# End of the APS-H sized CMOS?



## Steve Todd (Jun 22, 2011)

It's hard for me to imagine Canon will abandon the highly successful, 1.3 sensor format? I can only see this happening if a 1.3 crop is offered as a CF function on a future FF sensor. Too many Pros rely on the benefits of this less than full frame format, to make any sense of abbandoning it altogether! I just spoke to a Canon rep this weekend at a convention we both attended (not a photo related event). When I asked him about the possible merge of the 1D line and the possible end of the APS-H sensor, his only comment was "many pros live and die by the 1.3 crop sensor and its tremendous image quality." So, if they are planning to abandon it, they must have something pretty impressive in the works! I know I have said this before in the past (as have many others); "How can they make much of an improvement over the current technology?" and yet they did and did it well indeed!


----------



## 7enderbender (Jun 22, 2011)

Pros that "live and die" by APC-H? I'm not a pro but that sounds weird. I would think that most pros work with anything that they are given or that works for a specific need. Correct me if I'm wrong but I would think that APS-H was a compromise back then because "full frame" didn't yet deliver the speed that journalists and sports people were used from their film cameras.
And it appears that this is now obsolete and things could slowly return to a "normal" sensor size across the board. So where would be the benefit other than the current price difference?


----------



## Gtgroove (Jun 22, 2011)

I think is not possible to see Canon leave APS-H sensor, I think instead there will be a repalcement for the APS-C sensor with APS-H in the future, for speed shooting and more quality pictures.


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 23, 2011)

I don't believe APS-H is going away, simply due to cost. They make and sell a ton of the 1D camera bodies for $5,000 and charge $8,000 for full frame.

Certainly, APS-C is not going away either, in fact, I expect a smaller format for mirrorless cameras.


----------



## YoukY63 (Jun 24, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> I don't believe APS-H is going away, simply due to cost. They make and sell a ton of the 1D camera bodies for $5,000 and charge $8,000 for full frame.
> 
> Certainly, APS-C is not going away either, in fact, I expect a smaller format for mirrorless cameras.


I totally agree with scaleusa!

Maybe I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that Canon sells more 1D bodies than 1Ds bodies. The number of journalists (especially sport one, and they are really many) that use and need an APS-H sensor is just too big.
1D and 1Ds bodies are tools, and each tools fit to one specific need. That's the way to be efficient.

Replacing it by a FF sensor would not make the match: the bigger sensor means to have a very high pixel density to "compete" with APS-H sensors. But, if you increase that pixel density, you will reduce the speed of your camera (too many data to manage --> lower frame rate).

Furthermore, 1D bodies are the exact opposite of 1Ds bodies: one is made to work in high isos (for very short shutter speed), the second one with very low isos (remember, the limit of 1DsIII is 1600 isos! No need more in fashion world, but less than 50 isos would be very welcome!) One more time, professional users will not find what they are looking for in a merged version.


----------



## drummstikk (Jun 25, 2011)

YoukY63 said:


> Maybe I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that Canon sells more 1D bodies than 1Ds bodies.



No, you are not wrong. In my various jobs I see dozens of 1D's in use, and only know of one photographer using a 1Ds. He commands megabucks for commercial, full bleed magazine cover photos, so more power to him.

I'm ambivalent on APS-H. I've been close to pulling the trigger on a new or used 1D several times, but have always ultimately decided it's not enough better than my 7D's to justify the extra cost, and also not close enough to the angle of view of the 5D to be a good companion to that camera. If I got way busier and used my camera's much harder, then the heavier-built 1D would be a no-brainer. But in my rather modest business as it is now (and will continue to be until the economy stops sucking), the 7D's will be my workhorses, and the 5D will be an artistic choice or a 3rd body/backup.

So, APS-H could disappear tomorrow, and I really wouldn't notice. I have a hard time believing many pros "live and die" by this format. If you give pros a higher-megapixel full-frame sensor so they can do the "crop-factor" in Lightroom rather than in the camera, I think most of them would go for that and not mourn the death of APS-H.

