No 1Ds Mark IV in 2011? [CR2]

[c.d.embrey]

Megapixels?

The Nikon D3x is 24 megapixel, Canon 1Ds lll is 21 megapixel.

A naming/numbering scheme that makes sense?

What's so hard to understand?

D3s = 1D lV Pro Body sports camera

D3x = 1DS lV Pro Body studio camera

D700 = 5D ll Full frame Small Body

D300 = 7D Crop Frame Small Body

D7000 = 60D Consumer Camera

Most contributors to Canon Forums keep asking for better low light capability, not more megapixels. Which is why I said that Nikon is paying attention to Canon users, and is delivering what they want!

[bvukich]

AF across all bodies and lenses, none of this screw-driven BS.

+1

You need a secret decoder ring to figure out what lenses work with which bodies.

[niko]

Most contributors to Canon Forums keep asking for better low light capability, not more megapixels.
Which is why I said that Nikon is paying attention to Canon users, and is delivering what they want!

Grass seems to be always greener on the other side, however Canon and Nikon are not that far apart on high ISO performance - Nikon has an edge of about 2/3 - 1 stop (FX), especially when pixel peeping at 100% (or more) on a PC screen. When printing images at the same size, any perceived advantages become minimal to non-existent.

(is this considered stirring the bees' nest?  )

[Bob Howland]

Most contributors to Canon Forums keep asking for better low light capability, not more megapixels.
Which is why I said that Nikon is paying attention to Canon users, and is delivering what they want!

Grass seems to be always greener on the other side, however Canon and Nikon are not that far apart on high ISO performance - Nikon has an edge of about 2/3 - 1 stop (FX), especially when pixel peeping at 100% (or more) on a PC screen. When printing images at the same size, any perceived advantages become minimal to non-existent.

Is that true even at ISO51,200? Which brings up the question, what FF Canon does ISO51,200? The 1DMk4 is a joke at that ISO and an even more pathetic joke at ISO102K

[niko]

Most contributors to Canon Forums keep asking for better low light capability, not more megapixels.
Which is why I said that Nikon is paying attention to Canon users, and is delivering what they want!

Grass seems to be always greener on the other side, however Canon and Nikon are not that far apart on high ISO performance - Nikon has an edge of about 2/3 - 1 stop (FX), especially when pixel peeping at 100% (or more) on a PC screen. When printing images at the same size, any perceived advantages become minimal to non-existent.

Is that true even at ISO51,200? Which brings up the question, what FF Canon does ISO51,200? The 1DMk4 is a joke at that ISO and an even more pathetic joke at ISO102K

The highest ISO that Canon offers in FF is 25600 which is in line with Nikon's 51200 (ergo the ~1 stop Nikon advantage), although I would put any ISO over Nikon D3s 12800 in the pathetic (or very close to) category.

[Bob Howland]

Most contributors to Canon Forums keep asking for better low light capability, not more megapixels.
Which is why I said that Nikon is paying attention to Canon users, and is delivering what they want!

Grass seems to be always greener on the other side, however Canon and Nikon are not that far apart on high ISO performance - Nikon has an edge of about 2/3 - 1 stop (FX), especially when pixel peeping at 100% (or more) on a PC screen. When printing images at the same size, any perceived advantages become minimal to non-existent.

Is that true even at ISO51,200? Which brings up the question, what FF Canon does ISO51,200? The 1DMk4 is a joke at that ISO and an even more pathetic joke at ISO102K

The highest ISO that Canon offers in FF is 25600 which is in line with Nikon's 51200 (ergo the ~1 stop Nikon advantage), although I would put any ISO over Nikon D3s 12800 in the pathetic (or very close to) category.

If going to ISO51200 is the only way to get the shot, even with a 1DMk4, then I guess that it isn't so pathetic. Anyway, what happened to the "minimal to non-existent" perceived advantages when printing images of the same size?

[niko]

Most contributors to Canon Forums keep asking for better low light capability, not more megapixels.
Which is why I said that Nikon is paying attention to Canon users, and is delivering what they want!

Grass seems to be always greener on the other side, however Canon and Nikon are not that far apart on high ISO performance - Nikon has an edge of about 2/3 - 1 stop (FX), especially when pixel peeping at 100% (or more) on a PC screen. When printing images at the same size, any perceived advantages become minimal to non-existent.

Is that true even at ISO51,200? Which brings up the question, what FF Canon does ISO51,200? The 1DMk4 is a joke at that ISO and an even more pathetic joke at ISO102K

The highest ISO that Canon offers in FF is 25600 which is in line with Nikon's 51200 (ergo the ~1 stop Nikon advantage), although I would put any ISO over Nikon D3s 12800 in the pathetic (or very close to) category.

If going to ISO51200 is the only way to get the shot, even with a 1DMk4, then I guess that it isn't so pathetic. Anyway, what happened to the "minimal to non-existent" perceived advantages when printing images of the same size?

Of course, you've been let down and understandably your disappointment in Canon is immeasurable for depriving you of the numerous opportunities to photograph black cats in a completely unlit back alleys with your Canon FF at ISO 51200-102400.

Let me also add that my Canon camera should be able to track the subject (e.g., black cat) and provide a perfectly in focus sequence of shots at 10+ fps.   

[unfocused]

This exchange over ISO 51,200 and above is simultaneously funny and ridiculous. Seriously now, if I'm doing the math right, does someone consider it "pathetic" that images shot at seven stops faster than Tri-X have noise. Surely you are kidding.

