why????

[bvukich]

Haven't they moved up to 12"/300mm wafers yet?

I haven't been able to find any current pricing, the only reference to 12" wafer pricing I could find was from 2003; and at that time they cost about $200USD, and 8" were $30-40USD. 12" were relatively new at that point, and I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the cost per in^2 of 8" vs. 12" has since reversed. Although I'm sure actual prices have gone way up. The feature widths back in 2003 were 2-4x the sizes used today, so probably needed less perfect wafers.

I had always been under the impression that the cost of the actual silicon though, while not trivial, was a relatively small part of the equation. It's the $1B+ that a fab costs, along with labor, litho equipment, masks, design/engineering, etc. that truly set the cost to get a good die out the door. And the fact that a fab is basically a fixed capacity manufacturing facility, only compounds that. You can't just move faster to increase output, you have to increase yield to have any gains.

 

[Rocky]

Canon uses 300mm wafers

I am glad that someone confirms that Canon is using 300MM wafer. I have been suspecting it for a while but I have no way to find out. If Canon is really using the 300mm wafer, then the price gap between APS-C and FF sensor will even be smaller due to: 1. the cost per unit area of finished wafer is smaller. 2. The ratio of site between FF and APS-C is closer due to the ratio between perifferal partial site to whole site is smaller. May be the difference in final cost can be down to around $200.

 

[Rocky]

why does no one make say a 16-50mm f2.0 or something similar for crop cameras sure it would be expensive but i think people would be willing to pay for it, i would pay 70-200mm is f2.8 is money for it.

On a side not canon should make an L-s range for good crop for lenses like this. i aim fairly certain within a few years full frame will be less popular with the ridiculous iso performance of new crop cameras and the possibility of photo binning (don't ask me about it i'm a noob but basically you have option to reduce megapixels to get better iso performance)

The lens that you want is an excellent walk around lens. However, it may be a monster in size and weight. just look at the 17-50 f2.8 EF-S. It is 4.4 inches long, using 77 mm filter and weights 1.4 lbs. If it was f2.0 and 16- 50 mm, it might be using 90mm filter or larger and weighed over 2 lbs easily. The 16-35 already uses 83 mm filter. How many people will like to have a monster like tah tas a walk around lens and can be spotted from far away???

Since he is rerferring to APS-C, I assume he means EF-s, which would be about the size and weight of a 16-35, but it would likely cost more.

17-50 EF-S and 16-35 EF is already the same length and weight. I was using the 17-50 EF-S fiter size of 77mm
as starting point and use the 18-55 EF-S (F3.5) 58mm filter size and the 16-35mm Filter size (77 mm) to guestimate the filter size. If between f3.5 and f2.8 (both EF_S) with increase of 19mm in filter size, I guest an increase of only 13 mm between f2.8 and f2.0 is very stingy. I have not yet taking the increase in viewing angle between 16mm and 17mm into account. With increase in the size of optical elements, the weight will increase also. It fact I may have already under estimate the size and weight of the 16- 50mm APS-C f2.0 lens.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I don't see Canon (or any other manufacturer) ditching APS-C size sensors simply because they can fit many more of them on the wafer. This gives them more leeway to deal with increased reject rates and simply put out more for the same cost. Even if the larger wafer sizes could be produced more cheaply than the smaller ones, the cost effectiveness of larger vs. smaller chips is always (absent some strange, rare geometric configurations between similarly-sized chips where more of a smaller chip can't be produced than of the larger) going to be in favor of the smaller chips. Cheaper wafers might bring down FF sensor costs but it'll bring down APS-C costs, too.

 

[Canihaspicture]

I think 4/3 will die an early death when manufacturers start going mirrorless APS-C.... I also believe DSLRs will always favor the full-frame for professionals and anybody who prefers high IQ. Full frame might also pull back some of the medium format market after the next round of products come out.

 

[recon photography]

Canon's 17-55mm f2.8 is really fine for me but for the price you would have to be crazy not to get the sigma os or the tamron non vc version unless you either have heaps of money or are committed to crop sensor, maybe its just over priced in Australia, its $1,500 here vs $300 for tamron or $600 for sigma OS

 

[Hillsilly]

Will M4/3 die an early death? I'm not sure.

As a recent m4/3 buyer, I thing I can understand Canon's reluctance to enter the mirror-less market. My initial thoughts on an EPL1 are overall positive. The picture quality is very good. At ISO 200 in good light I doubt that you coud tell the difference between M4/3 and Canon's APS-C. It also allows you to experiment with odd lens combinations - I've started to re-use all my old Minolta MC and MD lenses which has given them a new lease on life. (They work surprisingly well).

But there a number of downsides. Battery life , focus speed, and a minor time lag between real life and the image you see in the viewfinder. Also, FF lenses just don't sit well. They're too big. If Canon was to try to enter the market with a camera that rectified these problems, they'd be using a bigger sensor, bigger battery, more processing power. I think they'd still end up with a camera that was T3i sized. In which case, what's the point?

Therefore, I think Canon probably have the right strategy. From a useability perspective, mirrorless has no real benefits over the G12 / S95. Picture quality would be better, but given that it would also have a lot of disadvantages to the lower end DSLRs, why enter the market with a new line that needs marketing, R & D expenditure and support when your current products are better performers?

The sales figures of M4/3 show that they aren't big sellers anyway. Its a very niche market. The only buyers seem to be odd people like myself that just want to play around with new toys, want something small that provides quality photos and use unusual lenses (plus, my camera looks cool!).

Therefore, my prediction is that Canon won't release a mirrorless camera in the near future. As such, M4/3 will survive for a long time to come.

 

[Canihaspicture]

If they release a G12 successor with an APS-C to compete head on with the Fuji X100 I think they've got game.

 

[noisejammer]

Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.

Umm... no. Vignetting and corner behavior are properties of the lens, not of the sensor.

Vignetting - If you take a crop sensor and install a lens intended for a ff camera, you will have less vignetting. If you select a medium format lens and use it on a ff camera, you have the same result. If you use an EF-S lens on an EF-S sensor, you get vignetting too.

Your comment on corner softness is not factually correct (but it demonstrates why autofocus is limiting.) I'm predominantly a Zeiss user and it's easy to show that "corner softness" is almost always a result of field curvature. If focused at the corner - say using live view - they are as crisp as the centre is normally. This means that the determining factor is usually how well your subject suits your lens' properties.

 

[Loswr]

Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses, they are much much less of an issue with crop bodies.

Umm... no. Vignetting and corner behavior are properties of the lens, not of the sensor.

Flake clearly understands that. "Problems with Vignetting and edge & corner softness exist even in the most expensive lenses," i.e. the problems are with the lens, but a crop sensor mitigates those issues.

Your comment on corner softness is not factually correct (but it demonstrates why autofocus is limiting.) I'm predominantly a Zeiss user and it's easy to show that "corner softness" is almost always a result of field curvature. If focused at the corner - say using live view - they are as crisp as the centre is normally. This means that the determining factor is usually how well your subject suits your lens' properties.

Sorry, but you're incorrect. Corner softness is sometimes the result of field curvature, but from an optical design standpoint, it's simply more difficult to produce a lens that's as sharp in the corners as in the center, because light at the periphery of the image circle must be refracted more strongly. If you look at the MTF data on a site like Photozone.de, you can see 'corner softness' represented quantitatively. They take field curvature into account, as they state in their FAQ, "If a lens suffers from field curvature and/or residual aberrations (see below) this is taken into account - in this case the corners are measured independently from the center using different reference images." So, they are doing exactly what you recommend, i.e. focusing on the corners when measuring corner resolution, and still coming up with less resolution than in the center for most lenses (including Zeiss lenses).

 

[pdirestajr]

recon,

I tend to think that crop will fade as full-frame begins to regain it's natural place in the scheme of things. For that reason I would not be tempted to spend large sums on lenses that will only fit crop framers. I currently use a 30D, but all my lenses are "L" EF for that reason. Even a "35mm" full frame is tiny compared to "proper" medium or large format cameras.