I do think APS-H could have a future in pro-sumer cameras in the 7D-type market space, but I have to feel that the pro lines (1D and its future successors) will consolidate around the full-frame format in coming years.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 25, 2011)

drummstikk said:


> So, APS-H could disappear tomorrow, and I really wouldn't notice. I have a hard time believing many pros "live and die" by this format. If you give pros a higher-megapixel full-frame sensor so they can do the "crop-factor" in Lightroom rather than in the camera, I think most of them would go for that and not mourn the death of APS-H.



If Canon had simply enlarged the 1D2 8.2MP sensor to FF for the 1D3, the result would have been about 12MP. The 1D3 sensor enlarged to FF would have been about 16MP. Do these pixel counts sound familiar? Arguably, Canon is about 2 generations late in going FF in their 1D series.

As for Canon's long term commitment to APS-H, I'll ask once again: Where is the Canon APS-H equivalent to the 16-35 FF lens and the 10-22 APS-C lens?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 26, 2011)

Just a thought, but why do we all assume that an APS-H sensor would be replaced by a body with a full-frame sensor? It occurs to me that Canon might ultimately replace the APS-H sensor with a APS-C sensor once they are comfortable that they can get the same or better image results out of the smaller sensor. If a 1.3 crop is good for sports and wildlife shooters, a 1.6 crop should be even better.

No, they wouldn't want to call the camera a 1D. Maybe a 4D or 9D? Same sensor as the next generation of 7D, but in a 1D-type body?


----------



## J. McCabe (Jun 26, 2011)

Gtgroove said:


> I think is not possible to see Canon leave APS-H sensor, I think instead there will be a repalcement for the APS-C sensor with APS-H in the future, for speed shooting and more quality pictures.



That would imply forcing all owners of EF-S lenses to buy new body & lenses, at which point many of them might switch brands. Additionally, it would require closing the EF-S lenses production lines, and opening new ones, e.g. ultra-wide lenses for APS-H.

I think the more likely Canon will stop making APS-H cameras than APS-C cameras.


----------



## Stone (Jun 26, 2011)

I don't believe APS-H is going anywhere. The only way Canon could shelve the tech is if APS-C IQ and dynamic range can somehow exceed that of APS-H. I don't see it now, but perhaps Canon has that trick up it's sleeve. There's still the matter of the DOF advantage that APS-H and FF have over the APS-C sensors. I still say if the next 1D is FF and I'm not sure it will be, the next 7D will be APS-H and the 70D will become the fast crop body. That's my story and i'm sticking to it ;D


----------



## AdamJ (Jun 26, 2011)

Stone said:


> I don't believe APS-H is going anywhere. The only way Canon could shelve the tech is if APS-C IQ and dynamic range can somehow exceed that of APS-H.



As others have said, Canon's lenses aren't range-specific to APS-H so there are no system-related exit barriers for APS-H. Surely it's only a matter of time (possibly very soon) before we see a very high resolution full-frame camera capable of 10FPS. Then what would be the point of APS-H?


----------



## Ivar (Jun 26, 2011)

I think at this point the only way to improve remarkably the IQ is to increase the light gathering area.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 26, 2011)

I'm a tad baffled as to why people see the APS-H format as dead - others have said elsewhere that the 1.3x crop offers better picture quality than APS-C, but much faster framerates and much higher ISO performance than full frame sister products. It's essentially a product that offers a specific range of benefits against certain restrictions.

Using the car analogy, the family car is the APS-C, the luxury performance saloon is the full frame, but hang on, I want the performance, but don't need the four seats of the big car - I'll buy the sports car instead ! Want a hatchback car, buy a micro 4/3rds, want a cheap Korean runaround ? Buy a compact zoom camera.


----------



## Ivar (Jun 26, 2011)

Using the same technology, ALWAYS the bigger sensor wins in high ISO due to be able to collect more light. 
As for actual products, it seems to me that the 1.3x is not the best option out there concerning high ISO, where did you get this idea? Also, frame rate has only to do with the amount of data to move, not to the sensor size. Imaginable 16MP FF 1D MK4 could have easily done the same 10fps as it does currently with the crop.

