No 1Ds IV? [CR1]

[epsiloneri]

A long lens actually need a bigger mirror due to the narrower object angle. You can try to draw it out yourself. or you can try to read some of the manual of film SLR in the 60's, they do mention the above effect.

Hmmm.... I'm not convinced. Wouldn't you get limb darkening unless the mirror reflected the full beam? Unfortunately I don't have any camera manuals from the 60's lying around Perhaps you can direct me to a more accessible source for information?

 

[Rocky]

A long lens actually need a bigger mirror due to the narrower object angle. You can try to draw it out yourself. or you can try to read some of the manual of film SLR in the 60's, they do mention the above effect.

Hmmm.... I'm not convinced. Wouldn't you get limb darkening unless the mirror reflected the full beam? Unfortunately I don't have any camera manuals from the 60's lying around Perhaps you can direct me to a more accessible source for information?

Sorry, I do not have one either. I try to search one for you in the web, no luck. This is a simple exercise to convince yourself:
Lay down a paper in landscape position, draw a 24mm line at the left end of the paper (The 24 mm line represent the height of the film or a FF sensor)
draw a perpendicular line at the middle of the 24mm line
draw a 45 degree line(23 mm long) from the top of the 24mm line, This line represnts the mirror.
draw one line to the top and one line to the bottom from the perpendicular line at 50mm from the 24mm line. this represents the "light cone" from a 50mm lens.
draw one line to the top and one line to the bottom from the perpendicular line at 200mm from the 24mm line. this represents the "light cone" from a 200mm lens.
Now look at how the two "light cones" intersect with the "mirror".
You will see that the 200mm "light cone" will hit a larger area of the mirror than the 50mm "light cone".
This proves that a longer lens needs a larger mirror. It will affect the viewing only, It will not affect the actual picture.( the mirror has swung out of the way)
You can go through the same exercise on the proposed 31.5mm square sensor also.

 

[Catastrophile]

The only thing that makes sense in this rumor is that 1DsIV might go modular. Modularity would be the best solution for the 1Ds line which is facing new & old competitions from lower and higher cameras like 5D2, A900/A850, the cheapest MF that are getting increasingly cheaper...etc. Potential buyers who have any financial or psychological problems paying 8000 every 3 years if they want the latest & greatest, will feel less reluctant to pay that price --or even more-- if they know that in 3 years they won't need to buy a whole new body to be up-to-date.

 

[digishooter]

Bogus rumor if you ask me. So many pros use the 1-series that IMO dropping it would be a huge mistake. Photogs that shoot thousands of frames day in and day out in all sorts of weather conditions don't care what the cost of the body is. They want the ruggedness, the battery life, the dual card slots, the better AF system, and the weathersealing. Some of these guys can recoup the cost of the body on one shoot, so the cost isn't a big deal.

 

[kubelik]

I'm with digi; I would be massively surprised if canon decided to just drop out of an entire market sector. unless something catastrophic occurs, there is no reason for canon to suddenly concede in a critical area of the market when nothing catastrophic has happened.

there's something to be said for having a flagship camera even if it's low-margin or even potentially a loss-leader; it does have a critical impact on your marketing. which counts.

 

[RichFisher]

Perhaps this is referring to an old topic -- the merging of 1D and 1Ds lines. One body, pick your resolution.

FF = 40 MP, 6 FPS
1.3 crop = 40 MP / (1.3^2) = 24 MP, 10 FPS

Then again, the rumor could be nothing more than speculation - devoid of fact.

 

[Rocky]

Perhaps this is referring to an old topic -- the merging of 1D and 1Ds lines. One body, pick your resolution.

FF = 40 MP, 6 FPS
1.3 crop = 40 MP / (1.3^2) = 24 MP, 10 FPS

Then again, the rumor could be nothing more than speculation - devoid of fact.

It make perfect sense. for 1.3 crop, EF lens(for full frame) is a must(No EF-S). Most of the pros are using L lens anyway. So if user needs speed, then it will be switched to 1.3 crop(with less pixel; count). If user needs resolution, the switch to FF. Two cameras in one. Good deal.

 

[Etienne]

Perhaps this is referring to an old topic -- the merging of 1D and 1Ds lines. One body, pick your resolution.

FF = 40 MP, 6 FPS
1.3 crop = 40 MP / (1.3^2) = 24 MP, 10 FPS

Then again, the rumor could be nothing more than speculation - devoid of fact.

It make perfect sense. for 1.3 crop, EF lens(for full frame) is a must(No EF-S). Most of the pros are using L lens anyway. So if user needs speed, then it will be switched to 1.3 crop(with less pixel; count). If user needs resolution, the switch to FF. Two cameras in one. Good deal.

Put it in a small body and I'll sure try to come up with the bucks for that.

 

[khphoto]

You know I said this exact same thing 8 months ago on here and it seems today nobody is still listening to it.

The 5D Mark III will have a 21mp sensor, the exact same sensor that's in the camera right now with like 1 F stop difference in ISO capabilities. It will have an improved AF system, improved video features and better weather sealing. Professional photographers will still jump all over it for $3,000.

There will be a 1Ds Mark IV. When it arrives is anybody's guess due to the economy not being favourable for either Nikon or Canon.

I think the main issue is too many people thinking Canon was going to give you a 28mp sensor in a 5D Mark III. That just won't happen. A 5D Mark IV or some other camera two years down the road is more likely. The fact is that they will make peanuts if they do a massive amount of R&D only to dump it into a $3,000 body. I hate to tell you all but the 1D, 1Ds, D3, D3x series is what makes the lines like the 5D and D700 viable.

