Any new models from Canon in 2004?

Robert Silvers · December 31st, 2003, 09:31 AM

Not yet. The 1D is used when you want the fastest speed for sports photography. The 1Ds, which has more pixels, is slower and better for still lifes or general use. Nikon only just came out with a similar camera and ithas 802.11b! Sweet.

Peter Moore · January 1st, 2004, 06:40 PM

Well it will definitely cost more than $3000. A well equipped XL1s costs much more than that.

Peter Moore · January 1st, 2004, 06:44 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Silvers : I don't think Canon needs to go 3-CCD anymore, even if other companies do. They have been kicking butt with the images from their SLRs with a single CCD. My guess is the future is megapixel single CCDs that don't suck. -->>>

Look at JVC's 1-CCD HD camera. The colors are terribly washed out. Pictures from XL1s and GL2 cameras look better, even though they're lower res. I don't think you can get the beauty you need for HD with only 1 CCD.

Besides, CMOS and CCD are not the same thing. I don't know if CMOS can be used for 30 fps or higher.

Jeff Price · March 6th, 2004, 03:31 PM

As for CMOS vs. CCD in video. Doesn't the new HD Arri use a CMOS chip?

Anthony Meluso · March 9th, 2004, 02:44 PM

I know this, no matter what they increase in terms of pixels or CMOS or CCD, a new or better version of DV tape needs to be created to handle that type of transfer rate.

I once read somewhere that the camera used in the star wars movies was a sony that had 2 mega-pixels CCD, which means you can almost get the same DOF and FOV of 35mm film camera. The film used there was HD.

March 6th, 2004, 03:31 PM	#19
Jeff Price Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Chico, California Posts: 357	As for CMOS vs. CCD in video. Doesn't the new HD Arri use a CMOS chip? __________________ Jeff Price Flickerflix Nature Videos flickerflix@yahoo.com

December 31st, 2003, 09:31 AM	#16
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	Not yet. The 1D is used when you want the fastest speed for sports photography. The 1Ds, which has more pixels, is slower and better for still lifes or general use. Nikon only just came out with a similar camera and ithas 802.11b! Sweet.

January 1st, 2004, 06:40 PM	#17
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Well it will definitely cost more than $3000. A well equipped XL1s costs much more than that.

January 1st, 2004, 06:44 PM	#18
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Silvers : I don't think Canon needs to go 3-CCD anymore, even if other companies do. They have been kicking butt with the images from their SLRs with a single CCD. My guess is the future is megapixel single CCDs that don't suck. -->>> Look at JVC's 1-CCD HD camera. The colors are terribly washed out. Pictures from XL1s and GL2 cameras look better, even though they're lower res. I don't think you can get the beauty you need for HD with only 1 CCD. Besides, CMOS and CCD are not the same thing. I don't know if CMOS can be used for 30 fps or higher.

March 9th, 2004, 02:44 PM	#20
Anthony Meluso Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 53	I know this, no matter what they increase in terms of pixels or CMOS or CCD, a new or better version of DV tape needs to be created to handle that type of transfer rate. I once read somewhere that the camera used in the star wars movies was a sony that had 2 mega-pixels CCD, which means you can almost get the same DOF and FOV of 35mm film camera. The film used there was HD.