1D4 Frame Rate
An anonymous email says the new 1D4 will be a 12fps camera. This is the reason it is staying APS-H.
60D
New battery and battery grip?
Apparently so.
The Bp-511 has been around a long time and is overdue to be replaced with a chipped and more expensive battery. A new battery grip will contain new ergonomic features. Those features are unknown at this time.
2000D
New source says the new Rebel will not have a tilt and swivel screen.
Peru
I’m in Cusco at the moment and having a wonderful time. I’ve only spent 1 full day here.
Thanks to everyone for the donations, I will post a pic of the kids you helped later in the week.
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
So in order to beat the D3 (by a single fps) which can shoot at 11 fps w/o AF reading only DX part of the sensor it is necessary to make a mirror that is 60% of the area…? No disrespect CR guy, but that strikes me as total BS
Enjoy Peru!
Canon please… we want the new 1Dm4 to be FF, made the 1.3 crop software.
If it’s not, maybe i’m going to Nikon!
If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
Please be wrong about this one. Without full frame for the 1D4 I won’t be getting one. As a wedding guy I want about 16MP, fast focus and super low light capabilities without file sizes that choke my computer. I have two 1dMk2s and a Mark 3 and the crop factor for my wides has always bothered me.
60D
New battery and battery grip?
yes comme Canon EOS 5 mark II.
thank you
This particular comment isn’t about what I like or dislike. It simply doesn’t make sense to me that Canon has to use a mirror that is only 60% the area of a mirror that Nikon made do 11 fps two years ago, in order to go 12 fps. there is something missing here.
so shouldnt you be in the market for the 1Ds mark IV?? or the 1Ds mark III?
The new grip for the 60D is needed, it’s incredibly annoying that my 40D grip doesn’t have the AF-ON button like the camera does.
Canon, please don’t forget to include a direct print button on the new battery grip!
But the D3 shuts down AF and afair metering too in 11fps mode. That makes it a bad benchmark for anything over 9fps in my book!
And a cup holder for my drink!
You’re going to go to leave your entry level canon to go to your entry level Nikon because the flagship canon isn’t going to be what you want? Go ahead :)
Not to mention be in the market for a new computer… file size is such a poor excuse. 1TB hard drives are the norm, 4gb ram costs <30 dollars. 8GB can be had for less than 100 dollars. Quad cores cost less than mother boards. File size is a weak argument
I second this motion! <3 my direct print button! Direct print 4 Life!
hmmm, new grip? sounds cool, cause bg-e2n doesnt really fit well (and neither looks good) i mean the grip is shorter than the camera, and dont looks like a part what was built-in from the beginning (as the nikon grips do)
while this is true the point is that the physical mirror can operate at 11 fps. the AF system is irrelevant, since its limitations are its own. well…having said that a more rapid submirror return which should be possible on a smaller sensor size would conceptually allow for more time of light transfer to the AF sensors, potentially enabling above 10 fps w/ AF. but a pellicle mirror system would be far more stable, less prone to mechanical malfunction, and would work regardless of the sensor size
Why not add a printer into the vertical-grip? :) That can print A3-prints… mmm.. now we’re talking! Give it to me baby! :)
Dear all 1D mk IV concerned people.
I want FF because I want FF, I do not want a crop factor. I understand that Canon does not make a camera based on what I want. If we go the route of APS-H and the majority of 1D shooters are happy with that so be it. I just want a good reason for it. so far I haven’t seen one.
Please explain to me in a kindly fashion why the 1D mk IV should be APS-H. I will retort, please retort to my retort if you so desire.
Thanks
Yes, we want you to go to Nikon.
Dear all 1D mk IV concerned people.
I want FF because I want FF, I do not want a crop factor. I understand that Canon does not make a camera based on what I want. If we go the route of APS-H and the majority of 1D shooters are happy with that so be it. I just want a good reason for it. so far I haven’t seen one.
