1D Mark IV [CR2]

Canon Rumors
1 Min Read

September Announcement
A solid source has confirmed the launch of a new 1D camera in September.

The camera will be available for purchase in October in a limited number. Stock should be in full swing by the time Vancouver 2010 rolls around.

The camera will remain APS-H. The source added “photojournalists and sports photographers alike have overwhelmingly thrown their support behind the APS-H sensor. If you want full frame for your landscape and portrait work, Canon provides a superb 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III”.

There you have it.

cr

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

Share This Article
378 Comments
  • that is fricken BS. No body wants an APS-H sensor. Why buy all this expensive wide angle lenses like the 16-35, 14 mm, 15mm fisheye, if none of them work properly on an APS-H camera. Is insane i’m so sick of canon backing there aps-H sensor, give a full frame sports camera.

    Canon i’m ready to jump ship, i can’t take it anymore, i’ve held on for too many years waiting for full frame. 3-4 frames a second full frame does not allow me to stay in business.

  • Drop the Ds and go with a Nikon style crop for the APS-H. I am sure that Canon can find a way do do this and still have a fast FPS.

  • APS-H is silly, so I’m sure Canon won’t be getting rid of it anytime soon.

    So long as the 1D keeps the pixel-pitch disparity with the 1Ds of the same generation, the 1.3 crop factor gets no more reach and hampers wide angle work. Almost assuredly the people who want to keep APS-H (if there are any) are thinking that the 1.3 crop factor gets them “free reach” or something.

    However, a 17MP full frame 1D-next with the same pixel pitch as the 1D-III probably won’t seem nearly as impressive on paper (though that’s the camera I’d want).

  • Good to see you go. Full frame sports camera? Are you kidding? Are you going to be running on the field with the athletes? Have fun. Can’t say any of us will miss you. Hope you don’t drown when you jump off of our ship.

  • Totally right on!!! Even 24mm & 28mm SUCK on APS-H. If this is true it might be time to consider smarter manufacturers. If the new Sony backlit sensors are good, hmmmm, used to have Zeiss lenses back with a Contax RTS system, quite nice. I’ll wait on Nikon to see if they’re not going out of business. If Olympus would do something new over the E-3, they have great glass, hmmmmm. But there are good options now Canon – this would be very stupid.

  • “Why buy all this expensive wide angle lenses like the 16-35, 14 mm, 15mm fisheye, if none of them work properly on an APS-H camera.”

    People who want to use an APS-H camera don’t buy lenses like that, they buy telephotos of 400mm+ and do appreciate extra reach. It’s not a “general use” camera but rather a quite specialist tool. If you don’t want it, don’t buy but don’t criticize what you don’t understand.

  • Jason Says:
    “So long as the 1D keeps the pixel-pitch disparity with the 1Ds of the same generation, the 1.3 crop factor gets no more reach and hampers wide angle work. Almost assuredly the people who want to keep APS-H (if there are any) are thinking that the 1.3 crop factor gets them “free reach” or something.”

    Thank you for stating what needed to be said,
    they can still crop the files in camera if they want,
    you will end up with the same file as if it was an APS-H,
    but you gain the ability to go ultra wide.

    If my only choices for a Canon FF are 21Mp and 21Mp…
    Hello 60D, and if it doesn’t wow me, It will still be a 40D for another year or two and I’ll get more glass.

    I hope that both the 3D/7D will be FF

  • Didn’t the D3X with its higher pixel density sensor top the D3? It should not be difficult to make an APS-H sensor that is as good if not better than the one in the D3. Whether Canon has the technology to accomplish that or not is a different story.

  • As long as it can focus properly all will be well. I heard that might have been a small issue with the 1Dmk3. I’m just sayin’…

  • I do hope you realize that most sports shooters shoot with a second body.. most likely a full frame with some zoom 16-35/24-70/70-200 attached to it…

    APS-H is great. Good balance between APS-C and FF. I wish canon came out with a pro APS-C camera though for birding :)

  • The fact the D3 and D3x do not ruin your wide angle lenses, offer dyanamic crop, and are full frame sensors makes them better than APS-H even if Canon managed to match their dynamic range and low noise, which is unlikely.

    Also, the total BS in this rumor is the claim “photojournalists and sports photographers alike have overwhelmingly thrown their support behind the APS-H sensor.” Really? Then why are so many of them now using D3’s? This source needs to get a clue.

    Heaping on top of that BS is even more ludicrous BS “If you want full frame for your landscape and portrait work, Canon provides a superb 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III”.” WTF? The 1Ds3 is only 5 fps, the 5D2 is under 4 fps, how does that compete with the full frame sensor at the blazing 9 fps of the D3? And who says the only use for full frame is lanscape and portrait shooters??? That source is out of touch and out of their mind – just hoping Canon is not too.

  • Are you kidding? How is a 1.3 crop any real help for sports? That is a minor photoshop crop in reality, one better handled in camera as dynamic crop than in ruining your wide angle lenses to get it.

  • I hope the rumor (september launch) is true. If 60D is going to be announced next week, chances are it will share some features with 1D4.

  • I think the assumption APS-H owners don’t buy wide lenses is BS – being I own both myself, and I know many others who do too. The “extra reach” of 1.3 is both a myth and a joke, and not worth ruining your wide glass to get – Nikon at least got real by making it an in-camera crop from a full frame sensor instead of sticking us with a cropped sensor and ruining use of wide angle lenses.

  • I agree about a prosumer APS-C body. I think you’re incorrect about the sports shooters using a FF as a second body in that the reason for doing so is because Canon has screwed them over by not making a fast fps full frame body – LIKE NIKON.

  • Try to look at the bigger picture, there are a lot of sports that require wide angle and 9 frames a second. Try shooting tony hawk, shaun white, or swimming at pipeline with a 15mm fisheye on a 1D when really it’s a 20mm and looks like crap.

    I’ve got the 400mm 2.8, i’ve got the 15 mm.

    The 1D’s just isn’t for sports.

  • You are right on. There is no free or extra reach from the 1.3 crop, it’s a CROP not a magnification. Rather than crop in photoshop, Canon just cropped the sensor for you.

  • I own a 400mm 2.8 and a 100-400.

    What i need is a digital camera that works like the old film 1v or EOS3, why is that too much to ask. Why can’t we have a work horse like we used too, why crop it.

  • “That source is out of touch and out of their mind”
    Or working at Canon.

    At least, that source is credible : availability in October … but truly available around February.
    Only a Canon employee could mention that without ticking.

    Chuck, is that you? :J

  • So buy a camera that you want and stop complaining, you knew what you were buying at the time.

  • what is so bad about FF for sports?
    If it has 21MP then it has MORE reach than the 1DIII nevermind 1DII and as much as a 30D.
    Plus, with the far wider FOV it is easier to track action and you can use a large focal length lens over a much wider area of the field.
    Agreed the D3 at only 12MP loses you a lot of reach, but 12MP FF is old hat.

    Not that APS-H is terrible.

    It sure would be nice to have a generalist FF that is not as bulky or overpriced as the 1Ds.

    It doesn’t sound like too much hope for a non-integrated grip performance camera though any time soon (no fabled 3D unless their sales go into the toilet it sounds like) and it sounds like canon is stuck under the spell of their marketing department still.

    IF Nikon introduces a D700x I think Canon is screwed….

    Although I’m sure the APS-H 1D4 will be pretty decent.

  • Yeah but maybe some people don’t 100% shoot sports!

    Just a thought!

    A dual-digic V should be able to handle 21MP at 8fps for sure or, if we cut back to 1D3 reach, a 17MP FF sensor very easily at 8-10fps. But they want to protect precious 1Ds line and 1D line so forget about anything like a D700 anytime soon and forget about a full out generalist 1D either….

  • If you don’t like it, switch over to the other side of the fence … plain and simple. Think Canon should make a D3? Just go buy one.

    Im personally happy with an APS-H cropped camera – the 1.3 crop might not give a whole wack load of extra reach, but I sure do appreciate it when the time comes.

    Everyone’s always saying they want something like the D3 – forgetting completely that the D3 shoots 9/sec in 12-bit colour mode.

    Im perfectly happy to have 10 frames/sec, with a slight crop, to be able to shoot in 14-bit. Much better than the measly 2 or 3 (if that!) fps of the D3 and D3x in 14-bit.

    Don’t think it makes a difference? Try printing on any new 24, 44, or 60″ inkjet, which produce TRUE 16-bit colour prints … then tell me about it.

    People will argue that a miniscule amount of people with any use for this camera will actually do so – but people will argue the use of this camera, period. Wedding and portrait shooters who want speed and response seem to buy these cameras in droves, along with anyone shooting HDR – all good reasons for the extra bit depth and colour.

    You can say more sports and journalist photographers are using D3’s, and Canon’s market share is depleting – fine, but also look at other reasons – the major point being that Nikon practically gives their cameras away to news organizations.

    Would I PREFER full frame? Ofcourse – especially after using one currently. Would an APS-H sensor in a new body be enough reason to jump ship, completely ditch the fast wide-angle primes (which no one else seems to offer – 35 1.4 anyone?), the 85 1.2, and the 135L? Not in a million years. I’ll take my shallow DOF instead of higher ISO and lazy 2.8 zooms any day of the week.

    I’m all down for corporate criticism – but points of ditching a system all together because a company doesn’t release a camera specifically designed for your needs is rediculous. I’m sure many of the same points were made when the EOS system came out – and look what happened.

    Still keeping fingers crossed for a full frame speed demon though!

  • Seriously, if I need to go wider then 16*1,25 anything requiring 5fps+ is something someone else should wreck their gear with. :)
    Or its such a special occurance you can rent a Nikon or use the alleged 60D+something wide.

    OTOH the 16-35/17-40 with APS-H have a relly handy range for indoor works; almost no need to change lenses.

    The recent resurge of Nikon gear isn’t a thing with crop vs. 35mm, but a return home.

  • i mean even still… for those who want a crop camera… whats wrong with just cropping it in post? you know, you might find you sports photographers or photojournalists like the wider “option”.
    what do you guys think?

  • I think you’re mistaken about the resurg of Nikon having nothing to do with full frame. It’s certainly a significant factor.

  • I bet Nikon already have access to the new generation of backlit Sony sensors. If Canon releases a moderately upgraded 1D MkIII this fall, Nikon will probably counter with a D4 some time during the spring. What will Canon do then?

    I really, really hope that Canon’s done their homework and that they’ve also tested this model thoroughly.

  • I would buy it if Canon would stop jerking around and make the 1D4 FF. People want APS-H on this site because they think they’re getting some sort of extra reach. It’s a myth. It’s not true. There’s no extra reach, only a crop. Why would you rather have Canon ruin your wide glass and do a sensor crop when you could do it dynamic or in photoshop even and still have your wide from a FF sensor? It’s like blowing up your foot to stop a bug from biting it. It makes no sense. APS-H isn’t giving you anything, it’s taking away and cropping whether you want it or not. Just give us a FF 1D4 body and let us decide if we want to crop it or not, dynamically or in photoshop.

  • I see where you are coming from. And I agree with you. :)

    I also won’t know what to do if I need wide angle lenses for such a camera.

    What if Canon decides to allow the mounting of APS-C lenses on that APS-H sensor camera, and permits in-camera cropping? That is a possible solution. But I doubt Canon will do that. This is the same Canon we’re talking about. :) Always obstinate, always doing things THEIR way.

  • im happy that its APS-H.
    carrying a 5d2 +400mm2.8 is heavy.
    1dIV with 200mmf2 +1.4 extender. is better and faster.

  • Although I understand the advantage of FF over APS-H for wide angle photography (you get more wide angle), I’m still unclear as to how a crop camera “ruins” a wide angle lens. as long as you don’t drop it, a lens doesn’t get ruined. Yet David has mentioned three times in this thread that APS-H ruins a WA. I just don’t get it.

