Yeah, I'm thinking about it too. I'm just unsure that the price difference between the 1D and 1Ds is worthy. It's almost the same technology under the hood, just a larger sensor in the latter.
Obviously, Canon thinks people will pay the extra for the 1Ds, and the fact that they're still charging high prices for it indicates that they're right. There's also the point that the full frame sensor was done using two pass lithography, although it wouldn't surprise me if Canon has done work to cut it down to a single pass, thereby reducing the reject rate.
I'm hoping to see some improved long glass too. A 400mm f/5.6 with IS would be great, or even a 500mm/600mm/800mm f/5.6 IS. Canon makes good pro money on those top L lenses so I'm not sure the pro interest is there for such a long 5.6 lens, but who knows!!
Well, you can get a 420mm f/4 with IS: buy the 300mm f/2.8 and stack a 1.4x converter on it. As for the other lenses, you can get the 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 today; Canon isn't likely to cannibalise their sales of those lenses by introducing slower but cheaper versions ... or you can stack a 2x TC on the 300mm. If you need 800mm, grab a 400mm f/2.8 and a 2x teleconverter. Longer than that, though, and you end up at f/8, which is a bit of a bummer. (Well, ok, you can get 840mm f/5.6 by stacking the 600mm and a 1.4x TC, but 40mm at that point is negligible.)
As for my take on the new bodies: the 40D is very drool worthy, and I'd be seriously tempted, but I'm inclined towards full frame, unless Canon comes out with an EF-S fisheye. So my money for now is going towards EF glass, and I'll probably grab the 5D mark II after its release.
