For those looking to upgrade their gear there are a lot of new full frame cameras expected for later this year.

Sony A 900 (I really like the way Sony cameras handle, and am very curious about this model)

Canon 5D MkII (one day, there won't be rumors, but a camera of this name, love the 5D, this one must be great)

Nikon D10 (mid-range full frame, rumored)

http://www.photographybay.com/


Very exciting for those, who prefer full frame over aps-c, finally there's going to be choices!

Can't be too bad for the pricing of these new cameras.

You are forgetting the D3x, IMHO the most interesting rumours of all.

Cheers,
Bernard

The Sony is going to be 25 Megapixel.

I'm not sure if I want that at this moment. Between 13 and 15 is golden. Manageable file sizes, and good detail.

Lots of guesses I'd say at this stage. With all the rumors out there, one is bound to turn out right. ^_~

13-15 is probably the best quality you can get out of a 35mm ff sensor. Yes, you can get bigger images, but probably no better!

If the 5DII has 16 (as rumoured) then this would be a great camera.

The rumor, that in fact becomes reality. Few days ago Nikon Poland asked Polish Nikon Useres Club to make their headquaters available for presentation of mysterious "new Nikon products". The presentation will take palce on 5-th of july, so one can expect, that Nikon should offically present new products before the end of June (I've heard something about 26th). The last time Nikon asked Polish Nikon Club to host a presentation, was the polish premiere of Nikon D3 and D300...

I really have always liked the Minolta/now Sony cameras a lot more than the others in terms of their lenses and features, but they didn't have a serious competitor to the overpriced Canons.

I'm looking forward to this. Hopefully it has nice "fat" pixels without much if any AA - so that it bumps into lower-end MF territory.

Of course I really want Foveon to do something aggressive. A higher resolution DB - say 4000x4000 true square format) I'd even be happy with 3000X3000. 2,652 × 1,768 isn't quite good enough to compete with the new crop of 15-25MP cameras. 3000*3000 in a DB for say, $2,000 - that would be amazing.

Well, I can dream, no?

Don't forget the D700, which I'd probably buy in a second.

Leica R10, rumored to be larger than full frame.

Any Leica R10 is strongly indicated to be for use with existing Leica R 35mm format lenses (along with some new AF ones?), and this requires it to be in a format no larger than 35mm.

There is a rumor of an R10 in a format larger than the 18x24mm of the R back and M8. Beyond that, there might be baseless speculation or wishful thinking about Leica adopting a format larger than 35mm, but I would not dignify it with the name rumor, which should supported by at least some hint of argument or evidence or reliable sources, not just wishful thinking.


P. S. On more credible rumors, I would be interested to see how the expected 12MP Nikon D700 and the long-awaited 25MP Sony flagship fare in competition, along with an expected new Canon model at some intermediate pixel count (my guess: a 5DMkII with 21MP, same as the 1DsMkIII).

I highly doubt that the 5DII will be use the 1Ds III sensor. If anything, it'll probably have a 16mp like the 1Ds II. I'm sure Canon is more concerned with the Nikon D700 than the Sony A900, and I'm betting the 5DII's megapixels will reflect that. That'll leave the A900 in a nice little niche, being "affordable" and high res.

Well, if a 35mm lens will cover 24X36mm at the film plane, it will also cover other permutations of dimensions that don't exceed the image circle required for 24X36. It's preposterous, but imagine a round sensor.

Personally, I actually like square images, perhaps having gotten used to composing with Hasselblad Cs and Rolleiflex TLRs. So, I've always dreamed of a square format SLR in 35mm form factor. Which would be possible, and I suppose might even exceed the sensor area of current "full frame" DSLR sensors, while still not going beyond the image circle of a 35mm lens.

But I will bet a very large sum of money that Leica isn't working on one, and neither is any other major manufacturer. If I'm proven wrong, I guess I'll just have to go buy one...

Keep in mind that Leica is a member of the four-thirds consortium... not that that's particularly relevant in itself, but it bears the speculation that the new sensor could have a four:three aspect ratio more reminiscent of medium format but designed for the 35mm lens circle, and having the potential for greater vertical resolution at the same pixel pitch as a 24x36 sensor.

Absolutely.

The 5D is already a great camera, and handles very well. Compared to it, the 40D is almost the same size, but an ergonomic nightmare with too small a handle and your nose rubbing the screen.

This camera is all the way on top of my wish list...

Yes, the Foveon sensor sounds interesting. They don't seem to have the kind of money to get ahead, but the concept could pop up with a very interesting sensor one day.

Sounds good to me. I rarely print anything in dimensions other than 4X5 or square. I put a lot of 16X9 shots on the web, in digital photo frames, etc. So, the standard 35mm frame at 2:3 doesn't work for what I need to do most.

I'm really curious at what price level those cameras will settle.

Full frame sensors seem to come down in price.

And the body size is just ideal. The 5D, for example, is only a fraction larger than the 40d.

Leica's owner Dr. Kaufmann and also the R product manager have both hinted that the next Leica reflex will be larger than full frame. Existing R lenses can be accommodated by limiting non-ROM lenses to 24x36mm, and the camera can use ROM information to determine if lenses can cover the larger format.

I am saving my money for the 5D Mark II...but when will it really happen?

Nikon D700 released.

DP Review Hands-On Preview

This autumn... say those, who seem to be able to feel camera change in their bones like the weather.

I just upgraded, so I'm more in the audience than in the buyer flock.

But I'm definitely curious what the 5D MkII will be able to do. This is why I got myself a D40, which is very close to the 5D MkI, but with more modern technology.

Generally, it will be interesting where the APS-C size camera will go. I guess, five years from now al pro quality gear will be full frame.

Can you point to any source for this claim?
To repeat, what I have read from them is only hints that it will have larger sensor than the 18x27mm one of the R digital back and M8.

partly it depends on how ones defines 'pro': hopefully not "gear giving the highest image quality available", because that would mean medium format, not 35mm.

When it comes to what formats will be used for various types of professional and advanced amateur photography, I predict
1) An increased total number of 35mm format DLSRs in use. (Easy!)
2) Continued increase in the image quality and performance possible in any given format, including DX, EF-S and 4/3.
3) Many photographers including professionals what want a kit with good telephoto coverage that must sometimes be carried for many hours over significant distances will continue to prefer the smaller DSLR formats, smaller pixel sizes, and their associated smaller telephoto lenses and lower kit weight.
4) The last two items combined will continue to support a healthy market for ever higher quality gear in the smaller DSLR formats that will be used in some professional sector. (Note for example the arrival and great sales success of the D300 and 40D after the "5D revolution" and along-side the D3.)


With film, professional level 35mm and medium format SLR gear coexisted for decades, so it amazes me that some people still think that professional and serious amateur usage will ever entirely abandon the smaller DSLR formats that already easily outperform professional 35mm film gear in most respects.

Yes, I'm one of those who liked the 40d, and bought it. This is great quality, and it will stay for a good while. Especially with that great viewfinder the 40d has (often a downside on smaller sensor cameras).

I just saw that the body was not much smaller, nor much lighter, than a 5D's.

But the lenses are.

So I think your arguments pretty much on the money, and we will see a wide range of APS, full frame, and large format digital cameras.

Only regarding the four thirds system I have my doubts. It's a really, really small sensor, and I'm not convinced it will survive.

Indeed lens size is the key. I am glad we agree that there is a place even in professional level photography for a format like the 14.8x22.2mm of EF-S.

But then somehow you lose sight of this size+weight advantage when things get just slightly smaller:


As we seem to agree that the 14.8x22.2mm of Canon EF-S sensors is an acceptable size for smaller, lighter kit, I do not see how the 13x17.3mm of current 4/3 sensors (with up to about 14.1x18.8 allowed in 4/3 according to the 4/3 patent) becomes "really, really small", and thus doomed.

Current FourThirds sensors are 12% less high and 22% less wide than EF-S, which means about 1/3 to 2/3 stop loss of light gathering power depending on desired print shape. When working within a weight limit, the somewhat shorter 4/3 lenses can easily be about 1/3 -2/3 stop brighter, neutralizing the speed effect of the size difference: consider the f/2.8-3.5 FourThirds zoom lens options for example. (I ignore the rather extreme f/2 FourThirds zooms.)


Somehow, a sensor format about five or more times larger than those chosen by over 90% of mainstream (digicam) camera buyers does not fit my idea of "too small", except for a small high end sector.

Agreed. If the companies promoting the 4/3 system manage to survive another 5 years or so, these sensors will have reached a level of quality/DR/noise that will be sufficient for 95% of applications.

My view is that FF will become more and more of a niche with 4/3 and APS becoming even more main stream.

The only people still shooting with FF will be the guys looking for a very specific look associated with limited DoF.

I do personnally see the agitation surrounding the Nikon/Canon FF releases as being mostly esotheric marketing fights with very little actual impact on the overall market.

My contention is that both Nikon and Canon are concentrating on their image by investing now in FF. They have also perceived a very profitable tactical niche with FF but they must be aware that the future doesn't lie there. I would be very surprised if Sony, Nikon and Canon kept investing heavily in FF sensors beyond the current generation of 20+ MP sensors.

After that common sense would dictate that they focus on enhancing the DR/noise of smaller photosites corresponding to 20MP APS sensors.

As far as I am concerned, I see value in FF now and in the coming 2 or 3 years thanks to better DR and potentially higher resolutions, etc... but I will probably return to DX around 2012.

Cheers,
Bernard

This is also very convincing.

I must say I'm currently using the philosopher Husserl's tactic of "Epoche", which is to not judge right now and keep information coming in and let it build an image.

The arguments for FF seem to concern the sweet spot of resolution: how many megapixels can an APS sized sensor bear.

The other question: how many megapixels do we need?

What we really need, I think, is dynamic range.

Regarding resolution, I don't feel "underresolutioned" at 10 Megapixels.

The four thirds system could be very interesting for photographer's viewfinder cameras: smaller and lighter than a DSLR, but still with very high image quality. There are few viewfinder style cameras worth looking at currently (and they are called "point and shoot", an awful name). After all, Cartier-Bresson used to shoot with a Leica with mostly a 50mm lens, and there are barely any wide angle or tele shots from him.

So, the development will probably function like survival in nature: every animal will shape its tool for survival, every camera and sensor type will either find a niche of maximum photographic use, or simply die out.

I'm also curious what will become of the Foveon sensor. At the moment it may be a sideline of sensor development, but we may be in for a surprise.

Another development will probably be in the printer and paper section, often neglected in all that focusing on bodies and megapixels. I'm only starting out to get into that area (but I have spent plenty of time in smelly, wet darkrooms).

I am really not too sure about that one.

Cheers,
Bernard

There's been some speculation as to the idea of a 4/3 format small viewfinder camera, but the problem is that such a camera would need completely different lenses than the current digital zuikos, since the lens-to-sensor distance is made to accomodate a mirror box. The lenses themselves are one of the biggest draws for 4/3, with Olympus being sometimes reffered to as the leica of the digital age for the quality seen from their lenses (I wouldn't ignore those f2 zooms, either... the 14-35mm f2 is meant as the 4/3 equivalent to FF 24-70 f2.8 zooms), and of course the other main manufacturer is leica themselves (with panasonic).

Most seem to be fixated on the idea of small+light as related to camera bodies. That's not exactly the idea they had for 4/3, though they've managed to do that anyways. The idea was that the lenses would be much smaller, particularly at the longer focal lengths. At the wider end the gap isn't so large, but a D700 with a 300mm f2 attached (does nikon even make one) would be much larger than the E-3 with the 150mm f2 attached (which several reviews have rated as one of the best lenses they've tested). Similarly, the zuiko 300mm f2.8... are there any 600mm f2.8s out there?

The potential of four thirds is apparent in their glass, but unfortunately they seem a little behind on the bodies. They've done a great job of lessening the gap lately, but they've still got some work to do. Better AF algorithms are the most pressing need; many have bought the E-3 for its ultra-fast AF, and it delivers in reasonable lighting with slower subjects. But it's outperformed in low light by canon and nikon, and for C-AF tracking Nikon does a particularly superior job. As far as megapixels go, that's a problem from a marketing viewpoint, but not so much from a photography viewpoint. It's better to compare actual vertical and horizontal pixel counts than given megapixel ratings, because the vertical resolution of a 12mp APS-C sensor and a 10mp 4/3 sensor are very similar; it's like you just cropped the sides off the APS-C.

Either way, they've been gaining sales and speeding up development lately, and the lenses are starting to gain the reputation they deserve, so I think 4/3 has safely come through the predictions of the naysayers and will survive, and even thrive.

More on topic: has there been any speculation on the idea of a pentax FF camera? They made a prototype long ago, with a 6mp FF sensor, which looked like it had the potential to be very interesting. Now there are rumbles about a samsung full-frame sensor...

Pentax has, up to now, two different pro camera attempts stopped two months [more or less] before public release.

The first, and less known, is the 2000-2001 MZ-D model with a 6 mpx Full Frame Phillips based pro model. Taking the pro MZ-S 35mm model, the camera was stopped two months before release because of the problems with the Phillips sensor [mainly, color inaccuracies and failures]. That model was good to use the K-mount [KAF, KAF2 power zoom included] lenses, and, via adapters [unique to Pentax], 645 and 67 lenses.

The 2000-2001 MZ-D had working prototypes rolled out [not mock-ups, but models where you could take a picture and take the card with you].

The second attempt, and this admittedly stopped two months before it´s public release by the Pentax board, was the 645d, the second pro body of Pentax. This model had several sensors passing through where the inserts should go. Latest news were the 18mpx Kodak sensor [the same Phase One was using circa 2004] and a later development of 31 mpx. You can find more info about this via Dpreview forums, which have a link to the very sentence regarding what happened to the 645d.

It means that Pentax has still a stillborn digital system completely finished [they say they were ready for the official launch] when Hoya stomped in.

Samsung has stated they are developing as fast as they can a FF sensor. Thing is, if the K20d develops such high results and has quite a good lens system [you can use long lenses from old days, specialty items or use the cross-system capability within Pentax lenses], and the files are HUUUUUUUUUUGE, what is the advantage you get from a FF Pentax? The k20d files are bordering the 20mpx [DNG, uncompressed].

Probably whatever people get out of buying a 21mp canon or 24mp nikon or sony. Pentax is not a company that makes their name on sports photography. They typically push their camera's suitability to outdoor pursuits in their advertisements.

If they made a sensor that had the same pixel density and pitch as the current K20d sensor, it would be in the 20-30mp range and a good choice for landscapes. Not fast, not made for snapping a thousand shots, but that's not what pentax customers are typically after. Judging by their strategies in the past, it would probably offer a very sensible (from a photographic standpoint) feature set-- not flashy. It'll probably be ruggedly built, perhaps not bombproof like a 1d or E-3, but at least as durable and sealed as the k20d. And it may come in at a price point lower than its competitors, like the way the k10d offered many mid-tier capabilities at an entry level price.

At least that's what I would hope for. It seems sensible. Lanscape shooters who aren't too invested in a system already would find it very tempting. I'd want one, but not be able to afford it. Tripods and base ISO are the way myself and many others work.

What [as far as I know and what happened to me] Pentax customers are usually craving after are lenses, lenses and lenses. For the sheer quantity of them. And obviously, the quality of the glass.

Which, for instance, makes people buy at the very same time the FA43 1.9 and the FA50 1.4/1.7.

The ultimate quality of the Pentax bodies has been, so far, their ability to be just a tool, with zillions options [for heaven´s sake, they had variable AND bracketable ISO from the very begining]. The Pentax bodies are kind of servants of their owner. Sort of "just right" theory.

All in all I am very doubtful about what might happen with the über-Pentax. One one hand, it seems that that über-model will be aplicable for a maximum of 3fps style of shoot [fashion photography, studio photo, macro, landscape, architecture]. For that:

If they get to FF, they will have to compete with the marketing resources of Sony. But they have the new player behind [Samsung], eager to set themselves as the Korean Sony.

On the other hand, the do have everything set for a 645 digital. And they are leaving probalby the best ever made lens system orphan [the 645 system, sorry, Hassy shooters]. The 645N and 645NII were pretty ubiquos cameras. It would have been a very sensible upgrade path.

All in all, that´s the problem I see with Pentax. Their Pro series were the MF cameras, not the 35mm on steroids. They have now two paths. Which one will follow?

Actually the 645D reached a very advanced level of developement. A Japanese maginze had a article about it last month with some actual images shot with the beast.

The quality on A4 was impressive.

They didn't comment though on the final outcome of the project, which makes me think that there is still a small chance that it might be revived.

Regards,
Bernard

Hello, Bernard
Yep, the 645D reached a very advanced level of development, as the MZ-D did [actually, quite a bit further]. As I said, it was halted two months before the public release.

I truly hope it will be revived, sooner than later. Usually they are the most affordable MF systems with no big compromise, so far.

It is true on one hand that people generally underestimate the power of technological progress. I believe that the noise performance of Dx sensors can be bettered in modest steps in the next years, maybe the same quality as today's d300, just with 14 or 16MP. However I do not believe that with current technology it will be able to maintain or even improve dynamic range in small sensors. Olympus (4/3s) fights with a too weak latitude in the highlights, and no DSLR except the Fuji S3/5 with their dual pixel approach and maybe partly the D3 NIkon have adressed this frequent complaint.

I have not enough tech. insight to understand why the 33MP and 39MP MF backs with their equally high pixel density manage to keep the DR as high as they do. Maybe it is better AD converters and high quality components, but I'd certainly like to see a DSLR with true 12 stops of DR and subtle deep colours like the MF backs have it....

As long as it has 14MP I will be happy...

Maybe the introduction of new - non- BAyer - types of sensors will do the trick, whatever, but I dount that more pixels on small sensor will improve anything.

regards
bernie

Probably the wisest comment in this discussion but while I continue to gather information, I will speculate anyway!

To Bernard, I do see at least one other persistent role for 24x36mm format: for anyone whose needs extreme low light/high shutter speed performance enough to carry and use monster super-telephotos like the ones on the sidelines of sporting events and in some bird-watching hides. Aslo perhaps for extremes of detail (pixel count), though the constraints of resolution/DOF trade-offs in aperture choice will mitigate that advantage over smaller SLR formats if small pixel DR can be improved enough.

As to speculation about a compact range-finder (non-SLR) camera and lens system using 4/3 format sensors, (maybe made by Panasonic, branded Leica):
backward compatibility with existing 4/3 SLR lenses could be provided easily enough through a mount adaptor since the new mount would be closer to the focal plane. (All other SLR lenses could be used with adaptors too). And the new more compact lenses would only be needed at short focal lengths; roughly, for wide-angles.

Maybe future good LiveView and improved contrast detection AF and/or a new type of range-finder AF mechanism could make this work: IR laser range-finders?

I'm no particular fan of FF, but I can see advantages. Photojournalists and those with a yen for wide fast lenses - F1.4 say - will go for FF as there are no equivalents in APS land. And anyone wanting a compact camera with a wide prime lens will go for FF once the size and weight come down. Those with high ISO leanings such as concert photographers might go FF, unless APS can cut the mustard.

Wasn't it MR who wrote somewhere that many pros are losing their faith in Canon FF cameras and going back to MF, but digital this time round, presumably because the 35mm lenses just are not up to the demands of the sensors? Surely a 35mm sensor with MF lenses would do the job, though I suppose the market would be small, and the development costs high.

That's why I'm waiting for the Sony A900. Sony is in a unique position in that they are developing new lenses for digital with Zeiss on board. These Zeiss FF lenses are very, very sharp compared to Canon/Nikon.

Again, 4/3 is not a "small-sensor" system any more than DX is a "small-sensor" system. See a size comparison here. The difference between 4/3 and APS-C is minute; the difference between APS-C and 35mm is vast. If DX can have performance so close to a sensor so much larger, does it make sense that the slightly smaller 4/3 sensor would be so hobbled against DX?

I really feel that the main issue with 4/3 sensors is Panasonic. So far, their sensors exhibit slightly higher noise and slightly less dynamic range than their competitors, about a generation behind the sensors from canon and sony. I fully believe that canon or sony could, with their technology, create a 10mp 4/3 sensor with performance indistinguishable from their own 12mp APS-C sensors, with approximately the same vertical resolution, and just some pixels clipped off the sides due to the different aspect ratio. Sensor size really isn't the limiting factor here. When panasonic catches up (if they ever do) or another manufacturer enters the system, there won't be a real difference. Of course, APS-C will keep advancing as well, so 4/3 may never reach the exact same performance unless a plateau is reached, but at the least they'll outperform today's best crop-sensor offerings.

Medium format would probably be tempting for a lot of pros using FF if it weren't for the slow, enresponsive bodies and high ISO noise. Sure, a 39mp back on a Hassy H3D can give you much better end image quality than a Canon 1Ds, but you can't measure the quality of an image that doesn't exist due to a lack of responsiveness. That's the main advantage FF currently has over MF, in my eyes.

Hi Bernard.
As you said:

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/i...645d/index.html

Cheers

Speculation is the most satisfying application of the mind.

Photography has a lot to do with speculation. Even the best "planned" shot has a surprise moment, and photography truly becomes interesting when you leave the soil of assured experience and explore new ideas.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Sony - Nikon relationship.

Sony produces cameras, Nikon produces cameras, but only Sony produces sensors (of these two).

I wonder if Sony wouldn't just delay to give the latest and best to its competitor Nikon.

Regarding the A900, I hope they put an LCD display on top. I hate it, when higher end cameras have no top display, like the A700.

Well, the difference between Dx (Nikon) and 4/3ds is not "minute" - The surface of 4/3 is only 65% of the surface that Dx has - simply do the calculation, it is easy. At a time where 35mm FF starts to become the new standard for high quality, 4/3ds is closed into it's small format forever...

So far all 4/3ds cameras were not up to the quality of the Dx cameras that came out at the same time, let alone larger formats.

And I still believe that it was a mistake of Oly not to buiild upon their 35mm system. 4/3ds will never be more than a niche system, and will never be accepted by the majority of pros.

regards
Bernie

In areas other than pure image quality, several 4/3 cameras have indeed been up to the quality of their DX peers. At the entry level there's really nothing in the right price range to compete with the E-410, and the closest camera in price, the Nikon D40, is a nice camera but really doesn't compare. It may have slightly lower high ISO noise, but the E-410 resolves considerably more detail and provides the user much greater control, as well as being smaller, lighter, and better built. Some working photographers have also switched from the Canon 40D or Nikon D300 to the E-3 (a few have gone the other way, as well). Certainly different cameras are going to have more appeal to different people, but this seems to imply that there was no percieved "inferiority" in comparison to the contemporary DX models.

DX will likely always have an edge in high ISO noise, just as FF will always have an edge over DX. But to say that this has caused all 4/3 cameras to be "not up to the quality" of contemporary DX cameras seems a little off. There's more to a camera than sensor size.

The decision not to work on their 35mm system may have locked Olympus into a niche market that will only appeal to some, but it has allowed them to produce some fantastic optics, and there will be many who will choose them because that's more important to them than 2/3 stop high-ISO noise (the difference demonstrated in RAW files so far).

One key issue with a camera, apart from image quality, is how it handles.

How good is the viewfinder?

Smaller size sensor cameras usually have a narrower viewfinder.

Sure, you can build a bigger viewfinder, but this makes the whole camera bigger, and why not put the biggest possible sensor into the camera?

For some lighter lenses may be attractive.

I personally don't care if it weighs a bit more.

I just bought a DX camera and an expensive lens for it. I'm happy with it. But it doesn't mean I have to stay with the format forever.

Currently, the price difference of FF and DX is a big one.

A FF camera costs twice to three times what a DX camera costs. FF is new, the bigger sensors are more expensive.

But the price differences of FF and DX will get smaller. And I don't think a FF lens is much more expensive to build than a DX lens.

There is a top LCD. Here is a pic of the top of the camera.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3292/234622...9c83a7bdc_o.jpg

Just so you know, the LCD is correct but the digits are fake in the above posting. The lens is the CZ 24-70 f2.8.

I thought that at first, too. However, the other icons may indicate that it's showing the WB at 2000K and the Exposure comp at 1.8??

The Nikon D700 has made it a full frame summer.

With all those FF cameras about to be presented: I guess the real battle will take place about the lenses.

If there are enough high resolution lenses (and sharp!) for the high megapixel full frame sensors.

That's what Sony seems to be addressing. The 70-300G and Zeiss 24-70 they released this year are razors, and there is a Zeiss wide angle zoom and two Zeiss primes coming, along with some new long stuff. My 24-70 is insane. I keep checking in disbelief as it outdoes any primes I have in the range, similar to how the Nikon 14-24 behaves.

Sorry to keep chiming in about Sony. I guess I'm one of the few Alpha mount users here