# No 1Ds IV? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 9, 2010)

```
<strong>The hits keep on coming.</strong>

It has recently been suggested to me that there will not be a 1Ds Mark IV at all.</p>
<p>The 5D Mark III (or whatever itâ€™s called) will be aimed to take over the market for 1Ds users.</p>
<p>I know a couple of 1Ds3 users that are using 5D Mark IIâ€™s most of the time now. Both folks say if the 5D3 ups its build quality and AF, theyâ€™d never buy a 1Ds again. If itâ€™s priced at under $3000, a lot of people will probably feel the same way.</p>
<p>The same person says itâ€™s possible that a new camera at the top of the lineup aimed solely at the medium format market, but not a medium format camera, will come to fruition. The design will be a radical departure (possibly modular).</p>
<p><strong>CRâ€™s Take

</strong>Weâ€™ve heard rumblings about this in the past.</p>
<p>Canon fans say all the time that they want Canon to be â€œrevolutionary againâ€. However, when a rumor points to a big departure (which doesnâ€™t happen frequently), itâ€™s generally put down for being untrue or unrealistic.</p>
<p>I have a lot of trouble seeing a point to the 1Ds line as its currently implemented, Iâ€™d say a radical departure is a strong possibility.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## nocojoe (Nov 9, 2010)

I read a pretty interesting thread about whether or not there is a large enough market share, or enough room for profits for Canon and Nikon to even want to enter into the Medium Format niche. Right now, I don't know if there is enough money in MF cameras for Canon and Nikon to want to enter the fray. 

If there is enough monetary incentive, then I can definitely think this rumor is credible. I think it depends on what Canon's outlook is on the MF camera niche.


----------



## MadButcher (Nov 9, 2010)

Or maybe Canon buys a MF camera company.
Just like they did recently with OcÃ© (ultra high volume copiers and printers).


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 9, 2010)

MadButcher said:


> Or maybe Canon buys a MF camera company.
> Just like they did recently with OcÃ© (ultra high volume copiers and printers).



I know for a fact Canon had at least 1 MF manufacturers books open.


----------



## stark-arts (Nov 9, 2010)

*Could that mean the 3D finally comes?*

It could mean the highly talked about 3D comes to fruition - a full frame, pro af, weather sealed body but with the size of a 5D. it would cost more for sure - more likely in the 3500 range but would probably be worth it...
they could then do the "7D feature set in a 5D" update that so many people seem to clamor for and keep the same 21mp chip and do little else to the current 5D (perhaps up frame rate to 5, add more video features and the dual chips of the 7D)and call it 5DII and charge maybe even a little less like 2000 and they would OWN the current 2500 dollar full frame market (d700 and sony whatever)

It would also hopefully mean a faster cycle on 1D with the 1DV being full frame 21MP with a 12-14MP crop where it gets 7-8 fps at full res and 12 or so at the 1.3 crop....new AF and try to take back all the market share that the D3s took this past two years....


----------



## macfly (Nov 9, 2010)

Hmmm, well looks like its time for me to to buy that Nikon D3s.


----------



## Flake (Nov 9, 2010)

It would be nice to have the option of a 5D MkII type with a battery grip built in as part of the body for sale at a slightly higher price, although how easy this might be in practice is anyones guess.

What is the point of the 1Ds Mk** well part of it is in having a bigger camera than the customer! not much good if a pro turns up with a camera that the client thinks is nothing more special than the entry level models he sees wrapped around the necks of so many amateurs.

Of course it's weather sealed and has a long life shutter and the body is considerably stronger than a 5D MkII at the moment it has the top of the range autofocus (would this fit in a 5D type body?).

From the Luminous Landscape post before we are entering an area of even more diminishing returns, the Canon FF cameras share the same sensor and image processor (although the 5D has better micro lenses) so the images are never going to be so very different if this format is continued. The only real point of a new 1Ds would be if it had a markedly better sensor than the 5D MkIII, this would mean developing two FF units and would the 1Ds sales justify the R & D costs?

The current high street price of the 1Ds means that a photographer could buy 3 5D MkIIs and it's difficult to justify that kind of high price. I just hope that it doesn't mean pricing a new FF model so high that it pushes it out of the reach of ordinary mortals.


----------



## Justin (Nov 9, 2010)

Radical departure? 

Umm, hello. We had the radical departure. It's called the 5D2. That happened 2 and change years ago. What have you done for us lately Canon? Not much. 5D2 remains a slow machine. 1Ds nowhere to be found. 1D4 is not the D we're looking for. 

