I remember reading how much Canon upset people when their new generation of lenses was not backwards compatible with their old ones. Nikon didn't do that and gained some style points.
I wonder if either really relishes repeating the exercise?
But this would be quite different. Both companies already make FF cameras and lenses. They'd just be making them more accessable. As long as we are jealous of Andy's 1dsmk11, there is every reason to think this will happen.
I think the problem I see with that is there's no real reason for them to ever use full frame sensors in the consumer or prosumer spaces; the quality is already "good enough" with today's sensors, and the less expensive manufacturing of APS-C sensors and glass are very worthwhile in volume markets like that.
Moreover, that's about the only thing that they're going to have to differentiate pro-level bodies from prosumer in a year or two as competition forces full feature sets and large buffers down the product line.
I don't think they are goign to do it next year. I think they'll do it in 5 years in order to revive sales after the market is mature.
I remember reading how much Canon upset people when their new generation of lenses was not backwards compatible with their old ones. Nikon didn't do that and gained some style points.
I wonder if either really relishes repeating the exercise?
Canon's decision irked a lot of people in the short term, but they ended up with a lot more flexibility in their lens design and that was a win in a lot of areas -- notably AF performance. But with EF-S Canon is doing what Nikon eventually did: Maintain compatibility with the old stuff so your investment isn't lost while introducing new lens technologies targetted at new bodies.
I don't think they are goign to do it next year. I think they'll do it in 5 years in order to revive sales after the market is mature.
There is probably about a decade of growth purely from conversion from film. Maybe a decade hence they'll start worrying about what to do in the face of a saturated market, but I think you might have it backwards.
The smaller and lighter lenses used by smaller format cameras can be seen as a significant advantage. If anything, I would expect the APS-C sensors to migrate upward into pro-level cameras in order to provide pros more choice (and therefore sell them more equipment). Meanwhile they'll migrate DSLR technology ever downward into the consumer space to build volume.
There is probably about a decade of growth purely from conversion from film. Maybe a decade hence they'll start worrying about what to do in the face of a saturated market, but I think you might have it backwards.
The smaller and lighter lenses used by smaller format cameras can be seen as a significant advantage. If anything, I would expect the APS-C sensors to migrate upward into pro-level cameras in order to provide pros more choice (and therefore sell them more equipment). Meanwhile they'll migrate DSLR technology ever downward into the consumer space to build volume.
Let's get one thing straight. Canon's goal is not to sell you the last camera (system) you will ever buy. Unlike Kodak in it's prime, there is no film business to keep the revenue coming in the door once you have the camera. So maybe it won't be full frame, but there will be something to make you want a new camera every few years. Full frame is a card they have that they can play. The have a long time committment to it and have proven that FF digital cameras are desirable enough to charge a fortune for. Maybe they'll come up with something better, but I'm drooling over a FF camera in a 20d form factor with 1dmkii (or much better) speed, filmlike dynamic range, lowlight performance like night vision googles, waist level shooting, and 50MP. Now, you'd want that, wouldn't you? 10 years? But it won't come all at once. Why should canon waste each these technical advances. Any two can get a significant number of upgrades.
Let's get one thing straight. Canon's goal is not to sell you the last camera (system) you will ever buy.
Of course not, but there are limits to what they can do at certain price points. The problem with full frame sensors is yield; the larger the sensor, the more likely there will be a flaw and the chip will be unusable. That alone will keep full frame sensors up towards the top of the line.
Maybe they'll come up with something better, but I'm drooling over a FF camera in a 20d form factor with 1dmkii (or much better) speed, filmlike dynamic range, lowlight performance like night vision googles, waist level shooting, and 50MP. Now, you'd want that, wouldn't you? 10 years? But it won't come all at once. Why should canon waste each these technical advances. Any two can get a significant number of upgrades.
I will be very surprised if we see 50mp in even a full frame sensor. Even if it's possible, which it might not be, it's not necessary; expect images produced by DSLRs to top out around 20mp (which is more or less the resolution of medium format film and well beyond 35mm). Instead, I expect a lot more focus over the next five years on increasing dynamic range ala Fuji SR. If there's any one place digital is lacking right now, it's dynamic range.
The fact of the matter is that there is going to be a resistance from the manufacturers to pushing features down their product line. To do so eats up the large profits seen on higher-end equipment. They'll do so primarily as a result of competition. Instead, expect them to push less expensive technologies upward as much as they can. This improves profit and, as I mentioned previously, may provide real-world benefits to photographers. Pushing smaller sensors up also means that professionals, already fully outfitted for full-frame photography, get to buy all new glass to make the most of the new cameras -- and glass is very profitable. There is still a lot of upside in that approach to the market as the conversion from film continues, long before they have to worry about selling into a saturated market.
Canon's decision irked a lot of people in the short term, but they ended up with a lot more flexibility in their lens design and that was a win in a lot of areas -- notably AF performance.
There's parallels to this in the computer industry and consumer electronics industries. Sometimes a manufacturer needs to break with prior standards in order to move forward with something better. Its painful in the short-term, better in the long term.
My background and career in the semiconductor biz tells me that APS-C sensors simply will not go away. You cannot avoid the physics of it. And I'm personally not drooling over FF anyway. I'm quite happy with a 1.6X camera. Given that, I see no reason for EF-S to disappear either, or reason to avoid purchases such lenses. The only reason I haven't is that I like fast glass.
Yes, silicon gets cheaper over time -- but cheaper per functionality, notcheaper per physical area.
Over time, transistors get smaller, so can silicon can shrink in size for a given functionality. We see this all the time in microprocessors -- die areas shrink over time and, in silicon, cost is proportional to die area and yield. The savings are nonlinear; when a die ("chip") get smaller, not only do you get a higher absolute number of "chips" out of a silicon wafer but you also get a higher yield (percentage of good chips) from a wafer. So if (for example) Intel shrinks a microprocessor to 70% of its original die size, the cost per good die may drop not just to 70%, but likely to 50% or 30% of the cost of the original die.
If you want to keep the same physical die area (e.g. sensor size), it will not get much cheaper (at least, once standard production volume and yield are achieved).
So I don't expect full-size 36mm x 24mm image sensors to become (much) less expensive over time. We may very well see number of pixels for a given sensor size continue to increase, but full-size sensors won't become dramatically cheaper to produce. (unless they figure out how to reasonably assemble a sensor out of an array of smaller sensors -- but perhaps this is already being done)
Which indirectly implies that EF-S (and corresponding Nikon) lenses for APS-size sensors do have some life left in them. (IMHO, I can't imagine that Canon and Nikon would be even starting a new line of lenses if they didn't expect them to be useful for quite a while)
= bug.
Canon EOS 7D ........ 24-105 f/4L | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x II TC ........ 580EX
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
You got there just the second before I did. Go get 'em.
The only thing I would say is that as the density and size go up,
so does the failure rate. So a practical reason for keeping the
die size smaller is to insure a consistent yield.
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
The only thing I would say is that as the density and size go up,
so does the failure rate. So a practical reason for keeping the
die size smaller is to insure a consistent yield.
Ian
Not necessarily. While bug will be able to explain this better than i can, die size doesn't not necessarily relate to failure rate. There are a lot of factors, including technology (both of the design and the production equipment).
Did you really mean die size instead of wafer size?
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Not necessarily. While bug will be able to explain this better than i can, die size doesn't not necessarily relate to failure rate. There are a lot of factors, including technology (both of the design and the production equipment).
Did you really mean die size instead of wafer size?
Yes. I did mean die size but recall I said "density and size". So I would
agree that die size alone is not an indicator of failure rate.
My statement is also something of a gross generalization. Especially
if the mfg'er is migrating from one process technology to the next.
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I can't find the thread that talked of rumors of new lenses in the works at Canon. The EF-S 10-22 lens made perfect sense. I'm wondering what else they have in mind? I wonder how small a 300/2.8 could be made for an EF-S mount? Or if a re-design of the aging 100-400 is in the works?
I can't find the thread that talked of rumors of new lenses in the works at Canon. The EF-S 10-22 lens made perfect sense. I'm wondering what else they have in mind? I wonder how small a 300/2.8 could be made for an EF-S mount? Or if a re-design of the aging 100-400 is in the works?
Here is one started by Rutt, not sure it that is what you were looking for.
