Reading mode: Light Dark

Musings on Canon vrs Nikon . . . .

Go to last post
J

jack scholl

New member
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
For the first time since we did the analysis that concluded that Canon and the 20D were the way to go for the DSLR route there is reason to pause. And it has been a joyous ride indeed. We love the 20D, 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS package for its size, weight, ease of use and image quality. But this consistant talk that 1.6 crop cameras are for "less than pros" has me wondering about the Canon vrs Nikon committment to 1.5 crop for quality photography and its implication on future purchases.

I am not a pro, but after several extensive Leica systems for the past 40 years, am not willing to compromise quality too much. Canon's PMA announcements will hopefully give us a clearer window on their view of the future. I actually looked this week at the Nikon lens lineup for the first time in over three years. The D200 seems to indicate a Nikon commitment to the crop world, that for some "Cannonites" may cause reevaluation.

It should be interesting to see what is coming. . .

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/jrs40
 
Hi Jack;

First - Some very very nice shots on your PBASE site in the 20D folder (very nice indeed)...

Second: It's been a very long week so please excuse my lack of clear understanding on your post (not you - me)....

Are you saying that you "like and agree with" Canon CONTINUING w/a 1.6 factor sensor....... or are you saying you "DISAGREE" with continuing w/it? Is the fact that Nikon w/the D200 "is" staying w/a 1.5 factor sensor what is "attracting you to consider a switch to them"?

Again, my apologies... it's really been a long week.... :-)
Bob
--
BobOly
 
I assume you are you wondering if Canon will abandon the 1.6x format for everything other than low end cameras, leaving you with the choice of cheap consumer EF-S lenses, or overdesigned (for crop) "L" glass that you're not getting full benefit from.

Regardless of what people say, its still a geometric fact that full frame sensors will be expensive to produce, and crop sensors will be much cheaper to produce. Canon found a way to improve yields with the 5D sensor to twice that of the 1Ds sensor, but its still not cheap by any measure. When it first came out the 5D carried ~$2k premium over the similar-bodied 20D, which was about half the ~$4k premium the 1Ds2 carries over the similar-bodied 1D2N when they were introduced. Seems to match with the doubling of yields with the 5D.

So how far can this progress, Moore's law doesn't apply, so its hard to say. Clean rooms are not perfect and a sensor die will pick up contaminants proportionally to its area regardless of pixel count. Unless Canon has really dirty air in their fabs you wouldn't think there's much room for improvement there. How many bad dies are due to lithography processes that Canon might be able to improve, you'll have to ask them how much room for improvement might be there.

Bottom line if you're really worried about obsolescence, buy only FF lenses and if that FF body magically drops to a rock-bottom price you can't resist, you're covered. Switching to Nikon at this point doesn't seem like a smarter alternative to me, unless they start releasing lots of 1.5x lenses that perform better at lower cost than the Canon equivalents. Their FF high performance glass was pricier than Canon's the last time I checked, and their image-stabilizing offerings were sparser, but I'll admit I don't keep close tabs on things I have no intention of buying so I'm not up to date on that.
jack scholl said:
For the first time since we did the analysis that concluded that
Canon and the 20D were the way to go for the DSLR route there is
reason to pause. And it has been a joyous ride indeed. We love
the 20D, 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS package for its size, weight, ease
of use and image quality. But this consistant talk that 1.6 crop
cameras are for "less than pros" has me wondering about the Canon
vrs Nikon committment to 1.5 crop for quality photography and its
implication on future purchases.
Click to expand...
Member said:
I am not a pro, but after several extensive Leica systems for the
past 40 years, am not willing to compromise quality too much.
Canon's PMA announcements will hopefully give us a clearer window
on their view of the future. I actually looked this week at the
Nikon lens lineup for the first time in over three years. The D200
seems to indicate a Nikon commitment to the crop world, that for
some "Cannonites" may cause reevaluation.

It should be interesting to see what is coming. . .

