Canon 1Ds Mark IV?

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>"What's the resolving power of a human eye?"</p>

<p>Roughly one megapixel. This is for the case that you do not move. Of course you can go closer and look at details, but this is just like stitching together several images.<br>

Therefore, in theory if you could guarantee a certain viewing distance 1-2 megapixels would be enough. The additional pixels allow us to get closer to the image and look at details or to crop away unwanted parts of the image and still preserve a certain resolution.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>Another possibility for the next big Canon would be a 36 x 36 square sensor, since that could still fit inside the image circle of existing EOS lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ahem...Not that this is important or anything...<br>

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/0/9/00922fdfae8fc68c7adc754af245d9d3.png" alt="a^2 + b^2 = c^2.\,\!" /> Thus 24*24 + 36*36 = 1872 (576 + 1296) which comes to the r value for the circle to roughly 21.75 mm. Now, for the 36x36 mm frame that value would be (square root of 1296 *2)/2 or approx. 25.4 mm.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_reichman]

<p>I hope it has fewer megapixels!</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

 

<p><em>"What's the resolving power of a human eye?"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

<em><strong>"Roughly one megapixel. This is for the case that you do not move. Of course you can go closer and look at details, but this is just like stitching together several images.<br />Therefore, in theory if you could guarantee a certain viewing distance 1-2 megapixels would be enough. The additional pixels allow us to get closer to the image and look at details or to crop away unwanted parts of the image and still preserve a certain resolution."</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

So how come I can clearly tell the difference between a 1 megapixel A3 print and a 10 megapixel A3 print?</p>

 

[ottogi]

<p>Look at your print and don't move your eyes; can you see the whole of it? If not, move further away; do you still need to move your eyes to look at it? move again, and then again! When you're done, can you still tell the difference between the two prints?<br>

So the question should be: "Standing 3m away, can you still tell the difference between a 1 megapixel and a 10 megapixel print?"</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>You know why it wont be bigger than 25mp? Lenses and see below! Canon can't afford to alienate their customer base with yet another incompatible lens range. Why do you think Nikon has yet to release the meduim format MX? Lenses again. Google "Nikon MX" to see.<br>

My bet is it will have a software enhanced 25mp chip, be much easier to use, have a massive LCD and come in a smaller and more manageable form factor. Many pros are buying D700's if they don't need frame rate, and putting an MB D10 on if they do. Canon pro shooters too...they love the D40/50 for that. Why carry 3kg when you can carry 1.5kg? The other factor with pros is very important: The newspapers and magazines have now put a limit on file resolution....300dpi. That means file sizes even smaller than the smallest Jpeg most top end cameras can produce. So whats the point in having a 20+mb image when you have to prune it down so much? Thats just more work and delay getting your shots back to the image editors. Pros and media corporates buy the top end camera for ruggedness, weather proofing, durability, lens range, big viewfinder, and in the D3's case, dual CF cards. Resolution is not important. Interesting, that one. Don't believe me? Go onto Reuters website and see the Ts & Cs for yourself. How many shots in a newspaper are large? How big can you go for a full page shot in Vanity Fair? A4. When was the last time you made a print bigger than A3? <br>

How close do you look at an A2 print in a gallery? 1 metre? I defy anyone to tell the difference even at that size between a 10mp and 20mb image. What you might see though, are lens flaws. Already we have 5D2 owners complaining that they are seeing lens flaws in prints from some of the L series lenses. People are buying primes again. Where does that problem get us back to then?....1998. It was about then that processed film resolution was showing up some popular pro lenses. All thats happened with all this technology is we now have an much easier but much more expensive way to take a photo of the same quality (resolution) produced in the 1990s. Yay!<br>

How do I know orders are down for the 1Dxx? Two reasons: My family owns one of Canons biggest outlets and believe me, all the top end sales right now have an N on them. The other reason is this...next time you see a picture of a press conference, see for yourself. And its not good if you are biased and like winning arguments. Me...I don't care. My loyalty goes to the brand that gives me what I need for a good price.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"Ahem...Not that this is important or anything...<br /> <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/0/9/00922fdfae8fc68c7adc754af245d9d3.png" alt="a^2 + b^2 = c^2.\,\!" /> Thus 24*24 + 36*36 = 1872 (576 + 1296) which comes to the r value for the circle to roughly 21.75 mm. Now, for the 36x36 mm frame that value would be (square root of 1296 *2)/2 or approx. 25.4 mm." --Michael Liczbanski</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, Michael. Thank you, and, yes, it is darned important. Where was my mind?</p>

<p>Of course, we could solve it for the square format and the radius that would work, but that would mean downsizing the long dimension substantially, from 36mm to something over 30mm--probably not a good marketing ploy.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>Regarding form factor and using full frame lenses, one could go to a square format with a 30.6X30.6mm sensor and still have the same diagonal as a 24X36mm sensor. This would allow the use of the same lenses as a full frame sensor.</p>

<p>Maybe even better would be a 3X4 or 4X5 form factor with a diagonal matching that of a 24X36mm sensor.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"How do I know orders are down for the 1Dxx? Two reasons: My family owns one of Canons biggest outlets and believe me, all the top end sales right now have an N on them. The other reason is this...next time you see a picture of a press conference, see for yourself." --Stephen Asprey</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is good reason that Nikon is selling better at the top end--the D3X v. the 1Ds III. The Nikon is simply better. I shoot Canon but the side-by-side comparisons of those two on the review of the D3X on dpreview.com show clearly the superiority of the image quality of the D3X--and it is not all about improved resolution by virtue of having 24.5 MP v. 21 MP. The Nikon is simply doing a better job all the way around, and that includes everything from better results at high ISO to JPEGs that are almost indistinguishable from RAWs.</p>

<p>This is the reason that I think that Canon, from a marketing perspective, has to come through with a pretty quick response to the D3X--and thus speculations about the when and what of the inevitable Canon 1Ds Mark IV.</p>

<p>At other levels, however, the picture is less clear (no pun intended). The Canon 5D II is a wonderful camera that has the image quality of the 1Ds III (if not a bit better) and very nearly the low light capabilities of the Nikon D3 and D700. It is not better at either the 12 MP end or the 20+ MP end, but it is very, very, very good at both, and nobody else is doing that right now, much less for $2700. It lags significantly only in fps.</p>

<p>Now, if you could bump up the MPs a good bit, weatherproof it better, have it shoot faster fps, and tweak it a bit more with regard to high ISO shooting, then you would have what the Canon 1Ds Mark IV has to come through with, in my opinion to show dominance at the top end--not a trivial consideration in terms of re-establishing the<em> image</em> of being the best maker of DSLRs, and image and reputation are everything where marketing is concerned.</p>

<p>As if Nikon were sitting back and doing nothing right now. . . .</p>

<p>We're all better off for the competition, in any case, regardless of who is leap-frogging whom at the moment in this or that category.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[paulie_smith]

<p>"Winter Olympics and that's always a great event to get your newest baby into the hands of the sport guys".<br>

Canon will have a tough time getting some to use a brand new, untried camera at the olympics because of the known problems that have plagued the 1DMkIII and its autofocus. I hope whatever they come out with will have these problems solved completely. Would love to get one if they do AF without problems. The promise is there and failure to deliver a reliable product has Nikon sales going pretty well these days in the photojournalism market. Sidelines have turned from mainly big white lenses to a 50/50 mix these days. If Canon doesn't get it right soon the mix will change further in favor of Nikon.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"Maybe even better would be a 3X4 or 4X5 form factor with a diagonal matching that of a 24X36mm sensor." --Alan Rockwood.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point, Alan. How did 3x2 ever get to be the standard? If it were so pleasing, why would we be cropping most everything to our standard frame sizes (5x7, 8x10, etc.?</p>

<p>Maybe it is time for rethinking what a "standard format" should be. Olympus <em>et al. </em> have been doing it for years. I have personally never been particularly enamored of the 3 x 2 aspect ratio--and it certainly is wasteful of the data that is to be found in the image circle.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>The image circle is round, why not have a round sensor? :-)</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

<p>I think that Canon, from a marketing perspective, has to come through with a pretty quick response to the D3X.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There aren't a lot of people - not even Nikon partisans like Mr. Asprey - who would say the D3x is head and shoulders ahead of the 1DsIII. I agree that it's Canon's "turn" to introduce a top of the line DSLR, but that's a matter of product cycles, not a need to "catch up" with the D3x, which is more realistically viewed as a move to "catch up" with the 1DsIII.</p>

<p>Which company was first with a FF DSLR, Nikon or Canon?<br>

Which company was first with a sub-$3000 FF DSLR, Nikon or Canon?<br>

Which company was the first with a FF DSLR over 20 megapixels, Nikon or Canon?<br>

Which company was the first with a 20mp DSLR under $3000, Nikon or Canon?<br>

Which company was the first to offer 1080p video on a FF camera, Nikon or Canon?<br>

Which company will be the first to introduce a top-of-the-line, professional 20mp-plus DSLR with video, Nikon or Canon? My money's on Canon.</p>

<p>For every Canon user fretting about Nikon's marketing "edge," there's a Nikon user fretting about Canon's "edge." This thread could very easily be in the Nikon forum, voicing a complaint about how slow Nikon is to come out with an affordable 20mp-plus camera (the long-awaited D700x). Don't think Nikon's not working on it; the question is whether they can give it a 20mp-plus sensor and video and still price it competitively with the 5DII. It's not going to be easy unless Nikon is willing to give a little something on build quality the way Canon has chosen to do. The fact that retailers like B&H <em>STILL </em> can't keep the 5DII in stock<strong> <em>four months after it started shipping</em> </strong> suggests that Canon's strategy in designing the 5DII wasn't a total failure!</p>

<p>Of course, any Canon users who think Nikon has better options can switch whenever they want to; last time I checked, used Canon lenses were selling used for 80-90% of their new price, so there's no financial reason <em>not </em> to jump. The fact that plenty of photographers are happy with Canon (see end of previous paragraph) suggests that threads like this reflect a personal impatience more than a market reality.</p>

<p>Nikon's and Canon's offerings are like an endless volley in a tennis match; one hits it over the net, then the other hits it back, then the first returns the volley, and on and on. You can't point to just one shot and say "Ooh, what about <em>that</em> ?" when it's clear that both sides are doing very well and will keep playing solidly, thank you.</p>

<p> </p>

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

<p>I have personally never been particularly enamored of the 3 x 2 aspect ratio--and it certainly is wasteful of the data that is to be found in the image circle.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As Matthias notes, the only thing substantially less "wasteful" than a 3:2 rectangle would be a circular sensor. Any <strong>rectangle </strong> (including a square) within an image circle of a given size is going to "waste" roughly the same amount of data.</p>

<p>True, a square is the most "efficient" rectangle to put into a circle - although it uses only about 5-6% more of the data in the image circle when compared to 3:2 rectangle - and every couple of weeks someone in these forums proposes square sensors.</p>

<p>But that 5-6% greater area than 3:2 isn't enough to persuade manufacturers--or most buyers: a square sensor would likely appeal to a relatively small minority of photographers, just as square film-formats did.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"Which company was first with a FF DSLR, Nikon or Canon?<br /> Which company was first with a sub-$3000 FF DSLR, Nikon or Canon?<br /> Which company was the first with a FF DSLR over 20 megapixels, Nikon or Canon?<br /> Which company was the first with a 20mp DSLR under $3000, Nikon or Canon?<br /> Which company was the first to offer 1080p video on a FF camera, Nikon or Canon?" --Ralph Jensen</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree in large part, Ralph, but the momentum has surely shifted in certain areas to Nikon--thus your above questions are in the past tense.</p>

<p>I do think that the 5DII is still the story of the day (although I am personally getting a bit tired of reading about it), and it is a real money-maker for Canon--not to mention the best buy out there, as well as being the most versatile camera.</p>

<p>As for impatience, I'm not at all impatient to lay out $8,000 for either high-end camera. It is precisely because I see no point in selling off my Canon lenses and buying comparable Nikon lenses that I will hang with Canon, however, not because one is clearly better than the other at this point in all categories.</p>

<p>This thread was directed toward the high end of the market for both brands, but especially Canon. Why? I don't know. I guess that it is because I expect Canon to be coming out with a sequel to the 1Ds III pretty soon (i.e., within a year, conceivably sooner).</p>

<p>I would not be at all surprised to see Canon follow up the 1D III (not the 1Ds III) with its next major offering. There is high product visibility when so many journalists and sports shooters are shooting black lenses, and success in this business is more than about technology. It is about marketing, and marketing is overwhelmingly about image. The image of so many Nikon shooters at highly visible events is not good advertising for Canon but is wonderful for Nikon.</p>

<p>As for aspect ratio, my primary objection is aesthetic. I mentioned the waste as an after thought.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I hope whatever they come out with will have these problems solved completely.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> What is your experience with these problems? After the latest fix, I shot professional fights, AI servo, 2200 shots, about 10 that were out of focus. So tell us your experience, especially after the latest fix.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Jeff, perhaps Paulie spoke as a Canon fan rather than as a user with those words.</p>

<p>As you know, the camera's sales never recovered from the negative publicity. Publicity can be like that.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>The other reason is this...next time you see a picture of a press conference, see for yourself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I just came back from one and guess what, most shooters (say, 75%) are still firmly Canon - it ain't any irrefutable evidence but I see it every day. Various Nikon boxes are visable, too, but 1D3 is still the camera of choice.<br>

Afterwards I went to walk around the main attraction of Washington D.C. at the moment, blooming cherry trees, to watch Japanese tourists photographing other Japanese tourists and themselves with DSLR cameras, mostly Canons BTW, mounted on tripods. Not that I pay special attention to photographers in the wild but the cherry tree festival in in D.C. are one of the most photographed events in the world and everybody there seemed to have a camera: cell phone cameras, digital P&S and a lot of DSLRs. And I must say that the number of gold/black straps (Nikon) was almost as high as the number of Canon-issue ones and I even saw one or two Sony DSLR. As usual I got complemented a lot on my camera of choice for such shooting - Sigma DP1 body adorned with Hello Kitty stickers (so I can always shoot where no "serious" cameras are allowed :-)))</p>

<blockquote>

<p>brand loyalty</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've got none (well, I've been really loyal to Mamiya...) but I'll swtch to "Nikon" only if their entire system, including support, consistently outperforms Canon by a country mile: I will not be sucked into "a few megapixels here, 1 f/stop there" game which seems to repeat itself every few months.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>Why would you like to have more megapixels when there is no glass available that would resolve high enough?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Glass that "will resolve high enough" for a 50D will be even better on an anticipated higher MP FF body.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>But that 5-6% greater area than 3:2 isn't enough to persuade manufacturers--or most buyers: a square sensor would likely appeal to a relatively small minority of photographers, just as square film-formats did.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it would at least negate the need for that ridiculous double brick design that these 'pro' canon and nikon cameras have. throw some nice smallish prime lenses on a the smaller body, and now we are getting back to a normal size.</p>

 

[richard_wang11]

<p>OK I'll bite.<br /> <br /> Here's my prediction - The next pro body that Canon will produce won't be a DSLR but will be a Hybrid Camera.<br /> <br /> Hybrid cameras are capable of taking of taking Super HD video and high mp stills.<br /> <br /> It's competition won't be the D3/D3x but will be against cameras like the Red Scarlet.<br /> <br /> Here are my reasons why:<br /> <br /> 1. As sensor size and memory capacity become larger and larger, it becomes easier to have super high quality video captures.<br /> 2. Canon is already a major player in the pro-level video cam market. Look at their XH H1s.<br /> 3. There is already on the market consumer level HD cameras that can take relatively high mp still. The Sony HDR-SR 11 produces 5.66 mp stills. My old 1DmkII was 8 mp.<br /> 4. There is greater demand from editors and clients for pro photogs to take both video and stills.<br /> 5. Look at the 5DmkII. Canon is known for introducting new tech in their consumer/prosumer equipment before introducing it in their pro equipment. There are problems with the 5DmkII but image stablization had problems at first also.<br /> _______<br>

If Canon does produce a pro-level hybrid camera, it will completely leap frog Nikon. Nikon doesn't have the resources to develop and produce a hybrid camera. Perhaps that's why Nikon is developing the Mx.<br>

Canon's only competition then will be from Sony.</p>

[bryan_lardizabal]

<p>And the lemmings continue on and on..........</p>

[dan_south]

<p>A week or so ago someone posted a similar topic on the Nikon forum. They were speculating as to what feaures a D700x might have. That thread was immediately locked and disregarded as unfit for the site, yet this 1DsMkIV discussion has raged on for days.</p>

<p>This finally answers the age-old question. Nostradamus used Canon.</p>

<p>:)</p>

 

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I wonder what the marketing people at Canon and Nikon think of all this? Would we all be so reactive if these cameras were A$800, not A$12,350 (yes folks...that's list for a D3x here in OZ ...the 1D is almost the same). I doubt it. So is it really about justifying our buying decisions of the past? Probably. My hesitant concern is that Canon will fill up the replacement with all these useless gimmicky features and not address enough of the deficiencies in the existing model. The Japanese love spec sheets that are endlessly long and they think that creates superiority. I'd like to think we are more objective and discerning. Something as seemingly great as live view and in-camera editing which is almost as complicated as Photoshop, are unwanted by the majority of 1D and D3 buyers. News and sports pros want to look through a viewfinder, and they just glance at the screen to see that they got the shot. Then whip in another CF card when the old one is getting full. They then dump the images and fire them off to the office using Idruna or something similar. Its not uncommon for news pros to shoot off 3-5000 images a day. Most just have thumbnails on the LCD. A bigger and brighter LCD means more thumbnails. These cameras are built for speed and durability. At my daughter-in-laws newspaper photo editing office, the rule is vanilla sRGB, Jpeg small, with neutral settings for sharpening and saturation. All these adjustments are done by others and only to the handful of shots that make consideration.<br>

If we however, are talking portrait and landscape, then these are not the primary cameras used by the pros. Its a different set of requirements. What camera does our premier portrait studio use? Phase One. What camera do our three premier landscape photographers use? Linhoff. Trying to make a 1D or D3 do everything is falling for a marketing catch all and, Bryan, Dan yes...you are correct...the lemmings fall for it every time.<br>

Its enough of a discussion for me.</p>

<p> </p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Well said Stephen. It begs the question...."what is the core market for these high end small format cameras"? </p>