1D Mk111 REPLACEMENT ?

I think the new IV will be either 21 or 24mp. I guess we have more than a year to wait. Who knows, by then it may be 30mp.

I personally would rather see a super clean ISO 12800!!!

muscleflex wrote in post #7561421
it's such a nice day to be reading posts.... go out and shoot!

It's snowing here.

motion_projekt wrote in post #7534662
There won't be a Mark IV.

4 is unlucky in japan. they will probably name it something else.

I know the number 4 is unlucky in China too.

18.2 mp, 12fps, 3.2" OCD rear screen, full frame, 65 zone metering with contrast distinction, 48 focus pts (48,21,11). The mirror is being redesigned and will not move. Viewfinder larger and brighter. Wireless file transfer capability via wifi. And more.

Jon_Doh wrote in post #7660552
18.2 mp, 12fps, 3.2" OCD rear screen, full frame, 65 zone metering with contrast distinction, 48 focus pts (48,21,11). The mirror is being redesigned and will not move. Viewfinder larger and brighter. Wireless file transfer capability via wifi. And more.

Laughable.

Ok here is a way out there guess...
- 36megapixel sensor
- larger than 35mm format
- able to detect an EF mount lens *with adaptor* so that the sensor turns off a certain array of the pixels to reduce vignetting. This allows you to use your existing EF mount glass.
- But allows for a new range of glass at even MORE $'s.
- fully swivelable LCD 3.5" to 4" with corresponding higher display density.
- HD video at super high frame rate used with new formatted media capable of storing more than the limitations currently found in 5dII.
- AF capable in video mode.

etc. etc.

.....just dreaming.

The timing makes sense that the 1D4 will be announced this September with limited availability by December.

There is a 50/50 chance of happening that any of the fast 4 super telephotos will be updated by September as well. My indicators are the (10 going 11 years) age of the lens, two (Winter Olympics and Fifa World Cup) major sporting events, Nikon's updated Supertelephotos from 2007 and Canon slowly updating the L lenses to Mark II's.

Other fast L primes that needs updates due to age and demands of future camera sensors are the 35L, 135L & 180L. Slower L primes and L zooms have a few more years to go before Canon does anything with them.

A lot of people will say all these lenses are perfect as is but these lenses were designed for film and not sensors. 5, 10, 15 or even 20 years from now you will notice how bad Mark I L's will look like on future digital bodies but remain superb on film and current digital bodies now.

dolina wrote in post #7676163
The timing makes sense that the 1D4 will be announced this September with limited availability by December.

There is a 50/50 chance of happening that any of the fast 4 super telephotos will be updated by September as well. My indicators are the (10 going 11 years) age of the lens, two (Winter Olympics and Fifa World Cup) major sporting events, Nikon's updated Supertelephotos from 2007 and Canon slowly updating the L lenses to Mark II's.

Other fast L primes that needs updates due to age and demands of future camera sensors are the 35L, 135L & 180L. Slower L primes and L zooms have a few more years to go before Canon does anything with them.

A lot of people will say all these lenses are perfect as is but these lenses were designed for film and not sensors. 5, 10, 15 or even 20 years from now you will notice how bad Mark I L's will look like on future digital bodies but remain superb on film and current digital bodies now.

Was there a memo about a change in the physics of light that I missed? Why would a lens that passes "X" amount of light to film not pass "X" amount of light to a sensor?

When I said I expected the MkIV to have 30mp I meant the 1Ds, of course. I still expect that. The 1D probably won't reach that level.

I've never understood why digital places greater demands on lenses than film. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

peterbj7 wrote in post #7680368
When I said I expected the MkIV to have 30mp I meant the 1Ds, of course. I still expect that. The 1D probably won't reach that level.

I've never understood why digital places greater demands on lenses than film. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

It's basically like this - film had a certain amount of resolution determined by the emulsion on the film that received the light... resolution being - the ability to distinguish 2 adjacent lines one from the other. Let's disregard the fact that you can't see the differences till a point, but they exist. Of course, lenses have resolution too. Some people may refer to it as sharpness and whatnot, its normally measured in line widths / picture height or lines per inch. Lens producers supply people with MTF charts which display these values. MTF charts for each lens are different, so that's why you'd buy the new 18-55 vs the old one (it has better optics, let's disregard the IS for the moment). Now as the new sensors develop, they are reaching higher and higher resolutions and are approaching values where the sensors can actually resolve to a more precise extent then the lenses (remember the lines from the beginning? 21mpx sensor has over 5,5k lines of pixels on the long side, means you can put 2.7k 1-pixel-wide black lines of "information" on it, with white lines between them in order to be able to say you can distinguish between two blacks). This basically sucks cos if we can't get our lenses to resolve more, we don't need to invest into the "better" sensor either, there's no point. Basically, the lens will mash up 2/4 pixels worth of "real world" information into one blob on the cameras 2-4 pixels. The risk of this happening with film was never even close to significant so this wasn't something anyone ever thought about.

As mentioned earlier light is recorded differently by film and digital sensors. Just to add to error11's explanation film lenses were not designed to offset a lot digital-only IQ anomalies like say pixel vignetting, purple fringing or even CA.

Pixel vignetting is yet another potential cause of image edge darkening. An image sensor is composed of millions of photon wells that measure/record the light hitting them. The photo wells, although extremely tiny, have a depth to them. Just as the late day sun does not hit the bottom of your trash can, light hitting the sensor at a strong angle may not hit the bottom of the photon wells. The strongest light angles will be found at the image edges. Reportedly, most manufacturers compensate for pixel vignetting in their sensor algorithms. Also, newer sensor designs may show decreased amounts of optical vignetting.

Source: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …anon-Lens-Vignetting.aspx

On one lens I have I experience vignetting depending on the angle my light source is at. I am not that meticulous with vignetting.

Some references so I do not have to rewrite what has already been written before.

http://www.openphotogr​aphyforums.com/forums/​showthread.php?t=331

http://www.ayton.id.au​/gary/photo/photo_lens​es.htm

http://photo.net …gital-camera-forum/00Gtq2

It makes more sense for the the 1Ds4 would have a 38MP sensor based on the pixel density of the 50d & 500d. Remember the 1-Series bodies are updated every 3 years so they have to be a bit more future proof than what lower-end models. The 1D4 would probably have a 15MP based on the MP of the 40d vs 1d3 within the year they were released.

Ever wonder why Canon would even bother spending any R&D on "perfect" L lenses to Mark II's? You'd think it be better spent on fixing the 1D3.

Again this should only concern you if IQ and future-proofing are top priorities. In my case I do not like buying end of life products at full retail price. If you have faith that film and digital record light the same and do not believe a single thing I wrote then great for you. You're in for a bargain in Mark I L lenses.

But believe me when you mention this to others they'll vehemently deny it and call you elitist but in 5-10 years time they'll call you a prophet.

The 300/4L IS and 400/5.6L will be the last two L primes to be updated. Then the L zooms will start being updated. Notice also no progress in the non-L EF lens line since 2004 and the elimination of some non-L line from Canon USA's EF lens website.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #7678320
Was there a memo about a change in the physics of light that I missed? Why would a lens that passes "X" amount of light to film not pass "X" amount of light to a sensor?

FWIW, this is not a new phenomenon...

In my working world of television, we've always understood that lenses suffer from light fall off around the edges. Particularly the uber-zooms (1000mm) when approaching fully zoomed in.

I think one of the best arguments/explanations is one of the replies in the Photo.net thread. Many people aren't used to seeing the entire image captured by FF because they've shot APS-C which only uses the "sweet spot."

True but what about FF film? No one spotted it the whole time it was in vogue?

If you notice now on MTF charts the graph doesn't fall as badly on the Mark 2 L's than the Mark 1's the replaced. I believe the Mark 2s will be marketed for a decade or two in terms and useful in terms of IQ for three decades.

Going back to topic I hope the 1d3 replacement will have autofocus at f/11 even at center. Lenses that would benefit are f/5.6 lenses with extender 2x attached to them.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #7682863
FWIW, this is not a new phenomenon...

In my working world of television, we've always understood that lenses suffer from light fall off around the edges. Particularly the uber-zooms (1000mm) when approaching fully zoomed in.

I think one of the best arguments/explanations is one of the replies in the Photo.net thread. Many people aren't used to seeing the entire image captured by FF because they've shot APS-C which only uses the "sweet spot."

dolina wrote in post #7682936
True but what about FF film? No one spotted it the whole time it was in vogue?

Oh I had my fair share of mid-grade glass (Tamron Adapt-All anyone?) that suffered from light fall off. Especially at longer focal lengths. I had a 60-300 that was a total dog at 300mm @ f/6.3... Looked more like the stock spyglass shot used in pirate movies...

I freely admit I'm not a "chart peeper" but I wonder if any of the improvement was a byproduct of the attempt to engineer sharper corners? If the light gets to the sensor cleaner and less distorted, does more of it get there as well?

Your Tamron's connected via adapter? In which case I would think a product not designed to match another product without 3rd party intervention would have issues.

You dont need to peep at no stinking chart. Just check out the improvements of the 16-35L vs 16-35L2 and the design decisions to improve light fall off.

I've read some people not experiencing vignetting on the 16-35L but they're the minority and probably shot with the light coming from an ideal direction.

Then again IQ isn't everything to everyone. Some people are bothered by it and can do something about it while others are not bothered by it for one reason or another.