1Ds Mark IV [CR1 & CR2]
October 25th, 2009 Posted in Canon 1Ds Mark 4
When?
The 1Ds Mark IV is probable for Photokina 2010 at the present. I have also heard springtime.
Specs
32mp Full Frame (I have also heard 38mp)
Dual DIGIC IV (no one is making a peep about DIGIC V)
New Video Features (Natural evolution)
ISO Range 100-6400 (no word on boost)
5fps
Same AF System as 1D4
Same body as 1D4
Nothing extraordinary here. Although, the sensor spec of 32mp comes from a pretty reliable source.
cr
October 25th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I hope they can do something more than just increase the resolution.
Reply
roger767 Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
why? 32megapixels would mean the 1Ds can compete with medium format camera’s.
Reply
Craig Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Only for pixel count. A 12 MP P&S can’t compete with a 12 MP Rebel XSi, so you shouldn’t expect a 32 MP 35mm DSLR to compete with a 32 MP med-format.
Reply
Sean Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Unless they take a radically new approach to capture which MF companies can’t afford the investment of.
Reply
JCL Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
That makes sense. I hope this man is right.
Reply
gwac Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Case in point: A couple of full-size samples from the Leica S2 – so sharp it hurts, and at 37MP.
http://www.pdngearguide.com/gearguide/content_display/reviews/e3i5356929b5d49b89e33445c210859cb2f
Reply
J. Selman Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 4:41 am
That is insanely sharp… At first when you look at the picture you are thinking “what a beautiful model, nicely done” & then when you magnify the picture to 100% you can see the dandruff in her hair, & all the pores, hairs & crust on her face. Lol. Crazy. I’m a portrait photographer but that is too much detail for me, I will stick to my D3S.
Reply
Lindsay Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
That’s a terrible example.
A 32MP DSLR will display less apparent detail because it has an AA filter while the MF camera doesn’t. DSLR manufacturers don’t put AA filters in front of their sensors just for the hell of it. Not having one is definitely not a benefit.
Meanwhile the DSLR will have bleeding edge sensor technology, while most MF cameras don’t come close.
Reply
Jim Wilson Reply:
November 24th, 2009 at 10:01 am
I shot Blads for most of my 30 years in commercial photography. I’ll have to confess to doing the math on a Hasselblad digital system every once in a while, but each time it makes less sense. Duplicating my analog Blad systems would cost $100K then, as a Pro, you need to have redundancy so another 100K for back ups. I regularly produce outstanding 60″ display prints with my 1Ds MKIII bodies and I’m sure the IV series cameras will only improve on what I get currently. I could be wrong, but I have serious doubts about the viability of companies like Hasselblad. How many $100,000 camera buyers are there out there? Pricing, combined with reliability issues, really makes Canon’s top of the line equipment very attractive.
Reply
Joe Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Resolution only gets me so far. Canon is only a one trick pony if they can only increase the resolution. I would like some more innovative features.
Reply
W Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Such as?
Reply
Ossme Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Like a direct print button :p
Reply
Joe Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:17 am
I wish they would double the size of the direct print button instead. :)
Reply
Kim Sinton Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I think an increase in dynamic range would be nice.
Reply
Daniel Mihai Condurachi - photographer from Iasi Romania Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 1:19 am
I totally agree with Kim. Besides the high ISO noise free the next most important feature of a dSLR would be the dynamic range. Another really improvement would be creating a 16-bit A/D converter and 16-bit RAW files instead of 14. this would mean no conversion in PS, but also improve the above 2 needed features. This is what would really drive Canon further.
As for the focusing speed some say the new 7D and 1D mark iii is superior to what Nikon has. I do not know. I have not seen a review to cover this with proof. I am waiting for
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I reckon 1DsMk4 will be out in spring 2010 using with dual Digic V. We may even see a 3D, a 26MP FF Dual Digic V camera with 7D style AF and feature in the autumn 2010.
Reply
Kevin Sherman Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Bah, your makin’ crap up.
Reply
Simon Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
And you eat crap!
I was right with my prediction of the 1DMk4, 7D, D3s, D300s.
Reply
Lindsay Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
I presume you have some evidence for that claim?
Reply
Gusto Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 12:24 am
No one expected the 7D.
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Hope its not 38mp as 32mp is far to much, Think i’ll have to order a few more Terabite externall hard drives if i buy that monster, and probably need a faster computer as well.
Reply
David Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
if you can afford a 1Ds4 you can afford a few more terabytes of storage ;)
Reply
JCL Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
OR, shoot sraw and still enjoy the increased sharpness and noise-free images you get from downsizing images.
Reply
gwac Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I remember seeing comparisons of the 5D and sraw from the 5dII on dpreview and somehow the original 5D was a lot sharper.
Reply
Sunny Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
That’s because dpreview does pixel peeping. You can’t compare 12,8MP with 21MP.
Reply
gwac Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
sraw
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:24 am
The more pixels the better. Canon has to have at least one ultra high pixel count camera. The 1Ds is it.
Reply
Kim Sinton Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Well… I will be very interested to see how the 1ds Mark 4 will compare to similar mega pixel medium format cameras.
Dpreview has not tested medium format yet, perhaps now is the time to start.
This Leica pics posted above where amazing. I think that might have a lot to do with the lens though!
I think Canon will need to redo their 50mm and 85mm primes with the new coatings to compete with medium format cameras like the the S2.
Reply
Justin Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Canon needs new primes: 35, 50, 85
and the following zooms: 24-70 2.8 IS and 70-200 2.8. IS
a few mm on the wide or long end would be nice too
Reply
Ossme Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Do somethink like me and build a server with 4 tirabytes or more with security and backup. :)
Reply
ossme Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 3:12 am
something*
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
FF, who wants FF?! All real shooters use medium format not some s***y FF, do you know what crappy crop factor you get shooting FF instead of medium format? It’s just ridiculous. Nobody wants the extra “reach” that you get when you shoot the so-called FF instead of the only real format which is medium format. Don’t even get me started about the so-called APS sensors geez.
And how can you even consider having more than 10 megapixels on a FF sensor that’s a little bigger than a post stamp?! If you buy a crappy FF camera you will not make bigger prints than 6×4 so even ten megapixels are wasted on you!
Raise your game Canon, we are STILL waiting for the new medium format line of cameras – from P&S to professional cameras.
Reply
Chedd Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
ignorance.
Reply
heh Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
umm…look up sarcasm in the dictionary
Reply
Get it already Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
He’s being sarcastic.
Reply
Jacobin Ve Lardina Saccun Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
She, not he
Reply
T-dogg Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
This is funny. It’s the same argument that soooooo many have bemoaned in reference to the 1.3 crop on Mark IV! ha ha. Point well taken and I agree. I’m still very excited to see the final, worthy for viewing (in Canon’s mind) shots to come from 1d Mark IV.
Reply
Good post Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Now you FF people who hate on APS-H & APS-C will see how silly your arguments sound.
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:27 am
On the contrary, I’m willing to let people have their 32MP FF, as long as they’re willing to let me have my 12MP, FF Lord of Darkness…which apparently they’re not. Just don’t try to use all those pixels at ISO 102,400.
Reply
Alex Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Dont forget the diffraction on this puppy will have a limit of 5.6!!! Oh dear what is this world coming to?!? I would much rather have a usable 1 million ISO rather than 32mp sensor?!? why golly that’s just way too close to traditional 35mm slide film resolution to be allowed in a digital camera! =)
Reply
Kim Sinton Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Dude color slide film is probably only around 12mp even when drum scanned. I mean maybe the really slow stuff is a little higher maybe 16mp.
I don’t know where you get the idea any color film could be 32mp!
Reply
Alex Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I love how u missed my sarcasm in that post. Have you been a photographer long enough to work for a living in the darkroom? Actually good slide film is said to have in the mid to high 20’s mp resolution. That was the big arguement when digital first came out. Pros said the cameras were not even close to full frame 35mm so why switch. Lighten up enough to appreciate where we were and where we are going.
Reply
Alex Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Also, if you think of it, very good slide film was being used to print upwards to 16 x 20 and 20 x 24 even tho it was ugly at that point. Going with the industry standard at 300 dpi (yeah yeah few use that resolution and get away with lower res printing) the 21 mp 5dii and 1dsiii was just there at the 16×20 inches mark. Now a 32mp can do that without breaking a sweat and without resampling or lower res printing. We are now surpassing slide film which was my point to begin with.
