Canon 1Ds MKIII ~ 1Ds MKII N

[Grimace]

If the new sensor is larger than FF it will require new lenses with larger image circles. Existing lenses will still work, but in a cropped (FF) mode similar in concept to the cropped mode of the D2X. But to get the full benefit of 22 megapixels, you'll need new "EF-L or EF-D" lenses. These, of course, will produce larger image circles.

The Canon lens mount has a larger diameter than Nikon's. I haven't pulled the numbers and done the math, but it may be possible for Canon to create larger image circle lenses using the same mount. This would also mean that the size of the new body could be approximately the same as the existing 1Ds.

Yeah, I started reading some of those. I think it would be possible but not very likely. Professionals would get an update to the MKII and could use all their existing EF lenses at 16MP. Canon could release 2-3 new primes that can utilize the full 22MP. Like dangling candy in front of them....

 

[jared_kipe]

Any cropped sensor camera will look better in corners with good lenses -- you're not really looking at the corners of the lens!

With good L lenses, I think the Canon full frame bodies compete at the same level as anything Nikon makes. (we won't turn this into a Canon vs. Nikon debate...)

i still have to wonder about the physics of going larger than full frame with lenses that weren't designed for it.

Thats why I said with good lenses. I'm not saying nikon vs canon, I'm talking about the different approaches to dslrs. If given the choice I'd choose a 30D over a 5D for the very reason that having a sensor significantly smaller than the image circle makes for better photos. So I've never been to big of a fan of EF-S type lenses.

But it is an interesting idea to have the full resolution as an option for better lenses. I just don't see it at this time.

 

[ksz]

What follows is just a guess on my part. If you can find an error, jump in and fix it.

Nikon F-Mount = 44mm diameter
Canon EF Mount = 54mm diameter

Full Frame = 36mm x 24mm.
The diagonal of this rectangle measures 43.27mm. Full frame lenses have to produce an image circle with a diameter of 43.27mm. Nikon's F-Mount has a diameter of 44mm, so it's just enough to cover the full frame.

Extended Full Frame = 48mm x 36mm.
This is what is claimed by the professor from Greenland. The diagonal of this rectangle measures 60mm, requiring an image circle with a diameter of also 60mm. Canon's EF Mount has a diameter of only 54mm.

In order for the new body to support both extended full frame and standard EF lenses, it would need a larger mount and an adapter for EF lenses.

I'm also very skeptical about extended full frame. Why introduce yet another format and a new set of lenses, particularly when it's larger and not smaller. Is this a move towards Medium Format?

At a time when Airbus is building the A380 super jumbo and getting into a lot of trouble, Boeing is focusing on the midsize Dreamliner (787) and chewing up the market. The money is in the midsize market. The glory is in the super jumbo market. Canon can make a push into Medium Format, but it won't be a cash cow.

 

[snap58]

What follows is just a guess on my part. If you can find an error, jump in and fix it.

Nikon F-Mount = 44mm diameter
Canon EF Mount = 54mm diameter

Full Frame = 36mm x 24mm.
The diagonal of this rectangle measures 43.27mm. Full frame lenses have to produce an image circle with a diameter of 43.27mm. Nikon's F-Mount has a diameter of 44mm, so it's just enough to cover the full frame.

Extended Full Frame = 48mm x 36mm.
This is what is claimed by the professor from Greenland. The diagonal of this rectangle measures 60mm, requiring an image circle with a diameter of also 60mm. Canon's EF Mount has a diameter of only 54mm.

In order for the new body to support both extended full frame and standard EF lenses, it would need a larger mount and an adapter for EF lenses.

I'm also very skeptical about extended full frame. Why introduce yet another format and a new set of lenses, particularly when it's larger and not smaller. Is this a move towards Medium Format?

For the world I couldn't see Canon going with a 4:3 sensor, doesn't make any sense, and there is no way they would change mounts, ... again?