I would think most Canon users would jump for joy to get something like.......

5D Mark II
51 point AF system
6 FPS
improved weather sealing
21mp sensor
ISO 100-12,800
60FPS 1080p


The problem is that so many people are STUCK on the notion of Canon having to deliver more and more pixels, where as it's further from the truth. They could use that same 21pixel sensor for the next 10 years and be just fine.

Heck do you know how many people are going to have issues processing 32mp raw photos? I found the 25mp in the D3x was a big enough pain as it was.

 

[khphoto]

Why a killer 5dMkIII is better than a High cost 1DsMk IV?
To understand this a small math will help -

say Canon makes 500$ profit on every 1DsMk IV body and just 200$ profit ona each 5d Mk III.

Now, number of 5d MkIII buyers = 50x(1DsMk IV buyers).

So effectively canon makes 10000$ profit for every 500$ profit it makes on 1Ds Mk IV.
So it is logical for Canon to listen to a 5dMKIII demand.

And honestly, they make more profit via lens sales than with bodies. They should try to keep customers loyal to Canon glass and perhaps pull in few more from Nikon camp with a well balanced 5d Mk III.

Thanks,

You have this a little backwards, trust me if you are looking at pure profit per body standpoint without considering R&D I'll be willing to venture a bet you are seeing over $4,000 in profit on a single 1Ds body. The reason Nikon and Canon both make these top tier pro bodies so they can keep R&D going and eventually these new fancy gadgets find their way into lower level bodies. The amount they profit on the pro level bodies is what paves the way for their entry level, intermediate and lower level pro bodies like the 5D or the D700.

I think you'd be highly surprised just how many pros have no problem going out and spending $8,000 on a camera body knowing that it will last them for a long long time. You need to remember these are investments and not necessarily an expensive purchase.

In my retrospect I'd honestly say they might physically profit $400 - $500 off a 5D Mark II and easily upwards of $4,000-$5,000 on a 1Ds when it's originally released. The number of 1Ds bodies they sell in the first few months after release is what helps keep the R&D going.

 

[silkysullivan]

1080 60p!? You're not serious are you?

 

[RuneL]

I'm new here - hello! Joined to comment on this bit of news, that to me is rather disturbing.
So, speculations and murmurs from me - I'm not a native english speaker, so pardon, if something doesn't make sense:
I'm having a hard time accepting this - it just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would Canon hand a share of their market to Nikon like that? IMO people who need the 1Ds for it's body and autofocus won't be satisfied with the 5D II or any iterations unless they greatly improved the latter - I was very disappointed with the AF when I borrowed one wanting to upgrade my 1D II - it wasn't better than that old thing.Improving both body and AF in a future 5D will increase the selling price will exclude the amateurs/enthusiasths/prosumers - whatever you call them - that are right now buying the 5D II.

Of course, weird decisions are being made the whole time - Canon launching the 7D that to me bastardizes their whole "pro" range and making it more confusing than it was already with the 5D MK II. Nikon launching the D700 competing with their own top of the line products (and losing customers to one of their own lower tier products - what gives? I base this solely on, that I know many who sold their D3's and got the D700 + "motor" to replace it. It may also be a very consciouse decision, to bridge the gap between two user-segments).

Anyway, in short, cancelling the 1Ds IV would almost certainly send many customers (that haven't alrady fled because of the III) running to Nikon and the D#X or what they'll be called.

Ok, well, ramblings, then looking from another perspective, the 1Ds IV that may not be:
How many 1Ds' do Canon sell? What do they cost in R&D and production? The price is high, but if the sales are low, it might not be high enough to warrant the continued existence of the 1Ds. Are they simply changing their "nomenclature" and launching it in some different version?
Are they consolidating their different models in some fashion? (7D, 5D 1D - the "#D" line has expanded greatly the last few years - are they trying to seperate the top of the line from the lower tier models or are they consolidating to make the 7D/5D seem as attractive as the 1D-line? - some consumers are stupid and may not be able to see what they are paying for and why - which is understandable in the confusion. And that may be the reason too.
Thinking about production cost, the 1Ds is essentially a 1D IV with bigger mirror and sensor. I'm not into the technical details to be 100% sure, but it seems to me that changing production from the 1D to 1Ds line shouldn't be too difficult - but it may be.

Or is it simply a cathastrophically stupid decision, or just a rumor that has no basis in reality? The 1Ds is (or was) a benchmark and I can't for the life of me imagine that dropping that particular model would serve any positive purpose neither financially, custumor or pr-wise.

Fact is we lack facts, it would be pretty easy to take a very accurate guess at what is going on, if we had sales numbers (for every model) and ROI etc. from Canon. I can't find them, if someone can, please post!


Ok, that's it. Just a longer thingy on this subject.

 

[scalesusa]

I'm new here - hello! Joined to comment on this bit of news, that to me is rather disturbing.

Its not NEWS, its a Rumor, and a CR1 rumor means its unlikely to happen. Don't take rumors seriously, or you will be disappointed when they do not happen. Just read them and have fun!

 

[RuneL]

I'm new here - hello! Joined to comment on this bit of news, that to me is rather disturbing.

Its not NEWS, its a Rumor, and a CR1 rumor means its unlikely to happen. Don't take rumors seriously, or you will be disappointed when they do not happen. Just read them and have fun!

I'm aware, which you'd see if you read my entire post