Reply
Kim Sinton Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Well… I am actually very interested by the comparison between film and digital because I haven’t had much a chance to shoot film so don’t know what I am missing.
You say slide film is said to have mid to high 20mp resolution. I never heard that before, can you tell me where you did hear that! I am genuinely interested to know anything on this subject.
I have heard of negative black and white film having very high fidelity, but nothing to the same effect with slide film.
Reply
Alex Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Among pros back in the day, slide film bynature had a stop or two more dynamic range and tonality than negatives. With b&w neg film the zone technique was implemented utilizing a combo of exposure, developing, and printing. Kinda like hdr for the anal retentive people who wanted that extra stop of range. Also, most paper was limited in range so the zone was important to make it more than it was. The raw math of a 16×20 at 300 dpi is darn close to their current offerings and 20×24 at 300dpi would prob be close to the 1ds4… Too early to tell. I know there people that say they can print huge prints at 150-200 dpi but raw detail isn’t quite there. That was the estimated mp rating as of a few years ago but I’m sure if you googled you can find newer more accurate ratings
Reply
Alex Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Kim, I did a quick search and wiki answers Saha velvia 50 iso film is roughly the same detail as a 24mp resolution which supports my mid 20’s estimate. Just more than the 1ds3 and 5d2. Other websites have other guess’s but give warning that in many ways film still has an edge in range. Don’t quote me but if I remember right most pro photo paper (darkroom) had around 5 stops of range and negatives had like 6-7 stops and slides had approx another stop or 2 of more range which is why slides ultimately had more detail. 16×20 was 35mm’s ceiling for saleable quality photos while anything bigger required medium or large format film
Reply
alex Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
One last thing about the film vs digital comparison for you to consider is this… film had a characteristic that depending on the iso and size of print (kinda like in digital but more extreme) the smaller the print the more resolution, the more range, and less noise you got. for example, with 100 iso film, 5×7s through 8×10 looked fantastic for the most part. 11×14’s were good with a leap of faith going into the bigger iso’s… 16×20’s were for good and proven films with appropriate exposures, developing, and printing. Anything larger and grain shows and expands, and imperfections really show nasty things… Digital doesn’t improve dramatically in lower sizes such as film did… once you get past 300-400 dpi, there is relatively no noticeable improvements unless you hold the print under a microscope. That’s perhaps why they are coming out with the M-Raw and S-Raw size, for people who dont need the resolution and dont want any option to make them bigger at one point or the other…
Reply
J. Selman Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Your A Smart SMART Man!!!
Reply
50/50 Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:13 am
Maybe I’m insane, and I did read the humoure in that statement, but I actually feel a sentiment like that in a milder sense. I really do feel that larger formats have nicer optical qualities, yes I know… “just stand back further” but there’s something special about shooting a portrait on a 120mm lens and not being at shouting distance when it comes to giving directions to your subject.
I’m not saying boycotting any particular format is right either, or insulting people for their preference, but I feel that it’s a fair call to find the larger formats more “eligant” that being said I own a cropped and ff 35mm digital which perform well, within their limitations.
Reply
Ossme Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Actually there is a bigger format than MF. Now, what was it called ?
Reply
Kim Sinton Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Well keep in mind Digital meduim format sensors are not as big as Meduim format film.
There is of course large format film, 4″-5″ being the most common. Ansel Adams shot on 10″-12″ I think.
Reply
zachwright Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
8 by 10
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
i know i may get called out on for saying this, but i miss the days a good dslr camera was just a STILL dslr camera. “natural evolution”? blehhh…
Reply
gwac Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I prefer the days when a phone was like a brick and had a curly cord. All this mobile internet chatting device bs is just a bunch of worthless features that nobody uses.
Reply
Lindsay Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 12:01 am
What do you miss Chedd?
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
These days, Canon seems to be just a cameramaker, one amongst others. No surprises, 1D MK4 with FF and tiny-tiny sensels to cram in more MPs (because this seems to be what users asked for). It will be marjeted as a landscape and studio camera, whereas it cannot do more sync than 250. Pretty boring and hardly recognizable difference in prints compared to D3x or 1Ds Mk3 which are available today.
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I saw keep it at 21MP and blow everything else out of the water for ultra high ISO.