The real or relative benefits for crop are:
* more spread AF points, for some reason they cannot be expanded in FF
* cheaper to make (take a note however, the 1D-series is no way cheaper to buy though, it is just more margin for Canon. Reality check - look at the 5D MK2 FF price or check Nikon FF equivalents)
* due to data throughput constraint a smaller sensor allows more density, ie. magnification. This has, however, limited potential as technology improves. 



Haydn1971 said:


> I'm a tad baffled as to why people see the APS-H format as dead - others have said elsewhere that the 1.3x crop offers better picture quality than APS-C, but much faster framerates and much higher ISO performance than full frame sister products.
> 
> Using the car analogy, the family car is the APS-C, the luxury performance saloon is the full frame, but hang on, I want the performance, but don't need the four seats of the big car - I'll buy the sports car instead ! Want a hatchback car, buy a micro 4/3rds, want a cheap Korean runaround ? Buy a compact zoom camera.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 26, 2011)

Ivar said:


> Using the same technology, ALWAYS the bigger sensor wins in high ISO due to be able to collect more light.
> As for actual products, it seems to me that the 1.3x is not the best option out there concerning high ISO, where did you get this idea? Also, frame rate has only to do with the amount of data to move, not to the sensor size. Imaginable 16MP FF 1D MK4 could have easily done the same 10fps as it does currently with the crop.



Simple really... Take a look at the current camera body specs.

To answer your second part, a 16mp frame will be saved to a memory device quicker than a 21mp frame - it's about 75 % of the size, the 16mp frame will also be processed quicker than the 21mp frame for a given picture process engine. Mixing in the Digic 4 process engine over the Digic 3 of the FF camera, is why the current 1.3x 1D has a frame rate roughly twice the speed of the current 1Ds.

With regard to the first point about ISO, again, read the specs, the newer 1D has a much greater performance in terms of ISO than the full frame sensor in the 1Ds or the later 5D. I'm not a image sensor expert, I design roads for a living, but it seems plausible that the 1.3 crop sensor in the 1D has been optimised to provide better ISO performance than the then current full frame technology. Should full frame technology be released in the next 12 months that match the 1.3 crop, I'm pretty sure the techniques will be deployed in the next 1.3 crop sensor to great affect.

Canon wouldn't be selling a Â£4k1.3 crop product if there wasn't demand for it's benefits, similarly they wouldn't by selling the Â£6k full frame product if everyone wanted the 5D instead. Each camera has it's own advantages, it seems more implausible to imagine a gap between a 5D Mk3 at say Â£2.5k and a replacement 1Ds at a launch price of say Â£7-8k, the 1D sites slap bang in the middle. Sticking my neck out, I'd suggest that there is as much chance of the 1.3 crop disappearing as a 1.6 crop 1Dx in the future or a 3D appearing.


----------



## Stone (Jun 26, 2011)

AdamJ said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe APS-H is going anywhere. The only way Canon could shelve the tech is if APS-C IQ and dynamic range can somehow exceed that of APS-H.
> ...



I agree, that lenses are definitely not an exit barrier, I consider high iso performance, dynamic range and to a lesser extend dof control to be the barriers, APS-C just isn't that close to APS-H right now.

I'm sure Canon is now capable of pushing FF images at 10 fps, actually that's the body I'm waiting to buy and I won't be purchasing another camera from Canon until I can get it. The only benefits of APS-H at that time would be the potentially lower price point and yes the 1.3 crop which is still desirable for some sports and wildlife photogs. Looking at Nikon's lineup, it certainly seem possible to release a ~5K high performance FF. I think Canon's answer would need to be in the $5K range and have a built in crop mode or APS-H still remains a viable option, that's why I'm still skeptical that the 1DIV gets replaced anytime soon.