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/jrs40
Click to expand...
 
Canon may also have the option of moving to larger wafer sizes at some point, with further cost savings.
dwalby said:
Regardless of what people say, its still a geometric fact that full
frame sensors will be expensive to produce, and crop sensors will
be much cheaper to produce. Canon found a way to improve yields
with the 5D sensor to twice that of the 1Ds sensor, but its still
not cheap by any measure. When it first came out the 5D carried
~$2k premium over the similar-bodied 20D, which was about half the
~$4k premium the 1Ds2 carries over the similar-bodied 1D2N when
they were introduced. Seems to match with the doubling of yields
with the 5D.

So how far can this progress, Moore's law doesn't apply, so its
hard to say. Clean rooms are not perfect and a sensor die will
pick up contaminants proportionally to its area regardless of pixel
count. Unless Canon has really dirty air in their fabs you
wouldn't think there's much room for improvement there. How many
bad dies are due to lithography processes that Canon might be able
to improve, you'll have to ask them how much room for improvement
might be there.

Bottom line if you're really worried about obsolescence, buy only
FF lenses and if that FF body magically drops to a rock-bottom
price you can't resist, you're covered. Switching to Nikon at this
point doesn't seem like a smarter alternative to me, unless they
start releasing lots of 1.5x lenses that perform better at lower
cost than the Canon equivalents. Their FF high performance glass
was pricier than Canon's the last time I checked, and their
image-stabilizing offerings were sparser, but I'll admit I don't
keep close tabs on things I have no intention of buying so I'm not
up to date on that.
jack scholl said:
For the first time since we did the analysis that concluded that
Canon and the 20D were the way to go for the DSLR route there is
reason to pause. And it has been a joyous ride indeed. We love
the 20D, 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS package for its size, weight, ease
of use and image quality. But this consistant talk that 1.6 crop
cameras are for "less than pros" has me wondering about the Canon
vrs Nikon committment to 1.5 crop for quality photography and its
implication on future purchases.
Click to expand...
dwalby said:
I am not a pro, but after several extensive Leica systems for the
past 40 years, am not willing to compromise quality too much.
Canon's PMA announcements will hopefully give us a clearer window
on their view of the future. I actually looked this week at the
Nikon lens lineup for the first time in over three years. The D200
seems to indicate a Nikon commitment to the crop world, that for
some "Cannonites" may cause reevaluation.

It should be interesting to see what is coming. . .

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/jrs40
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

Regards,
DaveMart

'I want to be young and wild, and then I want to be middle-aged and rich, and then I want to be old and annoy people by pretending I'm deaf'

Please see profile for equipment
 
Bob,

First, thanks for those kind remarks . .they are much appreciated.

Second, sorry for the confusion. Some clarifications.

1. I like the idea that my 70-300 DO "acts" like a 480mm lens (one has to be careful how it is described ). I remember the 500mm mirror lens we had for our R8 system and really enjoy the size of the DO.

2. At present our 17-85 IS produces very nice pics (helped by PS, Focus Magic, Noiseware, PT lens and Shay Stephens's wonderful Color Fringe Reducer- the best $10 I've invested in a long time). The lens has wonderful range, IS and is "compact".

3. So at the present we are very content with the 20D world. But we are always looking. . . tried the 24-105 at B&H a couple weeks ago. Just wish it was a 17 at the wide end!

4. But the future wants to have promise. If Canon's representations regarding 1.6 crop cameras mean that anyone who desires "relatively high quality" must go to FF, Nikons concentration on the 1.5 crop will take on an entirely different perspective.

5. I was convinced that we would end up with a FF/24-105 IS AND our 20D or something w/the 70-300 IS. But the cost of the 5D/lens vrs the "value" is a real tough issue. And I'll never (never say never) have a FF 480mm zoom unless it is the size of the 70-300, which probably precludes the FF option for the tele applications.

6. So the fact that Nikon seems to be committed to "high quality" with 1.5 crop has interest. However no one at the moment has anything comparable to the 70-300 in convenience vrs reach with IS. Just wish Canon would not let those of us that care about quality AND ease of use/convenience be left to a future of compromise.

Hope this helps explain my musings...and thanks for your participation.
Jack
http://www.pbase.com/jrs40
bobmax said:
First - Some very very nice shots on your PBASE site in the 20D
folder (very nice indeed)...

Second: It's been a very long week so please excuse my lack of
clear understanding on your post (not you - me)....

Are you saying that you "like and agree with" Canon CONTINUING w/a
1.6 factor sensor....... or are you saying you "DISAGREE" with
continuing w/it? Is the fact that Nikon w/the D200 "is" staying
w/a 1.5 factor sensor what is "attracting you to consider a switch
to them"?

Again, my apologies... it's really been a long week.... :-)
Bob
--
BobOly
Click to expand...
 
it takes literally billions of dollars to start up a new wafer fab for 300mm wafers. To amortize that over the number of FF sensors Canon sells per year would be foolish to say the least.

If Canon has a 300mm facility available that they were already using for other products, and could consider using it for FF sensors, the quantities involved probably wouldn't make financial sense to migrate to 300mm.

300mm wafers are typically used for devices that ship in the 10's of millions of units per year, the FF sensors would be lucky to reach the 10's of thousands. The transition costs would probably be prohibitive, meaning that they would outweigh the gains made in individual die costs by going to the larger wafers.

In my experience as the geometries keep shrinking the fixed mask costs have been rising quite rapidly, so it costs far more to get a design into the pipeline than it did a few years ago. Dividing that cost by 10's of millions makes financial sense, but then those products are more price sensitive than a FF sensor would be, so large quantities are a must. Cost models do change every year, eventually it might become cost effective to go 300mm, but we can't speculate on Canons business models without knowing some of their data points.
David Martin said:
Canon may also have the option of moving to larger wafer sizes at
some point, with further cost savings.
Click to expand...
 
dwalby said:
it takes literally billions of dollars to start up a new wafer fab
for 300mm wafers. To amortize that over the number of FF sensors
Canon sells per year would be foolish to say the least.

If Canon has a 300mm facility available that they were already
using for other products, and could consider using it for FF
sensors, the quantities involved probably wouldn't make financial
sense to migrate to 300mm.

300mm wafers are typically used for devices that ship in the 10's
of millions of units per year, the FF sensors would be lucky to
reach the 10's of thousands. The transition costs would probably
be prohibitive, meaning that they would outweigh the gains made in
individual die costs by going to the larger wafers.

In my experience as the geometries keep shrinking the fixed mask
costs have been rising quite rapidly, so it costs far more to get a
design into the pipeline than it did a few years ago. Dividing
that cost by 10's of millions makes financial sense, but then those
products are more price sensitive than a FF sensor would be, so
large quantities are a must. Cost models do change every year,
eventually it might become cost effective to go 300mm, but we can't
speculate on Canons business models without knowing some of their
data points.
Click to expand...
Well, it seems that you are assuming quite a few 'data points' in that reply.

Perhaps Canon can figure out a way to share a 300mm production line with other products, thus not needing to amortise the total cost just with camera sensors.

Note that I also said 'at some point' - sooner or later 300mm will not be so cutting edge as it is a present, perhaps giving opportunities to use those lines for products with lower volume, when they are obsolete for the higher volume products.

I doubt that we disagree substantially anyway - and I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to sustain much argument anyway.

As you say, further cost reductions in FF sensors may be limited for a couple of years at least - although Canon have surprised us before.
dwalby said:
David Martin said:
Canon may also have the option of moving to larger wafer sizes at
some point, with further cost savings.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

Regards,
DaveMart

'I want to be young and wild, and then I want to be middle-aged and rich, and then I want to be old and annoy people by pretending I'm deaf'

Please see profile for equipment
 
Well I look at it this way - in the days of film I was happy with 35mm. I knew that in absolute terms medium format was better, but that involved costs and limitations (eg. at extreme telephoto and wide angles) that didn't suit me.

