# Anyone else interested in 1Dx M2 with APS-c sensor?



## RGF (May 18, 2016)

I like the feel and function of the 1D bodies. Yes they are large and heavy but for the most part I can live with the size.

I would like to see Canon place an APS-c Sensor in a 1Dx M2 body. Best AF possible, best ergonomics, S/N, ...

Would anyone else be interested in this. Hopefully the price would not be $6,000.


----------



## j-nord (May 18, 2016)

I also rather see the 7Diii at around $2k than a 1Dxii w/crop. I doubt there is a market for a $6k-ish crop that can't deliver the IQ of the FF version. I think most will agree, if you can afford the size, weight, and cost of the 1D series, you can afford the glass necessary to fill the frame. I just don't see it.


----------



## Act444 (May 18, 2016)

Perhaps APS-H (1.3x) would be a good compromise between reach and higher quality. APS-C sensor quality, while not bad, really isn't worth more (IMO) than about $2K even with all the bells and whistles.

So in short - I'd say yes to 1.3x but no to 1.6x.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 19, 2016)

I liked APS- as a compromise with FF, but with the 7D MK II, there would be no reason for me to spend $4K or whatever it would cost.


----------



## tphillips63 (May 19, 2016)

I think it would be great but I doubt the demand is there or they would make it. 
Maybe in the future the demand will increase.
Still I don't like the feel of a mounted grip so I'd like one but not at 4000USD


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 19, 2016)

If sales of Nikon D500 is a resounding success, will shows if there is demand for an APS-C camera truly PRO.

I do not think many people would be willing to pay more than $ 2,000 for an APS-C camera capable of AF super top, and 14 frames per second.


----------



## TexPhoto (May 19, 2016)

Act444 said:


> Perhaps APS-H (1.3x) would be a good compromise between reach and higher quality. APS-C sensor quality, while not bad, really isn't worth more (IMO) than about $2K even with all the bells and whistles.
> 
> So in short - I'd say yes to 1.3x but no to 1.6x.



APS-H was awesome. The 1D mark IV is a great camera that has held up well love the years. My favorite aspect was that Canon crop lenses would not mount, but 3rd party crop lenses like the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 worked great! Felt like you were getting away with something. 

As long as we are putting a small sensor in a big camera, let's think outside the box. How about a rolling shutter like a movie camera and maybe 30fps?


----------



## pwp (May 19, 2016)

Of course it's never going to happen, but while we're in Dreamland, let's make it APS-H. 

-pw


----------



## axtstern (May 19, 2016)

Not sure if I'm fully qualified to answer as I never had a digital APS H camera but...
15 years ago I was shooting with the analog Canon EOS SLR called IX. You could choose between APS H, C and W. Of course that was only emulated as it always was the standard crop of space on a fil you used but still you had your choice and the viewfinder did adapt. 

Unlike on the EOS 1 IV you did not gain advantages in mirror slapping, shutter or processing speed. You were also not tempted with EF-S glass as it did not exist at that time.

My experinece from that time however was to almost never change to APS H. Like with a motorcycle with a sidecar you gain some advantage in very special situations but you also get all disadvantages of a car and a bike joined up in one chassis.

So yes I would like a high end crop. High end in regards to be able to beat the 7DII in its sport abilities but with the versatility of a 1D especialy with the 1D form factor. Just please let it be a standard APS capable of using the lightweight lenses rather the APS H compromise.


----------



## 9VIII (May 19, 2016)

What I really want is an SL1 with an integrated grip. Make a sports version and a high MP portrait version, both applications use the grip.

I know the 760D with battery grip is getting close, but I want it slimmed down even more, using an integrated battery grip should shave at least half an inch off the vertical size.


----------



## eml58 (May 19, 2016)

For quite a while my main stay cameras were the 1Ds Mk III & the 1D Mk IV, both great Cameras, I still own the 1DsMk III sold the 1D Mk IV.

Smartest thing Canon did was combining these Cameras into the 1Dx (my opinion only), I no longer use the 1Ds Mk III as I have the 5DsR, the APS 'H' of the 1D Mk IV I sometimes miss, but not that much, nothing like a FF sensor, unless it's a MF sensor.


----------



## ahsanford (May 19, 2016)

A 1DX II where the only change is to a crop sensor? Will never happen without major deliberate nerfing/limitation of that rig, and I'll tell you why. 

For a long time, the 1D brand had to have features that the 5D brand's users would drool for. Let's take spot metering at any AF point or perhaps a dedicated AF/metering module, for example. Were they to put this functionality into a new 5D model, it could (in some small way) threaten 1D sales and the premium that it asks for.

Now extend this analogy to the 7D brand. For this camp of shooters, the killer apps / features would be an integral grip, the next-gen of tracking AF, expanded teleconverter use and 16 fps. Were Canon to offer this rig _even at the same price as the 1DX II_, they'd lose money on people not needing as much reach, which would hurt their supertele lens sales.

Now, would they stuff a crop sensor into 1DX II body and deliberately nerf it, perhaps capping at 10-12 fps, sticking the current 7D2 AF module in there, etc.? Possibly, sure, but I'd peg it as unlikely.

But I still think there is a far larger market (and money to be made) by Canon putting a high res / low fps setup into a 1D body a la the old 1Ds line. Right now prior 1Ds owners have a choice of a 1D feature set *or* a 50 MP sensor. Canon's leaving a ton of money on the table with each studio or landscape photographer buying a 5DS instead of a pricier 1D rig with that same sensor in it.

