# The Radical 1Ds Mark IV [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 13, 2010)

```
<p><strong>So what’s going on?

<span style="font-weight: normal;">I have received some cryptic information from a good guy about the 1Ds Mark IV or whatever it’ll be called.</span></strong></p>
<p>We have already stated the new camera wouldn’t be around for Photokina and would be released in 2011. With each passing day, I’m believing that more and more.</p>
<p><strong>So what’s so radical?</strong></p>
<p><strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: normal;">I’m told to take a look at the 4K camera for clues. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-weight: normal;">Don’t disregard the large sensor Canon showed off. Obviously it wouldn’t be that big, but there is something radical about the 1Ds4 sensor.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-weight: normal;">The word “Modular” came up.</span></li>
</ul>
<p></strong></p>
<p>That’s all I have for now.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## hsmeets (Sep 13, 2010)

Hi,

A camera with bigger sensor? Physically bigger? that would most likely warrent for new lenses/mount as the image circle of current lenses would not cover the bigger sensor. 

A bigger sensor to archieve what? Same resulotion but better S/R and sensitiity or Higher resolution at same level of S/R and sensitivity? What does this tell us: 'we' hit the limits within the 36x24mm sensor size, 'we' cant no longer improve on one aspect without substantially sacrificing other aspects of the sensor?

Canon trying to take market share from medium format folks? Canon judges the Pentax 645D as a thread? 

How big is that MF market in terms of contribution to the net revenue of the Canon Camera Division?


----------



## olav (Sep 13, 2010)

Modular?
Sounds like digital back so you can update on sensor instead of buying a new camera.


----------



## afrank99 (Sep 13, 2010)

My bet is a square 36x36mm sensor. Square full frame would mean a 50% larger imaging area (thus lower noise) and the possibility to shoot portrait without rotating the camera.
(while maintaining full EF lens compatibility)

The other possibility would be a really large sensor (e.g. 645) with new lenses but with a "crop" option to use existing EF lenses (would give the word "modular" some meaning).


----------



## afrank99 (Sep 13, 2010)

hsmeets said:


> A bigger sensor to archieve what? Same resulotion but better S/R and sensitiity or Higher resolution at same level of S/R and sensitivity? What does this tell us: 'we' hit the limits within the 36x24mm sensor size, 'we' cant no longer improve on one aspect without substantially sacrificing other aspects of the sensor?



I'm starting to repeat myself, but SNR is mostly dependent on sensor surface area. So a physically larger sensor would mean better SNR regardless of its resolution.
And if you can't reduce noise significantly (because technology is at its limits) the only thing you can do is enlarging the signal (equals to "more light" equals to "larger sensor").


----------



## Stuart (Sep 13, 2010)

afrank99 said:


> My bet is a square 36x36mm sensor. Square full frame .................(while maintaining full EF lens compatibility)


the 24-105mm lens has a rectangular rear section, so this lens would not be suitable for a 36x36mm sensor.

If the lens was further from the sensor then a bigger sensor could be used, though the lens might not focus throughout the whole focal range. 
Bite the bullet Canon new Lenses for MF, EVIL, M4/3, and existing FF users - as well as silent focusing for all for video mode... How bust will then be.


----------



## Stuart (Sep 13, 2010)

afrank99 said:


> hsmeets said:
> 
> 
> > A bigger sensor to archieve what? Same resulotion but better S/R and sensitiity or Higher resolution at same level of S/R and sensitivity? What does this tell us: 'we' hit the limits within the 36x24mm sensor size, 'we' cant no longer improve on one aspect without substantially sacrificing other aspects of the sensor?
> ...


Your right if we are talking about Bigger Pixel site areas!


----------



## ms (Sep 13, 2010)

maybe canon is finally realizing that their only FF camera with decent weather sealing and AF should not be 7-8k... since they don't want to loose the elite high price market they need to offer something more in this department (bigger sensor, unprecedented video, etc) while letting the FF/good AF/weather sealing trickle down to the "lower" models.... lets face it, weather or not they care about Nikon you know that the D300 had something to do with the eventual release of the 7D (well, and all the moaning and groaning of us Canon folks)... perhaps the likes of the d700 and the cheap sony FFs (and all the crying about the *relative* sluggishness of the 5D by the canon crowd) is finally getting them to relent... perhaps its just wishful thinking but hey, Im still hoping for a small, nimble FF body with the big, beautiful EOS mount  ... and hey, if the modular thing turns out to be true then they charge a lot more upfront for the 1ds successor if you'll be able to upgrade only parts (sensor) of it later for a lot less then the whole (though I would imagine new sensors need new processors?).


