1D Mark 4 Announcement [CR2]
October 3rd, 2009 Posted in Canon 1D Mark 4
Not October
One of my better sources of information has finally let me know what’s going on with the 1D4 announcement.
The magical date? The “end of January”.
This was also corroborated by a few other sources.
This is not a hard release timeframe, if issues arise with the camera, it could be delayed. No press conference or official showing has been set yet.
Specs [CR1] (the consensus from various places)
16mp
12fps
1.3x (APS-H)
1080p Video (24p/25p 30p 60p)
Apparently this camera is the most locked down product in Canon’s history as far as who really know what’s going on with it.
cr
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
great! just get it RIGHT this time canon;) dont rush it
Reply
regular Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Based on what everybody observed during the last 2-3 years, it seems Canon does not have the R&D resources to design perfectly working cameras and have 2-3 body releases per year.
IMHO, the pro line-up should be merged back in a SINGLE, carefully designed and perfectly tested, FF body camera.
Canon, take your time, because now is you last chance to release a digital counterpart of the EOS 1v.
Reply
Paul Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Or else?
Reply
Joe J Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 9:23 am
AMEN
Reply
Zac Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I think there is a necessary dichotomy with the 1D and 1Ds bodies, since one sensor with lower resolution allows for less noise and higher framerate, while another high-res body is preferable to other shooters, I do think that the cameras should be identical except for the sensor, and that many technologies need to be shared, instead of wasting R&D with lots of very different models that are released too quickly.
they definitely do need to take their time, if the both the 1D IV they’re going to lose a LOT of market share, possibly including myself
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I rather a company get it right than rush something just for the sake of schedules.
I however need an “S” for the 1Ds4! That is what I am waitying for…
M
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
as my name says i’m patiently…..
Yes get it right please ;o)
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I guess I’ll just use my 7D and see what happens. Eventually, I’ll go for the MK IV, if the price doesn’t jump to $7,000.
Reply
John Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
you’ll get what you get shut up allready pussy winers
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Well, will wait and see.
Got burnt with my 7D, focus issue (reminds me of a bad story with focus issue…) seems like the bigger rectangle doesn’t work, only the pinpoint (smallest one in the center of the bigger rectangle). Will get a refund and wait for something else.
Reply
chicken, little Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Please do elaborate.
Reply
Rox Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
My 7D has a focus issue. Only Spot AF will give sharp image. All the other mode are not consistent. My test was to choose a static subject. Nothing fancy. The Spot AF worked pretty well, the other AF mode gave me blurry subject. It’s worst with longer focal range. I did the test with different subject, different lightning condition, different lenses (5 L lenses) and different aperture.
Reply
Michal Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I honestly doubt it, unless you have a very bad copy of the camera it sounds more like an operator error, especially that you mention “it’s worst with longer focal range”, more likely you get blurry pictures shooting with slow shutter. Please post those pics, complete with EXIF data.
Reply
Rox Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Download the 2 pics (Large fine jpg straight from the camera). Both with the same 100-400mm L with IS on, with a tripod. Compare the blue jays at 100%. Guess which one was with Spot AF and the other one with the Single Point AF. I have dozens of example like this with different lenses.
http://gallery.me.com/roxanlemire#100370&view=grid&bgcolor=black&sel=1
I hope it’s an operator error, but I doubt it. I’m shooting digital SLR since 2003 and never had such issue before.
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Well, you are not supposed to use IS on a tripod, that’s the user error right there. For a fair test IS should be off with it mounted on a tripod.
Reply
Rox Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Nice try. I understand it’s better not but it won’t explain why the camera did a front focus almost every shot i’m not using Spot AF… Even with no IS. Same issue with 24-105, 16-35 II, 35mm F1.4, 85mm F1.2 and 70-200 F2.8.
I can’t see that all this could be explained by a tripod vs IS issue…
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I’m only going off your words here. You said you used it with IS on, now you’re saying it is off. It is a known fact IS on a tripod can throw off the focus off on certain lenses. So your testing on a tripod should all be IS off or your testing is meaningless.
Either you are misusing the AF modes or your camera is defective. No one else is having this problem on the 7D. I’ve played with it myself, and have two friends with the camera and they are quite impressed with the AF and how accurate it is.
Reply
Rox Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
We concluded that i have a defective camera. I know someone who has the same issue with his 7D.
I said that the 2 pics were on tripod with IS on. My other was that within my 250 test shots, some were with IS off and with lenses without IS and still the same result. Even my 5DII focus better…
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Hope you get it fixed.
Reply
Joe Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
You’re sure you don’t have it disabled in the custom functions right?
Reply
Rox Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 pm
What do you mean ? Disable focus point ? I’ve only used the center one in my test.
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
at the end of OCTOBER FOR SURE
Reply
Doctor Doom Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:31 pm
No, everyone has it all wrong. End of December. It’s the only time that makes sense.
