1 Ds Mk IV sensor size

[chauncey]

Look into your crystal ball, is there any way that canon can stuff a physically larger sensor into the 1Ds Mk IV than what they are using in the 1D Mk IV?

[gonzogolf]

I guess I dont understand the question. If they cant put a full frame sensor in the 1Ds4, then it wouldnt really be a 1Ds4 would it?

[PacAce]

Look into your crystal ball, is there any way that canon can stuff a physically larger sensor into the 1Ds Mk IV than what they are using in the 1D Mk IV?

If they were able to do it with the 1Ds, the 1Ds mk II and the 1Ds mk III, what makes you think they wouldn't be able to do it with the 1Ds mk IV? :confused: :|

And, as Gonzogolf said, if they can't get the same size sensor in there as they have in the 1Ds mk III, then it wouldn't be a full frame camera anymore and, thus, wouldn't be a 1Ds mk IV.

Or were you trying to ask if the 1Ds mk IV can have a sensor with a pixel density that's higher than that of the 1D mk IV? ;)

[chauncey]

My crystal ball is saying that the new Ds is going to have MP's somewhere in the mid 30's. I would like to see a sensor size approaching that of a MF body...any chance of that?

[Mastamarek]

I would like to see a sensor size approaching that of a MF body...any chance of that?
then you would have to sell all of your lenses ^^

[gonzogolf]

I dont see any chance that they make the sensor any bigger than the one in previous FF models.

[alt4852]

My crystal ball is saying that the new Ds is going to have MP's somewhere in the mid 30's. I would like to see a sensor size approaching that of a MF body...any chance of that?

more megapixels ≠ physically larger sensor size

it's going to be 24x36 like every other 35mm full frame digital sensor.

[Stan Jones Photography]

^^^ agreed with everybody who knows the basics of how an slr camera functions.

[chauncey]

You guys seem to have the communication skills of a sledgehammer...no, won't happen, can't happen, yadda yadda. OK, I get it, enough slaps upside the head. :lol:

Thanks for setting me straight though. ;)

[djharmonix]

then you would have to sell all of your lenses ^^

Some lenses could take a sensor of 36x36mm..

[toxic]

Most lenses would be able to take a square 36x36mm sensor...but Canon would have to redesign the ones that don't, like the 24-105.

I don't see them doing that.

[jdizzle]

I agree. I don't think they'll be doing this anytime soon.

[Stan Jones Photography]

You guys seem to have the communication skills of a sledgehammer...no, won't happen, can't happen, yadda yadda. OK, I get it, enough slaps upside the head. :lol:

Thanks for setting me straight though. ;)

sorry sir, we still love you.

but for real, it'd be snazzy if they did resize it... at least my lenses would still work :P

[timnosenzo]

Look into your crystal ball, is there any way that canon can stuff a physically larger sensor into the 1Ds Mk IV than what they are using in the 1D Mk IV?

Am I reading this right?

The 1Ds MKIV will have a larger sensor than the 1D MKIV... the 1D MKIV is a APS-H sized sensor and the 1Ds models have historically been full frame.


1D sensor: 1.11 x 0.74 in
1Ds sensor: 1.42 x 0.94 in

[golfecho]

Most lenses would be able to take a square 36x36mm sensor...but Canon would have to redesign the ones that don't, like the 24-105.
I don't see them doing that.

Time to drag out the geometry. Most EF lenses are built to accomodate the "35mm" format, which is 24X36. The lenses will provide images to the sensor based on the greatest distance required across the circular lens. That would be the diagonal line from one corner to the opposite corner. Using the pathagorian theorm of A(squared) + B(squared) = C(squared), the distance across a 24X36 sensor is 43.27mm. This is about the maximum quality image a circular lens built for a full frame camera can provide.

Now for a perfectly square sensor, the diagonal distance is the side length times the square root of 2. To find the maximum side length (which is the square sensor size we are trying to find), we take the maximum circular lens effective distance (approximate diameter found above), and divide by the square root of 2. So, 43.27mm divided by the square root of 2 is 30.594.

So the answer is, in order to use the same lenses designed for a classic full frame "35mm camera", the maximum square sensor size would be just over 30mm on each side.