They took some serious heat changing their mount back in 1987 (I think it was 87) and going with a mount almost medium format size. They have gotten past that, and now may have an opportunity to use that extra room. The 54 mm mount has 50% more image area than a 44 mm, the corners of the 24 x 36 sensor don't even come close to the edge of the 54 mm mount, while it is right to the edge on a 44 mm mount, if that is what most others are, I really have no idea or one to measure. I do know Canons id 54 mm though.

You have better image corners with crop cameras because the sensor uses the center of the image circle, so less fall off and straighter light path.

So maybe Canon stays with the 36 x 24 FF, but develops a series of lenses that produce a 54 mm image circle, however you are only using the middle of that for the FF sensor. Acts like a crop camera, but 24 x 36 sensor size, the new lenses would allow a straighter light path and keep the sensor away from the corners, maintains image quality with a high density 22 MP sensor that would be tough to match.

This could be a hard act for Nikon or any other company to follow without changing their mounts, which of course, we know they would never do. : )

Guess we will just have to wait and see.

 

[jared_kipe]

Would not require a change in diameter of lens mount. Look at lens diagrams, you'll see the light is quite a bit compressed inside the lens, and then expanded out to the final image circle. You can expand this light as much as you want given the proper rear focal length and distance. Look at a projector lens, the lens diameter is small, but projects a huge image.

 

[snap58]

Would not require a change in diameter of lens mount. Look at lens diagrams, you'll see the light is quite a bit compressed inside the lens, and then expanded out to the final image circle. You can expand this light as much as you want given the proper rear focal length and distance. Look at a projector lens, the lens diameter is small, but projects a huge image.

I have to admit I haven't looked at any lens diagrams lately, but I think I understand what you are saying. : )

You could keep the diameter the same, but if you change the rear focal length, haven't you actually changed the lens mount being that current lenses would no longer focus correctly?

The reason the FD lenses could not work on the EF mount (without an "optical" adapter), was because Canon changed the distance from 42 mm to 44 mm. While others could do that and get a larger circle somewhere past the mount, they would not be able to use existing lenses without some sort of optical adapter? So while this may not be a change in the mount diameter, I would bet a lot of owners of expensive glass (that won't work with it) might consider this a change in the lens mount?

Canon could use all existing (except EF-S) lenses, but optimum quality would be from the news ones which would be designed to produce a larger circle.

Now maybe you could design a floating sensor that moved back for some lenses and up for others, might work?

 

[jared_kipe]

I have to admit I haven't looked at any lens diagrams lately, but I think I understand what you are saying. : )

You could keep the diameter the same, but if you change the rear focal length, haven't you actually changed the lens mount being that current lenses would no longer focus correctly?

The reason the FD lenses could not work on the EF mount (without an "optical" adapter), was because Canon changed the distance from 42 mm to 44 mm. While others could do that and get a larger circle somewhere past the mount, they would not be able to use existing lenses without some sort of optical adapter? So while this may not be a change in the mount diameter, I would bet a lot of owners of expensive glass (that won't work with it) might consider this a change in the lens mount?

There are two ways to make the image bigger. Increase the back-focus distance, which you have pointed out. This is totally possible without changing the mount, if you look at a zoom lens and you make it zoom while looking at the back of the lens you will typically see the rear element go into the lens. This is the same thing as changing the distance from the rear element to the image plane. So obviously, you could design a lens for a bigger sensor with a rear element recessed into the lens.

Second way is via the rear lens focal length. Just like at the front of the lens, the focal length determines the angle of view. You could choose rear elements that effectively spread the light out faster, wider angle. On the projectors that can zoom, at any given throw distance (projector to screen) they can change the size of the image.

Thus it is possible to keep the same mount and make lenses for bigger image circles. And in fact, since these lenses are calibrated for the throw distance from the edge of the mount to the sensor, the new large image circle lenses would work fine on smaller sensors like the current 1Ds mkII and the 30D.

Having a .8x sensor will not really help anyone. It will certainly hurt telephoto users. And it probably won't do anything for wide angle users as making a wide angle lens with a large image circle is difficult. Just look at the some of the widest full frame lenses like the Tokina 12-24mm. They are ok lenses, but not great in the corners. And any wide angle designed for the new sensor will most likely have a longer focal length to hopefully maintain the corner image quality.

