Yet another "new" 1DsMkIII photo

[Alnitak]

So many new Canon 1DsMkIII images, so little time. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.

[elbirth]

wow, 32MP! whoever made that really went all out. Too bad their background removal technique from the camera isn't that great!

[ryleung]

Oh man, Alnitak, if you were rig something up, at least make it semi-believable, you know? Just since when has full frame been 4:3?! And only 3fps for Canon's flagship body?!

-Lik

[Alnitak]

How many fps does the current flagship boast? (think of the transfer-rate requirements for 32 mp, man!)

[marlinspike]

It doesn't need to be well done for people to believe it. People will see the 4:3 and get so angry they won't bother to look for signs of fakeness.

[theflyingkiwi]

the current flag ship (1dsMK2) is 4fps, and the flagship before that was (1ds) 3fps

The current model is 17mp, see here (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos1dsmkii.asp)

[marlinspike]

That link is the old flagship. The current one is 16.7MP.

[theflyingkiwi]

That link is the old flagship. The current one is 16.7MP.

I know, I have re-corrected myself.

[TTLImaging]

yeah, i know another fake photo, but this one got my mind turning... 4:3 wouldn't be that far out of whack at 32mp... 645 (i.e. 6cm x 4.5cm) is 4:3 so as the nite lite in my head glowed dimmly i began to think. if canon does ever come out with a mf dig camera, is the 4:3 sensor going to be full frame. i still find it amazing how many people who are "professional" photographers can not remember to shoot for 8x10. i'll shut up before i go off on to another rant, but is 4:3 in our future?

[theflyingkiwi]

yeah, i know another fake photo, but this one got my mind turning... 4:3 wouldn't be that far out of whack at 32mp... 645 (i.e. 6cm x 4.5cm) is 4:3 so as the nite lite in my head glowed dimmly i began to think. if canon does ever come out with a mf dig camera, is the 4:3 sensor going to be full frame. i still find it amazing how many people who are "professional" photographers can not remember to shoot for 8x10. i'll shut up before i go off on to another rant, but is 4:3 in our future?

You know the shape of the photo isn't going to change any time soon. everyone still uses the old format. but in saying that, at the end of the day the photo itself determines the shape of the photo. if you get my meaning.

[lostdoggy]

Why stop at 4:3, wy not 4:4???

[Tom W]

It's weird - while the video world pushes wide-screen, Olympus pushes the seemingly narrow 4:3 ratio.

[pieq314]

Why stop at 4:3, wy not 4:4???
I have always wondering about it. Why not make the sensor a square? The lens would be equally good in both horizontal and vertical directions. With a square, the same lenses will function the same way as before, but now the photographer does not need to rotation the camera if he wants to shoot in portrait mode.

[Blue S2]

And then you can just crop it yourself if you want a rectangle. Some film cameras were square I believe.

[lostdoggy]

Look no furtherthen 2 1/4 MF camera

[mrandrew]

looks good

[elbirth]

I have always wondering about it. Why not make the sensor a square? The lens would be equally good in both horizontal and vertical directions. With a square, the same lenses will function the same way as before, but now the photographer does not need to rotation the camera if he wants to shoot in portrait mode.

Well, the main reason I see using a format that makes it longer on one side than the other is primarily for portraits. If you can rotate it and fit more of a person in the image than you could the other way, you maximize your resolution, rather than having to crop it down to what you need. This would come into play especially when you're printing really large prints.
Plus having it wider than it is tall makes it easier to visualize landscape shots... it goes along the lines of what mentality a lot of people have- get it right in the camera instead of waiting to fix in processing. This not only applies to fixing exposure, white balance, etc but also cropping.

[Longwatcher]

Have you all considered that a 4:3 format would be what you get if you put two 35mm FF sensors together on the long end?

Which follows with the X2 rumor from last Summer. and 32MP would be about right for taking two 16.7MP sensors and merging them.

Not saying it is real, just saying it is in the realm of possibilities.

[Tom W]

Always possible, but a camera with a 48X36 mm sensor would not be likely to be using the present-day 50 mm f/1.4 prime. :)

[adam LC]

I have always wondering about it. Why not make the sensor a square? The lens would be equally good in both horizontal and vertical directions. With a square, the same lenses will function the same way as before, but now the photographer does not need to rotation the camera if he wants to shoot in portrait mode.
Surely there wouldn't be a portrait mode... if the sensor was square! ;)