Mackintosh
Forum Enthusiast
Okay, thanks, I'll take one of those!Ok then let's put the old 11MP chip along with digic II etc into an
EOS 3D shooting at 5fps and with improved noise for full ISO
50-1600 and say $2500)
)Mackintosh
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
1DS-mkII rumor verified
- Thread starter prozack
- Start date
)Mackintosh
waterskier
Senior Member
If it has the same view finder, dynamic range, noise etc... as a 1D mkII and is now Full Frame, at 5 fps wouldn't this be a better all around camera than a 1D mkII ?
5 fps is fast enough for most people and with the 1D mkII you already were looking at a full frame, but just cropping for the center, so it's not that you would be loosing your multiplier or even changing your vantage point. You would just be able to make a better crop with the same quality picture.
I also think that the 1Ds mkII would be compared more frequently with the 1D mkII in their line up, so going from 8 to 14 Mp is more substantial in that comparison.
If the only thing that you loose is 3 fps and they leave some things like the external white balance sensor on the camera, it may be a better camera for most people if they can afford it.
5 fps is fast enough for most people and with the 1D mkII you already were looking at a full frame, but just cropping for the center, so it's not that you would be loosing your multiplier or even changing your vantage point. You would just be able to make a better crop with the same quality picture.
I also think that the 1Ds mkII would be compared more frequently with the 1D mkII in their line up, so going from 8 to 14 Mp is more substantial in that comparison.
If the only thing that you loose is 3 fps and they leave some things like the external white balance sensor on the camera, it may be a better camera for most people if they can afford it.
Jack Frazier
Senior Member
But even 16MP is not really "jumping past" Kodak. 14MP is a logical progression giving their current pixel pitch. Everyone wanted more pixels but all the "real rumors" indicate that the count would only go up marginally.
Ted
Tom O'Neil
Senior Member
Even if the specs are a baseless rumor, what do Fuji and Nikon have that is even remotely close to the current 1Ds?
why not to say what is it called and if it's really going to be
here soon i think it's not a big deal not to say it ... i think if
canon really done with wahtever they are working on either the 10D
or the 1ds replacement so it will be be good idea to say that coz
i'm from those ppl if it's ganna take too long to know about a new
camera i'm ganna go for something else maye nikon or fujifilm or
whatever good and available so they might lose too many customers
coz of that .. i hope they think in the same we do
GagBagger
Senior Member
Even if the Mark II wasn't out, and the 1Ds replacement wasn't in the pipe, Nikon would still be trailing.
The Mark II and forthcoming 1Ds replacement are just longer nails for the coffin.
I'd love to see Canon's response to both new Nikkor lenses however -- the 200-400/VR (magnificent lens) and 200/2VR.
Brendan
--
Things that make you go, hmmmm...
MISportPix
Active member
Pixel Math:
14.3MP = 4632x3088 = 129 pix/mm on 35.8x23.8 (FF)
1DM2: 8.2MP = 3504 x 2336 = 122 pix/mm on 28.7 x19.1 (1.3 crop)
10D: 6.3MP = 3072 x 2048 = 135pix/mm on 22.7x15.1 (1.6 crop)
So improved pixel density over the Mk2 it appears, but not 10D density, but then thats not full frame now is it??
If it matches or betters the 1DM2 ISO Performance, Canon will have itself another world beater, even at the super premium prices it will likely sell for.
Lets assume the 1DSm2 give equal ISO perfomance to the 1Dm2, which would you rather have at your disposal: A pair of 1Dm2's or a 1DSm2 with a 10D as back-up/second camera?
(Stupid) Cost Math:
Let's use the 1V-HS as the base body. About $2000 at B&H. Assume that the balance of the cost is the digital sensor. Not entirely accurate I know, but by far the huge majority of additional cost.
1DM2: $2K body plus $2500 digital sensor = $4500 camera
Assuming same percentage pixel yield : 14.3/8.2 = 74% more pixels to be deemed good for sensor acceptance. > > You will only get a proportionate lower number of good sensors for the same line (or same type of line) running 1DsII sensors vs 1DII sensors . . .
1DsII:: $2K body plus $2500*1.74 ($4350) sensor = $6350 camera
Rough assumptions I know, but I wouldn't expect a huge shift in cost. Canon is going to have to have a major change in fabrication facilities, or a process break through allowing higher yield to really move costs down in the same year.
Applying these same assumptions to a 10D with a 7N body as a base don't really hold, obviously the much higher volume 10D/300D sensor is subject to different fabrication economics and yields.
14.3MP = 4632x3088 = 129 pix/mm on 35.8x23.8 (FF)
1DM2: 8.2MP = 3504 x 2336 = 122 pix/mm on 28.7 x19.1 (1.3 crop)
10D: 6.3MP = 3072 x 2048 = 135pix/mm on 22.7x15.1 (1.6 crop)
So improved pixel density over the Mk2 it appears, but not 10D density, but then thats not full frame now is it??
If it matches or betters the 1DM2 ISO Performance, Canon will have itself another world beater, even at the super premium prices it will likely sell for.
Lets assume the 1DSm2 give equal ISO perfomance to the 1Dm2, which would you rather have at your disposal: A pair of 1Dm2's or a 1DSm2 with a 10D as back-up/second camera?