Tri-X = 400 ISO
800 ISO = +1 stop
1,600 ISO = + 2 stops
3,200 ISO = + 3 stops
6,400 ISO = +4 stops
12,800 ISO = +5 stops
25,600 ISO = +6 stops
51,200 = +7 stops

[niko]

This exchange over ISO 51,200 and above is simultaneously funny and ridiculous. Seriously now, if I'm doing the math right, does someone consider it "pathetic" that images shot at seven stops faster than Tri-X have noise. Surely you are kidding.

Tri-X = 400 ISO
800 ISO = +1 stop
1,600 ISO = + 2 stops
3,200 ISO = + 3 stops
6,400 ISO = +4 stops
12,800 ISO = +5 stops
25,600 ISO = +6 stops
51,200 = +7 stops

Perhaps a better way to express the images taken at super high ISO is borderline (usable/unusable).

[Bob Howland]

Of course, you've been let down and understandably your disappointment in Canon is immeasurable for depriving you of the numerous opportunities to photograph black cats in a completely unlit back alleys with your Canon FF at ISO 51200-102400.

Let me also add that my Canon camera should be able to track the subject (e.g., black cat) and provide a perfectly in focus sequence of shots at 10+ fps.   

Actually, they were yuletide reenactors at a local historical village/museum, in rooms typically lit by 3 candles. A typical exposure was 1/15 sec, f/1.4, ISO3200. I want publication quality ISO51200 so that I can use f/2.8 zooms and go to 1/60 sec.

I wonder if Canon regrets not making the 5DMk2 a 14MP, 5FPS Lord of Darkness camera, good enough to compete with the D3/D700/D3s at these high ISOs, instead of introducing the camera that killed the 1Ds3. I bought my 5D five years ago because, at the time, it was the best low light camera out there.

[kubelik]

I wonder if Canon regrets not making the 5DMk2 a 14MP, 5FPS Lord of Darkness camera

I don't think you'll ever hear anyone in senior leadership at Canon using the words "regret" and "5D Mark II" in the same sentence.  probably the one of the best balances of sales volume and net profit that they've had in the digital era.

I'm amused by the perception that we're entitled to be able to take pictures of anything we want to.  I mean, I want publication quality ISO 51200, I want f/2.8 supertelephotos that weigh as much as the 400 f/5.6 so I can hike with a 500mm lens, I want my 16-35 to have 8-stop IS so I can take landscape photos without a tripod ... this list goes on.

[Lawliet]

The highest ISO that Canon offers in FF is 25600 which is in line with Nikon's 51200 (ergo the ~1 stop Nikon advantage), although I would put any ISO over Nikon D3s 12800 in the pathetic (or very close to) category.

Good thing the 1D4 is a crop camera that allows for a wider aperture at a given composition.
Or doesn't loose a stop to a TC when used at the longest focal lengths.

OTOH one could argue whether such circumstances shouldn't be taken as in invitation to explore expressionism. Our eyes have their limits, too!

[Bob Howland]

I wonder if Canon regrets not making the 5DMk2 a 14MP, 5FPS Lord of Darkness camera

I don't think you'll ever hear anyone in senior leadership at Canon using the words "regret" and "5D Mark II" in the same sentence.  probably the one of the best balances of sales volume and net profit that they've had in the digital era.

I'm amused by the perception that we're entitled to be able to take pictures of anything we want to.  I mean, I want publication quality ISO 51200, I want f/2.8 supertelephotos that weigh as much as the 400 f/5.6 so I can hike with a 500mm lens, I want my 16-35 to have 8-stop IS so I can take landscape photos without a tripod ... this list goes on.

I have also seen it argued that the 5DMk2 is a loss leader. I don't think that the 5D damaged sales of the 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 nearly as much as the 5D2 did and using a 14-16MP sensor in the 5D2 and emphasizing high ISO image quality would have put some separation between it and the 1Ds3. Certainly, based on reports from various photography stores, the 1DsMk3 isn't selling very well. Canon can't be very happy about that.

Concerning your second paragraph, based on your definition of "publication quality", the output of the D3s is already there.

[kubelik]

bob, I agree they can't be excited about the die-off in 1Ds Mark III sales ... but to me that's more a question of them not having adequately spec'd the 1-series, rather than anything the 5-series did wrong.  it's certainly a gut check moment (or year, or few years); I've stated before that I don't think canon's policy of minimal incremental performance increases is sustainable business.

nikon does have a significant sensor quality advantage right now and I hope that canon will remedy the situation in the new cameras coming in 2011.  at the same time, I think they can do so while maintaining their current pixel densities and I hope that canon will be able to strike that balance.

[macfly]

All this talk is of no new high end camera from Canon, and the evidence of the total lack of sales (and supply) of the 1Ds Mklll, does seem to point to the end of the era of the 35mm style pro still camera. The market has spoken, and Canon have listed. Video and streaming content are the new rage, pro-sumers want their video and vimeo, and seemingly lower pixel counts stills. They have no interest in making exhibition sized prints, online distribution and sharing is the new king.

I will be interested to see what this big departure for Canon is, but my guess remains that it'll be a head on Red competitor. I suspect that the very few of us who either need or want super large still image files may never find it in the 35mm form factor, which personally I find a great shame. I really love using the EOS line, having worked with it since 1991, it would be my absolute first choice on any given day.

That 120MP chip they showed with Canon cine quality lenses is my idea of heaven, and I'd take out a second mortgage to get that system if they made it, but there's maybe only a couple of hundred of us in the world who feel that way, so developing such a thing is not what you'd call good business sense.