----------



## Ivar (Jun 27, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > Using the same technology, ALWAYS the bigger sensor wins in high ISO due to be able to collect more light.
> > As for actual products, it seems to me that the 1.3x is not the best option out there concerning high ISO, where did you get this idea? Also, frame rate has only to do with the amount of data to move, not to the sensor size. Imaginable 16MP FF 1D MK4 could have easily done the same 10fps as it does currently with the crop.



[quote author=Haydn1971]Simple really... Take a look at the current camera body specs.[/quote]

While the numbers are the same, the Nikon D3s looks better to me. If the 1D mk4 would have been a FF body, it had performed better for sure (=more light better image for the same technology). If you meant a comparison between the 1D & 1Ds then they are optimized for different purposes thus being different technology. 

[quote author=Haydn1971]
To answer your second part, a 16mp frame will be saved to a memory device quicker than a 21mp frame - it's about 75 % of the size, the 16mp frame will also be processed quicker than the 21mp frame for a given picture process engine. Mixing in the Digic 4 process engine over the Digic 3 of the FF camera, is why the current 1.3x 1D has a frame rate roughly twice the speed of the current 1Ds.
[/quote]

This is what I said, the only limiter at least for 10fps was data and nothing else, sensor size doesn't matter.

[quote author=Haydn1971]
With regard to the first point about ISO, again, read the specs, the newer 1D has a much greater performance in terms of ISO than the full frame sensor in the 1Ds or the later 5D. I'm not a image sensor expert, I design roads for a living, but it seems plausible that the 1.3 crop sensor in the 1D has been optimised to provide better ISO performance than the then current full frame technology. Should full frame technology be released in the next 12 months that match the 1.3 crop, I'm pretty sure the techniques will be deployed in the next 1.3 crop sensor to great affect.
[/quote]

As said, the technology is different. Apples to apples would be ISO optimized cameras, and there the Nikon D3s performs better. 

[quote author=Haydn1971]
Canon wouldn't be selling a Â£4k1.3 crop product if there wasn't demand for it's benefits, similarly they wouldn't by selling the Â£6k full frame product if everyone wanted the 5D instead. Each camera has it's own advantages, it seems more implausible to imagine a gap between a 5D Mk3 at say Â£2.5k and a replacement 1Ds at a launch price of say Â£7-8k, the 1D sites slap bang in the middle. [/quote]

I didn't argue about the demand, I said Canon is having a bigger margin what concerns the cropper. 

[quote author=Haydn1971]
Sticking my neck out, I'd suggest that there is as much chance of the 1.3 crop disappearing as a 1.6 crop 1Dx in the future or a 3D appearing.
[/quote]

For me, for the former the probability is at least 2x higher if not more.


----------



## YoukY63 (Jun 27, 2011)

I still don't understand something, so please people help me.

Why do you think Canon should stop APS-H sensors? What is the interest for Canon?

I can understand that you want the best of the 2 worlds (1Ds FF sensor with 1D performances), but that is just "not possible" (at least not for an affordable price). So, why Canon should try to mix the 2 lines, removing all the specific superiority of each body (1D= crop + speed; 1Ds= resolution + image quality) to get an average one?

What is the point for Canon to do that?

One last question: if Canon build a FF body with crop option to mimic the loss of APS-H bodies, who will enjoy shooting sport or wild-life with the crop mode in a half-sized ViewFinder smaller than any APS-C camera VF?


----------



## Ivar (Jun 27, 2011)

YoukY63 said:


> Why do you think Canon should stop APS-H sensors? What is the interest for Canon?



Because Nikon gets all the benefits of having the advantage for more light. They can stuff easily more pixels, for Canon at this smaller sensor area not that much. Sports cameras are about ISO, isn't it?

As for the imaginable FF 1D price, it would still be closer to the current 1D line trend, Nikon cameras are quite good, the competition cannot be ignored.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 27, 2011)

Ivar said:


> YoukY63 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think Canon should stop APS-H sensors? What is the interest for Canon?
> ...



A top Nikon executive in a interview for DPR stated that they had made a big mistake in sacrificing resolution for high ISO performance in the D3S. He stated that future models would not make this same error.

