Nikon did what I hoped Canon would do...

That's why it is available to those who can justify the cost. We heard nothing but endless whining for moths and months regarding the lack of availability of the D60. The D60 instroductory price created too much demand. As the yield of the 1Ds sensor improves, we can anticipate a reduction in price to match demand.

Meanwhile, no one is complaining about the price of the Nikon full frame digicam. Why is that? Oh yes, now I remember ... they don't have one. =

• Christopher

Hej Erik ;-)! I'm not an expert, but I thought the per-unit cost of microprocessors was pretty small, the real costs were in setting up the factories that punch them out. Setting up those factories is hideously expensive, particularly as the process keeps getting smaller and smaller, requiring more and more sophisticated equipment. Each processor that comes out of the factory needs to cover part of the cost of setting the factory up.

If I'm correct in what I state above, then Canon's strategy makes a lot of sense: the pixel size of the D60 and the 1Ds is very similar, which would indicate that these sensors are made in the same factory, using the same process. Isn't that relevant?

Erik Magnuson said:

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

However, the key is that eventuall all high-end technology trickles
down to affordable consumer based products.

Click to expand...

No, not all. I don't have (and cannot afford) a personal jet
aircraft. And not because people haven't tried making them cheaper.

Member said:

One day (and it won't
be too far away), a PowerShot S-something or a PowerShot
G-something will have a full-frame sensor. And when that day comes,
these specialized lenses will become useless.

Click to expand...

Why on earth would a PowerShot need a full-frame sensor? I'll
assume you mean a "digital Rebel". But whatever price point you
pick for a full frame SLR, I'll ask for one at 0.5x that price. So,
you will have to get the full-frame price down to $500 or so (the
price of a film rebel body + some for electronics and inflation)
before it will not make any more sense.

Member said:

"A cost of a sensor is geometrically proportioned to its size" -
this isn't a law, it is the current state of economy in the
processes of producing and manufacturing sensors. As full-frame
sensors become more widely available and as the technologies that
produce them become more economical, then the price of using them
ultimately decreases.

Click to expand...

Um, why do you think that this is "the current state of economy"?
If cheap, large, semi-conducter devices could be made, then the
person or company who figured out how to do it would be
disgustingly rich. Digital imaging sensors would be a tiny part of
this market.

Member said:

You cannot compare a CPU die shrink to that of a sensor. Because a
sensor can be full-frame whether or not there are more pixels in
it. Contax's N Digital has a 6MP full-frame sensor, but yet the D60
is not.

Click to expand...

And the Contax costs $5k to $6k and the D60 $2k. Hmm, wonder why
THAT is ;-)

Member said:

The process of manufacturing processors is that they need
to squeeze more transistors into smaller and smaller sizes because
of many factors such as signal strength, signal continuity,
materials, power requirements, and such.

Click to expand...

Still, the price (costs are secret) of a processor is still more
strongly correlated to size than any other factor. That is why the
price can go DOWN even when the performance goes up.

Member said:

The trend for physical sensor size is to proceed to 35mm film area.
Whether or not more megapixels are crammed into the sensor as it
increases in dimension is unrelated. They could make 2MP full-frame
if they wanted to, being that the pixel desnsity decreases and
pixel pitch increases.

Click to expand...

And this is precisely the point. A full-frame 2MP sensor will cost
pretty much the same as a 6MP full-frame sensor or even a 14MP
full-frame sensor. So there is no (marketing) reason to make such
a beast. (Actually, there do appear to be some physical reasons why
very large pixels do not work that well, but that's beside the
point.)

Member said:

The trend is not to produce smaller sensors,

Click to expand...

The trend is to produce smaller sensors -- they just are not
useful in SLRS. One reason digital cameras have gotten cheaper is
that the sensors have gotten smaller. Once, the 1/2" sensor was
common. Now look at the P&S market: the inexpensive cameras have
1/2.7" or even 1/3.6" sensors. Two guesses why and the first does
not count.

Member said:

Would it be economical and wise
for Canon to produce a lens line for a body that will eventually be
gone? The D30 has already been discontinued, and its life span is
miniscule compared to an EOS lens of any calibur.

Click to expand...

I am assuming that Canon will always have a Dxx camera in their
lineup which will be about one half the cost of the full-frame
sensor. Under this scenario, the body does not "go away", so it
does remain feasible to produce the lens. Just rephrasing your
assertion another way does not prove your point.