----------



## afrank99 (Sep 13, 2010)

Stuart said:


> Your right if we are talking about Bigger Pixel site areas!



No, I'm talking about overall sensor size. Pixel size does not matter (much) for overall image noise. I'm getting tired to explain why, but to keep it simple: more light = less noise. Bigger pixels gives more light per pixel, but less pixels, so the overall amount of light (and thus noise) is roughly the same.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Sep 13, 2010)

Foveon-type true RGB sensel array, after all, they already have a patent for their version of it, as do Nikon. No more AA LPF, crisp pixels even at 100% pixel-peeping view.


----------



## Stone (Sep 13, 2010)

I wouldn't be surprised if this pans out. As I said in the other 1Ds thread, there's a lot more money to be made by moving the 1Ds upscale into the medium format space where $20K+ price tags are the norm. Buyers in this market are looking to spend that kind of coin and a killer Medium Format HDDSLR could shake things up in that market quite nicely. Quad Digic V's pushing 50MP files anyone? Canon could also offer a new line of lenses that are not EF mount made specifically for this new system. These customers have the money and Canon believes it has the tech, I have no reason to doubt them.

When it comes to the 1Ds, a lot of people are still thinking about beating Nikon/Sony/Panasonic, I'm willing to bet Canon is thinking about stealing some market share from Leica/Mamiya/Red, I'm definitely cheering for them.

This rumor has me even more excited about the possibilities for the 5DIII, Canon won't need to hold anything back, Go Canon!!!!!!


----------



## off topic (Sep 13, 2010)

Does the "Modular" reference go back to a rumor from before the 7D released (prior to the site redesign) when there were reports about new DSLR video accessories being tested?

I think bigger sensor refers to higher resolution video capture on 35mm sensor 2K, 4K not a larger physical sensor. Since the rumors of 35mmx35mm square sensor never die maybe that is possible. However, Canon getting into Medium format is unlikely since their cameras have successfully replaced the MF in the still photographers studio and that market segment is not growing at all


----------



## J-Man (Sep 13, 2010)

Modular: to connect 2 1DsMkIV's to permit 3D VIDEO.
Pixel binning vs line skipping, Foveon type sensor,
4K rez? Time code synchronization, xlr audio in,??
?able to swap EF mount with PL mount.

Just about anything is possible, 
With 5DIII coming and a possible 3D... And then there's RED.


----------



## afrank99 (Sep 13, 2010)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Foveon-type true RGB sensel array, after all, they already have a patent for their version of it, as do Nikon. No more AA LPF, crisp pixels even at 100% pixel-peeping view.



I don't think so.
It's better to increase pixel density and scale down afterwards. Remember, Bayer pattern sensor do deliver more details than a Foveon sensor with 1/4th pixel count.
As the total amount of light does not increase with Foveon sensors, there's no noise advantage either.

I'd prefer a 24 MP Bayer pattern sensor over a 8 MP Foveon sensor any time.


----------



## Rocky (Sep 13, 2010)

afrank99 said:


> I don't think so.
> It's better to increase pixel density and scale down afterwards. Remember, Bayer pattern sensor do deliver more details than a Foveon sensor with 1/4th pixel count.



Can you substantiate this????


----------



## unfocused (Sep 13, 2010)

Okay, time to have a little fun and predict the future. Check back in 2011 or 2012 and see how close I come.

Sensor somewhere in the 50-100mp range. (Not that difficult since Canon has already unveiled a 120mp APS-H sensor.)

Flexible scaling of file size for both RAW and JPEG files, allowing photographer to adjust resolution depending on shooting conditions and needs. (Already available in limited form as small-RAW, small-JPEG, large-JPEG, etc, just more choices and more resolution.)

Digital zoom function that allows photographer to select full frame, 1.3x crop, 1.6x crop, 2x and maybe even 3x or 4x. 100 mp sensor means no appreciable loss in quality, so the photographer can use a 300mm f2.8 lens as a 600mm or 900mm if needed for sports or wildlife shooting. (Canon has been upgrading their L Series lenses to meet the demands of the next generation of high resolution sensors)

Dual card slots, but also can be tethered to an external hard drive, so photographer can wear a portable terabyte hard drive on his belt to store image files while shooting. (Modern-day equivalent of bulk film backs.)

Will NOT have a modular back to change sensors. (Canon has built their reputation on sport and nature photography under extreme conditions. A modular camera just makes weather sealing more difficult and increases the odds of failure. The last thing they want is for the back to leak in the middle of the rain forest. Besides, with a 100 mp sensor, there is no need to switch backs.)

