PDA

View Full Version : 1 Series replacements?


john armstrong
October 6th, 2006, 01:50 PM
Is it to early to start speculating about the 1 Series replacements again?

Andy Biggs
October 7th, 2006, 08:14 AM
Yup. Too soon.

:-)

Asher Kelman
October 7th, 2006, 11:00 AM
Yup. Too soon.

:-)
It looks like Canon has no need to release their 22MP 7 frames/minute flagship camera because there's no camera from 35mm competitors or MF upscale alternates to worry about right now.

Canon does not need to rush.

I would imagine they are using the time to try to increase the BIT rate. Otherwise the cameras are fine. Somewhere between now and March I'd guess. Later if they want to go for higher BIT rate and a larger LCD.

Asher

leonardobarreto.com
October 7th, 2006, 12:47 PM
I don't understand the need to upgrade and the anxiety if there isn't a camera with more megapixels in the horizon.

Somewhere I read that there is a curve of megapixel "output" in the sensor as the Y and actual resolution as the X. and, in case of the Canon the plato is very near or there already.

What I think that it means is that the jump in actual resolution from 12mp to 16mp was very productive in terms of actual res., -- so the myth was born-- but that won't happen necessarily when going from 16 to 22, or even 29.

One of the problems may be, that 16mp is close to the resolution of 35mm optics, and since Canon photographers also prefer to use zooms, then the situation is even worst.

The other problem is that sensel size has to be reduced even further to acomodate more of them in the same real state, so latitud, detail in the shadows and in highlights negates gains in resolution.

This happens even in MF backs. Some photographers, after paying 15k to 20k to quench the upgrade thirst go from 22mp to 39mp just to find out that the sensels of the new back is 6.8 microns and the old 9 microns, so the IQ is not better, only larger in size.

On the other side, do we want a Canon that shoots 200MB files 8fps? so that every second we would have to deal with 1.6Gigas? You would en up with Terrabites and Terrabites of files that have enormous "pixel" resolution, but bad real IQ.

Asher Kelman
October 7th, 2006, 02:34 PM
Leonardo,

It all depends on the actual physics limits of noise and ability to get good mathematics of counting small numbers of photons by measuring the elctrical charge accumulated above the noise.

I have yet to see any report of the actual theoretical limits we are approaching. Certainly, lens resolution limits have not been reached especially given the increasing sophistication of lens correction software and advances in lens materials.

The best of Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus and other wide angle lenses need to be considered too.

Asher

leonardobarreto.com
October 7th, 2006, 04:43 PM
Asher, it may be a matter of relative quality. For example, the new batch of compact Panasonic cameras are having an "upgrade" in pixel count, even with new generation of image amplifier the result is not a better image but only one with larger file size.

There may be an increase of image resolution in the new 22-30mp Canon generation, but the return for the "effort" will be diminishing until it is not economically, or practical to continue and photographers will accept the new format for what it is. If they want more resolution they can always get if from a larger size CCD. We have to remember that MF is going to implement all the advances in signal amplification with an advantage in the physical reality of a larger real state from where to collect photons in a given time.

Probably Kodak has that 22-30mp sensor and run tests with Canon and encounter this problems.

I can't wait until we reach this limits and upgrade at a saner pace.

Edmund Ronald
October 8th, 2006, 01:58 PM
Sprinkle in some new features: Smaller, faster, anti-dust, body antishake, live focus, high-rez chimp screen ,remote EVF, Wifi, Bluetooth, post-shot lens aberration correction, higher ISO, better DR. Yes, yes, a few more MP will help the marketing department too.

Edmund

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)
October 8th, 2006, 08:39 PM
I am not sure where the practical limit is for pixel densisty (the opposing value of number of pixels versus sensor size), but I do know the physics limits for detector size.
And note with micro lenses that would have to be bigger then this for the lens to work.
And also note there is a signal to noise component at work meanning they have to be even larger.

But the physics limit is the wavelength of light or you can't get smaller then 750nm for detector size and still see all the red and 450nm ish* and still see all the blue. Some of the point and shoots are down to 2500nm in detector size, while some of the DSLRs are running in the 5-6000nm range.

Some image scientists from Kodak (Government sensor division - now ITT) I once talked to said that 8000nm was the optimum size for small pixels versus SNR, below that noise starting becoming a problem, but that they figured someday we would be able to get to somewhere around 2800nm and possibly as small as 1400nm before we would have so much noise as to completely drown out the signal. They said that below 2800 they expected noise to always show up in any picture as captured. This was told to me about 6 years ago now and still seems to be valid.

Or so I have been informed,

* I didn't feel like looking up the blue to green line.

Asher Kelman
October 8th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Sprinkle in some new features: Smaller, faster, anti-dust, body antishake, live focus, high-rez chimp screen ,remote EVF, Wifi, Bluetooth, post-shot lens aberration correction, higher ISO, better DR. Yes, yes, a few more MP will help the marketing department too.