So, even Nikon feels that there is more advantage to higher resolution than to the ultimate high ISO performance.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 27, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A top Nikon executive in a interview for DPR stated that they had made a big mistake in sacrificing resolution for high ISO performance in the D3S. He stated that future models would not make this same error.
> 
> So, even Nikon feels that there is more advantage to higher resolution than to the ultimate high ISO performance.



If we're thinking of the same quote, that's not exactly what he said. First, he didn't call it an error. Second, he implied that Nikon felt it could begin increasing resolution at the expense of further improving high ISO image quality. The expectation among Nikon users seems to be that the D4 will be as good as the D3s at high ISO but with more resolution. I know a couple wedding photographers who each use a pair of D700s (plus a D300 backup, but that's another story). They have become addicted to what the D700 can do at ISO6400 and say they would like to buy the D3s, but their business won't support it.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 27, 2011)

Ivar, I'm not gonna get into a tit-for-tat cut and paste exercise, it's clear you disagree with my point of view. You simply ain't gonna get the same framerates with full frame as a crop frame, the files are smaller with a crop, which is why there will always be a market for a high end crop body.

If the Nikon range is so good, maybe you need to sell your Canon kit and swap to the dark side ;-)


----------



## x-vision (Jun 27, 2011)

YoukY63 said:


> Why do you think Canon should stop APS-H sensors? What is the interest for Canon?



Because the 1.3x sensor is a lesser sensor than FF. This means that: 

if Canon charges more for the 1DIV than Nikon for the D3s, Canon will be overcharging for a lesser camera

if Canon charges less (as is the case today), the long term perception will be that Nikon is the premium player in the market and Canon is the discount/second grade player

As you can see, Canon has no choice but to abandon the 1.3x format - unless they want to be the perceived as the discount/second grade player in the market for pro cameras.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 27, 2011)

x-vision said:


> Because the 1.3x sensor is a lesser sensor than FF.



Nonsense ! Each has it's own advantages, it's bold sweeping statements like this that confuse new buyers and like saying a BMW M5 is a lesser car than a Rolls Royce Phantom, the M5 is better at certain things, the Rolls better at others.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2011)

x-vision said:


> Because the 1.3x sensor is a lesser sensor than FF.



Correct - in terms of the area dimension of the sensor, APS-H is smaller than FF. So what? "Full frame' is the lesser sensor when compared to MF - maybe we should all harass Phase One and Hasselblad for a 10 fps camera (or, at least, to measure frame rate in frames per second instead of seconds per frame...)?!?

APS-H meets the needs of some photographers, and not others. It's always best to use the right tool for the job, and Canon supports that with a variety of sensor formats.

Regarding the comparisons to Nikon, I don't think those are really relevant at the top end of the line. The market fraction that chooses one of the highest-end bodies (1D/1Ds, D3x/D3s) as their first camera must be infinitesimal. Those who upgrade/replace into the flagship series have already bought into a system, and if they are changing systems, a cost difference in the bodies is a fraction of the total cost (new lenses, etc.). As it stands now, the difference in price between the 1DIV and D3s is insignificant (4%), and the difference between the 1DsIII and D3x is still not that meaningful (14%).


----------



## Ivar (Jun 27, 2011)

I haven't argued what you stated - if it is possible to process only x megapixels at 10fps, then you would rather have all "the pixels" in a denser form though in a smaller sensor area. 

The question is, if there is more processing power (file, data, megapixels etc as you wish), whether it makes sense to make a FF 27MP camera or make a 1.3x 27MP camera (mechanically the ability is already there, it is only about the data)

I believe currently, that with today's technology, the pixel density doesn't matter for high ISO, but the size of the light capture area does - more pixels might not contribute to the higher ISO, but the overall quality is never less than bigger pixels at the same sensor area, for both at the same size print. This is the basis for the choice - would you like to have a better ISO or more magnification, being under the data processing constraint?



