Is 16.7 MP a technical limitation or a marketing decision?

[Bernard Languillier]

Dear all,

A quick question. I am wondering how Canon users feel about this:

Regarding the specs of the 1DsMKII. My personnal feeling is that Canon could probably have gone higher in terms of resolution, but that the decision to stick to 16.7 Mp is probably a marketing choice resulting from:

• the confidence that it would be enough to stay ahead of the competition (they cannot be blamed for this obviously),

• the belief that they need to maintain sustainable growth over the coming years. Had they released a 22 MP camera today, there is significant chance that people would just have kept using it for a very long time...

Releasing a 16.7 MP only body garantees nealry twice the income since people will still need more resolution in 2 years when they release the 22 or 25 MP pixel replacement (whether it is called EOS ONE or something else).

To my eyes, this is the very same kind of game Intel and AMD have been playing for years with the implicit support of MS... and people keep playing by their rules... and are happy about it.

Does this make any sense?

Best regards,
Bernard

 

[Ron Parr]

Does this make any sense?

No.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Camera Dog]

Cannon will announce a 22Mp camera - and they have never been wrong.

So this is probably either a red herring, or a camera that will be replaced at PMA.

Bernard Languillier wrote:

 

[Ron Parr]

Cannon will announce a 22Mp camera - and they have never been wrong.

They print rumors on their web page and these aren't always right. They predicted a D120 w/two side by side D60 sensors a while back.

Phil doesn't think much of their behavior:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=10299787

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Surfdog]

Designing and implementing a new chip takes a while. We now conclude that Canon could do 20 or 22 MP based on the performance of the 20D. But the 20D chip and that in the 1Ds II were in development at the same time. 20D was probably considered a riskier development curve. I suspect that tests on a prototype (smaller but with the same pixel pitch) were evaluated and a decision made to go ahead on both the 1D II and 1DS II chips before test results for the configuration that became the 20D were available.

It may have been a choice not to go for high risk but I don't think it was intentionally dumbed-down to leave room for an easy successor.

 

[Anastigmat]

Dear all,

A quick question. I am wondering how Canon users feel about this:

Regarding the specs of the 1DsMKII. My personnal feeling is that
Canon could probably have gone higher in terms of resolution, but
that the decision to stick to 16.7 Mp is probably a marketing
choice resulting from:

• the confidence that it would be enough to stay ahead of the

competition (they cannot be blamed for this obviously),

• the belief that they need to maintain sustainable growth over the

coming years. Had they released a 22 MP camera today, there is
significant chance that people would just have kept using it for a
very long time...

Releasing a 16.7 MP only body garantees nealry twice the income
since people will still need more resolution in 2 years when they
release the 22 or 25 MP pixel replacement (whether it is called EOS
ONE or something else).

What you describe is certainly possible but it costs R&D money and retooling costs each time a new sensor and camera is designed. Using plastics can help reduce those costs, but there is also the danger that a new model may not be enough of an improvement for people to upgrade, and the R&D money may go down the drain. Customers may wait until the next release to upgrade. If Canon is capable of producing a 22-25 mp full frame sensor, then it would be a compelling upgrade even for existing 1DS users. Do not forget that write speed is also a limitation. Canon has surpassed just about any other SLR camera maker in being able to write fast enough for the camera to shoot at a rate of 4 fps with a sensor that is 16.7 mp in resolution. A higher resolution sensor may mean much lower speeds and/or higher noise. So I think Canon is wise not to attempt too much of a leap in resolution until the supporting electronics are capable of delivering the speed. According to Moore's law, memory speed and capacity should double within the next 2-3 years. By that time, Canon may bring out a 22-25 mp sensor that have sufficient write speeds to appeal to professionals.

To my eyes, this is the very same kind of game Intel and AMD have
been playing for years with the implicit support of MS... and
people keep playing by their rules... and are happy about it.

Does this make any sense?

Best regards,
Bernard

AMD and Intel are competitors. Do you think that each of them would try to limit their own progress and hope that the other one will do the same? If AMD or Intel can produce, say, a 10 gigahertz processor now, do you think that either one of them would refrain from doing so, so that they can produce a few generations of CPU chips with speeds in between 10 Ghz and what is currently available? What if the other chip maker won't wait? MS produces operating systems, word processors and spreadsheets, among other applications that really do not require a whole lot of speed. So, I don't see what, if any, advantage or disadvantage MS has in helping to limit processor speed even if it wanted to play along.