    There’s a fixation with ‘FF’ which overlooks the fact that it’s an arbitrary standard anyway. Within limits, the larger the sensor the better the IQ. Big deal. As long as the IQ that your camera has is good enough, it’s good enough. I’d like to see improvements over DR and high ISO quality.

    That’s not to say that if Canon offered a ‘FF’ with dynamic crop that I would turn it down. That is the most sensible option, and to do otherwise would be quite dumb of Canon. But it wouldn’t be the first time a corporate decision was not optimal for all users, and most will just suck it up. All other things being equal, I know I will.

  • You need to open your eyes and realize APS-H is not giving you extra reach, it’s only a crop, like taking your 8X10 print and cutting the sides off making it smaller, then claiming that cropping it somehow magnified the image and made it larger. WAKE UP. You’ve been dupped by the marketing gimmick. There is no extra reach provided by APS-H, and you ruin your wide angle for nothing.

  • Look, you admit yourself that you’d prefer full frame, and you point out the fast wide primes Canon makes, yet ignore that they get ruined by the APS-H sensor, so please stop with the go buy a Nikon if you’re not happy nonsense. APS-H was the best thing when it came out. Now there is absolutely no valid reason to keep it. The supposed extra reach is a joke. It’s a crop, not a magnification. Why should those of us with an investment in Canon glass not want a better feature from Canon? Why should we not let Canon know what we want rather than sticking our heads in the sand when full frame with dynamic crop is much better way to go than sticking us with another crop sensor?

  • LOL I need to open my eyes and wake up do I?! You hold some magical knowledge or something do you. Sheeeshh!

    A crop camera 1.3 or 1.6 will give you the same effect as using a longer lens because perspective is about the DISTANCE you are from your subject not the length of your lens.

    Given the same MP as a FF camera, it is giving you (for want of a better term) a magnified image as you don’t need to take away MP to get the effect.

    So for SPORTS shooters to whom it is aimed, it will give a nice effect. Boosting your 400mm lens to a 520mm lens.

    Wide angle, the difference is instead of 16mm you get 20mm. Which isn’t too much of a difference (one step back). So “ruining” your wide end is very subjective.

  • Yeah no kidding! You’d think sports photographers didnt exist before APS-H came out listening to some people here. News flash all you APS-H fans! They ALL shot full frame 35mm film with no in camera crop and lots of SI covers and posters looked very good indeed.

  • Only thing is 1dmkiii can’t take advantage of 12bits and if one or two of the Nikon’s can (maybe D3x?) perhaps it is because of the slow, careful read.

    APS-H only gives reach in the sense that they dont to have push as much data around to get the same reach. Granted they probably could pull it off but want to save 1Ds line…. maybe it gets them more money in the end (if some disgruntled customers) or maybe they are gonna shoot themselves in the foot….

  • All this talk about Nikon > Canon forgets that (supposedly) glass > bodies.

    Canon glass > Nikon glass

    Canon glass = Cheaper

    Canon wins.

    :P

  • Take the 5D2, the 200mm f2 + 1.4 extender, crop your 21MP images in photoshop and save yourself $2000 because that sort of crop is all you get from APS-H – it’s not magnifying like an extender, it’s cropping it down.

  • One thing just struck me.

    Someone once posted the manufacturing costs for FF, APS-H and APS-C sensors.

    It appears that the costs for the latter two sensors are similar and significantly less than that of FF. So, if Canon wants to maximize their profit margin for a small targeted market, leaving the APS-H sensor in the 1D series is perhaps the way to go?

  • Ok, but keep in mind it would need 13.8MP just to make the 400 2.8 give the same reach as it has on the 5D2 and something like 19.7MP to do what you claim. Latest rumor has it 15MP, but who knows, or only a little more reach than a 5D2.

  • I would love a FF with 12fps, 20Mpixels, at less than US$2,000. Who wouldn’t? :) Let’s wait and see what Canon comes out with. So far, all we have is a CR2 rumor.

    Regarding the FF/APC-H cropping/extra reach, I don’t think it is actually just a crop you can do with Photoshop. And the reason is simple. To make it easy lest take this example: pretend the crop would take the left half side of the picture and that the picture is a 10Mpixel. A crop would give you a 5Mpixel image. Is this what we are getting with a APS-H or APS-C? No. We are getting the full size of the corresponding sensor. If it was a crop with Photoshop we would get less pixels and that means less resolution.

    Until someone explains me this in a better way, I believe we are getting more reach wit an APS-H or APS-C sensor, specially if you’re using good lenses like those you can use with an 1.4x or 2x extender.

  • David, you don’t understand what a “crop” really does. It’s basically the same as a longer lens or using an extender as it gives you the same field of view that the longer lens does.

    It isn’t the same as cutting the edges off a photo because you aren’t losing any information.

    Perspective (as said somewhere above) remains the same if you stand the same distance from your subject (this is true if you use a 16mm lens or a 200mm lens. The 200mm lens just “cuts” off the sides of the view (of course the quality is better than cropping from 16mm in PP, but you get what I mean).

    A crop camera, just takes the light coming in the centre of the lens (usually the sharpest part too). Therefore (given the same amount of megapixels) the image is actually magnified so to speak, you’re not losing information like cropping in PP because all the sensor is being used (and therefore all the megapixels). Therefore “just cropping in post” isn’t as ideal for people who need all the reach they can (sports photographers).

    It really comes down to whether you want more reach at the long end or more width at the wide end.

    Crop cameras are excellent for the former as at the long end you get more of an effect.

  • How old is that data? The 5D2 is FF yet only $2700, the new Sony FF’s are even less expensive. Like most things, as production increases costs go down.

  • Yeah wake up. You’re buying into marketing hype if you think APS-H offers a real increase in magnification. I’m well aware of the perspective differences. But the fact is there is no same MP comparison so you’re making a straw-man argument there. You have the 1D3 at 10MP 1.3 crop and 1Ds3 at 21MP FF. You can crop the 21MP image down in photoshop to what it would be at 1.3 crop and it will still be a much larger image than the 10MP image.

    Ruining your wide may be subjective, but you know very well the difference between 16 and 20.8mm is significant, and pointless because you are not really gaining anything with the APS-H sensor in return.

  • that reach and perspective you speak of is BS it is simple pixel density get a full frame with equal pixel density that crop is now a nusience and not a bennifit and with increased pixel dense comes more noise.

  • Crop sensors take the light from the center onto a smaller sensor too! You can’t just say “given the same megapixels” because that is not reality. The FF sensors are higher MP. I’m not making a theoretical argument, I’m making the reality argument. The reality is the FF sensors are higher MP and can therefore use a dynamic crop giving us BOTH FF for high rez and wide angle and crop to less MP in the center for an appearance of magnification. Nikon gets this reality concept. Why some Canon users dont and want to cling APS-H is amazing.

    Being that I have a 10D, 50D, 1D, 5D2 (& 1Ds3 but it’s same sensor size as 5D2 I didnt compare it) I have taken photos with them using the same lenses, scene and comparing them shows me no *real* magnification advantage from the crop sensors. When I crop the 5D2 image down to match the 50D image perspective the 5D2 image was still sharper and had less noise. The extra reach is an illusion aside from a slight difference bokeh I can crop down from FF to the 1.3 or 1.6 no problem.

    This could very simply be done in camera with a FF dynamic crop sensor. Why keep a sensor that limits you needlessly and costs $4500? Makes no sense.

  • Problem is the FF sensors are in fact higher resolution and the crop sensors are smaller in size so all the “given the same MP” senarios are just not reality. I dont think your math is correct on the 10MP to 5MP, seems like a lot more than 1.6 crop to me but its late and I’m getting tired…time for bed.

  • Unhappy, but at least now I am convinced I can sell my Canon gear and switch over to Nikon. Canon really blew their lead in the DSLR game with the 1D III series and lacklustre prosumer models. I’ll be buying a D700x or a D4 :)

  • Canon will be keeping APS-H so that they have two pro bodies to sell, one cheaper than the other.

    If the 1D was full frame, how could they charge more for the 1Ds?

    What would the justification for slower and more expensive be?

  • But then it would be more expensive. You cannot have everything in a single camera or they don’t want you to have.

  • I thought a new 1D MKIV would bring us canon fans together, finally something good and new….. i was soooo wrong. I don’t want to know what the 7D/60D will do ! :P

  • OMG people are getting crazy! It’s all a rumor who says this will happen :)
    Just wait and see what Canon will bring the next couple of weeks/months ;)
    If it than sux you can bash Canon, but bashing now on stuff that isn’t there WTF?!?!

  • 1Ds = slower fps @ higher resolution.
    1D = faster fps @ lower resolution.

    now…

    for everyone that’s arguing that they need the ‘reach’ of the
    APS-H sensor….

    why don’t you buy the 60D, IT’S GOT MORE REACH!!!
    or better yet go get yourself a 4/3 camera, I hear it has
    way more reach, like 2X THE REACH OF FF!!!

    /rant

    since all this rumor has for information is that the sensor
    is APS-H, it’s possible they only seen a prototype or preliminary brochures or what have you.

    till we get a CR3 with spec’s it’s all moot.

    fwiw, I hope the 1D4 is FF to challenge the D3/D4
    Canon needs a lower resolution FF 1D series or 3D?? but it needs to be pro quality.

  • just a thought (since it probably won’t happen) – what if Canon were to come out with a 12-24mm lens (like the sigma) that works on full frame? it would already be an ultra-wide on the 1.3x crop, and a ludicrous-wide on the FF. would that settle down you 1.3x haters out there? or do you, y’know, just hate the 1.3x for existing?

  • In any instance, there is always a technological “sweet spot” in balance between ISO, IQ and MP. Currently, it’s 16-18MP @ FF.

    I hope Canon don’t let those non-photographer (ok, mabbe Handphone cam MP crazy ;) ) marketing dept screw up the feature set of whatever is coming.

  • While I would love to see a FF sport camera from Canon, I worry about the ramifications of it. First and foremost, what would be the price? Essentially, it would signify a merging of the 1D and 1Ds. I think few people would sacrifice the frame rate for a few megapixel difference (17mp vs 21mp for example, which has been suggested above). If they merge, it is almost guaranteed the new camera will carry the $8K price tag of the 1Ds. If this is the case it will essentially mean you would have to pay double the minimum price now for a professional build camera from Canon and something I would not look forward too. So, for me to accept a full frame sports camera from Canon, I’d need the following to happen:

    -In camera croping (like Nikon). I, for one, do not like the prospect of having to crop all of my sports photos in Photoshop. I prefer to frame my shots correctly in camera as it saves loads of time in my work flow.

    -A new feature in the 1Ds line that still makes it a viable product, such as 4K video, ridiculously high resolution or other features to compete with professional video and/or medium format cameras. This will allow the 1D to still be offered at a more reasonable price.

    -Introductory price similar to that of the 1D Mark III. I’m not interested in paying an additional $4K (total of $8K) simply for full frame. I can buy a real nice piece of glass or a 5D mark II plus decent glass for that premium.

  • People, how many pro sports shooters are there? Now, how many wedding shooters are there? I guarantee you there are more wedding shooters willing to spend 5K on a pro body than there are sports shooters. Given that Nikon is FF, if Canon goes FF in the DIV it’s not like they would lose customers to the competition.

    So, lets look at the sales numbers here. Sports shooters can use either FF or cropped. Wedding shooters tend to like to be able to go wide. If you make the DIV FF then you sell WAY, WAY, WAY more cameras because you can sell to both markets.

    And the reach factor IS a marketing ploy. It’s not the mirror size that matters, but the sensor size. The smaller sensor is able to see less of the scene than the larger sensor. That shouldn’t be all too difficult a concept to grasp. Bigger pipes, more flow – by way of an analogy.