So my suggestion is to make a sensor that is 30mmX36mm. Then have a user selectable option to choose between 30X30 images (and have the camera ignore the 3mm of the sensor that remains unused on each side), or a classic 24X36 image (where the camera ignores the 3mm of the sensor that remains unused along the top and bottom). A photographer gets the best of both worlds, has the option to use the sensor format that best fits the situation, and gets full utilization of their existing lenses.

[Trainboy]

Time to drag out the geometry. Most EF lenses are built to accomodate the "35mm" format, which is 24X36. The lenses will provide images to the sensor based on the greatest distance required across the circular lens. That would be the diagonal line from one corner to the opposite corner. Using the pathagorian theorm of A(squared) + B(squared) = C(squared), the distance across a 24X36 sensor is 43.27mm. This is about the maximum quality image a circular lens built for a full frame camera can provide.

Now for a perfectly square sensor, the diagonal distance is the side length times the square root of 2. To find the maximum side length (which is the square sensor size we are trying to find), we take the maximum circular lens effective distance (approximate diameter found above), and divide by the square root of 2. So, 43.27mm divided by the square root of 2 is 30.594.

So the answer is, in order to use the same lenses designed for a classic full frame "35mm camera", the maximum square sensor size would be just over 30mm on each side.

So my suggestion is to make a sensor that is 30mmX36mm. Then have a user selectable option to choose between 30X30 images (and have the camera ignore the 3mm of the sensor that remains unused on each side), or a classic 24X36 image (where the camera ignores the 3mm of the sensor that remains unused along the top and bottom). A photographer gets the best of both worlds, has the option to use the sensor format that best fits the situation, and gets full utilization of their existing lenses.
Isn't the only way that would work something like an unfolded box shape? If it's 30mm tall, there's no way you're going to be able to fit 36mm in that way.

[bustarhymes_indahaus]

why make the megapixel too large?.... jst make it same as 5d or 7d just below 18 megapixel...

and concentrate on improving High ISO low light performance specially on higher ISO from 3200, 6400, 12800 and up...and making it at least a 10 frames per second camera........at least make it same or better than the D3s

there's no use jacking up Megapixel if it slows down fps and sacrifices high iso performance

until now, there is no camera that canon can compete with the features of D3 and D3s.....unless they make the upcoming 1Ds Mark4 better than the D3s in terms of high iso performance and fps...

and make the price at least same as D3s..doesn't make sense why canon has always been overpricing the 1Ds line...

PS: until now, canon cameras have no in-camera Color Balance Correction and Active D-Lighting....

[Mastamarek]

why make the megapixel too large?.... jst make it same as 5d or 7d just below 18 megapixel...

and concentrate on improving High ISO low light performance specially on higher ISO from 3200, 6400, 12800 and up...and making it at least a 10 frames per second camera........at least make it same or better than the D3s

there's no use jacking up Megapixel if it slows down fps and sacrifices high iso performance

until now, there is no camera that canon can compete with the features of D3 and D3s.....unless they make the upcoming 1Ds Mark4 better than the D3s in terms of high iso performance and fps...

and make the price at least same as D3s..doesn't make sense why canon has always been overpricing the 1Ds line...

PS: until now, canon cameras have no in-camera Color Balance Correction and Active D-Lighting....
then, why did you buy 5D2 in the first place!?

[bustarhymes_indahaus]

hi Mastamarek

it is because of the lens lineup that i already have....not that practical to switch to nikon system since it would just be a waste of money to sell lenses at lower price then buy a new lineup...

when the 5D mark II was invented...it was indeed a superb camera that has matched nikon's quality...
Full Frame.. with a great high iso low light noise performance
even the slow fps...it's ok since i use it for landscapes, weddings and events because i already have a 40d which i use for my sports coverage

but we are talking about the 1D line
which is the top line of Canon

of course being the top line we expect to at least compete with Nikon's top line which is the D3 and D3s....

that's why question always comes into my mind...why canon always overprice 1D and 1Ds compared to Nikon's D3, D3s....and why didnt canon make the 1DMark4 at least a full frame by now since it has always been comparable to the D3s?

and since upcoming 1Ds Mark4 will be launched....of course we would always appreciate that they make this competitive and even better than the current D3s....and i believe just by jacking up the Megapixel is not worth the extra penny we will spend for a 1Ds....

what we yearn for are improvements on image quality and performance on a full frame body...

high iso low light noise performance (same or at least better than the D3s)
and at least a 10 fps....

give us a break...since they will again overprice it for like $9000 compared to a D3s at $5000....please make it better than nikon on those aspects at least this time ...............

