Sony's 12.47 megapixel APS-C sensor captures 10.4 fps: take that, EOS 40D hopefuls
By Thomas Ricker 
posted August 20th 2007 7:10AM
posted August 20th 2007 7:10AM
[Via Impress]
posted August 20th 2007 7:10AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Progress before wisdom.
If they use the same sensor technology on a full frame sensor, we're looking at 24-25mp full frame flagship cameras from Sony and Nikon.
Even if its the runoured 1.1 crop, it will still be 23mp+... enough to draw in some medium format folks.
You guy are perhaps forgetting that the A/D converter on this chip is only 12bit, compared with EOS 1Ds 14bit, 4 times more information per channel...
Claiming that 14 bit offers 4 times as much information as 12 bit is pretty much BS. It offers *the potential* for 2 additional stops of dynamic range, 14 instead of 12, and only under circumstances where it's even possible to successfully deliver over 12 stops (which, in the 40D case, is essentially never).
Many cameras, by virtue of their mechanical construction, can't take advantage of the extra dynamic range at all. In the intended use of this sensor (fast action), higher ISOs will frequently be used and 14 bit is useless for that. In fact, higher bit count converters were only been used in studio cameras until the 1DMk3 came along.
Of course, comparing this sensor to the 40D is stupid, but in line with what Engadget would typically do, since this sensor is larger and much faster than the 40D and will be used for different kinds of photography. Nevertheless, the 40D with its smaller photosites, is not in a position to benefit greatly, if at all, from 14 bit converters. Suggesting that the 40D is somehow better than this sensor because of that is ridiculous.
Pixels and frame-rates alone don't make a camera.
Canon's excellent noise filtering (and the smaller the pixels, the more important that becomes) and superior lenses (I know I'm liable to get flamed for that one) count for a lot too.
Yeah, you're gonna get flamed for that one. Only Canon fanboys would make such idiotic claims regarding lens superiority. Hell, serious Canon shooters will use Nikon wide glass through adapters rather than use the crap that Canon offers.
Canon, at one time, had superior noise performance. The gap has narrowed considerably and closed entirely depending on which models you refer to. Regardless, noise filtering is, for the most part, part of the JPG engine. JPG shooting is important in some applications and irrelevant in others. Canon has no noise performance lead, and never had one, in areas where noise processing is not done in camera.
Incidently, pixels and frame rates do make a camera. Other things do as well, but if you don't have pixels and frame rates you can't play the game. Canon's greatest strength in the market has been their 1D series and that's because that camera has had pixel and frame rate advantages over the competition. The time of the 1D's overwhealming superiority has apparently come to an end.
You're right, that Canon's optics aren't the best. But they are great. They're not crap, and anyone who says Nikon's glass is being used by serious photographers is smoking something illegal. I love my Nikon 17-35 2.8, but the Canon 24-70 2.8 I use at work is a killer. If the rumored Nikon 24-70 2.8 (along with the also-rumored 14-24 2.8) come out, then Nikon will have something to crow about for a while. But Canon is already doing what's needed to be done for a while with their new 14mm 2.8. Improving the performance of their wide angles to match the 1Ds Mark III (or my 1Ds Mark II at work). You want the absolute best glass? Buy a Leica. Otherwise, it's pretty much a wash (except for the killer Zeiss lenses for Canon and Nikon reccently introduced).
As for noise? You this guy says there's no lead for Canon? Again with the dope-smoking clueless argument. Until you've actually used a 1Ds Mark II or 1D Mark III you don't know what you're talking about. Canon kicks major ass with their pro cameras. And the improvement in the new ones (at least the 1D Mark III) is keeping them ahead. Hopefully Nikon will now announce their new cameras that will at least be competitive with the new Canons.
I suspect Canonn announced today because many anticipate Nikon releasing info on their next two cameras in a couple of days. We shall see.
Given how badly Sony botched the DSC-H9 (poor image quality, despite Pop Photo's sycophanting review), I think I'll stick with Canon, thank you.
I don't think you get it, man. That camera has a 1/2.5" sensor, WAY smaller than this. Hell, my Sony N1 has as many pixels as the H9, AND it has a bigger sensor. This thing, this thing is in a whole different class than point-and-shoot cameras.
JOSE, I think IsrealS' point is that Sony hasn't inspired the confidence of photographers after releasing the DSC-H9 (regardless of product class). Obviously, any company can come up with a new product that is amazing, and I guess we'll just have to see with Sony. But I doubt many photographers are holding off on buying a Canon or Nikon because they think the next Sony will blow it away.
@ Rob,
I'm just saying, I don't think you can expect that great image quality off of a 1/2.5" sensor stuffed with 8MP.
My Sony Alpha is looking more obsolete by the day, which is a good thing! I can't wait for Sony's announcement of their new SLR's, it sounds like they might have a few tricks up their sleeve, and now that Canon finally spilled the beans, it's time for Sony to make their announcement.
That 10.4fps won't include the time to flip the mirror or the shutter speed ether.
Plus over 10fps classes the camera as video capable in the eyes of the UE (IIRC) - thus attracting higher import duties. So all in all, that headline 10.4fps might be just that, a headline figure.
It isn't a camera, it's a sensor. The sensor has a maximum read rate that ultimately results in that fps rating. For a camera to do that, it must be capable of processing 10+ fps which involves a lot more than just reading data and operating a shutter. I don't know what your point ultimately is, but it's meaningless.
Canon offers a camera that does 10 fps and 10MP. This offers the same fps at higher resolution. What is ultimately offered in the market who knows, but I don't recall any criticism over Canon's frame rates when they announced 10 fps.
So many sensitive fanboys in this article. Why so worried? I'd figure that a sensor that advances the state of the art would be considered "good news".
This is irrelevant. Sony or Nikon would never release a camera at 11fps in the same range as the 40D. If they did so, they would be limiting their own growth over the next decade. Even though they are competitors, Sony, Nikon, and Canon (and everybody else) will release cameras with similar specs in order to keep the market stable.
I don't agree with you regarding keeping the market stable but, even if the sensor were used in a 40D competitor, frame rate would be limited by other factors. This sensor is intended for a pro body at 10 fps. Going that fast requires a lot of processing horsepower.
Comparing this sensor to the 40D is irrelevant. I agree with you on that.
Competition is good. But when things sound too good to be true, it usually isn't. I'd wait to see the image quality before getting too excited.
This sounds exciting but a higher burst isnt the only thing people are looking for in a DSLR.The new DSLR may be pretty good but Canon is definitely more experienced and better in this field.
High frame rates ARE what certain photographers are looking for and that's WHY they have been using Canon. This sensor is not made for everyone's basic DSLR, it's made for photojournalism where high frame rates are king.
Speaking of Canon being "more experienced and better in this field", you are aware that Canon has screwed up their AF system on their latest 10 fps PJ camera causing some high-profile, well-respected photographers to declare it effectively a downgrade from the previous model, right? So much for being more experienced and better, much less definitely so.
Now that Canon's biggest competitor has access to a sensor of identical size and frame rate (but with higher resolution) than Canon, their superior ergonomics and AF technology should create quite an interesting competitor to the 1D3. While the 1D3 is intended for PJ, its strengths and weaknesses are proving not well matched for that. It wouldn't surprise me if Nikon ultimately surpasses the 1D3 soon.
Eff that. I want FullFrame, not 1.6x w/APS-C. Blech.
It's not 1.6x it's 1.3x. This sensor is the same size as used in the 1D.
Ditto. I've used a 30D extensively and found it had a wasteful quantity of features (I rarely shoot in continuous mode), while lacking the one I truly wanted, a full frame sensor! The 5D has been out for nearly two years now and it still has a street price over $2500. Where's the new low end full frame SLR? The jump from the 40D ($1300) to the 5D ($3000) is pretty big; I couldn't care less about the loss of 2MP, but it'd easier to stomach if it wasn't using 2yr old technology! So Canon, where's the love? Where's the 15MP full frame sub $5k body? I promise I'll buy some expensive EF (not EF-S) lenses ;)
Sorry, this sensor is 1.5x, not 1.3x. Overall dimensions are 28mm x 22mm but that includes processing circuitry.
I'm still buying the 40D.
Ahhh don't know if people realized the glass is the most important part. Canon and Nikon have decades of lens to use in anyone for their cameras made over that span.
Sigh
If only numbers were everything...
But in reality, Canon is truly king of DSLRs.
Also, I agree with craig.
Engadget is truly full of retards... or so it appears sometimes.
Seriously? A news article about an upcoming Sony sensor with rumored better specs than the new 40D will cause you to reconsider buying a 40D and buy the new Sony DSLR with aforementioned sensor (assuming the body will/can fully utilize all the specs and will available in the near future)?
It's called advancing the state of the art. If you can't see why making a better product is a good thing, I feel sorry for you.
Also, you might want to stop fellating any one manufacturer and at least consider others. The whole "competition makes products and services better" is the beauty of the capitalist system. One of the best things that capitalism has brought to society, and poor shmucks such as yourself are missing out.
Dan,
You must not be familiar with who Nikon has fabricate their sensors for them...it's Sony.
Hmmmm, lots of rumors going around about a D300 with a 12MP sensor in it, perhaps this one is it.
In that case, the 40D may be DOA.
I did know that Sony creates Nikon's CMOS sensors.
That wasn't my point. My point was that it appears as though members of the Engadget crew probably already are outfitted with a Canon DSLR and lenses. For most users, it would be foolish to dump all your DSLR stuff and move to a different system and mount because of some rumored sensor that may or may not perform up to its theoretical capabilities, may be expensive, or may be a while away from being used in a product.
I do think competition and innovation are good, and if this sensor is as good as they say and comes out soon, that's good news for me as a Canonite, so that the next generation is even better. I wouldn't consider selling all my lenses and gear because of a new sensor announcement. Many people have more invested than me, but I have a pretty sizeable chunk of change invested in lenses... about $4500.
You are foolish to say that the 40D would be DOA just because you think that the new D300 will use this "awesome" new sensor. Even if it is indeed better than the 40D, which is fine by me (again that wasn't my point), then most serious hobbyists and pros who are considering using a 40D as their main or backup camera won't just switch or buy a Nikon or Sony mount DSLR as their body. They'll still pick the Canon.
I find it a bit hard to believe that sony has developed a sensor that is as fast as the 1D MKIII with a higher (not necessarily better) resolution. If it turns out to be true, this could be very good for those with a large konica-minolta lens stash.
As for me? I have too much invested in canon lenses to switch.
Keep in mind that just because the sensor is able to shoot at that speed doesn't mean that the body will. Having a high-speed shutter/mirror mechanism, fast processor and sufficiently deep buffer is going to cost a lot and so it is not likely to be shoehorned into a prosumer grade camera.
I will never buy Sony [digital cameras] again!
And anyway, I have already a Canon DSLR.
I agree with you balls. I love my Canon gear. Even if the new D300 or a new Sony DSLR has this sensor, it won't be enough to make me switch to Nikon/Sony mount.
If it is true, I hope that the 50D will be even more incredible.
I'm actually waiting for the 6D/5D Mk.II