"Modular" _may_ refer to some optional accessories for video use. Not sure, but it will probably have some special features or options available for video. I know nothing about video, so I'll leave that to someone else.

Everything I've identified is already available or under development, so it's all very do-able, but also would cement Canon's position at the head of the technology wars if they put it all together.

That's my prediction. Anyone else want to venture a guess.


----------



## Justin (Sep 14, 2010)

Creative, but too ambitious. Canon doesn't need to make one camera that does everything. Medium format quality in a full frame sensor. Dynamic cropping in camera is a possibility. Dynamic range should be the primary focus of this camera. EF mount lives on. 50mpx is no problem. 



unfocused said:


> Okay, time to have a little fun and predict the future. Check back in 2011 or 2012 and see how close I come.
> 
> Sensor somewhere in the 50-100mp range. (Not that difficult since Canon has already unveiled a 120mp APS-H sensor.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Master_of_the_Universe (Sep 14, 2010)

unfocused said:


> can be tethered to an external hard drive, so photographer can wear a portable terabyte hard drive on his belt to store image files while shooting.



You can already do this with the wireless grips.

Although only with USB,Firewire 800 would be better.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 14, 2010)

Master_of_the_Universe said:


> You can already [store to external drives] with the wireless grips.
> 
> Although only with USB,Firewire 800 would be better.


USB 3.0 would be better yet.

Unfortunately, USB 3 adoption has been remarkably slow even on PC motherboards, let alone peripherals or other devices. We don't even have the 4GB limit per file removed from the 60D (that I know of), so this is a feature for perhaps a few years from now, but maybe sooner.


----------



## Master_of_the_Universe (Sep 14, 2010)

Except USB has a much heavier CPU overhead than Firewire, so I think Firewire is better in this instance than USB.

However the extra speed could be useful.


----------



## NormanBates (Sep 14, 2010)

Rocky said:


> afrank99 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think so.
> ...



I don't know about the Foveon sensor, but I know that increasing pixel density and scaling down afterwards is not a bad thing:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/mpix/mpix.html


----------



## NormanBates (Sep 14, 2010)

maybe "modular" means they are implementing something that I have been proposing for some time: build a standard stills camera, then add functionality through different grips, as in:

* for fast shooters: a grip with an additional digic processor, doubling the fps count
* for heavy shooters: a grip with an ultrabig battery and either 4 card slots or a connector for an external SSD drive
* for videographers: a huge and very expensive L-shaped grip that also covers the back of the camera, and which includes:
- a fast video processor, that can record a series of reduced resolution RAW images through binning (not line-skipping) to an external SSD drive
- full-res HDMI output
- a big (5"), high-res (720p), swivel screen
- a couple of XLR inputs
- a headphones connector


----------



## x-vision (Sep 14, 2010)

This new rumor makes a lot of sense. 

The 1D/1Ds pairing is not sustainable anymore. 

This pairing was working fine for low-res/hi-res cameras but will not work for hi-res/even-higher-res cameras. 

To compete with the upcoming Nikon D4, the 1DV will have to have a FF sensor (likely 20-24mp) and sell for no more $5500.

With that, Canon will have a very hard time charging much more for the 1DsV - if it's basically the same camera as the 1DV but with more megapixels (50mp?) and slower fps. 

To charge more for the 1DsV, they need to better tailor it for its intended market, which is the hi-res studio market served currently by MF. 

Canon will most likely keep the EF mount and the FF senor (24x36mm) but the body format will change to better fit its intended use. 

Maybe Canon will make it an interchangeable-sensor camera, so that it is more future proof. 
Also, they may decide to make multiple variations of the 50mp sensor (say a B&W variation, a variation with 6-color filter, etc.), so a modular design makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Artisttt (Sep 16, 2010)

NormanBates said:


> maybe "modular" means they are implementing something that I have been proposing for some time: build a standard stills camera, then add functionality through different grips, as in:
> 
> * for fast shooters: a grip with an additional digic processor, doubling the fps count
> * for heavy shooters: a grip with an ultrabig battery and either 4 card slots or a connector for an external SSD drive
> ...


This would be very cool! Instead of 1D;1Ds;5D;3D, just one good FF still camera with multiple grips.


----------



## JW (Sep 16, 2010)

I think one thing we'll see is in-camera remote flash control and a new flagship flash (590 or 6XX EX.. maybe 6XX RX to indicate the receiving capability of the flash). I'm thinking it will be controlled by IR, RF, or maybe even something like bluetooth technology (it won't be w/ pre-flashes since the 1D obviously doesn't have a flash). Just a wild guess, but it's been rumored recently that there's a new flash coming. I'm thinking it will be more than the normal flash evolution.


----------



## peejay (Sep 18, 2010)

All I can say is it better be worth the damn wait.

Get on with it Canon. MF Backs are looking awfully tempting these days...


----------



## afrank99 (Sep 27, 2010)

Rocky said:


> afrank99 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think so.
> ...



It's obvious, isn't it?
Any Bayer pattern sensor definitely has FULL luminance resolution while chroma resolution is 1/4 of its nominal resolution.

Bayer 24MP: 1 luminance, 1/4 chroma
Foveon 8MP: 1/4 luminance, 1/4 chroma

And we all now, luminance resolution is much more important to the eye than chroma resolution, this is why JPEGs often use chroma channel downsampling without loosing too much quality.

In reality this means that Bayer sensor deliver resolutions comparable to a Foveon with ~2/3 of this resolution (16MP in this example).


----------



## hsmeets (Sep 27, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> So whatâ€™s so radical?
> 
> Donâ€™t disregard the large sensor Canon showed off. Obviously it wouldnâ€™t be that big, but there is something radical about the 1Ds4 sensor.



Just some random thoughts ranging from maybe to unlikely....

- Back illuminated type of sensor.
- No AA filter anymore? software selectable levels of AA filtering in post processing.
- Colored Microlenses that also act as bayerfilter
- Binning in other configurations as 2x2 pixels (different pixel shape?)
- Foveon like sensor (3 layers) or Fuji style sensor (big and small pixel pairs)
- No optical bayer filter, spectral sensitivity tweaked per pixel with doting of rare elements right onto the die.
- Binning of pixels for Video, global electronic shutter. 
- AF integrated into Sensor to allow Phase detect during live view without translucent mirror, Foveon style implemented as a second layer under the pixels (or between pixel in the spacing room).
- Slide in sensormodule into a standard body (slide in from bottom or so).
- Bayer filter R-G-G-B changed to R-G-B and some other color like yellow/orange for better reproduction of skin-tones?


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 29, 2010)

unfocused said:


> Okay, time to have a little fun and predict the future. Check back in 2011 or 2012 and see how close I come.
> 
> Sensor somewhere in the 50-100mp range. (Not that difficult since Canon has already unveiled a 120mp APS-H sensor.)


Coming into this post I didn't realize it was in the 1.3x crop size. But it's still a one-off for now, lab grown means they can afford a lot more failed parts than they would in a realistic setting: They can just push up the pixel count, which normally would lead to an ever-increasing rate of defective parts (I dunno if it's geometric or what, but certainly a significant increase, to the point of being uneconomical) that fail because of the tight production tolerances required. Production tolerances that would be perfectly reasonable for current generation parts would, my theory goes, end up with misses on current tech. I'm sure they need an improved process over current commercialized technology just to make it, in fact. It's promising though. Of course, who knows there are any compromises they made for the sake of the pixel count which would hobble it in a production camera. I doubt it, but you never know. From my time watching the PC industry, you hear about fantastic new technologies that don't end up coming for years. Fiber optic connections between components on a mainboard have been talked about for years and they're still many years out from being developed, yet there are working prototypes all the same.

I do expect this to be coming out sooner than some of the pure research type stuff we hear about constantly on the PC side of things, like "real-time ray-traced Wolfenstein on a laptop!" (turned out the laptop was just streaming video from like four massively parallel servers) and the like. Things that won't be coming for fifteen years, if ever. The fact that this is most likely a complete system that just needs the camera's processor and other systems to be beefed up in parallel for a working camera means it'll be out sooner than these one-off designs we see so often.

Considering that the fabrication plants for CMOS technology are owned by third parties, and the state of the art in their current process size is consistent regardless of who is using these third party facilities, I don't expect this is a sizable advantage over other parties. Sony has been doing pretty well recently on the sensor front I think, and their relationship with Nikon probably has people in both companies worried.

Unless this materializes into a product before the competition, it's just a note from Canon saying "hey, we put money into R&D too! Isn't that cool?" It's probably a few years out, if not more. I think how soon the process can be commercialized, and other systems in the camera made fast enough to process 120MP images with any speed, is going to be slower than we would think.

It IS interesting to note that the medium format announcements lately haven't been much over 40MP. I think Hasselblad just put out a thirtysomething megapixel back. Seems to show to me that the MF manufacturers are stuck with the technological crumbs of the CMOS feast (poor metaphor).


----------