Edmund
Edmund,

Great idea on the remote EVF! Lens aberration correction is a no brainer. Could even special series of lenses with their specifications for exact corrections.

DR is the most important!

Asher

leonardobarreto.com
October 9th, 2006, 03:29 PM
Tim

Interesting information, if we where to apply this to actual cameras, how would the 1DsMk2 be? I think that digital backs have sensels of 9x9 microns, is that 9000nm ?

Do we know the maximum size that a Canon 1DsMk3 would have to have in microns in case they want to go 22MP of 39MP? I know that the P 45 is 6.8 Microns @ 39MP. The Canon chip is half the size, so the microns would have to be halved = 3.4 Microns. That seams to be conformably over the "no way" line, but the image purity, if compared to a 9 Microns sensel size sensor array -- like a P 25 -- would make them beasts of two different species.

It would be like comparing a Panasonic 10MP against a D200 10MP. In other word, pixel count is just like cylinder count in an automobile analogy, or comparing wines by alcohol %...



I am not sure where the practical limit is for pixel densisty (the opposing value of number of pixels versus sensor size), but I do know the physics limits for detector size.
And note with micro lenses that would have to be bigger then this for the lens to work.
And also note there is a signal to noise component at work meanning they have to be even larger.

But the physics limit is the wavelength of light or you can't get smaller then 750nm for detector size and still see all the red and 450nm ish* and still see all the blue. Some of the point and shoots are down to 2500nm in detector size, while some of the DSLRs are running in the 5-6000nm range.

Some image scientists from Kodak (Government sensor division - now ITT) I once talked to said that 8000nm was the optimum size for small pixels versus SNR, below that noise starting becoming a problem, but that they figured someday we would be able to get to somewhere around 2800nm and possibly as small as 1400nm before we would have so much noise as to completely drown out the signal. They said that below 2800 they expected noise to always show up in any picture as captured. This was told to me about 6 years ago now and still seems to be valid.

Or so I have been informed,

* I didn't feel like looking up the blue to green line.

Victor Hoyt
October 9th, 2006, 05:19 PM
I'm afraid my eyes cross when I think about microns, and such. However, I can think of one good reason why I am cheering for a quick introduction of a new, higher end Canon 1 body. It will allow me to shop for a used 1dsMkII. My 1ds is getting a little beat up, though it's still plugging along. I love it dearly, but I'd like some of those new-fangled color histo-thingies, and some of that faster write speed.

Victor

Bart_van_der_Wolf
October 9th, 2006, 05:24 PM
Interesting information, if we where to apply this to actual cameras, how would the 1DsMk2 be? I think that digital backs have sensels of 9x9 microns, is that 9000nm ?

The 1DsMk2 is approx. 7.2 micron sensel pitch. The actual sensel dimensions are slightly smaller than the pitch, because there is some separation between sensel structures. Yes, millimetres/1000 = microns (micrometres officially), microns/1000 = nanometres.

Do we know the maximum size that a Canon 1DsMk3 would have to have in microns in case they want to go 22MP of 39MP?

They would approx. have a 6.2 or 4.7 micron pitch respectively, too small for my taste if dynamic range is important. That would be better served by a 9 micron sensel pitch, with a 16-bit ADC.

I know that the P 45 is 6.8 Microns @ 39MP. The Canon chip is half the size, so the microns would have to be halved = 3.4 Microns. That seams to be conformably over the "no way" line, but the image purity, if compared to a 9 Microns sensel size sensor array -- like a P 25 -- would make them beasts of two different species.

Indeed, there is a trade-off between 'on sensor' resolution with its resulting output magnification, and Dynamic Range. The latter, Dynamic Range, benefits from larger sensels. Therefore, in order to satisfy both, large sensor arrays with many large (>8 micron) sensels are needed.

You may like this information (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/index.html). It attempts to explain the issues at hand, and the fact that current solutions are often photon noise limited in the signal/noise ratio that can be achieved, and that that photon noise limited S/N ratio also benefits from large area sensels.

Bart

leonardobarreto.com
October 9th, 2006, 07:07 PM
"Because good digital cameras are photon noise limited, the larger pixels will always have higher signal-to-noise ratios unless someone finds a way around the laws of physics, which is highly unlikely.

Image detail can be blurred by diffraction. Diffraction is more of an issue with smaller pixels, so again cameras with larger pixels will perform better, giving sharper images."

That information is difficult to ignore. It may mean that people holding their breaths for a 1DsMk3 better than the Mk2 in the IQ level are waiting for the laws of physics to change.

I think that the camera can improve, and it should, but not by "upgrading" the Megapixel count, -- and splitting each sensel in two with half the size -- but by living that as is and concentrating in purifying the image, speed, etc.