I disagree with the thought of the crop sensor cameras going away any time soon. The average consumer who buys an entry level "Rebel" (or other brand) DSLR has no idea of the sensor size, nor cares. They just want a camera with a zoom lens that takes nice photos, a camera that will last for a while & they can grow with. Why would all the camera manufactures move away from this market. This is where ALL (majority) of their profits come from- it also helps pay for the R&D on the pro level tech, that eventually trickles down to the consumer level. It's a beautiful cycle, why end it?

 

[Loswr]

I disagree with the thought of the crop sensor cameras going away any time soon.

10 year flashback - remember all those folks who said film cameras would never go away? Granted, they're not completely gone, yet. But then, there are still some people using rotary phones, and I'm sure you can find a working teletype or two somewhere in the world.

When (becuase it's not 'if' it's 'when') full frame sensor cameras drop down into the sub-$1000 range and thus into the mainstream consumer price range, APS-C will die off. EF-S lenses? They'll just join FD's on the auction block.

 

[unfocused]

I disagree with the thought of the crop sensor cameras going away any time soon.

Absolutely correct.

When (becuase it's not 'if' it's 'when') full frame sensor cameras drop down into the sub-$1000 range and thus into the mainstream consumer price range, APS-C will die off.

What evidence can you possibly point to that would indicate that full frame sensor cameras are going to drop below $1,000 in price?

It takes much less imagination and there is much more evidence to support the opposite conclusion: when the rapidly narrowing gap between APS-C and full-frame sensor quality becomes virtually indistinguishable full frame sensor cameras will go the way of 8x10 view cameras, 4x5 Speed Graphics and Rolleiflexes.

Now, don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm not suggesting that full-frame will become obsolete in the next two-three years. I'm just saying that there is more evidence to support that conclusion than the idea you're suggesting.

There is absolutely no objective reason to think that APS-C is going anywhere, or at least that it is going to be done in by an older and more expensive format. All the trends point toward shrinking, not growing, sensor size technology. (And, for those protesting that full frame will always be better quality than APS-C...well...junkyards are full of technologies that were better quality, while "good enough" technology laughs all the way to the bank.)

I would certainly hesitate to predict what cameras and lenses will be like in a decade. Perhaps the SLR with its interchangeable lenses will still be around, but it's entirely possible that we'll all be carrying around tablets that zoom digitally with resolution far beyond anything that can be found in either full-frame or APS-C cameras today.

Instead of this goofy "I've got a bigger sensor than you" discussion let's get back to the OP's original point.

To the OP: I'm not sure about the specific lens you suggest, but I certainly agree that the Canon lens division has not done justice to the APS-C market. They've left the innovation to third parties who are poaching customers.

The three higher quality APS-C lenses that Canon makes all have their problems. The 10-22mm and the 15-85mm are too slow. The 17-55mm is better at 2.8, but it's neither wide enough at the short end nor long enough at the long end. (I'm hoping they come through with a 15-65 mm 2.8, which would be a killer lens)

I'm generally a defender of Canon, but I am really having some doubts about their lens division. I'm just not sure it shares the same vision as the rest of the SLR unit. Seriously, look at the lenses they've chosen to introduce over the past few years: updates of massive supertelephotos that fill a tiny niche market, a nice quality 70-300 mm L zoom that the jury is still out on whether there is any market for it; a specialty fisheye zoom that also fits a narrow niche audience and which they can't even seem to bring to market anyway.

In the meantime the SLR division brought out the 7D and 60D, two higher-end APS-C bodies, and aside from the 15-85 mm zoom, there have been no corresponding lenses released.

Imagine the sales jump they'd have if they introduced an EF-S 100-400mm f4? Lighter, faster and about the same price as the current full frame 100-400. Sports and wildlife photographers would be lining up to buy that lens and 7D combination. (Now before all the nitpickers start picking away, this is only an example of the creative options that the lens division could be following if they were to get with the EF-S program like their SLR brethren have gotten with the crop sensor program.)

I have to wonder if the lens division needs more forward-thinking management.

 

[awinphoto]

I disagree with the thought of the crop sensor cameras going away any time soon.

