Canon 1D Mk4 officially announced

[nicolas claris]

Here it is… enjoy the read (though it is not -yet- the 1Ds4

http://www.canon-europe.com/eos1dmk4

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thank you Nikon!

There's no doubt in my mind that Canon could ship a Foveon like 18 MP full color 1DsV in 3 months if they wished, that's how far ahead they are in R&D. The speed at which advances are delivered seem to depend on the need to defend the top spot in the flagship position of the DSLR market-share war. Nikon 's latest shot across Canon's flagship's bows with the Nikon 3Ds pushed low light sensitivity to over 100,000 ISO with normal range over 10,000. canon has simply matched and upped this. We have still to see what the dynamic range of the new Canon sensor is. No MFR has given us the 14 stop DR of Fuji's DSLR operating all the way to ISO 1600.

The 1D Mark iV makes a very attractive offering. If they can delver the same new focus system and sensitivity to the 1Ds IV, Canon will regain it's king of the road position for a while.

Asher

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Asher,

While we may thank the producers of one camera or the other, I do not like the incremental improvement/upgrade game they play with us the consumers at all. Release just enough improvements into the next model so that a lost market share can be regained. And repeat this in ever more frequent cycles. And let the consumer pay over and over due to endless upgrades and marketspeak. I am sure I am not the only one having these sentiments. I think we all should know for ourselves when enough is enough and draw a line somewhere.

Cheers,

 

[Alain Briot]

Hi Asher,

While we may thank the producers of one camera or the other, I do not like the incremental improvement/upgrade game they play with us the consumers at all. Release just enough improvements into the next model so that a lost market share can be regained. And repeat this in ever more frequent cycles. And let the consumer pay over and over due to endless upgrades and marketspeak. I am sure I am not the only one having these sentiments. I think we all should know for ourselves when enough is enough and draw a line somewhere.

Cheers,

I agree. However, while we do not have control over what manufacturers do, we do have control over what we do.

Ask yourself how much better your photographs will be if you get the latest camera model, whatever that might be, when compared to what your current camera gives you.

In my experience, the difference is not always significant. This means we don't have to buy every new model in a given lineup, such as 1ds mk2, mk3, mk4, etc.

Also ask yourself *what else* you can do to make your photography better *besides* buying a new camera. In doing so keep in mind that if your goal, like mine, is to create fine art photographs, there has to be an even combination of art and technique. That is, it can't be all technical. Since new cameras essentially improve the technical side of things, not replacing your camera and instead focusing on improving your artistic skills is an option that I strongly recommend.

Keep in mind that you can't do everything at the same time, that you cannot improve the technical aspects of your work and the artistic aspects at the same time. Also keep in mind that focusing on technical things is done at the detriment of the artistic, and vice versa. Therefore, letting go of which new cameras are coming out, and focusing on what new artistic knowledge you can acquire, is something just as important as buying a new camera.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I agree. However, while we do not have control over what manufacturers do, we do have control over what we do.

Ask yourself how much better your photographs will be if you get the latest camera model, whatever that might be, when compared to what your current camera gives you.

Alain,

I stopped using 1D series cameras because of the cycle of upgrades. Nikon and Canon lenses are superb and great classic and worthy investments. A lens bought 6 years ago will be good for as long as the lens mount doesn't change. However, the camera body is way different. They're delivered with regular techno-creep, hyped with razzmatazz, as imaging Nirvana! In reality they extort a never-ending levy on photographers' wallets. Photographer's websites freely promote this crap! We're guilty too!

My own belief is that most photographers could do very well for most everything with the Canon Rebel, or a Nikon/Pentax/ Sony equivalent, any of them, and a 50 1.8 or 1.4, period. With a an f 2.8 telephoto lens, that can cover sports and with the 17-40 zoom, landscape and interiors.

I happen to shoot wide detail-rich scenes and groups of 120 people or more. So I decided several years ago to just use the mid-level full-frame 5D DSLR. The 5D, in practice did a fair job but the 5DII does work better with the extra detail-defining pixels and low light capability. Would I like even more DR, detail and focus accuracy? Of course. However, the limitations on my photography are now few and can almost always be circumvented.

So what if I miss the focus? I'll get it next time by focusing on an edge at the same lens to subject distance. The $4000 needed to make sure every shot works, simply does not matter for most competent photographers. After all, we can see the result on the LCD. Unless it's a "game changing" never to be repeated moment, in Pro sports or the like, there are so many subsequent new exciting peaks to capture.

