Here it is the 50D, what's next? [Archive] - The-Digital-Picture.com Community

View Full Version : Here it is the 50D, what's next?

Benjamin

07-14-2009, 01:39 AM

Maleko

07-14-2009, 05:31 AM

Interesting stuff!

I have just ordered a 50D, I currently have a 350D...Old school or what! I contemplated getting the cheaper 40D, but the 50D was more appealing. Then I thought, should I wait for the 60D/7D? Well as there is no release date yet, it could be ages! and I really wanted a new camera for the summer! (got a few weddings to do this year). Also, the price sounds like it would be a bit steaper than the current 50D?

I think the 60D/7D will have to pack a few more extras for people to think WOW at it, like HD recording etc, more features to make people see a nice upgrade from there 40/50D.

But hey, I'm looking forward to my 50D Kit and my first L lens tomorrow :D

Chris White

07-14-2009, 08:55 AM

peety3

07-14-2009, 03:28 PM

I tell people that Canon has six models (nowadays):

Rugged pro FF "high res" camera

Rugged pro "half-crop" "mid res, high rate" camera

Studio FF "high res" camera

"Prosumer" crop camera

Consumer crop camera

Entry-level crop camera

The line-up (with the exception of the newer entry-level series) has been the same since the release of the 5D. Features tend to insert in the prosumer camera and then drift up before they drift down, but video took a different route as we all know.

There's a fairly obvious (and I claim logical) price tag progression through this line. Any deviations from this structure probably need a real strong motivating factor, or there's risk that the new creation might dilute the market for one of the existing models. That's not to say that the structure is perfect or even right...and I am absolutely clueless about the Nikon lineup.

peety3

07-14-2009, 09:17 PM

I guess I could have and should have elaborated more on my thoughts here. It boils down to two forecasted models:

The 1D Mark IV, to me, doesn't make sense as a 16mp FF camera. Although the pixel density matches its predecessor, leading to great noise performance and diffraction threshold, I don't think FF@10fps is "easy" (and therefore feasible at the 1D price point). To get 10fps, the 1D3 needed two mirror motors, one down and one up. Most every other moving-mirror camera uses a motor and a return spring. Having to motor a FF mirror both ways at 10fps would be tough. Is the 1Ds3 a testament that it can be done, since the viewfinder blackout is (I think) the same? I don't know, but I doubt it. They also have more revenue with which to solve that problem, since the 1Ds is in a higher price category. There would also be sacrifices in x-sync speed with FF, a trade-off that likely doesn't make sense in a "reporting" camera. Speaking of, I see some challenges if Canon had three FF cameras at the existing (5D, 1D, 1Ds) price points.

The 60D, to me, doesn't make sense at APS-H. Losing the EF-S capability means the widest effective focal length "loses", as it shifts from 16mm EFL (using the EF-S 10-22) to 18.2 (using the very expensive 14/2.8L prime). Folks with earlier two-digit (xxD) cameras aren't going to want to obsolete their EF-S inventory with a newer camera in the same family. If it were a 7D model, it creates an interesting three-tier line-up: gripped/rugged bodies (FF and APS-H), non-gripped bodies (FF and APS-H), and EF-S bodies. Whether that makes marketing sense is left to Canon: if we figure that the APS-H body costs about 57% ($4500 vs $8000) of the FF body, the 7D would be about $1550, and that'd be too low for them to make it a pro-caliber unit in my estimation.

When I looked into my crystal ball a year or so ago, I saw my future with two 1D bodies and one 1Ds, before eventually shifting towards two 1Ds bodies and one 1D. I see that working out, whether the 1D line stays APS-H or goes FF. Thinking about it though, a 5D/7D-type combo might work well for a lot of folks too.

HiFiGuy1

07-14-2009, 09:38 PM

Ah, nothing like the smell of vaporware in the morning!

Benjamin

07-14-2009, 10:26 PM

Peety,

Good point on the line up suggestion!

I don't think FF@10fps is "easy" (and therefore feasible at the 1D price point). To get 10fps, the 1D3 needed two mirror motors, one down and one up. Most every other moving-mirror camera uses a motor and a return spring. Having to motor a FF mirror both ways at 10fps would be tough.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I will have to disagree with you on this.

My 1V-HS does 10FPS in ease with some minor body vibration - it is a camera from almost one decade ago. If that's not enough, the FD mount Canon F1 from 1984 ("http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1976-1985/1984_nf1-hsmd.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1976-1985) with the high speed booster will do 14FPS! Though it was a ridiculous camera to shoot with and it was at a ridiculous price point, Canon has done it back then. That's why I don't quite believe that Canon does not offer FF on the 1D is because of any technical (mechanical) difficulty. The 1V's mechanism is just about good enough in my opinion, and the 1V is sold at $1700 - not even close to any 1 series digital bodies.

Nikon does 11FPS when using the crop mood on the D3, 9FPS full resolution. I think Canon should be able to keep up on this at least.

There would also be sacrifices in x-sync speed with FF, a trade-off that likely doesn't make sense in a "reporting" camera.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

The flash sync speed of the 1V and 1Ds III is both at 1/250s, for the 1D III it's 1/300s. Though the 1D III is faster, I wonder if this much difference will make any practical difference at all. The original 1D camera can sync at 1/500s - that compares to the 1/250s is a whole new scale.

The 60D, to me, doesn't make sense at APS-H.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Agreed. The xxD line does not make sense to jump up to APS-H at this moment yet. To introduce a new body (say 7D) with APS-H sensor makes sense since there is plenty of room between the xxD and the 5D. $1550? That would be so nice - I'll ditch my 50D right away if that happens.[:)]

As I said before, a FF 1D body does not and will not hurt even as a "reporting" camera. I don't see any reason why Canon will have to make a APS-H camera if the FF one will just do the same (i.g. to have the same pixel density, same speed, etc...) at a reasonable cost. If you consider the 1Ds Mark III's 21MP sensor, I agree that a FF 16MP 1D IV will come too close. Say if the future 1Ds IV sports a 30MP sensor, a FF 16MP 1D IV will be just fine to stand behind it as the "speedy & low rez" camera.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ben

wickerprints

07-14-2009, 10:32 PM

I've pointed it out before and got shot down for it, but nobody seems to care that Canon has made a very deliberate distinction with respect to model number and sensor format. If the sensor is APS-C, the model number is X0D (or with earlier cameras, DX0), XX0D, or X000D. If the sensor is APS-H, the model number is 1D. If the sensor is 35mm, the model number is 5D or 1Ds. This has been the nomenclature since Canon started making DSLRs and I would be extremely, extremely surprised if they would suddenly break this pattern. As such, calling a putative 16MP 35mm format camera a "1DmkIV" flies in the face of nearly a decade of branding history. It is far, far more likely that such a camera would be given a new series number.

Please note that I am not saying a camera with that particular feature set would never be released. I am simply pointing out that calling it a 1DmkIV would be inconsistent with the history of how Canon labels its EOS Digital bodies.

Similarly, to say that the evolution in the X0D series cameras is to move them to APS-H makes no sense either. Moving that product line to APS-H would undermine the sales of EF-S lenses and more importantly reduce consumer confidence in the continued support of the EF-S mount. The problem is this: Why design an EF-S lens with superior optics if that brings up the price point to a level that exceeds the budget of the typical consumer that purchases an EF-S body? Someone who buys a Rebel is not likely to want to drop $1000+ on a sharp EF-S lens when he can buy an excellent EF lens and be assured of its continued support. So it's a Catch-22 for Canon, one that would be made even worse should they transition the X0D series to APS-H.

Furthermore, giving the 5DmkII all those things you describe--what would that leave for the 1Ds series? The pixel count and sensor format are the same. You're basically describing a 1DsIII that shoots 1080p video, but you want it for $2700. Well, who wouldn't?

All this speculation and fantasizing is worthless. It is only going to set you up for disappointment and take you away from the important thing, which is to enjoy taking pictures. If you're holding out for the perfect digital body, you're in for a rude awakening each time Canon brings out the next new model and it just doesn't have that perfect combination of features you want.

peety3

07-14-2009, 11:00 PM

I've pointed it out before and got shot down for it, but nobody seems to care that Canon has made a very deliberate distinction with respect to model number and sensor format. If the sensor is APS-C, the model number is X0D (or with earlier cameras, DX0), XX0D, or X000D. If the sensor is APS-H, the model number is 1D. If the sensor is 35mm, the model number is 5D or 1Ds. This has been the nomenclature since Canon started making DSLRs and I would be extremely, extremely surprised if they would suddenly break this pattern. As such, calling a putative 16MP 35mm format camera a "1DmkIV" flies in the face of nearly a decade of branding history. It is far, far more likely that such a camera would be given a new series number.

I see two sides to this. Chuck Westfall from Canon hasn't committed that APS-H is here to stay, so that leaves the door open for them to break the mold. On the other side, you're right and I've been agreeing with that stance on CanonRumors for a while - the folks who think the 1D4 will be full-frame don't seem to respect the legacy of the model numbers, and the folks who say "Canon is stupid if they don't make the 1D4 full-frame" don't seem to understand the confusion that three pro-level full-frame models might create.

All this speculation and fantasizing is worthless. It is only going to set you up for disappointment and take you away from the important thing, which is to enjoy taking pictures. If you're holding out for the perfect digital body, you're in for a rude awakening each time Canon brings out the next new model and it just doesn't have that perfect combination of features you want.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I agree. I want to replace my Rebel XTi with a more-capable (and more similar interface) body soon, ideally with a 1D4 but I'm also considering a 40D or 50D. But to be honest, I think it's going to have to wait until 2010 for me. :(

Benjamin

07-14-2009, 11:32 PM

the folks who think the 1D4 will be full-frame don't seem to respect the legacy of the model numbers,
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I wouldn't think it's exactly wise to not do what might be the best just because of a model number. I'm not the ones to insist that the 1D IV must be FF, but if it remains in 1.3x, I'd like to hear a better reason than matching the model number. In my humble opinion, the benefit of a FF sensor should at least be able to make up what we lose from the APS-H.

Nikon now has 3 FF cameras, instead of defining their move as "does not make sense", I'd like to see it as an alternative path to take. Nikon is successful so far, that's why I would like Canon to do more.

Anyway, we'll see.

wickerprints

07-15-2009, 12:08 AM

I wouldn't think it's exactly wise to not do what might be the best just because of a model number. I'm not the ones to insist that the 1D IV must be FF, but if it remains in 1.3x, I'd like to hear a better reason than matching the model number. In my humble opinion, the benefit of a FF sensor should at least be able to make up what we lose from the APS-H.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Again, my point is not about what Canon will release next. My point is about what they will CALL it. Those are two entirely different things. Of course it would not be wise to allow a model number to dictate what features a camera should have, but that was not what I implied and I said as much. And it would be equally unwise to do what Nikon has done to its lineup and make a complete mess of its nomenclature. The D300 is "DX" format but the D700 is 35mm. What's going to happen when these bodies go through a few more revisions? Even worse, the D60 is entry level but the D90 is mid-range? Then they threw in the D5000 and now all hell breaks loose because nobody can figure out from the model numbers which model is supposed to be newer. At least with the Canon lineup everything makes sense. Their 3- and 4-digit series are the entry level bodies, the 2-digit series is the mid-range, and the 1-digit series are the high-end, which is further split out into the 1D(s) series which is the "pro" level. Furthermore the model number tells you what format the sensor is.

I reiterate my statement that if Canon will produce a 16MP 35mm sensor body, it should be given a new series name to distinguish it from the existing lineup. Perhaps we won't have a 1D-series any more, but it will be replaced by something else. I don't know. And it may seem like splitting hairs but I look at what Nikon has done and it's just confusing as hell, and I would really, really hate for Canon to do the same. (Nikon bodies and lenses are ugly too but that's my personal bias).

Nikon is successful because their bodies have better noise performance, superior AF, and better FPS. Canon is successful because their lens lineup ROCKS and they are often the innovators in the field. These are two different companies with two different visions of how to make cameras. It's not reasonable to say that one has to match or play catch-up to what the other is doing because they have inherently different methods as to how to go about making good cameras. And that's why I am puzzled by your insistence on this particular issue. If you are unhappy then switch systems.

Benjamin

07-15-2009, 02:20 AM

wickerprints,

You seem to know a lot about Canon and Nikon.

Let me make my thoughts clearer into just one question here: why does the upcoming camera (whatever it's gonna be called) that replaces the current 1D III better to remain in APS-H?

I totally agree with you about the naming issue, I can see Nikon has somewhat messed up their lineup by giving names that does not come as a whole. I'm also not in any way insisting either on what a FF 16MP camera would be called or should a replacement of the 1D III be FF. However, there're questions that's not answered, or at least not satisfactorily convincing; such as is there any technical difficulty to make a fast FF digital camera? I can see the benefit of a FF replacement of the 1D III while I don't quite understand why an APS-H sensor is here to stay unless there're very solid reasons.

On the other hand, if naming has a lot to do with the format, please think back to the film ages when Canon still made 5 lines of SLRs. They all shoot film, from the top-of-the-line EOS 1V to EOS 3, followed by Elan, Rebel T and Rebel K in different production lines. They were all in the same format as 35mm film; but their feature, function, utility, reliability, etc divided them into 5 different categories. Today Canon makes 5 lines of digital SLRs, unfortunately they're in different formats mainly due to manufacture cost of their sensors. Canon once said to eventually generalize FF sensor on most of their products - I think that will eventually form a similar lineup as the film ages - cameras differ because of their utility, quality and price, not the format itself.

I will appreciate if you can share more thoughts on the replacement of the 1D III since that's really why I'm here to argue. As I said, I see FF being superior as a sensor along, and Canon should do it whenever possible. I'd like to see Canon makes most of their cameras in FF format at reasonable costs in the future.

Ben

wickerprints

07-15-2009, 04:17 AM

Your central question is an absolutely legitimate one. There is no inherent technological reason that a digital body cannot be engineered to the specifications you mention. It is certainly possible. The previous limitation of processor speed/buffer size/data bandwidth at reasonable cost is no longer the brick wall it used to be. So we may well see the transition to 35mm sensors with fast frame rates.

As I imagine it from the manufacturer's perspective, the issue here is twofold: there is the answer to the question "what feasible technological improvements are desired in a body?" and then there is the question "in what way(s) can we differentiate our product lines and at what combination of features and price points?" Since I am not the manufacturer, I cannot speculate as to how Canon would answer these questions. But it certainly seems reasonable to me that the next logical evolution of the fast FPS body is to go to full 35mm. The pixel density will probably be lower than a 35mm sensor for "studio" work (i.e. anything except for fast action).

There is a bit of a twist to this story, which is the situation faced by present 1DmkIII owners with respect to issues with the accuracy of AF Servo mode. Perhaps there is a problem with Canon's QC and/or AF firmware. There have been reports of improvement after the latest firmware revision but this issue may be indicative of a more serious underlying problem. AF Servo and FPS are intimately related, as the former is very often used in conjunction with continuous shooting mode.

So then perhaps the real question is this: is Canon capable of making a camera with superior AF Servo performance at > 10fps, and with, say, 45-zone AF? We know Nikon can do it. But I believe that we have yet to really see Canon deliver in the 1DmkIII, despite reports of the issue of AF accuracy being fixed.

You can see then, that it is not simply enough to ask "what is possible?" Canon also has to consider how such a product fits within their existing lineup, whether it would serve as a replacement for the 1DIII, or whether a lower-density sensor actually belongs *above* the 1DsIII, or...who knows? And how much would it sell for? As such, speculation about what will come next is really quite futile because photographers are, to a fault, obsessively preoccupied with "what can we get," not "what business considerations are attached to the development of camera technology." After all, why should we care about the business end? That's for the manufacturers to wrestle with. But my point is that it nevertheless influences and informs the design decisions, and to that end, we ought to care if the goal is to try to predict what will come down the pipeline. Not doing so is willfully disregarding critical facts and drawing hypotheses on partial data.

We see this sort of thing with lenses as well. People have been talking at length about a hypothetical 24-70/2.8L IS, a successor to the 24-70/2.8L. And as popular as such a lens might be (based on how many people I've heard wish for IS), I just don't think it's going to happen any time soon. Why? Because at about 2 pounds the 24-70/2.8L is already huge and heavy. Adding an IS group would probably put on another half pound of weight, make it longer, more expensive, and worst of all, compromise on quality. It is NOT a trivial task to design a f/2.8 zoom at any focal length. Are people really thinking that a 24-70/2.8L IS could be a suitable walk-around lens to replace the 24-105/4L IS? Sure, I suppose there are many photographers out there who would be willing to lug a heavy chunk of glass around town. But you also have the fact that as the focal length gets shorter, the benefit of IS also diminishes. Furthermore, in this down economy, Canon probably isn't going to spend a lot of time/resources to redesign lenses that are already excellent. In summary, when you hear these kinds of rumors, it's really more confabulation than fact.

To address your statement about the sensor format and comparisons to
film, the reason why film bodies were all in 35mm format was because
the medium itself was a single fixed size. And to support multiple
slight variations in size would have been madness as doing so would
cost more than any price differential due to the per-unit cost of
film. A single standardized film format was what was economically efficient.
This is not the case in digital, where the very inherent nature of the
imaging medium is such that the per-unit cost of manufacture is tied to
the defect rate which in turn is directly proportional to the area of
the sensor. Unless manufacturing processes fundamentally change in
such a way that makes these defects scale more reasonably to sensor
area than at present, we will not see significant cost structure
differences. An APS-C sensor is about 38% the area of a 35mm sensor.
That translates into considerable cost savings, as a single silicon
wafer can be cut into nearly 3x as many sensors, and a larger
percentage of these sensors will be defect-free. Eventually, perhaps the cost curve will flatten out to the point that maintaining different processes will not be justified. But I believe that is unlikely to happen before the next revolutionary change in imaging technology takes place. In short, the sensor area is most certainly the dominant factor in determining the ultimate cost of manufacture in a camera, as it affects the design of the two most expensive components of the body: the sensor itself, and the processor(s) that must accept and interpret its data. A 16MP sensor recording images at 10fps is going to have to push over 190MB of RAW data every second to a card. That is not trivial processing power and it does not come cheap.

And so we come full circle. What will Canon give us next? I really don't know. I don't really think it's all that important, to be honest. To me, I'd much rather think about things that I can control that have a direct relationship to what I am doing, which is taking photos. I use a 5DmkII and my latest toy I'm having fun with is the 70-200/2.8L IS. It's a nice piece of glass. If I worried about the rumors that Canon was going to redesign it, I'd never have the photos that I took since I got it. And that's what matters most to me. Photography is only peripherally about the tools--the real purpose is to capture your vision, your interpretation of what you see in those fleeting moments happening around you all the time, moments that will never come again.

Mark Elberson

07-15-2009, 11:08 AM

Photography is only peripherally about the tools--the real purpose is to capture your vision, your interpretation of what you see in those fleeting moments happening around you all the time, moments that will never come again.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Very well said!

HiFiGuy1

07-15-2009, 11:28 AM

Absolutely! Very insightful. It is fun to obssess about the hardware, since it is tangible, but the real importance lies in what we create.

peety3

07-15-2009, 12:06 PM

I totally agree with you about the naming issue, I can see Nikon has somewhat messed up their lineup by giving names that does not come as a whole. I'm also not in any way insisting either on what a FF 16MP camera would be called or should a replacement of the 1D III be FF. However, there're questions that's not answered, or at least not satisfactorily convincing; such as is there any technical difficulty to make a fast FF digital camera? I can see the benefit of a FF replacement of the 1D III while I don't quite understand why an APS-H sensor is here to stay unless there're very solid reasons.

A FF 16MP camera should be called 1Ds Mark II. Oh wait, it already got called that.

I'd like to see Canon makes most of their cameras in FF format at reasonable costs in the future.

Good, fast, cheap; pick any two.

Daniel Browning

07-15-2009, 04:04 PM

why does the upcoming camera that replaces the current 1D III better to remain in APS-H?

We had a very similar discussion a few weeks ago:

APS-H vs FF, which makes more sense to be on the 1D Mark IV? ("/forums/t/1402.aspx)

The 1D Mark IV, to me, doesn't make sense as a 16mp FF camera...The 60D, to me, doesn't make sense at APS-H.

Agreed on both counts. I would be very surprised if Canon released a low-end 1.3X body or stopped releasing 10FPS 1.3X bodies. Things that would be nice, though: a high-end, high-speed 1.6X body and a 10FPS 1.0X body. I think the idea of using sensor size to differentiate market segments is too ingrained into the Canon marketing M.O., and even Nikon's switch will not be enough to get them to change.

The 1D Mark IV, to me, doesn't make sense as a 16mp FF camera. Although the pixel density matches its predecessor, leading to great noise performance and diffraction threshold

For the benefit of the reader, I would like to point out that peety3 and I are in a state of disagreement on this matter. I think the idea that larger pixels have superior noise performance and suffer less negative effects from diffraction is a common misconception caused by erroneous image analysis. I detailed the position in the following thread with experimental evidence:

Myth busted: smaller pixels have more noise, less dynamic range, worse diffraction, etc. ("/forums/t/1055.aspx)

However, I don't think I ever actually discussed diffraction in that thread. (I meant to, as indicated in the title, but I must have forgot.) So here's a quick description: There are many things that can affect the resolution of an image, including diffraction, aberrations, motion blur (from camera shake or subject movement), and mechanical issues such as collimation, back focus, tilt, and manufacturing tolerances.

In the face of these issues, some will claim that small pixels are actually worse than large pixels. This is easily proven false. The reality is that all of these factors may cause diminishing returns, but returns never diminish below 0%.

The most frequently misunderstood factor in diminishing returns is diffraction. As pixel size decreases there are two points: one at which diffraction is just barely beginning to noticably diminish returns (from 100% of the expected improvement, to, say, 90%); and another where the resolution improvement is so small that it's immeasurable (0-1%). One common mistake is to think both are the same point, but in reality they are often very far apart.

Another diffraction-related mistake is to think that diffraction will ever cause a small pixel sensor to have lower performance. In fact, the worst that can ever happen is for smaller pixels to have a 0% improvement. That is, for performance to be the same.

For example, anyone shooting 5 micron pixels at f/32 because they really need DOF (e.g. macro) is not going to get any benefit from smaller pixels: the returns will be close to 0%. At f/11, the returns will be diminished slightly, but an improvement can still be had from smaller pixels.

Lens aberrations can be an issue too. Usually even the cheapest lenses will have pretty good performance in the center, stopped down. But their corners wide open will sometimes not benefit very much from smaller pixels, so the returns in those mushy corners may be 0-5% due to aberrations.

And there's the mechanical issues. If the collimation is not perfect, but it's good enough for large pixels, then it will have to be better to get the full return of even smaller pixels. This relates to manufacturing tolerances of everything in the image chain: the higher the resolution, the more difficult it is to get full return from that additional resolution. Even things like tripods have to be more steady to prevent diminishing returns.

So essentially the diminishing returns depend on the circumstances, but the higher the resolution, the more often the returns will be diminished.

Jon Ruyle

07-15-2009, 05:08 PM

Funny how small pixels get such a bad rap. No one ever says "the optical perfection of such and such lens is actually a disadvantage, because you need higher shutter speed/smaller pixels/larger aperture/better focus/etc to to take advantage of it." But people make the exact same argument about small pixels all the time.

For example, anyone shooting 5 micron pixels at f/32 because they really need DOF (e.g. macro) is not going to get any benefit from smaller pixels: the returns will be close to 0%.

In theory, one could use high pixel density to do better post-processing. For example, if one is willing to deconvolve diffraction, I believe more resolution is always better.

Daniel Browning

07-15-2009, 05:53 PM

In theory, one could use high pixel density to do better post-processing. For example, if one is willing to deconvolve diffraction, I believe more resolution is always better.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Agreed. If sensors were advanced enough to record the actual phase of the light, then diffraction could be deconvolved perfectly (in theory). But as you point out, even without phase it's possible to get really nice results. High noise power at Nyquist can reduce the effectiveness, so it's more beneficial for low ISO shots.

Benjamin

07-15-2009, 08:32 PM

Great insight, I can see the logic there. I learned.[:)]