--
Erik

Click to expand...

I thought you had better ideas being an editor than most of the people on this forum... You are making too many assumptions in this post.

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

However, the key is that eventuall all high-end technology trickles

down to affordable consumer based products. One day a PowerShot S-or a PowerShot G-something will have a full-frame sensor. And when that day comes,these specialized lenses will become useless.

Click to expand...

The FF sensor wont trickle down to S-or G-series cams .. because then they have to have massive lenses to retain the quality of the image for a given F stop. The effect of trickling down will continue in other forms like an improved CPU for these cams etc...

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

"A cost of a sensor is geometrically proportioned to its size" -
this isn't a law, it is the current state of economy in the
processes of producing and manufacturing sensors. As full-frame
sensors become more widely available and as the technologies that
produce them become more economical, then the price of using them
ultimately decreases.

Click to expand...

"A cost of a sensor is geometrically proportioned to its size" - this is a manufacturing limitation. But it is true now.

unless you have more than 6mp FF sensors becoming mainstream.. FF will not become famous and cheap.. casue D60 with a smaller sensor can outperform 95% of cams in the world today. So there is no point in putting a 6mp FF sensor just for the sake of wide angle lens limitations and make D60 cost 2k more. It is wiser to buy just another wide angle lens(something like the one Nikon is making for the D60)

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

You cannot compare a CPU die shrink to that of a sensor. Because a
sensor can be full-frame whether or not there are more pixels in
it.

Click to expand...

If they make a combination of multiple chips to produce a sensor of the size of 35mm then it can be cheaper.

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

The trend for physical sensor size is to proceed to 35mm film area.
Whether or not more megapixels are crammed into the sensor as it
increases in dimension is unrelated. They could make 2MP full-frame
if they wanted to, being that the pixel desnsity decreases and
pixel pitch increases.

Click to expand...

But do we need anything like a FF in a 2mp like consumer cam? why? why dont they have APS sized sensor in tiny cams now? The trend can be 2 lines of sensor sizes.. that is what the big companies are talking, thinking and designing lenses now...(Nikon,OlyDak..whatever...)

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

The trend is not to produce smaller sensors, it is to approach
full-frame. Therefore one day, the minimal sesnor size of a digital
camera worthy of being one is having a full-frame sensor.

Click to expand...

Why is it a trend to approach FF. when you put FF in tiny cams.. they are no more tiny. FF has its own place and smaller sensors have their own place.. thats why you dont see a D60 sensor in a G3 etc... the smaller lenses in G3 can be very fast f2.0 lenses because the sensor is small, even if you put a FF sensor then you know the effect of a small lens on a FF sensor.

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

This process of course takes time, but this length of time will be
shorter than the life of a typical EOS lens. Buying a lens designed
to fit current sensor sizes, how long do you think that type of
lens can last if Canon's goal is to make larger sensors with more
mega pixels? Not too long.

Click to expand...

In this case the technology is not the limitation. It is the ability of the cam companies to sell more FF sensors that will ensure the lower costs. So the lifespan of APS sized sensors will be long if electronics companies cannot make FF cheap. There are tons of lenses being made for smaller cams today like a wide angle or a telephoto adpater lenses.. they are not going anywhere.

How many cameras do you plan to buy... how many people in this forum are going to upgrade to FF just because it is available for for instance 2k more.. if that happens in another 2years.

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

Take a look at 4 top current Camera models in different price range
from top to bottom:
1Ds, 1D, D60, and the G3
All have different sensor sizes. Would it be economical and wise
for Canon to produce a lens line for a body that will eventually be
gone? The D30 has already been discontinued, and its life span is
miniscule compared to an EOS lens of any calibur.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that smaller sensor will be gone... I think the current 1.5 crop sized sensors can be cheaper to make and they can tap the sub 1000 market when the FF sensor becomes cheaper than what it is now.

It was a marketing decision to discontinue D30 and Fuji S1. They are great cameras but did u ever think about why they were discontinued? cost... they couldnt sell them for less than 1000$ and people in the market would think twice before spending 1400$ for a 3mp cam because they can spend another 300 to 500 and get a 6mp and lots of people are happy with an interim consumer 4 or 5 mp cam for half the price of 1400$ 3mp cam.