- A


----------



## j-nord (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> But I still think there is a far larger market (and money to be made) by Canon putting a high res / low fps setup into a 1D body a la the old 1Ds line. Right now prior 1Ds owners have a choice of a 1D feature set *or* a 50 MP sensor. Canon's leaving a ton of money on the table with each studio or landscape photographer buying a 5DS instead of a pricier 1D rig with that same sensor in it.
> 
> - A



I completely agree, I see a much bigger market for a very high m-pix but much slower fps 1D series body. The question is, would canon run 2 tangent high m-pix FF lines (5Ds and 1Ds)?


----------



## ahsanford (May 19, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I completely agree, I see a much bigger market for a very high m-pix but much slower fps 1D series body. The question is, would canon run 2 tangent high m-pix FF lines (5Ds and 1Ds)?



I think they s--- the bed with the 5DS decision making. 


They put out a first / best-in-class offering (on one spec: resolution) into a 2nd tier product. Premium money has been left on the table.



They've built a market expectation that the 5D line will have a high MP rig on a go-forward basis. It's hard to push something upmarket once it's been accomplished downmarket.


Course correcting with a newhigh MP 1D body _now_ may not sell well, as people pining for high res may have just spent their money on a 5DS or two. 50 MP may not be enough to sell that unit now.


They made their 5DS framerate goal a shade too high and had to put a second DIGIC chip in there to do it, which is typically reserved for 1D rigs. To some extent, this limits Canon's ability to differentiate a future sexy 1D high res rig _as that card has already been played on the 5DS_, i.e. if they went with one chip in the 5DS and said "Here's a 50 MP x 2.5-3 fps rig for you resolutionatics, have at it!", a follow-up with 50 MP x 5-6 fps in the 1D form factor would have an easier time distinguishing itself as a more premium option.


I'm no enemy of the 5DS by any stretch, but I think that unleashing 50 MP with nearly the 1DX I's throughput in the middle the FF space (instead of the top of it) will create problems for Canon as time goes on.

But who knows -- they may be printing money from all the enthusiast resolution-obsessives or wedding photogs that stayed with them instead of going to a D810 for more pixels. I have faith that Canon made this offering with everything thought through, but I still scratch my head on this one a bit.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2016)

Are they leaving money on the table?

Way before the Canon 5D3 came out I was speaking to a shop owner in Vancouver who mentioned the plans to scrap the APS-H range so they could rationalise their sensors and have only 2 platforms to worry about. And thta came to pass. 
Similarly the broad strategy was for a rugged sports/outdoor camera (1Dx) and a lighter version that was not only studio but also some capability of the 1Dx. A FF '1Dx-lite' as he put it. And that pretty much came out. 

I mention that only because of the apparent rationalisation of lines (OK, I know the 6D and the 5DS came out since....) so although it makes sense for us mere mortals that some people would buy a high-MP 1Dx they may not see the cost-benefit at corporate level. 

The 7D2 was delayed and eventually came out 5 years after the MkI and all rumours suggested they would rather not release a model than release a half-assed one. Maybe the high-MP 1Dx was on the cards but in early testing it may have compromised other functions unacceptably - I am sure they have consulted many professionals and from reviews so far the image quality is already fantastic and higher MPs is low down the list.


----------



## ahsanford (May 19, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Maybe the high-MP 1Dx was on the cards but in early testing it may have compromised other functions unacceptably - I am sure they have consulted many professionals and from reviews so far the image quality is already fantastic and higher MPs is low down the list.



Entirely fair. It's also possible that the higher end folks asking for more resolution just moved up to medium format to get it.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Entirely fair. It's also possible that the higher end folks asking for more resolution just moved up to medium format to get it.
> 
> - A



Unless I misunderstood your comment, I would say that if they went to MF instead of choosing the 5DSr, then it means having a high MP 1Dx2 would not have been sufficient to keep them with Canon anyway. People buy the 1Dx2 primarily for AF speed, framerate and whole bag of other tricks. MF does not come close on any of those so again there is no market overlap for Canon to address.


----------



## ahsanford (May 19, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Entirely fair. It's also possible that the higher end folks asking for more resolution just moved up to medium format to get it.
> ...



Remember the old split Canon had years ago?

1D line: APS-H + speed
1Ds line: FF + highest resolution

They then put out the 1DX as the 'fusion' / crossover product for both camps. 1D4 people bought into the 1DX and the 1Ds people were only lukewarm to it. Now, 4 years later, the 1DX II seems to be hitting all cylinders for the action crowd and 1Ds folks feel a bit abandoned on the detail front. 

I'm saying folks who want high-res in a 1D feature set for non-action / framerate reasons (i.e. they like the 1D for it's metering, integral grip, build quality, etc.). So a medium format rig might be an option for them if Canon won't give them what they want.

Old 1Ds studio and landscape folks have three options:


Enjoy the 1DX or 1DX II and wish you had more pixels
Enjoy the 5DS and wish you had the 1D feature set
Go medium format to cover your high detail needs
Bounce to Nikon

As the third and fourth options are not particularly reasonable ones (some _may_ entertain an MF rig), I contend that there are a number of 1Ds owners who would pony up $6-7k on the spot for a 50 MP FF sensor sitting in a 1DX II body (obviously at a lower framerate).

- A


----------



## romanr74 (May 19, 2016)

RGF said:


> I like the feel and function of the 1D bodies. Yes they are large and heavy but for the most part I can live with the size.
> 
> I would like to see Canon place an APS-c Sensor in a 1Dx M2 body. Best AF possible, best ergonomics, S/N, ...
> 
> Would anyone else be interested in this. Hopefully the price would not be $6,000.



Can someone explain me why on earth you would even want that????


----------



## ahsanford (May 19, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I like the feel and function of the 1D bodies. Yes they are large and heavy but for the most part I can live with the size.
> ...



Three reasons:

1) Reach
2) Reach
3) Reach

Seriously, though, you can spin APS-C and reach two principal ways (if you have good light): you can go longer with the big superwhites you already own, or you can get as far as you used to with FF with a less expensive and less heavy/large superteles. 

- A


----------



## romanr74 (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



This is exactly the argument i don't understand. There is no such thing like reach attached to a smaller sensor.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Got any empirical evidence from same generation crop and ff sensors to back up a *meaningful* 'reach advantage'? I've looked many times and have yet to see any.


----------



## ahsanford (May 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Got any empirical evidence from same generation crop and ff sensors to back up a *meaningful* 'reach advantage'? I've looked many times and have yet to see any.



Whoa, I'm not alleging the shots will be _better_ with crop vs. FF. I want nothing to do with that debate.

I'm just saying that if you want to fill your frame with some varmint at a set distance away, a 'crop 1DX' will get that shot with a less expensive lens, that's all. 

- A


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



The 1Ds3 and 1Dx2 are 1 MP apart. Only thing is, the 1Ds3 retailed for $2k MORE than the 1Dx2 when released. I'd say there's no gap anymore. However, I don't think the 1Dx2 has nearly as strong of a CFA.


----------



## romanr74 (May 19, 2016)

*Re: Anyone else interested in 1Dx M2 with APS*



ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Got any empirical evidence from same generation crop and ff sensors to back up a *meaningful* 'reach advantage'? I've looked many times and have yet to see any.
> ...



But not through more reach. Only through smaller area (to be filled).


----------



## privatebydesign (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



There is a 5th option, and one I, as a long time 1DS MkIII user have taken, stick to the 1DS MkIII.

As for your four other 'choices'.
1, Not possible, my customers are asking for bigger reproductions which require more MP not less.
2, Not prepared to do that, too many intangibles.
3, Cost, functionality, handling, reliability etc. MF cameras are not in the same league for general uses as the 135 format.
4, Nikon don't have an 11-24, or a TS-E 17, or a 35mm f2 IS, which are my three most used lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (May 19, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> The 1Ds3 and 1Dx2 are 1 MP apart. Only thing is, the 1Ds3 retailed for $2k MORE than the 1Dx2 when released. I'd say there's no gap anymore. However, I don't think the 1Dx2 has nearly as strong of a CFA.



A 1Ds3 is also 9 years older! 1Ds3 users who bought into Canon for the high resolution + 1D feature set has been waiting many years for an update. 1DX2 will not completely serve their needs, and neither will a 5DS.

- A


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The 1Ds3 and 1Dx2 are 1 MP apart. Only thing is, the 1Ds3 retailed for $2k MORE than the 1Dx2 when released. I'd say there's no gap anymore. However, I don't think the 1Dx2 has nearly as strong of a CFA.
> ...



I would say for that we'd need a 1Ds type body with about 36 MP. Put a strong CFA in and have all the 1D series body features and I would buy one for sure.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Got any empirical evidence from same generation crop and ff sensors to back up a *meaningful* 'reach advantage'? I've looked many times and have yet to see any.
> ...



And I'm saying have you got any empirical evidence to back that assertion up? 

None of the same generation crop camera vs cropped ff images I have seen have ever illustrated a *meaningful* advantage to the crop camera. My point is that the idea of that cheaper shorter lens is essentially a myth.


----------



## ahsanford (May 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> And I'm saying have you got any empirical evidence to back that assertion up?
> 
> None of the same generation crop camera vs cropped ff images I have seen have ever illustrated a *meaningful* advantage to the crop camera. My point is that the idea of that cheaper shorter lens is essentially a myth.



That's not what I am trying to prove to you. I am saying a 'crop 1DX' (or 7D2) + 400 prime will fill the frame with your varmint in a similar* way to how you'd frame it with a FF 1DX + 600 prime.

...for a lot less money. In a shorter overall Lens + body footprint. In a lighter aggregate weight. That is plenty meaningful to some folks.

*I did not say the IQ would be _*better*_ or the DOF/bokeh would be the same. I'm just saying you'd frame the shot basically similarly. I am not arguing that it is better by any stretch.

- A


----------



## wsmith96 (May 19, 2016)

Isn't this the 7D Mk II with a battery grip?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 19, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> Isn't this the 7D Mk II with a battery grip?



I think he means literally just take out the sensor on a 1Dx and replace it with an APS-C sensor.


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > And I'm saying have you got any empirical evidence to back that assertion up?
> ...



But what is the advantage in practical terms if not image quality?
The only difference I can see is that you would need to crop the 1Dx picture in post processing


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 19, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



This scenario gets discussed quite often. I think at 100% on my computer monitor, if I put 18 MP on subject with a 7D at ISO 100, that looks better to me than taking the shot with a 1Dx, cropping to the same FoV (approximately 7 MP on subject). At higher ISO's I don't find that to be true however. Scientifically no it's not technically more reach but putting more MP's on subject at low ISO always looks better to me at least. With the 5Ds/R the point is moot.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > And I'm saying have you got any empirical evidence to back that assertion up?
> ...



And I am saying to you that is a bogus contention. 

I say, and do have empirical evidence to support my assertion, that if you take any same generation crop and ff sensors and use the same lens and just crop the ff image down to the same fov as the crop camera image there is precious little difference, even in optimal test conditions at optimal settings. As soon as you use AF, don't have maximum contrast in your lighting, or come off base iso any differences are minuscule and vary more on the shooting conditions than the camera used.

Now I'd like to see if that still holds up with the 1DX MkII and 7D MkII, but I have no reason to doubt it, pixel numbers don't mean a thing it is the quality of those pixels that is much more important.