Please explain to me in a kindly fashion why the 1D mk IV should be APS-H. I will retort, please retort to my retort if you so desire.
Thanks
? BG-E2N has that button. that was what the ‘N’ meant
he shoots a 5D, I wouldn’t call that entry level…
I’m right there with you, Zac. A 2 fps second improvement can hardly justify going from 1D3 to 1D4, and you are right on that 1 fps better than the D3 is lame. I think the anonymous rumor is BS too.
No, the 1Ds will not be 16MP, and he shoots events so the faster fps is important to him…and the file sizes on the 1Ds are far larger so your logic (by agreeing with Max) he should get a 1Ds4 or even a MK3 makes no sense as far as needing a more powerful computer (which I run CS4 no problem with 1Ds3 raw files on even pokie Core2 laptops so what’s the big deal there I dont know, unless you’re shooting video). 1.3 crop sucks for wide angle, some of the best wedding shots I’ve seen were 14mm L and the 15 fisheye FF, and not on a APS-H of which the crop makes those lenses suck.
No he should not be in the market for a 1Ds4 or 3 if he wants 16MP at 12 fps or better FF. The 1D line should be FF so we can use wide angle lenses on it too. People don’t want their expensive 14mm L turned into a 18.2mm and the idea PJ’s and event shooters dont want faster fps but FF is just very inaccurate. If you want crop buy a 50D.
Wow, Are you serious?? The bg-e2n does not have the af-on button. The wifi grip does.
What do you mean we????
If the 1D4 is not FF, its because the people who buy the bulk of these cameras have requested it. While Canon are obviously a little arrogant with their customers, they’re not stupid. The D3 isn’t some nirvana light years ahead of the 1D3 and neither is FF the evolutionary next step.
APS-H is a fine format. If it lives on its because enough people want it.
you are correct, I was mistaken. wow that was stupid of me. sorry.
that was also stupid of Canon. what did they do in the ‘N’? add a little bit of weathersealing??
No it doesn’t, only the wifi grip has the AF-ON button.
The ‘N’ means “we’ve added a crappy weather seal to the battery compartment”
No it doesn’t. The ‘N’ has a little bit of extra waterproofing and was a staggeringly lazy upgrade by the slobs at Canon.
The mirror has to be down for long enough between each shot to support the autofocus operation, likely much longer than it would have to be down if AF was not supported. That means that the mirror has to move much faster between shots to ensure that this hold time for the AF is sufficient.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the 9fps with AF on the D3 is limited by the speed of the mirror between shots and the alleged 12fps with AF on the 1D4 is limited by the AF time and the focusing speed of the lens between shots.
I’d like the second compartment of the grip to be able to hold modules such as one for wi-fi or gps as well as an extra battery. It would also be good if you didn’t have to mess about removing the original battery. I don’t believe the D300 grip needs the camera battery to be removed but I could be wrong.
While cost of memory and processing power has dropped rapidly, file size is a bigger issue than some think. Those 30 mb images from my 5D MK II can eat up the empty space rapidly. And, you have to need enough backup space to keep 3 recent backups.
I just bought 5 new 1TB drives for my NAS (1 spare) and they will be full in less than a year. This is in addition to the 1.2 TB on my new PC.
the D300 grip doesn’t need the camera’s battery to be removed, but it only allows for one additional battery in the grip. It will also allow that one battery to be the D3 battery, but I find it a little silly that they didn’t adopt a design somewhere between their’s and Canon’s allowing for a total of 3 batteries to be used in the camera and grip
that is true. thank you for pointing that out.
Personally I would prefer FF with a pellicle mirror AF system, as in this thing: http://www.canonrumors.com/?s=Autofocus+Patent&x=0&y=0
In addition to my 40D and 5D MK II, I now have a 1D MK II which I bought used yesterday for a very good price. I find the APS-H sensor to be a excellent compromise between the FF and APS-C, and hope it will not change.
I was rather amazed at the quality of the contrast and color in the images, and the perfect exposures I get with the camera. The exposures are dead on, and far better than either of my other cameras. The high FPS mode is also amazing, much smoother and quiter than either 40D or 5D.
I can’t wait to see what the Mark IV is like. As for wide angle, my current widest lens is 24mm, and that seems reasonably wide even on the 1.3 crop, I usually stitch 30-70mm shots for panoramas anyway.
Having the 1.3 crop now, I’ll see if I use it more than the FF. Certainly, the 21mp FF has more ability to crop, but my lenses don’t always have enough reach, so I tend to crop more severely. A 16mp FF would be about 10 mp cropped to aps-H size, so I’d rather have 16mp APS-H.
I am glad the mkII suite you well. I think you are discovering some of the joys of the 1-series bodies, like the meter and AF. I also think APS-H is a reasonable compromise. however, I would much rather have a FF body, with all of the 1-series advantages, and the speed and cost of the 1D instead of the 1Ds. I would also like to remind you that there is a fundamental angle of view difference in the lenses, and while you might use wide-angle for panoramic type shots, which are all well and good, others, such as myself would like the perspective achieved by wide-angle lenses.
What I’m looking for is 16mp FF, 7FPS, Pro AF, Weather sealed, 5D2 size body with optional wireless grip. Call it a 3D if you want, but I know Canon is still not making the body I want.
Dave
Keep in mind with wedding PJ you’re talking a lot of footage and post-processing. Of course there is always sRAW to handle file size.
You aren’t “we”, you’re you – YOU might want FF, but I’m telling you now that I surely don’t.
Enjoy your Nikon.
Portrait lenses like the 85 f1.2 are also optimal on for a full frame sensor.
Agreed, maybe include a 1.3-1.6x in camera crop and you have a dream machine for weddings, PJ, travel, wildlife, sports, you name it. This is a huge niche that Canon is overlooking.
PS: Please, no friggin’ pop-up flash!
Speed is important however 8-10 fps is plenty – it’s a camera, not an Uzi.
lol, guess it depends on what you want as an option. I’d like 15 fps, obviously with slower modes too, but when I want to get a crucial moment, the more the better.
Personally, I pick and choose the best shots out before post processing them ;)
True, but if one had 15 frames of the same scene you’d just pick the best one, process it, and save that one, not all 15 right? At least I don’t or I’d have 30 terabytes of storage by now.
The only time I like the crop is 135mm and up, and not all the time, just for certain things like wildlife or certain sports, and a dynamic crop like Nikon uses would be just fine for that so I could use FF wide lenses too.
Make that 12-15 fps and I’d be all over that too.
Stick a video game inside like the PSP and I’m in.
Exactly. And 1.3 is an easy dynamic crop option, so they could make it the best of both worlds instead of the hard limtits of APS-H sensors.
Hi,
I had a look at a MkII yesterday too and didn’t buy it because the test shots i took did not show me an improvement like you describe. I took them home and had a good look.
The images were just not clean enough for me. But, i’m now waiting for the MkIV.
it’s sensor was designed in 2003/4, so it’s excellent considering when it was developed, but I completely understand how you feel. I own a mkIII, and was loaned a mkII and I agree with your conclussion.
If they want FF to become cheaper they need to start making everything FF.
1DMK4 should be 16-18MP FF and still capable of doing 12FPS. Canon can do it, they just decide not too. Canon think they know what is best for their customers. Instead of listening to us they do what they want. No wonder they are going down hill. I am still waiting for them to bring out a product to compete with the Nikon D300. The 40D/50D is more in line with Nikon’s D90. If Canon can’t/won’t respond to the feature set and quality of Nikon’s D3xx/D4xx series, I am jumping ship.
Everyone should write Canon Japan!!!
I dont get the people who want APS-H when you could have a FF with dynamic crop like Nikon does and have the best of both worlds. Brilliant move on Nikon’s part to make everyone happy with that feature. Why people would want Canon to be stupid and needlessly limit everyone dropping $4500 on a body to the 1.3 crop of APS-H is a mystery to me.
