Comments on: 1D Mark 4 Announcement [CR2]

By: Paul Smith Shoes

Paul Smith Shoes — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:00:10 +0000

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 Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 05:33:16 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:01:35 +0000

you’ll get what you get shut up allready pussy winers

By: Michal

Michal — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:57:26 +0000

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.

By: noah hamilton

noah hamilton — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:50:35 +0000

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.

By: ALEK

ALEK — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:57:38 +0000

FF = OK…………………………………………. PROF ONLY.

APS-H = NO THANKS……………………….. HOME, AMATEURS ONLY.

SIMPLE.

By: jay

jay — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:37:44 +0000

Ill buy it if its aps-h. :P

By: Joe J

Joe J — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:24:38 +0000

AMEN!

By: Joe J

Joe J — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:23:09 +0000

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…

By: Bob Howland

Bob Howland — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:03:07 +0000

I stand corrected, but the original assertion that a bigger sensor always beats a smaller one is still correct.

By: Michal

Michal — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:40:40 +0000

“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.

By: Bob Howland

Bob Howland — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:06:41 +0000

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).

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:20:53 +0000

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.

By: Michal

Michal — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:01:04 +0000

“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.