I was very interested in this comparison when the 7D came out, I owned the 1DS MkIII and extensively tested the two to see how much difference there was between cropping the FF against using all the frame of the crop camera given the 7D would give me more than double the pixels in the same area. It turned out that even under test conditions set up to favour the 7D the differences were minimal.


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> With the 5Ds/R the point is moot.



That sums it up nicely


----------



## kaptainkatsu (May 20, 2016)

The one thing I like better about my 1DX2 vs my 7D2 w/grip is the vertical thumb stick is better positioned so I can reach the main dial easier. 

I seriously doubt the 7D3 will come with an integrated grip. Canon likes to differentiate their lines and force upgrades. 

The one major complaint I see with the 1D series is its so big. But realistically it's no bigger than having a battery grip. Making the camera smaller and offering an optional grip allows canon to sell to more people. From a manufacturing standpoint, making two identical cameras but one without a grip and one integrated in doesn't make sense.


----------



## jarrodeu (May 20, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I say, and do have empirical evidence to support my assertion, that if you take any same generation crop and ff sensors and use the same lens and just crop the ff image down to the same fov as the crop camera image there is precious little difference, even in optimal test conditions at optimal settings.



So cropping a 5DS and a 1DX MkII to match a crop camera, there would be very little difference between the two full frame cameras since the 5DS has similar pixel density to a 7D Mk II?

Jarrod


----------



## j-nord (May 20, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I agree, in ideal lighting, crop = more pixels on the subject if you are going to crop anyway. However, Ive also found that at higher ISOs those additional pixels don't help. 5DSR has crop sensor pixel density with way more pixels, you can easily crop by 1.6 and get just as many pixels on subject. The difference here, though, is 5 fps vs 10 fps on the 7DII for example. 7Dii offers more pixels on subject (other then the 5DSR), at a higher fps, for less money.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2016)

jarrodeu said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I say, and do have empirical evidence to support my assertion, that if you take any same generation crop and ff sensors and use the same lens and just crop the ff image down to the same fov as the crop camera image there is precious little difference, even in optimal test conditions at optimal settings.
> ...



Forget pixel density, it is far less relevant than people realize. Think sensor generation and area instead. Normalize the output from a cropped 5DSR and 1DX MkII and the full frame from a 7D MkII and there will be little difference regardless of the pixel numbers. 

I have been interested in a 5DSR, but I have found that a resampled 1DS MkIII image IQ to be within a hairs breadth of the same thing, with the caveat being at base ISO, that is the one area where newer sensors vastly outclass older ones.


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> jarrodeu said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Keith at Northlight images agrees with you ... well, sort of 

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-print-comparison.html


----------



## Mikehit (May 20, 2016)

jarrodeu said:


> So cropping a 5DS and a 1DX MkII to match a crop camera, there would be very little difference between the two full frame cameras since the 5DS has similar pixel density to a 7D Mk II?
> 
> Jarrod



Art Morris did just that in comparing 5D3 and 7D2 and marginally preferred the 7D2

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014/10/19/eos-7d-mark-iieos-5d-mark-iii-comparison-they-thought-that-it-would-be-easy/


----------



## Mikehit (May 20, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Keith at Northlight images agrees with you ... well, sort of
> 
> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-print-comparison.html



Thanks for the link JR. I love this bit


> Even when I pointed to detail in the biggest prints, several people 'couldn't see the difference'. One even said they liked the 1Ds print the best (I'm told the look on my face was worth seeing...
> 
> Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people.



I've long said that this quest to 'give the customer the best possible output' is more about the photographer's ego than what the client wants or needs.


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> jarrodeu said:
> 
> 
> > So cropping a 5DS and a 1DX MkII to match a crop camera, there would be very little difference between the two full frame cameras since the 5DS has similar pixel density to a 7D Mk II?
> ...



Yup and now is out there shooting with the 5DSR. 

I've found it rather strange that he uses it for BIF despite the fact that it has a slow frame rate - but then he's too good at it and has so much experience shooting BIF that he can work around it in ways that most can't.


----------



## Mikehit (May 20, 2016)

He admits himself that birds in flight is not really his main subject - he will do it if the opportunity arises but he is more about behaviour so he takes the hit on the frame rate reducing his chance of getting the wings in the 'perfect' position. Mind you, one reason he doesn't use the 1Dx as much now is its weight and his health, so it is a decision based in part in practicality. [should I get a 1Dx while I am still fit enough to carry one....?]


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> He admits himself that birds in flight is not really his main subject - he will do it if the opportunity arises but he is more about behaviour so he takes the hit on the frame rate reducing his chance of getting the wings in the 'perfect' position. Mind you, one reason he doesn't use the 1Dx as much now is its weight and his health, so it is a decision based in part in practicality. [should I get a 1Dx while I am still fit enough to carry one....?]



True. 

That being said, in the entire technical discussion that follows in his blog post, this comment stands out (useful for people here too)


----------



## Mikehit (May 20, 2016)

I just stumbled on this by pure coincidence. The thread as a whole illustrates choices and compromises but Art's post sums it up

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/135064-1DX-II-vs-5DsR-Which-is-best-for-Birds



> I have written tons on the 5DS R on the blog over the last six months. I own and use two of them. My 1D X II will be here in two days. I will use it for flight, action, and high ISO needs. I am sure that 1DX II image files will look great but they will not hold a candle to a sharp 5DS R image file. I have made many wonderful flight and action photos with my 5DS R bodies. As much as I feel that the 7D II is the greatest value ever in a digital camera body, the image files are rubbish when compared to 5DS R files. And they will surely suffer in comparison to 1DX II image files, especially at the higher ISOs.
> 
> ps to Arash et al: I own a 7D II and never use it anymore for bird photography. Different strokes for different folks of course but folks need to realized the an individual's style is of paramount importance when selecting a camera body. As I approach 70 I am not very good any more in flight and action situations. Young studs like Arash and Patrick Sparkman and David Salem would clean my clock there on a regular basis. If however, the bird or animal is just sitting there I am gonna work clean and tight I am gonna make the best image most of the time... So for me, the 5DS R is right. None-the-less I look forward to getting my hands on a 1DX II especially to see how much better the AF system is...


