# 37 Megapixel 1Ds Mark IV? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 17, 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/2011/04/37-megapixel-1ds-mark-iv-cr1/" 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/2011/04/37-megapixel-1ds-mark-iv-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>Is 37mp enough?</strong>

This is the first bit of info Iâ€™ve received about a 1Ds Mark IV in a while.</p>
<p>All that was said is the next camera would be 37 megapixels and weâ€™ll see it â€œsoonâ€.</p>
<p><strong>CRâ€™s Take

</strong>The best source Iâ€™ve had about a 1Ds replacement has said it would be over 40mp and come in late 2011 or early 2012. Nikon would also be doing a 40+ megapixel camera.</p>
<p>I have no doubt the next Canon flagship will be a revolutionary product.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## Blaze (Apr 17, 2011)

Wow. If they do make the sensor 40 MP, I hope they incorporate a 2x2 pixel binning mode for nice 10 MP files when one doesn't want enormous images eating up card and disk space so quickly.


----------



## Prof.Canon (Apr 17, 2011)

I guess around 40MP would be fine, after all that would mean the double resolution of the current flagship.
The only sorrow I have is Canon's noise handling, I would even buy the 1Ds Mark III again if they'd improve that!


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 17, 2011)

I'm more interested in the high DR thing the current sony sensors have. Noise that can be prevented by enough illumination isn't much of a iusse - to prevent loss of resolution due to camera shake you need a controlled environment anyway.

Thom Hogans comparison between the D3x and D3 comes to mind.


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 17, 2011)

Can't wait to see the DR and noise performance of this sensor. If it does well I'm really curious to see what medium format manufacturers will come up with to compete with that... 

When will big billboards be outresolved by the sensors ?


----------



## Justin (Apr 17, 2011)

Hmmm, not much detail....


----------



## x-vision (Apr 17, 2011)

> The best source Iâ€™ve had about a 1Ds replacement has said it would be over 40mp and come in late 2011 or early 2012.



Try 50mp next time. 

37-40mp is so last year 8).


----------



## Stone (Apr 17, 2011)

Blaze said:


> Wow. If they do make the sensor 40 MP, I hope they incorporate a 2x2 pixel binning mode for nice 10 MP files when one doesn't want enormous images eating up card and disk space so quickly.



The potential buyers of this body which will probably cost well above $6K will not be concerned about card or disk space. The price of those things is negligible compared to the body and the lenses it requires.  People buy these bodies because they want all the detail they can possibly get. The ability to produce smaller files is a good selling point in consumer and possibly semi-pro bodies, but not in this class of camera.


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 17, 2011)

I have a question: Why does changing the resolution of the files the camera produces can't increase ISO performance (since pixels get "bigger")? 

Is it just a way for them to avoid cameras to have a too good performance so they wouldn't sell as much pro gear or is it a physical limitation?


----------



## torger (Apr 17, 2011)

Lawliet said:


> I'm more interested in the high DR thing the current sony sensors have.



Isn't that kind of an illusion of dynamic range? If you mean the sensor in Nikon's D7000 for example. It measures 14 stops of dynamic range, but an measurement goes down to 0 dB that is when noise equals signal = totally unusable for a photograph. You can only use the bottom 7 stops or so anyway.

Looking at signal to noise ratio at 18% says more about photographic useful dynamic range than total measured dynamic range. If you take 5Dmk2 for example it has only 12 stops of dynamic range, but has less noise at 18% than the D7000 sensor, so 5Dmk2 probably has larger useful dynamic range. It is a bit unfair to compare a full-frame with a APS-C sensor though. The D7000 does have better signal-to-noise ratio than the 7D sensor, and the 7D has some quite bad patterned read noise too reducing its useful dynamic range further.


----------



## traveller (Apr 17, 2011)

LFG530 said:


> I have a question: Why does changing the resolution of the files the camera produces can't increase ISO performance (since pixels get "bigger")?



I assume you're referring to the 'big pixels vs pixel dense with binning' argument; here's an interesting article based upon dxo mark's findings (about half-way down the page are the sections that are of interest for this question): 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml

But then again, there are other problems with pixel-dense sensors: 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml


----------



## motorhead (Apr 17, 2011)

I'm all for 40mp as long as we also get an improvement in DR. I'm not referring to the the very artificial lab test definition, but usable out in the field DR. It's the one area I feel it is still behind film.

Hopefully like one or two other top end manufacturers they can work out a way to remove the AA filter, which I gather is one of the things holding better DR back. One less artificial object between the subject and the sensor as well, which can only be a good thing.