As far as I'm concerned, cropped (1.6 and 1.5) cameras are the new 35mm. Full frame is the new "medium format". The cropped cameras serve my purpsoes just fine, and with the advent of the EF-S 10-22, Canon provides the full range I need in the cropped format.

I've actually downgraded from a 1DmkII to a 20D (well actually I have 2) and have never been more comfortable with a camera system. Yes, better quality is out there (and always will be), but Canon's 1.6 system meets my needs - and as I have successfully sold pics to magazines, advertising etc. it seems to meet the needs of the commercial world as well.

Cheers,

Colin
--
Colin K. Work
[email protected]
http://www.ckwphoto.com
 
David Martin said:
Well, it seems that you are assuming quite a few 'data points' in
that reply.
Click to expand...
Not really. I mentioned the production trade-offs associated with your suggestion, and why I didn't think its LIKELY it would happen, but left it as a decision I can't determine without inside information from Canon.
Member said:
Perhaps Canon can figure out a way to share a 300mm production line
with other products, thus not needing to amortise the total cost
just with camera sensors.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as 'sharing' a production line. The time and materials used for the FF sensors take away potential production of another product. If the fab isn't running at 100% capacity, why spend all the money to build it? In fact, part of the reason 300mm is slow to be adopted is you more than double the gross device count per wafer, so unless you can double your yearly sales of the device in question you're just paying more to put more parts on the shelf.

Its not likely the FF sensor revenue is worth anywhere near enough to Canon to consider bumping another product off the line to make room for it. Even if they did, as I said before the fixed costs of generating the new masks and everything else associated with fabbing the chips is substantial unless you can amortize that over large quantities.
Member said:
Note that I also said 'at some point' - sooner or later 300mm will
not be so cutting edge as it is a present, perhaps giving
opportunities to use those lines for products with lower volume,
when they are obsolete for the higher volume products.
I doubt that we disagree substantially anyway - and I am certainly
not knowledgeable enough to sustain much argument anyway.
As you say, further cost reductions in FF sensors may be limited
for a couple of years at least - although Canon have surprised us
before.
Click to expand...
300mm transitions have been slower than anticipated and have only been aimed at high-volume, price-sensitive devices to try to gain an edge in a highly competitive market. FF sensors do not fit that business model.
Member said:
Member said:
David Martin said:
Canon may also have the option of moving to larger wafer sizes at
some point, with further cost savings.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

Regards,
DaveMart
'I want to be young and wild, and then I want to be middle-aged and
rich, and then I want to be old and annoy people by pretending I'm
deaf'

Please see profile for equipment
Click to expand...
 
...is my middle name. Makes my initials Poi. An acquired taste. But I think the full frame thing is Status Quomentum, not a crying need.

My writing partner, Uwe Steinmueller, points out that there are photographers out there so completely adapted to 35mm full frame photography that the mere thought of having to find compatible DOF bokay relationship to a subject with non-full frame optics is anathema. Meaning a Bad Thing. And for them the bigger frame has some value.

But I come from the side of life more in line with the Marine motto: Adapt! Improvise! Okay, so the smaller chip is ONLY the size of a 35mm motion picture frame. Certainly there aren't any successful images being produced in THAT medium, he said, sardonically.

The link below gives my full rant.

-iNova
--
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html
 
There is something about the texture and color of Nikon images I prefer over Canon. Their quality is more film-like as well.

I like my Canon, but a major reason I am in Canon is the more affordable long glass. If money was no object, I think I would be in Nikon.

Gene
--
Gene - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my wildlife galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/

 
I expect to see 24Mpixel FF cameras for under $2000 in five years. At that time, digital will completely out-spec film. There will be purest that still insist that film is better, just as there are purest today that insist that 8-track is better than CDs.

The cost of manufacturing FF sensors is coming down and will continue to come down as the manufacturing process for them is refined, even if the costs of FF sensors do not follow Moore’s observation. The price of silicon is quite high right now, as there is a global shortage of producers of highly refined semiconductor grade silicon. The market will adjust itself over the nest several years.

I also believe that in 5 years the pixel pitch of a FF sensor will be the same as that of a cropped sensor, so there will no longer be an argument that cropped sensors are better for telephoto. I do not expect cropped sensor camera to ever go away, either on the high end or the on the low end. Cropped sensor camera will always be considerably cheaper than full frame cameras, they will also be smaller, more power efficient, and be able to use smaller, cheaper, lighter-weight optics. Smaller, cheaper and lighter weight does not automatically mean “low-end”, in fact, there is usually a price premium for small, light-weight high-performance devices.

I have no good guess where Nikon is going in regards to producing a FF digital camera. I was actually quite surprised that they announced that they were discontinuing so much of their film camera line-up. I don’t know how well new Nikon film cameras are currently selling. The decision to cut back on film may be based on current sales, or it may be based on where digital will be in the next few years. The thing to watch is where they go with their lenses. It does not make much sense for them to continue to producing much of their current lens line up unless they are planning a FF digital camera, but they seem very committed to cropped frame. I also think that Nikon will need a partner that manufactures semiconductors if they are going to continue to produce digital camera bodies (Sony or Fuji?).

I think that Canon is in a place to run away with many sectors for the digital camera market, including low-end dP&S and high end dSLR. In fact, the only market that I don’t see Canon running away with is the cell-phone camera market, but there is no money to be made there by the hardware manufacturers in the cell-phone camera market anyway. I am not thrilled with the idea of Canon running away with the market, I think the market is much better with competition.

The other thing that has really surprised me in the digital camera market is how inept Sony has been at taking a very large share of the market. By all rights, Sony should be the major player in the digital camera market. They manufacture the chips, they are a consumer electronics company with vast marketing power, and they got into the game early. However, they just cannot seem to come up with the right formula for a digital camera. They seem to focus on non-problems (re-reinventing the electronic viewfinder and re-reinventing flash memory packaging) while ignoring real needs. For example, their newest R1 camera takes outstanding pictures, but suffers from a complete lack of buffer memory.

It will all be very interesting to watch.
 
cnaumann said:
I also believe that in 5 years the pixel pitch of a FF sensor will
be the same as that of a cropped sensor, so there will no longer be
an argument that cropped sensors are better for telephoto.
Click to expand...
But we still would need a bigger and heavier 480mm lens to match the reach of a cropped 300mm . . . . regardless of pixel pitch.
cnaumann said:
I do not
expect cropped sensor camera to ever go away, either on the high
end or the on the low end. Cropped sensor camera will always be
considerably cheaper than full frame cameras, they will also be
smaller, more power efficient, and be able to use smaller, cheaper,
lighter-weight optics. Smaller, cheaper and lighter weight does not
automatically mean “low-end”, in fact, there is usually a price
premium for small, light-weight high-performance devices.
Click to expand...
Hope you are correct in this assumption. Guess it depends on how Canon and Nikon see the "market".
Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/jrs40
 
Hawkman said:
There is something about the texture and color of Nikon images I
prefer over Canon. Their quality is more film-like as well.
Click to expand...
Could that be the higher random noise in the Nikons? I recently did a comparison of D200 noise vs 20D. The 20D had more obvious banding, but upon further analysis, the D200 noise actually had slightly more banding than the 20D, but had a lot more random noise, so the banding was masked. If, tomorrow, a RAW converter sprang good anti-banding code, what are we left with? No banding in either, but more noise in the D200.

If you like the look of random noise (and a lot of folks do), it is better to add it in software with a luminance mask, so the shadows don't get swamped with noise.

--
John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top