Eventually lots of people will want the DSLR cameras for less than 1000$. And companies right now have a way to push APS sized sensors to this market by making a few lenses. And introduce the FF sensor for pros. In any case you can still use your old lenses on your current bodies.

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60

Click to expand...

--
Mahendra Chabbi

(I carry my photographic memory most of the time, but dont have a connection to my PC)

Exactly.

I don't go from a 1Ds to a 1D to a D60. And of course, sensors are getting larger.

There's a whole different category of cameras, like Point and Shoots, where smaller sensors applies, but would you buy a P&S so you can use interchangeable lenses?

And besides, even good point and shoots will be receiving bigger and bigger sensors so that existing film P&S lenses can be used.

Only one factor has to be changed so that Canon can simply keep making a standard set of lenses and that is the sensor - moving towards full-frame. If Canon has 4 different sensor sizes, that means 4 different lens families.

People are wanting SLR features in smaller and smaller bodies, it's nonsense. An SLR body is big because there's many factors. SLR bodies also need to transfer a lot more light, therefore they're their current sizes and always have been big. This is also just one of the reasons for their sizes.

hyslopc1's point is exactly what I've been saying.

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote

Sampo Manninen said:

Anyone, with even the very basic understanding of optics, knows
that making a smaller lense is pure stupidity in every possible
way. Period.

Sam

Click to expand...

Tell that to Leica.

Member said:

The trend is to produce smaller sensors -- they just are not
useful in SLRS. One reason digital cameras have gotten cheaper is
that the sensors have gotten smaller. Once, the 1/2" sensor was
common. Now look at the P&S market: the inexpensive cameras have
1/2.7" or even 1/3.6" sensors. Two guesses why and the first does
not count.

Click to expand...

You're talking about the P&S camera trend then? Then if that's the case, the advances of SLR cameras such as interchangeable lenses do not apply. If you want one thing, you can't have the other. Some people are asking for the best of both worlds and as you know, photography is all about compromises. You can't expect to go to a smaller body, smaller sensor and keep expecting Canon to make lenses that continue to change as often as sensor sizes do.

Back to the main point of this whole thread, was that someone wanted lens that would work with smaller sensors. And if your trend is to keep making smaller sensors then Canon would keep having to make new lens specifications. And since you said smaller sensors are applicable to P&S because, and you said:

"The trend is to produce smaller sensors -- they just are not

Member said:

useful in SLRS."

Click to expand...

Then P&S are not in the category to use interchangeable lenses because they are Point... and Shoots.

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3953646

I can make some assumptions because I work everyday in the technology industry and because I know people at Canon who are closely linked to product definition and market targeting.

My day job isn't being an editor for any publication however - it is in something more closely related to what we're talking about than I can openly say.

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote

I agree with more or less everything you wrote. While I still believe that full-frame is the future for Canon DSLRs, it probably would make some sense for Canon to make a "digital" wide-angle lens to cover the D60 today and any future "digital rebel" cameras. Many would argue that the 16-35 already fills that role, and it does in every area except price.

Canon has this holy grail of "one EOS" whereby every EOS lens works with every EOS body, and that's a very important from a marketing view, so they don't want to break it. So what should they do? This whole debate is about having a cheaper alternative to the 16-35. So the best thing they could do would be to release a non-pro full-frame ultra-wide zoom, so not to ruin the EOS brand, but design it for the 1.6x FOV crop. Give it a moderate aperture so it's not too heavy, and price it at less than half the cost of the 16-35.

Hang on - didn't I just describe the Sigma 15-30?

As you say, you cannot make a whole new lens line every 2 years, so at some point they have to standardize on something, and why not just pick 35mm (ie their existing lens line) and be done with it. That way they can concentrate on just one thing: making good, cheap (to produce) full-frame sensors.

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

So taken from what you wrote, your point is:

Trend: To make smaller sensors with more megapixels.

Canon should make a line of lenses for non full-frame sensors.

---

Okay, so if the sensors are on a trend to getting smaller and
smaller to make cameras smaller and more convenient, then if Canon
comes out with a line of lenses for today's small sensors, what
will happen when even smaller sensors come out? Then Canon's lenses
designed for today's small sensors will be in the same situation as
today's EOS lenses used on bodies with small sensors.