 

[centralcoastmagazine]

Releasing a 16.7 MP only body garantees nealry twice the income
since people will still need more resolution in 2 years when they
release the 22 or 25 MP pixel replacement (whether it is called EOS
ONE or something else).

...... make $100k in the next two years..... then you can afford the
next generation which should get totally away from the dslr body
and toward a MF type body and a few new larger lens? The next generation
and the now Creo Leaf/phaseone backs will meet somewhere in the middle
to "borg" a whole new species. Maybe with a simple set of features for
pros like all manual mode and none of the things we don't need anyway?
Beam me up....... I'm given er all I got....

?????????

--
Find the answer to your photography question here:
http://www.researchetc.com/scanners/2/index.htm

 

[Camera Dog]

I was joking. should have put an emoticon in there
this is not a transitional camera by any stretch.

Cannon will announce a 22Mp camera - and they have never been wrong.

They print rumors on their web page and these aren't always right.
They predicted a D120 w/two side by side D60 sensors a while back.

Phil doesn't think much of their behavior:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=10299787

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Camera Dog]

if you can make $100k with a 11Mp camera, think of how much you can make with a 16mp camera

Releasing a 16.7 MP only body garantees nealry twice the income
since people will still need more resolution in 2 years when they
release the 22 or 25 MP pixel replacement (whether it is called EOS
ONE or something else).

...... make $100k in the next two years..... then you can afford the
next generation which should get totally away from the dslr body
and toward a MF type body and a few new larger lens? The next
generation
and the now Creo Leaf/phaseone backs will meet somewhere in the middle
to "borg" a whole new species. Maybe with a simple set of features for
pros like all manual mode and none of the things we don't need anyway?
Beam me up....... I'm given er all I got....

?????????

--
Find the answer to your photography question here:
http://www.researchetc.com/scanners/2/index.htm

 

[GHuff]

It makes perfect sense to me, I used to be involved in the semiconductor manufacturing business.

As you pointed out, semiconductor manufacturers intentionally build generations of equipment that has to be expanded on / upgraded or junked.... and have created their own self supporting..and self feeding industry. This is partially beacuse they want to and partially out of necessity. The software industry does the same. They also have helped create this same principle in digital cameras.....just like computers.

Canon's philosophy is probably one of sustained growth, maximizing profits while balancing the technology with the supporting (consumer) infrastructure. Yes, I think they are sitting on some technology...and maximizing the profit potential with minimal investments today. Just business.

Do you think that the sensor in the 1DsMKII costs Canon $3500 more than the one in the 1DMKII? I doubt it. The bodies are very similar. They are maximizing profit potential at a price point.

Obivously, as some have speculated, a 22mp sensor was/is possible since the 20D sized pixels on FF would achieve that.

However, let me ask a question of the supporting technology behind it if they had introduced a 22mp camera. At this point, I think that the standard PC will even be somewhat anemic for the 16.7 MP 1DsMKIIs post processing, let alone a 22-24mp image. What kind of a monster PC processor would it take to do noise post processing on a 22mp image? Storage? Printing capabilities? Etc.

I think they will somewhat keep the technology of the camera body at the pace of the ancillary supporting hardware's pace. So that you don't have to junk everything and buy new stuff to use their camera.

Just my opinions, but I think YES they are shrewd at marketing and are also pacing themselves on technical limitations.

Now, having said all of that....I am a gearhead...and love this upgrade stuff. And that IS what they want!

My 2 cents.

Dear all,

A quick question. I am wondering how Canon users feel about this:

Regarding the specs of the 1DsMKII. My personnal feeling is that
Canon could probably have gone higher in terms of resolution, but
that the decision to stick to 16.7 Mp is probably a marketing
choice resulting from:

• the confidence that it would be enough to stay ahead of the

competition (they cannot be blamed for this obviously),

• the belief that they need to maintain sustainable growth over the

coming years. Had they released a 22 MP camera today, there is
significant chance that people would just have kept using it for a
very long time...

Releasing a 16.7 MP only body garantees nealry twice the income
since people will still need more resolution in 2 years when they
release the 22 or 25 MP pixel replacement (whether it is called EOS
ONE or something else).

