Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Future digital SLRs
- Thread starter Mr_Brightside_@
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
On a related note, I found this diagram very helpful in debunking the idea that there is 1.6x magnification on non-FF cameras. Because the image takes up more of the shot on a 1.6x camera, it appears bigger, but the bird's size is exactly the same.
The image circle created by a 35mm format lens is shown.
The blue rectangle shows what a 35mm film, or a full-frame digital SLR will record.
The inner red frame shows what a digital SLR with a 1.6X magnification factor will record.
‘Crop’ is a fairly good term – the imaging area is physically smaller. Less of the image circle projected by the lens is used, therefore it is a crop. The image remains the same size at the film plane for a given lens and subject distance – it is in no way magnified. It does, however, take up a larger proportion of the (smaller) frame and so it is easy to see why some people call it a magnifying effect. This is also why a tele lens appears so much more powerful – the field or angle of view has been reduced. This is great for nature and sports photographers as the net result is more real pull than before with no trade off of maximum F Stop loss. [from link]
The image circle created by a 35mm format lens is shown.
The blue rectangle shows what a 35mm film, or a full-frame digital SLR will record.
The inner red frame shows what a digital SLR with a 1.6X magnification factor will record.
‘Crop’ is a fairly good term – the imaging area is physically smaller. Less of the image circle projected by the lens is used, therefore it is a crop. The image remains the same size at the film plane for a given lens and subject distance – it is in no way magnified. It does, however, take up a larger proportion of the (smaller) frame and so it is easy to see why some people call it a magnifying effect. This is also why a tele lens appears so much more powerful – the field or angle of view has been reduced. This is great for nature and sports photographers as the net result is more real pull than before with no trade off of maximum F Stop loss. [from link]
Anybody remember the Pentax Auto 110? It was a micro SLR, variety of lenses, flashes, filters, in a very small size. I'm hoping for a digital version of that camera!
jared_kipe said:
Yes, I don't know why all 35mm SLR camers have focal plane shutters. Medium format SLRs typically don't In that format in lens shutters are more common. They are better because they sync at all speeds. Just what's need to balance a flash with bright sunlight
I thnk the focal plan shutter is simply cheaper and less complex.
The ideal shutter would be some kind of coating that would be 100% refective until an electric current was apllied and then it would turn clear. Use it for the mirror and you could eliminate all the moving parts in the mirror box and shutter assembly. Things like this could really drive the cost of a camera down. Not quite Sci-fi either I was reading about work on a coating like this for militart pilot's goggles. The glass could turn mirror-like to shild the eyes from the light of an atomic bomb's air burst
ChrisA said:
In MF, the major players have been Mamiya has been focal plane shutters (other than the RB/RZ/C series/and their RF's), Hassy has been know for their leaf shutters till their 2000 series IIRC and their H series. Bronica had been all leaf shutters.
This was due to technology at the time, and maintaining compatibility with a "system". The issue is that it is harder to produce a "quality" lens for a leaf shutter than for a focal plane shutter.
Even with the tech we have today, it would be hard to get past 1/500 at the frame rates that we seem to demand today.
Since full-frame sensors are more expensive and have a lower yield (for now) -- I wonder if Canon will continue making 1.3x cameras like the 1D. It seems like a good go-between between the common 1.6x sensors and the full-frame 1.0x sensors.
8-12MP on a mid-sized sensor would produce a good pixel density and keep noise at high ISOs within Canon's tight specs. A future system lineup might look like:
6-8MP cameras = 1.6x crop -- advanced hobbiest/prosumer
8-12MP cameras = 1.3x crop -- prosumer/pro
12-24MP cameras = 1.0x crop - pro
Anyone else have thoughts on whether the three tier system of sensors is in Canon's future?
8-12MP on a mid-sized sensor would produce a good pixel density and keep noise at high ISOs within Canon's tight specs. A future system lineup might look like:
6-8MP cameras = 1.6x crop -- advanced hobbiest/prosumer
8-12MP cameras = 1.3x crop -- prosumer/pro
12-24MP cameras = 1.0x crop - pro
Anyone else have thoughts on whether the three tier system of sensors is in Canon's future?
Well I don't see the 1.3x sensors taking off for Canon.
In 3 years, I expect Canon to possibly reduce the number of cameras in their lineup with APS-C sensors, and replace those with more FF ones. However, I don't see other companies following suit. Canon will offer way more FF options than anyone else.
I expect Canon to have a "400D" to replace the 350D, and a 450D in the pipelines. The 400D will have a 10 MP sensor, a 30D will have a 12 MP sensor, and the replacement to the 5D will have a 16 MP sensor. From there, expect 22 MP sensors for the 1Ds, but no more than that.
For Nikon, I don't expect FF. I expect them to stick with their small sensors, and offer VR in almost most of their mid to upper level lenses. This includes an 18-70 mm with VR, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon started buying CMOS sensors just to stay on par in the MP "race" and compete with the likes of Canon.
I expect Sony to be using CMOS as well, since they work on such technology anyway (they use one in their (expensive) DSC-R1 prosumer camera). Maybe Nikon will get their sensors from them?
