Canon EOS Rumors

1Ds Mark IV

Craig
Craig
254 Comments
1 Min Read

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

February/March?
Apparently the 1Ds Mark IV is in testing and is said to be “production ready”.

The following are some of the rumored key features.

  • 32MP
  • Looks like a 1D4 with a bigger bump on top
  • New sRAW modes
  • Feels very similar to use to the 1D4
  • AF looks to be the same as the 1D4
  • Similar features to 1D4 in most areas – inc. ISO
  • Low light performance noticeably improved on 1Ds3
  • 5FPS
  • The users are very happy at the image quality for a range of studio/location work.

From Northlight

cr

Share This Article
ByCraig
Follow:
Craig is the founder and editorial director for Canon Rumors. He has been writing about all things Canon for more than 17 years. When he's not writing, you can find him shooting professional basketball and travelling the world looking for the next wildlife adventure. The Canon EOS R1 is his camera of choice.
Previous Article Lens Patents
Next Article 1Ds Mark IV & More
254 Comments

  • What concerns Canon it sounds extremely plausible. 1D4 with tighter pixels and FF sensor has always been the ‘s’ version of 1.

  • PS. I had hoped that they stop at the 1D pixel density by providing the same ISO capabilities but apparently Canon “had” to break the 30MP barrier. Phrased in past tense because there is no hope for such a thing from Canon.

  • Which of course, *has* to be out of ordinary and special, because 3 is such a magic number.

  • no hope? they went down in pixels from the G10 to the G11.

    but yeah, the 1Ds III didn’t really need more pixels. Photographers that buy camera’s like that are not only swayed by pixels but also by pixel quality.

  • If on February 9, there are 2 SLR’s announced, they will be the xxxxD and the 1Ds…

    What about the 60D? September?

  • Good, after 1Ds, I think Canon will concentrate on 3D or 5D III. I am waiting for 3D or 5D III

  • Well, it looks like I have three options

    1. Wait for this camera to come down under 5k lightly used and leave it in sraw.

    2. Buy a 3D (please Canon!)

    3. Switch to Nikon after they come out with a 35 f1.4

  • Indeed give us the 3D now.
    Its about time there will be some competitor to the D700.
    I read on Nikonrumors a D900 will be out anytime soon!

  • Right on.

    I will never be able to justify this $8K+ camera but hopefully now that it’s out, a more reasonable 5DMarkIII priced camera is on deck.

  • I don’t want 32 mp, but I want a full frame, pro body. Bloody hell! I already have enough external hard drives. While entirely expected, this sucks. My brides will love being able to zoom into their nostrils like never before.

  • Comercial and studio photography

    32mpx Full Frame sensor

    ISO 6400 is impossible to be usable in Raw at this levels

    i belive is usable to up Iso 400

    if you need exelent + Photos

    to up tp 8′ x 12 ‘Feets 12″ x 12″inch 8″ x 8″ Inch

    if you need a sistem whit 32mpx and 3:2 aspect ratio

    the sensor have to be 30 x 45mm ( photos to up 1600 Iso in Raw very very Good at 5 FPS )

    Raw Busines is a diferent story for sensor

  • » Similar features to 1D4 in most areas – inc. ISO

    There’s the video for you…

  • Raw Shooter bad dream

    January 8th, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Comercial and studio photography

    32mpx Full Frame sensor

    ISO 6400 is impossible to be usable in Raw at this levels

    i belive is usable to up Iso 400

    if you need exelent + Photos

    to up tp 8′ x 12 ‘Feets 12″ x 12″inch 8″ x 8″ Inch

    if you need a sistem whit 32mpx and 3:2 aspect ratio

    the sensor have to be 30 x 45mm ( photos to up 1600 Iso in Raw very very Good at 5 FPS )

    Raw Busines is a diferent story for sensor

  • That 5D3 will be called 3D, dude…
    Look at the old naming conventions and you should have known.
    Its already quite amazing that Canon did put out a 5D2.

  • 1Ds4 will be a typical studio camera… where medium format rules. Why does Canon still believe in the megapixel myth?

    Canon does listen to Reuters… but leave the majority of professionals out in cold. The ones that shoot weddings for a living and do portraiture are totally forgotten by Canon.

    We need a Full Frame High ISO, 5FPS, 18-21MP camera with a pro AF, for a good price….

    Why is it that Canon doesn’t want to listen to the vast majority of professional pictureshooters?

  • i love my contax 645, but ill be packing the kit + accessories up for an ebay buyer this weekend. still got got the 120, 210 and 35 up for sale though…

  • Just buy a used 1DsII! I don’t know why people forget that there are perfectly usable older cameras with smaller files available for cheap.

  • Canon markets their cameras by splitting hairs – they’ve done it for years. Behind the scenes, it looks much the same – imagine a close knit group of photographers (chimping & pixel peeking). Their marketing division is world class.

    Each camera is specifically designed to nail the middle of one or two markets segments. A highly simplified scenario? Okay, but you didn’t hear it from me: 7D (crop) – Wedding & photojournalist. 5D (full) – Landscape & fine arts. 1D (crop & full) – Sports & studio.

    Why three levels? Canon researches purchasing trends & takes insider suggestions from the top of each niche. Surprisingly, R&D & Analysis go hand in hand when release time comes. Great way to get more bodies into more hands. It’s good for Canon & good for you.

    1) Each pro wants a few bodies.
    2) Each camera can’t have it all (tech advances).
    3) Each segment needs the best gear available.

    7D + 5D + 1D = 3D

    Just a hint.

    And the lenses… more to come.

  • should keep it there… at 27 or so (16*1,3*1,3)

    1DmIV 102k ISO reeks… not that you really need it…

  • Interesting approach…

    I do indeed believe 3D (if it will come out) will be:

    7D AF+All its features

    5D FF

    1D 18MP

    As for pricing it will definately be inbetween 1d4 and the introduction price of the 5D2 last year. I’ll expect it to be in the area of 3000,- to 3200,- euros.

