Comments on: 1Ds Mark IV

By: Lovely cams

Lovely cams — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:44:35 +0000

The are really the sexy girls I like

By: Gusto

Gusto — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:24:46 +0000

You’ve been going around disseminating false info about the 7D. Do you own one? Obviously you don’t. I have BOTH 450D and 7D and can compare them directly myself. Can you?

By: Gusto

Gusto — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:22:03 +0000

To 50/50:

the-digital-picture struggles a lot with their 7D. In fact, their 7D results are not reproducible by many.

If you simply want to dismiss the 7D vs 450D comparison to a mere difference in local contrast, so be it. But you CANNOT deny that the 7D is NOT any softer than the 450D even at the so-called diffraction limit of f/11.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:17:47 +0000

I disagree. You can always lower resolution in postprocessing if you like. When ISO setting is high, say, 3200, there won’t be any noticeable difference between a 32 megapixel and a 21 megapixel photo when printed. In other words noise per picture will be the same, while per pixel a 32 megapixel sensor will certainly yield more noise, which of course doesn’t matter. It matters though when ISO is low, say, 400, then a 32 megapixel photo will look a lot better (or to be more precise, it will have a higher resolution) than a 21 megapixel photo. The only real downside of high resolution is the larger size of photos in terms of megabytes. It is a clear disadvantage if you are into sports. Canon should go as high as they can in terms of resolution.
My prediction is 33 megapixels for the 1Ds Mark IV.
As far as video is concerned a camcorder should not be replaced by a camera, rather on the contrary. Camcorders are far more advanced and expensive and not only do they require external lighting but mics as well, besides footage should always be edited, ALWAYS.

By: Hamza

Hamza — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:19:16 +0000

32 MPx is way too much.
I wish Canon would have kept it to 21 MPx and increase the ISO performance.
Anyhow I m looking forward to this Awesome camera.
Any news on the movie mode??? Maybe canon would introduce over cranking and provide 60fps on 1080p?

By: jb

jb — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:10:50 +0000

iso is only up to 400 right? its been a while since I looked at the spec for S2

By: jb

jb — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:09:48 +0000

according to old discussions as I have came across in my research. There seems to be plenty of discussions regarding CCD is much better than CMOS. Like the original 1Ds, uses CCD, but I heard that 1Ds takes up so much batt that one must have an extra when shooting an assignment.

CCD are said to have higher DR and better IQ. But it is also said that it overheats quickly and less sensitive than CMOS sensors.

This make sense too i think, considering many high end medium format cams still uses CCD sensors… but having said that, I believe most pro photog also uses low iso in their medium format for the best pic quality. But hey… I;m not a sensor engineer XD so I dont really care and better be content with what I have lol

By: jb

jb — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:55:37 +0000

50D is a great camera! I concur! Used my friend’s… whoa… far better than my 450D anyday… but the 5DII IQ beats 50D anytime haha XD

By: jb

jb — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:46:39 +0000

didnt they use the hasselblad when thy went to the moon?

By: jb

jb — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:38:45 +0000

But new lenses would cost us a fortune! Those guys discussing about diffraction should really understands that each photographer have different needs. One may not need 32 mp or even 21 mp as in 5D II… the more number of pixels are in my opinion, a “nice to have” feature but it is not a “necessary” one.

Not “necessary” ???? well Imagine this…. a beast such as the 1DsIV should be a very flexible tool with superb image quality from iso 100 – 6400 no worries and with tack sharp focusing system. Say, if 32 mp is really the same as 12 mp (I’m comparing against my 450D here; yes, I know its really not fair in judging “the unreleased beast camera” with a cheap rebel, but since this is a rumor forum why not haha).

My rebel is capable of shooting till iso 1600, but I avoid so if possible… and if possible I use the smaller pixel count to shoot in iso 1600. Why? because I can see so much noise in more detail when I see it in 100% view if I shoot 12 mp in iso 1600. Say in 1DsIV, I shoot at iso 6400 and imagine that the image quality is not to the best of our taste…. this means that shooting at 32 mp would resolve more noise! yes…. details too… but also noise that is in the details will be far more profound… well this, stop me from pixel peeping anymore.

I dont understand Canon marketing scheme or their technological development; but before they develop a sensor that is able to cope with high pixel density… there is no need to increase the pixel count when they can concentrate more in image quality, with available lenses and technology that they have. What is the point of having develop beast camera with full weather sealing if its intended to be used in a studio environment all the time?