…
…
…
;-p
Reply
doctor M Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 4:06 am
we’ll see
I have absolutely right
ahahahahhaha
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
The anticipation is killing me, but, like others have said, I want this camera to be right, not rushed. Time will tell!
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
After 7D, I am not sure what kind of features (not talking about sensor size, image quality here) Canon is going to incorporate in the 1D to make it stand out. :)
Reply
Joe Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Agreed. For a couple of thousand dollars more what can they really add to this camera that isn’t in the 7d? They are both crop sensors…
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:29 am
The 1D4 will not be competing with the 7D. It will be competing with the D3s, which is supposed to be 14fps, 1080p, FF with a 1.6 crop mode.
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:12 pm
i have been telling you this for one month now (under the too many names i’ve had), but you just fail to appreciate knowledgeable people on your site like me. all you care of is to block me when i criticise canon. you forgot when not too long ago canon wanted to shut down this site.
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
all they have to incorporate is solid AF. The rest is a no brainer. If they hold down the MP to 16 I will get it in a heartbeat because the noise with 16mp should be very, very good. I’ll pick up a FF when/if the AF is expanded so the outer points are both effective and further from the center.
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
“Not October” … colisse
1.3x (APS-H) … tabarnack
Reply
JCL Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Hehe, mets en.
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Can someone please explain the reason of APS-H to me? I’v never had a 1D series, I guess I just expected it to be FF like the 1Ds.. Or Nikon’s D3. Surely there’s a reason behind this or Canon WOULD just add the FF right?
Reply
Symple Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
APS-H is ideal in my opinion as you get the best portion of the image circle from the lens on the sensor. The sensor size is significantly larger than the C variations, and has a crop factor of around 1.27 so it really doesn’t damage the wide angle options like many claim, while still allowing a prime portion of the image circle on telephotos. I had been using 1Ds series, and C sensor Canons, but after working with files from the H series in test scenarios against the other two options from Canon I chose the H for the lenses I already own. On top of that you are getting the 1 series build and viewfinder, and they are amazing cameras to use, plus you are getting the prime area of the lens circle for your images. Look at MTF charts alone and see that most better quality lenses take a plunge just after the perimeter of the H sensor, whether that be Canon, Sigma, or even Nikon adapted to EOS. The 24×36mm is great for large aperture primes where you want no depth of field for a medium telephoto application, but the best of both worlds is in the H sensor. I think Canon should abandon the “FF” and APS-C and offer the H sensor as standard, and branch out in to the 6×4.5cm “medium format” sensor/lens combination for any “real” advantage over the small sensor of current SLRs. In my experience “H” sensors have everything better in compromise than the two other sensor sizes combined that Canon offers in their SLR cameras, and I think that it is industrially more efficient to produce this in-between size than the 24×36, and significantly advantageous in terms of image quality than the APS-C products. Historically I believe the APS-H was maximum size Canon could produce a one pass sensor chip efficiently, that is they did not have to fuse segments of other chips to create a 24×36 sensor like was found on the 5d or 1Ds; but I will be corrected here I am sure. No one can convince me having used nearly all of Canon’s digital SLRs that the 24×36 offers any real tangible benefits to the user, other than the fact that you have access to more megapixels in some of the bodies offered. At this point I would sooner go with the C sensor size than “FF”, and put my money in to the glass to cover my required angles than focus on a sensor that tests the limits of most standard lenses that cover that imaging area;imaging is really about the lenses anyway and your own perspectives, but that is my opinion only after using just about everything Canon has offered and still stinking as a photographer.
Reply
Mr. Prime Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
That’s one of the most thoughful and well reasoned explainations on the benefits of the APS-H sensors I heard to date. I salute you!
Doubt they will give up the FF sensor but the rest of what you said matches my experience with the APS-H sensors quite well. Many FF shooters complain about soft corners on their wide to UWA lenses but when shot on a APS-H camera the same lenses turn into stellar performers. Soft corners are gone as are most of the vignetting you see when shot on FF cameras.
Reply
brett maxwell Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 pm
I appreciate the thoughtful response, but still completely disagree.
The lenses are designed for 24×36, so why not use all the available real-estate? Or even 36×36 for that matter! It would be simple for them to implement a crop in-camera to achieve H and/or C crops for those that want the reach. There’s no downsides to that, except maybe a slight cost difference of 5% the camera cost at most. There are downsides to a smaller sensor. High-ISO not as good, DOF not as shallow, and focal lengths get all messed up; the widest fast prime becomes 31mm and the 24 on the 24-70 and 70 on the 70-200 wouldn’t be wide enough anymore for many people’s use.