New trend: Canon keeps making more lenses for ever decreasing
sensor sizes?

I'm sorry but if I were Canon, I wouldn't be doing that. Camera and
sensor sizes change far quicker than lenses can improve. And to
continually put R&D money into making lenses that are efficient to
smaller and smaller sensors is not an option. Nikon has stuck to
1.5X FOV crop sensors. That's why they can do this.

Canon has a whole range of sensor sizes, they're not going to make
ever more ranges of lenses for cameras with sensors that will
ultimately continue to change in size. That is the key.

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote

Click to expand...

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

I can make some assumptions because I work everyday in the
technology industry and because I know people at Canon who are
closely linked to product definition and market targeting.

Click to expand...

OK, who should I beleive: you or someone who works directly for a semiconductor maker:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=3173081

Of course a quick google search will also turn up the size/cost relationship as it's part of any design course.

--
Erik

Okay, no reason to get offensive and say ask me who you should believe. You don't even know my credentials and where I work. My signature doesn't tell the full story Okay?

I said eventually is the trend. And you haven't answered my question and instead have asked me who you should believe.

Size/Cost relationship applies in certain segments but not all.

You're not even factoring in things like:

Pixel pitch, pixel desnity, how small the can make pixels, how dense they can place them together, the equipment needed to do this, the R&D needed to do the above. You're looking only at the physical size.

Tell me why a Ford truck costs less than a Mercedes coupe. I'm willing to bet a lot more technology and design went into the SL500 than any pickup truck.

You don't know how closely I work with Intel and AMD on a regular bassis and my background in semi-conductors. Just because someone works at a semiconductor company doesn't mean they understand what goes on behind the scenes.

If someone told you they worked at Canon, and said this and that, would you believe them knowing that they could be their chief scientist -OR- their front desk receptionist?

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote

For the record he said he works in the semiconductor industry.

NOT for a "semiconductor maker".

Do you know if he works at the R&D at a SC maker or at the marketing division of a wafer manufacturer? Or maybe he works in sales and sees trends as sales manager who's vision is quite different at times from the trend that upper management can see.

Now who would you! believe?

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

So taken from what you wrote, your point is:

Trend: To make smaller sensors with more megapixels.

Click to expand...

Not quite, my point was:

"Trend: smaller sensors cost less than larger sensors independent of megapixels."

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

Canon should make a line of lenses for non full-frame sensors.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

New trend: Canon keeps making more lenses for ever decreasing
sensor sizes?

Click to expand...

Well, actually they do, but they keeping putting them on fixed lens P&S cameras! Don't get too distracted about P&S - I just used them because there are not enough DSLRs for good trend data (but even with current DSLRs, the 1.3x and larger cameras cost almost twice as much as the 1.7-1.5x cameras.)

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

Canon has a whole range of sensor sizes, they're not going to make
ever more ranges of lenses for cameras with sensors that will
ultimately continue to change in size. That is the key.

Click to expand...

Canon only has 3 SLR sensor sizes: D60, 1D and 1Ds. All they have to do is standardize on two sizes: Full-frame (1D series) and APS (Dxx series.) And like Nikon they only have to introduce a handful of wide angle lenses that fit the lower cost Dxx series.

--
Erik

You guys have touched on a key point here, and that is "size matter". Let's take a look at something that has already occurred in the film worls - some smart people thought they could sell more cameras targeted to amateurs by introducing a smaller film line with lighter lenses and smaller bodies - 35mm to APS. What was the lessoned learnt from this failed experience - once people realized that there is quality loss, they more or less abandoned the APS line, even though it offered many advantages that infrequent photographers wanted.

Size matters - whether it is the sensor or the body.

Another point I want to make - if you are the leader of the market, do you risk that position by sending out confusing messages. I believe Canon is the leader in DSLRs right now, and it would be stupid for them to start a separate line like some of you are suggesting (people here and not Nikon btw). I do not draw the conclusion that Nikon will go to a two-tier line. This is probably just a one-off lens. Nikon has been experiementing with coming out with cheaper G line already, and this is just one more to add to that line. The claim that it was made for digital is probably just marketing-speak. I would not read too much into it.

--
Zero my hero

Zero said:

You guys have touched on a key point here, and that is "size
matter". Let's take a look at something that has already occurred
in the film worls - some smart people thought they could sell more
cameras targeted to amateurs by introducing a smaller film line
with lighter lenses and smaller bodies - 35mm to APS. What was the
lessoned learnt from this failed experience - once people realized
that there is quality loss, they more or less abandoned the APS
line, even though it offered many advantages that infrequent
photographers wanted.

Size matters - whether it is the sensor or the body.

Another point I want to make - if you are the leader of the market,
do you risk that position by sending out confusing messages. I
believe Canon is the leader in DSLRs right now, and it would be
stupid for them to start a separate line like some of you are
suggesting (people here and not Nikon btw). I do not draw the
conclusion that Nikon will go to a two-tier line. This is probably
just a one-off lens. Nikon has been experiementing with coming out
with cheaper G line already, and this is just one more to add to
that line. The claim that it was made for digital is probably just
marketing-speak. I would not read too much into it.

--
Zero my hero

Click to expand...

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote

If you read my intial post, you will see I'm talking about SLR's. Full-frame = trend for SLR. Which was my original point heh. =)

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote

hyslopc1 said:

Hej Erik ;-)! I'm not an expert, but I thought the per-unit cost
of microprocessors was pretty small, the real costs were in setting
up the factories that punch them out.

Click to expand...

That's part of it too, but the cost is allocated per wafer. You can find the equations in almost any textbook for calculating cost per die for a given wafer size and assumed defect rate. But let's put it this way: since the full frame chip is 3x the area, it will cost a minumum of 3x more with 100% yields and square wafers. It's an exercise for the student to figure out more plausible values.

--
Erik

I disagree. The sweet spot for this format will require on the order of 12M pixels, and the standard full-frame format will be required to support reasonably sized (low noise) photosites. To cram lots of photosites in a smaller frame will sacrifice noise performance.

Full-frame (24mmx36mm) sensors is the way to go.

John

ladru said:

Imagine;

The sensor from the D60 is capable of taking great pictures, it
does not have to be bigger!
The only reason to make it bigger, is to take advantage of
excisting lenses.
So for professionals who own lots of expensive lenses the 1ds makes
sense.

I was allways hoping Canon would make a IX7 (the aps slr) size body
with D60 or D30 sensor and a line of "small sensor" lenses. These
lenses will be cheaper, have better range and are smaller.

Canon, please take a good look at Nikon and make us EF mounted
small sensor lenses!

Bas Ladru

--
D30, 420EX + omnibounce, Canon 20-35USMCanon 24-85, Canon 50
F1.8MKI, Canon 35 F2, Canon 75-300 IS, Cosina 19-35, Canon 28-105,
Canon 28-135, Tamron 28-300, Set of extension tubes.

Click to expand...

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

"A cost of a sensor is geometrically proportioned to its size" -
this isn't a law, it is the current state of economy in the
processes of producing and manufacturing sensors. As full-frame
sensors become more widely available and as the technologies that
produce them become more economical, then the price of using them
ultimately decreases.

Click to expand...

OK real slow. A sensor is like real estate. Buying 2 acres is twice as expensive as buying one. Period. All you can hope for is that the price per acre gets low enough so that you can afford two instead of one. This will never change.

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

You cannot compare a CPU die shrink to that of a sensor. Because a
sensor can be full-frame whether or not there are more pixels in
it. Contax's N Digital has a 6MP full-frame sensor, but yet the D60
is not. The process of manufacturing processors is that they need
to squeeze more transistors into smaller and smaller sizes because
of many factors such as signal strength, signal continuity,
materials, power requirements, and such.

Click to expand...

Please see above again.

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

The trend for physical sensor size is to proceed to 35mm film area.
Whether or not more megapixels are crammed into the sensor as it
increases in dimension is unrelated. They could make 2MP full-frame
if they wanted to, being that the pixel desnsity decreases and
pixel pitch increases.

Click to expand...

The MP has almost mothing to do with cost. It is the SIZE (one more time) of the sensor that determines cost.

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

The trend is not to produce smaller sensors, it is to approach
full-frame. Therefore one day, the minimal sesnor size of a digital
camera worthy of being one is having a full-frame sensor. This
process of course takes time, but this length of time will be
shorter than the life of a typical EOS lens. Buying a lens designed
to fit current sensor sizes, how long do you think that type of
lens can last if Canon's goal is to make larger sensors with more
mega pixels? Not too long.