    Would differentiate this camera enough from the comming 1Ds4 and pricewise close enough to not harm 1d4 too much.

    As a wedding photographer myself I would definately be interested.

  • Because they are not up to par with current ISO needs…

    Low light / natural light is the trend in weddingphotographs nowadays!

    My motto, if flash is not needed don’t use it.

    Unfortunately with 1ds mkii you still have to use flash quite often.

  • Bad point. I’m shooting with 1Ds Mark IIs. Have been since they came out. The ISO 1600 bites balls. It’s okay if the subject is beautifully lit, but if the room is dark (think wedding reception) the noise really trashes the colours. Add to that the lack of video and you see why I’m complaining. There is not option for a modern pro, full frame, camera with good moderate to higher ISO (1600-6400) and with video. I shot a bunch of weddings with the 5D Mark II as a second camera this past season and was underwhelmed by the auto focus. It took too long to track for normal candids during bright daylight.
    The 1D Mark IV might be my only option. Although I’m not thrilled with the 1.3x. It makes a real difference when shooting with tilt-shifts and fish-eyes.

  • Ha ha. Ok, well now we’re talking.

    I guess if you are a wedding photog and have Denni’s needs you need to shoot Nikon in this era D3s, or wait for a D700 successor. A 3D will probably come, but till then Nikon makes your camera, not Canon.

  • Not interested it a 1D as its too pricy for me, but:
    “Looks like a 1D4 with a bigger bump on top”

    Wouldn’t this indicate a potentially larger than FF sensor?

    I think Leica introduced a 36 or so MP camera – with a sensor over 50% bigger than FF.

  • What is Canon’s future intent on AA filters? I know this is a major difference between medium format and DSLRS. Seems like now would be as good a time as any to go AA filter-less.

  • Perhaps keeping the exact AF from the 7D, a stop or two less of ISO (still clean up to 6400), and 7D style weather sealing would be enough to differentiate the 3D from the 1D.

  • Would a 100% viewfinder for a FF camera be larger than a 100% viewfinder for a 1.3 crop? Perhaps that is the size difference.

  • I possibly would – but then – the question is by how much – and personally, just to save costs, I would have recommended the same external casing if it were just that for the 1Ds and a 1D – because a smaller difference you can change internally.

    Not that a user would notice it.

  • Justin, I’m feelin’ you there. And that’s depressing… I have no desire to spend the money switching systems. Even Nasa shoots Nikons these days (they just bought a bunch of D3s’s to use in space).

  • Yeah but… pixel density still low compared to the crop sensors.

    32MP is about 12MP on a crop sensor. With Canons new lenses I think they can handle the extra mega pixels.

    Considering the 1d Mark 4 would be 27 MP on a full frame I think it is extremely likely the 1ds Mark 4 will be at least 32MP.

    Having said all this I really would like to see a full frame low density sensor from Canon. Ideally with sensor based stabilization too!

  • It seems if you arnt a sports or press photographer these days Canon dosent even know you exist. I shoot weddings with a 5D ( which i love) & a 5D2 which seems to have a less acurate autofocus than the 5D1. Things at weddings can somtimes need quick reactions and the autofocus in the 5D2 dosnt cut it quite a lot of the time, so you end up with what would have been a lovley shot that captures the emotion of the day to find that its not sharp, but the next shot that is boreing and means nothing is razer sharp. I need full frame and cant justify the price of a 1Ds. A 3D sounds spot on. Come on Canon make us Wedding Photographers a Camera we need!!

  • Are you sure?

    P65+ has 60MP, after pixel binning 15MP is left and higher ISO is still barely usable at 1600.

  • Those space pics are amazing. Wonder how much those white space camera cases set the taxpayers back?

  • If you want lower res, shoot sRAW.
    Which has the added benefit of Foveon like colour.

    But yeah, proper pixel binning would be awesome.
    It is used to great effect on some high end video cameras like Sony F35.
    Giving amazing dynamic range through because the noise is so low.

    The great thing about the resolution of the 1Ds going up is that Canon has to keep upgrading it’s lenses.

    Bring this camera on and then a 3D pretty please.

  • Right, so you know nothing about it, its format, sensor but just want it because it has a “3” in its name? Good one.

  • Don’t be silly. NASA has been using Nikon since FILM days. This means they were ‘condemned’ to use the D1, D2 series even though they were HORRIBLY noisy compared to equivalent Canon cameras that time.

  • “Why does Canon still believe in the megapixel myth?”

    Because it has very smart people working there who now that the “megapixel myth” is a myth and there are people who require lots of pixels. What more, more is better and they know it, you can always downsample if you want less but you cannot upsample without loosing quality.

  • Yes. Once you have switched on the Caps Lock they are listening. Well done, we should have though of it years ago.

  • With Nikon and Sony over 25 MP, why did you not expect the count to go up? Right now, up to 50mp is possible, but not all the lenses and other infrastructure is quite ready. The 1Ds MK IV will be 50mp.

    When Cameras jumped from 256 and 500K Pixels to 1MP, some thought it was too much. Lots of those old 1mp cameras are still out there, if thats enough for you, get one.

  • They put out a 1D MK I, MK II, MK IIN, MK III, and Mark IV. They do not change the number of cameras in this range whenever there is a update. Also, the lower the number, the higher the price.

    If there is ever a 3D, it will be a totally new Camera for $5,000, not a 5D upgrade.

    If there is a FF version of the 7D, it may very well be a 7Ds.

  • Nikon has been advertising this. It seems likely that they gave them to NASA, just for advertising.

  • Oh my gosh, just think of all the low light possibilities with 128000 iso. You can see in the dark.

  • THIS IS GARBAGE.

    Canon is just digging them self into a deeper and deeper whole, they need to stop cramming pixels!!

    There is no hope for canon unless they come out with the rumored 3D, FF with about 16mp or less and an excellent AF.