    From a technical and financial point there is no logical reason to go APS-H. And if you dare suggest that FF fans should just go Ds, remember it costs 40% more.

    Stop lying to yourselves. What are your real motives for wanting APS-H?

    One last thing… please, someone, take the keyboards away from any ‘birders’ who post here. The eight birders left in the wild are more endangered than the birds they stalk. Buy a bloody XXD and some rain gear for your camera. It will be easier to lug around in the wild than a pro body and give you exactly what you want.

  • Although you are correct in that Canon doesn’t have a fast FF, from my experience it is not true. I always see alot of 5D’s attached to 16-35/24-70 at the sidelines when the action gets painfully close, in addition to the ubiquitous 1d II/III + 300/2.8L

    I’m sure some of them even use the 1dsII/III

  • It sounds great to me, I have a FF Camera, more reach is what I need.

    I’m suprised that so many people think a 1D should be FF. If they want FF, it is not intended for them. If you think the D3 is better, buy one. If all cameras were identical, there would be no competetion, and competition is good for the camera users.

    If 10% of the people complaining here were actually Canon 1D customers, I’d be very suprised. The people who buy them by the 100’s are media customers, and they use the cameras all day, every day, and know what works for them.

    A Full Frame Camera with a crop to 16mp density would need to be 21 mp. While it might be possible to make a 21mp 10 FPS camera that sold for $10,000, why pay 10K for it and then crop to 1.3??

  • …and you canibalize the 1Ds, which most likely has a higher margin and generates more profit given it’s price.

    From Canon’s perspective, I don’t see it happening unless they come up with some additional compelling reason to get a 1Ds over a 1D. The only way the 1D will go full frame is if they come up with some compelling feature that is 1Ds exclusive. Otherwise, the lines will simply merge and the result will be us paying $8K+ as opposed to the $4K+ we pay for the 1D now.

    I love the idea of a full frame 1D. I’m just not sure I’m going to love the cost of it (and I’m being realistic. they could sell it for less, but they won’t).

  • +1. People asking for a FF 1D are ignoring the cost implications given the current product offerings.

  • ———Stupid reasons to argue for 1.3 crop——–

    Anyone that argues that canon should not have used a FF sensor due to “reach” has down’s syndrome.

    Reason: Canon could easily make a FF sensor with the same PIXEL DENSITY as whatever they are making now…and include DYNAMIC CROP so that post processing is not an issue.

    For the specially inclined out there this means that the “reach” would be the same, you have cropping options when your lens is not long enough, and you wide angles would be un-gimped.

    ————more reasonable reasons to argue for 1.3——

    Cost. FF sensors and developing dynamic cropping will cost more. That will get passed onto the consumer.

    Product differentation. To do this correctly the camera would have to get into the range of what the 1d4s will likely be (in terms of pixel density etc). The kind of camera the FFers are arguing for may very well end up being the 1d4s.

  • “If you think the D3 is better, buy one.”

    Amen dude. The internet is full of complainers, who want Canon to make the perfect camera tailored to THEIR needs, using their supposedly superior technical knowledge to argue the case. Just look at the comments on this blog.
    Just switch to Nikon if you don’t like one manufacturers offerings, sheesh!

  • Oh I see 5D2’s being used for sports, PJ, and wildlife too, and I’m sure its to get the wider angle. An intersting choice given how slow the 5D2 is as far fps, and I’m sure most of them, like myself, would prefer a FF fast 1D4 for that sort of shooting.

  • The people who buys them by the 100’s are having their budget squeezed in current economic climate… I hope they feedback for a $1K 21mp @ 10fps :D

  • You want to sacrifice your wide glass for larger DOF? You are missing the point picking apart details. The dynamic crop basically gives you an APS-H and APS-C on a FF chip by using the center pixels, so you can get the same perspective as the crop cameras without losing your wide angle on the entire camera. Why do you think Canon should not give us that just to keep APS-H around?

  • I am glad all you who hate APS-H will not be buying. It will make it easier for me to get one. I like the APS-H as it does let me gain some reach “in camera” and crops out edge issues that most WA lenses have on FF sensors. I also need the high frame rate a APS-H can give and the lower cost for a pro level camera. 15 MP in a 1.3 crop is close to 25 MP FF so the pixel density is there for detail.

    So, keep up the whining and those of us who like the 1.3 crop will enjoy our new cameras.

  • Let me say in starting that I have owned my studio for 10 years and that I teach photography at Troy University.

    More Canon crap, I have a 5d mark II and its image quality is horriable. Maybe 1 out of 10 have ok sharpness, nothing like my old 5d. I have sent it back to Canon twice, shutter went out and image quality. After using Canon at my studio for 10 years I now get a Canon rep telling me that it is user error, what?

    So to be fair I went and rented a D3 and D700 with a wide range of lens last month to shoot a wedding. I was blown away with the image quality! Why can nikon get it right and not canon with all its almighty money and research team?

    I use to always recomend Canon to all my students when they graduated and left to start a career in photography but for the past year i have been telling them to go Nikon. That’s around 100 students a year. Again, Canon does not care, if they did, they would fix my problem or send me a new camera. I am waiting till the end of the year to see what canon does, if it stays the same then I will be making the very expensive changing over to Nikon. But trust me when i say that Canon does not care in the least. And for those of you that did get a 5D mark II that works well then thank your lucky stars becuase the next one you buy could be like mine and then you will see why and how upset i am with the company.

    So, in closing Canon has no FF senor camera in an affordable package that can match Nikon. Now they are going to release another APS-H, why not add in a new camera with a full frame 12-15mp in a pro body for the same price as the 1d, keep the APS-H model as well for sport photographers. 3 pro bodies in this market makes sense to me.

    Good luck to all Canon users.

    Scott

  • non-existant if you are cropping into the shot like this to make the shots the same. Since we are talking reach we are talkign distance limited so you are not comparing shots where the player takes up the same percentage of each frame, but much more on the APS_H shot.

    Mostly you don’t want more DOF for action shots anyway, although there can be times.

  • I would respect Canon if they came out with dedicated APS-H lenses like the EF-S is for APS-C, at least that’d be showing some commitment and they could compensate for the loss of wide angel with dedicated lenses. Of course I think that will never happen, and it doesn’t need to happen because the samrter move is drop APS-H and go FF.

    So no, making a 12mm a 15.6mm does not make me happy with 1.3 crop. That’s what I have a 14mm for, which 1.3 ruins too. If I’m going to buy a 12-24mm to go with my 14mm or 16-35 I want it to be 12mm not something else.

  • This time I do disagree with you. The 50D has quite a bit higher density and definitely does give more reach than the 5D2.

    But yeah the 1DII and 1DIII and so on give LESS reach than the FF 5DII.

  • Well said indeed. People act like all you have to do is switch cameras. Hellooo… these are hugely expensive systems. Lens systems cost thousands if not tens of thousands. L brackets, flashes, filters, the list goes on and on. It’s too hard to switch systems. Canon should respond to its consumers at a minimum and exceed their expectations and desires whenever possible if they are to maintain market share. They appear to not be doing this therefore they will likely lose more market share.

  • at some point in time i think someone will deliver it and not charge the huge premium of $8000 and whoever does it first might be very well set indeed.

    Canon has had the tech but not the will to get their faster than Nikon and I lamost bet Nikon will end up getting there first.

    As for cropping, it is very rare that I have met anyone who shoots sports and doesn’t crop.

  • Well, I don’t think the 1Ds4 is going to stay at 21MP, it’s going to be at least 28MP, maybe as much as 32MP. Yes, they could also give it 2K or better video (my bet is on 2K camera recording and 4K direct ouput), something no other DSLR will have and justify the much higher price. A 1D4 at 21MP with dynamic crop, dual Digic V, 10 fps, 1080p, would be a great replacement for the 1D3, make the D3 crowd very jealous, and stave off a D4 that will surely come out after it. So while the 1D4 and 1Ds4 could share FF in the same body, they would be significantly different and targeted to very different markets.

  • On a positive note, rumors claim the new camera will have AF that will destroy that in the Nikons every which way.

  • Well I guess we all should be glad you don’t teach in the english department. Good luck with your Nikon equipment.

  • That is completely untrue. There’d be no canibalizing the Ds line by making the 1D FF. The Ds will always have far higher rez than the 1D line. As for cost, given the low price of the 5D2 FF sensor, no reason Canon could not use a varient of that sensor for the 1D and lower the production costs by increasing its quantities and sharing more production lines. It would be more expensive to make a new APS-H sensor that will only be used in one body at fairly low production numbers, so if cost increases worry you, you should be shouting for a FF 1D not a new APS-H sesnor.

  • -1000. You are ignoring the cost implications of making a new APS-H sensor used in one low production number body.

  • Personally reach and DOF at large apertures are more important than wide angle. If I want to do wide angle stuff I use a (slower) second body – really, for UWA stuff I can’t understand why anyone would need 10fps.

    Addressing the point below: I find the little extra DOF beneficial, but that’s just my experience.

  • I have a 1D. Didn’t buy a II or a III because APS-H sucks compared to FF.

    Going FF on the 1D is not going to make all cameras identical. The same price points would hold. Canon would just sell more cameras by offering better products and choices.

    Also, dynamic crop gives you the same effect as a cropped sensor, but gives you the option. APS-H gives you a moderate crop yet ruins your wide glass with no option. Why is this hard for you? Going FF with dynamic crop gives you what would otherwise be three separate dedicated crop bodies. Why do you want less? Why do you want no choice?

  • yeah but you still get that with dynamic crop. that’s the problem with the APS-H argument, you still get the cropped sensor with FF dynamic crop, so why keep APS-H and hard-limit your $4500 body like that?

  • I compared the images myself. The cropped 5D2 images to match the 50D crop looked less noisy and sharper, so the 5D2 FF was better.

  • Okay, it works like this.

    If the pixel density is the SAME in both sensors, you have in effect a sensor that crops your image in Photoshop for you. You lose wide angle FoV because you’re cropping into the image circle of the lens, and you don’t gain any “reach” because you aren’t putting more pixels in the same area giving you a larger resolution image.

    This would be akin to using a 1Ds-II to make an image and crop it 1.3x and comparing it to a 1D-III. Because the 1Ds-II and 1D-III share the same pixel size the only difference is the size of the sensor.

    If the pixel density is LOWER in the smaller sensor than the larger sensor; you lose both reach and wide angle. You lose wide angle for the same reason above, you’re cropping into the image circle for the lens ahead of time. You lose “reach” because the larger pixels will produce a lower resolution image than a crop from the larger sensor.

    This is the equivalent to the 1Ds-III/5D-II and 1D-III.

    If the pixel density is higher in the smaller sensor than the larger sensor you lose wide angle and gain telephoto. The loss of wide angle is again due to the smaller sensor cropping into the image circle of the lens, however this is mitigated by designed for crop ultra-wide angle lenses. The increased reach is thanks to the higher pixel density yielding a larger image at the same crop than the larger sensor.

    This is the case of a 40D and a 1Ds-III/5D-II.

    I have no idea if this will accept HTML table code, and I’m not about to try and type it all out because there’s no way to edit it. However, I have a table here that shows the table here.

  • You are missing the fact the EF lenses are designed for FF, so it’s not arbitrary. Your argument makes sense if you’re talking EF-S dedicated to APS-C being arbitrarily the same as FF with EF. But EF was not designed for APS-H, it was designed for FF.

    When I pay $2000 for a 14mm, it should be a 14mm, not an 18.2mm – that to me ruins it. I have a 16-35 that covers the 18.2mm range. While on the tele side you can “crop” down from FF on sensor, you can never recover the lost wide from a APS-H sesnor – that to me ruins it.

  • Cost. FF sensors and developing dynamic cropping will cost more. That will get passed onto the consumer.

