15D anybody?

[dwalby]

Bob, this whole thread is based on speculation and suppositions, specifically when a new $1500 FF body might be released, and what specs/features it might have. Seems odd that you accuse me of making suppositions/assumptions/guesses, when that is the underlying basis for your entire thread.

It was correct though, you were not presenting any facts or information, you were suggesting supposition. An 'assumption/guess' is making things up. I haven't accused you of mendacity. Sorry if you thought I did.

 

[Silvex]

Is that something you'd go for? If so - is it something that would tempt you into FF, or instead of a 5D (II or III) or as well as?

We can only dream Nikon does something like that and forces Canon's hand. The temptation would not be whether or not to go FF. That is an eventual certainty. No the real temptation would be to switch to Nikon, if Canon didn't play ball.

 

[carlk]

Depending on what you do it can be the best of both worlds or the worst of both. To me the reach and fps are the two main reasons I shoot aps-c. I will stay with my 7D instead of getting the "15D". I do plan to get a D800E for the 36MP sensor and things my 7D (and the 15D) can not do though.

 

[bobn2]

Bob, this whole thread is based on speculation and suppositions, specifically when a new $1500 FF body might be released, and what specs/features it might have. Seems odd that you accuse me of making suppositions/assumptions/guesses, when that is the underlying basis for your entire thread.

I didn't 'accuse' you of making speculation and supposition, I just said that you were. Of course, the whole thread is based on suppositions.

However, you entry and discussion in this thread was not, you presented your opinion as fact, firstly in the post entitled 'Re: ha, ha' (which means 'about ha, ha' - doesn't make a lot of sense) where you told me that this was a better spec than the 5DII. Presumably makes it impossible. I said that is progress, and you then gave me a long lecture, presented as fact, not speculation, on the economics of sensor design, a subject that I know very well. I pointed out that there was a possibility that a FF sensor could be cheap if produced on an obsolescent line for which there was no other use, you then disputed this, based on some cod business economics (OK, now presented with 'I suppose').

So, you've been quite happy to press your argument, to poo-poo (or ha ha) mine, and now you get snippy because I say the things you made up were made up. You get what you give.

So, again, I'm sorry if you though that I accused you of telling untruths when I said your 'facts' were made up. I did not intend to do that and did not mean that. But I did mean that they were made up (and I fully understand that you were thinking that they should be true).

OK, shall we agree to differ? I think it is feasible that Nikon could release this camera for $1500. I would not have said that a couple of years ago, but the economics (not the technology) of sensor production has changed. There is a lot of unused semiconductor plant in the world today, especially at larger technology nodes, and I believe that Sony could find it an attractive business proposition to manufacture a 24MP FF sensor at a price which would make it possible and profitable to build a $1500 camera around it. I also thing the same applies to Canon, they have a 350nm fab line which is at the end of the road as far as smaller sensors are concerned.
--
Bob

 

[carlk]

I'd much rather to believe D600, if true, will be a $2000 than a $1500 camera. Even at $2000 it's a slap on Canon's face as well as of those who defended the $3500 22MP camera as being reasonably priced.

Sony is also rumored to be working on a 24MP sub-$2000 full frame camera to be released later this year.

The rumored $1500 price of the D600 is quite unrealistic.

It makes no business sense for Nikon to sabotage their own sales with a $1500 FF model, when even $2000 will be considered an excellent value for a new FF camera.

Other than that, the D600 rumors make a lot of sense.
Nikon will have a sub-D800 FF model, that's for sure - but not at $1500, IMO.

Which brings us to Canon. The naming choice of the 5DIII and its price suggest to me that Canon is not planning an entry level FF below the 5DIII.

We'll see what happens when the rumored D600 is out, though. The 5DIII price will certainly look way out of line if the D600 is priced below $2500.

 

[bobn2]

Depending on what you do it can be the best of both worlds or the worst of both. To me the reach and fps are the two main reasons I shoot aps-c. I will stay with my 7D instead of getting the "15D". I do plan to get a D800E for the 36MP sensor and things my 7D (and the 15D) can not do though.

The problem I have is finding things that the 7D (or 60D) will do that the D800 won't. 7D gives a few extra FPS - that's about it.
--
Bob

 

[bobn2]

I'd much rather to believe D600, if true, will be a $2000 than $1500 camera. Even at $2000 it's a slap on Canon's face as well as of those who defended the $3500 22MP camera as being reasonably priced.

$2000 seems the 'logical' price, just like $4000 did for the D800.

Sony is also rumored to be working on a 24MP sub-$2000 full frame camera to be released later this year.

Yes, I didn't believe that, but I think I do now. I can't see the sony one as making much of a dent in the market (especially if an SLT, which is almost inevitable), but if it has the same sensor, then that begins to make sense, again just playing a kudos role, like the A900.

--
Bob

 

[carlk]

Depending on what you do it can be the best of both worlds or the worst of both. To me the reach and fps are the two main reasons I shoot aps-c. I will stay with my 7D instead of getting the "15D". I do plan to get a D800E for the 36MP sensor and things my 7D (and the 15D) can not do though.

The problem I have is finding things that the 7D (or 60D) will do that the D800 won't. 7D gives a few extra FPS - that's about it.
--
Bob

The fps is important and it still offers a little better reach than D800. Besides I already have Canon telephoto lenses I like very much. Not saying I will stick with 7D forever of course. I could find that D800 can everything for me and get out of Canon entirely. We'll see what happens.

 

[VisualNectarPhotography]

Personally having professionally used and owned both Nikon and Canon I prefer the canon user interface and ergonomics much more than that of the Nikons. IF We see a FF at 1499. It would take but a year until canon reworks their entire product line to compete. I think I’d wait to see Canons entry as Im sure it be better.

“Oh” you say “you must be a canon fanboy because you said that”

No I just understand that whoever arrives there first will undoubtedly have issues with their product that were unforseen in the design process. The benefit of letting another company develop the technology first is that the competition can tear it apart understand it and then make a version that is better and offers more to the consumer.

So before this has even been anounced I have faith that Canon or Pentax for that mater will produce a better FF at this price range.

--

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.

 

[VisualNectarPhotography]

The rumor has been bumped up to 80% accurate.

and is speculated to "maybe" be as low as 1500. I think realisticly it will be a 7D competitor around $1,799

So When the D600 comes out I will be overjoyed because it means that we are entering a new golden age of photography
--

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.

 

[Great Bustard]

But you know, and I know, that no such thing will happen.

Nikon Rumors has gone to 60% on the D600 rumour, $1500 low end FF camera:
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/05/09/more-nikon-d600-specs.aspx/

NR has a pretty good record (better than CR). Anyway the corresponding Canon spec would be:

5DIII sensor (since Canon now uses the same sensor across a range of cameras)
5FPS
97% VF
7D 19 point AF
60D style body.
$1500

As for name, definitely not a single digit (and Canon numbering, the lower the better the camera). 10D has gone, so 15D it has to be.

Is that something you'd go for? If so - is it something that would tempt you into FF, or instead of a 5D (II or III) or as well as?
--
Bob

 

[dwalby]

Hey Bob, your points are valid, and now I see where you're coming from. I see how my initial ha, ha, comment got you on the defensive, and in retrospect was a poor choice of opening reply. I made that comment because we've heard this cheap FF argument for so many years, as you know, and its never come to be reality all these years.

I didn't really try to present anything as facts, because while I know a bit about IC design and fabrication costs/yields, I know absolutely nothing about camera sensor design and fab. The cost/yield comments I made were not intended as a lecture, but just as general information on the IC business. You may have read more authority into those comments than was intended, they were matter-of-fact type comments, not an authoritarian lecture on the IC business.

I'll still stick to my original comment about your 15D spec exceeding the 5D2 spec (in focus system and fps at least), but apologize for putting forth my comments with a sarcastic tagline that wasn't necessary.

Thanks for having a civilized discussion on the topic.

I think you have some valid points in your discussion of IC fab utilization, time will tell how this all evolves. Even if the line is free, the yields will have to make the dies affordable, and as you know there's not many of them per wafer.

Bob, this whole thread is based on speculation and suppositions, specifically when a new $1500 FF body might be released, and what specs/features it might have. Seems odd that you accuse me of making suppositions/assumptions/guesses, when that is the underlying basis for your entire thread.

I didn't 'accuse' you of making speculation and supposition, I just said that you were. Of course, the whole thread is based on suppositions.

However, you entry and discussion in this thread was not, you presented your opinion as fact, firstly in the post entitled 'Re: ha, ha' (which means 'about ha, ha' - doesn't make a lot of sense) where you told me that this was a better spec than the 5DII. Presumably makes it impossible. I said that is progress, and you then gave me a long lecture, presented as fact, not speculation, on the economics of sensor design, a subject that I know very well. I pointed out that there was a possibility that a FF sensor could be cheap if produced on an obsolescent line for which there was no other use, you then disputed this, based on some cod business economics (OK, now presented with 'I suppose').

So, you've been quite happy to press your argument, to poo-poo (or ha ha) mine, and now you get snippy because I say the things you made up were made up. You get what you give.

So, again, I'm sorry if you though that I accused you of telling untruths when I said your 'facts' were made up. I did not intend to do that and did not mean that. But I did mean that they were made up (and I fully understand that you were thinking that they should be true).

OK, shall we agree to differ? I think it is feasible that Nikon could release this camera for $1500. I would not have said that a couple of years ago, but the economics (not the technology) of sensor production has changed. There is a lot of unused semiconductor plant in the world today, especially at larger technology nodes, and I believe that Sony could find it an attractive business proposition to manufacture a 24MP FF sensor at a price which would make it possible and profitable to build a $1500 camera around it. I also thing the same applies to Canon, they have a 350nm fab line which is at the end of the road as far as smaller sensors are concerned.
--
Bob

 

[carlk]

But you know, and I know, that no such thing will happen.

The most important thing is if Canon know. Yes they do too.

 

[bobn2]

But you know, and I know, that no such thing will happen.

Don't know. Canon could do it, they have all the parts. They just need the will. But, seeing as they've just sold record numbers of DSLR's, I don't suppose there is any incentive. As in car rental, if you're #2, you need to try harder.
--
Bob

 

[plugin]

Just having the parts, and will, is not enough. They could easily make that camera - but to make it profitable at $1500 is not a given. Maybe they could, maybe not - we do not know, but my guess is that it is unlikely. And even if they could - would they want to cannibalize sales from other more profitable bodies? If Nikon forces the issue they may have to react, but I think it less than probable that Nikon could do that either, for the same reasons. There is no point anyone doing it unless they can make a substantial profit, which would not be progress, it would be revolutionary at this stage.

But you know, and I know, that no such thing will happen.

Don't know. Canon could do it, they have all the parts. They just need the will. But, seeing as they've just sold record numbers of DSLR's, I don't suppose there is any incentive. As in car rental, if you're #2, you need to try harder.
--
Bob

 

[Silvex]

...to those of us who are not familiar with this site? Do they have a track record of getting predictions correct?

If Nikon really did produce a FF with 80% of those specs, it would be great news for Canon users.

 

[VisualNectarPhotography]

This guy is 99% accurate

--

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.

 

[Jerry-astro]

Personally having professionally used and owned both Nikon and Canon I prefer the canon user interface and ergonomics much more than that of the Nikons. IF We see a FF at 1499. It would take but a year until canon reworks their entire product line to compete. I think I’d wait to see Canons entry as Im sure it be better.

That's true only if Canon already has a product like that in their pipeline. I suspect their time from conception to production is a whole lot longer than a year. So, unless they were already working on such a product and simply needed to do a little tweaking to get it ready for market, their ability to react that quickly would be difficult at best.

I'm still dubious of Nikon's ability to get such a product to market at that price point, and if they do, I also will be most interested to see what tradeoffs they had to make to offset the much higher costs of the sensor. And yes, even with the re-use of older fabs, the cost of manufacturing a FF sensor will still be very high in relation to APS-C sensors. Hitting that price means they'll have to take costs out somewhere else or eat a lot of margin. I don't see that happening.

 

[VisualNectarPhotography]

That's true only if Canon already has a product like that in their pipeline. I suspect their time from conception to production is a whole lot longer than a year. So, unless they were already working on such a product and simply needed to do a little tweaking to get it ready for market, their ability to react that quickly would be difficult at best.

Canon is a smart company that is just as competitive as any other trying to compete in the free market. Bet your ash that they have their fingers on the pulse of whats happening in their industry. They see the rumors, and I'm sure they have already put a plan into action to counter. Its just the way business works ya know?

I'm still dubious of Nikon's ability to get such a product to market at that price point, and if they do, I also will be most interested to see what tradeoffs they had to make to offset the much higher costs of the sensor. And yes, even with the re-use of older fabs, the cost of manufacturing a FF sensor will still be very high in relation to APS-C sensors. Hitting that price means they'll have to take costs out somewhere else or eat a lot of margin. I don't see that happening.

Agreed

--

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.

 

[bobn2]

...to those of us who are not familiar with this site? Do they have a track record of getting predictions correct?

Yes, very good once they get to figures like 80%. Often speculated that Nikon feeds information as part of their viral marketing. It makes sense for Nikon to have fed this one. Right now, with the D800, they have created a demand that they cannot meet, that is always bad because some of those people, having decided to fork out $3000 on a camera will then get fed up waiting and go elsewhere, maybe a 5DII or even 5DIII. If they believe that there is a D600 on the way, then first some will come off the D800 list to wait for that and also are less likely to look elsewhere.

If Nikon really did produce a FF with 80% of those specs, it would be great news for Canon users.

Only if Canon responded. It took them four years to respond to the D3. It takes a lot to push Canon off their roadmap.
--
Bob