Full sized CMOS chip any time soon?

kirkmoon

So I had the whiz bang Canon EOS1n back in the day of transparencies and all and built up quite the lens collection. I sold the body when it became clear that the days of film were coming to a close, but held on to the lenses.

Problem is, I don't want to spend an arm and a leg to buy a new digital body with a smaller chip than the full 35mm frame and waste a big part of the resolution of the lenses that I have.

So I have been patiently waiting for the past few years for Canon to come out with a Prosumer version of their wonderful Eos1D with a full 35mm sized chip. Hasn't happened. Beginning to wonder if it ever will.

Any body have any idea if this is a pipe dream? Will Canon put that fantastic chip into a less expensive body for us mere mortals?

Andy

the problem is, canon has the 1.3x at around $4k and now the ff at $8k. it'll come, but probably another year or so.

fwiw, i don't agree with your logic. the 20d produces such amazing results - properly exposed shots are so rich in detail! the prints, up to 20x30 inches, are superb. why wait, wehn you can enjoy 1.6 nirvana right now?

i use the 20d with 16-35L, 35L, 70-200L and 50 1.4, 100mm 2.8 macro - all these lense perform superbly one this body.

kirkmoon wrote:

So I had the whiz bang Canon EOS1n back in the day of transparencies and all and built up quite the lens collection. I sold the body when it became clear that the days of film were coming to a close, but held on to the lenses.

Problem is, I don't want to spend an arm and a leg to buy a new digital body with a smaller chip than the full 35mm frame and waste a big part of the resolution of the lenses that I have.

So I have been patiently waiting for the past few years for Canon to come out with a Prosumer version of their wonderful Eos1D with a full 35mm sized chip. Hasn't happened. Beginning to wonder if it ever will.

Any body have any idea if this is a pipe dream? Will Canon put that fantastic chip into a less expensive body for us mere mortals?

kirkmoon

andy wrote:

the problem is, canon has the 1.3x at around $4k and now the ff at $8k. it'll come, but probably another year or so.

fwiw, i don't agree with your logic. the 20d produces such amazing results - properly exposed shots are so rich in detail! the prints, up to 20x30 inches, are superb. why wait, wehn you can enjoy 1.6 nirvana right now?

i use the 20d with 16-35L, 35L, 70-200L and 50 1.4, 100mm 2.8 macro - all these lense perform superbly one this body.

It isn't the resolution that I am concerned about, its the focal length. I don't want my precious 17-35mm lens turned into a 25-50mm lens. I really like the visual effects that those really short focal length lenses produce.

gubbs

kirkmoon wrote:

I don't want my precious 17-35mm lens turned into a 25-50mm lens. I really like the visual effects that those really short focal length lenses produce.

It will turn back again and there are shorter lenses available. Personally I'd rather keep shooting than wait around, especially with all that glass just crying out to be used

rutt

As long as we're wishing
What I really want is a square sensor. 36x36mm. I paid for the glass that resolves a circular image large enough for this sensor. I think old Hasselblad had it right. Why should I have to decide which way to hold the camera?

kirkmoon

gubbs wrote:

It will turn back again and there are shorter lenses available. Personally I'd rather keep shooting than wait around, especially with all that glass just crying out to be used

True enough.

I still have an A2E body for film work, and I am making do with a G3 for the digital stuff (and it is very good for what it is!). But I am really dying to get the same kind of flexibility that I have on film in a digital camera without spending an obscene amount of money.

I may just have to bite the bullet and get the 20D and hope that they don't come out with the camera I really want (essentially a 20D with the ff chip) any time soon.

fish

Maybe buggy whips will come back in style too some day.

tmlphoto

FWIW, I don't expect a full frame Canon dSLR for under $1500 for at least several years, maybe more. With the new dedicated lens Canon has for the 1.6x prosumer cameras, I think Canon plans on marketing the prosumer level cameras with that sensor size for a while.

rutt

tmlphoto wrote:

FWIW, I don't expect a full frame Canon dSLR for under $1500 for at least several years, maybe more. With the new dedicated lens Canon has for the 1.6x prosumer cameras, I think Canon plans on marketing the prosumer level cameras with that sensor size for a while.