[Thalagyrt]

hi Mastamarek

it is because of the lens lineup that i already have....not that practical to switch to nikon system since it would just be a waste of money to sell lenses at lower price then buy a new lineup...

when the 5D mark II was invented...it was indeed a superb camera that has matched nikon's quality...
Full Frame.. with a great high iso low light noise performance
even the slow fps...it's ok since i use it for landscapes, weddings and events because i already have a 40d which i use for my sports coverage

but we are talking about the 1D line
which is the top line of Canon

of course being the top line we expect to at least compete with Nikon's top line which is the D3 and D3s....

that's why question always comes into my mind...why canon always overprice 1D and 1Ds compared to Nikon's D3, D3s....and why didnt canon make the 1DMark4 at least a full frame by now since it has always been comparable to the D3s?

and since upcoming 1Ds Mark4 will be launched....of course we would always appreciate that they make this competitive and even better than the current D3s....and i believe just by jacking up the Megapixel is not worth the extra penny we will spend for a 1Ds....

what we yearn for are improvements on image quality and performance on a full frame body...

high iso low light noise performance (same or at least better than the D3s)
and at least a 10 fps....

give us a break...since they will again overprice it for like $9000 compared to a D3s at $5000....please make it better than nikon on those aspects at least this time ...............

The 1DsIII / future 1DsIV compete with the D3x not the D3s... They're priced around the same point, much like the D3s and 1D4 are priced around the same point.

[Poe]

The 1Ds was never suppose to compete with the D3s. It's to compete with the D3x. The 1D series competes with Nikon's XDs series.

[Mastamarek]

"X" and "S", even though its the same alphabet are quite different and will cost you about $3000 in price difference ^^

[bustarhymes_indahaus]

1D cannot compete with Nikon D3, D3s series

it's not full frame....different level.

that's why i was hoping they made the 1D Mark IV at least full frame by now.

anyway, let's hope for the best for the upcoming 1Ds Mark IV.

[Mastamarek]

1D cannot compete with Nikon D3, D3s series

it's not full frame....different level.

that's why i was hoping they made the 1D Mark IV at least full frame by now.

anyway, let's hope for the best for the upcoming 1Ds Mark IV.
It cannot compete on what level!? 1D4 AF is even better then that in D3s. The low light ISO is sacrificed a bit and D3s is about 1 stop better but you only have 12mpx. 1D4 does just as good with a much smaller sensor and much more mpx. to me thats a bigger achievement rather then 12mpx FF sensor. If you don't need UWA and you dont need super usable 12.800, 1D4 is just as good if not better.

[tkbslc]

Time to drag out the geometry. Most EF lenses are built to accomodate the "35mm" format, which is 24X36. The lenses will provide images to the sensor based on the greatest distance required across the circular lens. That would be the diagonal line from one corner to the opposite corner. Using the pathagorian theorm of A(squared) + B(squared) = C(squared), the distance across a 24X36 sensor is 43.27mm. This is about the maximum quality image a circular lens built for a full frame camera can provide.

Now for a perfectly square sensor, the diagonal distance is the side length times the square root of 2. To find the maximum side length (which is the square sensor size we are trying to find), we take the maximum circular lens effective distance (approximate diameter found above), and divide by the square root of 2. So, 43.27mm divided by the square root of 2 is 30.594.

So the answer is, in order to use the same lenses designed for a classic full frame "35mm camera", the maximum square sensor size would be just over 30mm on each side.

So my suggestion is to make a sensor that is 30mmX36mm. Then have a user selectable option to choose between 30X30 images (and have the camera ignore the 3mm of the sensor that remains unused on each side), or a classic 24X36 image (where the camera ignores the 3mm of the sensor that remains unused along the top and bottom). A photographer gets the best of both worlds, has the option to use the sensor format that best fits the situation, and gets full utilization of their existing lenses.


This already works on some Panasonic compacts. The LX3 and the Zs3 have oversized sensors, so you can use the full diameter of the lens circle at 3:4, 2:3 and 16:9 ratios.

Here's the resolutions of the Zs3 at various aspect ratios
4:3 3,648 x 2,736
3:2 3,776 x 2,520
16:9 3,968 x 2,232

as you can see, the horizontal gets wider as the vertical gets shorter. On any other camera, the width will be the same and it will just crop the vertical dimension.

There's a spiffy little illustration of how it works half way down this page.
http://www.panasonic.net/avc/lumix/compact/zs3_tz7/lens.html#wideangle
don't see why it wouldn't work on an SLR as well. You could select non-cropping, 5:7, 4:5, 2:3 and 1:1 ratios and not lose anything. That would be nice.

[Poe]

1D cannot compete with Nikon D3, D3s series

it's not full frame....different level.

that's why i was hoping they made the 1D Mark IV at least full frame by now.

anyway, let's hope for the best for the upcoming 1Ds Mark IV.

It's not just about the sensor size. It's also feature set as well, such as AF and FPS. The 1D series and nikon XD/XDs series are for sports/fast action shooters. The Canon 1Ds and Nikon XDx series are for slow action such as fine art/studio work.

[PacAce]

why make the megapixel too large?.... jst make it same as 5d or 7d just below 18 megapixel...

and concentrate on improving High ISO low light performance specially on higher ISO from 3200, 6400, 12800 and up...and making it at least a 10 frames per second camera........at least make it same or better than the D3s

there's no use jacking up Megapixel if it slows down fps and sacrifices high iso performance

until now, there is no camera that canon can compete with the features of D3 and D3s.....unless they make the upcoming 1Ds Mark4 better than the D3s in terms of high iso performance and fps...

and make the price at least same as D3s..doesn't make sense why canon has always been overpricing the 1Ds line...

PS: until now, canon cameras have no in-camera Color Balance Correction and Active D-Lighting....
Canon cameras do not have in-camera Color Balance Correction and Active D-Lighting because those are Nikon terms. By the same token, Nikon bodies do not have Picture Styles and White Balance Correction. But each brand has something that allows you to adjust the image contrast and white balance in-camera. ;)

[PIXmantra]

1D cannot compete with Nikon D3, D3s series

it's not full frame....different level.

...FF is a strategic disadvantage, when shooting tele / action sports (the vast majority of events such as NFL, Baseball, Soccer, Athletism, track racing, etc.). It is simply more inefficient, and requires heavier (and not better) optics, especially within an ISO range of similar performance.

FF is, however, an advantage (or actually a NEED) when juicing your lenses at their nominal focal lengths, especially at the wide-angle (e.g. inside the "goal" in a Hockey game, or anything else that requires such perspectives and high-speeds).

Cheers,

PIX

[PIXmantra]

By the same token, Nikon bodies do not have Picture Styles and White Balance Correction. But each brand has something that allows you to adjust the image contrast and white balance in-camera. ;)

...a good chunk of people out there don't even imagine what a Picture Style is (in reality), what its implications are, what does it mean from a colorimetrical point of view, and (most importantly) what type of power and control it actually transfers to the photographer. :cool:

Cheers,

PIX

[MMX]

From what I read on Nikon website, D3s has a 1.2x crop (1D Mk. IV has 1.3x) so it´s probably also not a full frame... however in most reviews they write it is, so I´m not really sure.
But let´s go to the point; while Nikon´s strongest quality (since D3) is the high ISO image quality, the strongest quality of Canon 1D was always the speed because it was always introduced as a camera for sports photographers (that´s the reason why it has smaller sensor - most of sports photographers need very long lens). Yes, it´s true that some sports require higher ISO, but not 102400 (unless you want to photograph night airsoft match).
Now to the sensor size of 1Ds Mk. IV: if it has the same pixel density as 1D Mk. IV (that´s 3.1 mpx per square centimeter) then it can have almost 27 mpx. However, most photographers won´t use it in complete darkness without studio lights or external flashlights so I think that they can afford even more - 32 mpx would be nice number because it gives us 300 dpi for A2 print.
And to the sensor format - as it has been written before, there´s no chance that it could have 36x36 mm and 30×30 mm doesn´t make so much sense - the standard 36x24 full frame has 864 square milimetres while the new one would have 900 - that´s only 4 % bigger.