John Sheehy
October 9th, 2006, 07:17 PM
You may like this information (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/index.html). It attempts to explain the issues at hand, and the fact that current solutions are often photon noise limited in the signal/noise ratio that can be achieved, and that that photon noise limited S/N ratio also benefits from large area sensels.


I don't agree with this "current (Canon) DSLRs are photon-noise-limited for dynamic range" stuff at all. Readout noise reduces practical DR by 2 to 4 stops, easily, depending on your standards of DR. Here's the interplay of noises in the Canon 5D at ISO 100:

5D noises ISO 100 (http://www.pbase.com/image/67443532 )

The whole chart shifts one stop to the left for the red channel in daylight, two stops to the left for the blue channel in incandescent light - only the highlights and brighter midtones have mainly shot noise. As you move to higher ISOs, the chances of a conservative standard of dynamic range being limited by shot noise increases, but readout noise is still the main limiter for more liberal standards.

Stan Jirman
October 9th, 2006, 08:21 PM
There are other improvements than resolution that one can hope for. Buffer depth, for one. I would love to have at least 30 frames in raw+S. It's about the only thing that I'd call limiting with the current 1Ds2 - 9 frames is not enough, even at 4fps, forget about 7fps (7fpm would be a good joke :))

Asher Kelman
October 10th, 2006, 03:05 AM
Indeed, there is a trade-off between 'on sensor' resolution with its resulting output magnification, and Dynamic Range. The latter, Dynamic Range, benefits from larger sensels. Therefore, in order to satisfy both, large sensor arrays with many large (>8 micron) sensels are needed.

You may like this information (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/index.html). It attempts to explain the issues at hand, and the fact that current solutions are often photon noise limited in the signal/noise ratio that can be achieved, and that that photon noise limited S/N ratio also benefits from large area sensels.

Bart
Bart,

A very interesting reference for sure. You found a treasure! In that article, the author states that for a sensel that can contain say 40,000 electrons (from receiving 40,000 photons), the error rate would according to Poisson distribution be the square rot of 40,000 if the well was full.

Well that is very small!

However, the same well measuring light from a shadow area might get only 100 photons and the error would be the sqare root of 100, ir 10%.

Now the % error is the square root of the number divided by that number x100.

So for 100 electrons counted, the error is 10%, obviously way to noisy!

As a result of this fact, the author gives a thumbs down to small sensors.

Well there's one way out of this. The brighter of the areas of the image can be accurately measured in the first microseconds, A smart pixel will then switch off.

The rest of the pixels will keep counting electrons until a at least say 3000 electrons have been counted. Or else 4 adjacent pixels in a shadow area will be binned to produce a single large pixel with a consequently higher signal to noise ration.

So with dynamic binning and early pixel shut off, and 16 BIT A to D convertors, I see a lot of capability of 5-6 micron pitch pixels.

Dynamic range will be expanded, IMHO, as soon as Canon delivers its new CMOS sensor with individually addressed pixels.

Just that Canon has not enough reason to give out advances when no one is breathing down their necks!

Asher

Jane Auburn
October 10th, 2006, 06:14 AM
On the other side, do we want a Canon that shoots 200MB files 8fps? so that every second we would have to deal with 1.6Gigas? You would en up with Terrabites and Terrabites of files that have enormous "pixel" resolution, but bad real IQ.

This is an excellent point. I hate even the files from 11 megapixel and 16 megapixel cameras. They're too large and slow to manipulate. They consume huge amounts of hard drive space.

And when I look back at studio shots from the old 5 megapixel D1X, I see little to no real improvement in IQ.

John Sheehy
October 10th, 2006, 07:12 AM
In that article, the author states that for a sensel that can contain say 40,000 electrons (from receiving 40,000 photons), the error rate would according to Poisson distribution be the square rot of 40,000 if the well was full.

Well that is very small!

However, the same well measuring light from a shadow area might get only 100 photons and the error would be the sqare root of 100, ir 10%.

Now the % error is the square root of the number divided by that number x100.

So for 100 electrons counted, the error is 10%, obviously way to noisy!

Not very noisy for a shadow, but noisy for a highlight. Regardless, any capture of ~100 photons is going to have far more noise from the readout process at low ISOs. Readout noise is typically about 15 to 25 electrons/photons in intensity at ISO 100, and about 3.5 at ISO 1600 with current Canons. This renders the 10 photons of shot noise at ISO 100 very small in the overall noise ((10^2+20^2)^0.5 = 64) at that signal level. For ISO 1600, then the shot noise is more significant (10^2+3.5^2)^0.5 = 10.6.

Asher Kelman
October 10th, 2006, 12:06 PM
Not very noisy for a shadow, but noisy for a highlight. Regardless, any capture of ~100 photons is going to have far more noise from the readout process at low ISOs. Readout noise is typically about 15 to 25 electrons/photons in intensity at ISO 100, and about 3.5 at ISO 1600 with current Canons. This renders the 10 photons of shot noise at ISO 100 very small in the overall noise ((10^2+20^2)^0.5 = 64) at that signal level. For ISO 1600, then the shot noise is more significant (10^2+3.5^2)^0.5 = 10.6.