Take a look at 4 top current Camera models in different price range
from top to bottom:

1Ds, 1D, D60, and the G3

All have different sensor sizes. Would it be economical and wise
for Canon to produce a lens line for a body that will eventually be
gone? The D30 has already been discontinued, and its life span is
miniscule compared to an EOS lens of any calibur.

Click to expand...

It makes sense to supply your customers with what they need. Even if you do not believe a second lens/camera line is warranted I do not believe you can say Canon should not make a lens like the one Nikon just introduced. I want a wide angle for the camera I own NOW not 2 or 3 years from now! Is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote

Click to expand...

--
Jonathan

jwilliams said:

Tuan A. Nguyen said:

"A cost of a sensor is geometrically proportioned to its size" -
this isn't a law, it is the current state of economy in the
processes of producing and manufacturing sensors. As full-frame
sensors become more widely available and as the technologies that
produce them become more economical, then the price of using them
ultimately decreases.

Click to expand...

OK real slow. A sensor is like real estate. Buying 2 acres is
twice as expensive as buying one. Period. All you can hope for is
that the price per acre gets low enough so that you can afford two
instead of one. This will never change.

Click to expand...

Uh, DSLRs are headed towards full-frame, that's my initial point. Argue whichever way you want. You can't simply sensor technology to something as simple as buying land. It's obvious that you have no clue. You're not even talking about price margin marketing here and haven't even considered it. Again, as the manufacturing process improves and demand picks up, full-frame sensors can be developed more cheaply and be more widely available at lower costs.

jwilliams said:

jwilliams said:

You cannot compare a CPU die shrink to that of a sensor. Because a
sensor can be full-frame whether or not there are more pixels in
it. Contax's N Digital has a 6MP full-frame sensor, but yet the D60
is not. The process of manufacturing processors is that they need
to squeeze more transistors into smaller and smaller sizes because
of many factors such as signal strength, signal continuity,
materials, power requirements, and such.

Click to expand...

Please see above again.

Click to expand...

It's you that need to see above.

jwilliams said:

jwilliams said:

The trend for physical sensor size is to proceed to 35mm film area.
Whether or not more megapixels are crammed into the sensor as it
increases in dimension is unrelated. They could make 2MP full-frame
if they wanted to, being that the pixel desnsity decreases and
pixel pitch increases.

Click to expand...

The MP has almost mothing to do with cost. It is the SIZE (one
more time) of the sensor that determines cost.

Click to expand...

Uh, right. D60 had twice as many MP as D30 and is almost twice the cost, with only real differentiating feature being MP count. "MP has almost nothing to do with cost" - What?! Okay look here. To put more MP into the same die size, requires more refined lithography processes. Gee I wonder why a 6MP version of the D30 (Being the D60) costs way more than the D30! At this point I'll just stop because you clearly have no grasp of pricing even.

jwilliams said:

jwilliams said:

The trend is not to produce smaller sensors, it is to approach
full-frame. Therefore one day, the minimal sesnor size of a digital
camera worthy of being one is having a full-frame sensor. This
process of course takes time, but this length of time will be
shorter than the life of a typical EOS lens. Buying a lens designed
to fit current sensor sizes, how long do you think that type of
lens can last if Canon's goal is to make larger sensors with more
mega pixels? Not too long.

Take a look at 4 top current Camera models in different price range
from top to bottom:

1Ds, 1D, D60, and the G3

All have different sensor sizes. Would it be economical and wise
for Canon to produce a lens line for a body that will eventually be
gone? The D30 has already been discontinued, and its life span is
miniscule compared to an EOS lens of any calibur.

Click to expand...

It makes sense to supply your customers with what they need. Even
if you do not believe a second lens/camera line is warranted I do
not believe you can say Canon should not make a lens like the one
Nikon just introduced. I want a wide angle for the camera I own
NOW not 2 or 3 years from now! Is this such a hard concept to
grasp?

jwilliams said:

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote

Click to expand...

--
Jonathan

Click to expand...

--
Tuan Nguyen.
Editor-in-Chief, CarAndModel.com
Technology Editor, Firingsquad.com
Contributing Editor, Maximum PC Magazine

Canon EOS D60
Canon 28-70mm f/2.8 L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Canon 550EX and 420EX
Canon TC-80N3 Remote