    Cost of the sensor isn’t a significant factor in the the cost of the 1D. The 5D-II, D700, and Alpha 900 show that a full frame sensor can be made economically enough to put in a body that costs half of what the 1D costs.

    As for dynamic cropping, it’s a software thing, you either don’t read the whole sensor out or you throw away the border rows and columns after you’ve read the sensor out. Quite frankly compared to the rest of what the firmware has to do, cropping is trivial.

    Actually cost almost certainly has no bearing on the price of the 1D, 1Ds or the D3 and D3x for that mater. What you see in the price of the 1D and 1Ds is what professional photographers will pay for the body.

    Cost is not a reasonable argument, let alone a valid one.

  • Ever shot basketball? Sitting under the basket with a 70-200 on a FF body is a must for a fully body shot. Crops just won’t get wide enough.

  • That was not the case when I compared them (although it was about the same between 40D and 5D2 even though the 40D should, technically, have a trace more reach).

    Anyway, that is all i can say.

    But I am with you on the other stuff.

  • I love my 5D and have used it for sports up close, but going from 10 FPS to 4 is really painful. Not to mention the AF.

    Dynamic Crop PLS

  • 5 fps (for 1Ds3) is not *that* slow, really, especially if we start talking about historical perspective shooting 35mm full-frame film.

    And 1Ds4 will surely be faster.

  • I agree with you here. A 16-35 @ 16mm on a FF body looks like butt at the edges IMO. Distortion is not what you want for most photoj.

  • if you have ever used a 15mm FISHEYE, you know there is a SIGNIFICANT difference with FF and 1.3. One looks beautiful, and the other looks like a half- assed wide angle.

  • What?? Your image quality is horrible on the 5d II? Even nikon fans wouldn’t agree with you there

  • I’m glad W came out and said it first. I call BS on this one too. I think IQ for cameras at this level are at a point where it’s really nit-picking gnats in a jungle.

    “1 out of 10 have OK sharpness”…

    … vaseline on your lens maybe? my point and shoot doesn’t even have figures that poor when shooting in regular conditions.

  • the 1Ds3 is also twice the MP and twice price of the 1D, and for weddings and wildlife 10 fps is perfect at times, because you only get one chance to get the shot of a live event or wildlife. Personally I’m not planning to upgrade to 1Ds4 at what I’m sure will be near $10k, have my eyes on a 1D4 if it goes FF – otherwise I’m gonna have to rethink my gear in a big way.

  • It’s quite possible that Canon can wring out an extra few FPS with the smaller (lighter, less moment of inertia) mirror apparatus. Also, cropping in post implies that the pixel density is the same, and same density + bigger sensor = more data, which requires a faster processor to maintain FPS throughput.

  • I don’t care about percentages of frame or theoretically comparing them at the same MP. I care about reality, and the reality is 10 MP 1.3 hard crop vs. 21 MP FF, and rather than stick with a hard sensor crop, it is smarter to make the 21MP FF a dynamic crop than come out with a smaller APS-H sensor with increased MP. We could have the best of both worlds rather than being limited by APS-H.

  • Are you telling me you don’t consider the camera that the lens is going on when you buy lenses? Also, that 16-35 does not cover what the 14mm gives you, regardless of the crop. Sure, on a crop 14mm might be equivalent to 18mm on a FF, but that 16mm is going to be equivalent of >18mm on the camera.

  • -1000000. You are ignoring that Canon has the cost / margin / profit numbers and you don’t. Yet you somehow claim to know better.

  • I dont have a 40D so perhaps they are more even, but even if they are, I’d rather have both FF and dynamic crop in one body for $4500. The 60D will have dedicated EF-S lenses that give you your wide back in addition to FF lenses so I don’t have a problem with APS-C for the price. If Canon wants to keep APS-H they could at least make something like a EF-H line, with lenses like a 11mm that would be equivelent to a 14mm FF, then fine, but that will not happen as APS-H will die out at some point because dynamic crop is just a better way to do it.

  • That table is way cool. Nicely written too.

    I would love a 21 MP dynamic crop giving us per your table:

    21.1MP FF, 12.4MP 1.3 crop, 8.2MP 1.6 crop

    Bottom line, “What’s worse, APS-H buys us nothing over a full frame sensor and costs us wide-angle.”

  • I like Jason’s dynamic crop table:

    21.1MP FF, 12.4MP 1.3 crop, 8.2MP 1.6 crop

    If you drop the top end down to 17 it would also drop the MP even lower on the crop modes. 8.2MP I can live with at times, but lower than that? would rather not.

  • cost is related to production quanitites, and redesigning a APS-H sensor for one high end body of fairly low production quanitites has got to be more costly than using the 5D2 FF sensor that is already in production and adding dual digic V and dynamic crop algorythms…and heading off the predictable “it’ll wipe out the 1Ds” nonsense: no it will not because the 1Ds4 will not be 21MP, but between 28-32MP more likely, so it will not compete with it.

  • Canon Play whit us and over extimate the customer

    watch out Canon Because Sony Is Very Close and have the money to do it

    Sony is goin to take over Nikon and Canon in 10 Years Top

    Canon is Holding Back Always give the customer a litle and a litle .

    let the customer deside what to shoot whit

  • You switch, go buy a 4/3 or Pentax where there is no FF. You are whining and complaining about those want Canon to actually improve the 1D instead of stick us with an outdated piece of crap APS-H sensor again.

  • lmao? that’s the silliest post ever… 1 out of 10….?? maybe increase your shutter speed???

  • +1 on stupid reasons for APS-H

    -1 on the cost issue because they could use the 5D2 FF sensor and probably reduce production costs on that part of it. Dynamic crop is just an algorythm, once the prograqmming is done where is the extra production cost for it?

    The 1Ds4 will likely be much higher rez and a completely different target market. Perhaps you meant the 1D will move into 1Ds3 territory? In which case, so what? The 1Ds4 will make the 1Ds3 obsolete.

  • I agree, maybe you responded in the wrong place or misread what I wrote or misread who I was responding to?

  • Also, canon only has one level, the $8000 level, where you can find their top AF AND also have standard lenses that naturally cover wide angle (no top AF in APS-C format or in the 5 series and the APS-H are awkward for landscape work, the 24mm primes are not that wide, nor are the standard 24-70 zooms)!

  • Yeah, sorry Scott, not buying that at all. The 5D2 is very sharp. You don’t say what lens you are using, but it must be a crappy one if I’m to believe anything about your story. The 5D2 will show you a crappy lens very quickly because it is so sharp. If you’re gonna say it is a 135 2.0 or 70-200 L, then sorry, I don’t believe your story.

  • No way. Nikon is in serious financial trouble. Plus I couldn’t live without my DSLR manufacturer making four Rebel models at the same time, and don’t get me started on not having a direct print button. But that will not stop me from saying APS-H is a stupid product at this point and time and for the future and that it should have been phased out with the 1D2.

  • It’s Nikon Precision (stepper division) that has recorded losses and are making job cuts.

    Not the camera department.

  • The reason I never upgraded my 1D and went to 1Ds and 5D2 is because I do consider then lens issue. if you read what I wrote again you’ll see I’m talking about both the 14mm and 16-35mm. 16mm is a 20mm on APS-H, not 18mm btw.

    If you’re suggesting we should all bend over for APS-H instead of getting a FF with dynamic crop from Canon because we know in advance APS-H is not going to give us any real extra reach and limit our wide glass in advance than you are welcome to your opinion. I’d prefer Canon improve their product line instead of holding on to outdated sensors and hard limiting lens ability when it is not necessary.

  • The 5D2 is a great tool when used right! I started with a 10D/1D and use a 5D2 right now. The 5D2 has some AF problems sometimes but man this thing rocks!!! But maybe it’s because I only use prime luxury lenses :D

  • hahaha, and you have them? Please explain how low production quantities can be more cost efficient than higher quantity production runs? On what planet does that make business sense?

    Which will be the lower cost per sensor?

    1000 APS-H sensors or

    10,000 FF sensors?

    Obviously the numbers are a guess. But please explain how the 1D4 with APS-H would come close in production numbers to the combined production numbers of the 5D2 and 1D4 using the same sensor?

    So really, I want to know. How do you get a more cost efficent sensor on dramatically smaller production quantities????

    Please explain.

  • Actually it’s the whole company, Nikon Inc. You may well be correct the stepper division is the biggest drain, but Nikon Inc as a whole posted massive losses.

  • you are correct in that Sony is likely to become Canon’s biggest threat in the DSLR market, they have massive production ability, deep pockets, high end video and broadcast production experience, and Zeiss glass…

  • 10D was my first DSLR too, then the 1D when I dropped film altogether, now using the 5D2 mostly as well. All my lenses are luxury lenses too.

  • the story of a super company dont want to up date (leica) the story of a man said 10k of hard drive is good for a human. is almost identical of canon

    the story is for learn and not repeat the erros in the future Canon is done the same (like all the bigest emporium and fall )

    canon have the tecnology for surpass and dont let the competitors try. now panasonicn point and shoot is very very good and zeiss wash close to make a super line of Telephoto (this is a CR3rumor AND upss sorry for the info )

  • They are not going to have the same sensor. It is a different production line, regardless. They are not going to put the 5D2 sensor in the 1D and why would you want them to? I want an improved sensor in the 1D, not a rehash of one we have now.

  • All I wanted was a 5D with a pro quality body, pro AF,
    and a dust removal system, with big honking photo sites that give me silky smooth photos up to iso 800 and ultra low noise
    up to 6400 iso.

    Truth is the only thing stopping me from getting the discontinued 5D is the lack of a dust removal system.

    I would have the 5D2 if it wasn’t 21Mp, I don’t want 21Mp, I don’t need 21Mp. 15Mp would have been more than enough.

    I’d love to have a 1Ds3, but I’m not paying that much for it.

    I would have the 1D3 now if it were FF, but it’s not…
    So I’ll stay with my 40D till Canon produces what I want.

  • And I still say that higher rez won’t be a compelling enough reason for the vast majority of people to spend the extra $4k+ on the 1Ds given where the MP currently are. So, either Canon has new, differentiating features available on the new 1Ds or the lines merge if the 1D goes FF. If the later is the case, the price WILL go up. Canon isn’t going to abandon their most expensive model.

  • Sony’s financials have sucked over the past 12 months as well. I’m not sure I’d say they have deep pockets.

  • How is a 21MP FF sensor not an improvement over a 10MP crop sensor?

    Add dynamic crop to the 5D2 sensor and you get:

    21.1MP FF, 12.4MP 1.3 crop, 8.2MP 1.6 crop

    Add dual Digic processors and the 1Ds3 focusing and we’d have a fast kick-butt FF pro body at a reasonable price point.

    How exactly is that not a major improvement for the 1D line?

  • Higher rez is not enough of a reason to justify a $4k price difference. Unless there are dramatic new features added to the 1Ds, cannibalization would occur.

    And while cost is related to production quantities, there are many other factors, including unit cost and the prices of your other products. Besides, there not going to use the same sensor as the 5DII, so the quantities will be the same regardless. My guess is that, on a unit basis and assuming the same quantities, a 1.3X is cheaper than a FF.

    Ideally, a FF for the same cost as the 1.3X would be great. However, I think it is unrealistic to assume that the price won’t go up.

  • Don’t forget that Nikon’s a part of the Mitsubishi Group.

    Sony could compete, and i mean for real, with Canon/Nikon. But do they want to? I’m not sure…

  • Your argument falls apart because by your logic who would buy the 1Ds3 for thousands more than the 5D2 with the same sensor? People who are going to spend $8K on a body will do it to get 28MP with 2K or 4K video or whatever else Canon has to make it worth it. We’re talking about 1D4 and 1Ds4 here, the bar will go higher for both of them. The price points have to stay competitive with competition, so D3/D3x pricing makes it unlikely Canon would jack up the 1D4 price to go FF.