Reply
Symple Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 4:21 am
I did forget to add in my commentary that this myth about “reach” and magnification regarding sensor sizes is simply that, a myth. You cannot change the optical properties of a lens by changing the sensor sizes relative to a given lens; however you can optimize the portion of the image circle of a given lens by using a sensor/film size that uses the best part of that circle while still maintaining the benefits of larger imagers. I think that it is really more beneficial to think in terms of actual field of view of lenses to a given format than to focal lengths themselves, and with that if you cannot get paid work or express yourself well enough making images because your field of view isn’t wide enough with a given sensor/lens combination then by all means change one or both; but don’t use generalizations and myths to support one format over another without attesting to your own actual experience of the merits or demerits of a given sensor and/or lens combination. The OP asked for reasons why the APS-H came into existence and still exists, and some of us have offered our own experience with some limited history, but it seems this thread will digress to favour those who want to make images at ISO equivalent 12800 at an aperture of f/1.4 with a diagonal view angle of 84 degrees and nothing else will do this other than a 24mm lens on a 24×36mm sensor that has a pixel pitch of blah, blah, blah. I like H sensors, I hope Canon keeps making them because I will continue to buy future bodies that comes with it.
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:38 am
1.3 crop ruins your wide angel coverage and is only a minor and hardly noticable booast in tele range. Canon has made the right choice by focusing on APS-C 1.6 and FF, and I’m quite certain we will not see another APS-H SLR. I’m sure Nikon would love for Canon to dump FF and offer only APS-H and have Canon go out of business though.
Reply
Zac Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
‘reach’ is only an effect of sensor density, crop a 5D2/1Ds3 image down as if it were the same size as 1.3x and you will have more pixels than a 1D3.
Reply
Michal Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 3:01 am
“The lenses are designed for 24×36, so why not use all the available real-estate?”
For 24×36 FILM real estate. At the moment digital sensors, especially FF ones, have poorer vignetting characteristics compared to film thanks to the limiting design of micro lenses (one obviously hope that will improve in the future).
Another thing to remember is that all those sizes FF, -H, -C etc are just numbers, they are not set in stone, they are all arbitrarily chosen in the past semi-random dimensions that were a compromise between existing technology, manufacturing costs and the marketing department… Things change all the time, perhaps in 20, 30 years time “full frame” will mean something completely different thanks to advances in technology.
I personally think that most of this debate is pretty pointless, there are pro and con arguments to support all points of view and I just want to have a good camera without worrying what size sensor it has.
Reply
Joe J Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Well explained. But your failing to understand one thing- CANON LENSES ARE NOT BEING USED AS THEY ARE DESIGNED BY CANON WHEN USED WITH A 1.3 CROP SENSOR. It’s that plain and simple; accept it already. If you’ve ever used a 15mm fisheye, you’ll know the difference between the beautiful image they create with FF (or 1V film cameras) and half-assed wide angle shots with 1.3 crop. That’s one of many examples. And if Canon has an common sense and desire for the company to have any longeivty, they’ll make the APS-H sensor in the 1D series bodies go away already…
Reply
Symple Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Again, I can only speak from my experience and my perspective of what is satisfactory for me in terms of quality of work and image. Canon designed most of my lenses, and designed my digital cameras, so if they happen to be compatible… then how I use them together is really up to me — not canon. I started digital imaging with the “full frame” with the 1Ds and 1Ds II and then deliberately moved to the “crop” H sensor 1DIIn and 1DIII knowing that my perspective would be different using the lenses I already owned. I like the results of my lenses better on the H (19×29)sensor than the (24×36), and that includes my 14mm first version, same with my 24 first version, though these are my only wide field-of-view lenses for Canon so your 15mm might be much better than these two of mine. For wide FOV photography I mostly use a Canon 50 2.5 “macro” now anyways and use software to stitch the images together so that I can print to 96inches at 240. I used to own the 15mm Canon in FD mount and used it for urban sports photography on my T90 and new F1 twenty plus years ago, and it was a fun lens that got the job done, but when I wanted to make quality images back then I used my Nikkor 75mm on my arca, but I have given up on sheet film so that is really irrelevant to the topic at hand; though the same lens on the same camera, but with a 6×9cm roll film back still performed extremely well however I can’t say the same for my lenses on 24×36mm(FF)compared to 19×29mm(H). Again this is only from my experience, so maybe my lenses or “FF” cameras were/defective so my experience is an anomaly, but the H sensor presents no limit whatsoever on my ability to capture wide field of view images, whether from my 14mm or stitching 24 images captured in sequence from my 50mm macro.
A quick test for those who have them, try using a Canon 1Ds or 5D plus a 1DIII and also a 40D — then choose one lens (preferably a prime) and use a focal length between 14mm and 85mm. Set up your tripod, and if you have L plates and a slide rail it will help, but anyways, establish a field of view for your scene – but seven to nine frames with the camera(s) vertical is a good start – convert your RAW images together in a batch so they have all the same characteristics – then process your images specific to each body in to a panorama using whichever software you want but — time each camera batch separately, –then go through the final images at print size for 240dpi and watch for any patterns. I know this H sensor discussion is not about stitching panoramas, but it is a relatively simple test that can be done without actually printing to illustrate some of the problems of most lenses “designed” for the 24×36mm format. Use what works for you, and if you haven’t used it, don’t knock it.