  • Judging by the price of the new 70-200 f2.8 it would seem likely that the 1Ds mark IV will cost around £12000. So we should all stop dreaming about something none of us will ever be able to afford, and go out and take some photos with our 5D mark IIs.

  • I have to say that 21 mp of the Canon 5D2 look incredible in most cases. I think the same sensor in a body with a much faster processor (or dual) will be a godsend. Pop in pro-AF and, boom, you have the 5D3 or 3D. In any case it will sell, and be a wonderful piece of kit. 16 mp full frame will be a step backwards for those of us used to the file size and detail we get with a 5D2.

  • personally I can’t wait for the new 1Ds! I agree its expensive and maybe not what you all are looking for. It fits my needs perfectly. I think a FF sensor with 32 MP will be awesome for cropping and blowing up larger prints. The detail is much needed in my opinion. It sounds like you all are in love with your 5Ds, but are looking for a 5D with better performance, not a professional body. For those people who don’t demand things like Professional weather sealing, high pixel density (for making LARGE prints), professional AF, great ISO performance, and an incredibly high shutter life, stick with a SEMI-PROFESSIONAL camera. Canon WILL make another 5D/3D to fill this semi-professional market. Wait for that camera, but please quit saying how bad and off the mark this PROFESSIONAL camera is, because it’s not the semi professional cheap camera you want it to be. This camera is what it is. PROFESSIONAL!

  • i guess smaller pixels..again on a Full frame sensor. how do you cram 32mp on that size of sensor?

  • I heard that Nikon managed to sell NASA a large batch of D2X cameras… And then announced the D3 the day after!

  • Quite easy. Take 7D’s 18.0 x 1.6 x 1.6 = 46.1 Mp. 32/46.1*100 = 70%. So the pixel quality: S/N, noise level and DR proportionally better. Very promising indeed!

  • I have read somewhere on the internet (so it must be true!) that Velvia 50 slide film, with a good scanner, can resolve the equivalent of 28 megapixels of detail. Of course this is at ISO 50 and higher ISO films are grainier and can resolve less detail. Perhaps the future lies in medium format style ‘backs’ so that you can change from a high sensitivity (low pixel density) sensor, to a high resolution sensor depending on the requirements of the situation. Of course this requires one of the manufacturers to take a lead and I doubt it would be Canon (or Nikon for that matter) -they are quite happy selling you two whole cameras instead!

  • They did it back in the old times.

    EOS 5 was the only model, then EOS7 then EOS3 and guess what happened with EOS 5, it was EOL…

    It is therefore very well possible that 5D will NOT have a follow up anymore!

  • Lego concept is very sweet for imagination but a digital camera is very packed electro-optical device. The firmware is very sophisticated too (see last updates for Nikons). Universality has more faults than features. Even existing DSLRs are too universal. For example wedding photographers are craving for dedicated camera. This is a very big group of professionals and they should have EOS 3Dw with features as listed above in this thread.

  • Because it still sells cameras….the intrest in the 5DII, 7D and 1D4 have largely been MP and ISO related.

    The sticker price for this camera is going to be the real shock, it’s not going to be a cheap camera, possibly Canon’s most expensive yet.

    No one really needs 32mp, or 21mp. But it’s nice to have the extra resolution if required, it’s easy to take pixels away but impossible to add them after ignoring upsampling ect).

    The improved Af will be nice, but the 1DsIII never had many AF vices. The improved live view will be a boon as will the massively improved high ISO ability…which the 1DsIII was always lacking in, it’s of an older generation, unfortunatly.

  • Slide resolution is a little more complex than just rendering an equivelent MP value to it. Velvia has very little Dynamic range compared to other films or Digital capture, which is why it looked so constrasty. Many pros used to under rate it further so that the colours popped even more, which boosted the conrast and again reduced DR.

    A drum scanner may yield a 28mp equivelent image, but how much of that is detail and how much of that is noise?

    Film grain is an organic random noise pattern, Digital sensor pixels are mosaic arrayed, so the noise is far more linear looking. Which in theory, gives cleaner looking files, but less attractive grain.

    Velvia grain wasn’t particularly nice looking anyhow. Velvia was fine for landscapes, but it rendered flesh tones a “tango” colour look.

  • or a 30D in my case…and let’s be honest: how much cama does one need? I just look back on what Robert Frank did in the 50’s and then you just don’t need more than a body and a fast lens…and that’s all.

  • 7d has proved right the oposite – with a good lens you can get all 18mp out of APS-C and that means, a full frame can go up to 40+mp

  • I highly dought/hope they won’t go up to 50 mp without a bigger sensor.

    Simply put, there’s a certain point where extra pixels just won’t help you, I personally think 32 isn’t excessive for FF, but going much higher would be pointless, too many bottlenecks.

    Diffraction, lens quality, signal to noise ratio… to name the more basic limitations.

    Next step should be focusing on dynamic range and color depth imo.

  • You mean with a good lens shooting at nearly wide open? it’s physically impossible to get every pixel tack sharp closed down further then f/2.8-f/4 depending on your criteria for “tack sharp”.

  • 16 mp? are you kidding, say what you want… but those of us spoiled by 21 megapixel won’t stand for it :P.

    Think about how much better high iso the 5dII has over the 1ds essentially the same sensor. There’s more to noise then pixel density, as the 5dII vs a d3x file will show you.

  • I love this discussion about too much MP…

    The MP race is definately not over, maybe slowed down on compact cams, but on FF dslrs we will see 50, 60 or even 100 MP in the next years!

    One thing is also always to remember, that a eg a 21 MP bayer sensor has 21 million color pixels and not real pixels

    So a 100 Mp sensor would have about 30 millions RGB pixels (50M green 25M red and 25M blue)

    I personally would like to see a 3d with the same nice 5d sensor, with the video features improved (rolling shutter, real good pixel binning and resampling, framerates flexible and as fast as possible

    1-120,200fps and sort of more raw video codec…) general first a HD video cam then a great stills cam

    Even with things like EVF or fixed mirror thinkable

    I dont care about a better AF. I made 15k photos with the 5dii until now and have no reason to complain about the AF

    It does the job perfectly for me

  • Let’s also keep in mind that any lens used on a 32mp FF sensor becomes diffraction limited at somewhere between f/6 and f/8…
    Now that’s a serious drawback for applications requiring extended DoF like landscape.
    I would personally prefer a 20mp sensor that would allow me to exploit it at the maximum possible at f/14 with the added benefit of the increased dynamic range due to the larger photosites.

  • You’re right about the DLA limitation, but it’s only theoretical value. If you had followed discussion about 7D’s sensor (4.3 x 4.3µm, DLA f/6.8) it was said that f/11 was no problem. With 32 Mp the pixel size would be 4.3×1.6 = 6.9µm. Corresponding DLA would be f/11.0 (5DII has 7.2µm and DLA f/11.6). Source: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/.

    For me personally very interesting problem is IQ in the corners of digital FF sensor vs. 35mm film when pixel density increases and quality of microlenses deteriorates, especially for wide angle lenses. This affects not only IQ but also increases vignetting and in consequence resolution in these areas.

  • I would say:

    3D

    22mp 6.2 pixel pitch FF Backlit CMOS

    6FPS

    ISO 100-12,800 L-1 50, H-1 25,600 H-2 51,200 H-3 102,400

    And basically everything else 7D: AF, Seals and so on.

  • Can’t help but notice taht Amazon and Jessops here in the Uk are shifting 1dsmk3 at £3800…..gotta make you think, hasn’t it :-)

  • Apparently you’ll get less and less return from smaller and smaller pixels spread at the same area. Noise, diffraction, you name it. To me the version IV of the 1-series is somewhat the weakest, utilizing existing technologies and fixing bugs.

  • are backlit CMOS sensors ready for DSLR’s? Sorry if I missed something. Thought they’d remain with P&S first?Anyone? Then I’ll get an idea what a 7D Mk2 would be specswise…anyone?

  • The problem with option 1 is that it still leaves with a bulky hunk of a camera and it still leaves you with a pitiful 5fps. So even if it came down to $2500….

  • Well, a 5D-sized, 24MP, 6.5+ fps, with top AF would be easy enough to produce. And if they wanted to they could go with an even faster mirror box (at some additional expense, but recall even a $1000 film camera could do 8fps and that body is a lot more than just the mirror box) and dual-digic V (at trivial cost) and a bit more and faster memory (at some additional cost).

  • A stop or two less ISO performance??? The 5D2 would kill it then and the next Nikons make a laughing stock out of it!

  • I heard that even the old 1DsII surpassed, barely, not only color slide but color print film as well (if not B&W print). Talking 35mm here of course not some large format film camera.

  • Sure the new 1Ds will probably blow your socks off…. if you can afford it.

    However, although I am a professional my budget doesn’t reach the sky and although I could afford 1D MK IV I can’t afford a 1Ds. This is the dilemma I am in. I want a full frame camera, but I also want to have a good working auto focus system.

    I don’t understand why Canon can not deliver this for a fair price, while Nikon can and does?

    Sure I could switch systems, but I have a lot of lenses to sell off then on which I would loose a lot of money. So switching systems is not something you do easily if you have invested a lot of money already.

  • “The users are very happy at the image quality for a range of studio/location work.”

    Lol who wouldn’t be happy?

    When I see the quality of my large prints made with a “poor” 8MP file from my 30D, I can’t imagine the definition with a 1DS, even the mark II / III !

  • Then it will never match the dynamic range of nikon’s D700 which is 12mp and full frame, because the pixel pitch will be smaller still. And then if nikon comes out with a upgrade of the D700 with the sensor of D3s then canon is really in trouble. They need to keep the high MPs for the 5d III, but they really need a 3d with low MP and full frame and fast fps, and a pro AF.

    The size and detail? i get more detail with the d700 than the 5d ii, I had both. Size true, but what good is it when the photo is a bit blurry when looked at 100%, kind of like the 7d lost it’s IQ and has worse IQ than the 12 mp rebel… similarly the nikon d700 has more detail than the 5d mk ii. The 5d mk ii just gives you huge files for no reason.

  • compare the 5d ii to nikon’s bodies with low MP on a full frame…the high iso does not even come close.

  • Are people here actually serious, or is there a crack epidemic going through CR?? The 7D literally just came out, why the hell are you even thinking about a “7D MkII” ?? If there ever is one, it wont be for years, not to mention how ridiculous it is to speculate the “specs” of it. Everyone that’s already waiting for an updated 7D need’s to get together with each other and build a time machine, so you can all go to the future and get some future cameras, where you will realize after using such advanced technology that you still suck at photography, and should of spent your time honing your photographic skills rather than worrying about specs and building time machines.

  • Then get a 1D instead. :)

    Why don’t people complain about the D3x when it can only do 5fps in FX mode? Seriously if the image size is at 32mp, 5fps is very reasonable.

  • Well actually, if you compare the 5d II to the same generation nikon D700 (not the D3s) and down sample the 5d II file to the same resolution, they are very close in noise level, infarct in some comparisons the 5d II outperformed it.

    Of coarse if you looked at both raw files at 100% the d700 had an edge, but your also looking at half the amount of detail in a d700 at 100% magnification.

    The other thing to remember, is nikon is much more heavy handed in noise reduction then canon, and also in detail loss, I’m a raw shooter so I’d rather be able to control the degree of noise reduction out of camera personally.

  • Then stick with Nikon. :)

    There will always be a trade off. 5d2 have features that the D700 doesn’t have, vice-versa. Get the camera with the features you need and be happy with it.

    This will always remain true, no matter what camera these manufacturers produce, people will always complain on one side and give praises on the other.

  • Some argue that fewer but better pixels (ie. less noise, less blur) upscale better with modern techniques. My 5D2 shots tend to look pretty crappy @ 100%.

  • medium format is also about wider dynamic range (16 bit raw files), different type of DOF, rendering of colors and gradations.

  • The 1Ds series is sometimes considered, low-end high resolution cameras.

    For those who cannot afford medium format, the high resolution dslrs are a very good alternative.

  • Well the 1Ds3 is slightly bigger than the 1D3 well (the flashgun mount was raised slightly) for the bigger pentaprism. I think the difference between the 1D4 and the 1Ds4 will be similar.

  • On the other hand, I bet landscape ‘togs who shoot Nikon (especially with their excellent N14-24) are griping that all Nikon ever does is to put out 12mp cameras (except their top model costing US$8k).

  • Oh, OK.
    I think that settles it then… possibly no larger sensor then.

    Makes me wonder why they don’t use the same casing though…
    I think that would be cheaper… or maybe I’m wrong.
    (and only change the internals to fit the camera)

    Thanks :)

  • Dmitrij is right. 7d proves that a full frame can easily take 40mp. I would love a camera with that kind of resolution, but obviously not everyone would have use for it. Medium format cameras now have sensors with above 60mp resolution, which shows that for high end advertising and fashion the demand for super-high res is there.

  • PimpMaster, get a grip, please. This is a rumors forum as you may know. You are here as everyone else is to exchange ideas, or aren’t you?

    So please respect other posters instead of bashing them. This is a technical question, you did not even answer it, so what?

    The other thought is speculation, why not? I can easely explain, why I come up with this question: Because I mostly do high ISO photography, ISO 1600 and beyond on my 30D. As the current 7D has a good base for it, maybe a backlit sensor would even add an improved IQ to it.

  • If this is the true spec., I found this news boring. Why not just get a used mark II for cheaper? There is nothing breakthrough in the III. Rather, more pixels and more pixels. MP race is just boring! I don’t need more pixels! If I am an investor, I will be worried. Big giant is loosing the race. Listen to your customers, Canon !

  • Pimp, your in the wrong place here. We need people with decent arguments. We don’t need bashers. You may mock yourself about others, but you got no place for that here. sunny boy.

  • Since there’s talk about MF on this post, what’s the most affordable MF that’s sharper than the 1DsM4? Seems like there’s talk of a Pentax model? I would like to some day have a MF body but I’ve looked into the Hassy/Mamiya body + lens. Seems more like it’d be a rental for a BIG shoot versus owning.

    Any advice would be great. Apologies if this is not the place to post such a question.

    PS – I must be crazy, but I looked through the viewfinder of a Hasselblad a couple of months ago and it looked sharper than my 5DmII. I feel like I need to clean my camera better haha.

  • Well, I think Nikon has been around longer than Canon. NASA probably just stuck to the brand it was most comfortable with and went with it.

  • Not so much related…but today Canon just lowered their pricing on the 5d mark ii from 2699 to 2499… I wonder why?

    Canon has had no trouble selling these at 2699 and at that price point it was a bargain…so the 2499 seems even better.

    But I wonder…are they planning an update soon? Some suggest they are worried about what Nikon will bring out soon in the rumored replacement to the D700…

  • I agree that the price drop is puzzling. If they expect Nikon to introduce an 18-24MP competitor, wouldn’t it make sense to reduce the price AFTER that introduction?

  • It’s been out for over a year now. They drop the price to remain competitive, same way they did with the original 5D.

  • I think you drop the price before Nikon introduces its competitor, if the competitor will be perceived as a better value compared to the 5dii at the old price. After the announcement is too late.

    It’s a preemptive strike to convince the fence sitters to buy before the Nikon introduction.

    Keep in mind once you convince a consumer to buy into your camera body, you then typically have them for a long period of time buying lenses, flashes, etc. It kind of locks them into your whole system.

  • Yeah but there are many who’d rather have a small body FF with say 21-26MP and 6.5-8fps and a bit worse sealing than an $8000 brick at 32MP and 5fps.

  • Granted a 7D does get you more reach for wildlife than a 3D would. So there is something to a 7D+5D2 pairing, but I think many would still rather just have a single, fast, 21-26MP FF in small body form or that PLUS a 7D.

  • No, because they want to suck everyone into Canon b4 the D700x/D800 arrives otherwise those buyers might snap up the Nikon even if it is a few hundred more. I mean what if it has 1080p, 5-6fps without grip, 8fps with grip, FF with D3s sensor technology and 18-24MP in a small body. That kinda does it all!

  • A Nikon with the body size and resolution of a 5D2 and the speed and AF of a 1D2n????

    Otherwise it does seem odd, unless maybe the 5D2 sales have slowed?

  • I agree. They should have at least given it the speed of the 7D for the money they will be charging for this camera, and 1D MK IV is 1.3 crop, not FF. Since they will be charging almost double for the 1Ds, they should actually be able to match the speed of the 1D MK IV in a FF higher resolution camera.

  • CANON left out features on the 5D2 that would have made it freaking amazing, they had no choice, if they had put ALL the 1Ds features into it, no one at all would have bought 1Ds 3s.

    5 F[s
    Weather sealing
    better autofocus system

    Basically everything the 1Ds in a smaller body (pretty much what Nikon does) however, thats not really Canon style. As much as a I prefer Canon over Nikon (I have a 1Ds and a 5D2) Nikon do put pro features into semi professional DSLR’s, and they are going to do it again.

    Nikons rumored “D900” is going to be everything Canons 5D2 should have been. There will be differences, but they will be in direct competition with each other. Canon dropped the price because they know that Nikons version won’t cheap out on features, and will come in at around the same price range (Im thinking slightly more than the 5D2 upon release) D900 is going to be Nikons version of a 1Ds in a smaller body, with full HD video. It will have weather sealing, It will be faster than the 5D2 and it will have much better autofocus.

  • Canon will follow if Nikon releases the D900 with the rumored specs. Just look at the D300 and 7D. But, of course, Canon took 2 years to respond to the D300… LOL

  • You are quite mistaken, the information content of my post is in fact positive; it carries a message (one bit of information). Please try to be more constructive in the future, think before you post. If in doubt ask an adult to assist.