So what if the replacement for the 1Ds series is a 5D3? I don't give a horses arse what they call it. I don't care if it replaces something, doesn't replace something, is a bridge to nowhere, just build a better responding machine around a full frame sensor that works with the EF mount. I'll either keep my 5D2 as backup or swap it for a 7D backup. 

What Canon should do but won't (note my marketing nomenclature proposal ditches the "D" for digital shtick since we obviously know these are all digital camera, and replaces it with the lens mount type built exclusively for it).

medium
1 M = medium format sensor, 4 fps, beyond insane DR, modular, new M mount, yada yada expensive

dslr
3 EF = 30+ full frame sensor, 7 fps (boost to 10 with some grip thing), wicked AF, high iso, low noise, insane DR
5 EF = 30+ full frame sensor, 5 fps, medium sick AF, high iso, low noise, insane DR
7 S = 21 mpx APS-C sensor, 8 fps, wicked AF, improved DR
xxS = whatever profitable rebel line they want to keep milking

mirrorless aps-c
9ml = ??, new ml mount (adapter for old aps-c legacy lenses)
11ml = ??, new ml mount (adapter for old aps-c legacy lenses)


----------



## Rocky (Nov 9, 2010)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>The same person says itâ€™s possible that a new camera at the top of the lineup aimed solely at the medium format market, but not a medium format camera, will come to fruition. The design will be a radical departure (possibly modular).</p>
> <p>CRâ€™s Take
> 
> Weâ€™ve heard rumblings about this in the past.</p>



Is there any chance that Canon is thinking about a square sensor that is 31.5mm on each side? This format will use ALL the existing EF lens and take the bulk out of the medium format. Just like the Rollieflex 127 in the OLD film days.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 9, 2010)

*Re: Could that mean the 3D finally comes?*



dilbert said:


> 2) I don't think that the 7D needs to become full frame, it's fine where/how it is as a class leader in the APS-C market. The innovation that will matter there will be whether or not to do a Pelical mirror in the next rev.



Pelical mirror is a interesting idea. However, I think canon must have found out something that they do not like about Pelical. canon made the Pelical SLR in the 60's then give it up. As far as I know Canon held the pattern right on Pelical mirror in the SLR, and it has expired (just like the Leica M mount pattern). Canon tried to bring it back again in the 90's and give it up again. Does anyone know the reason behind it, besides the dimmer view finder. I am very curious to know. Now Sony is trying to use it now .


----------



## mws (Nov 9, 2010)

*Re: Could that mean the 3D finally comes?*



Rocky said:


> Pelical mirror is a interesting idea. However, I think canon must have found out something that they do not like about Pelical. canon made the Pelical SLR in the 60's then give it up. As far as I know Canon held the pattern right on Pelical mirror in the SLR, and it has expired (just like the Leica M mount pattern). Canon tried to bring it back again in the 90's and give it up again. Does anyone know the reason behind it, besides the dimmer view finder. I am very curious to know. Now Sony is trying to use it now .



Pelical mirrors allow you to run the AF system during exposure (good for video). But it eats up about 1/3 stop of light, negligible to most users, but if you do a lot of low light stuff you may want every bit you can get. 

Here is a interesting article about it: http://asia.cnet.com/crave/2010/11/04/a-dark-side-to-sony-pellicle-mirror-camera-design/


----------



## seanmcr6 (Nov 9, 2010)

"Both folks say if the 5D3 ups its build quality and AF, theyâ€™d never buy a 1Ds again. If itâ€™s priced at under $3000, a lot of people will probably feel the same way."

I LOL'ed soooo hard when I read this.

This isn't anything new....I've heard this lots of times....

"If Canon would only make the 20D with better AF and full weather sealing....I wouldn't buy a 1D series...."

"If Canon would only make the 5D with the same AF as the 1DmkII....and better sealed....and under $2000...they would have a **real** winner on their hands...the last camera I would ever need to buy...but this current camera is too expensive for what you get" (btw...how many 5D's did Canon sell?...exactly)

Do you guys think Canon is stupid? Do you think Canon likes making LESS money?

Why would ANY company think it's a good idea to improve a $2400 camera to replace a $8000 one? really? I mean....REALLY?

No chance in hell.

Things are shifting...times are changing. No doubt. But Canon is just like every single other company out there. They create things to make MONEY. Doesn't matter what innovations the come up with, they will always have a tiered approach to selling their cameras and the "PRO" features will be reserved for the pro priced products. They only make it to lesser products when there are enough NEW pro features to continue the class separation.