(Stupid) Cost Math:
Let's use the 1V-HS as the base body. About $2000 at B&H. Assume that the balance of the cost is the digital sensor. Not entirely accurate I know, but by far the huge majority of additional cost.
1DM2: $2K body plus $2500 digital sensor = $4500 camera
Assuming same percentage pixel yield : 14.3/8.2 = 74% more pixels to be deemed good for sensor acceptance. > > You will only get a proportionate lower number of good sensors for the same line (or same type of line) running 1DsII sensors vs 1DII sensors . . .
1DsII:: $2K body plus $2500*1.74 ($4350) sensor = $6350 camera
Rough assumptions I know, but I wouldn't expect a huge shift in cost. Canon is going to have to have a major change in fabrication facilities, or a process break through allowing higher yield to really move costs down in the same year.
Applying these same assumptions to a 10D with a 7N body as a base don't really hold, obviously the much higher volume 10D/300D sensor is subject to different fabrication economics and yields.
waterskier
Senior Member
I'm betting that in a couple years it will be in the same price range as the 1D mkII is right now and the 1DmkII will be about $1500 cheaper.
So a 14Mp FF fast camera with great ISO performance only leaves a non-bayer pattern, fuel cell battery, at similar resolution with more dynamic range before things will start to stabilize.
I think that within 5 years we will actually see this technology mature.
So a 14Mp FF fast camera with great ISO performance only leaves a non-bayer pattern, fuel cell battery, at similar resolution with more dynamic range before things will start to stabilize.
I think that within 5 years we will actually see this technology mature.
Can anyone guess how long it'll take for this to come out in our stores?
I'm just cut between the 1DMKII now, or wait acouple of extra months for this new replacement.
I'm just cut between the 1DMKII now, or wait acouple of extra months for this new replacement.
classici
Forum Enthusiast
Masterdeath
Senior Member
Same sensor as MII, sized to FF with the same density will not yeild 20mp..
David (r00t)
Senior Member
Sorry...couldn't resist.... 
David
My fun galleries:
http://www.imagestation.com/member/?name=r00t&c=201
My side job:
http://www.davidsavkovic.com
'Photography is the art of not pushing the button.' - Frank Horvat
--It's not how many you've got; it's what you're doing with 'em.
--
Ulysses
http://www.ulyssesphotography.com
David
My fun galleries:
http://www.imagestation.com/member/?name=r00t&c=201
My side job:
http://www.davidsavkovic.com
'Photography is the art of not pushing the button.' - Frank Horvat
BCC
Leading Member
sound good but PLEASE don't "fix" the 1Ds's focus....
BanLecter
Senior Member
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cogito ergo sum
Caveat Lector
http://www.1ds.com
Paul Cheang
Senior Member
--
PC writes:
No, not again... what am I going to with the 1Ds now???
I must I am going to outfit it with wireless FTP to it... now where is the slot to stick the PCI card?
Paul
Wouldn't it make more sense that the 1D M2 have BETTER noise than the 1Ds M2 since the 1D M2 as a sports shooter camera would have higher requirements for ISO performance (e.g. indoor sports+need for higher shutter speed)???
Remember the 1Ds had ISO capped at 1250 (I think) vs. the then 1 year old 1D with ISO at 1600 without the boost.
Remember the 1Ds had ISO capped at 1250 (I think) vs. the then 1 year old 1D with ISO at 1600 without the boost.
DigialPowerShot
Leading Member
the announced something and then they cancelled it. And u still trust Nikon?
B.L. de Meyer
Active member
BobHo
Senior Member
WARNING: There are substantial rounding errors in these numbers.
1. The original ID had a CCD sensor (19.1mm x 28.7mm, I think) with pixels approximately 11.5 microns on a side (assuming that they're square)
2. The original 1Ds had a CMOS sensor with pixels about 8.8 microns on a side.
3. The 1D MkII also has a CMOS sensor with pixels about 8.2 microns on a side.
4. The assumption seems to be that the sensor in the 1Ds MKII will also be CMOS and will have the same 8.2 micron size. However, the entire sensor will be full frame, resulting in about 12.9MP. Therefore, the noise characteristics 1Ds MKII pixels should be the same as 1D MkII pixels.
Because the changes in both process and pixel size, I don't think that any usefull conclusions about the MkIIs can be drawn from the relative noise characteristics of the original 1D and 1Ds.
Bob
1. The original ID had a CCD sensor (19.1mm x 28.7mm, I think) with pixels approximately 11.5 microns on a side (assuming that they're square)
2. The original 1Ds had a CMOS sensor with pixels about 8.8 microns on a side.
3. The 1D MkII also has a CMOS sensor with pixels about 8.2 microns on a side.
4. The assumption seems to be that the sensor in the 1Ds MKII will also be CMOS and will have the same 8.2 micron size. However, the entire sensor will be full frame, resulting in about 12.9MP. Therefore, the noise characteristics 1Ds MKII pixels should be the same as 1D MkII pixels.
Because the changes in both process and pixel size, I don't think that any usefull conclusions about the MkIIs can be drawn from the relative noise characteristics of the original 1D and 1Ds.
--
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/image/27417053
http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto
Katie- as featured in Sunday Mirror - centre page 18.7.4
1Ds/10D/30E/5x4/I HAVE A MKII A Pentax 67 MKII
Steve
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum