Useless 1D4 poll

[mikeassk]

This is just to clarify the useless predictions so when it finally DOES come out we know where everyone stood.

I *gulp* begrudgingly vote it will be a APS-H sized chip.

This is just a chip sized poll as there already exist many rumor threads.

[e02937]

On record, APS-H

[Canonswhitelensesrule]

It BETTER remain APS-H!! There are already ENOUGH Full Frame and APS-C sensor Canon cameras as it is!

Now let's see Canon produce some ultra wide angle zoom lenses specifically suited for an APS-H sensor, such as a 12-24mm f2.8L .

[Stealthy Ninja]

What's APH-S?? :p

I think it will be APS-H too.

Oh a 12-24 2.8L would ROCK. I'd buy that (for FF). The front element would probably bulge out like popeye (the Sigma) but that's OK.

So long as it kicks the noink 14-24's butt. ;)

[AdamJL]

What's APH-S?? :p


You can talk! You're getting the 20th and 30th confused a little (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8812527&postcount=810) bit (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8818421&postcount=833)

Anyway, IRT, my money is on APS-H
Fingers crossed as well, it's my preferred format.

[mikeassk]

What's APH-S?? :p

I think it will be APS-H too.

Oh a 12-24 2.8L would ROCK. I'd buy that (for FF). The front element would probably bulge out like popeye (the Sigma) but that's OK.

So long as it kicks the noink 14-24's butt. ;)

Ha ha,
so i screwed up

[Stealthy Ninja]

You can talk! You're getting the 20th and 30th confused a little (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8812527&postcount=810) bit (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8818421&postcount=833)

Anyway, IRT, my money is on APS-H
Fingers crossed as well, it's my preferred format.

Wot? Thar be no problem thar! ???

(ahh the power of the edit button) :lol:

[AdamJL]

there were two links ;)

[Stealthy Ninja]

Hehe heh... changed...


:lol:

[earlho]

Remain in APS-H
at around 15-18 mega pixel
+ HD video !!

[adrian5127]

The sports/wildlife photographers will need the extra reach

[GBRandy]

Of course it will be full frame. It wil also offer crop modes of 1.3 (aka MKIIn * MKIII) and a 1.5 for super reach and the same as the Nikon D3s. In fact I suspect the reason the Nikon D3s has a 1.2 crop mode is to attract the pro Canon user back to their line.

An improved LCD display & ISO enhancement round out enough changes to launch this as a 2DMKI in my humble opinion. The death of the 1 D and 1Ds series would be at hand and the 2D series would combine them.

But what do I know ;)

[mikeassk]

^ Bold haha

[mikeassk]

The sports/wildlife photographers will need the extra reach

I personally feel with a body of the 1D's size "reach" need not be simulated, but in a FF chip with greater resolution allowing for actual cropping to gain "needed" reach later.

A 14MP-16MP redesigned FF chip would yield the same "reach" if not more at the current 1DIII.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I personally feel with a body of the 1D's size "reach" need not be simulated, but in a FF chip with greater resolution allowing for actual cropping to gain "needed" reach later.

A 14MP-16MP redesigned FF chip would yield the same "reach" if not more at the current 1DIII.

I'd have to agree with this. Sometimes the reach is a little too much, then a FF which can be cropped down to 1.3 (or even 1.6) if needed is a better choice. In PP of course. Artificial cropping is just wasting a FF sensor (and reduces resolution... which cropping later does too, but at least you have a choice in PP).

IF they could make the crop take up the full frame somehow... then that would be good, but that would mess up some law of physics... maybe a ninja could do it... :lol:

The thing with having FF is that keeping a high FPS will be difficult, because of the the larger files.

4 processors anyone?!


If they made it 14-16MP FF the noise characteristics would be A for Awesome!

[malla1962]

I cant see it being FF. I like the 1.3 crop and 15 MP would be nice, high res screen and don't bother adding video.

[AdamJL]

To those that want FF so you can crop to 1.3

Remember a lot of the guys using the Mk III are journos, sports togs and the like. Who cares about that " bird" market. Do you really think they want to sit in front of a computer and spend time on PP (does anyone?).
I would rather a camera offers FF with in-camera cropping or the crop on it's own. That means more time out in the field and less working on files. Canon knows this.

[Fidelity]

To those that want FF so you can crop to 1.3

Remember a lot of the guys using the Mk III are journos, sports togs and the like. Who cares about that " bird" market. Do you really think they want to sit in front of a computer and spend time on PP (does anyone?).
I would rather a camera offers FF with in-camera cropping or the crop on it's own. That means more time out in the field and less working on files. Canon knows this.

The features that make a good "bird" market body also make a good "sports tog" body. I'd rather decide the crop size and shape myself, rather than leaving that to the camera. There are ways to minimize PP time without requiring the camera to make all the decisions. PP time is an option that allows you to perfect your shots.

In-camera crop on FF would be nice IF the cropped image has the same pixel density as the 1.3x sensor's image. This just doesn't happen, though. You wind up with a relatively low post-in-camera crop MP (5 or 8 MP) before you start to do any cropping of your own. Also, FF sensor bodies tend to give you less fps and cost 60% more. And before anyone mentions the D700, I just discount that, because 12.1 MP on a FF is just not sufficient for me. The D3x is probably the closest thing, but you're talking $7500 there.

A good 1.3x crop 1D Mark IV for around $4699 would be just fine with me. They just need to simultaneously release a new 24-70 f/2.8 IS lens to go with it.

[ihv]

I voted in favour of aps-h though this is not what I would like to see.

[Stealthy Ninja]

To those that want FF so you can crop to 1.3

Remember a lot of the guys using the Mk III are journos, sports togs and the like. Who cares about that " bird" market. Do you really think they want to sit in front of a computer and spend time on PP (does anyone?).
I would rather a camera offers FF with in-camera cropping or the crop on it's own. That means more time out in the field and less working on files. Canon knows this.

The journos I've seen in Hong Kong don't need a crop, they get in people's faces so FF would be OK for them. I suppose the "journos" who take photos of celebrities coming out of McDonalds at 2 in the morning would need a little more reach, but a camera with better high ISO would benefit them a lot more. ;)

Sports dudes often need the high frame rates and a bit more reach, so yeah, they'd benefit.

and the like = birders? :p

So... the best idea (as you said) would be FF and have a optional crop switch or something. Then if you want to save PP time, you can, if you want your options open, you can. Don't see that happening, but it could.

Personally I don't care if it's 1.3 crop or FF, the only reason for me personally to buy it is for the framerate and the AF abilities. Both things I'd only need when shooting action (which I don't do that much currently, so whatever).