 

[ksz]

Would not require a change in diameter of lens mount. Look at lens diagrams, you'll see the light is quite a bit compressed inside the lens, and then expanded out to the final image circle. You can expand this light as much as you want given the proper rear focal length and distance. Look at a projector lens, the lens diameter is small, but projects a huge image.

Yes, good point!

However the more you zoom the image, the less resolution you get on the focal plane. To compensate, the rear elements of the lens should probably be a bit larger, hence the talk about new EF-L or EF-D lenses.

 

[beavo451]

So Canon may possibly have four sensor types?

Personally, if I were to make a camera with a larger sensor, I would change the name designation and mount designation. That way, the camera could be clearly identified with the approrpiate lens mounting as well. Their naming scheme is already confusing as hell already.

Rebel/300D
Rebel XT/350D (with silver and black versions)
20D (successor to the 10D?, also available in an "a" version)
30D (successor to the 20D and not to be confused with the D30 which is not to be confused with a non existent Nikon camera)
5D (not to be confused with the Konica Minolta 5D)
1D + "s", "MkI", "MkII", "N" ....

EF
EF-S
possible EF-D, EF-L

The naming is almost as bad as Intel or AMD CPU naming.

 

[snap58]

Yes, good point!

However the more you zoom the image, the less resolution you get on the focal plane. To compensate, the rear elements of the lens should probably be a bit larger, hence the talk about new EF-L or EF-D lenses.

So would Canon be at an advantage since they have a 54 mm opening into their cameras?

Thus it is possible to keep the same mount and make lenses for bigger image circles. And in fact, since these lenses are calibrated for the throw distance from the edge of the mount to the sensor, the new large image circle lenses would work fine on smaller sensors like the current 1Ds mkII and the 30D.

As you can tell, I am not schooled in optics. I

If I follow you correctly, with Nikons current 44 mm mount (if that is what it is), you could design a lens that created a larger image circle inside the camera and cover the 1.5 sensor, or a larger sensor, if the choose to do so. However the angle of light at the edge of the sensor would need to be much steeper than say Canons with a 54 mm diameter mount. I thought I read that the angle that lights strikes a sensor has a significant effect on image quality, the less the angle the better?

I am trying to understand why Canon went with such a large lens mount. They (currently) seem to have a significant edge in fast WA lenses and I wonder if there was an advantage due to the 54 mm mount, or if Nikon just went a different direction? With the advent of digital sensors and their sensitivity to the angle of light striking them, could the wider mount give Canon an edge, especially with larger FF sensors?

So far I have not been able to find any information discussing that possibility and don't know nearly enough to work the geometry out for myself?

 

[jared_kipe]

Yes, good point!

However the more you zoom the image, the less resolution you get on the focal plane. To compensate, the rear elements of the lens should probably be a bit larger, hence the talk about new EF-L or EF-D lenses.

And not only the rear, pretty much all the glass would need to be bigger to account for the enlargement.

 

[jared_kipe]

So would Canon be at an advantage since they have a 54 mm opening into their cameras?




As you can tell, I am not schooled in optics. I

If I follow you correctly, with Nikons current 44 mm mount (if that is what it is), you could design a lens that created a larger image circle inside the camera and cover the 1.5 sensor, or a larger sensor, if the choose to do so. However the angle of light at the edge of the sensor would need to be much steeper than say Canons with a 54 mm diameter mount. I thought I read that the angle that lights strikes a sensor has a significant effect on image quality, the less the angle the better?

I am trying to understand why Canon went with such a large lens mount. They (currently) seem to have a significant edge in fast WA lenses and I wonder if there was an advantage due to the 54 mm mount, or if Nikon just went a different direction? With the advent of digital sensors and their sensitivity to the angle of light striking them, could the wider mount give Canon an edge, especially with larger FF sensors?

So far I have not been able to find any information discussing that possibility and don't know nearly enough to work the geometry out for myself?

Canons bigger mount would be an advantage, but namely because they can have a bigger rear lens element. Generally speaking if you draw a oval on your page and imagine that is the rear element, and then draw a rectangle to the side of it and say that is your image plane. Then you can see that if you draw them to scale, meaning for a canon 44mm to from the oval to the box, and the longest axis of the box at 48mm. Now if we draw the oval to be less than 54mm say 48mm (taken up by the communications and baffle) Then for the canon it makes a perfect box. Which means light could in theory be strait back from everywhere on the rear element.

Now draw the same thing for nikon, a lets just say 44mm from the mount to the focal plane, 48mm tall sensor, and say a 40mm lens diameter. Its pretty obvious that while its at a slight slant, its not so much that it would be any sort of a problem. Obviously the outermost parts of the lens don't matter as much as the middle anyway.

 

[snap58]

Canons bigger mount would be an advantage, but namely because they can have a bigger rear lens element. Generally speaking if you draw a oval on your page and imagine that is the rear element, and then draw a rectangle to the side of it and say that is your image plane. Then you can see that if you draw them to scale, meaning for a canon 44mm to from the oval to the box, and the longest axis of the box at 48mm. Now if we draw the oval to be less than 54mm say 48mm (taken up by the communications and baffle) Then for the canon it makes a perfect box. Which means light could in theory be strait back from everywhere on the rear element.

Now draw the same thing for nikon, a lets just say 44mm from the mount to the focal plane, 48mm tall sensor, and say a 40mm lens diameter. Its pretty obvious that while its at a slight slant, its not so much that it would be any sort of a problem. Obviously the outermost parts of the lens don't matter as much as the middle anyway.

Thanks, I think I get it, except maybe the 48 mm tall sensor in the nikon?

 

[ksz]

And not only the rear, pretty much all the glass would need to be bigger to account for the enlargement.

Of course. But it's the rear elements that will determine the diameter of the mount.

 

[jared_kipe]

Thanks, I think I get it, except maybe the 48 mm tall sensor in the nikon?

Well I was saying as if Nikon had this mystery sensor and not Canon. Nikon is firmly sticking with cropped dslrs, they may transition to full frame. It was a hypothetical, if Nikon doesn't have a 48mm long frame, then there is no need for the talk about a 54mm vs 48mm mount diameter. Since Nikon probably won't go this way, they won't have a hard time with their mount hole. Though the smaller mount might account for why there are no 85mm f1.2 lenses in the Nikon system. If you look at pictures of the rear of canon's 85mm f1.2 lens, the rear is HUGE. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_85_12/index.htm

 

[snap58]

Well I was saying as if Nikon had this mystery sensor and not Canon. Nikon is firmly sticking with cropped dslrs, they may transition to full frame. It was a hypothetical, if Nikon doesn't have a 48mm long frame, then there is no need for the talk about a 54mm vs 48mm mount diameter. Since Nikon probably won't go this way, they won't have a hard time with their mount hole. Though the smaller mount might account for why there are no 85mm f1.2 lenses in the Nikon system. If you look at pictures of the rear of canon's 85mm f1.2 lens, the rear is HUGE. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_85_12/index.htm

Thanks, I'm with you in that I don't expect, (and would not see an advantage with) a giant 48 mm sensor in a 35 mm body.

Wow, that is a monster rear element, bet you would love to reverse mount that sucker. : )

 

[jared_kipe]

Thanks, I'm with you in that I don't expect, (and would not see an advantage with) a giant 48 mm sensor in a 35 mm body.

Wow, that is a monster rear element, bet you would love to reverse mount that sucker. : )

Nah, the physics of reverse-mounting are similar to what I described as the second way to make the image circle wider. So if a lens is reversed the "blow up factor" at the rear depend on the front focal length. So wide angle lenses make for more impressive reverse mount lenses. Because they are designed to take something huge like 100º angle and make it very small for the image sensor. So when you turn it around they make something very small, like a bug, into a much bigger object on the sensor. Hence with my 10-20mm lens at 10mm reversed I can fill the frame with subjects like these. They are the both on the head side of a US dime.