Or... what about a circle sensor? :D

[tkbslc]

D3s has a 36x23.9mm sensor according to Nikon. True FF would be 36x24. So I don't think it is 1.2x crop by any means.

[Thalagyrt]

D3s has a 36x23.9mm sensor according to Nikon. True FF would be 36x24. So I don't think it is 1.2x crop by any means.

Correct. The D3s is full frame (36x23.9mm) and has a 1.2x crop (30x20mm) mode that's user selectable along with a 5:4 (30x24mm) and 1.5x (24x16mm) crop mode where it throws away the extra data in camera and gives you a bit of a FPS boost while it's at it since it's not processing as much data, going up to 11 FPS in the 1.5x crop mode. I'm not sure about the 1.2x crop mode giving a boost. It's useful more for a cataloging point of view; say you're shooting a sporting event and you can't fill the frame, switch it to 1.5x or 1.2x crop and when you're reviewing the photos later it'll be easier to tell what's what from the thumbnail and you won't have to do as much post work, which is especially handy if you're pushing photos to a place like Getty Images straight from the event 3 minutes after it ends.

[bustarhymes_indahaus]

Canon cameras do not have in-camera Color Balance Correction and Active D-Lighting because those are Nikon terms. By the same token, Nikon bodies do not have Picture Styles and White Balance Correction. But each brand has something that allows you to adjust the image contrast and white balance in-camera. ;)

is there a white balance correction in canon cameras?..cant find it in my 5d... please teach me how to find it..hmmm it would be great to have it...

coz in nikon..the active d lighting and color balance correction is used when for example we took a shot and the wb is abit off...then we edit it in-camera wb correction to improve it..so that wen it becomes correct in camera...no need to post process...something like that....

the least i am hoping for the upcoming 1ds mark 4 is they price it at least same as the d3s...not overprice it.....

[SuzyView]

There is no white balance correction in Canons, but when I shoot in badly lit rooms, I just adjust the temperature in camera. That seems to do the trick, so I get to the venue early to test it.

And to ask a question of the OP, did you see that Pentax just brought out a medium format camera this week? It's very nice. I don't think Canon has this in mind for the market. The lenses are all made for the 35mm format. The camera makers who design medium format cameras are aiming for a consumer who can afford it. I would think 21 MP in the 5D2 is way more than I'll ever need in a lifetime. I can already print poster size from any camera I own, so it's more overkill and for people who love having the largest sensor cameras. There are people out there like that and more power to them. I think it's great. Gives the camera makers something to aim for, but for the consumer, it's really not going to be too popular.

[chauncey]

I had not seen it Suzy, thanks.

I want more MP, not because of print size but because of cropping ability...I tend to compose on the computer as opposed to the viewfinder and it's cheaper than a longer lens.

[bustarhymes_indahaus]

There is no white balance correction in Canons, but when I shoot in badly lit rooms, I just adjust the temperature in camera. That seems to do the trick, so I get to the venue early to test it.


oh yeah ...that's what i also do ....

thanks suzy...

[bustarhymes_indahaus]

Correct. The D3s is full frame (36x23.9mm) and has a 1.2x crop (30x20mm) mode that's user selectable along with a 5:4 (30x24mm) and 1.5x (24x16mm) crop mode where it throws away the extra data in camera and gives you a bit of a FPS boost while it's at it since it's not processing as much data, going up to 11 FPS in the 1.5x crop mode. I'm not sure about the 1.2x crop mode giving a boost. It's useful more for a cataloging point of view; say you're shooting a sporting event and you can't fill the frame, switch it to 1.5x or 1.2x crop and when you're reviewing the photos later it'll be easier to tell what's what from the thumbnail and you won't have to do as much post work, which is especially handy if you're pushing photos to a place like Getty Images straight from the event 3 minutes after it ends.


hmmm ic....
so since 1D Mark IV has 1.3x...so it means..it's close to full frame detail of the D3s ryt? in terms of quality of capturing details of the image?

coz since like the 5D Mark II and D3s are full frame..means 1.0x....ryt?

so does it also mean that 1D Mark IV is 1.3x and other cameras like 40d 50d 7d are 1.6x...the details that 1D Mark IV can capture are more precise than 40d 50d 7d?

coz im thinking if the difference between 1D mark IV and D3s in terms of capturing the details comparison would just be small....then 1D Mark IV can be a great buy then....1.3x compared to 1.0x ?

