# What was the decision to put a crop sensor in the 1D range based upon?



## LewisShermer (Sep 9, 2013)

This is just a question that I've asked myself and always wondered if there's a technical/marketing reason behind having a crop sensor in the 1D range?

I've never used one but I have used the 1Ds mk3 extensively for the last 4 years. This is a full frame camera but I am lead to believe that the 1D mk3 is a crop sensor? the 1Dx is a full frame but the 1D mk4 is crop and a 1Ds mk4 was never produced.

from what I've read recently the crop is 1.3 whereas the XXD XXXD and XXXXD are 1.6 and many share the same sensor.

does the 1D range accept EF-s lenses? Is there an obvious IQ difference between say a 1Ds mk3 and a 1D mk3?

I use the 1Ds mk3 in the studio I run at a watch design company to shoot mainly adverts/catalogue shots but for my personal work (weddings/fashion/arty stuff) I use a 5D mk3 which I progressed from a 7D/60D.

the 5D mk3 raw files are a lot nicer to work with than the 1Ds mk3 and an obvious step up from the 7D/60D which share the same chip (yet I got more pleasing imagery from the 60D)

My original question of "how come the 1D range is a crop sensor?" then begs the additional question of if you're spending £4000+ on a body, wouldn't you want a full frame and why would you compromise on the IQ of a crop sensor? Where do the 1D mk3 / 1D mk4 files fall within the range of sensor IQ and Digic logic??


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 9, 2013)

I believe it was born out of the need to get higher framerate than what you could pull off with a FF sensor. Pro sports / wildlife guys often selected the 1D4 over the 1Ds rigs for that reason (as well as length). But forum folks, please set me straight if that is incorrect.

But I can speak to EF-S. No compatibility. Just the red dot on the mount -- standard EF lenses are the only option that work natively. I suppose someone could try to make an adapter which would have nutty image circle problems on wider focal lengths, but who would do that? Unless you really love the 17-55 F/2.8 or the new Sigma F/1.8 zoom, I'd be hard pressed to see someone go to such lengths to use a cheap lens on a pro body.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2013)

It was based on cost. With the lithography equipment of the day, APS-H was the largest size CMOS sensor that could be imaged with a single pass of the stepper; a FF sensor required three passes, and significantly higher cost.

See p.11 of Canon's FF White Paper.


----------



## rs (Sep 9, 2013)

The original 1D was released in mid 2001 before 36x24mm sensors were viable for a production camera - so it was made with the largest sensor available at the time - a 1.3x crop sensor. The mount was EF, and EF-S (which only has an imaging circle big enough for a 1.6x crop sensor) hadn't even been introduced back then (that happened in 2003).

The first ever production FF DSLR was the Contax N of spring 2002. The 1Ds was the second FF DSLR, launched in September 2002, allowing of EF lenses with the conventional film AoV.

The 1D successors carried on with its crop sensor, allowing for fast sensor readout and consequently frame rates, and the 1Ds range carried on with full frame sensors, and slower readout/shooting.

The 1D X is an amalgamation of these lines.


----------



## Meh (Sep 9, 2013)

Noooooooooooooooooo, don't ask such questions 'round these parts... the APS-H boys will pounce!!!


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 9, 2013)

Meh said:


> Noooooooooooooooooo, don't ask such questions 'round these parts... the APS-H boys will pounce!!!



Good point. Those folks loooooove their not too big / not too small porridge -- it's just right.

It's kind of cult-like, actually. There is a non-trivial possibility these folks go back to the therapist about relapsing into APS-H forum discussions, spooning in bed with their 1D4 while watching _Beaches_ or _Marley and Me_, and threatening Canon executives' families for abandoning the format... _all because of your question._ 

Jerk. 

- A


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 9, 2013)

There's one good reason why APS-H isn't all that great: No dedicated WA lenses...


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 9, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> There's one good reason why APS-H isn't all that great: No dedicated WA lenses...



You mean a _rectilinear_ WA lens, right? Wouldn't the fishbowl work?