Did you really mean " Readout noise is typically about 15 to 25 electrons/photons in intensity at ISO 100, and about 3.5 at ISO 1600 with current Canons." If so why?

The readout process is open to further optimization.

Asher

Bart_van_der_Wolf
October 10th, 2006, 12:10 PM
I don't agree with this "current (Canon) DSLRs are photon-noise-limited for dynamic range" stuff at all.

For general understanding, I'd like to stress the distinction between Dynamic Range (saturation signal level, divided by Read-noise), and Signal to Noise ratio. Those are different (though somewhat related) entities. So it would become "current DSLRs are photon-noise-limited for photon signals". Dynamic Range is only affected by the sensel's saturation level and Read-noise, while S/N ratio is affected by local signal level (thus photon noise) and Read-noise.

If we plot the actual recorded noise (e.g. standard deviation of a centre crop from a flat-field image) as a function of average signal level (mean Data Number for the same crop), it correllates quite nicely with the Read noise+Photon noise we can derive from a black frame+Square root of the average input signal. Again, here we are looking at Signal/Noise ratio.

Readout noise reduces practical DR by 2 to 4 stops, easily, depending on your standards of DR.

Indeed, since Read noise is constant (independent of signal level) it will have more impact on low exposure levels, and as such limit the Dynamic Range by raising the noise floor.

Here's the interplay of noises in the Canon 5D at ISO 100:

5D noises ISO 100 (http://www.pbase.com/image/67443532 )


Yes, but that doesn't conflict with what was suggested. High exposure levels are mainly photon shot-noise limited, and low exposure levels are mainly Read-noise limited. Both play a role at the same time in images that test the full dynamic range.

Bart

John Sheehy
October 10th, 2006, 12:55 PM
Did you really mean " Readout noise is typically about 15 to 25 electrons/photons in intensity at ISO 100, and about 3.5 at ISO 1600 with current Canons." If so why?

Yep; I really meant that. Readout noise is about 1.3 RAW levels (as a standard deviation) in the 1DmkII, and as high as 2.1 in the 20D at ISO 100, and there are about a dozen photons for each RAW level at ISO 100. They generally have around 4.7 for ISO 1600 (except for the Rebel, which is a bit higher) where there are about 3/4 of an electron for each RAW level.

The readout process is open to further optimization.

That's an understatement. Readout noise is abysmal at ISO 100, considering how much less the signal is amplified. The noise loses a few stops of DR, easily. High ISOs aren't just to get a brighter review image for weak exposures; they are necessary to cleanly digitize the weakest signals.

Imagine a device like a sensor that could give an accurate count of photons collected, in units of the photons themselves, as a 16-bit number capable of recording 65,535 photons. Exposure compromises would be very simple (only absolute exposure, determines by scene illumination and Tvs and Avs, would affect noise). It would have 3 to 4 stops (maybe more) practical DR than what 50,000-photon ISO 100s are giving now.

Bart_van_der_Wolf
October 10th, 2006, 01:18 PM
Did you really mean " Readout noise is typically about 15 to 25 electrons/photons in intensity at ISO 100, and about 3.5 at ISO 1600 with current Canons." If so why?

I'm in the process of doing a more detailed analysis of my 1Ds Mark II, and for that unit I record, e.g. for the Green filtered sensels, a Standard Deviation of 1.329 (in 12-bit scale) Data Numbers.

The ADC apparently uses an amplification (gain) of 1 DN per 14.154 electrons so a recorded StdDev of 1.329 equals 18.8 electrons of Read-noise at ISO 100 without any input signal.

At ISO 1600, I have to test that in more detail, it looks like the amplification is boosted in such a way that it generates 1 DN per 0.88 electrons (slightly more than unity gain), so a recorded Read-noise StdDev of 5.160 (in 12-bit scale) was caused by 4.56 electrons, and a lot of amplification.

The readout process is open to further optimization.

Actually it is already very low in Canon cameras, but I assume you were tricked a bit by the electron count which gets reduced to a standard deviation of 1.329 to 5.160 in 12-bit Data Numbers, for ISO 100 and 1600 respectively.

What's really needed is larger sensels (or deeper potential wells) for a higher saturation level to boost the Dynamic range, but that would require larger sensels and better ADCs (14 or 16-bit). It apparently isn't easy to get deeper wells, so for a fixed sensor array size like 24x36mm there are currently only trade-offs between sensel count and Dynamic Range possible.

Bart

leonardobarreto.com
October 10th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Probably the best alternative for Canon upgrade seekers is a new 1DsMk2+ and a 1DsMk3, the second with 22 or 39MP, and the first an improved 16MP model. The photographers that insist in having a "muscle" 35mm dslr could opt for the new one and upgrade --at a premium cost-- and for the purists that want a noiseless cleaner image Canon will get the one with "only" 16MP.

Joel Slack
January 6th, 2007, 01:37 AM
Thank heavens Leonardo came in and saved me from having to bring this up mid-photon/electron/particle physics discussion!

But there's a "new" rumor on Northlight (is it okay to mention other websites?) about an upgrage of the Mk2N, which would be the 1DMk3, according to the, ah, information culled and babel-fished from a Spanish website. If this were to turn out to be true (or in the ball-park of true), I would happily eschew my plans for a 1Ds (in whatever iteration) in favor of this:

17mp, 1.25x crop, 8.5 fps, RAW buffer fill to 25 images, anti-dust technology a la 400D (but improved), WiFi, better signal-to-noise ratio, and a lighter/higher cap. battery (slightly reducing weight) are the main points.

Yup, another internet rumor. This one, however, would just about nail down my "dream" 35mm SLR. I'd be able to retain the blistering speed of the Mk2N (can be VERY useful in photographing wildlife), would have my mind eased of the wide-angle problems of the FF Canons (for landscapes), and I'd have more mp's for more enlargability. With the (alleged) improved noise levels, maybe even more useful mp's. Dare to dream.

I have to believe that Canon has been all over the limiting factors of the more/smaller pixel situation, otherwise, why even bother with a 20 or 22 (or more) mp sensor?? Nobody wants the performance of their big expensive wonderful pro camera to drop, least of all Canon who would have to try and pitch that $8k flop to professionals. From what I've seen here (some amazing grasp of the minutia of the physical properties of sensors and processors!), there IS room for improvement. If mp's cannot be increased without losing DR or noise-limiting, why bother? They wouldn't, in my opinion. It would have to be improved proportionally, or they'd have an unsalable dog on their hands.

Anyway, this is one rumor that I hope could be true. It also shows up on a Korean website in a 12mp version, with everything else being approximately the same as above. This would also be a satisfactory version. I apologize if internet rumors are held in the deepest contempt, as on some other photog forums, but this was a rumor that actually got me excited.

Joel Slack
January 6th, 2007, 02:25 AM
Oh, and they also mention a 10-24 f/2.8 L, a BLACK 400 f/4 L IS, as well as a black 100-400 F/4 L IS (III), a 200 f/2.8 L IS, and a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS. And a weather-proofed 5D with 16 mp's.

Nill Toulme
January 6th, 2007, 09:44 AM
Whoa, a 100-400 f/4L IS would be very cool indeed.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Ivan Garcia
January 6th, 2007, 09:58 AM
And a weather-proofed 16 mp's 5D with at least 5fps would be awesome too.

Nill Toulme
January 6th, 2007, 10:37 AM
Wow, you're right. What a nice wildlife kit those two would make!

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Harvey Moore
January 6th, 2007, 10:59 AM
I wonder if any IQ improvement would be had if:

5D and 1DSmkII had no AA filter ala M8

and

They ship with moire' removal plugin for various raw converters or include it in DPP.

Asher Kelman
January 6th, 2007, 12:30 PM
I wonder if any IQ improvement would be had if:

5D and 1DSmkII had no AA filter ala M8

and

They ship with moire' removal plugin for various raw converters or include it in DPP.

Harvey,

You are quite right on the removal of the Moire filter. That would be a remarkable choice to give us.

Asher

Joel Slack
January 6th, 2007, 01:10 PM
At least according to this Korean website (salt grains, please), the upgraded 5D would also hit 5 fps, while the new 1Ds (w/22mp's and a 3" LCD--to be announced in April) would be at THREE. ??? I guess this is where we talk about the limitations of the technology again...:)

Who's to say.

Jack Joseph Jr
January 6th, 2007, 02:50 PM
What an interesting thread! Counting electrons??? Hell, I'm just trying to get every shot in focus!

I can image the folks at Canon reading this thread. To some of the speculations they're saying, "Damn, how'd they figure that one out!". To others they reply, "Oh sure! . . . not."

I has made for some interesting reading.

Harvey Moore
January 6th, 2007, 02:59 PM
Asher,

I like your use of "moire filter" instead of AA. More descriptive.

Stan Jirman
January 6th, 2007, 10:14 PM
Oh, and they also mention a 10-24 f/2.8 L, a BLACK 400 f/4 L IS, as well as a black 100-400 F/4 L IS (III), a 200 f/2.8 L IS, and a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS. And a weather-proofed 5D with 16 mp's.
Have you seen the Sigma 12-24 (being the only FF ultrawide zoom)? Now imagine that in f/2.8...

