Canon 1Ds Mark IV?

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

<p>Stephen Asprey wrote: "Watch out...Ralph is back. Nice lack of respect, Ralph...just demonstrates ignorance. And <strong>you want to be regarded as a peer?"</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>"Lack of respect?"</em> What on earth did I say that was "disrespectful"? Reread my post: I was talking about <em>cameras! </em> Or is the implication that you are supposed to be a god before whom the rest of us should bow? <em></em></p>

<p><em>"And you want to be regarded as a peer?"</em> Of you? You're kidding, right?</p>

<p>Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by that quote I copied above. Has someone designated you the judge of who is qualified as a "peer" to comment here in response to the "leaders" of this thread (presumably you)? Do you mean that we're supposed to fawn over you because you're a bigshot attorney in Australia or your relatives have a Nikon shop or whatever you want us to believe?</p>

<p>Sorry, <em>this is a camera forum</em> <strong> </strong> - non-photographic experience and credentials are irrelevant here - and, I might add, about 80%-90% of the posts in this thread are closer to my perspective than yours. I'm sure the lack of support for your arguments isn't very reassuring, but that's no reason to take it out on me.</p>

<p>Stephen, <strong>I know you've said in the past that you don't like Canon users and you only come to this forum to irritate them, not to shed any light on the discussion.</strong> I must say that you are ably filling all of those goals with each of your completely forgettable contributions; your Nikon fanboy side is impossible to hide. By your fruits you are becoming known here, unfortunately for you.</p>

<p>G'day, as we say in the US; I'll not be checking back into this pointless thread again, so you can be as condescending toward me as you wish without fear of response.</p>

<p> </p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>(...) the 1D is almost the same (...)<br>

(...) News and sports pros want to(...)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you aware that this thread is about 1Ds - a camera that's most definitely not a choice of sports and news shooters..?</p>

[alec_myers]

<p>"one could go to a square format with a 30.6X30.6mm sensor and still have the same diagonal as a 24X36mm sensor."</p>

<p><br /><br /> One *could* do that, but you're all forgetting that the reflex mirror suitable for a 30x30mm sensor won't fit between the flange and sensor for any of the existing EF-series lenses; it would strike the back of the lens on the way up. If you move the lens further away without a redesign then wave bye-bye to your infinity focus.</p>

[clark_hecker]

<p>Amusingly, everyone fixates excessively on pixel count. Whereas this is one measure of quality, it is far from the only one. What about greater input dynamic range (bit depth?) This is an area where digital still lags behind film, and there is a lot of room for improvement here without worrying about running up against optical limits. Present sensors only have 12 bits per channel. A dual- or triple-layer sensor could push that to 24 or 36 bpc, which would be oh-so-helpful with those into-the-sun shots where multi-frame HDR is now the only game in town. Could they surprise us with a bold move in this direction? That would be a lot more noteworthy than just cramming more sensels on a single-layer chip.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"A dual- or triple-layer sensor could push that to 24 or 36 bpc, which would be oh-so-helpful with those into-the-sun shots where multi-frame HDR is now the only game in town. Could they surprise us with a bold move in this direction? That would be a lot more noteworthy than just cramming more sensels on a single-layer chip." --Clark Hecker</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps some real breakthroughs might come in in-camera processing as well. That is, we also tend to speak as if hardware solutions are the only likelihood if we are get more data onto (and out of) 24x36 sensors. Maybe the software solutions are the ones that will give us the really nice surprises--but I do think that there will be some nice surprises to come, whether we see them from Canon, Nikon, Sony, or whoever else might come up with them.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>"One *could* do that, but you're all forgetting that the reflex mirror suitable for a 30x30mm sensor won't fit between the flange and sensor for any of the existing EF-series lenses; it would strike the back of the lens on the way up. If you move the lens further away without a redesign then wave bye-bye to your infinity focus."</p>

<p>Another possibility is to design the slr with something I would call an ariculated mirror. I think others have called it that as well. The mirror would not swing on a simple pivot, but would be supported by a more complicated linkage and swing in a more complicated motion. I believe the Norita medium format SLR used this approach, though I don't know the details.</p>

<p>Another mechanical approach would be a dropping mirror rather than a swinging mirror. In this case one would probably need to add a curtain that would cover the mirror during exposure in order to avoid flare on the sensor.</p>

<p>Another approach would be to make a camera similar to the Panasonic G1 but using Canon lenses. With no mirror to worry about there is a lot of design freedom one could take advantage of.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>You could also use a semi-reflective mirror that does not need to move at all. This would allow even higher frame rates but it would also cost about half an f-stop of light.</p>

[keith reeder]

<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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Uuummm...</p>

<p>With questions that begin "Which company <em>was</em> first..." don't the answers <em>have to be</em> past tense, Lannie?</p>

<p>;0)</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?<br /> --Ralph Jensen</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>With questions that begin "Which company <em>was</em> first..." don't the answers <em>have to be</em> past tense, Lannie? --Keith Reeder</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't realize that that was the question, Keith. I didn't ask it. Did Ralph? Perhaps so, although I do not see it. In any case, I don't believe that the fact that Canon was so far ahead with FF DSLR's tells us anything at all about what is coming next. Still, the way Nikon has responded to Canon's earlier forays into FF DSLRs has to be of some concern to Canon, I believe--if only for the prestige value of having the biggest and best. Why is that relevant when most persons will not buy at the top end? I think that it is because that a brand's reputation often depends on its very best model, even if most of us will not be using that model (or at least not anytime soon).</p>

<p>What Ralph is also saying is that the Nikon D3X is hardly head and shoulders above the Canon IDs Mark III, with which I would agree. Again, although there is near parity, Nikon has with the D3X for the first time pulled ahead in FF DSLRs, unless one counts the smaller, faster FF DSLRs (D3, D700) by Nikon which do indeed shoot fast and with low noise at high ISO. I am not predicting that it will stay ahead. In fact, I imagine that the lead will tend to shift back and forth. I do believe that Canon will try to regain the initiative with its top-end FF DSLR, and I am calling it the "Canon 1Ds Mark IV" for lack of a better designation. Canon might break entirely with the past and give us an entirely new format, but, assuming that Canon does not do so, what is likely to happen next?</p>

<p>I think that we inevitably keep coming back to the megapixel question, even though it is hardly the only relevant question. By this I mean, "At what point does one begin to get diminishing returns with more megapixels on a 24x36 sensor?" Those who tout the speed and low-light capabilities of the D3 and D700 would say that we have long since reached that point of diminishing returns.</p>

<p>To that I can only say that I am not so sure. (It depends on the type of photography that one does.) In any case, I am still hoping that <em>quite a few</em> (read "forty or so") megapixels can be profitably stuffed onto a 24x36 sensor. That can only occur, however, if there are more breakthroughs in in-camera processing, in my opinion, barring some radical new redesign of the sensors themselves, which is also a possibility.</p>

<p>I am less concerned with trying to predict that Canon will outdo Nikon (or vice versa) than to simply ask, "What does the near future hold for Canon FF DSLRs?" The reason for my focus is pretty simple: I shoot Canon and have only a couple of classic Nikon lenses left at this point. What Nikon will do is an interesting question, but it is not my question.</p>

<p>As an aside, I have to say that at this point the Canon 5D II looks like a pretty darned good compromise which gives a lot of megapixels (not the most) and very good (not the very best) performance in low light with high ISOs. Since no camera can do it all, I am impressed by the extent to which the 5D II very nearly does precisely that--again, at this point.</p>

<p>I still can't wait to see what Canon comes out with at the high end, the IDs Mark IV, even though technology at that level will be out of my financial reach for some time to come.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I do anticipate (read that as: HOPE) that they will move to a square sensor as large as the EF lenses will allow (no I don't care how many tenths of a mm).<br>

That would be wicked kewl!</p>

[mpolfer]

<p>To some degree the megapixel showdown is moot. The next big meaningful advances in digital will be in dynamic range. No real evidence to support my claim but either way...... you heard it here first.<br>

Michael</p>

[aaron d]

<p>Here's my prediction: multi-exposed shots like Hasselblad is already doing, to eliminate Bayer interpolation. It's a "studio" camera, ya know. And I vote for a 3:4 aspect ratio. OR even better, a 3:4-to-square toggle button!</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>Regarding resolution - 6 MPixel.org has some information about the maximum useful resolution for different sensor sizes: http://6mpixel.org/en/?page_id=32<br>

Regarding this information there is quite some room left for FF sensors but for crop sensors the limit is close ahead. This is only considering the sensor and ignoring the fact that you also need the appropriate glass to use all those pixels.</p>

[madza_zulu]

<p>Yes, it's coming.....rejoice rejoice :D</p>

<p>http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/04/1d-mark-iv-2/</p>

[bernard the amateur]

<p>Regarding square sensors - take a look on the back of some of the lenses out there - like the 135mm f/2L - a larger image circle wouldn't be possible due to the rectangular shape of the area around the rear element of the lens, so square sensors wouldn't work. WA lenses like the 16-35 also have other issues, including the shape of the lens hood, that would preclude going to a square sensor. <br>

Square sensors would also mean a redesign of many popular lenses and lens accessories. <br>

It's a nice thought, though, as you could keep your 3:2 or 4:3 or whatever ratio you wanted, and you could digitally switch from horizontal to vertical.. that would be cool, but I just don't see it happening any time soon.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>The future in dSLRs is definitely about (1) better signal:noise ratio at a given pixel density; (2) improved color rendition with wider dynamic range; (3) faster contrast detection AF; (3) algorithmic, in-camera approaches to HDR, focus bracketing, and panoramic shooting.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>Apparently I can't count to 4. 1, 2, 3, 3,.... Hmm.... :P</p>