Does it make sense? An $1800 Full frame DSLR from Canon

[Daniel Browning]

You're very welcome, Benjamin.

[The 50D is] a great
camera in my opinion dispite those critical comments and reviews on the
internet.

Agreed. Even after you do go full frame, it's nice to keep a second APS-C body around for telephoto and macro situations where the reach is a big advantage.

Maybe one day camera components will be interchangable the way computer components are.

RED is proposing an interchangable system in their upcoming Scarlet and EPIC digital cinema cameras.

• Brain (sensor and electronics).
• Lens mount (Nikon, Canon, RED, PL, etc.: take your pick).
• I/O module (video/audio stuff)
• Multiple battery options (between 1 and 140 batteries).
• Wireless remote
• Electronic Viewfinder
• Handles
• Recording modules (solide state, compact flash, hdd, etc.)
• LCD and tons of other accessories

The idea is to mix and match whatever features are needed for a given camera.

[ShutterbugJohan]

Daniel: Wow! You know a lot of info. Do you work for Canon? :-) Sorry about my ignorance, but what is a semiconductor mask (reticle)? Thanks!

[UK_Scotty]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]From an engineering point I would say that the 50D is a step to far, a 1.6X sensor at 15mp is going to give problems that are not worth the extra resolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I think (hope) that the next mid range body 60D??? would have to have a larger sensor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] One would hope for full frame but suspect that a 1.3x sensor would be canons preferred option if forced down that route, but I think that all of the manufactures will try desperately to keep the 1.6 and 1.5X sensors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] So a 1.3x or FF sensor at &pound;1200 (proper money) may not be too far away&hellip; <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]What is really needed now is a totally new type of sensor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]

[Keith B]

1.3 crop xxD probably won't happen. It will eliminate use of EF-S lenses.

[UK_Scotty]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]So no downside then!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The cropped lenses from any manufacturer rate along side betamax, hd-dvd, and French cars, just another con to get people to buy and then be forced to buy again!

[Colin]

I don't know....


Practically speaking, I think most DSLR buyers are not photographers truly demanding the highest image quality to the detriment of convenience. What a smaller sensor allows you to do is carry less glass for the task, make the body smaller, etc. Don't get me wrong. I have no intention of giving up a full frame, but then again if you flip things around, I'm not looking to ditch my 1.6 crop body that has an edge on pixel density (over my arcane 5D) and a higher frame rate. Nor do I have any real interest to invest in even larger medium format systems and try to replicate my EF lens collection along that venue.


Smaller sensors simply allow smaller cameras, and the glass is more cost effective from a functional standpoint. There is an advantage in that.


But, still, as much as I admire the 50D, I wouldn't trade my 5D. However, if I could swap out my 30D for a 50D, or a 1DmkII/III, I'd be way happy []

[alexniedra]

I think Canon's long term plans consist of making all cameras full-frame - the advantages of this sensor size are many.


Daniel - Awesome info here. I wish I knew more about the manufacturing process myself.


The next step for Canon is to lower the production costs of these big - and expensive - imagers.

[wolf]

You have to realize that sensor size and not pixels is at the root
of high camera cost for FF. The silicon cost wouldn't change much if
you had less pixels (you'd have a slightly larger yield with lower MP
sensors, which would reduce the cost).


If you have larger pixels (i.e. less MP for the same area) you're
going to have lower noise, which is why the original 5D was so good
(compared to the crop sensors at the time) and why the Nikon 700 is
less noisy at high ISOs (noise processing also helps). Less MP also
reduces lens aberrations, which is why people say the 40D has better
picture quality than the 50D.


The only way to reduce the price of FF cameras is to sell more of
them, then the cost per sensor die is reduced (the reason why Pentium
chips can be sold for the prices they do since they're produced in
hundreds of thousands).

[Daniel Browning]

Daniel: Wow! You know a lot of info. Do you work for Canon? :-) Sorry about my ignorance, but what is a semiconductor mask (reticle)? Thanks!

Thanks, Johan. Photography is just my hobby, but I enjoy getting deep into it.

The reticle is the quartz "master" image of the sensor. A laser is shined through the reticle, focused onto the much smaller silicon wafer. For further reading, I suggest the following "white paper" from Canon:


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&amp;message=30412083



http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia/50d_vs_40d_resolution_and_noise

I think (hope) that the next mid range body [60D?] would have to have a larger sensor.

