Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by hodgo, Nov 8, 2007.
"what's the bad news?"
Richard, I am sorry that you are offended. I intended to be provocative rather than offensive.
More accurately I believe that compacts (at least in their present form) will be replaced by cameraphone/ wifi internet thinghies. C size and near full frame are supported by the major players. Unsurprisingly 3rd party lens suppliers are optimising lenses to those formats. There is a limited space for variant formats. Canon's 1.3x format is also out on its own, and I expect it to become defunct.Four thirds technically may be a very appropriate format but unfortuneately for its supporters it is becoming a bit of a 'Betamax' standard; i.e. best technically, but passed over by commerce. Even third party lenses for the format are really optimised for C size and are merely fitted with the four thirds camera fitting. Perhaps what I should have said is that four thirds was a good idea at the time but that its serious photographic followers would eventually migrate to a larger size and it's less serious users would do without a specialist camera.
no worries, sorry for jumping on you.
I wouldn't disagree with your reasoning above.
Just a rumour, but surely it would make sense -
13th In an interesting mail we were sent, which updated some details of the material we had in September, it would seem that there will be no 1D Mk. IIIN and no 1D Mk. IV... It's the 1Dx (or whatever 'x' is ;-)
"The 1DMk3 AF issues have been a great embarrassment for Canon. The camera is not selling as well as hoped. The D3 and Nikon's new lenses are now seen as a serious threat to the sports and photojournalism market segments.
The 1D III was intended to be a ground-breaking camera, but now is considered 'Kyou' or bad luck, attributed to it being the 4th camera in the 1D Series.
The new camera -will- be a 1D but with a new name - expect it to appear in Aug/Sept of 2008"
Some 'headline' specs
· Same form factor as current 1 Series
· Full Frame 16MP sensor (end of 1.3 crop cameras)
· ISO 100 to 6400 (expandible 50 and 12800)
· Live View with contrast detection AF and HD Video capture (It is considered this will revolutionise photo journalism and meet growing requirement for web news video and cross media feeds).
· Stills can be grabbed from HD Video capture but only at 2MP resolution.
· 1.3x crop mode with viewfinder masking and reduced size RAW (10MP) with significantly improved buffer for cropped RAW images 10 fps, buffer similar for FF images.
Alan thanks for the link, that kind of confirms the link I posted earlier in the thread from December 2006, whereby it was mentioned that Canon are likely to continue with FF & APS-C side by side but no APS-H (1.3). Which when you think of it makes sense as FF has a good market with Enthusiasts & Pro's, with APS-C being very popular among the Majority of users, in a cut throat world you keep what's a success & get rid of what isn't.
I find the inclusion of a x1.3 crop mode interesting. Although I've previously said that I'd be in favour of crop modes (to enable the use of APS-C only lenses) x1.3 seems odd (no dedicated lenses) and would perhaps be included because users of previous models would be used to it rather than it making sense in a wider context.
I don't know, it just seems odd to be.
There will be loads of people (me included) that have APS-H (1.3X) sensors that have no EF-S lenses. Including a 'switchable' crop to APS-C or APS-H would not be possible unless the lenses were EF as EF-S lenses can't be fitted to FF or APS-H bodies (1 series).
Well, I know that this is only a rumour thread but the EF-S issue has already been covered here and the rumour (attributed to a Canon source) is that Canon have "a fix for the EF-S lens issue." By this I assume what is meant is that there is a way to fit an EF-S lens to a future FF body.
Whilst I can see the advantage in having a FF body which is able to switch to APS-C mode so that an APS-C lens can be fitted (assuming that some will upgrade from APS-C bodies and will want to keep their APS-C lenses and may not upgrade if they can't do that) I'm struggling to see an advantage in including a switchable APS-H mode. There are as far as I know no dedicated APS-H lenses (only EF, EF-S and third party APS-C only lenses) so what is to be gained from including a x1.3 crop on a FF camera? I honestly don't know.
I think the history of this is, when the 1.3x sensor was introduced, (a) large sensor chips were insanely expensive, (b) the microlens design was such that "fringing" was uncontrollable at full-frame corners, especially since the lenses available then were designed for film.
Also the amount of data in the image is reduced by a factor of 1.7 (for the same sensor pitch) so, with old, slow processors, the frame rate could be increased - this was probably important as most of the users were pros used to film SLRs which could run at ~5 fps (until the film ran out!)
Anyway, like others, I feel 1.3x sensors are on the way out - they no longer have advantages over either APS-C/DX or full frame/FX sensors which are sufficient to justify their continued existence.
The only reason for having a switchable crop is so that less data needs writing to buffer/memory and thus speed up the drive rate. Otherwise you might as well just crop on the computer.
I can never understand that either, why would a model aimed directly at professionals not be Full Frame, to go for a 1.3 crop factor seems to me to handy cap it straight away.
"The only reason for having a switchable crop is so that less data needs writing to buffer/memory and thus speed up the drive rate."
I thought about that but wouldn't it be easier just to record a smaller FF file? I don't know by the way, I'm just wondering. Is it easier to mask out part of the chip to increase the frame rate or is it easier to leave the camera in FF mode and record smaller files?
There wouldn't be a physical mask as such but the camera would have software that processes just the central portion of the sensor. How large or small that central portion is need only be determined by how quickly you want/need to process the data. No point in throwing out any more pixels than you need to once you have the speed you want. That's why we have 1.3X now. My 1D2N can write 8.5 fps the new 1D3 can do 10. Is any more speed necessary? Once they can write FF data at those speeds and maintain good quality then neither 1.3 or 1.6 will be needed.
"There wouldn't be a physical mask as such but the camera would have software that processes just the central portion of the sensor"
Well, yes, obviously. Sorry if I gave the impression that I meant a physical mask.
I suppose that the advantage of a x1.3 crop mode on a FF would mean that instead of recording a FF image of for example 10mb a central crop of for example 6mb is recorded thus increasing speed. This will presumably offer some advantage over simply recording a reduced file size FF image of 6mb to increase the frame rate? Again, I don't know.
Separate names with a comma.