  • 15 MP on a a 1.3 Crop is about the equivalent pixel density of a FF at 23.6 MP. So, cropping the FF to the 1.3 equivalent size would lose you about 2 .6 MP of resolution. Not much but still significant. To me the biggest advantage of the 1.3 is price and speed.

  • I have a feeling the 1Ds4 will go above current HD video to compete more in the indie film market, maybe 2K to 4K, and 1080p on the 1D4 would be no big deal to add given even the Rebel has it. Other than that your specs sound right on.

  • OOPS I meant to say cropping a 21 MP FF to the 1.3 Crop Equivalent you would lose about 2.6 MP. Sorry.

  • You are not getting my logic. Right now the ONLY things separating the 1D and 1Ds are frame rate, megapixels, and sensor type. So, just like I said in my previous post, Canon has two choices if the 1D goes full frame: Add a new compelling feature to the 1Ds to create further differentiation or merge the two lines. The later will cause the price to go up. My argument perfectly holds because there are MANY things differentiating the 1Ds3 and the 5DMII.

  • 28-32MP sensor, possibly 2K – 4K video to complete with RED, who knows what else the 1Ds4 will have, but that alone would justify the extra $4K over a 21MP 1D4 with dynamic crop. Extra resolution is also the main difference between them now, so again, your argument falls apart.

  • Sony is huge. Nikon is like a flea on the back of a camel compared to Sony, or even Canon. Canon profits have been down, but they are still profitable and not posting losses. I suspect Sony is in the same boat. Nikon is posting massive losses though.

  • Obviously the Full Frame aspect is a huge difference, otherwise this conversation wouldn’t be taking place.

  • I also think it would’ve been wiser to put a full format sensor in the new 1D body. However, there are two things often overlooked in this heated argument.

    1) It’s still just a rumor! No other specs than just the size of the sensor. Not a word on af, fps, filming, resolution, iso performance etc. In my book this rumor’s a little dubious. And it’s just CR2.

    2) The people at Canon are NOT stupid. Nikon has been desperate to make photographers jump ship, and as a result mid range cameras got high end features. Tactically probably a good decision. Strategically…? Probably not that wise. Why should I buy a D3 when D700 is available? Canons fear of cannibilizing seems initially paranoid. But i’ve started to believe that they now what they’re talking about.

    My wishlist:

    1D MkIV

    * 21.1 megapixels

    * 12 fps

    * video

    * improved af

    * improved high iso performance

    1Ds MkIV

    * Completely new backlit sensor

    * 45 mpixels

    * 5 fps

  • I think dual-digic could probably only do more like 17-18MP at 8fps. I’m sure dual digic V could do it at 10fps and maybe even 21MP at 10fps.
    Dual digic often onyl seems to be able to get about 50% more throughput not double.

  • no, because the 5D2 is FF and half the price of the 1D3 crop, you keep trying to justify keeping APS-H nad its not working.

  • OTOH, if their fear of losing 1Ds sales (of which there are hardly any at all, I think just in the thousands total world-wide ever per model) means Nikon gets to a high MP FF that has top AF, small body and so on before them and tons jumpt to Nikon they kind of lose out. Plus, in the end people will start using bodies for longer periods of time and it comes back to glass sales and you can’t sell Canon glass if you scared everyone off to Nikon bodies.

    Think about it a couple years Nikon was totally out of the FF market and being written off, Canon had every advantage, they ahd the tech to make a faster, better focusing 21MP already, but they decided to sit and sit and milk and milk and now it is extremely likely that Nikon will be the first to arrive at a truly 3D-type model. Kind of sad.

    Anyway there is one possible reason for APS-H, some sports shooters and PJs have crazy tight deadlines and maybe the 15MP vs 21MP upload time from CF card and processing time is worth losing out on the advantages of a fast 17-21MP FF all-rounder/sports cam.

    Anyway remember when Canon would go on abotu how only they had the advantage of FF and how it was so great and how Nikon was otudated and out of the running and now…. well canon still easily leads the FF landscape/general realm but it seems they will soon be swept aside by some osrt of D700x-type beast.

    Canon could’ve had a D700x out two years before Nikon would ever have been able to.

    anyway who knows it’s all rumors and speculations

  • can i ask u what is the fastest FF film SLR? how fast is it? why do they capture superb images. do you really need a 10fps? if so, your abilities were so far behind those film shooters, therefore i conclude your not a Pro.

  • have you tried cropping an image taken from FF in photoshop? compare the quality of crop image and a true crop sensor image. then you can start commenting. don’t comment if your not sure.

  • FF with FF? oh come on, don’t fool me around here. get a NIKON and stop complaining at Canon.

  • If you are shooting weddings with an APS-H now, why can you not shoot them with APS-H six months from now? I think few wedding shots require fisheye or super-wide anyway.

    And for the wildlife you can shoot FF, APS-H or APS-C — whether you use a crop sensor or post-crop is all the same, as you have posted so many times before.

    Although I will argue that most wildlife photography, with the exception of insects and in-flight birds, is easily handled by 5 fps. And in-flight needs a lot of skill, not just fps, although higher fps will give you more lucky shots if you’re not good. (And, no, I’m not good at in-flight bird photos.)

  • Wrong about the D3 speed – D3 shoots at 9 frames/sec in 14 bit mode, only the D3X and D300 slows down (D700 also does not slow down).

  • “All I wanted was a 5D with a pro quality body, pro AF (…) I’d love to have a 1Ds3, but I’m not paying that much for it..”

    So you want a pro body but you’re not willing to pay a pro price for it. As long as we’re clear on that …

  • Exactly. Until they have the number of quality lenses available that the other competitors have, I find it hard to consider purchasing one of their bodies.

  • Exactly correct about basketball. The 1.3 crop is annoying under the basket with my 70-200 and 85 lenses. The 70-200 on a FF body would be perfect!

  • Your logic makes no sense because we are talking about improved cameras, not old outdated sensors that were state of the art three generations ago and now are not, and in fact are now far behind the likes of the D3. Of course Canon could do several things to justify the Ds4 price difference over the 1D4, that is not a valid argument for keeping APS-H.

  • lets do a review here, where is the sharpest part of the lens? center, right? how big? where is the softest part? edges and corners, right? do you want soft images? NO… so why keep it? crop sensors trow that away while using a FF lens (EF lens in Canon) keeping the sharp part only. can Nikon crop it while using FF lens (FX lens of nikon)? NO… the crop function only if you use DX lens. you have said above that you have 1D, haven’t you notice that or your one of those liars that were telling they got plenty of lenses/glasses so they have the right to complain. i have 24-70 2.8L (for sale), 70-200 4L (sold) 100-400, 18-200,10-22, and TS 24, i don’t keep to many lenses that’s why i’m selling it. got no FF body now, waiting for 1D and 1Ds, but previous owner of 5D, got 450D, 40D and NIKON D70.

  • That is because the 1D3 has the same other advantages that the 1Ds3 has over the 5DMII. The 1D is a PRO build, whereas the 5DMII is a prosumer build. Huge difference in other features as well.

    I’m not justifying having a crop. I’d love a full frame 1D with no pricing changes. What I’m saying is that, given Canon’s market and pricing strategy, the a FF 1D while maintaining the current pricing structure isn’t viable.

  • $8000 to get FF in a pro quality body???? I can’t justify that much money on just a body when there is lots of glass to add to my kit

    I just don’t see 5x the quality to justify the 5x the price.(compared to my 40D)

    1D price I can handle, if only it was FF.

    Canon was the only option if you wanted FF, 1Ds or nothing.
    then came 5D, an awesome camera with out equal…almost perfect, add pro quality AF & body and it would have been a true legend. but Canon was worried about losing sales of their 1D line to a cheaper camera, which I can understand… to a point.

    well that was then…

    Nikon and Sony now have FF cameras.

    D3: pro quality AF & body for close to the price that the 1D is. proof that it’s not impossible, if Nikon can do it…

    on that same topic,
    xxD series have been feature reduced(no weather sealing or pro quality AF) for the same reason, to protect their over inflated prices of their best bodies. I can understand that to a point too, if Pentax can do it…

    …. than I would think that the top camera manufacture could do it with out too much effort.

    and imho, Canon’s lineup needs a rethink, there is room for
    a pro quality FF with less Mp, and an entry level FF.

  • if and only if canon make 1D FF then it will force canon to enter MF on 1Ds to make a gap, and that will only happen 3-5 years from now.

  • Is 1.3x necessary for sports shooters? Read some interviews with pro photographers from the past summer Olympics in Beijing and take a look at their “best photos.” These days a lot of the super telephoto shots are done with remote cameras, and even if they aren’t, they’re a dime a dozen and all look alike. While a telephoto shot is good for catching key moments at a football game etc, the real prizewinners are often wide angle photos that provide a perspective and intimacy far different from anything a fan would be able to see or capture from a distance. Full frame cameras provide a head start in produce distinguishing and award winning work.

    Of course, theoretically you can take a fantastic image with a huge variety of camera/lens option- I just hope that Canon will come out with a FF 1D IV option to make that job easier.

  • He said he wants a pro quality body, but can’t justify dropping 8K.

    I’m with you dude, Canon has a big hole in their line-up – currently the only FF are 21Mp, files that choke most computers en masse, and for FF and pro AF you have to drop 8K. Why should you have to pay 5-8K for an ergo chassis and weather sealing? Think of the glass you could buy with that.

    I still shoot with original 5D’s and a 40D and love them, they are great values. By the way the original 5D uses the same battery (and charger) as the 40D, a nice bonus.

    Hang tight, if the rumored 7D rears it’s head, the specs sound like the 5D deja vu.

  • I’m not making an argument for keeping the APS-H. I’m merely pointing out Canon’s options based on their apparent marketing/pricing strategies and product differentiation. I don’t care what they do as far as sensor size goes (FF vs. Crop) as long as they don’t mess with the price. I simply have my doubts will see a FF 1D with the next generation because I don’t think they’ll make any radical changes to the 1Ds at that time (such as 2K or 4K video) and I don’t see them merging the two lines yet. Maybe in the following generation though.

  • I hardly ever use my 1D for anything. I use FF 99% of the time, and the other 1% is the 50D. I do use my 24-70 L and 14mm L at weddings every time, and I want them at 24mm and 14mm not magnified, I zoom out for that.

    I don’t see any reason from what you wrote to justify keeping APS-H over a FF 1D4.

  • Your point is moot. There’s lots of features you can do with digital you could not do with film, so that’s no reason to keep APS-H over a FF with dynamic crop.

  • Dave,

    If you want full frame, buy a 5DII. Then you can take all the landscape shots you want.

  • Yeah I speak for everyone, lol, especially for those who want Canon to suck and give us all another APS-H outdated body.

  • My wide L lenses are plenty sharp on my 5D2 and 1Ds3. I disagree with your claims they are not sharp.

    Just because Nikon limits the crop to DX does not mean Canon has to. Even without the dynamic crop though FF is better than APS-H.

  • well its all just a matter of time now, a matter of patience.
    im reading way to much into these rumors (as i can tell a lot of people are). personal im not gonna get myself worked up over nothing.

    i am one of those who do want full frame, and i have already pretty much decided what im going to do if i don’t get it. i love canon, don’t get me wrong. its just would not be suited to my needs and my working environment.

  • aps-h is just a crop, like photoshop crop. We have to admit that the Nikon is more intelligent.

  • In my not so humble opinion, most of the discussion here has missed out on the most important of all points. And that is, CLEARLY,
    OMG where are the direct print buttons?! We needs moar of them!

    On a serious though, my opinion on this one is not along the technical merits of the different sensor sizes, but along the lines of market structure and competition.