----------



## 9VIII (May 20, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I was very interested in this comparison when the 7D came out, I owned the 1DS MkIII and extensively tested the two to see how much difference there was between cropping the FF against using all the frame of the crop camera given the 7D would give me more than double the pixels in the same area. It turned out that even under test conditions set up to favour the 7D the differences were minimal.



The 7D has a notoriously strong AA filter, everything past the 650D using that sensor was much sharper on the pixel level. At low ISO I think the Rebel 760D has the sharpest image overall right now, Canon still keeps the AA strong on the 7D2, and I think the 80D is still softer than the 760D.
Which seems to indicate that Canon is more concerned about moire on the higher end models.


----------



## Monchoon (May 20, 2016)

9VIII said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I was very interested in this comparison when the 7D came out, I owned the 1DS MkIII and extensively tested the two to see how much difference there was between cropping the FF against using all the frame of the crop camera given the 7D would give me more than double the pixels in the same area. It turned out that even under test conditions set up to favour the 7D the differences were minimal.
> ...



May I ask how do you know all this? So the 80D with new sensor according to you is worse than the rebals? And so is the 7D2?


----------



## wsmith96 (May 20, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't this the 7D Mk II with a battery grip?
> ...



I guess that could be done if Canon wanted to do that. Would that make it a 1.6Dx?? ;D

I could see there being a niche market for something like this, but who knows what would have to be redesigned inside to accommodate a chip swap like that. I figure that if someone is going to want to spend between 4-6k on a camera that it would likely be using a FF sensor.


----------



## scottkinfw (May 21, 2016)

For me, I love the images from ff, much better than crop. Therefore, I would not be interested.

sek


----------



## nvsravank (May 21, 2016)

Maybe they should put a new 50 mp full frame sensor in it but fix the crop mode so that it doesn't read the whole sensor and only the central portion. This way you kill two birds with one stone. 

Studio photography folks who want a 50 mp sensor in a 1d body as well as crop body crowd looking for 1d body. 

This will require new sensor with on chip ADC I think so as to be able to get read only the central portion and get some faster frame rate.


----------



## tron (May 21, 2016)

RGF said:


> I like the feel and function of the 1D bodies. Yes they are large and heavy but for the most part I can live with the size.
> 
> I would like to see Canon place an APS-c Sensor in a 1Dx M2 body. Best AF possible, best ergonomics, *S/N*, ...
> 
> Would anyone else be interested in this. Hopefully the price would not be $6,000.


Well the S/N will be similar to that of 7D2 since it will be a crop camera. S/N has nothing to do with the "1" or the size of camera.


----------



## unfocused (May 21, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ...if you take any same generation crop and ff sensors and use the same lens and just crop the ff image down to the same fov as the crop camera image there is precious little difference, even in optimal test conditions at optimal settings.



I would agree. But, would also add this. It only works like that if you are not distance limited and don't need to crop the image much beyond the equivalent framing.

The 1DX II will give you about 8 mp when cropped to APS-C size. (20/1.6 /1.6). That's fine. But, at some point beyond that you will lose detail. If you are distance limited and your 7DII image has to be cropped to 9 m.p., you would be down to 3.5 mp on a 1DX II. It still might be okay, depending on the size of your final output, but if you keep going, sooner or later, you won't have much detail left in your image. Under most circumstances, you can compensate by getting closer or using a longer lens. But, with some subjects that's not possible or practical and cropping is necessary. 

So really, when people disagree over using an APS-C for more reach and cropping a full frame image, I would say they are both right and both wrong.


----------



## AdamBotond (May 21, 2016)

Would be interested in a 7D III as long as Canon can make reasonable upgrades, especially when it comes to IQ. The N brand has released a flagship APSC camera, which is way ahead of any other APSC cameras hands down, equals IQ to FF practically. If Canon could manage a breakthrough in that area, I will be a buyer. 80D shows some improvements in DR, however not much in high ISO capabilities. 1 DX II does not show much high ISO improvements, either, which led me to assume Canon is stuck with their sensor development regarding high ISO.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 21, 2016)

AdamBotond said:


> Would be interested in a 7D III as long as Canon can make reasonable upgrades, especially when it comes to IQ. The N brand has released a flagship APSC camera, which is way ahead of any other APSC cameras hands down, equals IQ to FF practically. If Canon could manage a breakthrough in that area, I will be a buyer. 80D shows some improvements in DR, however not much in high ISO capabilities. 1 DX II does not show much high ISO improvements, either, which led me to assume Canon is stuck with their sensor development regarding high ISO.



Yes, the 1Dx2 is at the top of high ISO improvements. What do you want? How many stops do you think can be improved at high ISO? We're at the limit. Period. The improvements to be had are in read noise which is mostly noticed at lower ISO's. Don't understand the high ISO comments.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 21, 2016)

tron said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I like the feel and function of the 1D bodies. Yes they are large and heavy but for the most part I can live with the size.
> ...



Yes. Nobody wants a 1Dx body with the DR of an APS-C sensor.


----------



## Ozarker (May 21, 2016)

RGF said:


> Would anyone else be interested in this.



No, not ever.


----------



## Act444 (May 21, 2016)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...if you take any same generation crop and ff sensors and use the same lens and just crop the ff image down to the same fov as the crop camera image there is precious little difference, even in optimal test conditions at optimal settings.
> ...



I was one of those on the crop vs. FF battles that went for reach on the crop camera every time. Now, though, I'm not so sure...

Back story - I have been surprisingly underwhelmed with the 7D2 so far (AF-related), which has me contemplating a switch...perhaps to a 1D series. But somewhat disappointingly the 1DXs are all FF, so before I drop $6K I wanted to find out if I REALLY would miss the extra reach or not. So, for the first time, at an ice skating event (where I normally would use a crop camera like the 7D) I picked up a 200mm 2.8 and went for my 5D3 instead. I did bring the 7D2 as a backup but the 5D was going to be my main camera. To my surprise, it turned out the 7D never left the bag.

Why? Well, I'm finding that when the 5D nailed focus, the IQ was simply breathtaking - truly professional-grade, virtually indistinguishable from agency pictures. Well beyond anything any of my crop cameras have ever put out. Even the "almost there" and "slightly off" ones could be made fairly decent (or usable) with some USM tweaking in post. A few of these shots needed to be cropped extensively, some down to as small as 4 MP. (I typically don't have to crop below 10MP with the 7D.) I quickly found that for some reason, the 5D images tended to hold up much better to this extensive cropping than what I've gotten out of the 7D and 60D in the past. (a 7D image cropped all the way down to 4MP looks like crap in my eyes, sorry!) So I'm wondering now...Yes, when reach-limited, crop can provide more detail by getting more pixels on the sensor...but in my experience, those pixels have been of a lower quality...so to TRULY make a difference, a)either the AA filter on the crop camera needs to be removed and/or the AF improved, or b) the situation is such that you fill 1/4 or less of the frame of the FF camera with your subject, and getting closer is not possible or feasible. 

(As an aside..it also reaffirmed my dissatisfaction with the 7D2 focus system...I found the 5D3's AF to be noticeably more consistent and reliable than the 7D with relatively still subjects and subjects moving side-to-side (skaters spinning or gliding slowly). I've had instances where the 7D2 would miss just about EVERY shot in a similar series. Both cameras seemed about the same with quicker action, mixed results overall- higher hit rates in some scenarios and lower in others. MAYBE I'd give the SLIGHT edge to the 7D.)


Another instance that sealed the deal for me is that the other arena where I've ALWAYS used a crop-sensor camera is animal photography. But I was out with the 5D3 one day, 70-300 attached, shooting a festival and ended up in a shaded area. I saw a squirrel up in a tree and decided to try to get the shot. He was fairly low, so it turned out 300mm on FF was enough to fill most of the frame. Then I saw a bird scurrying around and took a couple there as well. When I downloaded the shots, I was blown away at the level of detail in the furs, and the somewhat punchier colors. Never had I had a squirrel image so crisp and clear like that. It seemed like when I used the 7D, that detail would always be lacking, unless in the rare instances I get very close and the animal is in bright sunlight...Again, it feels as if I'm still getting lower quality from the crop pictures even though the images are larger...the reach difference has to be _significant_, it seems. I dunno...I'm torn right now. 

FF image quality is still quite a revelation for me sometimes...


----------



## danski0224 (May 22, 2016)

Act444-

High ISO on a crop sensor falls apart faster than the same ISO on a "full frame" sensor. Therfore, the pixels on the full frame sensor have more image quality. 

In perfect conditions, the crop sensor would deliver better image quality. Perfect conditions means no image stabilization, near base ISO and a shutter speed that is 2x the focal length. 

Other things like the anti alias filter and color filter array in front of the sensor also make a difference. 

I never used my 7D once I got a 5DII.


----------



## AdamBotond (May 22, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> What do you want? How many stops do you think can be improved at high ISO? We're at the limit.


 How about a 7D III with high iso capabilities of D500. Am I the only Canon user into this? Well, I think 1-2 stops could be improved. D500 has just showed us there is a LOT room for improvements. So we aren't at the limit really, only Canon is IMO. But back to the point, I am only interested if the 7D successor brings major upgrades to the table. The only reason why I have not switched to 7D II is the IQ at high ISO, as plenty of my wildlife photography takes place at dusk and dawn. After editing numerous high iso pics taken with D500, I would say it equals to my 6D FF camera when it comes to high ISO. Anything here you don't agree with?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 22, 2016)

AdamBotond said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > What do you want? How many stops do you think can be improved at high ISO? We're at the limit.
> ...



You don't even know what you're arguing. First you complained that the 1Dx 2 has no improvement or little, in high ISO development. That's because it's a FF sensor and no, there is not room for improvement there. Then in this thread you change to APS-C sensors. Of course there's room for improvement there, but overall nobody is going to get more than 10 stops on any sensor. That's pretty much the limit. So again, the tech improvements will be in read noise.


----------



## Mikehit (May 22, 2016)

Interesting Act444. 
Posts by Art Morris show there is little to choose between the 7D2 and 5D3 image wise even when cropped but if I recall correctly, others say that the AF of the 5D3 is marginally more secure. 

The question I have is regards ISO performance. A lot of these experienced bird photographers seem to have the luxury of southern US and the better light quality. Me? I'm stuck in NW England which is further north than Vancouver and it is the payoff of ISO v quality that I am toying with. What sort of conditions were you shooting in?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 22, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Interesting Act444.
> Posts by Art Morris show there is little to choose between the 7D2 and 5D3 image wise even when cropped but if I recall correctly, others say that the AF of the 5D3 is marginally more secure.
> 
> The question I have is regards ISO performance. A lot of these experienced bird photographers seem to have the luxury of southern US and the better light quality. Me? I'm stuck in NW England which is further north than Vancouver and it is the payoff of ISO v quality that I am toying with. What sort of conditions were you shooting in?



As the iso goes up and light and contrast come down the cropped ff camera is favoured, the bigger pixels have better performance.

Good light and contrast is when the crop camera is favoured, but by a surprsingly small amount.

I used to post these comparisons a lot when crop vs cropped FF was THE topic, fallen out of favour since the DR wars took over 

Test is from years ago of a 7D vs cropped 1Ds MkIII, but the same generation thing is the key, my findings have held up well over time when comparing same generation sensors. Conditions were set up to favour the 7D, this is the biggest difference you will ever see, and you will never see that big a difference in 'real world' shooting conditions. Same lens, light, aperture, iso, massive tripod, cable release, live view 10X manual focus (despite this there is a difference in plane of focus, the 1Ds MkIII is focused behind the 7D which makes the ruler look sharper in the 7D image, but the paper towel is much sharper in the 1Ds MkIII image) etc etc.

First image is full frame with the 7D image overlayed on it with the crops at 100% for the 7D and the 1Ds MkIII upsampled to match the pixel numbers (you can argue the methodology but I wanted to see the differences as I would process them).

Second image is a fraction of the same frame, 7D well over 200% and 1Ds MkIII at well over 300%. That is a single human hair from about 25 feet away. Where is double the number of the 7D pixels going?


----------



## Mikehit (May 22, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> First image is full frame with the 7D image overlayed on it with the crops at 100% for the 7D and the 1Ds MkIII upsampled to match the pixel numbers (you can argue the methodology but I wanted to see the differences as I would process them).
> 
> Second image is a fraction of the same frame, 7D well over 200% and 1Ds MkIII at well over 300%. That is a single human hair from about 25 feet away. Where is double the number of the 7D pixels going?



Thanks Privatebydesign.
On the whole I agree with your ideas, and the tests by Art Morris backs up what you say. In those images I can discern a difference in favour of the 7D (small, but noticable) but I am not sure if it is about detail or contrast and in my experience it is the sort of detail that can give disporportionate impression in the final image. 
Or maybe the difference is because of the different focus points you mention?

But I also wonder if the differences start to diverge at higher ISOs: so what ISO was that? 
Also, there are times where I sometime underexpose a tad to get a better shutter speed and better pixel quality will give a benefit there as well


----------



## privatebydesign (May 22, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > First image is full frame with the 7D image overlayed on it with the crops at 100% for the 7D and the 1Ds MkIII upsampled to match the pixel numbers (you can argue the methodology but I wanted to see the differences as I would process them).
> ...



Yes the apparent differences are due to the different plane of focus. The ruler is sharper in the 7D image, the paper towel is much sharper in the 1DS MkIII image. And don't forget, whilst the differences (from my bad technique) might appear noticeable, you are looking at them at well over 100% (well three of them) which are insane crops or print sizes.

They are shot at 200iso, which favoured the 7D, it was supposed to be base iso for the 7D and put the 1DS MkIII at a disadvantage as that has a base iso of 100 and definitely has more noise at 200 than 100. Having said that the 7D iso was not clear cut, some say 160 was base others that max DR was at 100 which would put both cameras at the same disadvantage.

Underexposure will kill small pixel performance (at the pixel level) faster than anything else, there is a good reason the 1DX MkII has 20MP and the 5DS is capped at 6400. In this 'reach limited' scenario pixel performance is far more important than pixel numbers.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 3, 2016)

Thanks PBD for sharing. The 7D does appear to be a bit better at first glance, but then again, with the differences in the plane of focus, it's really hard to tell for sure. 

I went out with the 5D3 and 100-400 on a dedicated animal shooting trek and the results I came back with pretty much affirms my initial findings and my earlier post. In bright daylight I found little (if any) difference to the 7D- MAYBE the 5D still renders the fine details a bit better, but it was close enough where you could not tell which camera took which shot unless you REALLY scrutinized it at 100%. In the shade, however, it was a different story. And THAT'S where the vast majority of the shots were taken! The ISO climbs as high as 3200...and while the 7D all but turns details to mush at that setting, the 5D3 still retains some of that crispness in most cases (although it's not as good as at the lower ISOs). 

The 7D really begins to fall apart above 800 or so in terms of retaining fine detail. Meanwhile, the 5D3 is crisp all the way to 1600, and at 3200 still does an admirable job. IMO (and experience), the ISO 1600-3200 range is where the separation between FF and crop appears to be the greatest - I'm not just talking noise-wise here. It also happens to be a range I shoot rather frequently in - whether it's animal shooting or an indoor event/show.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 3, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Got any empirical evidence from same generation crop and ff sensors to back up a *meaningful* 'reach advantage'? I've looked many times and have yet to see any.
> ...



I have to disagree with your point Mr. Sanford. I cannot see the point of that at all. 

For me, I just don't think the "reach" argument is strong enough especially when one says the point is to use non L glass. In that case the whole point is moot. Better off with a 7D Mark II with L glass. 7D mark II = $1,499, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM = $1,949, EF 400mm f/5.6L USM = $1,149 for a total of $4,597.00) 

One could even throw in a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM ($1,749.00) drop the 400mm f/5.6L and add a 2x III extender and it still comes out to $5,626.00. 

A real bargain compared to a single theoretical 1D crop (Assuming a crop 1D is same price as a 1Dx $4,599.00) and a single non-Canon zoom lens (Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD AF lens (which is very dark) @ $1,010.48 = $5609.48

Honestly, which of the two ideas would you like best?