Reply
T-dogg Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I’d also much rather Canon stop going for pixel #/density and focus on KILLER low noise resolution. I’m very glad that the 1D MarkIV actually has fewer pixels the the 7D. That was a big surprise to me and very pleasing indeed.
Reply
Sean Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Now why on earth would the studio body be targeted to noise performance when the PJ body has always had this role? The 1Ds has always been about high-quantity high-quality pixels which can survive moderate ISOs, but which are never killer high-ISO bodies (and for good reason). That won’t change with this iteration, nor should it.
Reply
T-dogg Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
OK, that makes sense. Could you tell me what “PJ” means and thus which body I should be focused on purchasing. My work deals often with Dancers on stage in a black auditorium with only spot lights to illuminate the scene, or sports shots when the lights in a school gym can be pretty poor. Thanks.
Reply
The Lord of Darkness Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
1D Mark IV
Reply
T-dogg Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Aye, thankee my Lord ;) That is what I had in mind. So are you saying that Sean was calling the 1D mark IV the “PJ body” and if so how does one get “PJ” out of 1D mark IV? I’m confused with that reference. Also do others agree that the 1D should, or usually does have better low light/low noise ability than the 1Ds?
Reply
Derek Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
PJ = Photo Journalist
Reply
T-dogg Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Thanks Derek. I thought PJ was referring to only wearing my Pajamas when I used the camera, or maybe only shooting others when they were in their PJs. I’ve never been to keen on abbreviations I’m surprised that I don’t spell out “International Organization for Standardization” every time.
Reply
Ossme Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Get a d3s or d3
Reply
J. Selman Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Another Smart Man!!!
Reply
Jacobin Ve Lardina Saccun Reply:
October 31st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Help! A Nikonian! ;)
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
The canon flagship should have kick a$$ still and video capture. Super high iso is not what studio shooting is all about, nice but not going to sell cameras. The 1ds mk2 is still pretty popular among studio photographers.
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
if this ia true then we need a 3D because most pro photographers are not so specialized that 30+mp is good for you or aps-h crop being good for you etc etc canon needs something to blow the d700 out of the water i.e. fast fullframe lowish resulution like 14 tp 18 mp range bulit like a 1d
Reply
Mark Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Forget it. you will never see canon version of d700. canon deliberately avoided that and chose the 21mp route to preserve its 1D mark IV segment. so now if you want a highspeed sports FF, be ready to spend 5K. blame it on greedy canon
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Anyhow, higher resolution is better than stupid high ISO staff, but do we really need 38mp right now?
32mp sounds good, if it performance better at iso from 100 to 400 compared to 1dsIII.
Reply
Lindsay Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 12:03 am
“do we really need 38mp right now?”
Are you implying that at the moment we don’t need 38MP, but at some arbitrary point in the future we will? If so, why not now and what’s the difference anyway?
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Why is so many people, mainly amateurs, still beats about noise level as a yardstick for image quality?
Canon traditionally took the lead in low noise at lowlight. Nikon followed and by trying to up the game they drecreased noise but atthe same time made the image softer with reduced detail which had the look of NR. What happen is Nikon employed noise compressing technique before processing the image into RAW this resulted in low noise but a flatter image with less detail. Canon prefer to let the sensor capture delivering RAW untouched with better detail albeit a little nosier at higher ISO.
Worth remembering you can always apply NR to Canon image to get them look like Nikon and like them get less noise and detail but you cant get Nikon image to give more details like Canon since its not there at the beginning.
So what would people rather have? Less noise with less detail or more noise with more detail?
Reply
T-dogg Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
I’d rather have the higher noise and more detail to begin with thus being able to soften detail/reduce noise at my choice. I actually really like the grain I’ve seen in the 51K ISO shots from the 1d Mark IV especially when the image is black and white.
I want to be able to shoot higher ISO to capture dancers in air clearly when only the spot light illuminates them during their recitals. Thus I’d love to always shoot in the 6400-12800 range and have sharp images. But I understand your statement regarding low noise is not necessarily a yardstick for good or great image quality. I completely agree with you.
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
On a more serious note, I think that it’s great that Canon is increasing resolution as it is important in a pro camera used mainly in a studio environment where high-ISO, low-noise performance is not so important. I would not worry too much about that but I would love to see increased dynamic range by a couple of steps at least.