    The market is reaching the point where more options are available as time goes by. Though high-end (i.e. Full frame) photography might still be dominated by Canon and Nikon, there are strong entrants in the field. Sony anyone? Not only that, but SONY is making Nikon’s sensors. I think we can all agree that lenses > bodies, but sensors are an important part of the game too (hence, our discussions here…). Sony is already doing an excellent job presenting a third option. As for lenses, they might get there. After all, it took them relatively few years to come up with top notch sensors. Smaller-than-FF options abound.

    My point is, options are what consumers want. We now have everything from minute sensors (phonecams… which are yuck for quality, but nice to have in a pinch), to large-sensors-in-small-packaging (Sigma DP2), to not-too-big sensors with exchangable lens (Micro 4/3s), all the way to APS-C, APS-H and full frame.

    The market is far removed from the orginal full-frame film or APS-C digital, take-your-pick-from-these-two-choices only condition. (and that was only a few years ago…) It is more like a spectrum of choices… and hey, Canon has a nice niche at the APS-H size.

    From a business point of view, it makes little sense to REMOVE an option from consumers when you’re the only one able to satisfy it. So it may not seem like HUGE numbers of people will buy it.

    Can Canon do better? Well, yes. Eventually, we would hope Canon could come up with a full line of Pro-level, Prosumer-, Consumer- and Entry-level APS-C, APS-H, FF options. And then we can really say that Canon is catering to all.

    What people are angry about, however, is that Canon can only come up with a limited number of upgrades every year due to R&D constrains… and they fear they’re not getting the one they *want* NOW. Therefore, they’re angry at whatever Canon *IS* working on, because its not what they want it to be.

    I’m sure Canon knows they wont be selling APS-H in numbers like the Rebels. But as long as they sell enough to recoup their investment in the line, there is no reason for them to drop it. Perhaps PJs and sport shooters really do want the extra FPS a smaller sensor would allow them (i.e. the 1D vs 1Ds trade off).

    Perhaps they don’t. But I’m all in favour of people wanting APS-Hs to have the choice of buying it.

  • i dont fully understand why they would not want me to have the best camera they can produce i am still buying from them i am still going to buy canon glass they still get the money i would be spending on a camera they can charge more for it? i really dont see the problem why should they gimp on quality and loose the custumer loyatly that is so important for camera systems?

  • I’ve had many a wet dream over the 5D,
    my first dslr was a 30D, always had dust on the sensor,
    had to clean it after every outing, then I hear that the 5D is harder to keep clean.

    I then picked up the 40D and I rarely have to clean it.

    then the 5D comes out @ 21Mp, hell my laptop struggles with 10Mp.

    so…

    5D2 + new pc = poor house.
    1Ds3 + new pc = no house and no food :p

  • From a business stand point. It’s also a cost to have additional product lines. From parts sourcing, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, marketing… etc.

    Sony lenses are relatively more expensive. But how else you’d get a stabilized fast primes :D

  • got one. I want a FF 1D4, fast fps, weather proof, better AF pro body and no I don’t want another 1Ds or to spend $9K on the 1Ds4.

  • yawn…nothing in there says a APS-H crop is better in any way than a FF sensor. In fact, it rightly points out “larger pixels [the graphic points out are usually on larger sensors] receive a greater flux of photons over a given exposure time (at the same aperture), so their light signal is much stronger [than small sensor pixels]. For a given amount of background noise, this produces a higher signal to noise ratio– and thus a smoother looking photo [for larger full frame sensors than small sensor crop sensors].” In short, per the example of the smaller sensor pixels, they look like crap compared to the larger sensor pixels.

  • Totally a troll. “Maybe 1 out of 10 have ok sharpness, nothing like my old 5d.” Total B.S. I own both the cameras and the 5DII is much sharper! For a (so called) photography teacher, you must SUCK!

    LOL

  • Before everyone starts arguing about FF vs. APS-H sensors, lets first hope Canon gets the basic of the 1DMkIV right.

    No more AF issues, full FPS and no reliability issues. THAT WILL BE A BIG ACHIEVEMENT FOR CANON!

  • Well we disagree on that last part. I think it’s most certainly viable to make a pro body 1D4 that is FF at the current price point. I think FF sensors have come way down in price and it would be as expensive if not more so to produce a redesigned APS-H sensor of limited quantity.

  • Lenses retain value quite well. If you want to switch you wouldn’t be out too much.

    Then you guys could go and whine on Nikon forums instead.

  • there is no choice in APS-H, you can not regain the lost wide angle and you gain no real magnification. FF with dynamic crop would give you a FF, 1.3 crop and 1.6 crop all in one body – THAT is choice.

  • well then according to you we’ll be stuck with the same 1D and 1Ds for ever becaue you don’t see any way to improve them under Canon’s pricing structure. I don’t agree. I think the 5D2 is a great example, they did major improvements over the 5D, doubled the MP, lowered the noise, added HD video and a host of other improvements and kept it around the same price point. There’s no reason they can not do the same with the 1D4.

  • Remember that Nikon HAD to put all the “pro” features in the D300/700/D3 because they use to suck.

    Now they’ve concentrated hard on improving their bodies (sticking on all the buttons etc. :P ). So all the Canon whiners can complain about not wanting to pay for features they want because I want a 1DsMKIV to cost the same as a 5DmkII.

    Then the Nikon whiners can complain about the extra features not being enough and whine about not having video.

    Meanwhile the Sony, Pentax and Olympus owners are out taking photos.

  • Oh, so the new A750, A850 and A950 FF bodies coming out are them not focusing on photography? Geeze, what if they do focus on it are we going to see 20 new DSLR’s a year?

  • heh, I remember that. My first computer had a tandy tape drive, then later I was all excited when I got one with 512K of memory.

  • Is FF necessary for sports shooters? Can’t you just put a 14L on your 1.3 to get a nice 18mm perspective. :p

    Honestly a 16-35 on a 1.3 crop would be plenty wide enough for that sort of thing.

    If I were a sports shooter, a 1.3 crop or not wouldn’t bother me. If it’s FF the DOF would be pretty thin, so you’d be usin’ all your pro AF system to keep the subject in focus, so I’d probably be wishing for a 1.3 crop. LOL

    Just because “Nikon can do it” doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

  • Sony’s new bodies are using new backlit 24.6 MP sensors, if the noise is low and the images clean, ouch for Canon, and you know Nikon will have those new sensors soon too. This is not the time to linger on APS-H nonsense.

  • What’s so special about FF that people are screaming for it?!

    Just because “Nikon can do it”?

    Noise/pixel density advantage is messed up by a non-beneficial DOF reduction (talking about sports) yet a pro AF system may counter that… then there’s the ‘lose the wide end’ argument, which seems like mainly BS to me, because how wide do you want to go on a sports oriented lens anyway?! There’s the “no-dynamic crop” thing, but AFAIK all dynamic crop does is takes away resolution, so what’s the point really?!

    Well, anyway, just my 2 cents.

  • hey if Canon wants to make both a FF 1D4 and a APS-H 1D4 then fine, keep an APS-H around for the two people who might pick that over the FF version – cuz even with all this whining from APS-H lovers I’ll bet 99% of the APS-H supporters here would in reality pick the FF one for the same money if given the choice.

    As for Sony, you nailed it, they are going to shake up the DSLR world.

    List prices:

    Carl Zeiss® Vario-Sonnar® T* 24-70mm f2.8 is $1599

    Canon EF 24-70 2.8 L is $1350

    Sony G 70-200mm f/2.8 is $1799 (Sony has Body IS)

    Canon EF 70-200 2.8 L IS is $1999

    They seem in the ball park of each other.

    Sony also has a 135mm 1.8 Zeiss, and 85mm 1.4 Zeiss and other interesting primes – 11 primes so far, fairly impressive for the new kid on the block IMO.

  • If you want a large market share, additional product lines are a must, even if they do take more work- unless you’re willing to leave it up to other companies.

  • Other key staistics…

    Canon’s cash $6.50 Billion, debt $123.52 Million.

    Sony’s cash $6.88 Billion, debt $14.06 Billion.

  • Is the bayonet-to-sensor distance the same in the 1Ds and 1D bodies? If equal, then David is absolutely right.

  • Who says the only buyers of a 1D4 would be sports people?

    Not all sports shooters are in the bleachers and don’t need extra reach on a 400 2.8 or 600mm, or at a basketball game even a 200 can be too much if you’re on the sideline.

    Fact is larger sensors tend to produce better cleaner images – hense all the love and warm fuzzies.

  • that’s why we prepare 1.3, not 1.6 nor FF. bigger sensor but cropped. you didn’t get the point there? why many of us like the 1.3 than FF? if you what sharper photos in FF you need to crop it manually therefore framing the subject is difficult if you plan to crop it, while in 1.3 frame it, shoot it, and print it.

  • hahaha, your 1.3 crop sensor is only 10 MP, if I crop down from FF it gives me a 12.4 MP image that has less noise, and not only do I get a bigger better image even if I crop it down, I can still use it FF and get full use of wide lenses, you can’t. APS-H sucks on every level – and you dont even understand the link you posted demonstrates clearly that FF larger sensor makes a cleaner image. You lose the argument on all fronts.

  • i agree that bigger sensor the better, that FF sensor is better than APS-H sensor in terms of sensitivity, but in actual use crop sensor has advantages than FF sensors. specially in sharpness issues, crop sensor when mounted in FF glass is sharper in corner and edges than FF glass mounted on FF sensor. “bigger the better” that’s why theres 1.3 crop sensor, put between 1.6 and FF. cropping in photoshop while using FF is waste of money and time.
    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

  • OK, OK Dave you’ve convinced me APS-H is the devil.

    Let’s all have a 1D3 burning. Please send all 1D3s to me and I’ll deal with it.

    :P

  • 1D4 is more suited to sports. Honestly you can get a great camera which takes “better” pictures cheaper in the 5DII. Why not buy that over the 1D3?! 3.9 fps not enough?! Why? Who apart from sports people need 10fps (seriously).

    Why do people buy the 1D3? Because of the 10fps and little bit extra reach (yet better noise/quality because of the larger sensor over a 1.6 crop).

    IF they could make a full 14bit RAW 10fps camera in FF, then and ONLY then would a FF be better than a 1.3 slightly smaller sensor that can let you pump out that sort of frame rate easier.

  • Increasing market share means giving the market what it wants. If the market wants more product lines, so be it.

    However, I believe the current “market” is looking a features vis-a-vis price points.

    To name a few…

    . better AF (that works out of the box)
    . better IQ
    . better weather sealing.
    . (option) for in cam crop.

    All of which are available in competition product lines… now, how does having more product lines (without giving market what they want) gonna help increase market share?

  • sadly the AF for the 3 other systems needs to be improved. Having tried them, they are good enough not general photo taking, but might frustrate when you push the AF performance envelope.

  • I don’t need 10 fps, I don’t need 21Mp.

    but I do want fast accurate AF,
    full weather sealing.
    10-15Mp
    ~7 fps
    and a FF sensor.
    and for it to not cost me an arm or leg.
    dust removal system.

    so my options in Canon are?

    1D? not FF.
    1Ds? too much $$$$, 21Mp.
    5D2? not weather sealed, 21Mp, slow fps, average AF.
    and the rest are worse than my 40D(not counting discontinued)

    so… fingers are crossed that Canon makes everyone happy, and my wide angle L’s that I paid good money for, will capture their intended FOV.

  • If anything I would have thought sports shooters would want perfectly blurred backgrounds for their footy photos etc. which FF does better than crop. I myself would rather have less DOF, if I want more I will stop the aperture down thanks.

  • “proof that it’s not impossible, if Nikon can do it…”

    And look at the financial mess they’re in – maybe contributed to by them selling their cameras waaay cheaper than their “proper” market price?

  • “other than the xD series, there’s no other option for a good AF”.

    That’s complete crap.

    Any number of objective tests (and I’ve done some myself) prove that (say) the 40D’s AF is just as good as the “pro” AF in the D300 (and with slight variations, in the D3 and D700).