J: A paradigm shift is upon us (and I'm not talking about film -> digital here).
H: Those manufacturers quick to the APS-C bandwagon will be left standing, those that don't see the shift coming will perish.
J: APS-C (EF-S) will quickly become the dominant form factor in the marketplace. Sure, there'll always be FF and Medium format shooters out there, but they'll be increasingly in the minority.
H: As the technology improves, the tendency will be toward smaller systems, not larger. I predict that within a couple of years, we'll see a DSLR system based on perhaps a 2/3" sensor.
J: It's going to be driven by competition, economics, and physics.
H: And Entropy (a combination of inevitability and irreversibility).
J: A paradigm shift is upon us (and I'm not talking about film -> digital here).
H: Those manufacturers quick to the APS-C bandwagon will be left standing, those that don't see the shift coming will perish.
J: APS-C (EF-S) will quickly become the dominant form factor in the marketplace. Sure, there'll always be FF and Medium format shooters out there, but they'll be increasingly in the minority.
H: As the technology improves, the tendency will be toward smaller systems, not larger. I predict that within a couple of years, we'll see a DSLR system based on perhaps a 2/3" sensor.
J: It's going to be driven by competition, economics, and physics.
H: And Entropy (a combination of inevitability and irreversibility).
My take.
J&H
In a way, this is what Olympus has been saying about the 4/3s system all along. That the sensor is "Large Enough" to allow Pro level quality, and the camera and lenses can thus be much smaller and easier to carry, and more affordable. And that the sensors will get better and less noisier despite thier smaller size. Well,.....maybe.
Whether this has come true yet for Olympus, remains to be determined, I think. It will be interesting to see the new DSLR promised by Panasonic based on the 4/3s system.
For now, I'll stick with Canon's sytem. For a long,long time I suspect. I think the APS sized sensors are going to be useful for a very long time.
One limitation of going to a smaller sensor, like the 2/3s sensor, is the losss of the ability to limit depth of field. The smaller sensor cameras will have great depth of field due to the small size of the sensor and lens, but maximum depth of field is frequently not desireable.
In a way, this is what Olympus has been saying about the 4/3s system all along. That the sensor is "Large Enough" to allow Pro level quality, and the camera and lenses can thus be much smaller and easier to carry, and more affordable.
Yup. And having a common lens interface is a nice idea as well. Choose the lenses you want, from any manufacturer, and choose whatever body you want. However, I really don't like the 4:3 apsect ratio they propose. I think that was a very poor choice.
As well, I suspect I will stick with Canon, and with an APS-C sensor. I'm hoping Canon comes out with some very nice EF-S telephotos, preferably of L quality.
Comments
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Canon's decision irked a lot of people in the short term, but they ended up with a lot more flexibility in their lens design and that was a win in a lot of areas -- notably AF performance. But with EF-S Canon is doing what Nikon eventually did: Maintain compatibility with the old stuff so your investment isn't lost while introducing new lens technologies targetted at new bodies.
jimf@frostbytes.com
There is probably about a decade of growth purely from conversion from film. Maybe a decade hence they'll start worrying about what to do in the face of a saturated market, but I think you might have it backwards.
The smaller and lighter lenses used by smaller format cameras can be seen as a significant advantage. If anything, I would expect the APS-C sensors to migrate upward into pro-level cameras in order to provide pros more choice (and therefore sell them more equipment). Meanwhile they'll migrate DSLR technology ever downward into the consumer space to build volume.
jimf@frostbytes.com
Of course not, but there are limits to what they can do at certain price points. The problem with full frame sensors is yield; the larger the sensor, the more likely there will be a flaw and the chip will be unusable. That alone will keep full frame sensors up towards the top of the line.
I will be very surprised if we see 50mp in even a full frame sensor. Even if it's possible, which it might not be, it's not necessary; expect images produced by DSLRs to top out around 20mp (which is more or less the resolution of medium format film and well beyond 35mm). Instead, I expect a lot more focus over the next five years on increasing dynamic range ala Fuji SR. If there's any one place digital is lacking right now, it's dynamic range.
The fact of the matter is that there is going to be a resistance from the manufacturers to pushing features down their product line. To do so eats up the large profits seen on higher-end equipment. They'll do so primarily as a result of competition. Instead, expect them to push less expensive technologies upward as much as they can. This improves profit and, as I mentioned previously, may provide real-world benefits to photographers. Pushing smaller sensors up also means that professionals, already fully outfitted for full-frame photography, get to buy all new glass to make the most of the new cameras -- and glass is very profitable. There is still a lot of upside in that approach to the market as the conversion from film continues, long before they have to worry about selling into a saturated market.
jimf@frostbytes.com
There's parallels to this in the computer industry and consumer electronics industries. Sometimes a manufacturer needs to break with prior standards in order to move forward with something better. Its painful in the short-term, better in the long term.
My background and career in the semiconductor biz tells me that APS-C sensors simply will not go away. You cannot avoid the physics of it. And I'm personally not drooling over FF anyway. I'm quite happy with a 1.6X camera. Given that, I see no reason for EF-S to disappear either, or reason to avoid purchases such lenses. The only reason I haven't is that I like fast glass.
Now, if they decide to make a 2.8 EF-S lens...
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
You and me both. It really wouldn't suck to have a lighter 70-200 f/2.8....
jimf@frostbytes.com
Yes, silicon gets cheaper over time -- but cheaper per functionality, not cheaper per physical area.
Over time, transistors get smaller, so can silicon can shrink in size for a given functionality. We see this all the time in microprocessors -- die areas shrink over time and, in silicon, cost is proportional to die area and yield. The savings are nonlinear; when a die ("chip") get smaller, not only do you get a higher absolute number of "chips" out of a silicon wafer but you also get a higher yield (percentage of good chips) from a wafer. So if (for example) Intel shrinks a microprocessor to 70% of its original die size, the cost per good die may drop not just to 70%, but likely to 50% or 30% of the cost of the original die.
If you want to keep the same physical die area (e.g. sensor size), it will not get much cheaper (at least, once standard production volume and yield are achieved).
So I don't expect full-size 36mm x 24mm image sensors to become (much) less expensive over time. We may very well see number of pixels for a given sensor size continue to increase, but full-size sensors won't become dramatically cheaper to produce. (unless they figure out how to reasonably assemble a sensor out of an array of smaller sensors -- but perhaps this is already being done)
Which indirectly implies that EF-S (and corresponding Nikon) lenses for APS-size sensors do have some life left in them. (IMHO, I can't imagine that Canon and Nikon would be even starting a new line of lenses if they didn't expect them to be useful for quite a while)
= bug.
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
it's so nice to have a processor expert around...
hiya bug
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Ian
so does the failure rate. So a practical reason for keeping the
die size smaller is to insure a consistent yield.
Ian
Did you really mean die size instead of wafer size?
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
agree that die size alone is not an indicator of failure rate.
My statement is also something of a gross generalization. Especially
if the mfg'er is migrating from one process technology to the next.
Ian
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/22468.html
.
Yes.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Here is one started by Rutt, not sure it that is what you were looking for.
H: Those manufacturers quick to the APS-C bandwagon will be left standing, those that don't see the shift coming will perish.
J: APS-C (EF-S) will quickly become the dominant form factor in the marketplace. Sure, there'll always be FF and Medium format shooters out there, but they'll be increasingly in the minority.
H: As the technology improves, the tendency will be toward smaller systems, not larger. I predict that within a couple of years, we'll see a DSLR system based on perhaps a 2/3" sensor.
J: It's going to be driven by competition, economics, and physics.
H: And Entropy (a combination of inevitability and irreversibility).
My take.
J&H
Whether this has come true yet for Olympus, remains to be determined, I think. It will be interesting to see the new DSLR promised by Panasonic based on the 4/3s system.
For now, I'll stick with Canon's sytem. For a long,long time I suspect. I think the APS sized sensors are going to be useful for a very long time.
One limitation of going to a smaller sensor, like the 2/3s sensor, is the losss of the ability to limit depth of field. The smaller sensor cameras will have great depth of field due to the small size of the sensor and lens, but maximum depth of field is frequently not desireable.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
As well, I suspect I will stick with Canon, and with an APS-C sensor. I'm hoping Canon comes out with some very nice EF-S telephotos, preferably of L quality.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu