Good old Erwin has posted information and pulled it off the net before. For example he posted information on the Leica M8 long before it was released and then pulled it. It ended up being 100% correct.
Here is a copy I saved:
==============================
Canon high end strategy goes for 35mm format
New Canon high-end cameras announced: D1 and D1S models with 35mm format sensor area.
In my original article about the Canon 5D I reflected on the technical and more philosophical aspects of the �barnack�-format for digital cameras. I noted that the 5D was a milestone camera because of feasibility of a large sensor at an affordable price. It was and it is my view that the 35mm format and the matched optics to create classical viewing angles and classical depth of field gradients, in addition to the artistic aspects of using the 2:3 format that has to be mastered before you can compose interesting pictures.
Olympus went for the easy way with the 4:3 format, that is much easier to use and conforms to the ubiquitous TV screen format that is a constant visual companion on today's culture.
In the current issue of AP, Geoffrey Crawley looks at the aspects of image quality tht is attainable with the full format (35mm) and the APS-C format that is roughly equivalent to half frame, and retains the 2:3 relation. He concludes that image wise there is a draw: both sensor areas deliver the same imagery. He compares two systems that have about the same pixel size and then it is not surprising that theoretically and with test charts the same image quality is possible. But there is much more to analyse here. In my comparison of the M8 with the 5D, the Canon gave somewhat better resolution despite having a larger pixel size. It is the software stupid! You can hear Bill Clinton shouting. And my Siemens star results indicated that the MTF values in the region from 30% to 10% of the Nyquist maximum are critical for effective image quality.
Presumably the debate will go on for a while and that is fine. We simply do not know that much about digital capture and digital processing as we know about chemical processing the silver halide grain. Here we have an history of 100 years of cumulative experience, but in the digital arena our knowledge spans hardly a decade. And myths are already all over the place!
You can like or hate Canon, but one theme is obvious: here we have a company that has a very steady course and a very clearly defined goal for the next ten years. Some cameras that were introduced over the last thirty years might draw negative comments and did not become world beaters. There main fault in retrospect has been to focus too long on the amateur market and leaving Nikon alone in the professional pond. But since the EOS body emerged around 1985, the company exhibits a singular drive.
The new D1 packs the sensor of the 5D in a really robust body, the film-loading 1V (end to that era?). The capture speed is very high and there is that mysterious comment that the 1D has no memory buffer, presumably wring directly to the flash card. The new 1Ds shares the same body and brings the pixel count to 22 million on a 24x36mm area. The most intriguing remark is Canons statement that from now on there will be no more 1.3 crop sensors. The strategy then is clear: the amateur market will be served by APS-C with 1.5/1.6 crop factor and a new range of lenses. The professional high-end market will be exclusively served by full-format sensors allowing all Canon lenses to operate at the true computed focal length and viewing angle. Canon seems to be quite confident that the problems with the 35mm format can be addressed and overcome. There is now also an ISO 6400 value available. The new cameras will be formidable instruments, the 1D attacking the professional market for mobile photography and the 1Ds (with 22 M pixels) attacking the medium format stationary (studio) photography. There is a risk here: many professional reportage photographers do not want nor need that huge amount of pixels. Is Nikon smarter in this respect and listening more closely to the market?
Nikon continues to state that they will not embark on that route and stay faithful to the APS format derivatives. For how long we may ask?
The 1D will retail for 4500 dollars and will be cheaper than the Leica M8. This is not a clash of civilisations, but a minor clash of belief. The M8 couples a mechanical film-loading body to a solid state sensor and retains as much of the classical values as can be done within the technological constraints.
The 1D couples a fully electronic film-loading body to a full 35mm format solid state sensor and skips as much of the classical values as can be accomplished within operational constraints. There is no doubt in what direction the mainstream buyer will move. Canon is shaping the market and the others are more or less responding to market trends as they are perceived by the gurus.
Leica has been troubled over the last decade by a most erratic decision making process by a series of CEO's and this decision making is reflected in the current stable of products. One really hopes that there will be now a steady developing strategy with a clearly defined future vision for the product range to be developed.
The Canon strategy is very consistent and very profitable. Their choice for the classical 35mm format for the high-end camera system is somewhat surprising, given the fact that they are alone in this choice, but then the market power of Canon is quite strong.
Now the competition must react.
==============================
Hammerli wrote:
Hopefully it was just a farce, since I'll be disappointed if the 1D ends up being what was projected by that page.
I know this is difficult, since I struggle with the same, but don't let your hopes and dreams interfere with what all this, the speculation, the rumors, the hints, the musings, the educated guesswork and the leaks tell you.