10 year flashback - remember all those folks who said film cameras would never go away? Granted, they're not completely gone, yet. But then, there are still some people using rotary phones, and I'm sure you can find a working teletype or two somewhere in the world.

When (becuase it's not 'if' it's 'when') full frame sensor cameras drop down into the sub-$1000 range and thus into the mainstream consumer price range, APS-C will die off. EF-S lenses? They'll just join FD's on the auction block.

While I would wish and hope that full frame sensors become the norm and drop sub $1000, i just have the feeling that wont be for another 5-10 years... The cheapest full frame camera now is what? $2500? Well, correction, NEW full frame camera disregarding the used market. With the increased MP and technology going into these sensors, I would think that they would have to either dumb down a full frame sensor to go into a rebel or really cripple the featureset more than it already is to afford to justify putting a full frame sensor in... perhaps full auto with just a shutter button? All kidding aside I cant see that happening. I could see the 7D and xxD series getting the change before entry level... at least they could then justify price increases in market prices, but until then...

 

[WarStreet]

Since I am coming from the future, I can tell what's going to happen. Cameras will continue to improve in features, and decrease in price. The lowest priced cameras might see small price decrease, but the higher end, will get a bigger price decrease. Most features needed will be present even on the cheap cameras and in-between models like the xxD won't exist anymore. Today it is a big deal to get *** in camera, in the near future, it will be built-in as standard for all cameras. FPS will reach limits were very few will care. AF once delivering what is needed for most users, there is little point to spend lots of money for a small improvement and the same goes for image quality. So, FF cameras will improve and decrease in price.

What else going to happen ? Cameras will advance such a way that they will get AI, start taking photos by themselves, and eventually they will take control of the world, and enslave human beings

 

[Loswr]

What evidence can you possibly point to that would indicate that full frame sensor cameras are going to drop below $1,000 in price?

History? What does a Canon APS-H camera cost these days? $5K. What did one cost in 1998? $28K, which is actually close to $40K when adjusted for inflation.

All the trends point toward shrinking, not growing, sensor size technology.

Well, except for that pesky bit about optics where DoF scales inversely with sensor size. Sometimes bigger is better.

Imagine the sales jump they'd have if they introduced an EF-S 100-400mm f4? Lighter, faster and about the same price as the current full frame 100-400. Sports and wildlife photographers would be lining up to buy that lens and 7D combination. (Now before all the nitpickers start picking away, this is only an example of the creative options that the lens division could be following if they were to get with the EF-S program like their SLR brethren have gotten with the crop sensor program.)

I imagine that sales would not come anywhere near even breaking even on the R&D costs, and that such a lens would be a huge loss for Canon, which is why the lens division is not even considering it. The advantages of a smaller image circle are substantially reduced at longer focal lengths. Canon doesn't make a 'fast' telephoto prime or zoom for comparison, but thinking outside the box a little, let's compare the Canon 300mm f/4L IS to the Pentax Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 (the latter being an APS-C telephoto lens with weather sealing, high-end coatings including fluorine on the front like the newest Canon lenses, low-dispersion glass, etc.). The APS-C-format lens is just 10% lighter, and still uses 77mm filters.

But you're not even proposing 300mm f/4, you're proposing 400mm f/4. A smaller image circle doesn't change the basic optical necessity that f-number equals focal length divided by iris diaphragm diameter. A hypothetical EF-S 100-400mm f/4 would need to achieve a 100mm diameter iris diaphragm, compared to only 71.4mm for the current current 100-400mm. A 100mm aperture means a need for optical elements that are sized to match. That's going to make your proposed lens a LOT heavier than the current 100-400mm, and almost certainly more expensive, too. It would end up being a lot closer in size (and cost) to the forthcoming 200-400mm f/4 (sans integrated TC, which isn't adding much weight or cost, relatively speaking), than to the current 100-400mm. How long do you think those lines would be for a >$5000 EF-S lens? Short. Very short.

 

[awinphoto]

What else going to happen ? Cameras will advance such a way that they will get AI, start taking photos by themselves, and eventually they will take control of the world, and enslave human beings

Well in that case it better program my DVR and have my coffee ready for me in the morning when I wake up. Also if it can read my mind to auto focus for me and shoot the camera when i think it. =) I'm sure prices will drop but not as fast as anyone would want... case in point the Canon 1ds and Canon 1D, when they first came out in the early 2000's, they were pretty much at the same price point as they are now. They have not dropped in price compared to current offerings at all. We are getting at almost a decade since those cameras graced the scene and we haven't seen price drops in the top tier cameras. 5D series and the xxd series arguably have dropped a few hundred here or there but sure enough when a new camera is ready to be released everyone speculates how high the new prices will go up, hence people on this forum speculating the 5d m3 will go up due to new technology with some saying it could be a few hundred to 1000 more. I hope it stays at the current price or drops in price, but that's me wishing for too much. =)

 

[WarStreet]

5D series and the xxd series arguably have dropped a few hundred here or there but sure enough when a new camera is ready to be released everyone speculates how high the new prices will go up, hence people on this forum speculating the 5d m3 will go up due to new technology with some saying it could be a few hundred to 1000 more. I hope it stays at the current price or drops in price, but that's me wishing for too much. =)

The 5DIII, will get similar launch price to the 5DII launch price, with small price difference. I think there is a bigger possibility of a small price decrease rather an increase. Exchange rate can effect the price too.

It is true that prices are not decreasing in such a fast rate, but the price decrease are not necessary going to happen gradually. They can occur by model re-positioning such as 60D, or new models such as 5D. Then these lower spec cameras will just continue to improve, such as the 5DII and the future 5DIII. We are expecting the 5DIII to have a better image quality than the old 1DsIII, with good enough AF and FPS. By time maybe the 5D series will get 100% viewfinder, 1Ds weather sealing, and eventually we will end up with a 5D being better than the old 1Ds but with the price of the 5D. I consider this as a price decrease.

 

[awinphoto]

5D series and the xxd series arguably have dropped a few hundred here or there but sure enough when a new camera is ready to be released everyone speculates how high the new prices will go up, hence people on this forum speculating the 5d m3 will go up due to new technology with some saying it could be a few hundred to 1000 more. I hope it stays at the current price or drops in price, but that's me wishing for too much. =)

The 5DIII, will get similar launch price to the 5DII launch price, with small price difference. I think there is a bigger possibility of a small price decrease rather an increase. Exchange rate can effect the price too.

It is true that prices are not decreasing in such a fast rate, but the price decrease are not necessary going to happen gradually. They can occur by model re-positioning such as 60D, or new models such as 5D. Then these lower spec cameras will just continue to improve, such as the 5DII and the future 5DIII. We are expecting the 5DIII to have a better image quality than the old 1DsIII, with good enough AF and FPS. By time maybe the 5D series will get 100% viewfinder, 1Ds weather sealing, and eventually we will end up with a 5D being better than the old 1Ds but with the price of the 5D. I consider this as a price decrease.

Believe me when I say i am holding my breath on such a camera. I have the funding set aside and while I would prefer to hold off until a 5d 3, if i dont see any camera POSSIBILITY within the next quarter, I may have to get a mark II and unload it when the mark III comes out...

 

[Loswr]

It is true that prices are not decreasing in such a fast rate, but the price decrease are not necessary going to happen gradually. They can occur by model re-positioning such as 60D, or new models such as 5D...

That's what I'm getting at. I'm not proposing we'll see a sub-$1K 1-series or 5D MkVI or the like. But the original 5D was a paradigm shift - an 'affordable' FF camera. It's all relative, of course. At the time of it's release, the typical consumer would not have considered $3200 for a camera as something 'affordable,' but compared to the cost of a 1Ds body, it was downright cheap. The 5DII is around 1/3 of the cost of the 1DsIII, yet they use the same sensor, albeit an expensive one. A T2i/550D is around 1/3 the cost of a 7D, again, same sensor. As technology improves and wafer material and stamping costs are driven downwards, it seems logical for Canon to push out another paradigm shift - an affordable-er FF camera, with a FF sensor in an xxxD-type body.