Now, a 1D crop camera with which inexpensive glass? I just do not see the upside at all. Even if a crop sensor 1D body is a $1,000 less than a 1Dx Mark II (And I don't think it would be). By the time one buys it and buys just one less expensive 3rd party lens it works out about the same and one is left with the 1D crop camera and only one lens. Nothing else.  With the 7D Mark II you end up with a whole fantastic kit.

Not knocking you Mr. Sanford. I have a lot of respect for you. I just do not see the upside at all. One could even drop the 400mm f/5.6L and just throw a Canon 2X III extender ($429.00) on the 70-200mm which will give you 400mm f/5.6L with IS. That brings the total down to $3,877.00 without the Canon 24-70 II, or $5,626.00 with the Canon 24-70 II. (All prices from Adorama.)

I don't know which inexpensive glass you mean. Maybe a Sigma? I just don't know and I may have misinterpreted the point you were making. The way I see it, the point does not add up $$$ wise.

Let's say a crop 1D body costs $4,599 if it gets made. Add a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM Auto Focus Telephoto Lens for $4,399.00 and we are at $8,998.00. This is one way I might see an advantage. Only past 400mm I think. And only with a prime.

I just think the 7D mark II with a grip will give the same "feel" in the hand and get the same job done as a 1D body at a much less expensive price, and you get a whole collection of stellar L glass... since you mentioned price.

7D mark II ($1,499) + Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM Auto Focus Telephoto Lens ($4,399) = $5,898.00... $3,100 less than the theoretical 1D crop with the same lens.

7D Mark II ($1,499) + Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens ($6,099) + 2X III ($429) = $8,827, but the Canon lens is in a whole other category than the Sigma and you effectively have two lenses instead of just one with the Sigma. $171.00 less than the Sigma on a theoretical $4,599 1D crop body.

Yes, you could extend the Sigma to 1000mm, but it will be very dark (f/9, I think), almost impossible to get a photo of a moving varmint (varmints are small), and probably not near the IQ of the Canon setup.

What you would prefer: The Canon @ 600mm f/5.6 or the Sigma @ 1000mm f/9? I'll take the Canon. Someone wrote somewhere that FF sensors are 1 stop faster than crop sensors. I don't know whether that is true or not. If true, then the Sigma really sucks if it mounts to an EF-S Canon.

I do not see a $$$$ advantage you mention. I don't see a speed advantage at 1000mm either (shutter or f stop).

I know you are comparing a 1Dx to a theoretical 1D crop, but the 1D crop just doesn't add up to me when there is the 7D mark II or one day the 7D mark III. Also, I don't know if the Sigmas or Tamrons I mentioned are full frame or crop. Can they be used on an EF-S mount?

I know, a rambling post, but you know how I am. 

Hope you have a great day my friend.


----------



## digital paradise (Jun 13, 2016)

I would spend another $1000 if Canon put 1DX II AF into the 7D3. A few hundred more for no AA filter.


----------



## digital paradise (Jun 13, 2016)

AdamBotond said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > What do you want? How many stops do you think can be improved at high ISO? We're at the limit.
> ...



I have been a long time Canon shooter and have been taking a serious look at the D500. I want to go to the next level AF and I'm not happy about the prospect of spending $6,000 on a 1DX II. I don't need 14 FPS and I'm not fan of gripped bodies. Nikon puts their top AF tech into prosumer bodies.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2016)

digital paradise said:


> I have been a long time Canon shooter and have been taking a serious look at the D500. I want to go to the next level AF and I'm not happy about the prospect of spending $6,000 on a 1DX II. I don't need 14 FPS and I'm not fan of gripped bodies. *Nikon puts their top AF tech into prosumer bodies.*



*And so does Canon.* The 7D2 has effectively the same AF as the 1DX you see on every sports sideline (with small and noted exceptions*).

*If you want to get in the weeds, you can review that here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EOS-7D-II-1D-X-5D-III-AF-Comparison.aspx
(spoiler alert: 7D2 does just fine)

And, in time, the _even better_ 1DX2 AF setup will similarly find its way into a future 7D3. So to imply Canon doesn't take crop/prosumer bodies seriously is outright laughable -- they've had a stranglehold on this market segment for a very long time. 

Also keep in mind Nikon altogether abandoned the 'crop flagship' market segment for... how many years was it? _Seven?!_ How do you know Nikon will still have your back once you've invested in all their glass? They may get bored with this segment and abandon it again... Caveat emptor.

- A


----------



## digital paradise (Jun 14, 2016)

The 7D2 does not have a dedicated processor for AF. My 7D2 is good and I'm struggling but it is not !D series focusing.

From Preview's review. AF is inspired by the 1DX, not the same as 1DX. 

_The Canon 7D Mark II introduces a brand new autofocus (AF) module "inspired" by the professional level AF system in the Canon 1 DX. _


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 20, 2016)

9VIII said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I was very interested in this comparison when the 7D came out, I owned the 1DS MkIII and extensively tested the two to see how much difference there was between cropping the FF against using all the frame of the crop camera given the 7D would give me more than double the pixels in the same area. It turned out that even under test conditions set up to favour the 7D the differences were minimal.
> ...


To AA-filter, or not to AA-filter that is the question...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 29, 2016)

Guys less testing of cameras regardless of APS-C or FF and more on lenses. Recently was testing filters on the 5DS using a light sphere fitted with a CIPA high resolution chart. I used a number of different Canon L lenses we have and was shocked at just how bad some were (we tested with & without filters to see how much of a resolution loss the filters were producing). The difference being talked about regarding resolution between APS-C & FF sensors are not real world in the life-cycle of CMOS today whereas differences between lenses are and on that I would differ with Keith at Northlight it pays to check any new lens you purchase fully and exchange it if your unhappy.


----------