Reply
Joe J Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 9:23 am
You are very knowledgeable, and obviously have quite a bit of expereince; that is commendable. But it all comes down to this: please read any 1Ds catalog. One of the key features listed is the FF frame sensor, and as somewhat quoted along these lines: “full frame sensor uses EF lenses as designed.” So even Canon themselves know that FF is the ultimate goal for their high-end cameras. Now if they can only act on it with the 1D MK IV…
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Please, please, PLEASE make it FF!!!
Reply
brett maxwell Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
YES! It’s the only way they’ll get me to move up to 1D-land. In fact, they may lose me to Nikon over it.
Reply
Adrian Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 5:00 am
+1
Reply
Photoenigma Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:17 am
+1
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Please, please, PLEASE leave it APS-H!!!
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
If you insist on having a crop, may I suggest the 7D?!
Reply
Mr. Prime Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
You’re not being realistic and if you don’t understand the value of the APS-H sensor you go should rent a Mark III for a while. It you are nothing more than a landscape / building type shooter you alreay have options that would suit your specific needs.
Reply
Sacreur Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
You’re not being realistic and should understand that with a FF sensor, cropping your picture in photoshop or with a “in camera” crop would give you the same result as a APS-H sensor. But, it would ALSO allow you to use ultra wide lens WHEN you need it.
Reply
Mr. Prime Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I am being realistic and know that there is a major difference in how a camera meters and focuses when one is FF and the other is has an APS-H sensor. The difference between the metering, focus speed and precision is different on a the 1D Mark III vs. the 1Ds Mark III, both of which I have shot side by side on several occassions.
Cropping a FF image to the APS-H size may render an image of comparable size but the image characteristics are different from an exposure persective and the focus precision is different, espcially on small fast moving ojbects. The more you can fill the frame the better the exposure will be and greater the chance you will have for a sharp photos.
Basically, I could care less if I have 50mp of image to work with or 10mp of image to work with as long as the as-shot image quality is there to start with.
Reply
Photoenigma Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Not true at all, and I too have used the two cameras side by side. And for me FF wins every time all the time!!! My opinion. Why dosen t Canon make inside body crop, like Nikon has with the DX mode in their FF cameras, That way both sides will be happy, fullframers will have their FF camera, and APS-H shooters wouldn t have to crop the pictures in postprocessing.
Reply
Mike S. Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Mr. Prime!
If I understand your argument correctly, all you say is that the lenses you use are perfect for a camera with APS-H sensor, not for full frame.
I’d be happy to read more from you if I am wrong, because I am currently debating whether to get a full frame or APS-H camera.
Thanks!
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:46 am
APS-H fans are just messing with you. They know very well a larger sensor is better, that there are no lenses designed for APS-H, that Canon has lenses designed for 1.6 crop and FF, and that APS-H is so last decade.
Reply
El Loco Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
yes, i agree. But Canon will make it APS-H.
Reply
David Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I don’t think so. They have to compete with a Nikon’s FF 14 FPS D3s and you just can’t do that with APS-H. I think the 1D4 will be truly groundbreaking not a minor update.
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Will this have any impact on the release of the 60D?
Reply
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“Specs [CR1] (the consensus from various places) 16mp 12fps 1.3x (APS-H) 1080p Video (24p/25p 30p 60p)”
Yeah, those specs are so obvious that it’s really difficult to make up anything else. This is just a realistic fanboi wishlist. After the 7D surprise that nobody got right I’m actually expecting something new and original from Canon.
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:57 am
and those specs make is obsolete before it even gets released. The D3s is supposed to be 12MP FF, 14 FPS, 1080p, and a 1.6 crop mode, 99% certain says nikonrumors. So it is funny to think Canon would offer such a lame competitor as APS-H at 12 FPS when Nikon will be FF at 14 FPS. These specs are only CR1, someone’s wishlist from 6 months ago.
And I called the 7D would be either 12-14 MP FF or 15-21MP APS-C 8 FPS, so I was pretty close.
Reply
October 4th, 2009 at 12:22 am
16mp on 1.3x ???
If the 10 -> 15 -> 18mp megapixel increases on 1.6x are any indication, the 1D4 will have worse ISO/noise than the 1D3.
Not a very smart move, IMO, considering that the Nikon D4 in 2011 will have a 16-24mp FF sensor.
The 1D4 would be better off with a ~20mp FF sensor.
Reply
Lindsay Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Why do you say the increase in pixels in the APS-C space has precipitated an increase in noise when it hasn’t?
And is there some fundamental misunderstanding of the Canon model line by internet users? The 1D is APS-H, the 1Ds is FF, it couldn’t be more simple.
What planet are all you people on?
Reply
Joe Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Who knew the S in the 1DsX stood for full-frame. It is so intuitive! Just like all of the ASP-C sensors are either xxD or xxxD.
Lindsay, not everyone lives, sleeps and breathes Canon’s product lines like you.
Reply
Joe Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Maybe I made a logical leap that may not be apparent in my attempt for a joke. I know the 7D is an ASP-C which breaks another seemingly logical mode for numbering.
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 10:35 am
The naming sceme is target market driven, not simply sensor defined, so it’s not going to make sense unless you understand the various target markets Canon has defined. Looking at it from the sensor size alone the naming system will not make much sense. The 1Ds doesn’t mean FF, it means highest pro quality/resolution possible at release for the high end pro market – so it’s FF because the largest sensor will give the highest quality/resolution possible at the time. The 1D market is largely sports/PJ, so speed in a pro body is the driving factor for the cameras specs/sensor.
The reason we will see APS-H go away is because of Nikon upping the stakes in that target market by offering speed in a FF sensor, so again, the 1D should not be thought of as being defined by its sensor size, but by it’s target marget. That target market will soon have Nikon’s D3s at 12MP FF, 14 FPS, 1.6 crop mode. There is just no way APS-H can compete with that and Canon will do what they have to do to sell cameras in that target market, so say goodbye to APS-H.
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:12 am
You’re also the one with the misunderstanding. The 1D series are the high speed sports cameras. The 1Ds series are the high resolution studio cameras. If you don’t believe me, please feel free to read the Canon advertising literature. The Nikon D3 proves that there is no reason why a sports camera can’t be FF. A larger-pixeled FF sports camera is particularly beneficial to those of us who shoot sports indoors and in low light levels.
As for noise increases in APS-C, it is more accurate to state that Canon has kept the noise levels constant while they have increased pixel count, instead of allowing a reduction in noise levels by holding pixel counts constant. Some of us have decided that 12MP are quite enough. Unfortunately, Canon has decided that our opinions don’t matter.
I’m on Earth. Where are you?
Reply
Lindsay Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Whoops, there’s that “pixel size affects image noise” myth again.
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Feel free to conduct a controlled (and I do mean controlled) experiment to prove that it’s a myth. Until you do, the 5D (both generations) and D3/D700 suggest that it is not.
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 11:48 am
The G10 and G11 also suggest that it is not a myth.
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Actually they are reducing noise while increasing MP, not just holding the noise at a constant level. The 7D definately outperforms the 50D in noise and high ISO ability, and offers an increase in MP and FPS at the same time. I know some people wish Canon would stop increasing MP, but there are reasons the 7D is 18MP, as it’s meant to be a semipro companion to the 5D2 at 21 MP. Had the 7D been 12MP like some people want, the huge difference in image size would make the 7D basically incompatible with the 5D2. How are you going to tell your client some of the photos are only 12MP while others are 21MP? So there are practical reasons the 7D is what it is, which are not because Canon has decided your opinions don’t matter. Your opinions just do not take into account all of the factors and reasons for 18 MP because you have decided anything over 12 MP is enough for everybody. I’m glad Canon does not listen to you.
Reply
Tom S Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I don’t think making the 7D say 12-15mp would have degraded it’s ability to be a companion camera to anything. While there are clients out there that would nitpick over everything like file dimensions, I don’t think that’s a main design driver.
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Well Canon disagrees with you. The 5D2 and 7D are clearly semipro companion cameras. Mixing in 50D shots at 15 MP with the 5D2 is awkward from a workflow/client standpoint. That may not seem important to those not making a living with their cameras, but to those working with their 5D2 & 7D’s can be a big deal. Nitpicking clients pay our invoices or find other photographers who deliver what they want.
Reply
Tom S Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
I have no clue if Canon agrees or disagrees with me. If I see a product I like and buy it I guess we agree. If a difference in resolution is such a hassle there is the 1Ds or another 5D2 that can be added to ones arsenal.
The 7D is a salvo into D300/D300s land. At a glance they are so similar in feature set that I’m hard pressed to tell the difference. However, Canon has already leveled their T1i and 50D sensor at 15MP. To the mass consumer that “magic” number often gains many points in the purchase decision.
This sounds more like marketing to scoop up more consumer base rather than matching workflow.
Reply
David Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I don’t believe Canon makes their cameras just to counter Nikon’s cameras. They identify target markets of buyers and build cameras to market to them. The market being targeted with the 5D/7D is the large entry level pro market that had been largely ignored in the past. The 5D/7D are clearly designed to be complementary to each other. One for max resolution FF and the other for speed and 1.6 crop. They make the perfect two camera system for entry level pros who don’t need or can not afford war-zone tough bodies. One of the problems with the 1Ds/1D has been the huge difference in MP – they’ve gotten away with it so far because the markets for PJ-Sports and high end commercial did not have much crossover. But entry level pros are not so locked into one or the other, and tend to take any kind of work they can get. It makes a lot of sense to design them to work together as a two camera system that can cover any type of shooting between the two. I think that is exactly what Canon has done.
To say Canon did not plan the two cameras in consideration of each other and how they would sell together and that 18 MP is just a marketing scoop that has nothing at all to do with the 5D2 being 21 MP seems very far fetched and makes way too many coincidences in how the cameras really complement each other. I think it was intentional.
Reply
Tom S Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 1:58 am
There is no doubt that the whole line up is thought out in relation to each other. There has to be distinction between the bodies. Has Canon made the 7D and 5D2 a steady couple? It does look to be an excellent combination!
However for now I look at the 7D as a D300/D300s. Most people plod along with one body from D40/D90/D300. Trying to justify the next lens purchase is a constant battle of wallet and self control. These are the people that will buy these bodies and in great numbers. Keeping them interested floats the upper portion of the lineup.
I think that is good for the professional given this 1D lite. While keeping the noise the same, perhaps a little better is quite an achievement. Why a design step to make the 7D (and upcoming 1D4) significantly better say by holding or reducing the MP is disappointing.
Reply
GeorgeML Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Agree with Tom.
Canon obviously believes that pixels is what sells cameras.
They must have done marketing research and could be right. I don’t know.
I’m certainly not buying the 7D because I want a camera with better ISO than my 40D.
From what I’ve seen so far, the 7D noise levels are on par with the 50D and this does not work for me.
Reply
JoeJ Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Wise choice.
For me my 7D was an almost perfect camera, at least at ISO200 and lower. Once I’d seen what ISO400 looked like on a shoot I arranged for a return the next day.
I didn’t even have the AF issues that some people are reporting.
If only they’d put in a reasonable sensor!
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I’ve never had a client ask how many pixels my camera had. However, they DO care that I can make get great looking 20″x30″ prints…from 9.5MP files. A lot of amateurs think pixel count is important because they don’t know anything about photography, literally, and pixel count is something easy for them to understand and for stores like Best Buy to sell. You’d be amazed by the number of people who have a hard time understanding that a D300 and a cheap digital P&S have different size sensors or why my 40D has fewer pixels than my G10 but the 40D image quality is better at ISO1600.
Reply
David Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:31 am
If you’re delivering physical prints you can get away with whatever size MP works for you as the client doesn’t see the digital size difference. If you work with art directors for magazines or corporations they dont take delivery of 20-30″ prints, they want TIF or PSD and many of them now require a minimum size. Several of my clients require 21 MP cameras as a minimum or they will not hire you. With the 7D I can mix some shots in and say I cropped them a bit, which is true though the sensor crops it not photoshop. Point is, I can easily mix the images from a shoot with the 5D2 and 7D where I could not if the 7D was only 12 MP.
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 11:55 am
So those clients don’t accept files from a D3 and won’t accept files from a 1DMkIV if it is only 16MP, particularly if it is also FF. Interesting!!
Reply
David Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
My commercial clients will accept 1Ds3, 5D2 and D3x, nothing less. They check EXIF info on sample images prior to hiring a photographer to make sure what they are shooting. Once they know you, they aren’t gonna be checking every image, but any big drop in image size would tip them off.
I’ve also been grilled by wedding clients as to what cameras I’m using. Some people are not willing to spend $3500 for a photographer to get 12 MP images even if the photographer thinks anything over 12 MP is enough for them – after all, their P&S cameras are shooting 12 MP these days and they expect something their friends can’t give them snapping pics.
Reply
October 4th, 2009 at 1:02 am
CES in january 2010.hmmmm
need a 1.3 or fast FF, 7d + 800mm was to much at the mira mar air show.
End up using 5d2 + 800mm
Reply
Anon Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 3:10 am
Or you could have used a 500 on the 7D. ;)
Reply
October 4th, 2009 at 5:58 am
End of january, period. It’s my birthday then, so this is a sign from the gods :)
Reply
October 4th, 2009 at 8:06 am
1.3x (APS-H) they can keep it ,I have already a compact
Reply
October 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am
That would be cool if the new MkIV had both a FF and a 1.3x or 1.6x crop factor mode/option. But if it was strictly 1.3x that would not be good…in fact that would SUCK. The new D3s rumored specs blow thing thing out the freaking water.
I really hope Canon has done its research. And honestly, do NOT release this camera till they’ve worked out all the possible kinks they can find.
If they really want to surpass the D3s:
32 Megapixel (its not that crazy)
FF + 1.6x mode
1080p at 24p, 29.95p, 60p
720p at 120p
Dual or Tri Digics5 chip if needed
AF Points same or more than the 1DIII with the obvious point that it needs to work on par or better than Nikon’s AF
Superior weather sealing
Now you’ve got a camera worth justifying $8500 to buy. Offer me a 1.3x sensor at that range I’ll tell you to take a hike. If it still has AF issues then Canon is screwed. Only good that can come of that is that they’d have to offer their cams at a lower price for a long long time to regain trust. LOL.
Reply
David Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I think you’re describing the 1Ds4, not the 1D4 which will compete with the D3s. At 32 MP the 1D would only hit 5-6 FPS max. So I’m thinking the 1D4 will be something like FF 18MP 15 FPS burst with some kind of dynamic crop mode and just under the D3s price.
You are right on about 1.3 sucking and not being able to compete with the Nikon D3s FF 14 FPS camera.
Reply
Michal Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
“Superior weather sealing”
Superior to what? Something either is weather sealed or isn’t how on Earth do you make it “superior” – are you planning on using it in outer space?
Reply
Mike S. Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I love it!
Reply
David Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:39 am
That’s why they dont call the 5D/7D weather sealed, they call them weather resistant. You can take a 1D on a 3 month expedition through a tropical rainforest because it is weather sealed. A 5D/7D might last a few days at best because they are not fully sealed, though they can take some mild exposure to moisture/dust.
Reply
CPS_Guy08 Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Superior to what?? Wah..wah…get a life. You know what I mean since I was comparing our crap to nikon crap. Don’t spaz out it was just a quick post I made yesterday morning lol.
Yes I stand corrected would be the 1D4s I’m thinking about. Guess you know what I have on my mind at least :).
I think we gotta get back up on top of the AF game and stay on top with the Video capabilities. I would love to blow the socks off of Nikon with 120FPS at 720. Give Red a little scare too.
Reply
David Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I spaz therefore I am.
I think Canon will knock our socks off with the 1D4 and 1Ds4, well all those except the people who will always be screaming anything over 10 MP is too much no matter how good the camera is.
120 FPS 720p, that would make some amazing slow motion and smooth action flicks.
Reply
CPS_Guy08 Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Yea I would love to see 120FPS…oh well too much wishful thinking isn’t good.
When I got the 5DII a lot of people on various forums said the pixel count would be too high for the current lenses yada yada. Made me really concerned.
But I got it, put my L lenses on there, even some regular EFs. All of them worked fine, produced great images.
10MP I guess would be fine for most every day things but lately I find more and more people who want me doing 20×30 prints for them.
Reply
David Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Yep, same experience here.
Reply
loickeri Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 4:12 am
“That would be cool if the new MkIV had both a FF and a 1.3x or 1.6x crop factor mode/option. But if it was strictly 1.3x that would not be good…in fact that would SUCK.”
I think exactly the same and I am ready to jump to Nikon if Canon keep on sleeping
Reply
W Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
The DX mode takes the MP down to less than half.. I don’t know maybe people at all that use the DX mode on their D3
Reply
David Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Doesn’t mean it can’t be done better ;)
Reply
Zac Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
yeah, but dynaic crop is still cool if you can make it easy. just think if you’re shooting soccer and the ball moves to the other end of the field, you can flip a switch and frame more accurately, flip the switch again when the ball starts coming back….. worth having, even if use would be somewhat rare
Reply
W Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
BTW what about the D3s specs blows anything out of the water? seemed very Meh to me like the D300s
Reply
David Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
14 FPS on a FF sensor sounds like the D300s to you?
Reply
W Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Did you even read my reply or immediately you feel like going on the defensive.
I said the specs seemed MEH like the D300s
Meaning
They were nothing special.
From Nikon Rumors the latest rumors state that it’s the same sensor just improved a little.
The guy in the original reply stated Canon needed a 32 mp sensor to compete with the D3s
Reply
October 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Want to switch to Canon for the long lenses…waiting for 1D Mark IV here.
Reply
October 5th, 2009 at 10:21 am
A bigger sensor always beats a smaller one. The technology, or cost of technology, has moved past the need for non-FF sensors in all but the point and shoot models. Give us better dynamic range, lower noise at high ISO and 16 bit files. (at least in the “pro” models)
The best products always find a market, otherwise Apple would have died years ago. No, I’m not saying Canon should be happy with a small market share. (Apple is much more than a computer maker these days) I just want them to build the best camera possible with the technology available.
Reply
Good or bad?? Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
=)
Reply
Michal Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 2:38 am
“A bigger sensor always beats a smaller one”
This is a sweeping generalization that like all sweeping generalizations (including this one) is incorrect. A bigger sensor has certain specific characteristics that are better than ones belonging to a smaller sensor but that does not mean that it is “better”, for example a larger sensor will have more vignetting comparing to a smaller sensor.
I know this is the Internet to nobody cares about things like accuracy and facts but please, let’s have less of this crap on this forum.
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Lenses vignette, not sensors. As for the original sweeping generalization, assuming an equal number of pixels, the only advantages of a smaller sensor over a bigger is (1) cost and (2) size of the enclosing camera. Assuming an equal pixel pitch, the only advantages of a smaller sensor (i.e., one with fewer pixels) over a bigger are (3) cost, (4) how fast the image can be pulled from the sensor and (5) the size of the enclosing camera. (4) and (5) affect the maximum frame rate. I, for one, could live quite comfortably with the size and speed of a D3 (even if, according to David’s clients, the D3 doesn’t have enough pixels).
Reply
Michal Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 8:40 am
“Lenses vignette, not sensors”.
You my Sir are quite incorrect, in digital cameras vignetting IS a function of sensor design (lenses play their part of course but it’s not only the lenses). Please do educate yourself: “Pixel vignetting only affects digital cameras and is caused by angle-dependence of the digital sensors. Light incident on the sensor at a right angle produces a stronger signal than light hitting it at an oblique angle. Most digital cameras use built-in image processing to compensate for optical vignetting and pixel vignetting when converting raw sensor data to standard image formats such as JPEG or TIFF. The use of microlenses over the image sensor can also reduce the effect of pixel vignetting.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignetting
“Pixel vignetting is yet another potential cause of image edge darkening. An image sensor is composed of millions of photon wells that measure/record the light hitting them. The photo wells, although extremely tiny, have a depth to them. Just as the late day sun does not hit the bottom of your trash can, light hitting the sensor at a strong angle may not hit the bottom of the photon wells. The strongest light angles will be found at the image edges. Reportedly, most manufacturers compensate for pixel vignetting in their sensor algorithms. Also, newer sensor designs may show decreased amounts of optical vignetting.”
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Vignetting.aspx
As I have previously state, everyone can has an opinion and I see little point in arguing with personal likes, dislikes and preference but please do get facts right.
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 9:03 am
I stand corrected, but the original assertion that a bigger sensor always beats a smaller one is still correct.
Reply
Michal Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
No, it is not, it never has been, that statement is false. The more correct one is that bigger and smaller sensors have different characteristics, advantages and disadvantages, neither being superior in all ways.
Reply
October 5th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I think, APS-H is dead since FF is cheap and APS-C has so many pixels with good ISO-Performance.
Another story:
It’s reported that video is throwing away pixels and avaraging others. Why don’t we get a digital zoom for video? May be a soft zoom or two modes: a full and a crop video mode?
When do we get 40MP and 60 lines per mm at MTF charts?
Reply
October 5th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Are people actually reading the published rumors on this site? *Every* rumor that has had any “CR” associated with it has said that the 1DMarkIV will be APS-H. Nevertheless, people remain convinced that is going to be FF.
Set your expectations properly folks, it’s going to be APS-H. I’ll wait and see what the first reactions to folks are who actually try the camera before deciding if it’s right for me.
Personally, all things being equal, I would prefer FF 16MP over an APS-H 16MP, but not at a 1Ds price. I will not rule out the 1D4 just on the fact that it is APS-H. For me, there is a lot more to the camera than sensor size, just as there is a lot more to the camera than just the number of MPs.
Reply
Zac Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
people remain convinced it should be FF, and cling to hope that its going to be
Reply
Ivar Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Well, no one really seems to no, to me the APS-H has no more credibility than FF what concerns rumors. Personally I think it is going to be FF, the time is over for cut down version of sensor. “Good compromise” (as said by many) is in the end just a compromise.
Reply
October 6th, 2009 at 12:24 am
You can argue about what is better FF or APS-H but take into consideration that NOW it is already settled and manufacturing of 1DMkIV runs at full steam. Any wishful thinking, beliefs or prayers are useless now. You can at most switch to Nikon.
Reply
October 6th, 2009 at 4:20 am
If Canon make the 1D4 APS-H a lot of people might switch to Nikon as they want Full Frame. But if Canon make it Full Frame the people that wanted APS-H probably wont switch to Nikon as the D3 is already Full Frame. So Full Frame would be the safer option for Canon to safe guard thier current customers in my opinion. If Canon has a bit of comin sense this is what they will do.
Reply
Joe J Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 9:24 am
AMEN!
Reply
October 6th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Ill buy it if its aps-h. :P
Reply
October 6th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
FF = OK…………………………………………. PROF ONLY.
APS-H = NO THANKS……………………….. HOME, AMATEURS ONLY.
SIMPLE.
Reply
October 6th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
FULL FRAME – Canon please give us full frame so all the $$$ money invested into wide angle lenses isn’t for nothing. I’m another 10 year canon shooter that is considering jumping ship to Nikon for full frame and a fast sports camera.
Reply
October 10th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Theres only one logical outcome for the next 1D series.
thats a FF camera with 1.3 and even 1.6 crop modes.
Get the FF when you need it, speed and crop when you use tele’s. Makes it easy, simple and everyone can use it.
Reply
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and <a Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.
Reply