Reply
Ivar Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 3:32 am
From a studio camera, I’d expect a higher x-sync. What else is definitely needed – shadow area quality in studio to achieve smooth clean backgrounds. Apparently I cannot see much improvement here when they stuff more pixels in.
Reply
October 25th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
If they release this without the in camera level I’m going to be absolutely baffled, the fact the RGB meter, 5 stop compensation spot AF (for all intents and purposes) and the new viewfinder display type, all missed the boat for the 1D mk IV, after debuting earlier in the 7D is baffling to me. The failure to include an in camera leveling device for a camera targeted to high quality production work will tell me that the 5 typos I found in the EOS systems manual I got at PDN (including a pasted over 1Ds mk IV (new) instead of 1D mk IV) were representative of a greater problem within Canon
Reply
T-dogg Reply:
October 25th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I agree. I was really looking forward to that feature in the 1d mark IV. I’m always trying to line up the top or bottom of my camera viewfinder along some natural line and then readjust the camera and not tilt it before repositioning my next shot. I really hope that feature finds its way back. Freak I hope that Canon is still tweaking that camera in these last two months before release. Does anyone else know if the electronic level would also require having some kind of hardware upgrade to be able to sense the horizon? Or would it already be in the camera seeing as how it “knows” when the camera is in vertical or horizontal position already with the self adjusting focus point feature?
Reply
Mark Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 12:38 am
It is a hardware device called accelerometer. It needs to be physically installed. So if it already exists in mark iV then we have a chance of seeing it via firmware updates
Reply
mucher Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 4:53 am
My 7D’s RGB meter isn’t good for me. At the beginning, it will overexposed, as shooting going on, it will come back to itself, at the end of the shooting, it will underexposed. My wild guess is that this RGB meter has heating problem, at first it is cold, so it will overexposed, then to normal temp., the end it is so hot so it will underexposed. Hope Canon can solve this problem(say lower its running voltage, introduce sleeping mode, etc.).
Reply
JCL Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Or maybe it’s just that you’re shooting during midday, then evening and then night.
Reply
mark Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Or simply they want to test things with 7D and implement it in next release, provided they are not having issues with them
Reply
Zac Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I’m pretty sure things like 5 stops of compensation, the level, and spot AF are acceptable, since if you don’t like them, or they are malfunctioning you can disable/not use them. I would like to point out the Nikon’s in camera electronic level debuted in their flagship D3, no need for prior testing there. If Canon actually has to test new features in the field in alpha products then I don’t know what to sat
Reply
W Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
A lot of people dislike this new viewfinder display type. And if the new AF they put in the 1d IV tracks better then what’s wrong?
Reply
Mark Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
any links about “lot of people” disliking the new viewfinder?
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 1:01 am
September 2010 ? too late
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 1:32 am
If the 1Ds4 is going to be 32MP then it needs to be released as soon as possible, with the biggest possible calendar gap between it and the eventual release of Sony’s next sensor which is rumoured to be 35MP. If they do 38MP and Sony is doing 35MP, perhaps not such a big issue.
Reply
Ivar Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 3:47 am
In my opinion, Canon shouldn’t release anything before it is ready. Look at the 1D mk4, announcement was desperately needed, the availability is far (compared to Nikon’s offering) and apparently they are even not ready – where are full sets images to analyse the camera? Not talking about some innovations which didn’t make it in the “flagship”.
Reply
mark Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 10:46 am
well, canon is making sure people don’t jump to nikon camp, waiting for mark IV.
Reply
Zac Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Considering it takes 3 months for cameras to get to market from release date Canon had a 2 month window to improve the 1D mk IV, to make sure it could compete with the D3s in all aspects before its release. People can read spec lists and reviews and decide to hold of switching systems for a couple months. However this camera looks like a rush job, and it doesn’t implement many already released technologies (7D), honestly it pushed me into considering a switch to Nikon, seems that Canon is not making necessary changes in how they conduct business, or in the capabilities of the products they produce.
Reply
W Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Not one review has come out about it’s capabilities and because the 7d has different technologies this camera is a rush job and bad?
How about wait till even 1 review comes out about the camera?
Reply
mark Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
How about releasing the camera when it is ready?