Here is some good speculation about this, which makes sense to me.
The part that makes to most sense to me is the business part. Let's just suppose that Canon can put a 12mp full frame sensor in a 20D sized body and sell for $1500. Would they do it now? No. Their whole line is selling like hot cakes. You have to get in line for a 1Dmkii or 1Dsmkii, why steal sales from them? And the lower end is doing great. But they have to offer a solid upgrade every year or so in order to keep that happening. Larger sensors, faster response, and better dynamic range have more important benefits than resolution > 10mp. So I think they will play that card sometime in the next 5 years. And I think they will time it to optomize their business,, not to make us happy. Same for the others Japanese manufacturers.

When I worked at Silicon Graphics, we had the contract to design the guts of Nintendo 3D. This was an important product for Nintendo; Super Nintendo was running out of gas and Sony was giving them a run for their money. The product was supposed to be introduced in time for Xmas of 97 and in April our team was sweating bullits to get it ready. Then Nintendo decided to wait a year and introduce in '98. Why? They had a new game for Super Nintendo that was selling very well (Super Mario?). In fact it was the best selling game of all in '97. So they reasoned, if we introduce N3D this year, it will just replace sales we would otherwise have gotten from the Super Mario game. If we wait a year, we'll milk Super Nintendo and Super Mario for all they are worth and still sell the same number of N3Ds. The people who really like Nintendo games will buy Super Mario this year and N3D and Mario 3D next year as well. So the net present value of the waiting a year with N3D is much greater than that of introducing it in 97.

Doesn't this logic seem appropriate to the full frame sensor (and other dSLR feature) introduction schedules?

wxwax

Did it work, Rutt?

rutt

wxwax wrote:

Did it work, Rutt?

Nintendo's strategy worked great at the time; they did great with Super Mario in the Xmas of 97 and Nintendo 3D was a huge success when they introduced it the following year.

Nintendo has lost market share big time to Sony and Microsoft since then. Is this the result of delaying Nintendo 3D by one year in '97? I don't think that is it. Nintendo is sort of a one man band. There is is this guy, I don't remember his name, but his is the author of all the famous Nintendo games, Mario, Donky Kong, etc. You can tell his style a mile off, even if you don't actually play the games. Basically, each Nintendo platform was designed for the kind of games he wanted to make next. And Nintendo viewed the sales of the platform itself as secondary to the game sales. This was fine, but it led to iconoclastic platforms. Using them well required designing for them from the beginning. Sony and Microsoft have made platforms that accept PC game ports easily. Many different game designers have targeted these games.

I don't think there is a real parallel between this part of the business strategy in the video game market and digital cameras. The closest thing I can think of is memory stick, which I think is a loser.

Sam

rutt wrote:

Here is some good speculation about this, which makes sense to me.
The part that makes to most sense to me is the business part. Let's just suppose that Canon can put a 12mp full frame sensor in a 20D sized body and sell for $1500. Would they do it now? No. Their whole line is selling like hot cakes. You have to get in line for a 1Dmkii or 1Dsmkii, why steal sales from them? And the lower end is doing great. But they have to offer a solid upgrade every year or so in order to keep that happening. Larger sensors, faster response, and better dynamic range have more important benefits than resolution > 10mp. So I think they will play that card sometime in the next 5 years. And I think they will time it to optomize their business,, not to make us happy. Same for the others Japanese manufacturers.

When I worked at Silicon Graphics, we had the contract to design the guts of Nintendo 3D. This was an important product for Nintendo; Super Nintendo was running out of gas and Sony was giving them a run for their money. The product was supposed to be introduced in time for Xmas of 97 and in April our team was sweating bullits to get it ready. Then Nintendo decided to wait a year and introduce in '98. Why? They had a new game for Super Nintendo that was selling very well (Super Mario?). In fact it was the best selling game of all in '97. So they reasoned, if we introduce N3D this year, it will just replace sales we would otherwise have gotten from the Super Mario game. If we wait a year, we'll milk Super Nintendo and Super Mario for all they are worth and still sell the same number of N3Ds. The people who really like Nintendo games will buy Super Mario this year and N3D and Mario 3D next year as well. So the net present value of the waiting a year with N3D is much greater than that of introducing it in 97.

Doesn't this logic seem appropriate to the full frame sensor (and other dSLR feature) introduction schedules?

Rutt,

Sound logic and reasoning. I can add nothing more.

Sam