In case any of you have noticed...Canon (and Nikon) aren't exactly struggling in the sales department. They're not short on cash. They way they do business is working for them. They are not going to change it.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 9, 2010)

Flake said:


> What is the point of the 1Ds Mk** well part of it is in having a bigger camera than the customer! not much good if a pro turns up with a camera that the client thinks is nothing more special than the entry level models he sees wrapped around the necks of so many amateur



I am thinking the opposite. User should have a choice whether he want a big camera to impress his customer or use his own reputation and final result to impress the customer. Vertical grip should be an add on not a built in. 
"size do not count, It is the performance that counts". If want to impress the customer, you can walk in with a M9 or a Hasselblad.


----------



## unexposure (Nov 9, 2010)

Rocky said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > What is the point of the 1Ds Mk** well part of it is in having a bigger camera than the customer! not much good if a pro turns up with a camera that the client thinks is nothing more special than the entry level models he sees wrapped around the necks of so many amateur
> ...


even if it's some kind of off-topic:
That's exactly the reason with what several "professionals" that own a mf-cam, but shoot with 5dII, justify their investion - it's there to impress the customer.


----------



## Macadameane (Nov 9, 2010)

seanmcr6 said:


> In case any of you have noticed...Canon (and Nikon) aren't exactly struggling in the sales department. They're not short on cash. They way they do business is working for them. They are not going to change it.



You're post is right, but it doesn't mean changes won't occur. The 5DII is a slightly more unique case. Because of video, it generated more sales. Canon was not expecting such a hype and adoption for its video capabilities and it may decide to play on that (or expect more sales).

As far as the 1Ds, I don't necessarily think it will be phased out, but there is some logic. 1Ds is way out of a non-professional's price range, but if they can convince a consumer to sell out on a lesser camera and sale 4+ times as many, it could make more money than keeping a product line.

I'm not saying that will mean super high quality (see walmart).


----------



## justicend (Nov 9, 2010)

Since Pentax launched the its first Medium Format Digital Camera. The 645D contains a large 44x33mm sensor containing about 40 megapixels. It can shoot up to 1.3 frames per second in continuous shooting mode. And the main thing is that it's about 10k$. May be Canon is thinking about this and try to enter this range of medium format digital Camera market.


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 9, 2010)

Rocky said:


> Is there any chance that Canon is thinking about a square sensor that is 31.5mm on each side? This format will use ALL the existing EF lens and take the bulk out of the medium format. Just like the Rollieflex 127 in the OLD film days.



This topic has been covered before, and the conclusion was that it doesn't work for an EF dSLR because there is insufficient room for a mirror (to cover that field) between the lens and the detector. Canon would have to go EVIL to make an EF camera with a square super-FF detector. Then there is the issues with possible internal baffles on lenses (and the minor issue with tulip-shaped hoods).


----------



## unexposure (Nov 9, 2010)

justicend said:


> Since Pentax launched the its first Medium Format Digital Camera. The 645D contains a large 44x33mm sensor containing about 40 megapixels. It can shoot up to 13 frames per second in continuous shooting mode. And the main thing is that it's about 10k$. May be Canon is thinking about this and try to enter this range of medium format digital Camera market.


I lol'ed a lot. :-D

It's rather 1,3 than 13 fps for pentax 645d. That said, I don't think it really is that much of a competitor for either canon nor sony or even nikon ff-dslr flagships. 
Reasons? Here we go:
- As already mentioned: Low fps
- Compareable low High-Iso-Settings 
- Even larger and heavier than the ff flagships
- Pretty small selection of Lenses to work with
- Only few 11 AF-Sensors
- Only 98% Viewfinder
- Only a slightly step foreward in Colordepth and DR

These are two totally different types of camera. Pentax 645d is more like a Specced-Up-Version of 5d than being compareable to 1ds series - and even 5d performs superior to p645d in some aspects. you just can't really compare mf (if done well) and ff (if done well).


----------



## unfocused (Nov 9, 2010)

This is all very entertaining and fun to talk about. But it is CR1 and with good reason.



> ...if the 5D3 ups its build quality and AF, theyâ€™d never buy a 1Ds again. If itâ€™s priced at under $3000, a lot of people will probably feel the same way.



Well...yes. Of course. If you can buy a $6,000 camera for under $3,000 a lot of people would buy it. But, the relevant question is, can you build a $6,000 camera for under $3,000? 

There is a market for a camera that is built like a tank and that can stand up to extreme conditions. I don't see Canon just giving that market away to Nikon. I also can't imagine that Canon would drop its full frame flagship and leave the crop sensor ID Mark IV as their most expensive body. 



> ...aimed solely at the medium format market, but not a medium format camera



With the improvements in resolution and ongoing march to higher megapixels, this part does sound plausible. 

I've wondered before it it wouldn't make sense to split the flagship models into "studio" and "photojournalist" tracks. Virtually indestructible one-piece body for those who work under extreme conditions and a high megapixel body, decently weather-sealed but not bomb-proof for studio and commercial shooters. 

My own personal "CR1" rumor is that the IDs and ID will be merged into a single flagship body that allows the user to select resolution and crop. Select full frame with fewer megapixels when you need it and select a 1.3x or 1.6x crop with more megapixels when you need the reach. If I'm right, I can claim to be a genius. If I'm wrong, well, it was only CR1 anyway.


----------



## seanmcr6 (Nov 9, 2010)

Macadameane said:


> seanmcr6 said:
> 
> 
> > In case any of you have noticed...Canon (and Nikon) aren't exactly struggling in the sales department. They're not short on cash. They way they do business is working for them. They are not going to change it.
> ...



True...but look at the original 5D....it was a segment filler...and it did it's job precisely and sold like gangbusters....for years. It also bridged the gap for those looking for full frame in lower price. The original jump from the XXd to the 1D was huge...having that segment filler closes that gap and gets more photogs to jump up. I know several mid ranged pros that bought the 5D for FF...and the experience with that FF sensor led them to finally buy the 1Ds. Cha-ching for Canon.

It's all about getting the customer to keep buying...repeatedly. That's the tiered approach.

Currently the 5DmkII is top dog. Same sensor as the 1Ds (basically) but with much more features (video). This is a problem and I'm sure it's dried up some of the interest in the 1Ds.

So no, they will not improve the 5DmkIII so much it actually replaces the 1Ds....rather, they will have a new 1D Pro body...at $8000...that finally includes all the video specific tools that users want in the next 5DmkIII...and the 5DmkIII will be incremental to the mkII.

So you'll have XXD bodies with rudimentary video functions/features.....the 7D/5D series for the serious hobbyist....and the 1D series for the pros.

Ahhhh, all is right with the world and Canon has their tiered models back in order. Let the cash-flow roll.

mark my words


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 9, 2010)

I think that Canon will do something similar to the Nikon D700 thing. We are not seeing a D700s, because Nikon realized they made a mistake and hurt their D3 sales to some extent. 

Canon will not put their top of the line Full frame sensor on future models, they will maintain a differentation between high end and mid level. I expect a incremental improvement in a 5D MK III, lots of little things.


----------



## unexposure (Nov 9, 2010)

scalesusa said:


> Canon will not put their top of the line Full frame sensor on future models, they will maintain a differentation between high end and mid level. I expect a incremental improvement in a 5D MK III, lots of little things.


irony-mode on:
Maybe, 5d mkIII will receive a plastic body, eat sd-cards, have a articulating-screen and some crazy toy-camera effects such as 3 more megapixels and some more fps in videomode but loosing features like lager lcd-display on top, fps in photo-burst-mode and mfa (does 5d mkII actually have mfa?). 
irony-mode off:
your argumentation sounds plausible to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2010)

Rocky said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > What is the point of the 1Ds Mk** well part of it is in having a bigger camera than the customer!
> ...



Sorry, but wrong and wrong. If you want to impress the customer, show the customer *your portfolio*!

Today's customer would be pretty unimpressed by this guy's camera:


----------



## unexposure (Nov 9, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but wrong and wrong. If you want to impress the customer, show the customer *your portfolio*!
> 
> Today's customer would be pretty unimpressed by this guy's camera:


I guess, it depends on the kind of customers you speak of:
- Industry/Business-Type of Customers usually don't give a shit on what kind of gear you're using. They mostly look at your portfolio.
- Agency-Type of Customers really love the latest type of trendy-hyped dslr - even if it's crap for the job.
- Private-Customers, who actually visit you in your studio, are very impressed by "strange" cameras. A good friend of mine does largeformat for six years now - and the more casual digital slrs are, the more customers he gains. Pretty weird I guess, but to me it seems like "oldskool" has a revival in this special case of photography he does. The price for a LF-Print he sells begins at about 110$ for a single print, done in "casual" enviroment. Wedding-Portraits (no doku-stuff) beginns at about 2064$. 
So I guess, for this kind of clients, impressive gear might indeed result in impressive income.


----------



## peejay (Nov 9, 2010)

It's not possible. It's inevitable.

For Canon to stay in the game, when cameras like the Hasselblad H4D-31 are being introduced at the same price, it's time to release what they've been designing probably for the best part of a decade.

The revolution is nigh.


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 10, 2010)

seanmcr6 said:


> "AF as the 1DmkII....and better sealed....and under $2000...they would have a **real** winner on their hands...the last camera I would ever need to buy...but this current camera is too expensive for what you get" (btw...how many 5D's did Canon sell?...exactly)
> 
> 
> 
> In case any of you have noticed...Canon (and Nikon) aren't exactly struggling in the sales department. They're not short on cash. They way they do business is working for them. They are not going to change it.




In the fiscal year 2010 that ended March 31, 2010, Nikon lost 12,219 million Yen. Since then(April thru September 30, 2010), they have has better luck, making 10,639 million yen. They are hardly rolling in the cash, and have been pulling every trick they can think of to keep profitable. They are not going bankrupt, but are operating on a thin profit compared to FY 2008 and earlier. 

Canon, on the other hand, was able to pull thru the sales slump in fairly good condition and since, have been doing very well indeed. However, they have also cut operating expenses drastically in order to stay in a good financial position.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 10, 2010)

most of this is meaningless to me. My 5DII is pretty good. Improvements I would like :

Get rid of high ISO banding
Put in a great AF system
Slight improvement on build quality
AF in movie mode would be nice
Built-in Rack focus for movie mode would be great
Pixel-binning if it would help with high ISO
Forget the pixel race, file sizes are big enough already.
6 FPS
Built-in radio wireless flash
Keep it under US$3000

That would be enough to get me to upgrade, and keep me from looking at Nikon specs


----------



## Etienne (Nov 10, 2010)

I forgot something:

Give me an articulating LCD screen on the 5DIII. 

It's not only good for movies. I'm tired of lying on the ground, or kneeling in the mud to take a low angle shot. It can also flip over in storage so you don't get nose smudges on it. There are no negatives to the articulating screen. I love it on the old G3, and the new G12. My G3 has been given the kids-boot-camp treatment, and after 6 years the lcd is as good as new. The G12 screen appears even tougher.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Flake said:
> ...



It seems that I have been misquoted. At the beginning of the tread I actually suggested to use "FINAL RESULTs"(equals to portfolio) to impress customer. The last statement is trying to say "If you want to impress customer, D1 may not be enough, go all the way out with Leica M9 and Hasselblad, both are a lot more impressive than D1". Something is lost in my expression. Sorry about that you do not get the "joke"


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any chance that Canon is thinking about a square sensor that is 31.5mm on each side? This format will use ALL the existing EF lens and take the bulk out of the medium format. Just like the Rollieflex 127 in the OLD film days.
> ...



A Pelical mirror set up may work, at least for shorter focal length. For super-telephoto, It will lost some view at the top.


----------



## blufox (Nov 10, 2010)

Why a killer 5dMkIII is better than a High cost 1DsMk IV?
To understand this a small math will help - 

say Canon makes 500$ profit on every 1DsMk IV body and just 200$ profit ona each 5d Mk III.

Now, number of 5d MkIII buyers = 50x(1DsMk IV buyers). 

So effectively canon makes 10000$ profit for every 500$ profit it makes on 1Ds Mk IV.
So it is logical for Canon to listen to a 5dMKIII demand.

And honestly, they make more profit via lens sales than with bodies. They should try to keep customers loyal to Canon glass and perhaps pull in few more from Nikon camp with a well balanced 5d Mk III.

Thanks,


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 10, 2010)

Rocky said:


> A Pelical mirror set up may work, at least for shorter focal length. For super-telephoto, It will lost some view at the top.


Why would a pelical mirror need to be smaller, and why would the focal length matter?


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 10, 2010)

blufox said:


> say Canon makes 500$ profit on every 1DsMk IV body and just 200$ profit ona each 5d Mk III.
> 
> Now, number of 5d MkIII buyers = 50x(1DsMk IV buyers).
> 
> ...



But what if Canon makes a $3000 profit on each sold 1DsMk IV body and only $30 on each 5d Mk III? How do you know?


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > A Pelical mirror set up may work, at least for shorter focal length. For super-telephoto, It will lost some view at the top.
> ...



It is the opposite. Since Pelical mirror does not move, it can be made bigger and be repositioned to be able to give us the additional 3.5mm area on the top and the bottom (May be??). A long lens actually need a bigger mirror due to the narrower object angle. You can try to draw it out yourself. or you can try to read some of the manual of film SLR in the 60's, they do mention the above effect. Now, DSLR never talk about this is due to the improvement of the mirror movement ( especiall, Nikon), the pivot of the mirror moves backward before swings up to allow a BIGGER mirror.


----------



## Waleed Essam (Nov 10, 2010)

Aaaah... I don't know what to believe anymore. IMO it doesnt really make sense to have a FF 1Ds IV for 8000$ anymore... you can buy both 5DII (which is nearly the same for Landscape & studio) and a 1DIV (which is better for sports) for this price, and take one of them depending on your shoot.

However it also doesnt make any sense to me that the flagship camera is 1.3x crop and not FF!!

Maybe what they can do is have the 5DII stay at 21-24 mpix and have the 1DsIV 32+ mpix so that they can differentiate...

Or maybe have the 1DsIV have exactly same specs of 1DIV (including FPS) but with a FF high mpix sensor using new processors...

I really don't know what to think... only time will tell.


----------



## blufox (Nov 10, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> blufox said:
> 
> 
> > say Canon makes 500$ profit on every 1DsMk IV body and just 200$ profit ona each 5d Mk III.
> ...



Correct I would not know but then this means. 
If Canon can get same 1D features(or a lil less) into a 5d and make 150$ as profit instead of 30$, you bet Canon will get more money. 

See this is a simple rule.

More demand = more profit. 
Also, lesser profit per unit with gazillion sales is better than more profit per unit with paltry sales.

No rocket science you see .


----------



## jouster (Nov 10, 2010)

seanmcr6 said:


> Why would ANY company think it's a good idea to improve a $2400 camera to replace a $8000 one? really? I mean....REALLY?



Maybe because four of the $2400 models earns more than one of the $8000? The 1 series (and its Nikon counterpart) is about having a presence at the high end, and about developing technology for trickle down to other products. It isn't and never has been about profit.






Btw, it's "pellicle".


----------



## spam (Nov 10, 2010)

jouster said:


> seanmcr6 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would ANY company think it's a good idea to improve a $2400 camera to replace a $8000 one? really? I mean....REALLY?
> ...



Of course it's about profit, everything is. The pro segment indirectly sell a lot of cheaper models too, and the 1D-series users are professionals who buy expensive L-series lenses.

And Canon make a profit even if you just look at the 1D bodies. How much more do you think a 1Ds costs to produce compared to a 5D? It's the same sensor, more metal in the body (which doesn't change a lot from geneteration to generation), they need two processors in stead of one, some extra chips for the buffer, better sealing and somewhat higher spec on shutter. Of course they sell fewer 1D bodies than 5D bodies so it's fewer cameras to divide the development cost on, but that's not how it works. Most of the development cost are common for many/all Canon bodies and it's basically only the body hardware that Canon would have avoided if they dropped the 1D-line.

Which I can't imagine that they'll do, but it's going to be difficul to charge quite as much for the coming 1Ds generations. So, as long as Canon want to keep their position in the market they'll also have to make a top of the line professional model, they might change the name, but that seem pretty unlikely too.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 10, 2010)

Ok, if this rumour is true and there is no 1DsIV, then what needs to be upspecced in the 5DII to fill that void?
The 5DII and 7D are weather sealed, but that could easily be brought upto the 1D level.
I think a dual card slot would be a must. 
I think that retaining the smaller form factor with the option of a battery or wireless grip is useful to many pro users (like myself).
I think that the current 7D AF is good, but the centre point on the 5DII is better in low light and with tin DOF primes. If a hybrid system or a tweeked 7D system to offer the best of both cameras would be very good.
An increase to 5-6 fps would be a hughe improvement.
An increase in high iso cleanness would be good, in line with the 1D4.
MP increase but with options to reduce RAW size according to previous models; eg a 21mp / 16mp / 12mp options ( the the awfull sraw 50% pixel clip sucks).
Retaining the ability to swap out viewfinder screens is important and missing on the 7D


----------



## Stickman (Nov 10, 2010)

While the 5Dmk2 might have a similar sensor, its lacking everything else. Sure there are guys who are studio shooters who have switched to a 5D2, but the shooters that need the features of the 1D series understand that the sensor is only a part of the picture.


There is no way that Canon is going to sell a cheaper camera and suddenly include upper end features on it just so they can lose their flagship camera.


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 10, 2010)

Rocky said:


> A long lens actually need a bigger mirror due to the narrower object angle. You can try to draw it out yourself. or you can try to read some of the manual of film SLR in the 60's, they do mention the above effect.



Hmmm.... I'm not convinced. Wouldn't you get limb darkening unless the mirror reflected the full beam? Unfortunately I don't have any camera manuals from the 60's lying around  Perhaps you can direct me to a more accessible source for information?


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > A long lens actually need a bigger mirror due to the narrower object angle. You can try to draw it out yourself. or you can try to read some of the manual of film SLR in the 60's, they do mention the above effect.
> ...


Sorry, I do not have one either. I try to search one for you in the web, no luck. This is a simple exercise to convince yourself:
Lay down a paper in landscape position, draw a 24mm line at the left end of the paper (The 24 mm line represent the height of the film or a FF sensor)
draw a perpendicular line at the middle of the 24mm line
draw a 45 degree line(23 mm long) from the top of the 24mm line, This line represnts the mirror.
draw one line to the top and one line to the bottom from the perpendicular line at 50mm from the 24mm line. this represents the "light cone" from a 50mm lens.
draw one line to the top and one line to the bottom from the perpendicular line at 200mm from the 24mm line. this represents the "light cone" from a 200mm lens.
Now look at how the two "light cones" intersect with the "mirror".
You will see that the 200mm "light cone" will hit a larger area of the mirror than the 50mm "light cone".
This proves that a longer lens needs a larger mirror. It will affect the viewing only, It will not affect the actual picture.( the mirror has swung out of the way)
You can go through the same exercise on the proposed 31.5mm square sensor also.


----------



## Catastrophile (Nov 10, 2010)

The only thing that makes sense in this rumor is that 1DsIV might go modular. Modularity would be the best solution for the 1Ds line which is facing new & old competitions from lower and higher cameras like 5D2, A900/A850, the cheapest MF that are getting increasingly cheaper...etc. Potential buyers who have any financial or psychological problems paying 8000 every 3 years if they want the latest & greatest, will feel less reluctant to pay that price --or even more-- if they know that in 3 years they won't need to buy a whole new body to be up-to-date.


----------



## digishooter (Nov 10, 2010)

Bogus rumor if you ask me. So many pros use the 1-series that IMO dropping it would be a huge mistake. Photogs that shoot thousands of frames day in and day out in all sorts of weather conditions don't care what the cost of the body is. They want the ruggedness, the battery life, the dual card slots, the better AF system, and the weathersealing. Some of these guys can recoup the cost of the body on one shoot, so the cost isn't a big deal.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm with digi; I would be massively surprised if canon decided to just drop out of an entire market sector. unless something catastrophic occurs, there is no reason for canon to suddenly concede in a critical area of the market when nothing catastrophic has happened.

there's something to be said for having a flagship camera even if it's low-margin or even potentially a loss-leader; it does have a critical impact on your marketing. which counts.


----------



## RichFisher (Nov 10, 2010)

Perhaps this is referring to an old topic -- the merging of 1D and 1Ds lines. One body, pick your resolution.

FF = 40 MP, 6 FPS
1.3 crop = 40 MP / (1.3^2) = 24 MP, 10 FPS

Then again, the rumor could be nothing more than speculation - devoid of fact.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 10, 2010)

RichFisher said:


> Perhaps this is referring to an old topic -- the merging of 1D and 1Ds lines. One body, pick your resolution.
> 
> FF = 40 MP, 6 FPS
> 1.3 crop = 40 MP / (1.3^2) = 24 MP, 10 FPS
> ...


It make perfect sense. for 1.3 crop, EF lens(for full frame) is a must(No EF-S). Most of the pros are using L lens anyway. So if user needs speed, then it will be switched to 1.3 crop(with less pixel; count). If user needs resolution, the switch to FF. Two cameras in one. Good deal.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 11, 2010)

Rocky said:


> RichFisher said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps this is referring to an old topic -- the merging of 1D and 1Ds lines. One body, pick your resolution.
> ...



Put it in a small body and I'll sure try to come up with the bucks for that.


----------



## khphoto (Nov 11, 2010)

You know I said this exact same thing 8 months ago on here and it seems today nobody is still listening to it. 

The 5D Mark III will have a 21mp sensor, the exact same sensor that's in the camera right now with like 1 F stop difference in ISO capabilities. It will have an improved AF system, improved video features and better weather sealing. Professional photographers will still jump all over it for $3,000.

There will be a 1Ds Mark IV. When it arrives is anybody's guess due to the economy not being favourable for either Nikon or Canon. 

I think the main issue is too many people thinking Canon was going to give you a 28mp sensor in a 5D Mark III. That just won't happen. A 5D Mark IV or some other camera two years down the road is more likely. The fact is that they will make peanuts if they do a massive amount of R&D only to dump it into a $3,000 body. I hate to tell you all but the 1D, 1Ds, D3, D3x series is what makes the lines like the 5D and D700 viable. 

I would think most Canon users would jump for joy to get something like.......

5D Mark II
51 point AF system
6 FPS
improved weather sealing
21mp sensor
ISO 100-12,800
60FPS 1080p


The problem is that so many people are STUCK on the notion of Canon having to deliver more and more pixels, where as it's further from the truth. They could use that same 21pixel sensor for the next 10 years and be just fine. 

Heck do you know how many people are going to have issues processing 32mp raw photos? I found the 25mp in the D3x was a big enough pain as it was.


----------



## khphoto (Nov 11, 2010)

blufox said:


> Why a killer 5dMkIII is better than a High cost 1DsMk IV?
> To understand this a small math will help -
> 
> say Canon makes 500$ profit on every 1DsMk IV body and just 200$ profit ona each 5d Mk III.
> ...



You have this a little backwards, trust me if you are looking at pure profit per body standpoint without considering R&D I'll be willing to venture a bet you are seeing over $4,000 in profit on a single 1Ds body. The reason Nikon and Canon both make these top tier pro bodies so they can keep R&D going and eventually these new fancy gadgets find their way into lower level bodies. The amount they profit on the pro level bodies is what paves the way for their entry level, intermediate and lower level pro bodies like the 5D or the D700. 

I think you'd be highly surprised just how many pros have no problem going out and spending $8,000 on a camera body knowing that it will last them for a long long time. You need to remember these are investments and not necessarily an expensive purchase. 

In my retrospect I'd honestly say they might physically profit $400 - $500 off a 5D Mark II and easily upwards of $4,000-$5,000 on a 1Ds when it's originally released. The number of 1Ds bodies they sell in the first few months after release is what helps keep the R&D going.


----------



## silkysullivan (Nov 11, 2010)

1080 60p!? You're not serious are you?


----------



## RuneL (Nov 23, 2010)

I'm new here - hello! Joined to comment on this bit of news, that to me is rather disturbing.
So, speculations and murmurs from me - I'm not a native english speaker, so pardon, if something doesn't make sense:
I'm having a hard time accepting this - it just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would Canon hand a share of their market to Nikon like that? IMO people who need the 1Ds for it's body and autofocus won't be satisfied with the 5D II or any iterations unless they greatly improved the latter - I was very disappointed with the AF when I borrowed one wanting to upgrade my 1D II - it wasn't better than that old thing.Improving both body and AF in a future 5D will increase the selling price will exclude the amateurs/enthusiasths/prosumers - whatever you call them - that are right now buying the 5D II.

Of course, weird decisions are being made the whole time - Canon launching the 7D that to me bastardizes their whole "pro" range and making it more confusing than it was already with the 5D MK II. Nikon launching the D700 competing with their own top of the line products (and losing customers to one of their own lower tier products - what gives? I base this solely on, that I know many who sold their D3's and got the D700 + "motor" to replace it. It may also be a very consciouse decision, to bridge the gap between two user-segments).

Anyway, in short, cancelling the 1Ds IV would almost certainly send many customers (that haven't alrady fled because of the III) running to Nikon and the D#X or what they'll be called. 

Ok, well, ramblings, then looking from another perspective, the 1Ds IV that may not be:
How many 1Ds' do Canon sell? What do they cost in R&D and production? The price is high, but if the sales are low, it might not be high enough to warrant the continued existence of the 1Ds. Are they simply changing their "nomenclature" and launching it in some different version? 
Are they consolidating their different models in some fashion? (7D, 5D 1D - the "#D" line has expanded greatly the last few years - are they trying to seperate the top of the line from the lower tier models or are they consolidating to make the 7D/5D seem as attractive as the 1D-line? - some consumers are stupid and may not be able to see what they are paying for and why - which is understandable in the confusion. And that may be the reason too.
Thinking about production cost, the 1Ds is essentially a 1D IV with bigger mirror and sensor. I'm not into the technical details to be 100% sure, but it seems to me that changing production from the 1D to 1Ds line shouldn't be too difficult - but it may be.

Or is it simply a cathastrophically stupid decision, or just a rumor that has no basis in reality? The 1Ds is (or was) a benchmark and I can't for the life of me imagine that dropping that particular model would serve any positive purpose neither financially, custumor or pr-wise.

Fact is we lack facts, it would be pretty easy to take a very accurate guess at what is going on, if we had sales numbers (for every model) and ROI etc. from Canon. I can't find them, if someone can, please post!


Ok, that's it. Just a longer thingy on this subject.


----------



## scalesusa (Nov 23, 2010)

RuneL said:


> I'm new here - hello! Joined to comment on this bit of news, that to me is rather disturbing.



Its not NEWS, its a Rumor, and a CR1 rumor means its unlikely to happen. Don't take rumors seriously, or you will be disappointed when they do not happen. Just read them and have fun!


----------



## RuneL (Nov 23, 2010)

scalesusa said:


> RuneL said:
> 
> 
> > I'm new here - hello! Joined to comment on this bit of news, that to me is rather disturbing.
> ...



I'm aware, which you'd see if you read my entire post


----------