----------



## jeremymerriam (Apr 17, 2011)

motorhead said:


> I'm all for 40mp as long as we also get an improvement in DR. I'm not referring to the the very artificial lab test definition, but usable out in the field DR. It's the one area I feel it is still behind film.
> 
> Hopefully like one or two other top end manufacturers they can work out a way to remove the AA filter, which I gather is one of the things holding better DR back. One less artificial object between the subject and the sensor as well, which can only be a good thing.



+1

with a 30+ MP sensor, there is no need for AA and combating moire. I cannot see investing in an 8k camera without a sharper and much improved DR performance. once dSLRs get over that hump, they will directly be competing with digitalbacks to some degree


----------



## WarStreet (Apr 17, 2011)

motorhead said:


> I'm all for 40mp as long as we also get an improvement in DR. I'm not referring to the the very artificial lab test definition, but usable out in the field DR. It's the one area I feel it is still behind film.
> 
> Hopefully like one or two other top end manufacturers they can work out a way to remove the AA filter, which I gather is one of the things holding better DR back. One less artificial object between the subject and the sensor as well, which can only be a good thing.



I am not interested in the 1Ds but I agree that DR is a weak point for all digital cameras. A 1DsIII / 5DII are superior to film regarding noise, It seems to be just slightly better to 35mm film in resolution (If I remember well from a Keith cooper write up, not sure), but DR is inferior to film. I do expect an improvement from the new generation FF cameras. Just hope it is a visible improvement.


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 17, 2011)

LFG530 said:


> I have a question: Why does changing the resolution of the files the camera produces can't increase ISO performance (since pixels get "bigger")?



Think about it this way: phone camera, compact camera, DSLR, medium format, telescope...

The important thing that separates these things is not pixel size, it's the size of the area which captures light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telescope#Light-gathering_power

Pixel size only matters from a technological point of view, as in how well the technology scales to extremely small pixels, in a given price.


Also, the reason why photos don't look brighter if they are taken with bigger sensors is because nobody looks at photos at their original physical size, but to a normalized size, like a postcard or a computer display. Even if they were to look at the original physical size, they would not be aware that the photos have different absolute brightnesses because the background has its own brightness which compensates (the missing part), and can even be brighter than the photos (due to non-uniform illumination), which means that bigger physical photos may actually look less bright.


----------



## pedro (Apr 17, 2011)

Does that mean, an also rumoured 5Diii might be announced equipped with a 30+ MP sensor?


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 17, 2011)

pedro said:


> Does that mean, an also rumoured 5Diii might be announced equipped with a 30+ MP sensor?



In the past the 5D series cameras were announced several months or more after the 1Ds series. although I'd expect it to follow by a year, it might appear first. Canon has been very traditional and conservative in their ways, a new processor appears in the 1 series first, and trickles down to others later.

As to both a 1d and a 5D appearing at the same time, this is very unlikely.


----------



## macfly (Apr 17, 2011)

Well if Canon come up short at 37, and Nikon come out swinging with 42, with their as sharp to sharper lenses, I'll finally be moving back over. 

I rented the D7000 for a video shoot this weekend, and was blown away by it. I had a cinematographer shooting the key shots on the 5D mkll, and the freedom of movement that I was afforded by the follow focus meant that the Canon's shots will be the fillers in the edit, the Nikon just knocked its sox off it with its freedom of mobility.

Canon really do seem to be lagging, it almost feels like they're ready to throw in the towel, and let Nikon return to the podium as the pros default choice. The downgrade of the G10 in the G12 was the first warning shot, and it seems that the mistakes and missteps may continue for a while.

In answer to the question - When will big billboards be out resolved by the sensors ? - the answer is they already are. This is a shot I did for Subaru last year on the P65, showing the full fame above, and a close up detail at 100%, allowing this to be printed at over twice the size of the largest billboards in the world because the huge ones use such a low DPI count, in 80-120 dpi area.

(1000 second H2/P65 - 55mm lens on a hand held gyro hanging out of a Bell Jet Ranger - yes, it was a nice way to spend four days - thank you Subaru and Dentsu!)


----------



## cmac (Apr 18, 2011)

I would like to see a square sensor of 36 MP with 16 bit RAW - and really on sensor improved noise and DR, rather than seeing a 40+MP with 14bit RAW and just better noise reduction by the next DIGIC. I really think that Nikon is heading in the right direction when offering better noise control and better DR at lower MP.
And it might com out that the next 1D will be on pair with the next 5D and the 1Ds would be really different type of beast. I really hope so. I really hope to see square sensors soon. Yet it will really require a one handle design - that is a really different type of camera. But still - a 36MP 1:1 sensor will allow to have 24MP 3:2 which is mostly enough for any kind of work these days. And remember - Your iPad magazine is just fitting Your iPad screen - even at double the resolution it still will be less that 4MP


----------



## macfly (Apr 18, 2011)

Square sensors are a seriously bad idea, and a waste of sensor space, litterally, everything I shoot for, magazines, billboards, ads, portraits and even websites are rectangles. The only possible use for a square is CD packaging, but incase you hadn't noticed, record shops have gone, so album art has been reduced to digital postage stamps of iTunes. We need square sensors like we need the plague!


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 18, 2011)

macfly said:


> Square sensors are a seriously bad idea, and a waste of sensor space, litterally, everything I shoot for, magazines, billboards, ads, portraits and even websites are rectangles. The only possible use for a square is CD packaging, but incase you hadn't noticed, record shops have gone, so album art has been reduced to digital postage stamps of iTunes. We need square sensors like we need the plague!



Square pictures is not the point of a square sensor. The aspect ratio would stay the same. But you could get portrait and landscape switching at the touch of a button. This might require a very fancy viewfinder to also show the effect but I believe Nikon's already do something similar when you put a DX lens on a FX camera. So it could be done.

I'm sure if Canon is doing a Square sensor they have many more practical uses for it.


----------



## macfly (Apr 18, 2011)

Why? All you're doing is adding a huge amount of complexity and pixel real estate just to save you turning the camera sideways. I'd say a better formed body that works as well held either way with a high def FF chip would be far more practical, simple, reliable and pro friendly rig.


----------



## motorhead (Apr 18, 2011)

While I like the idea of a proper medium format body, I don't think that a 37/40mp square sensor will be anywhere close to MF. I guess you have all been seeing the real MF players and know what's already in play so you don't need me to spell it out.

No, 37 or 40mp will have to be a bog standard 36 x 24 mm "frame" to have any chance of lasting more than 18 months as the "top dog". Even at that level it needs to have other headlining benefits, for entirely selfish reasons I'm hoping a world beating DR forms one such. I'm also selfishly less bothered by noise as I don't use high ISO settings.

It has been previously reported that Canon is investigating the possibilty of linking up with an existing MF manufacturer. Unless they are prepared to start from scratch and develop a medium format expertise and reputation slowly, I see this as their most likely way into MF, especially now that the company will have other major drains on corporate finance for the forseeable future.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 18, 2011)

macfly said:


> Why? All you're doing is adding a huge amount of complexity and pixel real estate just to save you turning the camera sideways. I'd say a better formed body that works as well held either way with a high def FF chip would be far more practical, simple, reliable and pro friendly rig.



I don't know what Canon is going to do with the 1Ds. All I was pointing out was that square sensor doesn't mean square pictures.

However, I do think that being able to take portrait and landscape pictures without moving the camera would be more useful than you might think. Think of tripod work, so much easier. But would that alone be worth all the engineering redesign? Probably not. Which is why I also said: "I'm sure if Canon is doing a Square sensor they have many more practical uses for it."

I don't know what all the pros and cons of a square sensor would be. But I know it has been mentioned as a possibility and I do think it is physically possible.


----------



## cmac (Apr 19, 2011)

Well, there is what I said - from a Square sensor of 36 MP You can crop a nice 24 MP 3:2 image in both ways which is more than enough for almost anything (I assume that 30" x 20" fine art print is more than enough for almost anything, but if You're afraid of pixel peepers You can always print 15" x 10" which is also a fine format and at this size can stand a microscope inspection  ).
If You are such a steady hand and eye that You never do crop or align Your frame in post, than You're probably more than happy with the 3:2 ratio. Still there are even magazines that are not in 3:2 and so shooting for them in 3:2 is waste of sensor? Yet a square sensor is not only for CD covers. Some people still shoot for art and there the square is something that is always actually useful. 
The tripod factor is also valid - You don't have sometimes enough time to rotate and re-framing.
Yet there is a waste of space - but what they are really so close that I don't think it's achievable, but as You pointed there are too many aspects to consider - one of them being the camera design.
I also thing that Canon is ready to go medium size, but they are better to go by getting an already established company (design) and go with it. If they come up with custom camera - it really should be something extraordinary, to catch the pros - and while I'm sure they can easily come up with a killing camera, they will need much more time to add a bunch of lenses to it.


----------



## macfly (Apr 19, 2011)

Honestly I don't see why Canon would bother going MF, there simply isn't enough of a market to be worth going up against the PhaseOne-Mamiya 645 and the H2/3/4 systems when they already showcased a 120MP chip in a FF-ish sized sensor. 

I'll put my money on their battle strategy will be to keep improving the FF range they have to the point where it makes the MF cameras irrelevant, or then again maybe they'll drop the ball again as they did with the G12, and give it all away to Nikon.


----------