To my eyes, this is the very same kind of game Intel and AMD have
been playing for years with the implicit support of MS... and
people keep playing by their rules... and are happy about it.

Does this make any sense?

Best regards,
Bernard

 

[Ron Parr]

I was joking. should have put an emoticon in there
this is not a transitional camera by any stretch.

Sorry about not recognizing the sarcasm there. There are folks here who actually do believe that the CDI web page is a reliable source, so it's sometimes hard to separate the people who are kidding from those who are serious.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[CanonKen]

Wow, if I got a 25MP Leaf, I could make $125k a year!

 

[JackRiley]

According to Moore's law, memory speed and capacity should double within the next 2-3 years.

I thought Moore said every 18 months?

 

[seldane]

Regarding the specs of the 1DsMKII. My personnal feeling is that
Canon could probably have gone higher in terms of resolution, but
that the decision to stick to 16.7 Mp is probably a marketing
choice resulting from:

While I agree with you that Canon most probably already has the technology know-how to build higher Megapixel sensors, I don't think it is a simple marking choice. There must be numerous factors that they take into account before making such a decision. Like someone else mentioned, high megapixel would result in higher cost (more memory), slower performance etc.

The current spec probably reflect the best balance currently possible.

• the confidence that it would be enough to stay ahead of the

competition (they cannot be blamed for this obviously),

I am sure that is on their minds, however they really do not have much competition now or on the horizon. For example, the closest competitor is Kodak ... and I can gurantee everyone of the Kodak DSLR owners are right now thinking of switching ( I mean, it takes 14 sec for the camera to turn on, 10 sec to write a file, and lets not even compare the ergonomics). Nikon would be the other company close on Canon's heel and I sure hope that they pick up, because there is nothing better for us than competition.

• the belief that they need to maintain sustainable growth over the

coming years. Had they released a 22 MP camera today, there is
significant chance that people would just have kept using it for a
very long time...

Thats one posibility, however don't underestimate the power of companies to entice consumers. After all car companies come out with new models every year. In other words, there are a lot of ways left for Canon to still improve the camera (for example, just make it lighter).

Releasing a 16.7 MP only body garantees nealry twice the income
since people will still need more resolution in 2 years when they
release the 22 or 25 MP pixel replacement (whether it is called EOS
ONE or something else).

To my eyes, this is the very same kind of game Intel and AMD have
been playing for years with the implicit support of MS... and
people keep playing by their rules... and are happy about it.

Sure. But notice that they never release anything that it not balanced, ie. the higher end CPUs get all the fancy caches to go along with the high MHz.

Does this make any sense?

Yes.

Best regards,
Bernard

 

[ricklacey]

If you read the PDF of the 1DSII brochure, you will see that this is the last and best you're going to see this year from Canon.

Cannon will announce a 22Mp camera - and they have never been wrong.

So this is probably either a red herring, or a camera that will be
replaced at PMA.

Bernard Languillier wrote:

 

[Bernard Languillier]

What you describe is certainly possible but it costs R&D money and
retooling costs each time a new sensor and camera is designed.
Using plastics can help reduce those costs, but there is also the
danger that a new model may not be enough of an improvement for
people to upgrade, and the R&D money may go down the drain.
Customers may wait until the next release to upgrade. If Canon is
capable of producing a 22-25 mp full frame sensor, then it would be
a compelling upgrade even for existing 1DS users. Do not forget
that write speed is also a limitation. Canon has surpassed just
about any other SLR camera maker in being able to write fast enough
for the camera to shoot at a rate of 4 fps with a sensor that is
16.7 mp in resolution. A higher resolution sensor may mean much
lower speeds and/or higher noise.

22 MP is only 25% more than 16.7, right? The current electronics would still give more than 3 fps, which is probably still enough for most of the usage intended by canon for the 1DsMKII.

Regarding the noise, it seems to be mostly related to the size of the photosites, all things being equal. The 20D seems to have a very decent noise behaviour, equal to that of the pro 1DMKII according to the reviews I have read and samples I have seen. I fail to see why this could not be done with more photosites.

So I think Canon is wise not to
attempt too much of a leap in resolution until the supporting
electronics are capable of delivering the speed. According to
Moore's law, memory speed and capacity should double within the
next 2-3 years. By that time, Canon may bring out a 22-25 mp
sensor that have sufficient write speeds to appeal to professionals.