Haydn1971 said:


> Ivar, I'm not gonna get into a tit-for-tat cut and paste exercise, it's clear you disagree with my point of view. You simply ain't gonna get the same framerates with full frame as a crop frame, the files are smaller with a crop, which is why there will always be a market for a high end crop body.
> 
> If the Nikon range is so good, maybe you need to sell your Canon kit and swap to the dark side ;-)


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 27, 2011)

Ivar said:


> I haven't argued what you stated - if it is possible to process only x megapixels at 10fps, then you would rather have all "the pixels" in a denser form though in a smaller sensor area.
> 
> The question is, if there is more processing power, whether it makes sense to make a FF 27MP camera or make a 1.3x 27MP camera.



The 1.3 crop isn't the same mp as the full frame, the pixel size is about 10% smaller, 5.7 vs 6.4, there isn't a current 1.3 crop that gives the same mp as a current full frame. Because there are less pixels, there is less processing time required for each frame. The 1.3 crop currently has about 25% less data to deal with, thus is faster, the pixel size is similar size, so you aren't actually losing that much except frame size.

If 1.3 crop was the same mp as a full frame, the pixel size would be about that (perhaps less) of a APS-C, which would give you just a single benefit of being able to take slightly wider angle shots than a APS-C with the same lens, but not much else, which would of course be too small a reason to spend Â£10's Millions in developing a specific 1.3 crop.


----------



## Ivar (Jun 27, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> The 1.3 crop isn't the same mp as the full frame, the pixel size is about 10% smaller, 5.7 vs 6.4, there isn't a current 1.3 crop that gives the same mp as a current full frame. Because there are less pixels, there is less processing time required for each frame. The 1.3 crop currently has about 25% less data to deal with, thus is faster, the pixel size is similar size, so you aren't actually losing that much except frame size.



Absolutely true. With disagreement only in the very last sentence after the last comma. This is where the potential is not yet used by Canon.



Haydn1971 said:


> If 1.3 crop was the same mp as a full frame, the pixel size would be about that (perhaps less) of a APS-C, which would give you just a single benefit of being able to take slightly wider angle shots than a APS-C with the same lens, but not much else, which would of course be too small a reason to spend Â£10's Millions in developing a specific 1.3 crop.



Let's try to go to the basics - do you agree that, provided using the same (and I mean the same) technology , the bigger light capture area has better signal, thus theoretically better IQ?


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 27, 2011)

Let's not go back to basics - currently, there aren't similar mp full frame and 1.3 crop sensors, so your point is meaningless, which is why there are currently two different types of sensor and why it's unlikely that the 1.3 crop will go away.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 28, 2011)

Ivar said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > If 1.3 crop was the same mp as a full frame, the pixel size would be about that (perhaps less) of a APS-C, which would give you just a single benefit of being able to take slightly wider angle shots than a APS-C with the same lens, but not much else, which would of course be too small a reason to spend Â£10's Millions in developing a specific 1.3 crop.
> ...


"Same Technology", I am assuming you mean same pixel density. The picture quality (noise) per pixel is identical regardless of the acyual sensor size. The FF will have more pixel than the APS-H and hence better picture quality. Hydyn1971 is half right about the comparision of APS-C ans APS-H with the same pixel density. besides a widen angle with the same lens, The APS-H will also have a higher resolution and hence better opicture quality.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 28, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > Haydn1971 said:
> ...



It's entirely possible for two sensors, designed and built years apart, to have the same pixel pitch/size but use different "technologies". Moreover, it is possible for the newer sensor to have smaller pixels but the same number of them as the older and, because of technology improvements, provide a better image quality.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 29, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> [It's entirely possible for two sensors, designed and built years apart, to have the same pixel pitch/size but use different "technologies". Moreover, it is possible for the newer sensor to have smaller pixels but the same number of them as the older and, because of technology improvements, provide a better image quality.