Reply
Zac Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Do I need a review to tell me that an older $1800 camera has things that a newer $5000 camera doesn’t and could be beneficial for. don’t misunderstand, I think the mk IV AF and sensor will be great, I really do, but when you ask $5000 for a new (development/release wise) body, it better be a complete package…
Reply
Guano Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I don’t understand why she rounded the 1D Mark 4’s price UP, but rounded the 7D DOWN. Oh wait, it’s to use hyperbole!
Reply
J. Selman Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Well one thing is for sure… The 1D Mark IV will almost definitely be the noisier camera compared with the D3S, but the 1D Mark IV will possibly have significantly better AF and will more than definitely have better video features than the D3S. I can’t wait to see the test results in terms of image quality… My guess is again in terms of noise the Nikon wins but in terms of details Canon wins. Both are fantastic cameras but for my needs as a photographer as far versatility goes the Nikon is more suitable.
Reply
mark Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 7:39 am
“will possibly have significantly better AF”
How do you know? If you say it is your assumption, then my assumption would be, D4’s AF will be significantly better than mark iV
Reply
J. Selman Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 8:24 am
I can’t truly say that it will have better AF until i see the test results but since canon seems to have put so much emphasis on AF performance instead of adding other much needed improvements, I would think that it would possibly outdo the D3S as far as AF goes. However if it doesn’t it will be another plus for me because as i mentioned above i am in the market for a D3S. But i agree with you as far as your comment about the D4 & I’m expecting it to be an amazing camera.
Reply
/0 Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Yeah! just watch out for Nikon D4.
Reply
J. Selman Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 5:34 am
I definitely will be….
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 5:49 am
If they do go to 32 or 38 MP they’re going to need some new lenses, especially in the wide zooms. The existing ones can barely handle 21mp yet alone jumping another 10. I really think you’re going to start running into the limit of what’s possible optically on a 35mm format at this stage. They would be better off stking with 21 or even 24 mp and working on the noise and per pixel sharpness by improving the anti-aliasing filter.
Reply
Bob Howland Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:30 am
38MP FF is the same as 14.8MP at 1.6x crop. I think the lenses will handle it. I know my 300 f/2.8 will.
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 8:09 am
I don’t care about more pixels, 21 is great. Why not better price point for PRO DSLR.
Reply
gwac Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
It’s all about the bling yo, higher tech to justify higher prices.
Reply
mark Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
+100000
Look at the price of new 100mm macro L.
Canon is very much capable of bringing a canon version of D700. But they will not.
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Where are the new lenses!!?
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 9:04 am
I want to see ISO go the other way as well. ISO 25, 12, 6 etc
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Yeah! We need 24-70 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II
Bring it on Kwanon!
Reply
jweu Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I would like to have something in combination with 24-105 f/4. What’s about 80-320 f/4 ?
I’m now waiting for a high quality lens without weakness at the end of zoom and ready for more than 20MP.
Reply
gabe Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
+1 for the 24-70 II, its really sharp and everything else, IF! you can get a good copy, but the bad news is that every 3rd-4th is a good copy… shame on the quality control of this lens!
Reply
orthodoxxx Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Man…I want the mark II 70-200mm so badly its not even funny…maybe next year who knows?!?
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 11:54 am
These stats seem pretty logical.
Man, every time Canon ups their pixel count there’s someone saying “Oh its more pixels but it won’t be sharp” or “in comparison to Medium Format blah blah…”.
Medium Format cameras cost a lot more. When I got my 5D Mark II, I took sharper images than my sharpest 30D image and at 21MP. So lets see what happens if/when Canon releases a 32MP camera. And its been great having 21MP, I have a lot more freedom than say 8MP or 12MP.
I always get clients asking for 20×30 or larger. Did a studio shoot a few weeks back and the sharpness was so dead on that I actually had to hide a lot of flaws on the face.
So long story short lets not worry about the 32MP if it does happen haha. If you want Medium Format…fork out the dough. I think their price point as is on camera bodies are reasonable. If there’s anything to complain about, lenses are getting more expensive. I’ve got 2 bodies at home and 10 lenses.
I’ve had a chance to use a Hassy a while back and it really is on a different level of sharpness, there’s no argument there. Now the older 30MP range bodies are probably going used for a relatively reasonable price (17kish).
