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.

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

<<<-- 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.

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

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.