As you say, Alain, we should be more resourceful! So let's concentrate on audience, needs, ideas, approach, mind-set, imagination, design, perspective, point of view and composition and protect ourselves from this constant taxation based on seductive tecno-creep!

Asher

 

[Alain Briot]

Asher,

I still have the Canon 1DsMk2, but now I use the P45 with my Hasselblad V system (see my separate thread on this setup in the medium format section, here).

I personally prefer medium and large format as it is better suited to my work and to large print sizes.

However, the same problem exists in medium format since Phase One and Hasselblad have the same approach as Canon, which is a constant stream of upgrades.

Therefore the suggestion to focus on artistic aspects as much as technical aspects is valid regardless of the format used. It is also valid regardless of one's pocketbook size, or thickness. Eventually, one cannot buy all the upgrades.

There's also the issue of constantly having to relearn how to use one's tools. How can one be creative if one's instrument is changing constantly ?

 

[Mike Shimwell]

As a relevant aside, in the UK I can pre-order a 1D4 at a price of £4499 and receive a £1000 trade in on a 1D3. Maybe fine for a sportshooter who has amortised the cost of the body many times over, but most pf these won't even be near worn out...

Mike

 

[StuartRae]

Ask yourself how much better your photographs will be if you get the latest camera model, whatever that might be, when compared to what your current camera gives you.
............................
Also ask yourself *what else* you can do to make your photography better *besides* buying a new camera.

I still use my 350D. It does most of what I want, and until I've learned how to use it properly I see little point in upgrading.
When it finally dies, what do I replace it with?
I don't want video; live view would be nice but I can live without it; I certainly don't want 18 sardine MP. A 50D with 12 decent sized MP and no video would be perfect.
I almost bought one of the last 40Ds but invested in two new lenses instead.

 

[Alain Briot]

There's a lot to be said for learning to use what you have instead of upgrading to something new and, "better".

One of the thing that truly surprised me when I started being interested in photography, was how many photographers believed that upgrading their equipment would in turn improve their photographs.

I came from a painting background, in fact I was a student at the Beaux Arts in Paris at the time, and no painter believed that upgrading to better brushes or paints would improve your paintings.

I certainly understand that a higher resolution camera will result in a higher resolution image, but I fail to see how it can result in a more artistic image. Eventually, the technical aspect dominates such an approach, to the detriment of the artistic, which gets pushed aside and eventually discarded, if it ever was considered.

 

[Andrew Stannard]

...but I fail to see how it can result in a more artistic image.

Completely agree with this statement. I'm a great fan of Galen Rowell's work and his book 'Mountain Light' often inspires me if I am lacking in creativity. It is not the technical quality of his images that stands out but their artistic content and the vision behind them. I find the same with many of the images in National Geogrpahic.

Of course resolution and other technical matters have their place, but for me the artistic merit of an image should always come first.

 

[Alain Briot]

Andrew,

Great point. In fact, when we go to Galen's gallery in Bishop, Mountain Light Photography, what's stunning is how grainy and unsharp many of his prints are. They get better as film improved over the years, the most recent images being the sharpest and least grainy, but they all are pretty "rough". Yet, the power of the images is intact, being rooted in the artistic vision of the photographer rather than in the technical quality of the images.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I still use my 350D. It does most of what I want, and until I've learned how to use it properly I see little point in upgrading.
When it finally dies, what do I replace it with?
I don't want video; live view would be nice but I can live without it; I certainly don't want 18 sardine MP. A 50D with 12 decent sized MP and no video would be perfect.
I almost bought one of the last 40Ds but invested in two new lenses instead.

Stuart,

A used 30D would be far better!

Asher

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Completely agree with this statement. I'm a great fan of Galen Rowell's work and his book 'Mountain Light' often inspires me if I am lacking in creativity. It is not the technical quality of his images that stands out but their artistic content and the vision behind them. I find the same with many of the images in National Geogrpahic.

Of course resolution and other technical matters have their place, but for me the artistic merit of an image should always come first.

Yes, I bought Mountain Light for my Dad a few years ago and recently borrowed it back. The prints, even in the book are grainy and soft, but the pictures are alive. It's been a great inspiration to me at times.

Also, the technical stuff will include a comment such as small aperture and long exposure - no exif data on Kodachrome

Mike

 

[Winston Mitchell]

Personally, in any technology world, I prefer more frequent smaller-scale change. It sharpens the competition, accelerates progress and enables the providers to more finely gauge the what customers will stand for and pay for, and reduces risk for provider and customer alike.

