I realize that, but to get the Canon rebate you need to have a US address...

Cheers,
Alan

removing stuff doesn't work.
It's cached on google at:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:CGbKij0CGHMJ:www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c
031.html+http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c031.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=nz

Alternately, the texts here below:

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.