CANON 1DS Mark lll

[Shaula]

One thing that surprises me in this thread is the repeated use of the name 1dsIII, implying that only the sensor will be different.

Am I the only one to feel that the is a lot to improve on the 1ds series in terms of ergonomics,... and that the market should rather pressure Canon to release a 2ds instead of a 1dsIII?

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I doubt you are the only one.  By the same token, I rather like the 1 series bodies, and the only way I see the market pressuring Canon in this regard is if they (Canon) lose the high ground in the pro body market.  That would mean a serious drop-off in market share, which I don't see happening anytime soon.  But who knows what future designs Canon may release.  There have been those rumblings about something competely different in the offing...

What about the 1ds do you find badly in need of redesign, ergonomically speaking, should Canon R&D execs be reading these pages?

[BJL]

... Canon to release a 2ds instead of a 1dsIII?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Canon's naming convention for EOS models so far has been that the top of the line models are all "EOS-1 something", with higher numbers like EOS-3 or EOS-5D indicating lower level products.
Note that the full name is "EOS-1 Ds Mark II"

Aside: Olympus seems to be continuing its mimicry of Canon nomenclature: the successor of the E-1 is tentatively named E-1P!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

So maybe Canon should call the new one the EOS 0.5 Ds.  

[phila]

Well the just announced 1DMkIII has kept the nomenclature going. Interesting to see (apart from all the rest) it is 14bit.

[wilburdl]

Well its almost a given now that the 1DsIII moniker will come to be. Taking cues from the 1DIII--It also looks to be a number of incremental improvements that add up to something very worthwhile to upgrade to. Like I mentioned in the 1DIII thread...
This will obviously be a new standard bearer. I can imagine the pressure on Nikon to produce FF will be considerable after it's release to market.
I like the updated body. I like that they kept the vertical grip integrated. Better weathersealing. Less buttons--while seemingly more ergonomical. I'm glad the design was more evolutionary than revolutionary. It'll make the transition rather easy. There doesn't seem to be too much you could complain about now.

[BJL]

I can imagine the pressure on Nikon to produce FF will be considerable after it's release to market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How is the release of a new 1.3x crop model by Canon a reason for Nikon to go to 35mm format? It points in the opposite direction, likely ensuring that Canon's top selling pro model will continue to be in a "crop format" not much larger than DX. (From Canon production figures, the 1DMkII has outsold the 1Ds models about 2:1).

One message of the EOS-1 D Mk III is a point that Canon has made repeatedly in recent documents: in digital, formats like 35mm/1.3x (and 35mm/1.5x) have a persistent, substantial cost advantages over 35mm format, big enough to be significant even to professional usage.

The 15% linear size difference (about 0.4 of a stop) between the DX and 1D formats seems too small to get very excited about.


P. S. On the subject of progress in making larger sensors without the expensive complications of "multiple pass" needed for the 1Ds sensors: the new 1DMkIII sensor is slightly smaller that of the 1DMkII: 28.1x18.7mm vs 28.7x19.1mm, and Canon says that this is "the largest sensor that can be made in one pass using cutting edge semi-conductor manufacturing technology".
The 1DMkII sensor has been made in one pass since its release three years ago, suggesting no increase in maximum "one pass sensor fab." size in that three years.

[wilburdl]

How is the release of a new 1.3x crop model by Canon a reason for Nikon to go to 35mm format? It points in the opposite direction, likely ensuring that Canon's top selling pro model will continue to be in a "crop format" not much larger than DX. (From Canon production figures, the 1DMkII has outsold the 1Ds models about 2:1).

Obviously more 1D units are sold because the price and frame rate are what attracts the sports shooters and others to this model. And given the reduced price--this trend should continue without any surprise.
I'm referring specifically to the top of the line models in both camps. I've heard Nikon owners who would love the chance to use there lenses at the focal length they were intended. Also, noise has always been an issue with their line and given the ever increase in pixel count to stay competitive--there will come a point (maybe with their next model) where noise reduction will become too obtrusive when squeezing in extra MPs.
With the 1DsIII presumably taking the leap into the 20+MP territory, it isn't hard to believe that Nikon owners will expect the D3X to come in somewhere around that pixel count as well (maybe 16-18MP).

[jani]

P. S. On the subject of progress in making larger sensors without the expensive complications of "multiple pass" needed for the 1Ds sensors: the new 1DMkIII sensor is slightly smaller that of the 1DMkII: 28.1x18.7mm vs 28.7x19.1mm, and Canon says that this is "the largest sensor that can be made in one pass using cutting edge semi-conductor manufacturing technology".

The sensor doesn't appear to be smaller, but the active image area is.

If you look at the 1D Mk II N white paper (page 12) and compare with the 1D Mk III white paper (page 9), you'll see that the areas appear similar, but that there is a wider border on the 1D Mk III sensor.

This may imply that there's a greater number of "outside" pixels used for analysis compared to the previous generation, and might explain at least part of the claimed improvements in image noise handling.

[BJL]

The sensor doesn't appear to be smaller, but the active image area is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That seems likely: that the die size and reticle size limit of the fabrication equipment are the same, but design changes gobble a little bit more around the edge. Canon's smaller DSLR sensors have likewise shrunk similarly, from 15.1mm high to 15mm to 14.8mm, and Kodak's 4/3" sensors have lost 0.1mm of height over the years.

The main conclusion I see is that the fabrication size limits have probably not changed at all in three years. Which is "fifteen in gadget years", as someone said: long time no change.