Is canon going full-frame?

(torlissa) wrote:

So, some have said that canon is not fully embracing the APS sized
sensor because is might be introducing some lower priced full-framed
sensor cameras in the near future.

I don't know how soon full-frame digital may become affordable, but I
wouldn't be surprised to see Canon make a 10D replacement using a 1.3
crop-factor chip like that in the 1D-II. If they could keep it
around/under $2200 (like the 10D when first introduced) they'd have a
real winner.

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

(torlissa) wrote:

So, some have said that canon is not fully embracing the APS sized
sensor because is might be introducing some lower priced full-framed
sensor cameras in the near future.

I don't know how soon full-frame digital may become affordable, but I
wouldn't be surprised to see Canon make a 10D replacement using a 1.3
crop-factor chip like that in the 1D-II. If they could keep it
around/under $2200 (like the 10D when first introduced) they'd have a
real winner.

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

torlissa wrote:
Old tired topic I know, but here I go....

I am a wedding photographer and currently shoot with 35mm and use very
shallow depth of field to achieve fancy looking results. The 35mm
patch is just big enough to get a shallow depth of field. Its actually
too small for my tastes, but medium format cameras are too slow for my
work.

I can't use these APS sized sensor cameras because the depth of field
gets too big, (yes the depth of field changes quite dramatically from
one sensor size to another using the same f-stop)

So, some have said that canon is not fully embracing the APS sized
sensor because is might be introducing some lower priced full-framed
sensor cameras in the near future.

What do you all think? Am I going to be shooting film forever?

Thanks

Tor

PS. An interesting little conversion, the depth of field of my Oly
5050 at F1.7 is the same as a 35mm camera at F.8 and the same as Ansel
Adams field camera set to F.64. Those old pictures sure have a neat
look to them don't they. (shhhhhh, don't tell anyone, but it was a
shallow depth of field)

Sorry my crystal ball is back at the shop for a software upgrade, but I
have to agree with you and I am hoping the same as you. I would really like
to see a full size sensor.

I suspect that sensor size is driven, in part, by manufacturing
realities, just as computer chips are. In time it should be come easier
(cheaper) to produce the full size sensors. The possible problem in all
this is, if it takes too long the undustry (manufacturers and users) will be
too invested or accepting of the current sensor size and available lenses
and consumer demand may not be there for the larger sensor. The only chance
of reasonably priced full size sensors is consumer demand.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Mark Roberts wrote:

If they could keep it around/under $2200 (like the 10D
when first introduced)

Sorry - I meant like the D60 and Nikon D100 when first introduced. They
were around $2200, right?

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

"torlissa" wrote in message
om...
Old tired topic I know, but here I go....

I am a wedding photographer and currently shoot with 35mm and use very
shallow depth of field to achieve fancy looking results. The 35mm
patch is just big enough to get a shallow depth of field. Its actually
too small for my tastes, but medium format cameras are too slow for my
work.

I can't use these APS sized sensor cameras because the depth of field
gets too big, (yes the depth of field changes quite dramatically from
one sensor size to another using the same f-stop)

So, some have said that canon is not fully embracing the APS sized
sensor because is might be introducing some lower priced full-framed
sensor cameras in the near future.

What do you all think? Am I going to be shooting film forever?

Uh, Canon already sells a full-frame camera, the 1Ds. If you're a working
pro, and need this capability, it's there for the taking. The camera is
initially expensive, but the more you shoot, the cheaper it gets. It's an
absolutely wonderful camera, and the only digital that approaches film
results. (Flame on!)


Thanks

Tor

PS. An interesting little conversion, the depth of field of my Oly
5050 at F1.7 is the same as a 35mm camera at F.8 and the same as Ansel
Adams field camera set to F.64. Those old pictures sure have a neat
look to them don't they. (shhhhhh, don't tell anyone, but it was a
shallow depth of field)

Right. Wasn't that shallow depth of field delivered by the view cameras
offset by the use of tilts to increase apparent depth of field by changing
the plane of focus? Yup. It was.

On 20 Jul 2004 01:21:56 -0700, torlissa wrote:

So, some have said that canon is not fully embracing the APS sized
sensor because is might be introducing some lower priced full-framed
sensor cameras in the near future.

We can learn from the computer chip industry, where chip sizes got larger
for a while, but never came close to a full frame size. Instead they
learned to make transistors smaller, to pack millions of them onto quite
small chips.

The reason? Not only do costs rise with the chip area, but yields drop
dramatically because the odds of making defect-free chips go against you.

I think it will be a very long time before we see full-frame sensors in
sub-$1000 digicams.

"torlissa" wrote in message
om...
Old tired topic I know, but here I go....

I am a wedding photographer and currently shoot with 35mm and use very
shallow depth of field to achieve fancy looking results. The 35mm
patch is just big enough to get a shallow depth of field. Its actually
too small for my tastes, but medium format cameras are too slow for my
work.

I can't use these APS sized sensor cameras because the depth of field
gets too big, (yes the depth of field changes quite dramatically from
one sensor size to another using the same f-stop)

So, some have said that canon is not fully embracing the APS sized
sensor because is might be introducing some lower priced full-framed
sensor cameras in the near future.

What do you all think? Am I going to be shooting film forever?

Thanks

Tor

PS. An interesting little conversion, the depth of field of my Oly
5050 at F1.7 is the same as a 35mm camera at F.8 and the same as Ansel
Adams field camera set to F.64. Those old pictures sure have a neat
look to them don't they. (shhhhhh, don't tell anyone, but it was a
shallow depth of field)


I'm sure you know the Canon 1Ds is full frame, but it comes at a hefty price
tag of around $8,000. It's going to be a long time before full frame
trickles down to sup-$2,000 bodies - at least 5 years would be my guess.
I'm certain it will be at least 2 more generations of upgrades before the
1.3x crop makes it to a 10D-class camera.

Mark

In article et,
says...
How does Kodak do it for half the price?

#1: Less features.
#2: Cheaper body.
#3: Crappier sensor.

Brian C. Baird wrote in news:MPG.1b67186adc19f2b1989f22
@news.verizon.net:

How does Kodak do it for half the price?

#1: Less features.
#2: Cheaper body.
#3: Crappier sensor.


Yepp - plus that Canon has no reason at all to compete too
strongly with their own APS sized sensor cameras.


/Roland

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:
(Philip Homburg) wrote in
q.phicoh.net:

What is so magic about the APS-sized sensors that you can produce them
for less than $1000, but you can't reduce the cost of the sensor in
the Kodak 14n enough to get under $1000?

Two things:

- pro and cut edge things always cost premium prices.

That only suggests that those sensors may become cheap when they become
popular.

- yield. It is more than twice as hard to make a twice
as large totally functional sensor. If the yield is 10%
for APS sized sensors, it is 1% for 35 mm sized ones.

Right. But that argument doesn't say anything about the total cost of a
wafer.


--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency