do you have any news about the release of the next 1D?
will it be a full frame or it will mantain the 1,3 crop factor?
Printable View
do you have any news about the release of the next 1D?
will it be a full frame or it will mantain the 1,3 crop factor?
I don't think there will be any reliable information before the release of the next 1D. Those who might see or try out a beta version are bound by NDAs and won't talk about it.
Hot off the press rumor:Quote:
Originally Posted by paolone
http://www.canonrumors.com/
Specs
16mp Full Frame CMOSDual DIGIC.
Unsure whether it’s DIGIC 4 or 5
10fps
3″ VGA LCD
GPS (Unsure whether it’ll be an addon or built into the camera this time)
Wifi (Built in)
If this is true I am certainly glad I didn't jump into the 1D3 - now the question is WHEN!! :confused: :D
Agree with Axel but the specs listed by Jay sound reasonable.
Most likely they will keep full frame and crop factor camera. I'm sure there are some out in Mk3 frames being tested and after the current Mk3 AF problems you can bet it will be over tested !!!
btw I'm hoping more than 16 MP and 12 fps !! Can always hope !!!
Paolone PM sent If you can please send me your full name for an update !!
I'm wondering if Canon has decided that 16 MP full frame is a good sweet spot. It is basically the same pixel density as the 10 MP 1D3 but expanded to FF. They should be able to control noise and IQ very well and not have to deal with the diffraction issues of the ultra high MP sensors. Fast frame rate will not be hindered by the larger file sizes of the 21+ MP sensors.
5DMKII has the highest IQ of any digital EOS, it also has a higher pixel density than the current 1DMKIII (= more tele reach:)) so all they need to do is to put the sensor in a rugged 1 series body and crank up the fps to 8 or higher. I also don't like the 1.3 crop, it kills the wide end and doesn't provide much in tele (as current 5DII has more reach than 1DIII) also finder in 1.3 cameras is small compared to full frame.
Hi Arash
Not sure what you mean regarding the viewfinder? The all the 1.3X Mk have excellent 100% coverage excellent viewfinders. Also the 1.3X crop factor is a big deal, very close to having a converter. Your requirements are different form others like mine for instance. One of the reason they make different pro body cameras.
What makes no sense to me is Nikon having two full frame cameras?
Hi Al,Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred Forns
You have to take pixel density into account. The 5DMKII has 21 mpixels so 21/(1.3^2)= 12.4 mpixel, this means if you crop down a 5DII image to 1D3 FOV you get 12.48 mpixel instead of 10, so 1DIII has no tele advantage over a 20 mpixel full frame sensor, in this case the full frame wins for tele too. In order to beat the full frame you need lower pixel pitch (<6.4 um) which means a 20 mpixel or more 1.3 sensor which proally wouldn't be great with noise and all that (similar pitch to 50D) :D
I was also talking about finder size i.e area not coverage, coverage is 100% but finder area is small because the mirror, prism and sensor are 70% smaller than that of full frame.
for example 5DII finder size/1D3 finder size = ratio of crop^2*mag*coverage = 1.3^2*0.71*98%/(1*0.76*100%)=1.55 so 5DII's finder is 55% larger:). In fact 1DMKIII finder is close to that of 40/50D and noticeably smaller than full frame, but as you say it has 100% coverage which makes it good for precision work.
From what I know the reason Canon still have the 1.3 is mostly historical, at first it was super expensive to fab a full frame sensor so they went with 1.3 with original 1D and then they kept this series since photographers were already familiar with the crop and they also wanted to keep costs low...
A while ago I put together this quick excel sheet that compares sensor resolution at different FOVs, ideally you want highest pixel density to maximize resolution at any given FOV but with current technology anything below about 5um will result in increased noise and some color cross talk in the CFA, also optics and the micro-lens array start to become a bottleneck:(. For example compact cameras have a pixel pitch of 1-2um and IQ is plain horrible:eek:.
http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/comp.jpg
I went back and forth yesterday between the 50D and 5D and noticed how much brighter and bigger the 5D viewfinder appears. Take a look through a 4-thirds Olympus and see how small they can get- a friend has one and it's like looking through a keyhole.
On the 1D mkIV to appear sometime in the future, I hope that Canon decides not to play the megapixel wars and just goes with a full frame sensor with nice fat sites. 16mp full frame at 10+ fps/14 bit would be great. I have a feeling though that because the 5DmkII is already at 21 mp, a new 1D will have to match or "better" this.
John, I agree with you on the mega pixel race. However, while I would be satisfied with 16 MP FF I would prefer about 18 MP to get just a bit more resolution and cropping power. Now, if it were 16 MP on a 1.3 crop that would also be good.
Ed as long as were are wising why not 21 MP 1.3X crop factor and 12 fps :) .... with ISO good to 3200 without using noise reduction programs !!!!
Good morning Alfred, - Wishes are wishes after all. 21 MP would be nice, but noise and diffraction concerns me at that MP level. But what ever it is I am sure it will be a game changer for Canon. I can't wait and my accountant (Gail) has given the OK when the camera is available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred Forns
I agree. If owning the Canon 5D has taught me one thing it is the importance of nice fat sensor sites. In 1.6 crop factor terms, the 5D is a 5 mp camera but the sites are 8 microns wide so images out of the camera are stunning and can be cropped significantly. Noise performance is unparalleled except maybe by the Nikon D700 and D3, both of which also have 12 mp FF sensors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Cordes
One more advantage of large pixels is high DR (due to lower noise floor), the 5DMKII has very nice overall noise performance, better than any Canon so far but not quite as good as D700 above 1600 when viewed at 100% but one major difference I have notices between the two is DR, I can pull up the shadows with D700 almost by 2 EVs @ ISO 400:eek: and still have a clean image, great for HDR stuff:D with MKII you have to be careful with color noise and some banding in the shadows if you push the RAW files by more than 1EV, I always need to set "chroma NR" to some non-zero value in DPP. I got the 50D as well, haven't done much field test yet but it's def a good two stops worse than both MKII and D700, gotta be very careful with exposure and avoid shadows...Quote:
Originally Posted by John Chardine
Don't be foolish Canon, keep the 1.3 crop sensor in the 1D4....the 1Ds3 already takes care of full frame needs with a very good 5 fps frame rate. I wish this camera to have 1.3 crop sensor, 15-16 mp and 8 fps....with great AF.
I believe Canon has already made its decision. I have heard from a reliable source that the new camera was at the Kentucky Derby. Of course, no details were given and I have no inside info. (wish I did) However, the camera is definitely being tested in the field as we speak. So, FF or 1.3 ? What ever it is its done already.Quote:
Originally Posted by c.w. moynihan
The viewfinder is better on the 1Ds Mark III, than the 1D Mark III. Problem is the AF pattern size is the same in both cameras, meaning the AF points do not cover the overall image as well on the full frame camera. And, quite often this can lead to a compromise in composition or make manual focus necessary to maintain in camera comp.
Chas
