Small snippet of info
I received this information today.
1Ds Mk IV will not have sensor cleaning since Canon has removed the 3-layer low pass filter to improve per-pixel acutance and microcontrast. Microlenses over the sensels would also not be 100% gapless like other recent Canon sensors because of M9-style offset microlenses to capture more light in the edges of the FF sensor.
cr
Some of our articles may include affiliate links. If you purchase through these links, we may earn an affiliate commission at no extra cost to you.
28 Comments
Yeah !
Hi tech is here. Well I got email like form CR0. 100 mpx for point and shoot. ISO 500 000 for point and shoot … 200 % gapless photon sites, fistf***ing each other… Marketing department is under hi pressure, how to change the laws of physics and how get consumers to buy stuff again and again…
The rumor description doesn’t seem to indicate the use of a pellicle mirror. In the traditional sense, the “sensor” unit (which includes the various layers of filters, etc.) is separate from anything related to AF (refer to technical diagrams). Even if a pellicle mirror is going to be used, it has little to do with the sensor unit itself to warrant modifications to the latter.
The pellicle mirror was originally intended to keep the continuous shooting rates high. It’s unlikely that Canon would put this now in a [slower shooting] 1Ds when they didn’t put it in the latest [faster shooting] 1D.
I’m not sure whether you’ve used a Canon camera without an AA filter but I have a 50D (read high pixel density sensor) without an AA filter and I really rather have an AA filter.
With fine detail (e.g. grass at a distance) the lack of an AA filter results in colour artifacts similar to moire. It also makes images look the “bad kind of” digital (the “good kind” being Foveon-like).
When the lenses aren’t up to it, such as when fast lenses are wide open, this problem isn’t as bad. But removing the AA filter doesn’t overcome the theoretical resolution bottleneck introduced by the Bayer design.
Unlike the Nikon AA filters on their FX sensor which are too strong, Canons have very mild AA filters. I call them mild because with sharp lenses I often see slight moire on my stock 5D2. I know that without an AA filter I’m just going to get “false detail”.
It seems that people are buying in to the marketing tricks of digital medium format. AFAIK, it’s very expensive to produce AA filters. The DMF AA-filterless strategy could just be a glorified cost cutting measure. The reason why DMF produces better detail is because of the larger image digitising area that’s not as demanding on the lens. I also have doubts about how sharp the standard DMF lenses are. If you ever look at 100% crops from a shake-less DMF image taken with a good lens (or even sharp M9 shots), you’ll see lots of demosaicing artifacts. But when was the last time AA-filterless supporters did that? :)
agree. a timely camera from canon in 2010 without sensor cleaning seems not possible – not even the famous marketing department will dare to do that :)
smells like a Canon fanboy’s wet dream
As soon as you hear the rhetoric of it being “M9 like” or “no AA filter” or parading gapless microlenses technology as a panacea – you know it’s just wishful thinking