I'm into available light, I desperately want the 40D to move to APS-H so it can use 50% more sensor area and still take a hit in photo site size without actually getting a smaller pixel pitch than the current 30D sensor. Better high ISO performance is good for what I do with photography.
That, as they say in the Dutch language, is a case of the Wish being the Mother of the Thought.
The fact is that going to APS-H is an available option for the 40D. As mentioned before, the 40D could really use something that sets it appart from the competition. But the move to APS-H comes with drawbacks as well, so there is no guarantee it'll happen. I would like it to happen, it'd suit me just fine. But will it happen ??
I can't believe Erwin would have a NDA from Canon. Perhaps a relationship at Canon Europe asked him to remove it. He could have also have realized he had been spoofed. But I have to admit, there a conservative "rightness" about the Erwin's 1DIII that is Canon-like. Even the "no more objections from film users". That is very Canonesk. So if he was conned, it was done well.
I also like the elegant way Erwin's 1DIII handles the 1 series 1.3 crop advocates. "we're going full frame, but not taking anything away". Very Japanese: Consideration, compromise, but get it done.
Remember lordcarls teasing also - something like "it's 12mp, but not a 5D".
Now, can move on to the important topic: the 200/2 IS.
Tentacle wrote:
I know this is difficult, since I struggle with the same, but don't let your hopes and dreams interfere with what all this, the speculation, the rumors, the hints, the musings, the educated guesswork and the leaks tell you.
I'm into available light, I desperately want the 40D to move to APS-H so it can use 50% more sensor area and still take a hit in photo site size without actually getting a smaller pixel pitch than the current 30D sensor. Better high ISO performance is good for what I do with photography.
That, as they say in the Dutch language, is a case of the Wish being the Mother of the Thought.
The fact is that going to APS-H is an available option for the 40D. As mentioned before, the 40D could really use something that sets it appart from the competition. But the move to APS-H comes with drawbacks as well, so there is no guarantee it'll happen. I would like it to happen, it'd suit me just fine. But will it happen ?? ...Show more →
The reason they would move to APS-H would be to handle a megapixel density race. Also, if you want to know how this could happen, the old 1DII steppers are available (if Erwin's 1DIII is real)
dcmiller wrote:
Now, can move on to the important topic: the 200/2 IS.
How much smaller than the 200mm f/1.8L would a 200/2 likely be? I'm curious why everyone is predicting a 200/2 rather than a 200/1.8? is it due to the fact that Nikon has a 200/2?
If the 200/2 is as sharp as the 200/1.8, I would likely upgrade to get the IS.
DaveMart wrote:
Why? What else do you want? Sounds good to me.
Regards,
We currently use a 5D and a 1DsMKII. During the summer when I shoot outdoor events and need the frame rate, I usually buy a 1D series body. One of the advantages is that the 1.3 crop was very beneficial for me, as has been stated by other 1D users. At events I am usually focal length limited, and so I like a greater pixel density. Unlike those who believe a crop body goes against what they believe their lenses "should" be, the crop worked with me, not against me. I normally cropped somewhat on the 1DIIN images, so an extra 4 MP around the periphery are useless to me. If I want FF, I have two bodies to choose from already. Body size is really irrelevant to me, although I prefer the larger body if given a choice. I was hoping for a 10 or 12 MP 1.3 crop sensor in the new camera with the other requisite improvements. I rarely shoot over ISO400, so I have no desire for the uber-ISOs some here pine for. Without knowing what those other improvements are, it sounds like the 1DIIN would give me the exact same IQ for what I do.
dcmiller: I just went back to look at Erwin's article. It's not at the link. Did he move it, or take it down.
It was taken down a few minutes before you tried to access his article. I was checking the whole say waiting to see how long it could last. I think that it is an indication that there is some truth in it. I thought that I misunderstood what he was saying when I first saw it yesterday morning but I also saved it immediately.
dcmiller wrote:
Whoops, I forgot about EF-S lenses
Yah, I know about the drawbacks, I mentioned drawbacks, didn't I?
Ye gods, I do sound like a stuck piece of 12" vinyl... Canon committed to Full Frame on anything but entry level, so what better way to push users to full frame lenses than by moving to non EF-S territory? The EF-S line-up doesn't have a single weathersealed lens and even the priciest one, the excellent 17-55 IS, doesn't exceed the 135L in price. A 24-105/4L IS or 24-70/2.8L costs more. Prepare the xxD segment users for full frame by grabbing a sensor surface advantage now. (Not to mention that benefit of not having to do field stitching for APS-H sized sensors, which keeps costs low, compared to FF.)
Yadda yadda yadda...