It does not "have to have" a larger sensor at all. Resolution can and will continue to improve in APS-C cameras. A larger size would not only increase cost greatly, but would not benefit the use of EF-S lenses.

A different sensor size would be a completely different product line.

One would hope for full frame

There is already a full frame option: the 5D series.

but suspect that a 1.3x sensor would be canons preferred option if forced down that route

It's possible that Canon could remove some features from the 1D 1.3X series, but the increased sensor size alone is still going to make them more expensive than APS-C.

Larger sensors are not going to get cheaper because you want it. Nor because you believe Canon reached some sort of "limit" in APS-C. Even if they had reached any kind of limit, that's not going to make larger sensors any cheaper.

but I think that all of the manufactures will try desperately to keep the 1.6 and 1.5X sensors.

Your position is indefensible.

The cropped lenses from any manufacturer rate along side betamax, hd-dvd, and French cars, just another con to get people to buy and then be forced to buy again!

If you're serious, then I think you're incorrect. If you're trying to be funny, then I fail to see the humor.

you'd have a slightly larger yield with lower MP
sensors, which would reduce the cost

Interesting. I haven't heard that before, but I do know that dead pixels on higher MP sensors affect the total image much less than the same number of dead pixels on a lower MP sensor.

If you have larger pixels (i.e. less MP for the same area) you're going to have lower noise, which is why the original 5D was so good (compared to the crop sensors at the time)

I disagree. If you have a larger *sensor*, you're going to have lower noise: pixel size is almost irrelevent. A digicam with a teensy, tiny sensor will never have less noise than a full frame senosr. Even if the digicam has large 200-square-micron pixels and the full frame sensor has tiny 16 um^2 pixels, the DSLR will still have less noise.

The 5D proves my point. If you compare "for the same area", as you said, then you take away the advantage of the large sensor size, and it's plainly worse than even the 20D. For example, for a given fixed exposure (f-number and shutter speed), the 20D collects 0.76 photoelectrons per ADU per square micron, whereas the 5D only records 0.61 e-/ADU/um^2. The smaller 20D is 20% more efficient. The difference in read noise is even more disparate.

So the "large pixels" of the 5D are plainly worse than the "small pixels" of the 20D. It's only the *sensor size* that makes the 5D better, not the larger pixels. Another example is the 1Ds3, which has smaller pixels than the 5D, but much higher quality (sensitivity and read noise).

And why the Nikon 700 is less noisy at high ISOs.

That's true. However, the Sony-built D3X has much less noise at low ISO, and far more dynamic range than the D700, despite much smaller pixels.

Less MP also reduces lens aberrations

I disagree. The aberrations are there no matter what size pixel you have. Smaller pixels just allow the photographer to see them if he so desires, whereas large pixels are so blurry that they can't resolve the aberrations.

Choosing to use large pixels for the purpose of "reducing lens aberrations" is sticking one's head in the sand. They're still there, you just can't see them. One may still stick their head in the sand with a 50D, just resize the image down to the spatial resolution of the 40D.

The wrong question is "what resolution is low enough and blurry enough to hide all the optical imperfections in my lens?".

The right question is "what resolution is high enough and detailed enough to to extract every last drop of information from my lens?".

I already know that much of my glass has useful information at extremely high resolutions, because I've used them with teleconverters. I'm looking forward to 200 MP, 500 MP, and 1 GP sensors in the future.

[wolf]

You're right in the sense that lower MP hide lens aberrations which is what I meant by "reducing lens aberrations".


It's not just pixel size that reduces noise, it's the on-chip (or software) noise reduction algorithms. If you took the raw data (without noise reduction being applied) of two chips (with same physical size), the one with larger pixels will appear to be less noisy.


There is always a tradeoff when changing a single parameter. Smaller pixels (higher MP count): bigger enlargements but more noise at high ISOs. More noise reduction: less noise but you lose detail.


When comparing sensors of the same size, like the Nikon D700 and Sony A900, the one with less pixels will typically appear less noisy (without considering noise reduction). But there are always limits and if you push the number of MPs past a certain limit you loose the benefit and other factors come into play such as lens aberrations and noise issues.