    People are completely hung up on this bogus notion that more AF points = better AF, and it’s just not true.

  • That IS correct. This is not the place to discuss japanese corparate structures, but ask your friends at google what they say about the word “keiretsu”. Nikon’s a part av The Mitsubishi Group of companies. If you don’t believe me, believe the guys at Mitsubishi: http://www.mitsubishi.com/php/users/category_search.php?lang=1

    I normally hate to cite wikipedia as a source, but it’s sometimes a good place to start.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi

  • It’s not the AF points alone.

    The AF on xD focuses reliably with f/8 same as per D300/D700/D3.

    All other Canon AF is only rated to focus with minimum f/5.6…. you’ll need a lot of contrast if you want to add 2x TC to a f/4 lens. IIRC Canon cam will disable AF if it detects such situation.

    Also, Nikon uses the metering matrix to “assist” in AF tracking too. It does help in the 3D AF tracking which Canon doesn’t have an equivalent mode. It’s not fail-proof, at least it’s something for Nikon to refine on.

    I have to admit, Canon xD AF is blazingly fast… but little else.

  • In digital medium format world there is a fight to go bigger,

    obviously the aim being better image in the end. It is sad

    that because of viability to make such a big sensor from the

    start, 1D-series was not fully successor to their film

    counterpart. Bad news is that APS-H camera users need to

    carry heavy glass which is apparently not fully used. What

    is really needed for sports users is their own complete

    platform, not a rudimentary of the past. Allow the reach tgrough density, more DOF, please! Now, when FF is easily

    possible, the old traditions should continue, to make

    possible to utilize all zoom ranges in the way were meant

    to be utilized, to get the DOf in a desired way, to enjoy

    the quality of images of the big sensor.

  • I’m just cynical since Canon has had plenty of opportunities to improve their product offerings, with numerous rumors every year that never pan out. Even with the 5D2, weather sealing is nowhere near the 1D and the auto focus is sub-par (regardless what any one says. if they claim it isn’t, they haven’t used a 1D series camera). I agree they can do something, I’ve just lost faith that they will.

  • than the 5dII i mean, you didn’t think that there was much a difference before, now you understand. canon needs to get their act together if they’re going to compete with nikon, period.

  • Maybe this rumor was just a ploy by Canon to see what people think about an APS-H 1D4 and I will get the lovely FF I want. But I’m not holding my breath.

  • This is wishful thinking. All indications are that Canon is committed to APS-H and those who will actually be buying the 1DMkIV are different from the complainers on this site.

    Those who don’t like it are welcome to go to Nikon. Canon does not care because if the 1DMkIV works as advertise, it will blow away Nikon in AF & IQ, and as seen with the 5DMkII continuing to sell like hotcakes.

  • As I said, I want a 1D4, that’s a Canon 1D Mark IV, that is FF, not with an outdated crop-limited sesnor. If I wanted a Nikon I’d buy one. That’s not what I want.

  • Dude I’ll take the 5D2 over the D700 every time. I’m not talking about the 5D2, I’m talking about APS-H and the 1D4.

  • I decided to go Canon to get FF bodies, since for a while they were the only company manufacturing them. Now they have fewer FF cameras in their line-up than nikon, and soon to be sony. Does Canon really not see a market for a moderate resolution fast FF camera in a 1-series body/AF? really?

    I do hope that this source is incorrect, if they are right I need to seriously reconsider my faith in Canon.

  • Hey but with the obsession you and two others have with APS-H you guys should get a room and enjoy it, well maybe not a room because you don’t get decent wide angle, so how about go get a suite so the rest of us can have a MODERN FF sensor in the 1D4.

  • Dude you are reaching big time. You’re just reducing the field of vision down. How many people blow up the corner verses the center of a print 100 times and check the sharness? NO ONE in practicality. For the shots where slight softness on the corners is noticable, it usually looks nice. How noticable it is depends on the lens, and if you enable the peripheral illumination correction in your camera it is rarely if ever noticable on my wide lenses.

    So in all practicality, this is no justification for keeping APS-H. If you are worried your 24mm will not be sharp on the corners, ZOOM OUT TO 30mm and your problem is solved at about the same perspective the APS-H would have given you.

  • I hear you and you are right, new camera and you’re looking at a new PC and maybe new software to boot (for RAW filters).

    I do love the IQ from the 5D much more than the 40D, there’s just something about a FF. I shoot with two 5D’s and dirt on the sensor is not a problem, and of course you can easily clean it if needed. The 5D autofocus is fine too, even with an 85 1.2 II I can grab moments.

    I was just checking and you can snap up a used 5D for around $1299, and if your PC reads the 40D RAW files you are likely good to go on the 5D. You might want to look around and see if you can find one with a grip, likely under $1500.

    In addition to batteries and chargers, the 5D and 40D share the same cable release (different grip however).

    It will be interesting to see what Canon rolls out this Fall, but it’s wise to wait till all the reviews are in (see 1D Mark III).

  • well start asking for improvements then. Canon WANTS to sell cameras. That’s why they make them. But they have to guage demand for their products, epscially new ones. If you keep defending things like outdated APS-H sensors in the 1D, guess what you’ll get, no big improvements.

  • Yes, true – but Nikon and Sony have products placed in price points that are holes in Canon’s line, specifically the $2000 area. So those who might find the D300s or an A850 the sweet spot for purchase, Canon’s got nothing unless you go way up to the level or way down to an inferior product.

  • I find, at many times, the 3.9 fps (maxium under ideal conditions, not always the reality) on the 5D2 too slow.

    Also, I think there are many reasons people buy a 1D3 you are ignoring:

    – It’s the least expensive pro-build weather sealed body

    – It’s half the price of the 1Ds line.

    – It’s the only option for fast fps.

    – People have bought into the myth they are getting extra reach when they are really not.

    – The 5D2 is not weather proofed, it’s too slow, has inferior AF.

  • Well, there’s been a lot of earlier rumors suggesting the new 1D would have ff so we can’t be sure until it’s finally released.

    I’m more interested in if we’ll see an improved cmos or if they stun the world with some sort of new backlit sensor. Probably not, but since Sony already has backlit sensors ready to be released we should all hope that Canons research team got something up their sleeves.

  • i m not a canon supporter, i m a photogrpher. canon have to make a competitive camera that makes me competitive. otherwise i will change brand. i need a ff quick camera, like D3 why not), with low noise AND PLEASE MORE DETAILS!! The low pass filter is too high in canon, i prefer a better filter even without sensor cleaning. The digital crop works good (after a little time of practice). journailst often need a Real wide angle, the fairy tales of cropped sensor is a carzy things. And more: the second joystick OR the joystick in place of SET button, but i need to change focus point quickly even i m taking a vertical picture.

  • Oh I am?

    You must be right, the 10 MP APS-H image really blew the 21 MP FF image cropped down out of the water.

    By the way, if you really believe that the APS-H is as good or better than the FF image, California is now giving away free beach property from LA to San Diego…call now while supplies last.

  • Canon is motivated by demand. If they don’t believe people will buy more FF bodies they will sit back and watch how Nikon and Sony do just as they watch Sony pound out new prosumer-broadcast full HD camcorders every year while Canon still has outdated HDV models.

  • I’ve switched systems several times in my life (Canon FD to Contax RTS/Zeiss glass but the bodies kept dying on shoots to Nikon F3’s that ended up in the shop 40% of the time and back to Canon for EOS 1 onward) and it’s quite a pain. I still believe Canon is going to release some new innovate stuff, if not, well I’ll cross that bridge if necessary but not until then.

  • Why are you assuming the 1D series is a sports-only camera? Are the APS-H police going to show up and beat anyone who uses it for something else? How many sports shooters only shoot sports to make a living?

    The days of SI paying staff photographers are ancient history, it’s 99% freelancers now, and my guess is many of them want or need to be more diversified than that. Spending $4500 for a single purpose body makes little sense for photographers and little sense for manufactures who can sell more of a more diverse camera as Nikon has done with the D3.

  • Thing is there is no excuse to not do FF…

    Speed : FF usually means higher resolution. But that doesnt impair speed. Canon could do a 1D FF 16mp @ 5fps with a fast crop mode to do 12mp @ 10fps.

    Reach : APS-H gives you more reach argument is silly. With the crop mode, the camera would crop for you @ 1.3x or even 1.5x and 2x. Smaller images but faster fps.

    Price : The 5DII is 21mp and the camera is 2700$ … 2000$ less than a 1D. So a 5k$ 1D FF with crop mode IS possible.

    I bought a 1DMKII 5 1/2 year ago and I still use it today. Back in the days, 8fps @ 8mp was revolutionary. Canon needs to put something out there that is as extraordinary as the 1DII was :)

    And btw, true there is a lot of sport shooter using the 1D but this camera is also used by many many more people working different areas of photography. For many that need the 1D body quality build like me and can’t afford a 1Ds, this camera is our best choice.

  • + 100 billion lol

    also the 1Ds3 is 21 MP 5 fps and it’s only Digic 3, I’d bet a FF with dual Digic IV or V could at least do 10 fps maybe even without a drop in MP.

  • Maybe… But putting out a 1D with 21mp would kill the 1Ds market (if they want to keep it). The next 1Ds would need to come out quickly and be 40mp.

    Don’t forget 14bits of color per channel also require much more bandwith than 12bits. Personnaly, I would trade 21mp @ 14bits for 16mp @ 16bits.

  • I’d trade that too. If the 1D4 is a major upgrade from the 3, I’s expect a 1Ds4 in under a year. I don’t think 1Ds3 sales are exactly booming right now, so they could milk a new 1D4 for many months before releasing the 1Ds4.

  • Sony Alpha 800 DSLR

    By PR admin | May 31, 2009

    I received some info on a upcoming Sony a800 DSLR – I cannot confirm it at that point:

    16.2MP full frame sensor exmor R (new technology)

    100-25600 ISO

    8 frame/sec

    SSI, same a900 OVF, new AF system,

    GPS and WiFi built-in

    3.5 in. LCD display

    Pop-up flash

    Flash sync (1/500)

    Camera level

    23 AF sensors

    Quick Live View

    Video Full HD

    Dust/splashes sealed

    Aluminum-magnesium alloy body

    Released early September, 2009

    THIS GUYS DONT PLAY GAMES

    AND NEW 70-200

  • That would be the A750 then, because no A800 is expected and the A850 is supposed to have the sensor as the A900.

  • The measured dynamic range of Canon’ sensors is lower than 12 bits (cf. DXOmark), so I dont see the point to have it coded on 16bits.

  • The A750 is supposed to be 14 MP…doubt the A800 as it looks like the the A900 is being replaced with a FF trio: A750 14MP $1200, A850 24.6 MP but slow $1999, and the new top of the line A950 also with 24.6 MP backlit sensor but faster for $2999

  • +2
    there’s always some clown ready to jump ship when something new is about to be anounced

  • Shutter actuation on my 5y old 1DII?

    It received a new shutter @ 200000. He must now have close to twice that amount… I stopped counting. Its been through a lot. Rain, snow, crawling in dirt, survived a few direct hit on a paint ball game and even fell on asphalt, pebble driveway and water…

    It’s impossible to kill… That’s why I love the 1 serie. And for the same reason I will not buy a 5D. It could not survive in my hand more than 6 months lol

  • iirc, the move to 14bit was to allow smoother transitions in colors and tones, not for sensor DR.

    but anything can happen in the next few generations.

    Canon knows Sony and Nikon are throwing down their gauntlets….

    time for Canon to act.

  • Do PJ’s and Sports shooters overwhelmingly rely on the wides? or ultra wides? Probably not…They are using normals and longer! So if you want your WA/UWA lenses to work the “Way They Should”, get a FF Camera, there are great ones out there. Maybe more expensive at the 1 series, but that is what they are made for. Canon are the makers, and YOU are not, they must be getting the right Market ananlysis if they are making the camera.

  • We’ll see. If the 1D4 is APS-H many more people will flock to Nikon and Sony who get the concept that full frame is better and you should not have to spend $8000 to get a weather sealed one or one that does better than 3.9 fps.

  • I, I, I well some people do, do, do.

    Maybe you should learn Japanese, move to Japan, get a job at Canon. Stand up all day (run don’t walk LOL) and then after 10 years or so you might be able to work in the prototype camera division and then finally make a camera just for you, you, you!

    Or… you could just go nikon and save yourself 10 years of hard work.

    :P

  • Shoot in pouring rain a lot do you?!

    If you work so hard, surely you can afford the 1DS… or maybe a camera housing.

  • Yeah, a lot of very vocal APS-H haters on this thread.

    I guess they think the louder the voice the more right they are.

    LOL

    What Canon needs to make really is a FF camera like this (7D perhaps):
    Lower MP (say 16MP)
    No video
    Pro seals
    5D style body (no need for built in grip)
    6fps (fast enough for most people)

    Price it close but cheaper than the 5DII but more than the XXD.

    That would make many people here happy (from what I read from the loudest complainers).

  • I’m confused.

    Ask on any photography forum:
    “Should I buy a new body or a new lens”

    Most will say something like: “Glass before body”.

    Why do we care so much about Nikon and Sony making “better” bodies when Canon glass is so great, they have an excellent lineup or glass and it’s cheaper (sometimes MUCH cheaper) than Sony and Nikon.

    ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    I really think some people are trolling here.

  • Yes, I did that. Started with a 1DII and then…

    70-200 2.8 IS
    24-70 2.8
    EX 2x
    50 1.4
    400 2.8
    85 1.2

    Now my 5y old 1DII is due for being a backup. I wont sell it but keep it, as a second camera.

  • A 1D IV at 15Mp APS-H will have the same effective pixel density of a 25MP FF camera body.

    effectively for pros that need a minimum of 8Mp output .. this gives them the ability to either reduce down to sRAW2 file sizes, or crop from the image. effectively it contributes to the telephoto ability. that gives the shooters an “effective” 36% boost in telephoto ability over a 1D Mark II, and a 22% boost over a 1D Mark III. You can always take a step backwards to get in a wide angle shot. Last time I checked you cannot run half way on a field to get a shot. Essentially for the same Mp output .. a 400mm / 2.8 will effectively have the same output as a 500/4 on a 1D Mark III, and a 550mm on a 1D Mark II.

    a Nikon D3 with 8Mp output has an effective crop of 22% (ie: a 400mm will have the same FOV as a 488mm). that same 8Mp output as compared side by side to a 1D Mark IV would be 78% .. so on a mark IV that 400mm FOV would be 712mm.

    for sports shooters that need around 8 to 10 mp output . .hello world which one do you think is vastly superior.

    what do you think costs more? super telephotos or wides? if you think that “wasting” wide angle is more important than saving on super tele’s .. obviously you’re not part of this market either by that assumption.

    this camera for the most part is not geared towards ultra wide / wide angle as the design priority .. why people think it is, is beyond me.

    if canon created a camera body that was a) higher DR than the D3, b) lower noise than the D3, c) faster/more accurate AF than the D3 and d) better design/more features than the D3 .. I doubt someone actually EARNING money from the camera would care less if the D3 was FF versus the 1D Mark IV was a APS-H.

    a camera such as being proposed (ie: 21Mp FF) would require around 210Mp/sec transfer burst rate – which is more than twice the Mp/sec of the DIGIC IV – impossible with DIGIC IV may be possible with DIGIC V .. otherwise, what’s the point of having FF on a 1D Mark IV if you have to crop for speed no matter what anyways?

    again, think about the market, and if you can’t understand that probably you were never part of the target market in the first place.

  • bah, it went up top somewhere .. re-added

    A 1D IV at 15Mp APS-H will have the same effective pixel density of a 25MP FF camera body.

    effectively for pros that need a minimum of 8Mp output .. this gives them the ability to either reduce down to sRAW2 file sizes, or crop from the image. effectively it contributes to the telephoto ability. that gives the shooters an “effective” 36% boost in telephoto ability over a 1D Mark II, and a 22% boost over a 1D Mark III. You can always take a step backwards to get in a wide angle shot. Last time I checked you cannot run half way on a field to get a shot. Essentially for the same Mp output .. a 400mm / 2.8 will effectively have the same output as a 500/4 on a 1D Mark III, and a 550mm on a 1D Mark II.

    a Nikon D3 with 8Mp output has an effective crop of 22% (ie: a 400mm will have the same FOV as a 488mm). that same 8Mp output as compared side by side to a 1D Mark IV would be 78% .. so on a mark IV that 400mm FOV would be 712mm.

    for sports shooters that need around 8 to 10 mp output . .hello world which one do you think is vastly superior.

    what do you think costs more? super telephotos or wides? if you think that “wasting” wide angle is more important than saving on super tele’s .. obviously you’re not part of this market either by that assumption.

    this camera for the most part is not geared towards ultra wide / wide angle as the design priority .. why people think it is, is beyond me.

    if canon created a camera body that was a) higher DR than the D3, b) lower noise than the D3, c) faster/more accurate AF than the D3 and d) better design/more features than the D3 .. I doubt someone actually EARNING money from the camera would care less if the D3 was FF versus the 1D Mark IV was a APS-H.

    a camera such as being proposed (ie: 21Mp FF) would require around 210Mp/sec transfer burst rate – which is more than twice the Mp/sec of the DIGIC IV – impossible with DIGIC IV may be possible with DIGIC V .. otherwise, what’s the point of having FF on a 1D Mark IV if you have to crop for speed no matter what anyways?

    again, think about the market, and if you can’t understand that probably you were never part of the target market in the first place.

  • no, i meant for the 1d4.. everybody’s talking about faster fps but not the consequences of having it.

    which is why i think the 1Ds4 should be have a digital back.. 30MP ->

    My prediction for the 1D4 is a modest 12-14MP camera

  • “What’s the point of having FF on a 1D Mark IV if you have to crop for speed no matter what anyways?”

    Because you dont always need the speed… Do you shoot at 10fps all the time? I dont. It’s there if I need it, 30% of my picture are taken at 8fps (1DII). But I also take portraits, wedding, birthday party, birds, landscape, macro, etc. All of which are not taken at 8fps but in weather conditions that would put a 5DII in danger.

    I need a second body so if it’s APS-H i’ll buy it anyway. But i’m just saying there is no reason in 2009 to make a camera with a strict “sensor size” compromise. I dont care that much about the highest resolution the new 1D may have. 16, 21, 32, I dont care.

    But what I would like of this camera is that if it’s 14mp using a 1.3 crop like previous 1D, make a FF sensor (whatever res that gives) instead and make the 1.3 crop optionnal.

    That way, everyone wins.

  • doing the math, that’s a 24Mp FF sensor.

    current canon tech (DIGIC IV) running dual puts that at a under 5.5 fps.

    and we’re of course assuming (blindly) that nikon didn’t toss a patent on that high speed crop mechanism that exists in their Dx series bodies. so there’s alot of assumptions that canon CAN implement a function, that may or may not be even legal for them to do so.

    If you notice, for canon making smaller RAW’s .. it’s not a “crop” of the sensor, but a resolution difference.

    and if you do that .. what’s a 1Ds body then?

    just a few more FF Mp’s?

  • You’re right. It’s not easy and might not be possible. But I tought 8.5fps @ 8.2mp was impossible 5 1/2y ago. I would like Canon to come up with something revolutionary this time. Not only a +2mp +2fps like the 1D3 is to the 1D2

    But anyway, I need a new body and differences between the 1D4 and 1D2 will be enough to justify the switch. APS-H or FF. But would I prefer FF? yeah.

  • and then there’s economics…

    People are asking for essentially a D3x as a 1D Mark IV.

    it wouldn’t be around the 4 to 4.5K now would it? ;)

    if canon would remove the 1Ds (as such a body 24Mp FF, 1.3, 1.6 say High speed shooting) .. there’s no need anymore for a 1Ds.

    so that body would most likely float above the 1D price and perhaps as high as the 1Ds.

    because you can’t really sell a 1Ds with say 30Mp FF, and a 1D at 24Mp FF with a 8K and 4.5K price respectively .. and thanks to nikon, canon has no incentive to even come close to changing that price structure.

  • no a canon fan and i work whit canon gear and im very disapoint whit canon

    im always read and read and i need 6400 iso in 45% of the time canon under estimate me in 100% of the time and i now by a super very extrem sourse 1d mark iv is the same tecnology and very disapointing ( dont ask dont tell )

    because of the money ( and 3 years of production like a promess ) over a 7500 case of complain about focus and gess what canon always said is a user error and today for canon is 50% of user error (PLEASE MAKE THE SHUTTER OF KEVLAR NOT PLASTIC HELLO HELLO im professional not a fan )

    canon never never agree of a problem ( only in back stage ) in the end like a 5DII is super good not fantastic and jaw breaker ( same old tecnology diferent prosesor open and you see for your self ) this is the true is hide for money porpose

    15mp is wroong and gess what canon said i dont care consumer buy any way ( remember GM and all usa maker give a chance to toyota and in 20 years toyota take all because of the same mistake of canon )Read history and you and me in 10 years change of brand to NIKON , Sony , Pentax , Olympus or ???? what ever give me a better Trust and reliable remember the peaple are talking and this is the last chance canon have

    the 1D MARK IV or what ever call is not a big deal only surpas Nikon in a few not a lot

    CANON IF YOU READ THIS DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO DONT OVER ESTIMATE YOUR CUSTOMER

    OR I HAVE TO TALK FACE TO FACE LIKE THE PAST

    IM NOT UP GRADE UNTILL I SEE WHAT YOU HAVE

  • not a nikon troll

    not a sony troll

    and yes a Canon user

    and make a living 100% of 100%

    you need to remember the reliabitity of your working aquipment and the mantenance of your tools is what you earn and quote

    Im tire of easy shots blurry or portrate whit noice or upsss the sensor is defective or error 99 or to much time prossesing

    remember 49% of the time the user dont now what is the correct funsionality of the camera

    i now exacly what and how

    how many micro seconds for focus

    how many micro seconds for start up

    buffer , lense movement , tear and wear , 300,000 shutter live Haaaaa Haaaa ,

    1- test # 1 take your camera and move the lense in the soket

    the lense is not supose to move because of the gold and micro short sircuit

    please dont put your lense in oder body all cameras work in diferent electronic signals the diferense is mesured whit special equipment

    you goin to see how many variant of the same camera same body same all

    make example

    thake all your body

    f5.6 isso 400 what ever speed in a tripod

    take a shot of a car color red

    none of the bodys is goin to take the same color none and never ( the quality control is very super Bad Dont tell dont ask ) chek in photoshop go open you photo take the paint buket tool in color piker use the dropelet and mesure the red take the numbers and go to the next photo

    and you see the super diferense no quality control

  • The Tecnology Is For The companies not for consumers

    Square sensor for round glass

    and Square photo haaa the gimic

    Square sensor , Square Lenses , give results inimaginable

    better noice to signal per pixel

    better and real signal not boost

    better and less aberrations

    better cost of poduction

    better sharper per pixel

    better and easy effisiense of the combination of both

    better macro

    better telephoto

    better all

    Lenses are classified by the curvature of the two optical surfaces. A lens is biconvex (or double convex, or just convex) if both surfaces are convex.

  • that’s what I’m saying. anybody who has a 1D3 that they hate … I’ll take it from you

  • Why TVs are 4:3 and 16:9?
    Why PAL is 25fps and NTSC is 29.97?

    Standards!

    the 3:2 format is a photo standard, plain and simple. But there is other like 6×6 medium format.

Leave a Reply