The 5D2 is FF and has sold like hot cakes, so there’s plenty of production to drive the costs down. I suspect if Canon is stupid enough to stay with APS-H on the 1D4 it is because they listened to only one focus group instead of considering the broader appeal the D3 enjoys. Bad move if you ask me.
How long are you in Cusco for? I´m currently halfway through a 6 month trip in South America (currently in Bolivia) and will be in Cusco mid to end of July. Would be cool to meet up!
Go and jump ship then. Stop whinging. Brand loyalty is for dorks.
Jump please…jump now!
Most pros do, but with weddings we’re still talking around 500 selects. I shoot on average around 1500 images and deliver around 500.
By the way I’m with you on the 14 f2.8 L II – a fantastic lens and full frame is a must.
I guess it just goes to show how long it takes Canon to react to change. If this new 1D series is APS-H (again) then it shows how long it takes Canon to design a fullframe mirror box that can flap at 8-10 fps. I know that they have done it in the past, but that was a film camera and a long time ago. I still think that Nikon caught Canon off guard with the D3/D700 and Canon still haven’t reacted fully to it. Sure they are still the brand leader but corporate arrogance leads to corporate negligence.
I guess the big questions are: will the extra 3-4mp make up for the smaller sensor, when comparing the D3? Will the extra 1fps really be seen as a worth while update? Will the AF system be up to Nikon’s standards?
I really do think that Canon needs to re-think it’s pro line up. Nikon’s Pro cameras are far more versatile than Canon’s. Canon tries to give with one spec but take with another to make you want 2 cameras for different roles. Lets face it, if canon had kept the 5DII to 16mp, they could have squeezed 6fps out of it easily enough. That would have been a step in the right direction.
So the 60D gets the same battery as the 5DII…I wonder if Canon can supply enough batteries for the 60D users AND 5DII users? At the moment they can’t even supply the current 5DII user base!
Adam, I don’t think it’s a question about canon “wanting” to make the 1D series full frame. I think it’s the engineering cost and time that it takes to develop a 12 fps mirror box from scratch. Canon hasn’t built a ff fast mirror box for a long time, I bet that they are developing one at the moment. But it’s probably not going to be ready for this model, which is a big disapointment.
According to Canon, Nikon’s D3 and D700 cameras haven’t eaten into their sales as much as everyone is claiming. So I guess there’s no rush from Canon’s point of view. They just need to develop a mirror box that’s going to see them through the next 10 years of 1D developement.
According to Canon, it takes them 3 years to develop a 1D series camera. Which means that this model was well advanced before the D3/D700 came out. The sadest thing is that the Current 1DIII was a ground up redesign of the 1DII and they had the perfect opportunity to go ff then.
I hear ya. Seems like I’m always buying 500 gig drives when on sale just for storage.
Dude I am not whining, just making a point. You need to learn when someone is whining and when someone is stating a point.
Go back to school!!!
Understood, but your probably talking a top of the line sports body like the 1D Mark IV. Also I’m guessing maxing frame rates is important for video capture, especially with sports.
I’m thinking around 8-10 fps is all I could ask for from a camera in the $2500 range – this mythical beast that’s moderately priced, 16MP, full-frame, tight focus, latest features and decent build quality. In my opinion what the 5D Mark II should have been.
Gareth,
You make a good point about them rebuilding of the mirror box. I personally don’t think they need to build a new mirror box. Others are suggesting that an electronic shutter be put in place. This would get rid of the whole frame rate issues as there would be no actually mirror to get it the way. Basically it is taking the point and shoot approach to it. This would also help in the area of LiveView.
I think the D3 and D700 didn’t hurt Canon as much because for those the MP’s matched the old 5D. They needed it to be 14-16MP FF for it to really take off. Once Canon release the 5D MKII, it killed those models on MP’s (not that MP are the most important). I was so disappointed to see the old slow 5D AF was used on the MKII. If only they designed something new for it as well.