 

[jared_kipe]

Oh, and the low DOF is because I don't have step down rings to mount this on my reverse mount, thus I hand held and its wide open. Oh and they are not cropped, thats full frame. Nothing has been tampered, RAW strait into Aperture and exported.

 

[Grimace]

This image is starting to float around. Possibly a combination of the 1D and 1Ds lines. Only a few days left (24th) until we know...

 

[ksz]

I would really like to see something like this, but I suspect as others do over at DP Review that only an updated Digital Rebel with a 10MP sensor will be announced and/or released in three days. It's still possible Canon will announce a successor to the 1Ds Mark II at Photokina in Cologne.

 

[Grimace]

I would really like to see something like this, but I suspect as others do over at DP Review that only an updated Digital Rebel with a 10MP sensor will be announced and/or released in three days. It's still possible Canon will announce a successor to the 1Ds Mark II at Photokina in Cologne.

I can't imagine that Canon would release a 10MP Rebel XTi and have the 30D still stay at 8.2MP. A consolidated top lineup would be useful for me. Hopefully it will come in around $6k.

 

[ipacmm]

I think everyone knows for a fact that Canon is going to release a new 1 series body, I just hope it is going to live up to the rumors, I am sure we will see a new XT with some updates and maybe another camera in the 30D range and discontinue the 30D and replace it with more of a XT to 5D camera in the middle to compete with the D200 since the 30D was just like the 20D and really never should have been released.

 

[-hh]

Thanks, I'm with you in that I don't expect, (and would not see an advantage with) a giant 48 mm sensor in a 35 mm body...

Its funny. While I was getting caught up on this thread (recalling that Canon's "Changes everything" day was coming), I was thinking about the question:

What is it that bugs me most about having a (consumer) dSLR?

The answer that I came back with was ... the loss of wide angle with crop bodies.

Going to a "1.0x" sensor would simply restore what I had been getting with 35mm film - - but shouldn't in theory one be able to go the opposite of crops (within limits)? YMMV on the credibility of a 48x36mm sensor specifically, but just like Canon has 1.6x, 1.3x, 1.0x ... is a "0.7x" notionally really all that far out of line?

To a degree, I'm tempted to say "whatever can work within an EF mount", but the reality is that the EF-S is a variation on compatibility, so an EF-L lens that merely makes a "normal" 1.0x with an EF lens should also be palatable. Overall, I'd expect to see something that would be able to make 16:9 layouts to fit in with HD television (HDTV), since 'widescreens' are the future direction of personal computers.

And to support it, there was open literature work published three years ago that achieved the 10 GFLOPS/watt processing benchmark.


-hh

 

[sjl]

What is it that bugs me most about having a (consumer) dSLR?

The answer that I came back with was ... the loss of wide angle with crop bodies.

The thing is, though, you don't really lose wide angle with a crop body, not with the Canon system. Consider: their widest EF zoom is the 16-35mm f/2.8. They also have the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. Take into account the crop factor, and you get the equivalent of 16-35.2mm. All you lose there, then, is a little under one stop of light.

The only things you lose at the wide end, in other words, are the 14mm f/2.8, and the 15mm fisheye. There are ongoing rumours about an EF-S fisheye, which would fill that particular gap, leaving only the 14mm f/2.8 - and let's face it, 14mm is an extremely specialised, and extremely expensive, lens. If you're looking seriously at it, given its RRP of $AU3800, you're probably not going to balk at the price of a 5D to take full advantage of it.

 

[-hh]

The thing is, though, you don't really lose wide angle with a crop body, not with the Canon system. Consider: their widest EF zoom is the 16-35mm f/2.8. They also have the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. Take into account the crop factor, and you get the equivalent of 16-35.2mm. All you lose there, then, is a little under one stop of light.

Granted, there are EF-S lenses that do cover the range, but I do "lose" the capability until I spend the money to also go buy that lens. I similarly "lose" full interchangability with my SLR's that can only use EF lenses. Its nice to save some money on the telephoto end, but as always, "there's no such thing as a free lunch..."


-hh