Canon marketing scheme doesn’t make sense to me… but having said that I love my current canon system with the 450D and is anxiously waiting for the 3D to be released… now that will be a one awesome camera :D

Oh and just for a friendly reminder for us all canonrumors readers.. stop pixel peeping, enjoy your photography more and keep reading canonrumors! haha. Well, what I want to say is we can have all the best tool canon can offer and still be a crap photographer, that is unless u all are pros XD

By: Adrian

Adrian — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:37:35 +0000

Maybe a little belated, but my opinion on megapixels’ count is simple:
the more megapixels the camera has the better. Sorry, but the ubiquitous statement “no need for more megapixels” doesn’t hold. Manufacturers create better sensors in terms of ISO noise ratios, which makes it possible to increase the resolution. Honestly speaking progress in resolution is going faster than progress in improving ISO noise ratios, but that’s not a reason to get stuck to some 12 or 18 megapixels.
Truth be told, the backers of such erroneous view either repeat after others, hooked (subconsciously) on denying the necessity to upgrade and spend more money, or even believe it or not, don’t know about how to benefit from high resolution.
Tackling this situation from another angle, I’m disappointed in the quality of work by today’s photographers, though there are a lot of good ones too, but the bottom line: a 1500 dollar dslr can create masterpieces, but people get crappy pictures out of 24 megapixel cameras (!) and pass their judgment on canon/sony engineers for their increases in megapixels. I think if a person isn’t pretty the mirror is not to blame. The best driver wants the best car (maybe even the fastest), likewise best photographers tend to get best cameras and it’s not about necessity. Hasselblad created a 60 megapixel camera. You don’t need that quality for success in business. Yet, its quality is better than that of a 40 megapixel camera.
The last point I want to make is that manufacturers do sometimes “cheat” and create something to be palmed off on unwary buyers. Some of such buyers may even consider themselves pro photographers. Internet resolution charts etc. are not always very precise and objective as though someone tries to mask pro-canon, pro-nikon, or pro-sony policy. Manufacturers usually “cheat” or themselves got confused when it comes to point-and-shoot camers, like Canon decreasing resolution on the G11 to 10 megapixels :-) to appeal to the backers of a “no need for more megapixels” myth for a diversity sake.

By: Freeze_XJ

Freeze_XJ — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:51:05 +0000

Pity a 7D has some issues with noise compared to FF. Depending on what you shoot, that may be a BIG issue (try shooting things in dusk/dawn or right now in the winter… I’m happy if i can pull ISO 400 f/4 1/400 off on a cloudy day. Say you have a longer lens and want to stop down (and/or use a TC), and you’re facing 1/800 f/8… which would mean ISO 3200… Right there the 7D suffers.
If you’re shooting in a sunny place under the equator this of course is of no relevance.

By: Freeze_XJ

Freeze_XJ — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:06:45 +0000

I do, because it tells me what plans they have with it. Renaming the 7D to 60D would mean it’s a lower class, so they intend less possibilities in the future. (or, when keeping the options, it means x0D gets ‘upgraded’ to a more serious prosumer :) )
If they ditch the 5D for a 3D, or even worse, the 1Ds4 becomes a 3D, that says something about the price and specs.

(No I can’t explain it like I want to, but I hope you understand it)

By: 50/50

50/50 — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:23:32 +0000

I was simply stating my opinion, and unlike you I wasn’t being condesending. Considering that even when 2 files from different camera’s shot in identical studio conditions are put through ACR both can come out with different renderings of color/contrast it’s a valid point. Unless you go through the effort of mapping the colors yourself to a color test chart and making a profile for that of each camera.

I could go on about why to me it’s pretty obvious that neither is resolving more of the detail, but it’s pretty obvious your mind is closed and discussion wasted. If how ever I’m wrong, read on.

My suggestion to you, get over yourself, I stated it’s MY OPINION, and it’s a valid one, you don’t have to accept it, agree with it, or even listen to it, but I’m entitled to having it.

If I look at the roof in both, the gaps between the tiles being the the finer detail is resolved in both, but with more contrast in the 7d, that isn’t more detail resolved, just apparent sharpness. if you want to define resolution as localized contrast that’s your misconception and not mine.

Depending on how small you set your requirement for a CoC to be considered sharp a 7D becomes diffraction limited as early as f/3.5-f/4 or so. Now look at the fine detail in both of these (identical studio conditions at f/6.3) and tell me the 7D isn’t mushy.

http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/DSLR-Camera-Comparison/Fabric/5DII-100.jpg

http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/DSLR-Camera-Comparison/Fabric/7D-P13-100.jpg

As for the comment about d200 vs 400d well… lets face it for a long time canon was just better, cheaper, and less noisy then nikon, and lets hope that becomes the indisputable case again soon.