# A Little 1Ds Mark IV Info



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 19, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/01/1ds-mark-iv-2/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/01/1ds-mark-iv-2/"></a></div>
<p><strong>January 31?</strong>

The 1Ds Mark IV information is starting to pick up a bit lately, although nothing solid. <a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1DS_MkIV.html">NL</a> was told by a couple of sources that we can expect a 1Ds4 announcement on January 31. This goes against everything we’ve been told for the last year.</p>
<p>I tried to get some confirmation on this and couldn’t.</p>
<p>All I’ve heard about for the end of January is a couple of new Rebels.</p>
<p><strong>PowerShot</strong>

We’ll see some newer PowerShots at the end of the month for sure. Finally a replacement to the D10? A few people finally say yes. We’ve heard that before though.<strong> </strong></p>
```


----------



## Woody (Jan 19, 2011)

Won't surprise me one bit.

From this site: http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/exclusive-nikon-to-launch-a-mirrorless-system-in-april-with-sony-sensor/

"According to our veeeeeery good sources Nikon will unveil their new mirrorless system in April! Nikon developed a very advanced (and expensive) pro system not meant for the amateur market."

I suppose Canon will release something similar as it will help to staunch the bleeding in their market shares. Mirrorless systems is the way of the future, even Chuck Westfall acknowledged this in 2006 (one year before Olympus announced the world's first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera). See http://www.dslrphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/Future_DSLRs.pdf


----------



## pgabor (Jan 19, 2011)

Woody said:


> ...Mirrorless systems is the way of the future...



I love that people always forget that the biggest downside of evil cameras' is the battery life. An evil camera's sensor has to be always on, and that consumes the battery REALLY fast. What is an evil camera's battery life, 250-300 pictures? With my 40D I can shoot over 1200 pictures without a struggle. That's 4-5x more! That's a HUGE difference. So i don't think that the future of dslr's is the EVIL way. Leastwise in the prosumer-pro category.


----------



## Justin (Jan 19, 2011)

Carry an extra battery or two or three. Solved. 



pgabor said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > ...Mirrorless systems is the way of the future...
> ...


----------



## kubelik (Jan 19, 2011)

just wanted to point out is that market share does not equal profitability. while there is some general correlation it's weaker than some might think. also, while Canon's market share has certainly slid, it's still proven to be very competitive in the digital camera market, both in terms of compacts and in terms of interchangeable lens cameras. I know I don't constitute a statistical analysis, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen someone actually shooting with a mirrorless cam in the past year. in fact, I can count it on two fingers. the number of times I've seen a Canon or Nikon traditional DSLR? innumerable.

I'd love to have a mirrorless cam from Canon as a second camera, to carry around when a lugging a DSLR is unneccesary or inappropriate. however, unless miracles happen in the realm of AF quality and EVF quality, I can't see it replacing my 5DII as my primary shooting camera


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 19, 2011)

However things go, at least 31 January isn't that far away.


----------



## BlackEagle (Jan 19, 2011)

It makes me really happy whenever I see a new and improved mirrorless system gets released to the market. Now there are rumors that Nikon will release a pro-mirrorless camera. I am sure Sony will follow them with their version of a pro-level mirrorless camera. Oh and I hope Sony releases its pro-level SLT camera soon. This way Canon will have to work harder on putting a usable AF in video mode to their DSLRs. 

I probably wonâ€™t switch to a mirrorless or SLT camera but I still love the mirrorless and the SLT cameras because it is putting a pressure on Cannon to design smaller cameras with AF in video mode. If Canon does not listen to the markets they will continue to lose market share. Letâ€™s admit it there isnâ€™t anything revolutionary you can do on the IQ side. Image quality is already really good. You can do small improvements but not huge. AF Canon already did a good job in the newer DSLRs like the 7D. So, the biggest improvement I expect from now on is to make smaller DSLRs without lowering IQ. With smaller I donâ€™t expect a compact size camera but a 5D mark III which is easier to carry around the whole day would be a good starting point


----------



## clicstudio (Jan 19, 2011)

*Jan 31 is my birthday*

It would be a nice present....


----------



## UngerPhotography (Jan 19, 2011)

What do people have against viewfinders? What real benefits are there to a EVIL?


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 19, 2011)

UngerPhotography said:


> What do people have against viewfinders? What real benefits are there to a EVIL?


Umm, size. Have you handled any of them (or looked at them size by side in real life)? You can see comparisons online, but seeing or feeling them in real life really shows how much smaller the Four-Third and Sony EVIL cameras are versus even the tiny Rebel series. The zoom lenses for the Sony EVILs are not significant smaller than APS-C SLRs (primarily due to the same image circle), but the pancakes lenses (on any system) and even the zooms on the Four-Thirds are noticeably smaller than their SLR counterparts.


----------



## torger (Jan 19, 2011)

UngerPhotography said:


> What do people have against viewfinders? What real benefits are there to a EVIL?



Drawbacks - the sound from the mirror, the vibration from the mirror (when shooting on tripod, but then there's mirror up and live view of course). Moving parts also wears down faster. The mechanical shutter is also a problem in the same way as the mirror, but less so.

Viewfinders need also to be very large (and heavy) to get as good view of the scene as you get from a fairly cheap LCD. Live view is already today commonly used for manual focusing when shooting on a tripod.

However, as far as I know the mirrorless technology has not come far enough to be able to replace high end DSLRs, auto focus performance being the main aspect. Its also quite nice ergonomics to hold the camera to your face when it is large and heavy (which high end always will be due to the required optics), easier to hold still, and also more discrete in dark places. So on high end cameras, there will probably be some electronic viewfinder (looking at an internal LCD via a viewfinder) in addition to the rear screen even if the mirror is removed.

I think mirrorless will first be introduced in lower end cameras not intended for professional use.


----------



## canonmonster (Jan 19, 2011)

something is coming on the 14th of Feb maybe 15th.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 19, 2011)

canonmonster said:


> something is coming on the 14th of Feb maybe 15th.


Valentines Day?  Sorry, someone had to say it. 

I certainly hope a new 1Ds is on the way. Not for me, not yet at least, but it would be interesting.


----------



## EYEONE (Jan 19, 2011)

I have no doubt Nikon will sell tons of EVILs. And I'm sure they have their uses. If it has the controls of a DSLR it will be appealing. 

But I'd prefer a viewfinder. I'll take the weight and the size, I'm fine with that.


----------



## UngerPhotography (Jan 19, 2011)

I prefer the size and weight of the 1D series as well as the lenses. An EVIL system would require new lenses right? How many people would give up there glass? Live view is great for manual focus when on a tripod, but I never touch it when shooting handheld. I just cant see EVIL being something that many professionals would want right now, though I could be wrong.


----------



## daniel charms (Jan 19, 2011)

UngerPhotography said:


> I just cant see EVIL being something that many professionals would want right now, though I could be wrong.


I suppose it depends on what you imagine a pro photographer to be. Not all of them do studio shots, sports photography or things like that. And a large(ish) dSLR is certainly not the right tool for _every _job; there are many situations where you will want to use a small camera to go unnoticed - crowd photography, war photography, ethnography and so on. Up until now, these people have tended to use compacts or maybe rangefinder film cameras for these tasks; both have their drawbacks. An EVIL (or "hybrid") camera would be a great choice in such a situation: it'd be small enough to quickly put away or simply go unnoticed, yet offer better image quality, better ISO, and be more versatile (thanks to interchangeable lenses) than compacts.


----------



## UngerPhotography (Jan 19, 2011)

I suppose. Would EVIL require a whole new set of lenses? I could see its usefulness for photographing landscapes on a tripod, but I don't even want to think about getting new lenses.


----------



## ronderick (Jan 20, 2011)

This might sound like a stupid question, but does small size = EVIL bodies?

Are there other ways of making a camera smaller without removing that reflector? ???


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 20, 2011)

ronderick said:


> This might sound like a stupid question, but does small size = EVIL bodies?
> 
> Are there other ways of making a camera smaller without removing that reflector? ???


Rangefinder. Canon could hit it big with an affordable Leica M9.


----------



## BlackEagle (Jan 20, 2011)

ronderick said:


> This might sound like a stupid question, but does small size = EVIL bodies?
> 
> Are there other ways of making a camera smaller without removing that reflector? ???



Well Canon Japanâ€™s Image Communication head Masaya Maeda certainly thinks it is possible. Following is a quote from Masaya: 

_"Itâ€™s not a question of whether or not you have a mirror. There is a consumer need for good-quality cameras to be made smaller â€¦ We will meet this need."
_
The following paragraph is from an article related with Masaya's interview with Reuters: 

_"Masaya Maeda said that Canon is working on a smaller version SLR to be released in the near future. In an interview with Reuters, Maeda said the idea behind the small SLR is that it could compete with Nikonâ€™s future mirrorless system and other existing EVIL systems that are inherently more compact than most current mid-level DSLRs."
_
For the full article go to *http://www.petapixel.com/2010/07/20/canon-imaging-head-says-future-slrs-will-be-smaller-but-not-necessarily-evil/ *


----------



## ELK (Jan 20, 2011)

BlackEagle said:


> ronderick said:
> 
> 
> > This might sound like a stupid question, but does small size = EVIL bodies?
> ...



This size question is really interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the end isn't it the sensor size which mostly determines the size of body+lens combo, and not the availability/non-availability of that mirror? I mean, for example for a 35mm sensor, a 50mm lens glass should have 50mm distance from the sensor, shouldn't it? (Apart maybe only from diffractive optics (DO) lenses, which makes Canon). Sony NEX has smalles body in all EVILs, but their lenses just have to be long enough to provide same focusing distance as, say Sony Alpha SLRs with same sized sensor.

I think, Mr. Maedas point is that no matter if you use a mirror or not, you need to provide same distance from a sensor to lens glass for a given size of sensor. And since the real size of the camera is the size of the body + lens, so there is not much difference between an SLR, which is made as compact as possible, and a mirrorless camera.


----------



## EYEONE (Jan 20, 2011)

I don't think that's the case with the Lecia M9. It has a full frame sensor and the certainly isn't as deep as a DSLR or the mirror box.

I could be wrong but I'm assuming that if you design a new lens system you can do whatever you want.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2011)

ELK said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the end isn't it the sensor size which mostly determines the size of body+lens combo, and not the availability/non-availability of that mirror? I mean, for example for a 35mm sensor, a 50mm lens glass should have 50mm distance from the sensor, shouldn't it? (Apart maybe only from diffractive optics (DO) lenses, which makes Canon). Sony NEX has smalles body in all EVILs, but their lenses just have to be long enough to provide same focusing distance as, say Sony Alpha SLRs with same sized sensor.
> 
> I think, Mr. Maedas point is that no matter if you use a mirror or not, you need to provide same distance from a sensor to lens glass for a given size of sensor. And since the real size of the camera is the size of the body + lens, so there is not much difference between an SLR, which is made as compact as possible, and a mirrorless camera.



The rear element-to-sensor distance is determined by lens design and sensor size, but that's irrelevant for this discussion. Canon designed the EF-S mount for APS-C bodies, where the rear element of the lens is closer to the sensor (-S means short back focus) than on FF bodies - meaning a smaller image circle, which is fine for the smaller sensor). That works because with the smaller sensor, the mirror can be smaller. But regardless of the lens design, the body can't be any thinner since the mount-to-sensor needs to be able to accommodate the standard EF mount (and Canon's mount-to-sensor distance is already the among the shortest, which is why Nikon lenses can be mounted on Canon bodies via a non-optical adapter, whereas the reverse is not true).

A mirrorless design could be substantially thinner than current bodies, but would require a new series of lenses (or an adapter to work with existing EF lenses, which would obviate the reduction in thickness).


----------

