The sony sensor design \ manufacturing arrangement seems to be working really well, that seems to be one of the best things to have happened to the industry in general since sony put its money behind minolta and kept them in the game (when kodak \ fuji \ sigma were fading or outright exiting).
Sony announced that they weren't gonna keep designing FF sensors. Doesn't mean they will stop producing them, we'll probably see another FF sony sometime soon. They'll just stop putting R&D into designing them. The D3100 was a Nikon-made sensor, I think, and I'm sure the D7000's was too. I think Nikon is going their own way with sensors. Nikon: YOYO. You're On You're Own.
The D4 might squeeze out 16-18 megapixels without compromising the D3S's level of low light performance, I bet.
Part of me thinks that they have to. They can't market a "more resolution, not-quite-as-good ISO performance" D4. But part of me thinks they're reaching physical limitations. Maybe not. It'll be very interesting.
Yes, Canon lacks a FF camera that can hit 8-10 FPS. But I don't think they can remedy that problem without forfeiting serious profit margins. If you do some rough math, you'll see that all the current cameras can handle roughly 100-150 megapixels per second. An 8-10 FPS 1Ds mk4 with 35-40 megapixels, well, you do the math. You'd have to roughly double the transfer speed of the 1D mk4, and I think they've already pulled out all the stops on that camera.
Digic 5? The 1Ds4 is rumored to have it. But I seriously doubt it would double the speed of digic 4.
Canon users need to just come to terms with the fact that Nikon has filled a gap in their lineup, and if they want a full-frame, high-speed camera they need to get a D3 / D4.
OK, but is Mr. Mitarai comfortable with that? Maybe he is.
Very valid points. Canon have mentioned in the past that they have issues with fast full frameness(i cant remember if it was mirror or ghosting related?).
I think Phil Askey explained that. I think. He said that it was hard to discharge all the photons on the sensor fast enough to allow 10 fps. They can do it with 1.6x sensors because there are less photons to discharge. Let's see if I can find his words...
Sorry, it was Peter from DPR, not Phil. Sorry Phil, still like you ;~).
“I would like to address the issue of why we cannot get a high speed full frame camera yet. This was explained to me by a Canon engineer. As you know when you take a shot the photons of light create an electrical charge on the sensor which end up on our cards as an image. After the image is shot the charge must be cleared from the sensor for the next shot. Here is where we hit a technical glass ceiling. For the 16MP on a H size sensor (1.3 crop) they can clear this charge in sufficient time to blast off at a high burst rate (10f/s). However when you go [higher megapixels or larger sensors] they cannot clear the charge fast enough at 10f/s and the result is ghosting-like a double exposure on a film camera after the first shot. By the time you get say to your 15th shot in a burst the image looks like hell. They have experimented with this and this is how they have seen this problem. They are working on the problem which is really an electrical engineering circuitry problem and since we now can split neutrons I am sure they will come up with an eventual solution.“
I know, Nikon does it(?) Now, how do I get rid of this indentation here... ;~)
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Part of me thinks that they have to. They can't market a "more resolution, not-quite-as-good ISO performance" D4. But part of me thinks they're reaching physical limitations. Maybe not. It'll be very interesting.
I think you're right, they just can't go backwards in this industry.
I don't know about everybody else, but ABSOLUTELY, hands-down, I would prefer to have an equal or better ISO performance in future cameras, even if it restricted the resolution increase to just four, even two, megapixels... But, I'm confident that they'll be able to pull off a 4-6 megapixel improvement with a ~0-1 stop improvement in ISO. We'll see in 2011 hopefully!
Sorry, it was Peter from DPR, not Phil. Sorry Phil, still like you ;~).
“I would like to address the issue of why we cannot get a high speed full frame camera yet. This was explained to me by a Canon engineer. As you know when you take a shot the photons of light create an electrical charge on the sensor which end up on our cards as an image. After the image is shot the charge must be cleared from the sensor for the next shot. Here is where we hit a technical glass ceiling. For the 16MP on a H size sensor (1.3 crop) they can clear this charge in sufficient time to blast off at a high burst rate (10f/s). However when you go [higher megapixels or larger sensors] they cannot clear the charge fast enough at 10f/s and the result is ghosting-like a double exposure on a film camera after the first shot. By the time you get say to your 15th shot in a burst the image looks like hell. They have experimented with this and this is how they have seen this problem. They are working on the problem which is really an electrical engineering circuitry problem and since we now can split neutrons I am sure they will come up with an eventual solution.“
I know, Nikon does it(?) Now, how do I get rid of this indentation here... ;~)
So what are they saying? That if you want FF you gotta stick with 8 FPS, and if you want 10 FPS you gotta go to 1.3x?
I think the D3s can hit 10 or 11 FPS but I think they don't drop the mirror between each frame...
Like I said, different specialties for different fields. :-)
Does it hit that speed using all of the sensor or only in dx mode? The reason I ask is they may have found a way to 'turn off' the rest of the sensor allowing for quicker refreshes. I have no idea, just guessing If nikon does shoot blind at that speed thats probably why I couldnt remember if it was related to the mirror or ghosting, its both depending on the maker
I used to be geeky enough to spend 45 minutes looking up those specs, but hopefully someone else will do that now. I think you're right- To hit 10-11 FPS they're either not dropping the mirror in between each image, or they're only collecting data from a DX image.
Either way, I guess I'm not enough of an action shooter to care about the difference between 8 FPS and 10 FPS. To me it's pretty simple- If I found myself always shooting in low light, needing shallow depth at close range or ultra-wide angles, I'd shoot Nikon. Or if I found myself always shooting telephoto action in decent light, needing perfectly arranged cross-type AF points, (Sorry Nikon!) I'd get a 1D mk3 or 1D mk4...
I used to be geeky enough to spend 45 minutes looking up those specs, but hopefully someone else will do that now. I think you're right- To hit 10-11 FPS they're either not dropping the mirror in between each image, or they're only collecting data from a DX image.
...
Both the Nikon D3 and D3S are capable of 9fps to a depth of 130 images in FX - 12MP mode. They can do 11fps only in DX mode, 5.1MP.
The Canon 1D MKIV can do 10fps to a depth of 121 images and is, of course, an in-between format of crop factor 1.3x.
Make no mistake, all of these cameras are monsters in the field. thumb
I doubt they would keep the mirror up, that wouldn't allow AF, unless there's something I don't know about?
There is a limit to the amount of lenses they can manufacture at once. To add more, they have to manufacture less units of others. Let's see, we're gonna start producing a 200-400. What should we replace: the 75-300, 75-300 USM, 75-300 IS USM, or the 70-300 IS USM? ;~)
Since I've never shot a 10fps camera, I don't know the difference. And you know what, I really don't care. I'm sure there is a small difference but I think it's just that: small. 8fps is fast enuf for all the action that I've encountered, but yes, 10fps would get a few extra shots in there. But I don't think it's worth $1000 (used: 1D2n vs 1D3).
I find CR to be a good website for rumors, they're generally pretty accurate although I've found them to be quite biased. But for rumors I like them better than northlight, and it seems like they have lots of good sources.
I decided to dig up this thread because I remembered a post that came true, in a way. Let's see... me, Ziggy, Richy, and Matt... anyone else get through all five pages?
This is an interesting question. I don't have an opinion since I don't have any insights in the Canon HQ. All I know is that in my line of shooting - mostly studio portraiture with occasional events and landscaping - 5D and 7D line makes my life nearly perfect.
What I'm lusting for is a studio optimized camera (not in a way "7D Studio" was tweaked):
reliable and super fast wireless connection and triggering, large (at least 4"x6") articulating display with a highly responsive Live View; controls and hookups rearranged.
And maybe something revolutionary like rotating the sensor inside the body from portrait to landscape, and not necesseraly mechanically - it can be a larger square sensor, but only certain portion of it would be used. Which, btw, could lead to an in-camera ratio setting: from pano to 2:3 to 1:1 to 3:2 to vertical pano)... This way your camera remains in the same position, so do your controls, and ratio/orientation is done electronically...
Boy, I would be all over THAT thing...
Comments
Sony announced that they weren't gonna keep designing FF sensors. Doesn't mean they will stop producing them, we'll probably see another FF sony sometime soon. They'll just stop putting R&D into designing them. The D3100 was a Nikon-made sensor, I think, and I'm sure the D7000's was too. I think Nikon is going their own way with sensors. Nikon: YOYO. You're On You're Own.
Part of me thinks that they have to. They can't market a "more resolution, not-quite-as-good ISO performance" D4. But part of me thinks they're reaching physical limitations. Maybe not. It'll be very interesting.
Digic 5? The 1Ds4 is rumored to have it. But I seriously doubt it would double the speed of digic 4.
OK, but is Mr. Mitarai comfortable with that? Maybe he is.
I think Phil Askey explained that. I think. He said that it was hard to discharge all the photons on the sensor fast enough to allow 10 fps. They can do it with 1.6x sensors because there are less photons to discharge. Let's see if I can find his words...
I know, Nikon does it(?) Now, how do I get rid of this indentation here... ;~)
I don't know about everybody else, but ABSOLUTELY, hands-down, I would prefer to have an equal or better ISO performance in future cameras, even if it restricted the resolution increase to just four, even two, megapixels... But, I'm confident that they'll be able to pull off a 4-6 megapixel improvement with a ~0-1 stop improvement in ISO. We'll see in 2011 hopefully!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I think the D3s can hit 10 or 11 FPS but I think they don't drop the mirror between each frame...
Like I said, different specialties for different fields. :-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Either way, I guess I'm not enough of an action shooter to care about the difference between 8 FPS and 10 FPS. To me it's pretty simple- If I found myself always shooting in low light, needing shallow depth at close range or ultra-wide angles, I'd shoot Nikon. Or if I found myself always shooting telephoto action in decent light, needing perfectly arranged cross-type AF points, (Sorry Nikon!) I'd get a 1D mk3 or 1D mk4...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Both the Nikon D3 and D3S are capable of 9fps to a depth of 130 images in FX - 12MP mode. They can do 11fps only in DX mode, 5.1MP.
The Canon 1D MKIV can do 10fps to a depth of 121 images and is, of course, an in-between format of crop factor 1.3x.
Make no mistake, all of these cameras are monsters in the field.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
There is a limit to the amount of lenses they can manufacture at once. To add more, they have to manufacture less units of others. Let's see, we're gonna start producing a 200-400. What should we replace: the 75-300, 75-300 USM, 75-300 IS USM, or the 70-300 IS USM? ;~)
Since I've never shot a 10fps camera, I don't know the difference. And you know what, I really don't care. I'm sure there is a small difference but I think it's just that: small. 8fps is fast enuf for all the action that I've encountered, but yes, 10fps would get a few extra shots in there. But I don't think it's worth $1000 (used: 1D2n vs 1D3).
Check this out. Nothing apart from the normal.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/12/camera-body-breakdown-cr1/
The Sony CLM-V55 monitor.
And this post:
The 200-400!