[Thalagyrt]

hmmm ic....
so since 1D Mark IV has 1.3x...so it means..it's close to full frame detail of the D3s ryt? in terms of quality of capturing details of the image?

coz since like the 5D Mark II and D3s are full frame..means 1.0x....ryt?

so does it also mean that 1D Mark IV is 1.3x and other cameras like 40d 50d 7d are 1.6x...the details that 1D Mark IV can capture are more precise than 40d 50d 7d?

coz im thinking if the difference between 1D mark IV and D3s in terms of capturing the details comparison would just be small....then 1D Mark IV can be a great buy then....1.3x compared to 1.0x ?

Well considering you have a 5DII a 1DIV or 1DIII would be a great complimentary camera... Fast camera, great AF. You'd have the 5D2 for your landscapes/stills/people/etc and the 1D for action, wildlife, etc... It's a pretty common combo, though more common in the pro world is 1D + 1Ds, there's nothing at all wrong with 5D + 1D! You'd have a great combo. ;)

[bustarhymes_indahaus]

Well considering you have a 5DII a 1DIV or 1DIII would be a great complimentary camera... Fast camera, great AF. You'd have the 5D2 for your landscapes/stills/people/etc and the 1D for action, wildlife, etc... It's a pretty common combo, though more common in the pro world is 1D + 1Ds, there's nothing at all wrong with 5D + 1D! You'd have a great combo. ;)

yes you are right..that's what i have in mind hehe.... although im thinking if the upcoming 1Ds would at least provide us 8fps (i doubt but i hope)...except if the price too high....

im jst more optimistic on the details the 1D Mark IV can capture..if it can at least be almost as good as the full frames.....then it would really be something to consider...

tnx..

[Thalagyrt]

yes you are right..that's what i have in mind hehe.... although im thinking if the upcoming 1Ds would at least provide us 8fps (i doubt but i hope)...except if the price too high....

im jst more optimistic on the details the 1D Mark IV can capture..if it can at least be almost as good as the full frames.....then it would really be something to consider...

tnx..

It probably won't, if anything we might see 6FPS, but it's CPU bound. Consider that it's likely to be somewhere along the lines of 28-36MP, likely 32 considering the 1DIV's resolution, and even 6FPS would be pushing it with dual digic IV chips based on what we're seeing with the 1DIV and 7D. We'll see when it's announced.

[bustarhymes_indahaus]

hi thalagyrt

guess what..ive joined u on the nikon side now...i just sold all my canon gears at great deals...and im so excited to acquire new gears from nikon..guess i cannot wait for canon to launch 1ds mark iv and get overpriced by it...nor getting a 1d Mark IV ..which is not full frame at all...

after computing..it was practical to shift to nikon ..since i will only shell out around close to $5000 for new d3s, d700, and equivalent nikon lenses after selling all my canon gears...
i get more..for less.... than buying an upcoming overpriced 1ds mark iv..not even fit for sports...or getting just a 1d mark iv ....

up to now, canon has never realized the fact that more and more are switching to nikon...especially on the top pro levels
due to their Overpriced 1d series that offer less for an overpriced tag....and by keep on jacking up megapixels...sacrificing iso low light performance ...focusing more on video capabilities...guess that's where canon's vision is heading...and im sorry to say that i cannot follow you on that vision....

goodbye canon.

[Thalagyrt]

I have a feeling this is the wrong thread for that post? :confused:

[jdizzle]

I have a feeling this is the wrong thread for that post? :confused:
Yeah. I don't get it. Why post a sob story for leaving Canon? :confused:

[DarthVader]

There you go...Canon has just lost another Ambassador :lol:


goodbye canon.

[jdizzle]

There you go...Canon has just lost another Ambassador :lol:
Amabassador?:lol: ;) Changing to another system doesn't make better images. :)

[djharmonix]

goodbye canon.

wow I'm gonna shed a tear from all the drama in your life!

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/609/smallestviolinwz4.jpg

To me, the D3s advantage in high ISO wasn't more important than the resolution. I got a good price on a 1DsIII and I'm 100% happy with it. The best part is: I got to keep all my Canon glass, THAT NIKON DOESN'T HAVE ANYWAY!