I am very afraid of things that may come this year, and so is my wife :)

Joel Slack
January 7th, 2007, 07:32 PM
Some are saying that Canon will be announcing something next week. I truly feel your pain, Stan. (Well. My wife feels your wife's pain, to be more accurate)

Joel Slack
January 8th, 2007, 11:35 PM
While I'm not attempting to turn this thread into little more than the latest internet rumor clearinghouse, I've seen a recent post on another camera forum made by what looks like a reputable photographer, who I believe to be an Englishman living/working in Bangkok. It caught my eye for 3 reasons. First, it sounds remarkably similiar to the general description of the camera I mentioned here a couple of posts back. Second, I checked the websites listed by the forum poster (as personal pages), and he seems legit (which, of itself, means nothing). And third, it was not posted as an "I heard this from a guy at the local camera shop" remark, but made with the complete assurance of certainty. (Fourth, I really really want it to be accurate).

He says to watch for the announcement as though it may happen in the next couple of days, though that might be inferring more than he intended. The title of his post was "1DsTC to deliver soon," TC meaning "True Color," employing a true-color processor (?). Here are the specifics:

- 16.2 MP (Equiv 32MP bayer sensor)
- 8fps (buffer 32 RAW, unlimited large Jpg)
- ISO50-6400 (custom function ISO18 and ISO12800)
- Dust prevention system (upgraded 400D model)
- full frame
- 8.2MP mode for sports shooters (uses full sensor, but @ 8.2MP)
- Mirror lockup programmable button(s)
- 11 shot bracketing (available 11,7,5 & 3)
- Personal and custom functions all available in camera
- EXIF data from lenses including calulated focus distance
- Focus spots can be seen in previews
- Preview screen autorotates depending on camera orientation

So, in effect, it would be a marriage of the current Ds and D performance and capability. The other little bit of information that lends credence to the report (in my mind) is the completely novel camera name. 1DsTC? Everyone else is saying "1DsMkIII" or some such thing. These are insignificant elements, taken individually, but it seems, to me, a bit more credible than the average Chinese/Korean/Philippino (whatever) website from which these rumors tend to originate. Either someone has completely buffaloed this guy, or he is playing an elaborate trick, or it's the real thing. I also find the specificity of the details (bracketing, e.g.) to be more substantive than the average rumor.

I hope I'm not lowering the bar for this site by posting such things. You have to admit, it's pretty compelling to think about. That ISO range in itself is knocking my virtual socks off...

Asher Kelman
January 9th, 2007, 12:06 AM
Well Joel,

As of June 2006, I had info on a 1Ds model with 22MP another with 24MP. It seems that Canon tries out a number of iterations before deciding.

So it is perfectly feasable that the new camera would be using the technology they have had for CMOS 3 layer RGB sensors and be keeping them large, they could do pretty well. To go to these very high ISOs it makes sense to keep the senssels as large as possible.

I wonder why they don't also have a pixel shift mode to really do wonders for architectural photography and fine art copying for museums etc.

What ever they do, I'm also hoping for a new super wide angle lens!

Asher

Joel Slack
January 9th, 2007, 08:51 PM
The same fellow has been making follow-up posts, some of which have involved the process employed by the new sensor (and it IS a new sensor). I have to say, he sounds utterly credible. Reference has been made to a Canon sensor patent received in 2002. He is incredibly certain. So he's either enjoying the game, nuts, or telling the truth.

Asher Kelman
January 9th, 2007, 09:36 PM
Well Joel,

Although I personally have not held an unreleased Canon camera, I am sure there are several doing the rounds. However, that doesn't mean that any of these models will actually make it to market.

Also, should a new camera with RGB capability in each pixel well materialize on store shelves, that, in itself, does not exclude the possibility of Canon also bringing out the 21-24MP 5 frame per second 1DsIII.

Asher

Harvey Moore
January 9th, 2007, 09:46 PM
The general mood seems to indicate something big from Canon soon.

Knowing myself, I better lash myself to a mast out of reach of plastic and bank accounts, like Jason did to resist the lure of the Sirens.

Joel Slack
January 9th, 2007, 10:27 PM
Well Joel,

Although I personally have not held an unreleased Canon camera, I am sure there are several doing the rounds. However, that doesn't mean that any of these models will actually make it to market.

Also, should a new camera with RGB capability in each pixel well materialize on store shelves, that, in itself, does not exclude the possibility of Canon also bringing out the 21-24MP 5 frame per second 1DsIII.

Asher

From what I have heard, this is not the Big Dog DsII upgrade everyone is expecting; that is rumored to come in the fall, perhaps being announced in the Spring. I agree, there have probably been many demos that will never see the light of day for this reason or that.

William T Lloyd
January 12th, 2007, 06:33 PM
I've been watching that thread on DPreview, too. Rob is a Kiwi, not English or Aussie. He has been around a long time, a Canon user and I believe he got into using Phase MF backs a while ago as well. Seems a great guy, from his posts, but I don't recall him being a fount of inside info in the past; his post suprised me - but there's no telling who he visited on a recent N. American trip, or who he sat next to on the plane....