After all, it's only educated guesswork. But I enjoy the endless bickering
I've been reading Erwin's stuff for years. I love his writings.
One thing he left out was when the new cameras would be released. He didn't say PMA. But the timing would make you suspect that at least one of these two models might be announced at PMA for release in the next 3 - 4 months. EOSFun was suggesting one of these new 1 series bodies will be released at PMA along with a 40D. Maybe the other will come out this fall.
Neither camera looks like a "must upgrade" for current 1 series owners although I'm sure plenty will upgrade for the heck of it.
jcbenner wrote:
How much smaller than the 200mm f/1.8L would a 200/2 likely be? I'm curious why everyone is predicting a 200/2 rather than a 200/1.8? is it due to the fact that Nikon has a 200/2?
If the 200/2 is as sharp as the 200/1.8, I would likely upgrade to get the IS.
A 200/1.8 is less likely nowadays, with the dreaded RoHS in place.
Canon, and just about any manufacturer of either optics or electronics, can now only use hazzardous substances at greater costs. This includes the use of lead glass. Part of the reason that the mythical Canon lenses (50/1L and 200/1.8L) were discontinued was that the use of leaded glass was no longer an option. Lead glass has superior optical qualities, specifically a higher index of refraction, but the ban on the use of lead glass has made high-end lens design more difficult.
In a nutshell, that's the reason why people now expect a 200/2L IS and not a 200/1.8L Mk II.
Hammerli wrote:
We currently use a 5D and a 1DsMKII. During the summer when I shoot outdoor events and need the frame rate, I usually buy a 1D series body. One of the advantages is that the 1.3 crop was very beneficial for me, as has been stated by other 1D users. At events I am usually focal length limited, and so I like a greater pixel density. Unlike those who believe a crop body goes against what they believe their lenses "should" be, the crop worked with me, not against me. I normally cropped somewhat on the 1DIIN images, so an extra 4 MP around the periphery are useless to me. If I want FF, I have two bodies to choose from already. Body size is really irrelevant to me, although I prefer the larger body if given a choice. I was hoping for a 10 or 12 MP 1.3 crop sensor in the new camera with the other requisite improvements. I rarely shoot over ISO400, so I have no desire for the uber-ISOs some here pine for. Without knowing what those other improvements are, it sounds like the 1DIIN would give me the exact same IQ for what I do. ...Show more →
Makes sense.I don't think all hope is dead for you though - Canon have been loosing market share to the Nikons, and at the bottom end the pentax is well-featured.
The real stand-out contender from Nikon though is the D200.
I don't know that it's viable for Canon to just go on with low-level specs on their cheaper cameras, and they still have one film camera where the body has not been used - EOS 3, anyone? - perhaps with a very decent AF system.
jcbenner wrote:
How much smaller than the 200mm f/1.8L would a 200/2 likely be? I'm curious why everyone is predicting a 200/2 rather than a 200/1.8? is it due to the fact that Nikon has a 200/2?
If the 200/2 is as sharp as the 200/1.8, I would likely upgrade to get the IS.
I think they can move to 200/2 because of high ISO digital. Releasing that lens at the same time as Erwin's 1DIII has a synergy. The reasons they won't release may be 1) It was never a big seller and 2) The superteles are all Japanese Canon start to finish. With each person in that line assembling three units per day, there can't be a lot of flexibility in that type of production.
We haven't gossiped about new lenses. I say a long zoom, and the 200/2.
The lens wouldn't be much smaller, i think, but they might make it lighter.
DaveMart wrote:
The D1s is said to have about a stop better performance than the 400D - if they manage something similar with the 40D and upgrade the AF then at 10MP or whatever and a 1.6 it should make a mean wildlife camera.
Hope they don't mess it up with too much NR in the inter5ests of cramming in more pixels.
Regards,
Dave only if the 40D gets a substantial improvement in AF, especially AI servo, bigger buffer, faster throughput, say 6 fps, a bigger, brighter VF and some sealing will it really be the camera I desire. I'm in dcmillers boat here. I'm most disappointed with some aspects of the new 1D assuming it's not a crock. 12.8MP at still 1D II/5D pixel density is a let down. 12.8MP in a APS-H format would be ideal.
Basically I want a high performance wildlife camera. I don't really yearn for a one camera solution and will gladly carry two bodies to get two different jobs done. I would love a 22MP camera for my landscape, macro, architecture work etc, but a high performance camera with 20D pixel density for my wildlife/birding work.
Of course the new 1D would still be an improvement over the 1D II in many areas, but when you find yourself constantly FL limited it won't be a big improvement.
I'm now confused where this leaves a 5D replacement though.