As I wrote above, 3 fps is enough for most pros. Sport shooters are a highly visible but small minority, and they do not need more than 8 MP for most applications.

To my eyes, this is the very same kind of game Intel and AMD have
been playing for years with the implicit support of MS... and
people keep playing by their rules... and are happy about it.

Does this make any sense?

Best regards,
Bernard

AMD and Intel are competitors. Do you think that each of them
would try to limit their own progress and hope that the other one
will do the same?

OK, I was probably not accurate enough. HEre is a slightly deeper explanation about how things actually work. Intel is a company that has managed, thanks to good R&D and very agressive commercial policies towards OEMs to seel overpriced procucts for more than 15 years. This enabled them to make huge profits that they did mostly reinvest in R&D. I am 100% convinced that they could have released a 10 Ghz processor already had they wanted to.

Now, we have AMD, a much smaller company, unable to invest as much as Intel in R&D, not really a very creadible threat, but a threat nonetheless.

Intel needs competition, mostly from a legal stand point, but also from a psychological standpoint. Why would they want to kill AMD? AMD cannot not kill Intel.

Do you need more explicit explanations about how these 2 companies couild settle on a deal that is benefical for both while giving the impression ot the consumers that they are making good deals? Why would they kill themselves releasing 10 GHz processors when consumers can be led to think that 3.6 is already an amazing feat (you are a good example it seems)?

Honnestly speaking, they would have to be really very stupid not to cooperate considering their respective positions. And stupid they are not.

If AMD or Intel can produce, say, a 10 gigahertz
processor now, do you think that either one of them would refrain
from doing so, so that they can produce a few generations of CPU
chips with speeds in between 10 Ghz and what is currently
available? What if the other chip maker won't wait?

The speed that CPUs can reach is basically directly propotional to the amount of transistors. At a given price (meaning die size), the amount of transistor is related to the finesse of the lithography (0.09 micron for instance) thourhg the physical space used. Although other factors are also coming into play, the need to build factories able to produce such very finely built items in significant amount makes it just impossible for anybody but Intel and IBM to invest enough money to take a significant lead.

If you sincerely think that Intel is selling you the best they could build at the best price, well... think again.

Best regards,
Bernard

 

[peripheralfocus]

I don't know Canon's DSLR roadmap for the future, but I'd be flabbergasted if the 16.6mp 1Ds MK II that everyone now knows about is not Canon's flagship DSLR for at least the next 18-24 months.

There may be a 22mp Canon someday -- I guess it's probably likely that there will be -- but it's almost certain that it won't be anytime in the next year or two.

Cannon will announce a 22Mp camera - and they have never been wrong.

So this is probably either a red herring, or a camera that will be
replaced at PMA.

Bernard Languillier wrote:

 

[jgar]

--
Josiah Garber
http://www.emu.edu/students/jjg544

 

[Mike Scott]

Um, $250K

Wow, if I got a 25MP Leaf, I could make $125k a year!

 

[David Martin]

It's a lot tougher to get good performance from the pixels at the edge of the sensor on a FF camera, due to the light hitting at an angle.

The size of the pixels in the 1ds2 is in about the same ratio to those in the 20D as those in the 1Ds to the D60
The extra pixel size in the 1Ds is to give the leeway to sort those issues out.

Looking on the bright side the 1Ds2 is likely to have a high ISO performance and DR not too much reduced from the 20D, with luck.

Dear all,

A quick question. I am wondering how Canon users feel about this:

Regarding the specs of the 1DsMKII. My personnal feeling is that
Canon could probably have gone higher in terms of resolution, but
that the decision to stick to 16.7 Mp is probably a marketing
choice resulting from:

• the confidence that it would be enough to stay ahead of the

competition (they cannot be blamed for this obviously),

• the belief that they need to maintain sustainable growth over the

coming years. Had they released a 22 MP camera today, there is
significant chance that people would just have kept using it for a
very long time...

Releasing a 16.7 MP only body garantees nealry twice the income
since people will still need more resolution in 2 years when they
release the 22 or 25 MP pixel replacement (whether it is called EOS
ONE or something else).

To my eyes, this is the very same kind of game Intel and AMD have
been playing for years with the implicit support of MS... and
people keep playing by their rules... and are happy about it.

Does this make any sense?

Best regards,
Bernard

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment