From the Land of Crazy! [CR0]

[Bob Howland]

If the digital technology is not affected by the same factors as film technology, then why does a digital Nikon body need a battery grip to increase FPS?

I'm actually curious because I never understood how this works, exactly. Is there an extra processor in the grip?

I think the battery voltage is higher, allowing the film transport motors and digital processing circuitry to run faster.

 

[NormanBates]

a quick google search tells me that the only reason is that nikon wants to sell grips harder than canon does, and cripples their cameras on purpose, then uncrippling them for the price of a grip

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/162154-nikon-d300-8-fps-w-out-battery-grip.html

a quick way to test this theory is to see whether the nikons get higher fps also with only one battery installed in the grip

 

[ms]

is it me or is this more like (IF it were real) to be the nikon mirrorless body than something coming from canon? Don't get me wrong... if canon put out an FF mirrorless with these kinds of specs I'd be bonkers for it but as of late I've toned down my expectations from Canon (mainly sticking with them b/c I like adapting lenses to the EOS mount)... here's hoping I'm wrong and that Canon give us some pleasant surprises

 

[Mr.Magic]

Looks like a dream camera! 16 MP FF, always dreamed off! 8)
I'd buy it immediately for $2200

 

[Catastrophile]

16.7MP sound too low a megapixel count for two reasons:

1) in combination with the high price and the relatively low fps, one of the 3 factors has to change, either increase the fps or the megapixel or reduce the price.

2) if this materializes, it'll be considerably lower in pixel density than 1DIV and if I'm not wrong Canon has never before gone to a lower pixel density than whatever they have/had in their latest 1D.

if the megapixel and/or the fps are increased (plus maybe adding dual card slots and weather sealing), the specs will be about you'd expect from merging and "budgetizing" the 1D+1Ds lines.

 

[Justin]

Hence, "from the land of crazy."

16.7MP sound too low a megapixel count for two reasons:

1) in combination with the high price and the relatively low fps, one of the 3 factors has to change, either increase the fps or the megapixel or reduce the price.

2) if this materializes, it'll be considerably lower in pixel density than 1DIV and if I'm not wrong Canon has never before gone to a lower pixel density than whatever they have/had in their latest 1D.

if the megapixel and/or the fps are increased (plus maybe adding dual card slots and weather sealing), the specs will be about you'd expect from merging and "budgetizing" the 1D+1Ds lines.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The guy that sent the rumor to me was offended.

He swears it's coming for CP+!

Maybe this won't be a weekly feature.

Great thread though.

 

[kubelik]

heh. I'd be offended by anyone trying to charge me that much for a camera like that. Unless it's got a big red dot on the camera, in which case I'd either a. denounce it as a knockoff or b. buy three

 

[Catastrophile]

The guy that sent the rumor to me was offended.

He swears it's coming for CP+!

Maybe this won't be a weekly feature.

Great thread though.

maybe you can just use "CR0" for this kind of rumors without labeling them as "From the Land of Crazy" and such.

 

[Mr.Magic]

Actually, I heard the same rumor in the largest camera shop in my country....
Still, I think canon won't make such a camera, but I'm still hoping they will.

 

[c.d.embrey]

a quick google search tells me that the only reason is that nikon wants to sell grips harder than canon does, and cripples their cameras on purpose, then uncrippling them for the price of a grip

Different cameras for different jobs. Why should I pay a higher price for a camera with a built-in grip and higher frames per second, if I don't need high frames per second?

High frames per second may be important to sports photographers/PJs or fanboys, but I've never heard a portrait photographer complain about not enough FPS. A commercial shooter, shooting catalog pix, doesn't spray-and-pray.

I like Nikon's idea of only paying for what you need. Too bad that Canon doesn't have the same philosophy.

 

[Stone]

a quick google search tells me that the only reason is that nikon wants to sell grips harder than canon does, and cripples their cameras on purpose, then uncrippling them for the price of a grip

Different cameras for different jobs. Why should I pay a higher price for a camera with a built-in grip and higher frames per second, if I don't need high frames per second?