I think he's acquainted with "Paul Pope" who has leaked some valid info in past years - some of you may recognise that name...

Edit: Rob's a member here, too...http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/search.php?searchid=42836

Joel Slack
January 12th, 2007, 07:20 PM
Thanks William. I did find out subsequently that he was from Down Under. It was the out-of-the-blue nature of his post that got me wondering, since he seems very grounded and not prone to wild speculation in any of this other posts. He has either had contact with someone testing a mock-up (which may or may not make it into circulation), or got some inside information somehow, or was totally hoodwinked by someone. (or is playing an elaborate game)

Joel Slack
January 15th, 2007, 11:36 PM
Turns out this rumor was a complete hoax, a joke by the originator on everyone who puts any stock in such rumors. C'est la vie!

Joel Slack
February 18th, 2007, 04:34 AM
Well, the excitement on other boards is building to a frenzy. A certain segment seems to think something really phenomenal is coming, others see only slight bumps to current models (which ones and when, nobody has a clue), and others are so angry about the absolute lack of info (really! they're angry!) that they are singing the praises of Nikon. Very strange atmosphere out there.

I tend to think that the utter and complete bubble of silence bodes well for we Canon users. :)

dhphoto
February 18th, 2007, 10:34 AM
I tend to think that the utter and complete bubble of silence bodes well for we Canon users. :)

I have no inside knowledge whatsoever, but I would be VERY surprised if a new semi-pro or pro Canon wasn't announced shortly, very surprised indeed

David

Nicolas Claris
February 18th, 2007, 11:14 AM
héhé, you're teasing us!
why would you beleive so?

Will Thompson
February 18th, 2007, 01:39 PM
Now if I could just remember the link to this site I found a while ago.

http://idisk.mac.com/med007/Public/Wills/Canon/bg.jpg

Joel Slack
February 18th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Will,

I've seen nearly every PhotoShopped image known to man, and I've never seen this picture. How old is it? Where did you see it? Might cause quite a stir over on some other board...mind if I borrow it?

Asher Kelman
February 18th, 2007, 04:50 PM
Someone is going to get his fingers whacked! This should not have been disclosed before the deadline!

Asher

Ferenc Harmat
February 18th, 2007, 08:31 PM
17mp, 1.25x crop, 8.5 fps, RAW buffer fill to 25 images, anti-dust technology a la 400D (but improved), WiFi, better signal-to-noise ratio, and a lighter/higher cap. battery (slightly reducing weight) are the main points.

Anyone waiting for this specs. will be basically waiting for ever.

The above means SQRT(28.7x19.1/17) = 5.7 microns / pixel, and we already know what happens if we opt going this way (Nikon D2X).

Even today, the differences between 6.4 and 8.2 microns are fairly visible. You just need to push the cams. a bit, and you will see it.

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)
February 19th, 2007, 12:51 PM
That 32MP monster would really mess me up. because I know Canon will have the quality if they actually did that, but I was really looking for higher FPS then what I have now with at least the same MP.

I have a little trouble believing in 32MP unless they make the sensor bigger though. At 32MP I would suspect it would be limited to ISO 400 before the noise exceeds my threshold of routine tolerance. With my 1DsMkII, ISO1600 is my threshold (we will ignore that I avoid shooting above ISO100 if it can be helped ). But if they could get 32MP with at least the quality of the 1DsMkII across the range then that might override my desire for higher FPS.

In either case, I suspect I will know the truth within a few weeks and will make my decision based on the facts. I know what I need in any camera I buy, but had certain expectations that looked likely to meet and that 32MP beast would fairly significantly exceed one, while missing another. I am in the market for a 1-series upgrade to my 1DsMkII, but only if it does what I need at a price I have money set aside for.

And I just realised that the 4:3 format could be refering to a X2 camera (two 35mm sensors together on the long side ), missed that on the first pass.

Erik DeBill
February 19th, 2007, 01:23 PM
And I just realised that the 4:3 format could be refering to a X2 camera (two 35mm sensors together on the long side ), missed that on the first pass.

Not unless they want to come out with a new line of lenses for it. You can't cover 36x48 with existing 35mm lenses.

Asher Kelman
February 19th, 2007, 01:41 PM
My own feeling is that we will see a 21 or 24 MP 1 series body.
I'd hope with bracket focus!

Asher

Joel Slack
February 19th, 2007, 02:47 PM
That's my feeling, too, Asher. (and most other speculations I've seen) Actually, 24 might even be pushing it a little.

Ferenc Harmat
February 19th, 2007, 06:50 PM
That 32MP monster would really mess me up. because I know Canon will have the quality if they actually did that...

I have a little trouble believing in 32MP unless they make the sensor bigger though. At 32MP I would suspect it would be limited to ISO 400 before the noise exceeds my threshold of routine tolerance.