Reply
pure Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
could you explain what a “medium format camera” is? it seems that the 5d mkii is the top of the line, and not some “medium” (if anything, it should be high -end because of the FF
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
My theory:
Canon EOS-1 Ds Mark IV
26.5 megapixels
1080p (30p, 25p, 24p) & 720p/SD (60p, 50p)
45 cross-type autofocus points
Transmissive LCD viewfinder (I hope)
Dual-level axis
mRAW (12.1 MP) and sRAW (7.4 MP)
Dual DiG!C 4
6.3fps
Native ISO 100-6400, ext. up to ISO 51,200 (H3)
All numbers are approximate (lol)
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
The camera will be 29-32 megapixels and will not be in that 38 megapixel range, just not going to happen. Yeah Canon competing with medium format cameras?
By the way, estimate street price is rumored in the $8,999 range.
A Canon 3D is most likely to happen but will not be a 20+ megapixel camera. It is going to be similar resolution to the current 1D Mark IV with high iso sensitivity. Canon will not make the same mistake of making another high resolution camera for cheap.
The 5D Mark II killed the 1Ds sales even though the 1Ds was still far superior.
Reply
PimpMasterFresh Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 5:44 am
Not in IQ. The 1Ds may have far superior build quality and autofocus but the 5DII’s image quality is actually slightly better than the 1DsIII.
Reply
mark Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 7:35 am
canon hadto make the “mistake” of going for 21mp to avoid offering a 12mp pro body like d700. they knew exactly what they were doing.
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
By the way, 32-38 megapixel range is going to start causing issues on sharpness and image quality which is why we are starting to see both Canon and Nikon releasing upgraded lens models as many of the current lens options likely can’t provide the quality necessary. I mean a 32 megapixel camera is going to have insanely small pixels which will require top notch glass to make uber sharp pictures. I’m sorry but you can’t expect a lens that was designed 5 years ago for a 12 megapixel camera to be capable of keeping up with a 32 megapixel version, it’s asking a lot.
Reply
ossme Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 3:16 am
currently both the 7d provide a smaller pixel size than what a 32 MP 1ds would have. the 1d mark IV comes very close to that as well.
the 7d with the 70-200mm is raser sharp.
Reply
Rob Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 5:43 am
I wonder what the pixel count would be on a full frame sensor using the pixel density of the 18mp 7D??
Reply
gwac Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 10:09 am
18*1.6^2 = 46MP
Reply
October 26th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I wonder if they will remove the anti-aliasing filter or not. Look at the difference it made for image sharpness on the recent Lecia. An 18MP camera that produces sharper images than the 21MP 1Ds3 or the 24MP Sony/Nikon.
Reply
October 27th, 2009 at 12:13 am
No.
Those sharper images are all well and good until you photograph the wrong object and get horrible aliasing artifacts that can’t be fixed in software.
Do you think Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax/Olympus put in an AA filter just for kicks?
Reply
October 27th, 2009 at 6:47 am
That’s “THE” Camera, aka da BEAST i’m waiting for since months and months…
My credit card is already ready :)
Reply
October 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Just my 2cents. 38Mpixels is roughly the same pixel density at the 50D. 32Mpixels is roughly the same as the XSI. If this is released ~ 2 years later, I am certain that process technology improvements will more than make this sensor possible.
I don’t understand why people say that the lenses can’t cut it. They weren’t designed for digital cameras. The full frame lenses were designed for FILM. Yup, that stuff that used to come in the little can. The good film easily had 24+ mpixels of resolution. If you use 120 line pairs per mm, then film was ~ 24Mp. If you use 140 line pairs per mm, then film was ~32Mp.
But it was analog, not digital. With digital there is an abrupt wall where image capture stops. Not so in the analog world. It degrades gracefully. This means to have an equivalent image capture, you need to over sample. This camera could be equal to or better than the best 35mm slide films.
Now, comments above have compared this rumored camera to med format digital. Have ya looked at those cameras?? Not exactly a wide dynamic range or capture speed.
If this rumor is close to true, this camera will rock. I won’t buy it because I am not a pro and don’t need bleeding edge technology. However, this will push technology down to the consumer grade bodies. We should all be excited!
Reply
jweu Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Look at the MTF charts, some lenses are weak at 30 line pairs per mm. So Canon itself believes you can show the shapness of a lens at 30 lines per mm. Zeiss and Leica don’t believe this, they are offering much more information.
I’m using lenses with open aperture at my favorite jazz club. Not all lenses are good enough for 100 lines per mm wide open (EF 35mm f/2, EF 100 f/2)
The performance of EF-S 55-250 is impressive.
By the way: I decided not to buy EF-S 17-85 because for a long time I couldn’t find the MTF. I will never buy a lens without MTF from any manufacturer. Lenses are not apples where it’s enough to have the color, the weight and the type (like 35mm) to decide.
By the way: Canon hotline was not able to tell me which lens is best (minimal distortion) for paintings. Do you know which lens from canon has minimal distortion? I have to go to Zeiss to get a distortion chart as well.
Reply
gabe Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
minimal distorsion? here it is
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/165-canon-ts-e-90mm-f28-lab-test-report–review?start=1
i know i know its apsc, but its more then nothing.
0% :DDD even if its cause of the wrong measurement, the margin of error i think is still small, so even if its not perfect, its almost.
other good alternatives are the two 85mm
Reply
October 27th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
It won’t exceed 30+ megapixels, sorry you are living a pipe dream. Heck even if it did your going to see the cost in the $10,000 USD range. The big reason they aren’t going to push the sensor size is to control overall image quality. As it is right now the 1D Mark IV is already behind the Nikon D3s in terms of quality. What is going to happen when Nikon releases the D4 and D4x next year? Canon is trying to think ahead for a change but I seriously don’t think it’ll matter since whatever Canon comes out with Nikon will only do them one better.
FYI saying the 5D Mark II is great and the D700 is bad is really quite the odd statement. The image quality on the D700 is insane. Best way to describe the 5D Mark II….
The 5D Mark II is a Camera that was designed by Canon used scrap parts of other Camera models in a desperate hope to try to regain market share. Since 2008 Canon market share has dropped by over 10% to Nikon. The only thing new on the 5D Mark II was the video features.
It uses a autofocus system that was designed way back in 2002-2003, a sensor that at the time was already over a year and a half old, a nearly identical body to the original 5D. Essentially something that was slapped together to make money.
Yet for some reason, and I kid you not, the original Canon 5D Mark I is still one of the best cameras canon has ever made, it’s better than the Mark II at least in my opinion.
Reply
jweu Reply:
October 28th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
18 MP at APS-C shows us, that 30MP or 40MP at FF will be available in the near future since APS-C is less than half the size of FF! The problem is more the speed of data transfer to the main memory of the camara and the image processor to produce JPEG-files. Let’s buy good lenses right now (Canon can start labeling the lenses with: “30MP-Ready” or “100 lines per mm with 50% contrast at all settings”)
Reply
Giovanni Coppola Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Hi Kevin,
what planet are you on??? The 5DMk2 represents Canon’s best image quality at the moment and is better in all respects over the D700 including ISO/Noise performance, which when you think about it, is amazing given it has nearly double the pixels.
making a comment such ‘made from used scrap parts’ is just nonsense!
Reply
October 28th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
… Digic IV ?…… I don´t believe……digic V……. sure sure…..
Reply
October 31st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
The Pope speaks on the 1Ds4:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=33548724
Reply
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
1Ds IV newwwwssssss !!!!!!! aggggggggggggggg!!!!! pleaseeee!!!!
Reply
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:53 am
1Ds IV newwwwssssss !!!!!!! aggggggggggggggg!!!!! pleaseeee!!!!
Reply
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
I want 1Ds MARK IV + digic V + RAW = beautiful !!!!!!!!
1Ds mark IV is for photo only, is not for me.
Reply
November 11th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
say before : 1Ds mark IV is for photo only, is not for me.
now correct: 1D mark IV is for photo only, is not for me.
sorry
Reply
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:20 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
January 24th, 2010 at 5:51 am
I think i have spotted the 1Ds MK IV at the Australian Tennis Open being tested by a staff photographer.
Reply
February 4th, 2010 at 5:51 am
All this conversation can be done with this note:
Shoot with whatever makes you happy and whatever makes you money. It’s nice to have money to spend in medium format cameras and who does not like that is because is a hater. Canon cameras are doing the job very fine. But nothing like the resolution and sharpness of a medium format.
Canon Mark III 1ds owner and Hassel owner
Reply