  • Camera components Sensor + multiple support chips + lens Sensor + lens possible, but additional support chips common
    Relative R&D cost Lower Higher
    Relative system cost Depends on Application Depends on Application
    Performance CCD CMOS
    Responsivity Moderate Slightly better
    Dynamic Range High Moderate
    Uniformity High Low to Moderate
    Uniform Shuttering Fast, common Poor
    Uniformity High Low to Moderate
    Speed Moderate to High Higher
    Windowing Limited Extensive
    Antiblooming High to none High
    Biasing and Clocking Multiple, higher voltage Single, low-voltage

  • In the end, each camera gives its own distinct character, color, and feel. Choose one that best suits your shooting style and imagery style. It is hard to say which one is better since both technologies are evolving and the new cameras keep getting better and better.

    In the end, it will always be the image, content and the story it tells… whatever camera you use.. Happy Shooting!

  • Tabitha? You sound like a nice piece of broad. I like your refreshing remarks among those boring fanbois.

  • +100

    Some of them even buy a 5D2 and a Nikkor G lens adapter for their high resolution landscape needs. :)

  • They do that so they won’t look like they’re milking the market too much with aging tech. :)

  • But apparently the 7D has a better AF system than the one used in the D300,D700, D3 family.

  • Isn’t Nikon remaking their AF system now? I cant remember if it was an actual announcement or if I read it on NR. Either way.. I read it somewhere. (2 weeks ater 7D was released).

  • I’ve seen the pictures from 7d and it performed very well. A 1ds4 will be a pro camera, the main purpose that it was build for is NOT pixel-peeping. Just deal with it.

  • Excuse me, but aren’t professional cameras supposed to deliver the best image quality possible? Isn’t this especially true when talking about the 1Ds, which is, unlike the speedy 1D, orientated towards studio work, landscapes, fashion and fine art in general, where the tiniest detail is important? And is it not true that what’s ultimately responsible for the image quality any camera is delivering are, believe it or not, pixels? Why don’t you just deal with it?

  • It performs well in some measures, it has low noise for it’s pixel density, and fairs well in focus tracking when shooting bursts. so for that purpose there’s nothing wrong with it.

    It looks a little soft and mushy to me when you make A3 or larger prints. I’m glad canon made a high speed camera at a decent price point, I just think they could have made more room in the buffer/had a higher burst speed with a lower pixel count, and given the other bottlenecks in resolving 18 mp an a 1.6 crop it wouldn’t have suffered any actual detail loss as a result.

  • funny how so many people worry about pixel density and “physical limitations” and talk about it as if they were the real experts. Reminds me to the early years in computer world when a huge 5 MB Harddrive was at 25K $ and sales reps said “this will last you for many years”. PC harddrives and processing power are doubling in approx. 18 months. So I am not worrying about filesize of raws, I rather worry about quality. And Quality does not necessarily have to suck with increased pixel amount. Just compare how things have improved over the last yeards. Have a look at your statements in few years from now – they might look foolish.

  • Isn’t comparing math (we haven’t reached physical limitations of computing technology.. so it really is only math) and science (or physical properties of light, if you will) kind of irrelevant here?

    As far as I am concerned, the pixel density of the 7D is already too high, and the diffraction-driven choice of aperture very limiting.

    But then again, some people simply won’t listen.

  • Just to clarify: we do reach limitations in computing technology. In fact, we reach them quite often. The difference is that these limitations are usually promptly overcome by further research & development.. something you can’t do with light.

  • You sound like an old scratched vinyl disk. You need to prove your point, needn’t you?

  • Not sure what you mean, could you maybe elaborate? :)

    This was my first comment about the 7D on this board, so I don’t see repeating myself. On the other hand, I’ve noticed that you defend it quite frequently. I agree, somebody is trying to prove a point here.

    If it was about the scientific point.. no need to explain. Science chirps for itself. Mhm.

  • Pixels are, that’s true. But I’m a photographer (and I think most people here are) and I am concerned about whole picture look. If you’re the guy that makes the art out of pixels…..well…thats sick.

  • and yes, one more thing….What makes you think that’s too much pixels???? are you a scientist? do you work at Nikon? or are you just a troll? 40D is 10MP. Same density on a FF will result in 27MP. Does 40d have too much pixels? or is 27 on a FF ok, but 32!!! WOW that’s a big fu**ing difference!

  • I think that if you can afford the investment of the camera itself, a few hundred dollars for external drives is inconsequential.

  • Voilà! On this board you can have as many nicks as like, so you are nobody. If you want to be somebody you have to deliver some info not a stale trash.

  • This is the one and only nick I use here. How about you ask next time rather than assume?

    And since I am quite happy to stay nobody, I think I’ll stick to expressing my opinion instead of delivering redundant info.. like somebody.

  • I am a photographer, too. I am concerned about the picture, rather than pixels. That being said, think about this:

    Any camera can produce a good picture. After all, it’s the composition, lighting and perhaps most importantly, the idea behind it. But let me ask you, if you can choose between a strong picture with excellent image quality and a strong picture with poor image quality.. why on Earth would you choose the latter?

  • Eh, don’t get upset :) I was replying to you saying basically ‘professionals don’t pixel peep’. I am not saying that the new 1Ds will be a bad camera.

  • Regarding the price drop I agree with most everybody on two points. One, it’s a preemptive strike against a possible D700 upgrade. Two, it’s been out for a year so a price drop is expected because its not the new kid on the block anymore.

    But I also think there is a chance that they might release a 5D Mark III or whatever they will call it by year’s end or early 2011. The camera will be 2 years old by that time and they’ll need to stay competitive against the D700.

    The 24/25p firmware update sometime this year will help keep the Mark II somewhat competitive for indie film people.

    My obvious guesses are more MP, a much better AF, 50/60FPS at 1080p instead of 720p.

    For me personally, the most important thing is a precise AF, not complaining about the 5DmII it’s been just fine, but if it was wider in coverage and just a little bit more precise I’d be stoked on a successor version.