When to upgrade? When your current device breaks or it no longer suits your needs. Change in itself is not necessarily compelling.

Full disclosure: I spent twenty-eight years in a technology business that in the last thirty-seven years has improved the fundamental cost of its product by a factor of fifty million. This was all done incrementally, step by step. Nothing was held back. Some corner of the envelope was always being stretched.

 

[nicolas claris]

Hi all
I understand the dissapointment that some of us may feel each time a new camera hits the market.
I understand and FULLY agree with Alain (maybe some French connivance;-)
A new camera or a new lens doesn't make the photographer a better pro or a better artist (depending of his work). But when well assimilated it may help to improve and even discover some new fields of work.
For example, the new ISO capabilities will cezrtainly help me to shoot faster and or use a smaller ƒ stop when I want to freeze some fast boat shot from helicopter at late dusk with a 500 mm…

It will also help me for my personnal work of shots at night or shoot handheld interiors…

More pixels? it will help me to produce better files for very large prints (we're working on 15 meters (45 feet) prints for some boat shows… to be seen close - not billboards…-).

So yes, as I am a kind of image worker (in opposition as an Artist) all technical enhancements to come, I'll bite!
And it helps me to keep or even increase my rates while some competitors are cutting prices to get the job.

The day that a new gear won't fullfill my needs, I will certainly not buy it! But let's not blame big brands to compete and bring us new tools (or improved tools).

I have really enjoyed testing the Sinar HY6, it is a beautifull camera and I did bring back many wowing files. Sinar made some kind offer to me at the end of the trial, but I didn't accept the offer as I would have needed to keep ALSO my Canon for some kind of shots (i.e. long foacal shots as 500mm) and I couldn't afford to have 2 complete systems. But it's a shame ;-)!

Photography has never improved so fast than in the last 10 years.
I'm happy to have been able to get profit of that. (Profit not only in the money sense of it ;-)

 

[JohanElzenga]

There's no doubt in my mind that Canon could ship a Foveon like 18 MP full color 1DsV in 3 months if they wished, that's how far ahead they are in R&D.

And there is no doubt in my mind that this is baloney. If Canon could wipe Nikon out of the pro market, they would not hesitate to do so. Nikon took quite a bit of Canon's market share due to the focus problems of the 1DIII, so why would Canon deliberately hold back if they could retake that so easily? I think that the 1DIV will be a great camera and will sell very well among Canon pro shooters (I will get one for sure), but I doubt it will lure back many photographers that went over to the dark side recently.

 

[Rachel Foster]

I'm happy with my 5dII but I confess to lens envy.

 

[Asher Kelman]

And there is no doubt in my mind that this is baloney. If Canon could wipe Nikon out of the pro market, they would not hesitate to do so. Nikon took quite a bit of Canon's market share due to the focus problems of the 1DIII, so why would Canon deliberately hold back if they could retake that so easily? I think that the 1DIV will be a great camera and will sell very well among Canon pro shooters (I will get one for sure), but I doubt it will lure back many photographers that went over to the dark side recently.

Hi Johan,

Canon has had access in a shared foveon type CMOS sensor for many years and its own technology. It's capable of addressing separately every pixel as an independent camera so that it can switch of each sensel as they get close to filling. However, there are other emerging paradigms including layers of silicon where sensels are either on or off and the dynamic range is built up by looking at the entire range of switched on levels. The flagship cameras define what is the best. Lower cameras might test new ideas. However something revolutionary, rather than evolutionary has consequences for their entire array of camera types for all price points. Right now they're doing very well for all their cameras. They also learn from each of competitors cameras as to what ideas work technically and how these perform in consumer choices relative to other market forces. It's not necessary to wipe Nikon off the map. That level of aggression is like nuking the Taliban.

Asher

 

[JohanElzenga]

I know that Canon has patents for a kind of Foveon sensor, but having patents doesn't say anything about your ability to turn the ideas into a real product and about the quality of that product. There are thousands of patents that never made it into a product and never will, for whatever reasons. Your suggestion that Canon could make a 18 Mp sensor based on this technology, and do this in three months, is based on nothing. It's just wild speculation.