Oh, and I think 2 camera companies may "merge" or one may take over another or something (although this won't involve Canon), or at least share a lot more technology. Sony might make an impact in the dSLR. Not sure about Samsung.
In 3 years, I expect Canon to possibly reduce the number of cameras in their lineup with APS-C sensors, and replace those with more FF ones. However, I don't see other companies following suit. Canon will offer way more FF options than anyone else.
I expect Canon to have a "400D" to replace the 350D, and a 450D in the pipelines. The 400D will have a 10 MP sensor, a 30D will have a 12 MP sensor, and the replacement to the 5D will have a 16 MP sensor. From there, expect 22 MP sensors for the 1Ds, but no more than that.
For Nikon, I don't expect FF. I expect them to stick with their small sensors, and offer VR in almost most of their mid to upper level lenses. This includes an 18-70 mm with VR, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon started buying CMOS sensors just to stay on par in the MP "race" and compete with the likes of Canon.
I expect Sony to be using CMOS as well, since they work on such technology anyway (they use one in their (expensive) DSC-R1 prosumer camera). Maybe Nikon will get their sensors from them?
Oh, and I think 2 camera companies may "merge" or one may take over another or something (although this won't involve Canon), or at least share a lot more technology. Sony might make an impact in the dSLR. Not sure about Samsung.
Abstract said:
Bigger sensors (like full frame) mean the camera physically has to be bigger. I'm sure most of us think there will be "more" megapixels in years to come, but the question I was (unclearly) going for was "how" they are going to increase MP count.
Your predictions above for the XT and 30D could *not* happen (maybe the XT with more noise) on a 1.6x chip.
You can't jam more than 10MP on a 1.5 or 1.6x chip like the D50/70 and XT/20D/30D have without getting more noise (the D200 treads that fine line.) If you are going over 10MP, you need a larger sensor (bigger pixels = more light). I'm wondering if pro/prosumer cameras will eventually jump to full-frame but consumer/prosumer (D50,XT) cameras will reach a MP ceiling because of the need for a smaller chip (smaller body.) I dunno, I'm just thinkin' out loud here.
carletonmusic said:
Not really. What happened is that both Canon and Nikon COULD have made their DX and APS sized DSLRs smaller but they didn't. Both desided to keep the lens mount from the 35mm line. the small frame camera has the sensor to lens mount flange distance the same as a 35mm camera and of course the mount diameter is the same. Basically they are wasting space in order to keep lens comatability. The FF DSLRs can be about the same size
The size of the mirror set the minimum flange to film distance. You can look inside a D50 or 35D an see that the mirror does not use all the room available in the mirror box
carletonmusic said:
But the D2X has a 12MP sensor, and it's not FF. That's my reasoning for my 12 MP claim for the 30D's replacement. And if anyone can get more than 12MP onto the small sensor and make it work, I think Canon can. I'm just thinking that in 3-4 years, they'll figure out how to get more MP in there AND make it work without making every photo noisy.
Notice how I didn't make any Megapixel predictions for Nikon.
Abstract said:But the D2X has a 12MP sensor, and it's not FF. That's my reasoning for my 12 MP claim for the 30D's replacement. And if anyone can get more than 12MP onto the small sensor and make it work, I think Canon can. I'm just thinking that in 3-4 years, they'll figure out how to get more MP in there AND make it work without making every photo noisy.
Notice how I didn't make any Megapixel predictions for Nikon.
Nikon 1.5x crop = 16x24mm sensor size
Canon 1.6x crop = 15x22.5mm senson size
The more megapixels you put on a sensor, the smaller they have to be. The smaller they are, the less light they can let in. Less light requires a higher ISO for some shots and will produce noise more quickly.
Nikon uses a slightly larger sensor, so it can afford to push the megapixel limit a little further. Canon could jam 10-11MP on to its 15x22.5 sensors but the noise issue at high ISOs still comes up. IMHO, Canon wouldn't push the limits of noise that much -- its reputation for noise control over Nikon would be tarnished a bit.
Don't forget the future of Pentax that looks bright. They have a new 10MP model coming out this year as well as new 6 or 8 MP entry-level bodies. They also have the new digital 645 medium format SLR. Lots of exciting new digital lenses, and more! Truly an exciting time to be a Pentax user
kwajo.com said:Don't forget the future of Pentax that looks bright. They have a new 10MP model coming out this year as well as new 6 or 8 MP entry-level bodies. They also have the new digital 645 medium format SLR. Lots of exciting new digital lenses, and more! Truly an exciting time to be a Pentax user
I was wondering if you were going to mention the two new bodies. It's been several days and I thought that I might mention them but I waited because you would be excited about them.
lol why thank you
I don't have much time for MR these days, but I am very excited about the new Pentax bodies, so I had to show and mention them
I don't have much time for MR these days, but I am very excited about the new Pentax bodies, so I had to show and mention them
kwajo.com said:lol why thank you
I don't have much time for MR these days, but I am very excited about the new Pentax bodies, so I had to show and mention them
I agree that Pentax is one scrappy fighter out there in the DSLR market. Their new bodies make me lament to a degree in hitching my DSLR star on the Nikon brand at the moment.