You are right is saying the corporate arrogance leads to corporate negligence.
Thanks for the feedback Gareth!!
Hey David,
The 5DMKII has sold pretty well but more for the HD movie capabilities then still photography. The level of DoF you can get with the 5DMKII is amazing. It definitely has some good points but it also has it’s bad points. They should have improved on a lot of things from the 5D but decided to just leave them. Canon took a shortcut instead of finishing the camera correctly, then they make us pay large for it.
Ah thus is life…..
I’m happy with the 5D2 from what I’ve seen so far, going to buy one the end of this week, but I do think a faster fps with lower MP version of the 5D2 in the same price range would have been great as a second version – if they’d split it into a 5Ds and 5D like the 1 series I would be buying one of each. I may want the 1D4 too, depending on if it’s FF, the current 1D3 price holds, and if it has HD video – time will tell.
Sounds good to me. How much would you be willing to pay for that? My 5D cost $3300 when I bought it and that’s how much I’d pay for the camera that you described.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Nikon D4 completely dispenses with the mirror and uses an EVF. What kind of frame rate could be achieved then, since there would be no no blackout time when the metering and focusing are blind.
Hey Adam, I’ve seen stunning stills from the 5D2, especially in low or available light. A few more FPS and new AF would have been nice, but I understand the target was not sports and no camera can do everything perfectly. They released the 5D2 too early, though I understand the pressure to get it out there. I just waited on buying for them release something with HD manual control and I’m happy the firmware added it to the 5D2, and now Canon can have more of my money. If the 1D4 is not the minor APS-H upgrade they keep promoting here on this site I wont be buying it – but if they do it right, I may find my two faves to be 1D4 and 5D2 – we’ll see.
Man I suck at double negatives sometimes…you know what I meant.
Gareth, If that is really Canon’s thinking to justify keeping APS-H then that is silly. I don’t buy it. All they had to do was take the 1Ds3 and improve it to a faster fps at a lower MP, not redesign the APS-H mirror from scratch to go FF as the 1Ds is already FF in the same body. Even if they went FF and made it 11 fps like Nikon it would be an improvement. But I have my fingers crossed all these APS-H rumors are BS and they have a 15 fps FF 1D4 coming ;)
I agree. I think this is a simple enough thing that Canon needs to do. FF with dynamic crop. End of story. Move along APS-H.
Too early. Took 3 years for the upgrade. It was long overdue. Canon could have added a more advanced AF system. They could have given it more fps. They chose not to.
I cant see why it would be expensive to go FF in the 1DMkIV.
Lets say Canon has a Digic5 in the works.
That could push the 5DII’s 21MP to about 5fps.
Stick two of them in a 1D body, have them process images in an Odd/Even number fashion (aka DSG Gearbox on the VW’s) and you get 10FPS.
Get a 1.3 Crop factor going ala nikon, and you get a 16MP APS-H alternative for all you nature lovers. :-)
do you really need 15fps to shoot a wedding?
and if you want to shoot 15fps and your computer cant handle 21MP photos I doubt it will cope 16MP files very well either…
what the hell is direct print anyway… my cameras do not respond to it…
I get the wide perspective from my 5D MK II. I don’t need 12 FPS for panorama or landscape shots, so the 5D MK II is a much better price for this capability. Unfortunately, no one makes a camera that does it all, and certainly not at a low price or even a high one, there is always compromises.
Cropping a 16mp FF to a 1.3 equivalent would end up with 8mp which is what we have now. This would not increase sales. Users of the D3/D700 which crops to 1.5 have noted that the 6mp output is pretty much worthless. Cropping the 21mp 5D MK II to 1.3 equivalent gives about 16 mp, which is reasonable, however, I’d take the 16mp APS C for 5,000 rather than the FF for 8,000.
Certainly, the 1D MK II at 8mp does not give a huge sharpness when viewed at 100%, particularly after using my 5D MK II since the first of December. However, the accuracy of the exposure and the deeper colors and better contrast are worth a lot, particularly when I only paid $600 for the body with 15000 actuations and in like new condition.
People are clammoring here for a 16mp FF which is identical pixel size as the 1D MK II and will have the same resolution when cropped. No improvement except better high ISO performance which is not wonderful in the 1D MK II.
I don’t think there is a huge engineering problem making a high FPS full frame, just $$$. The ones who actually buy the cameras by the hundreds definitely have more influence over the final design than those who don’t own one and say they might buy one. If I were making them thats the crowd to please.
And, no matter how you cut it, a 1.3 crop sensor costs less to build than FF and the shutter can be faster and more reliable. A superfast high MP full frame will cost a lot more than $4,000 or maybe $5,000. The amount of engineering that goes into a camera like this and the relatively low production rate drives up the price, and as the price goes up, production drops even more, so its counter productive beyond a certain point.
Certainly, we would all like to get a lot more for a lot less, but its not going to happen. Be happy if we get a lot more for the same price, Nikon continues to raise their prices for cameras around the world, lets hope Canon does not. The price increases for lenses is painful enough
do keep in mind that I and some others shoot non-landscapes with wide perspective, and would like decent motordrive and AF with good coverage. btw 16mp FF is 10mp APS-H. the 5D is lacking in several other areas, which the 1D is not, I just want those abilities coupled with a FF sensor
not that they shouldn’t have already had a 5D replacement out, rather that it was rushed through the last stage of development to get it to market.
The perfect moment captured at a wedding can easily be between frames. I shoot more video, and even at 30 fps you can see the difference of facial expression from frame to frame, so why would you not want to be able to choose the perfect frame if you wanted to? Doesn’t mean you have to shoot 15 fps all the time, but I can see several situations at a wedding where it’d be useful. If it does 15 fps and you dont need that, dial it back to 5 fps, or 3 fps. Just because your shutter speed can do 1000th of a second doesn’t mean you will all the time, yet you’d want that at certain times right? Same is true of f 1.4, doesn’t mean you’d shoot wide open all the time, but it can be useful too right? Would you only want an f 8 lens? Why is fps any different as an option?
What computer can not handle 21 MP photos? Even my netbook can run Paint Shop Pro X2 with raw files. What’s the big deal here? Why do you want your camera to offer less options? I don’t get it. Even 21 MP cameras offer lower settings and you dont have to use the maximum all the time, but its there if you want it. If its not there at all you never have the option, to me that sucks. More options are better in my view.
By too early I meant before all the firmware issues were worked out. Sure Canon could added Resident Evil 5 to it too, and a TV attenae as well for that matter. No company is perfect and who am I to play Monday morning quarterback with what they should have done? I do not intend to use the 5D2 for sports so a better AF and faster fps that could have been there doesn’t change me wanting what it does do now. I could make a list of what I’d want in my next truck but that does not mean anyone is going to build it nor do I then bash all the manufactures for building what they think will sell best for them just because no one has built one with everything I’d like. Wish they would. But I’m not gonna hold my breath.
It’s all trade offs. For me I like the 5D2 being 21 MP and I have no problem with a second body that can do 10 fps at a lower MP. You can’t shoot at F 1.2 and get maximum DOF at the same time. Photography has and always will be about trade offs. Finding what works for what you want to do is what matters and not even Nikon can make a perfect body for every situation. For me the D3 is a great camera in mmany respects but its only 12.1 MP! The D3X is 24 MP but only 5 fps. Trade offs. There is no one perfect camera for all things.
Not gonna happen.
go ahead, shift to nikon, we’ll see you in street with tears (not shooting but selling your nikon gears). lol…
I’ve never understood the argument against FF with dynamic crop either.
But then I’ve never understood why those wanting more reach are so against a larger FF sensor and cropping in post (except that it’s an extra step, I guess). At the end of the day, I don’t see any real difference between a 1.6 cropped sensor and cropped images from a FF sensor. The ‘reach’ is the same (all other issues such as pixel density being equal).
I don’t want to buy Nikon, i just want fast FF no more than 16-18mp to shoot sport and events, thats all I want, and I want my 12-24 to be wide and the vision of my 85/1.2 to be FF, not crop, that’s all I want.
There was a perfect flagship camera before the digital age… the 1V. Too bad Canon got money hungry in the digital age and requires everyone to buy two cameras for multiple tasks instead of making one ultimate flagship camera. Nikon just fell into this trap too with the D3X not having a high FPS option.
Canon can solve all of this easily and redeem their brand with a 20mp FF 1D MK IV with 10 FPS (in 1.3 a crop mode if necessary). They obviously have the technology and know-how.
APS-H- is BS; get an extension tube if you are so into about 1.3
Canon lenses are only truly utilized at their designed focal lengths.
Any 1.3 crop should be in the lower-end cameras; not the top of the line ones. That’s just poor thinking on Canon’s part…
The one thing id really like to see is some kind of panic button/mode or the like. 99.9% of the time people decide to crash in front of me when im doing arty slow pans so id like a button (or voice activated would be really cool) that instantly puts the camera into a pre defined set of shooting parameters that you have already configured. That would be a real killer ap for a motorsports tog.
B->
APS-H sucks because it locks you into a 1.3 crop and ruins your wide angle lenes.
Why would you not want a dynamic crop like Nikon offers? Why would not want a FF that could go to 1.3 and 1.6 on command, and give you CHOICES for how you want to shoot? For Canon to ignore that is stupid of them.
Oh, god-forbid anyone should want more options on their camera. Go buy a Nikon if you want options. We’re talking about Canon here, where we want the least amount of options for our money possible!!! NOT.
The 5DmkII has 3 fully customizable modes on the dial. I typically shoot with the M-P dial modes, but when I hand it to my wife, I spin it to C2. C3 for when I hand it to a tourist to take a photo of us. C1 isn’t configured yet, as I can’t think of a third person who’s going to use my camera.
I imagine that most of their newer lines are going to have the same dial settings which you can use as a panic button to get to various settings quickly. That way you can use C2 for slow pans or the like and should a crash happen, spin the dial to C3 (it’s the last one, so you can do it without looking) and you could be in Tv mode with auto ISO to get quick action shots or any other choice you want.
Call me old fashioned but I want to frame my shot looking through my camera. Why should Nikon shooters have that as an option and not us? That’s all I’m saying. For years Canon gave us more options than the other guys, I hope they get back to that idea.
Also, there could be the option with dynamic crop to use EF-S lenses, not that that interests me at all, but for anyone who started out with a 50D and some EF-S glass and then upgraded it would nice for them.
Well they did have the 1N-RS too that never got updated to 1V-RS because of the leap to digital, but I see your point. The first 1 series digital was the 1D, with an APS-H sensor, there was no Canon digital FF until the 1Ds came out. At that point Canon could have dumped the APS-H for FF but perhaps due to technical limitations of the time felt they could not both satisfy the demands for higher resolution and the speed for the different markets.
Now, I do believe it would be possible to make a high resolution pro body that could increase fps when dropping to lower resolutions, and also offering multiple choices for dynamic crop, but we will not see that camera because too many Canon users aparently do not want choices and prefer to keep lame sensors around like APS-H. It would be better for Canon to make only one pro body, higher production numbers decrease costs and increase profits, their reason to exist, but no, they wont do it because of all the APS-H whiners would cry because they dont want FF ever.
I WANT FULL FRAME, 20FPS, NO NOISE AT ISO 25 600 AND IT HAS TO BE UNDER 1000$
-typical commenter on this blog…
A 16MP FF 1DMkIV would have the same pixel size as the 1DMkIII, not the 1DMkII. If the 1DMkIIn sensor had been scaled up to FF, it would have had about 12MP and had about the same pixel size as the 5D and Nikon D3 and D700.
The thing is that a full frame, dynamic crop, sensor will sell more bodies, driving costs down. If you only sell to the crop frame market your missing out on a huge group of people who want pro full frame, have the $5000 to spend, but can’t make the jump to $9000 for an ‘S’ body. The five grand in the bank market has got to be over twice the size of the the nine grand market. If the difference between the extra engineering costs of a ff fast camera and an H camera are less than the potential gain of access to a larger market than it makes financial sense to create the ff body. If their is no gain then they’ll stick with APS-H. What we really want doesn’t matter as much as what we’ll buy.
lol, more truth here than I would like there to be
he left out waterproof pro 1 series body, but good point.
actually due to the back focus distance and the size of the primary reflex mirror it is impossible to use a EF-S lens on a larger than APS-C DSLR without destroying the main mirror on the first shot. I would still be in favor of 1.6x dynamic crop, gives you the length on telephoto lenses, if you want to go wide (the only time when EF-S glass is really a must on 1.6x bodies) you just set the crop factor wider and you’re done.
I don`t understand how Nikon`s dynamic crop feature makes any sense at all, never mind being the best of both worlds. You don`t gain any pixel density, so you don`t gain any reach. What`s the point of shooting 5MP images with a tiny VF on a big $$$ camera? I`ve used these Nikons, but would never even consider using the IMO idiotic crop mode. A 1.3x camera with the same pixel count as FF at least actually has more pixel density, so it does “reach” further, though I`m not sure that going 1.3 is the right thing either. I just don`t understand why ppl keep bringing up dynamic crop mode as being useful in any way.
saves time in post and file size if you know you’re going to be cropping to roughly that size. personally I doubt I would ever use it, but there are those who would.
oH yeah, forgot about that Zac!
It makes sense to trick all the 1.3 crop fanbois into not crying about having a FF camera. Also, nothing wrong with an in-camera crop feature so you have WYSIWYG shooting through the lens.
That sounds like the right idea but 1D series bodies dont have a dial like the pro/consumer ones!
B->
Yeah, I understand that when the 1D came out, 1.3 was all that technology allowed. I totally agree with you that it’s now possible to make a high resolution body that covers all bases.
When Nikon came out with the D3, I thought it was going to kick Canon’s ass into gear and make a similar flagship camera with a bit more pixels, around 16-20mp. And if not, I was considering jumping ship and crossing over when the D3X came out. But what happened? Nikon decided to follow Canon’s bloated footsteps and divide their market into two by limiting one huge factor on it- fps. When are they going to get it right and quit trying to leech even more money from consumers?
Sorry to sound so jaded, but I just see no justifiable reason for making consumers have to buy multiple cameras for different types of shooting in the digital age, when film choice was the only real deciding factor for how you shot in the past (in the 35mm realm, at least).
fake?
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/238565684/Digital_Cameras_Canon_2000D.html?pn=1&pt=2&total=2&cids=&tracelog=detailphoto12907&newId=238565684
very.
optical zoom 7x? needs to be varies by lens
10-20 MP? could that be any less specific?
sensor anti-shake.
what’s funny is that the 2000D will probably look exactly like that and may very well be called the T1. but that isn’t it.
my guess is they’re an intermediate supplier who is looking to snatch some cash in pre0orders for a camera that doesn’t even exist yet.
ok. the high res and high speed bodies will never be the same because no matter how good your processor(s) is you can always use it for smaller files more quickly or bigger files more quickly. simple as that. the bloated part about it is that one costs more than the other. realistically the higher resolution model should cost a little bit more since it is slightly more laborious to construct a sensor with more pixels, but since everything else is (in Nikon’s case) or should be (in Canon’s case) shared components the price difference shouldn’t be 3500-3000 USD it should be like $500.
also keep in mind these are pro oriented cameras. meaning your better off with a tool that does one thing really well than a tool that does an OK job of everything.