Let me give you a real world example as a reality check: Shortly before the Nikon D3 was introduced, some guy at the DPreview forums found a Nikon patent for a kind of RGB sensor. It wasn't based on layers like Foveon, but anyway. Of course, many people were convinced that the upcoming Nikon D3 would contain that sensor. It even made the headlines of the DPreview news. In the meantime, we know what did happen. The Nikon D3 didn't have that sensor, the D3X didn't have it and the D3S still doesn't have it. I'm sure the D4 won't have it either whenever that camera is introduced, because the design is unsuitable for a camera sensor. It will only work for light that falls under exactly 90 degrees, so probably the patent was never meant for a camera sensor in the first place. That's not the point however, the point is that it shows that patents don't say anything about products, or at least very little.

Coming back to Canon: Like I said, Canon has lost quite a bit of market share since the Nikon D3 was introduced, and I'm sure they want that back. Knowing the Japanese a little bit, I'd even say the job of a few top people at Canon depends on it. If Canon R&D was really so far ahead as you suggest, they would have introduced a 1D Mk IV that is indeed years ahead of anything Nikon can produce. They didn't. I'm sure the 1D MkIV will turn out to be a great camera, and I already said I will buy one, but I don't think that the 1D Mk IV is so much better than the D3S that all those Canon users that went to Nikon will now rush back. And I'm convinced the management of Canon would not accept this if it was so simple to solve by introducing a much better camera than they did. The shareholders surely wouldn't.

Johan

 

[Asher Kelman]

Johan,

Yours are good arguments. We'll just have to sit back and see what happens. I expect a revolutionary change, but hoping for it to happen has no influence on what Canon does. I do know that Canon is able to put a new camera into production from the date of completed design in a very short time. So they have the organization to deliver rapidly whatever they have ready. However, the testers leak information and there usually is something we hear before the actual event. Right now, no one I know is testing such a Foveon type canon sensor.

Asher

 

[JohanElzenga]

True, we just have to wait and see. One of our most famous local comedians once said; "it's very difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" and he was right. Technology hardly ever goes in the direction that everybody thinks it will go. Look at the old StarTrek series and other science fiction stuff, and what they predicted would happen. Tele transporters and warp speed are still science fiction, but nobody predicted the cell phone! The next Canon camera(s) may be completely different from what we all think it will be.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

... Tele transporters and warp speed are still science fiction, but nobody predicted the cell phone! ...

Well I beg to differ! The Original Series of Star Trek had the flip open communicator already from the word go. If that isn't the granddad of mobile phones, I don't know what it is ;-).

 

[JohanElzenga]

OK, maybe the cell phone was predicted by Star Trek, but in most science fiction films it doesn't exist. I saw a movie once where 'the house of the future' was shown. That was the future of the year 2000, predicted in the 1970's. If you look at it now, it's a nice comedy. They didn't predict anything correctly. The most funny prediction was that all furniture would be plastic, and that the vacuum cleaner was replaced by some kind of fully automatic wet cleaning system, that would flood the floor with a few inches of water (hence the plastic furniture) and then such it dry. Automatically, during your absence, of course.

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

...The most funny prediction was that all furniture would be plastic, and that the vacuum cleaner was replaced by some kind of fully automatic wet cleaning system, that would flood the floor with a few inches of water (hence the plastic furniture) and then such it dry. Automatically, during your absence, of course.

That sounds a lot like the automated toilet cells which one sees in France regularly. And the F1 Hotel chain along the main roads where you can stay for a very low price. But joking aside, I get where you're coming from. As an avid sci-fi fan I could not help but react

Cheers,

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

OK, maybe the cell phone was predicted by Star Trek, but in most science fiction films it doesn't exist.

Who needs an iPhone, I want a Tri-corder ;-) (I also want to be able and scan for air quality and radiation). I also want a phaser gun (set to stun-mode) in case someone wants to have my camera gear without my consent (of course they should not have a phaser as well ..., but that's another discussion).

Sci-fi fan signing off. Beep.
Back to the Mark IV.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[nicolas claris]

I want a Tri-corder ;-)

I would much prefer a Ry Cooder !-)

 

[Peter Galbavy]

Don't mean to be a nay sayer, but this is the first Canon 1D series camera that has not excited me... maybe my 1DsIII is enough for me, finally.

"Meh... I said: Meh!"

 

[Ivan Garcia]

True, we just have to wait and see. One of our most famous local comedians once said; "it's very difficult to make predictions, especially about the future" and he was right. Technology hardly ever goes in the direction that everybody thinks it will go. Look at the old StarTrek series and other science fiction stuff, and what they predicted would happen. Tele transporters and warp speed are still science fiction, but nobody predicted the cell phone! The next Canon camera(s) may be completely different from what we all think it will be.

Sorry to bring this out of its dormant forgotten state but, in the field of teleportation... read this.