High frames per second may be important to sports photographers/PJs or fanboys, but I've never heard a portrait photographer complain about not enough FPS. A commercial shooter, shooting catalog pix, doesn't spray-and-pray.

I like Nikon's idea of only paying for what you need. Too bad that Canon doesn't have the same philosophy.

Actually, Canon has more of a specialized body philosophy than Nikon. The 5DII is specialized for portrait/landscape photography because it contains an antiquated af system. The 7D on the other hand gives you a very slight drop in IQ with it's cropped sensor in exchange for 8fps and the 2nd best af in the Canon lineup. Canon has long tried to separate their bodies by function. Nikon on the other had puts a top notch af system into all of it's semi/pro bodies whether you need it or not. Also they are caple of 8fps if you choose to buy a battery grip. With a D700 you can go from senior portraits to sports with the same body only adding a grip.

Many of us want a do it all body because we're enthusiasts, and have no desire to carry around 2 different bodies for 2 different purposes. I shoot everything from portraits/landscapes to high school football & volleyball and I want Canon to give me the best of both worlds. If they don't do it this time around, then I know who does.

 

[Flake]

Nikon cannot provide a serious competitor to the 5D MkII at the present time, with the D700 you have only 12MP and most landscape photographers will tell you this is simply not enough.
The D700 needs a battery grip to attain 8fps but this is in 12bit mode so not comparable to the 7D, but there are other strengths for FF & crop frame, control over depth of field, or the apparant extra reach crop frame gives.

Macro shooters for instance need lots of MP and good DoF a crop sensor is ideal just an example of why you can't have one camera which does it all. Perhaps the best of all worlds of the 1D MkIV with it;s 1.3x APS - H sensor?

 

[Stone]

Nikon cannot provide a serious competitor to the 5D MkII at the present time, with the D700 you have only 12MP and most landscape photographers will tell you this is simply not enough.
The D700 needs a battery grip to attain 8fps but this is in 12bit mode so not comparable to the 7D, but there are other strengths for FF & crop frame, control over depth of field, or the apparant extra reach crop frame gives.

Macro shooters for instance need lots of MP and good DoF a crop sensor is ideal just an example of why you can't have one camera which does it all. Perhaps the best of all worlds of the 1D MkIV with it;s 1.3x APS - H sensor?

All good points, and APS-H is a nice compromise, I love some of the shots i've seen from the 1DIV. However there are many successful landscape shooters using nikon D700 & D3 bodies. The difference in MP does not result in a dramatic difference in IQ between the 5DII & D700, I know people who shoot with both and IQ is a wash with a slight lead in high ISO performance going to the D700 and a slight lead in detail on very, very large prints going to the 5DII. Canon obviously wins in video. FF is obviously better for dof & crop gives you more reach with shorter lenses, essentially the difference between buying a 300mm vs 400mm lens, so they both have their uses.

I still contend that technology is such that a FF body can shoot 8-10 fps and that recently the performance limitation has been imposed by Canon to protect their flagship, not the availability of technology. EOS film cameras could shoot 10fps and those bodies had to advance a film roll so I know it's possible with digital.

My ideal body would be FF, 18-21MP, 1-series weather sealing, 8-10 fps, very clean ISO 6400 & dual card slots, the 7D AF would be more than acceptable on this body for me. I would imagine Canon could produces this body in the 3K-4K price range if they really wanted to do it.

 

[lbloom]

This whole rumor sounds like more of a Nikon D800 than anything Canon...

 

[Flake]

"I still contend that technology is such that a FF body can shoot 8-10 fps and that recently the performance limitation has been imposed by Canon to protect their flagship, not the availability of technology. EOS film cameras could shoot 10fps and those bodies had to advance a film roll so I know it's possible with digital."

FF is not the issue but MP count is, a recent Canon technical piece stated that there is a problem with the sensor at 18MP and 10 fps, each time an exposure is made the sensor is 'reset' wiped if you like, the technical problem is in resetting the larger pixel counts. Failure to do this effectively builds a series of ghosts of previous images, which gets worse as the number of images in a burst increases.

Your ideal camera is very very close to the 1D MkIV. 16.1MP isn't very different to 18MP it does 10fps dual card slots and clean Iso 6400 the only compromise is the Aps-H even the price is about right if you're quoting in £ notes!

 

[Film]

Canons reasoning (excuse) behind crippling the 5D MkII autofocus was that they could not fit a larger AF unit into a XXD type body with a FF sensor, if that is true then this rumour would also fall into the same trap.

Nope! This shouldn't be the reason. EOS 3 had autofocus similar to EOS 1V (45-focus points and very fast). It was a film camera - so you can consider it a FF. And the size is almost as 5D2. 5D2 = 6.0 x 4.5 x 3.0 in; EOS 3 = 6.3 x 4.7 x 2.8 in. It looks like it's more a concern of differentiating 5D from 1Ds, to sell FF bodies for $8k. And it sucks. I really like Nikon's approach in this regard.

 

[Film]

"I still contend that technology is such that a FF body can shoot 8-10 fps and that recently the performance limitation has been imposed by Canon to protect their flagship, not the availability of technology. EOS film cameras could shoot 10fps and those bodies had to advance a film roll so I know it's possible with digital."

FF is not the issue but MP count is, a recent Canon technical piece stated that there is a problem with the sensor at 18MP and 10 fps, each time an exposure is made the sensor is 'reset' wiped if you like, the technical problem is in resetting the larger pixel counts. Failure to do this effectively builds a series of ghosts of previous images, which gets worse as the number of images in a burst increases.

Your ideal camera is very very close to the 1D MkIV. 16.1MP isn't very different to 18MP it does 10fps dual card slots and clean Iso 6400 the only compromise is the Aps-H even the price is about right if you're quoting in £ notes!

As far as I remember, it was an issue of a FF, not MP. That was the reason to put APS-H in 1D4, they could have made it FF, if the problem was pixel count. Nikon's fast FF shooters can't shoot more than 9fps in FF mode, only in APS-C, because of this as far as I understand. But as it goes so far in technical details it's more based on what one read on forums and stuff, so we can't be sure.

 

[Stone]

"I still contend that technology is such that a FF body can shoot 8-10 fps and that recently the performance limitation has been imposed by Canon to protect their flagship, not the availability of technology. EOS film cameras could shoot 10fps and those bodies had to advance a film roll so I know it's possible with digital."

FF is not the issue but MP count is, a recent Canon technical piece stated that there is a problem with the sensor at 18MP and 10 fps, each time an exposure is made the sensor is 'reset' wiped if you like, the technical problem is in resetting the larger pixel counts. Failure to do this effectively builds a series of ghosts of previous images, which gets worse as the number of images in a burst increases.

Your ideal camera is very very close to the 1D MkIV. 16.1MP isn't very different to 18MP it does 10fps dual card slots and clean Iso 6400 the only compromise is the Aps-H even the price is about right if you're quoting in £ notes!

As far as I remember, it was an issue of a FF, not MP. That was the reason to put APS-H in 1D4, they could have made it FF, if the problem was pixel count. Nikon's fast FF shooters can't shoot more than 9fps in FF mode, only in APS-C, because of this as far as I understand. But as it goes so far in technical details it's more based on what one read on forums and stuff, so we can't be sure.

This is correct, at the time Canon was designing the 1DIV they could not push 10fps thru a FF sensor because of the ghosting issues that Flake mentioned earlier. This is an engineering problem, and Canon has probably been working on it since they completed the 1DIV. I have no inside info, but considering the design of the 1DIV was probably completed some time back in late 2008 or early 2009 for it's late 2009 release, Canon has had over 2 years to resolve this issue. Add to that the dramatic increases in the processing power of embedded chips over the same time period and i'm sure Canon has solved this issue by now.