- A


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 9, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > There's one good reason why APS-H isn't all that great: No dedicated WA lenses...
> ...



correct


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 9, 2013)

rs said:


> The original 1D was released in mid 2001 before 36x24mm sensors were viable for a production camera - so it was made with the largest sensor available at the time - a 1.3x crop sensor. The mount was EF, and EF-S (which only has an imaging circle big enough for a 1.6x crop sensor) hadn't even been introduced back then (that happened in 2003).
> 
> The first ever production FF DSLR was the Contax N of spring 2002. The 1Ds was the second FF DSLR, launched in September 2002, allowing of EF lenses with the conventional film AoV.
> 
> ...


Very nicely explained!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2013)

rs said:


> The first ever production FF DSLR was the Contax N of spring 2002. The 1Ds was the second FF DSLR, launched in September 2002, allowing of EF lenses with the conventional film AoV.



Worth noting that the Contax N used a Phillips CCD sensor, and the 1Ds was CMOS. Similarly, the original 1D was a CCD sensor (with a 1/500 s Xsync, and made by Panasonic), while the 1D II and subsequent models were CMOS.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > The first ever production FF DSLR was the Contax N of spring 2002. The 1Ds was the second FF DSLR, launched in September 2002, allowing of EF lenses with the conventional film AoV.
> ...



Philips


----------



## pwp (Sep 9, 2013)

Meh said:


> Noooooooooooooooooo, don't ask such questions 'round these parts... the APS-H boys will pounce!!!


Ah-ha! Thanks! An APS-H thread! 8)

I've loved the format since it began with the 1D. But sadly it's now consigned to history. :-[ 
That's why so many APS-H aficionados are keen to see a true professional level 7DII. 

We have our FF bodies for WA, but the x1.3 crop sensor on my 1D4 takes my 70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/2.8 glass into another universe.

-PW


----------



## Apop (Sep 9, 2013)

I think it's a shame if they completely abandon the 1.3

It's a nice compromise , some extra 'reach' compared to FF, and bigger sensor than 1.6.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 9, 2013)

I would like to see a 1.3x sensor in the new 7D, perhaps at 25MP, if only for improved high ISO performance compared to 1.6x. Or, if they can vastly improve 1.6x high ISO, even better.


----------



## pwp (Sep 10, 2013)

Act444 said:


> I would like to see a 1.3x sensor in the new 7D, perhaps at 25MP, if only for improved high ISO performance compared to 1.6x. Or, if they can vastly improve 1.6x high ISO, even better.


While the 7D2 is still vapor, rampant speculation is terrific fun. An APS-H 7D2 would be cool, but from a marketing/upgrade path viewpoint this would annoy the hell out of a staggering number of current 7D shooters across the planet with a bag full of EF-S glass. Canon needs to keep them on the logical upgrade path. Such a camera would need to stay true to EF-S.

-PW


----------



## Act444 (Sep 10, 2013)

^ Ah yes, that's true.

Still, there's always the 70D...BUT, having handled the two cameras there is a significant difference in feel (the 7D handles much more like a "real pro's" camera while the 70D feels more consumer-oriented & plasticky). Both cameras seemed similar in speed though.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 10, 2013)

Back when the first DSLR's came out in the early to mid 1990's, the APS-H was the largest sensor it was practical to manufacture.

I had a 6 mp Kodak DCS 460C with APS-H sensor that originally came out in 1995 and cost $35,500 (I paid $100 a few years ago). The APS-H sensor was established early on, and was popular. It was basically a digital back that fit a Nikon N90 body with the film back removed. With the 1D X, it was finally possible to make a fast FF sensor that could be used for sports.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Back when the first DSLR's came out in the early to mid 1990's, the APS-H was the largest sensor it was practical to manufacture.
> 
> I had a 6 mp Kodak DCS 460C with APS-H sensor that originally came out in 1995 and cost $35,500 (I paid $100 a few years ago). The APS-H sensor was established early on, and was popular. It was basically a digital back that fit a Nikon N90 body with the film back removed. With the 1D X, it was finally possible to make a fast FF sensor that could be used for sports.



Wow, even then Nikon bodies had lots of buttons. I line the elegant connection between the halves with the exposed cable, too. Cool stuff!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 10, 2013)

pwp said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > Noooooooooooooooooo, don't ask such questions 'round these parts... the APS-H boys will pounce!!!
> ...



I have been offered a hardly used 1D4, which I briefly considered because the 1.3x crop would appear to help with bird photography. However, its lower pixel density than the 5DIII means that in practice the effective crop factor is only 1.1. So, I am going to wait for a 7DII to complement my superb 5DIII.


----------



## KyleSTL (Sep 10, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...


Mark it on the calendar folks, neuro was corrected by another member. /joking

Neuro, I totally agree with you that the DCS460 was one of the most unelegant designs ever. However, Canon was not immune to ugly-early-DSLR-syndrome:

DCS 1 / DCS 3 /DCS 5 - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2936.msg61510#msg61510
Kodak DCS 520/Canon D2000 - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs520/
Kodak DCS 560/Canon D6000 - http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dslr/data/1995-2004/1998_eos-d6000.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1995-2004
Look at how far the backs stick out for the DCS 1/3/5 cameras - you'd practically need the EX15 eyepiece extender to even get a complete view.

Even the D30 and D60 had horrible ergonomics for the AF, Drive, and AE butons:


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 10, 2013)

Philips being a Dutch company, I simply had to correct  Heheheheh... 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Philips being a Dutch company, I simply had to correct  Heheheheh... 8)



Thanks for the correction. I guess I have the Dutch to thank for my smooth, Norelco-shaven face...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Back when the first DSLR's came out in the early to mid 1990's, the APS-H was the largest sensor it was practical to manufacture.
> ...


 
Yes, and if the shutter failed, you just got a different DSLR body and popped off the back door, and mounted it to the Kodak back. The connecting cable hooked to the existing Nikon port. It was a really elegant solution for the only 6mp DSLR in 1995.

SCSI port, or you could remove the PCMIA Type III card and put it into a reader. It recorded RAW TIFF files which Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop still reads. I did not have the cable with the round connector, and could not get the SCSI port to work.







It still takes photos but the image has a reddish tint, which can be corrected. I expect that the CCD sensor ageing has taken its toll.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Philips being a Dutch company, I simply had to correct  Heheheheh... 8)
> ...



You're welcome of course (and thanks too; for the learning about Norelco; hadn't heard about that before, but then again it's used strictly in the USA...)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 10, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



What a MONSTER!!!!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 10, 2013)

cost and ability to get high fps while keeping a bit more reach

they also got to save on the mechanical mirror box and shutter too, not just the sensor, these are two parts that have real manufacturing costs


----------



## Xaaav (Sep 10, 2013)

Hi There,
Reason is not that easy but has has a good reason. Indeed 
1D is sport camera for pro, canon knows how to produce good FF sensor and chipset but 1DS3 files are big, and have lot of info on the 21mpx. If you want to get the same resolution with higher FPS, then you need to find a solution as current chipset can t handle 10 images sec with FF Raw 21mpx (if they could at that time it would have been very expensive for the market), best option was to reduce pixel en sensor size, and it gives an extra reach for sport and nature. Also crop are cheaper to produce. Also putting a 7D or 50d sensor in a pro 1D body with high price tag would have been silly... why spending 5 000 usd for same sensor as a 900 usd 50D...

If you note 1DX which is a 12fps >> 14fps you have some limitation
14fps you have to lock autofocus and be jpg
12 fps you have to be below 3200 iso
10fps you can shoot raw and any iso (almost)

Last but not least, EF S lense (entry level quality) on 1D camera (pro) is just like having bicycle wheels on a Porsche Cayenne. You loose most of the advantages..

All is about having good compromise and money wise making sense for the market.


----------



## AprilForever (Sep 10, 2013)

I have often wondered if Canon would revive the APS-H. They made they fishie lens, what had special markings for it, then abandoned it. Something I find amusing is to use my 11-16mm Tokina on my 5d mk II. It works to about 14mm, then starts to vignette. The amount without filter is ok to about 12.5, after which it's just wasting space, except that it becomes maddenling wide angle on the top and bottom of the frame. I would love to try a sigma 8-16 on, but I digress...

Anyway, what if the 7D mk II were APS-H? Would angle would be workable.... But, would longer become sadder? Mayhap if they increased the pixel density, we could cheer. 

My wife has called supper, and, reading htis post, it makes no sense (I work night shift), and must stop become it confuses any more!


----------