  • Will Canon EVER produce a camera with usable ISO 12800 like the D3s? Looks like they are falling behind again by another two years… always chasing Nikon’s tail…

  • Well, Nikon may be successful with High ISO today, but in the past it was Nikon that was lagging behind Canon in that department.

    This is an endless cycle, both companies leapfrogging each other.

  • Agreed. I remember for a long time, before the D3 and D700 came out, Nikon didn’t have usable images past ISO800.

    Canon was the first of the two companies to switch over to AF lenses and bodies, and Nikon was slow to catch onto that. Also when they finally did move to AF it wasn’t very good (slow).

    But I must admit their lens build quality has always been great, very sturdy from what I’ve tried out. And their new bodies are top notch.

  • HDD’s have really become cheap nowadays. If the max res is not needed for a particular shoot there is always sRAW. :)

  • If I’m not mistaken a lot of these people who complain about diffraction don’t even print at least 8×10’s on a regular basis.

  • Thnks God Is not A Canon Failure

    Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII problem seems to be wide spread

    By [NR] admin | January 11, 2010

    Based on the amount of feedback I received after my post from yesterday (more close-up pictures available here), it seems that the issue with the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is more common than I expected (I got lucky with mine). At that point it is not clear if this “peeling” will impact the performance of the lens in anyway and whether those pieces will start falling off inside the lens one day. I am not even sure if it is a damaged thread of “real peeling” of the top layer.

    I received a report that a customer went back to the store where he originally purchased the lens and checked all 70-200mm available in stock and they all had the same problem.

    Trick77.com reports that Nikon service center representative acknowledged the issue and they will fix it. If you have this issue, get yours in for repair asap.

    Nikon’s Service Center in Canton, China documented this issue. The translation: there is presence of tiny particles inside the lens barrel when it’s zoomed to 200mm in the second group of lenses. Customer requests inspections:

    http://bbs.fengniao.com/forum/pic/slide.php?id=65_1498022_25993132

  • Desk space isn’t inconsequential :) How many of these things can I buy and still fit in my office?

  • What are you basing your limitations on? Actual fact or just your own guesses? Are you a sensor engineer?

  • “Will Canon EVER produce a camera with usable ISO 12800 like the D3s? Looks like they are falling behind again by another two years…”

    Dunno, don’t care. I think it’s great actually, you have two companies offering different products with diverging capabilities. Buy the product that you like and that suits your needs. If you don’t like one company go to the other – end of story.

    “always chasing Nikon’s tail…”

    “Always” – really? Even if we assume that Canon is technologically behind Nikon right now (which in itself is a controversial claim) you don’t seem to know the history of camera development very well. Just because you think that a particular product from Canon is not as advanced as a comparable product from Nikon you are very mistaken to generalise it.

  • They don’t print but they pixel peep at 100%. Behold the wonders of technology – instant experts at bitc*ing.

  • Actual physical limits, I’m not a sensor engineer, and you don’t have to be.

    As the pixel density increases, the potential limits of various things come into play, at the moment the most common is diffraction, and then signal to noise ratio.

    I’m sure canon could put 50 megapixel into a FF sensor, and maybe even make a lens that can theoretically resolve it. But When the diameter of the airy disk’s central peak becomes large relative to the pixel size, no matter how many pixels the sensor has, physics won’t let them be resolved. And the diameter of the airy disk’s peak is directly affected by aperture used. For 50 mp in a 35mm sensor, to prevent diffraction limiting the resolution you’d have to shoot at like f/2.8 or wider.

    So that’s actual fact, and that’s what I’m basing it on, you can look it up if you want.

  • For uncompressed colour you’d need at least 200 Mega Bytes a second throughput to whatever recording medium is being used. (At 30fps)

    At the moment it would need to be a SATA raid or high end SSD raid to get that kind of data written.

    I’m not sure if HDMI can output uncompressed video so it would probably need an SDI as well.

    So if you have a Terabyte or so of portable very high end and fault intolerant storage available it might be a good feature.

    And these rates are approximately half of what RAW equivalent colour would be.

  • Not only is it theoretical, it is also the wrong interpretation of DLA.

    DLA marks the point at which the Rayleigh criterion affects the image- i.e. the Airy disk covers more than two pixels. The fact that we can resolve more of with higher MP sensors simply means we are reaching the criterion earlier.

    That is, the diffraction effect of a lens at F22 will be the same regardless of the sensor- its just more noticeable with a sensor with smaller pixels when we pixel peep, because the effect will be spread over more pixels.

    In no way are we *loosing* information to DLA in high pixel sensors- we’re actually getting a more accurate portrayal of diffraction effects. Its just that we cant see them that well with the big old pixels.

  • Pwnt.

    Imagine the indignation and uproar if that were to happen to a Canon lens. There wouldnt be enough typing space to fit all the QQing.

  • You’re not mistaken. Better yet, big amount of complaints come from people who don’t print at all. And yet, some of us print quite large, up to 2 metres long.. If the smallest aperture a camera can handle without visible softening at this print size is about f/4, it’s very, very restricting.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not complaining. If I’m not happy with a camera, I won’t buy it; end of story. There will always be many people who will absolutely love theirs, because it’ll be sufficient for their needs. I’m merely saying that some people actually do large prints and do need extended depth of field. Hopefully Canon will address this need with a new camera, because there is a market for it out there.

  • And that’s a US$2400 professional lens. Hmmm…

    Cost-cutting, I suppose.

    When I ran into the awful portrait issue on the Canon ‘cheapo’ 70-300 IS lens, I was furious. So, I can empathize with current Nikon owners of the 70-200 VR2 lens.

  • Time will come when a camera like that would be in the market. For now, you just have to live with the options available.

  • There will always be complaints for every product released.

    No product has ever satisfied 100% of the population. :)

  • There are even people who complain about say a 50D when it was just given to them as a gift wishing a different model or brand was given instead.

