

"Aye, therein lie the rub," Brian.

As you've sometimes alluded to your experiences with corporations, you know who is now in charge. I fought that war in all the years I spent in corporations -- and I'm no fan of what we used to call the "bean counters." They virtually destroyed, for example, General Motors. GM, prior to the 1970s was always a company of engineers. They produced great cars (for their time) that people enjoyed driving. Then the financial types took over, and the rest is sad, sad history. We don't even have to mention the current worldwide financial crisis, compliments of those same number crunching dimwits.

We can all hope against hope that the good technical folks at Canon may overcome damage done by those in-charge "accountants." But, I believe you've nailed the heart of most of our dissatisfactions, Brian. As long as Ebenezer Scrooge controls Canon engineers we are all diminished. While we say we want more DR and other improvements from sensors Canon uses, what we're really saying is that we want accountants to allow engineers to put the best possible sensors in the products.

Accountants have their place, but it is not in product design. Next up, lawyers!! Billy Shakespeare had something to say about them too!


So fitting from Shakespeare:

To sleep, perchance to dream. Aye, there's the rub
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come

 

[distant.star]

.

Very interesting thought. Oh, what might have been!

I imagine there were some heady battles at Canon over that. But I also don't think there's much room for real regret. I think they got so boxed in that going in this direction wasn't a real possibility when it could have happened.

To annoy everyone with one more thought: while I believe APS-H is dead, that doesn't mean I'm not a little nostalgic for what might have been.

Imagine if Canon had supported APS-H from the beginning by making a relatively simple and low-cost decision: to design its EF-S lenses with a sufficiently large image circle to cover the 1.3 crop. Now, that possibility really would excite me. All the 18mm lenses would be true wide-angles with a 24mm equivalent. The 15-85 would have a super wide angle 19mm equivalent. And so on.

The sad thing is it probably could have been done without much additional cost. Tokina has shown that the mirror clearance is not the issue, the issue is the small image circle. But, how much larger would the lenses really have to be to accommodate the 1.3 crop. Surely not that much more.

In fact, I really wonder if Canon doesn't regret not doing this. It would certainly have given them a competitive edge.

Of course, it might also have killed off full frame.

 

[briansquibb]

.

Very interesting thought. Oh, what might have been!

I imagine there were some heady battles at Canon over that. But I also don't think there's much room for real regret. I think they got so boxed in that going in this direction wasn't a real possibility when it could have happened.

To annoy everyone with one more thought: while I believe APS-H is dead, that doesn't mean I'm not a little nostalgic for what might have been.

Imagine if Canon had supported APS-H from the beginning by making a relatively simple and low-cost decision: to design its EF-S lenses with a sufficiently large image circle to cover the 1.3 crop. Now, that possibility really would excite me. All the 18mm lenses would be true wide-angles with a 24mm equivalent. The 15-85 would have a super wide angle 19mm equivalent. And so on.

The sad thing is it probably could have been done without much additional cost. Tokina has shown that the mirror clearance is not the issue, the issue is the small image circle. But, how much larger would the lenses really have to be to accommodate the 1.3 crop. Surely not that much more.

In fact, I really wonder if Canon doesn't regret not doing this. It would certainly have given them a competitive edge.

Of course, it might also have killed off full frame.

Of course it was a Kodak design. Canon bought into it warts and all.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Of course it was a Kodak design. Canon bought into it warts and all.

And thank god they did. Canon could have went the way of Minolta if they hadn't got a DSLR in the hands of the pros in a similar timeframe to Nikon (also Kodak based in the early days)