Comments on: 1Ds Mark IV [CR2]

By: adam

adam — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:06:32 +0000

As much as nobody needs 412 hp in a car, some of us love it. The same goes with a camera. I am supremily satisfied with my 16.7 mp 1ds mark 2, but I can’t wait to see It’s successor. Honestly I think my current camera could work for me for another 5 or 10 years, but I will replace it before then.
I think a professional camera having the ability to take a picture mid video is pretty useless. I’m speaking from a professional use perspective only.

By: adam

adam — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:57:48 +0000

Resolution is over rated. With modern resolution standards; noise levels, dynamic range and pixel clarity matter more. I would love to see a lower resolution camera that had exceptionally good noise levels at high ISO. I shoot professionally, and my 11mp files(1ds) made amazing posters at 2′ by3′. My 1ds mark 2 is higher detail, but its image is better for other reasons.

By: bustarhymes

bustarhymes — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:46:30 +0000

and i dont need your 32 megapixels ..please!!!! and neither do we want to spend $8499 for a slow FF camera …….what we need are faster fps, good image quality at high iso low light performance and good AF……we do not print billboards here..most of us dont…

please listen to the consumers….consumers are those who use cameras…photographers, semi pros, hobbyists and professionals.. what we need is what u should satisfy….
that is why most have switched and most are switching to nikon now….it is because you cannot up to now, satisfy the needs of the consumers….

please canon please… wake up!

By: bustarhymes

bustarhymes — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:39:26 +0000

i am a professional sports photographer, i also cover magazine celebrity events and wedding…

i am using a 5d mark II..honestly..yes i am happy with the performance of it…but…i hope they did not put video on it..instead…increased the frames per second…

everyone is right about canon..and they are losing photographers …. most pro i know have switched to nikon….i did not choose to switch to nikon yet since i still have complete lens lineup… but what could make me decide to switch …hey canon…..let me ask you this…why up to now, there is no camera that you have produced that can shoot sports with a Full Frame sensor? huh?… 7d is not full frame…1d Mark IV is not full frame…1Ds has slow fps…it cannot shoot sports…
why up to now there hasn’t any?

Nikon has D3, D3s….

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:36:17 +0000

I’m a still photographer who used to think the focus on video features was stupid. But as 5D Mark II team pointed out, the success of full HD on the low noise 5DII has dramatically pushed up sales. I know plenty of people working with video that want to buy one now, because the quality is excellent and the lens selection is perfect. Moreover, for video people all these cameras and lenses are extremely cheap in comparison to their normal gear. I have a meeting with a friend who makes films in a couple of days to discuss with him the camera and lenses his studio should acquire to shoot ENTIRE FILMS on a dSLR. When I was in NY, I met a woman whose director wanted to switch to 5D IIs for their television work. Canon is making a lot of money on that feature. It’s true most still photographers don’t care and don’t use it, but the film people will continue to finance more research by Canon on this front. It’s going to get a lot bigger in the next few years. I totally agree though, that some 32 MP sensor with no to little improvement on noise is way worse a decision than an improved 21 MP sensor that shoots in the dark relatively cleanly.

By: Yep

Yep — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:13:03 +0000

+1000

Exactly.

By: Joe Decker

Joe Decker — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:16:37 +0000

Thanks, that totally makes sense, and I see something I had missed.

It’s not that the image circle isn’t a circle, it’s that you can’t inscribe a 36×36 mm square in it even if you can inscribe a 36x24mm square in it. I ran the math on that, I’d expect a sensor just the tiniest bit over 30mm (I think I got something like 30.6mm), which matches your memory, and yeah, it totally makes sense.

The tilt-shift lenses produce significantly bigger image circles and could cover bigger sensors today, but … yeah. Thanks!

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:05:13 +0000

It depends how big the square sensor is. I think we’ve had this discussion before, but if the sensor were something like (ballpark don’t crucify me) 30mm x 30mm most lenses would be able to cover that spec.

By: N. Jensen

N. Jensen — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:08:47 +0000

It’s also wrong for the same sensor size and technology. Scale down the higher res image and you have the same low-noise image (within certain limits; banding might show up earlier with the smaller pixels).

By: J-Man

J-Man — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:32:06 +0000

“EXCELLENT high iso performance”
no problem as long as low ISO quality is not sacrificed or neglected.

“as long as they keep noise under certain levels”
that’s the problem, Canon is keeping noise at certain levels
so they can in increase Megapixels.
I’d rather have less noise.

By: J-Man

J-Man — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:13:54 +0000

Canon could be addressing the lens not being made for a square sensor right now with their updates.

By: 5D Mark II TEAM

5D Mark II TEAM — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 06:22:14 +0000

“More resolution on the same size sensor always means dynamic range and worse image quality compared to less megapixels on the same sized sensor”

That’s completely WRONG. If that was true, we would still have less than 10 MP in many sensor sizes even with low dynamic range.

The sensor size and low resolution itself doesn’t guarantee better image quality.

Sensors’ technology have been developed and enhanced a lot along the last decade, if they weren’t, a full frame sensor with 21MP of resolution would deliver mostly noise…

If you say “Given a SPECIFIC sensor size AND technology, less resolution -meaning bigger photosites- could give us better image quality and less noise”, then that’s right indeed.

And sorry, but Nikon doesn’t make “everything” better, even considering D3/D3x. Although I agree that Nikon has many strong points on stills (Canon is miles ahead on video). I personally use Nikon and Canon, both brands have strong and weak points, especially considering the whole thing: camera + lenses (because the camera alone can’t do anything)

Nikon more or less is also on the MP race. It’s a marketing matter they can’t avoid.

And both companies want to compete somehow with medium format cameras. Nikon D3x and its marketing stuff was a clear demonstration.

By: Joe Decker

Joe Decker — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:09:13 +0000

Physical limitations of the camera body wouldn’t seem to apply to a camera body we’ve never seen before, am I missing something.

Is it true that existing lenses don’t have a round usable image circle?

By: Borghetti

Borghetti — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 01:51:07 +0000

silly???? Squared sensor would be THE most amazing thing ever!!!
A dream coming true.
Canon could do it.