  • They are remaking it, but where it stands, the AF system of the 1D4 is much superior to Nikon’s best. 39 points of F2.8 sensitive crosstype AF sensors is something.

  • Well just delete all your junk photos. :) Helps keep disk space and desk space low.

    I’m pretty sure a lot of people store even their junk shots for no reason at all. :) Just keep the keepers and junk the garbage.

  • The ills of diffraction are way OVER-RATED.

    REAL photographers (NOT those who only shoot test charts) will clearly attest to that:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=34214171
    He proved it by shooting at f/16.

    And this is 450D (left) vs 7D (right) taken at f/11:
    http://thw.smugmug.com/Other/Temp/Diffraction/753732853_fSD5f-X2.jpg
    Even at ‘diffraction limited’ f/11, the 18 MP 7D is still out-resolving the 12 MP 450D. Same lens, tripod mounted, cable release, manual focus under 10x live view magnification.

  • I’m not upset. Sorry for misunderstanding :) I actually think that if canon will make a camera with high ISO quality of 1dIV + FF + more pixels it’ll probably shoot with a great quality at ISO 25,600! And that’s just great. I want this camera! :)

  • Yes, maybe you don’t need 18mp. But 18mp are performing very good, and I wouldn’t say that it’s too much for this camera. Larger buffer….maybe. But there’s 1div for that! Canon is making money, not contributing to charity. That’s just the way it is.

  • Well I disagree with you about the diffraction issue being over rated, I think it’s generally poorly understood if anything.

    I agree that in real world photography diffraction limitations isn’t always the most important factor, Sometimes it needs to be traded for depth of field, or shooting in the sweet spot of a lens. The moon photo is an interesting shot, but I can’t say whether it supports this point or not, as to me it looks soft, it might be as sharp as that shot could have been given the circumstances (going through 2 extenders, fairly long exposure time etc), but without the same shot taken at other apertures it’s hard to say.

    As for the 450d vs 7d IMH this supports my point rather then disproves it. To me it appears as if both camera’s are resolving the same level of fine detail, the only difference seems to be in the contrast (which gives apparent sharpness). Which could be due to the lighting changing slightly between shots and the camera’s themselves processing files differently from each other (if you look at the jpg’s that come out of the 7D vs those that come from the 5d they appear very different even when in identical conditions).

    At the end of the day, you have to go with your intuition and experience, and what best suits the situation. But I also think understanding how it works and where the effect kicks in very helpful

  • The 450D vs 7D shots are both RAW shots processed in ACR.

    Funny how people can vehemently deny evidence that’s staring at them in the face. :) Reminds me of those good old days when people compared the D200 to the 400D and demonstrated how the cheap 400D was 1 whole stop better:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=21580673
    And you would still have people denying the truth at that time… until the D200 was replaced by its successor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Maybe a little belated, but my opinion on megapixels’ count is simple:

    the more megapixels the camera has the better. Sorry, but the ubiquitous statement “no need for more megapixels” doesn’t hold. Manufacturers create better sensors in terms of ISO noise ratios, which makes it possible to increase the resolution. Honestly speaking progress in resolution is going faster than progress in improving ISO noise ratios, but that’s not a reason to get stuck to some 12 or 18 megapixels.

    Truth be told, the backers of such erroneous view either repeat after others, hooked (subconsciously) on denying the necessity to upgrade and spend more money, or even believe it or not, don’t know about how to benefit from high resolution.

    Tackling this situation from another angle, I’m disappointed in the quality of work by today’s photographers, though there are a lot of good ones too, but the bottom line: a 1500 dollar dslr can create masterpieces, but people get crappy pictures out of 24 megapixel cameras (!) and pass their judgment on canon/sony engineers for their increases in megapixels. I think if a person isn’t pretty the mirror is not to blame. The best driver wants the best car (maybe even the fastest), likewise best photographers tend to get best cameras and it’s not about necessity. Hasselblad created a 60 megapixel camera. You don’t need that quality for success in business. Yet, its quality is better than that of a 40 megapixel camera.

    The last point I want to make is that manufacturers do sometimes “cheat” and create something to be palmed off on unwary buyers. Some of such buyers may even consider themselves pro photographers. Internet resolution charts etc. are not always very precise and objective as though someone tries to mask pro-canon, pro-nikon, or pro-sony policy. Manufacturers usually “cheat” or themselves got confused when it comes to point-and-shoot camers, like Canon decreasing resolution on the G11 to 10 megapixels :-) to appeal to the backers of a “no need for more megapixels” myth for a diversity sake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I disagree. You can always lower resolution in postprocessing if you like. When ISO setting is high, say, 3200, there won’t be any noticeable difference between a 32 megapixel and a 21 megapixel photo when printed. In other words noise per picture will be the same, while per pixel a 32 megapixel sensor will certainly yield more noise, which of course doesn’t matter. It matters though when ISO is low, say, 400, then a 32 megapixel photo will look a lot better (or to be more precise, it will have a higher resolution) than a 21 megapixel photo. The only real downside of high resolution is the larger size of photos in terms of megabytes. It is a clear disadvantage if you are into sports. Canon should go as high as they can in terms of resolution.

    My prediction is 33 megapixels for the 1Ds Mark IV.

    As far as video is concerned a camcorder should not be replaced by a camera, rather on the contrary. Camcorders are far more advanced and expensive and not only do they require external lighting but mics as well, besides footage should always be edited, ALWAYS.

  • To 50/50:

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

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

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

Leave a Reply

LATEST POSTS

Canon Gets 300mm Creative
Canon Patents
Canon PowerShot V1 $649 (Reg $849)
Deal Zone
Oben GH-30C Carbon Fiber Gimbal Head $169 (Reg $299)
Deal Zone
Eric Fossum Receives the 2026 Draper Prize for his Invention of “Camera on a Chip”
Industry News
Ricoh GR IV Goes Monochrome
Industry News
Peak Design Carbon Fiber Tripod
15% Off Peak Design Gear at B&H Photo
Deal Zone