1D Mark IV [CR2]

Yes!!!…

Timing seems about right. CR2 as well. :)

Byeeeee…

+1

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.

Yeah how stupid is that? Come out with a new 1D that can’t even top an older Nikon D3??? DUMB

“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

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’…

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.

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.

+1

Amen brother
Amen~~

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.

-1
= 0

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

David and Noah need to go Nikon and stop whining.

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!

Well said.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

-1000000000000000 benadict arnold

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.

LOL true, that ONE nikon lens 14-24 is pretty good I suppose. LOL

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.

im glad someone finally agrees with me:D.
oh happy day

yeah that’s I’ve been trying to explain in 10 posts, you said it better.

i also need the speed.
5d2 3.4 fps
1dIV 8 or 9 fps

Absolutely APS-H ! People just don’t know what this camera for !

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?!?!

+1

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.

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

…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.

I believe D3 have set a benchmark for a FF sports cam.

“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!

And my motivation is cost.

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?

Yep.

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.

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.

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.

I would guess the 1Ds would be more like 28-35MP and 5fps and $7500.

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

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.

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.

Well said.

+10

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.

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.

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.

+1

Even if they just made it 17-18MP in case Digic V is not ready yet.

David… Please

AMEN!!!!!

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.

AMEN!!!!

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.

AMEN>

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.

10mp 1,3 crop VS 12mp FF = One gives you no choice the other one does, Simple

Nikon zooms > Canon zooms

Canon Primes > Nikon Primes

Tie

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

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.”

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.

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???

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.

+1

dual digic IV might do it, 5D2 is only single digic

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.

there is the rumour of an ef 50-200mm f2.8L

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

“anyway who knows it’s all rumors and speculations”

Exactly.

“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 …

Sony lost just over $1 billion last fiscal year.

“let canon what WE want” hello, not “WE” it’s just “YOU”.

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!

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.

$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.

that’s because that’s what we want. a crop sensor. “why do you want no choice?” seems that that question doesn’t apply to us, but to you, you want to go all FF, where is the choices? read this and learn why many of us like crop sensor, http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

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.

+1,53

Dave,

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

FF with dynamic crop. Stop promoting Canon keeping an outdated limited sensor around.

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.

exactly

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.

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

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.

http://troy.troy.edu/artdesign/index.html

Nice try “Scott” no one called “Scott” on the faculty list too.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

cf. “aperture ring” in the instruction manual of your lens.

well then you should switch or stop whining about people wanting better Canon cameras…

Did they notice?

hehe

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

Ouch for Sony…Canon’s doing pretty darn good financially compared to Sony and Nikon.

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.

You’re the whiner Dave. :P

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

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.

i´m waiting for the new lenses :D

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.

…and you’re completely wrong.

Amen!

“Your logic makes no sense”

No, you just don’t UNDERSTAND it.

“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?

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

1D4 will be Full Frame, dont panic!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The finger is stuck to the direct print button…

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.

Show me where Canon is telling it’s customer base to go buy Nikon’s if they don’t like APS-H?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yeah I don’t understand people wanting outdated limited sensors, it will never make sense.

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

you forgot to mention shutter actuations…???

My argument was implying that if the camera was to receive 16bits, it would be a real 16bits.

YOU’RE AFUXXING IDIOT! AND WILL NEVER BE A PRO!

ABOTHER FUXXING USELESS LITTLE BOY COMMENT!

AMETEUR!

IDIOT!

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

Well you really can’t. :P

Dust/Splash sealed = 5DII level seals.

Marketing works it seems.

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.

Probably a Sony troll

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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

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

Amen brother, Amen!!

square lenses? how would it focus/zoom?