At such photosite-sizes, yes, ISO400 is where the party would most likely end, assuming 36x24mm form-factor. Now, if we stick to 7.2micron-pitch (same as 1Ds MarkII), that would require something like 51mm*34mm to stay at 3:2 aspect ratio, or something like 40mmx40mm if we want to be innovative. However, if we stick to 8.2micron, things will get really big, overall.

I know what I need in any camera I buy, but had certain expectations that looked likely to meet and that 32MP beast would fairly significantly exceed one, while missing another.

In general terms, I am a firm believer of quality over quantity, and a special, performance&efficiency oriented system, promoted like a 10Mpixels x 10microns x 10 frames/sec with 14 or 16 bit Analog-to-Digital depth, and manufactured under today's standards and materials, will be a photographic dream (still assume Quantum Efficiency continues to stay around 25%-28%).

The actual dynamic range, signal-to-noise ratio, and sharpness/acuity that you will get from such 10x10x10 sensor, will probably surpass today's 12Mpixels sensors from Canon, and will easily get into 14-16 Mpixels' territory with upsampling solutions such as SizeFixer XL/SLR + Super-Resolution iterative, self-optimizing algorithms. Yet, the files will be small (with more advanced lossless compression for .CR2 files), easy to "stretch", and this sensor will belong to a realm of performance that, in general terms, will be almost innaccessible to any other snesor out-there, putting spatial resolution aside. This will be a true jewel, which will exude-and-ooze engineering excellence, all over the place.

As for 1.255x form-factor, it is not clear what Canon will do. But the best that could happen for the 1D MarkII-N will be basically re-cycling the 1Ds MarkII's 16.7 Mpixels sensor, staying at 7.2 microns (a reasonable and proven compromise), may be with some materials and manufacturing improvements, yielding in slightly better sensitivity.

This, combined with a redesigned arquitecture for 8.5 (or higher) speeds, optimized placement of on-board electronics for better thermal dissipation (long exposures), and an on-the-fly, view-finder-assisted crop (for producing high-density 8.2 Mpixels files), will be basically the ultimate camera to have, the machine for all tasks, for all purposes, for any condition. In other words, the Ferrari F430, that will open up pretty much ANY photographic possibilities. As for the body, I do not care about the size, but if the weight can be reduced, well... even much better.

Besides the above, we will not see anything higher than 11-12 Mpixels on the 1.255x format, if it survives (just my opinion, though). That will mean going down to 6.4, and our current 1D MarkII-N 8.2 micron sensor clearly-and-visibly outperforms our Canon 30D's 6.4 micron sensor, in the dynamic-range, signal-to-noise ratio and DETAIL/microcontrast department.

We will soon see what exit will Canon propose to get out of this dead-end street, imposed by the actual sensors' sizes and form-factors, as well as the physical laws that operate the design and implementation of current technology...

...

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)
February 19th, 2007, 07:55 PM
My own feeling is that we will see a 21 or 24 MP 1 series body.
I'd hope with bracket focus!

Asher

I am still betting on 22MP (if I were actually betting), based on that was the MP number mentioned a couple of years ago and that number had to come from somewhere. Not saying it will be, just seems most likely. But the maximum I would expect without enlarging the sensor format (along with lenses ) would be about 25MP.

John Sheehy
February 19th, 2007, 08:07 PM
Besides the above, we will not see anything higher than 11-12 Mpixels on the 1.255x format, if it survives (just my opinion, though). That will mean going down to 6.4, and our current 1D MarkII-N 8.2 micron sensor clearly-and-visibly outperforms our Canon 30D's 6.4 micron sensor, in the dynamic-range, signal-to-noise ratio and DETAIL/microcontrast department.

Why does it outperform it, though? It outperforms it because the pixel pitch is less demanding on the lenses. Also, at ISOs 100 and 200, the 1DmkII has less read noise. At ISO 1600, the 30D has slightly less read noise than the 1DmkII. Both cameras have the same shot noise at the same ISO.

We will soon see what exit will Canon propose to get out of this dead-end street, imposed by the actual sensors' sizes and form-factors, as well as the physical laws that operate the design and implementation of current technology...

...

The only dead-end is with Canon wide-angle lenses; they just aren't all that sharp. That means that going to smaller pixels is only useful for the better telephotos and macros, which can take advantage of pixel pitches down to 2 microns or less. With optics to match, lots of small pixels are only bad in terms of transfer speed and storage.

This "bigger pixels are better" thing is nothing more than a myth and an illusion; they are only better for write speed and compact storage. Many people have a strong impression of more pixels in the same format being a killer of IQ, but no-one can demonstrate it, at the image or subject level. Only zoomed in, at 100% pixel view, does the smaller pixel become inferior.

Asher Kelman
February 21st, 2007, 12:04 PM
The great debate on the Dynamic Range and Pixel Capacity and Size is continued here ( http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2206).