We are talking about "same technology" here. That will imply the same semiconductor processing for the sensors. Who with the right mine will put a smaller pixel size with the same sensor with the same MP count even with newer technoloy. Canon is doing the absolute opposite. It make the pixel as big as posible (for better noise performanance), use gapless microlens, at least on the 7D officially, may even be with the Rebels, for better light gethering and hence better noise performance. I have nor heard of any body decrease the pixel size in the same sensor with the same pixel count. May be you can quote me an example.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 29, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > [It's entirely possible for two sensors, designed and built years apart, to have the same pixel pitch/size but use different "technologies". Moreover, it is possible for the newer sensor to have smaller pixels but the same number of them as the older and, because of technology improvements, provide a better image quality.
> ...



You can't be serious. Canon is making the pixels as large as possible? That'll surprise a lot of people. Please compute the pixel sizes of the Nikon D700, Canon 5DMk2, Nikon D300S and Canon 7D. The percentage of the pixel which actively gathers light, the design of the microlenses, sensor fabrication methods, the number of sensor readout channels, the post processing after the analog signals leave the sensor and the quality of the A-to-D converter all could be classified as "technology". Are you and Hayden1971 deliberately trying to confuse matters and create non sequiturs. REMOVED. Lets be CIVIL


----------



## Rocky (Jun 29, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...


Yes I am serious. I work in the semiconductor industry on the techical area. I know what technology means. We are talking about pixel size in the sensors only. Nothing has been memtioned about anything outside the sensor. Please read the the technical papers. 7d has the highest pixel density density. It will have the smallest pixel pitch,. However, Canon is trying to make the indvidual pixel as large as possible and use Gapless microlens to artifficial to increase the pixel size. FYI, number of channel for the sensor read out is not technology, it is "implementation".
You just keep on throwing in irrelevent points to confuse the issue. Until you can show me an example of camera maker actually decrease the pixel size for a given sensor with the same pixel count, you are just arguing for the sake of argueing. Look, who is not civilized.


----------



## Ivar (Jun 29, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try to go to the basics - do you agree that, provided using the same (and I mean the same) technology , the bigger light capture area has better signal, thus theoretically better IQ?
> ...



There are quite many variables currently, we need to use ceteris paribus principle ie fix some variables to understand each other.

Let's define couple of situations:
1) Let's suppose the same density PLUS the same technology used as a different technology with the same density can give quite a lot of variations in image quality:
1a) a camera with a cropped sensor
1b) a FF camera

2) Let the density vary meaning both, the crop camera and the FF will have N megapixels, again using the same technology.:
2a) a camera with a cropped sensor
2b) a FF camera

Now some thoughts:
3. For the first two cameras, 1a and 1b, yes, no problems to understand the benefits of a larger sensor IQ wise as it just records more data on a bigger surface (some characteristics may however degrade, for example fps when being constrained by the data processing capability ie MPs per second).
4. For the second case, let's suppose that for a given print at least 300ppi is available, I claim that ISO-wise the camera 2b is much better on paper. 

The fear for APS-H advocates seems to be:
5. by being under data processing constraint, the crop camera, having the same number of megapixels, would end up with higher density thus better "reach"
6. FF is more expensive

In my opinion, at certain level of density in combination with high ISO (meaning fine detail is being lost), the benefit is questionable (look at the compact small sensor cameras, the density for SLR-s is going towards that). This is why I think it is time to change to FF in order to provide *competitive* IQ. 

I also, let's be dramatic, hate lenses acting as being handicapped. It is a big deal for example 24-105 not acting like one. After all, the world is not composed of tele lenses only.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 29, 2011)

Ivar, There is no doubt that FF is ALWAYS better than APS_C or APS-H. I am using a APS-C (40D) with a 17-40mm as my main lens. It will serve me 90% of the time. The other 10% (special situation) will be the 35-135( for longer reach), 18-55mm Kit lens with IS ( for hand held low light) and very occationally 70_300mm DO( It is heavy). I am not a fan of telephoto lens. The reason I use the APS-C is the cost, size and weight is less than the FF. I like to have the APS-H if the size and price will come down. APS-H will make my 17mm becomes 22mm and get rid of the funny behavior of the lens at the corners the same time. I think Canon should make a 7D size APS-H body with the price to match.


----------



## AJ (Jun 29, 2011)

What if:

Canon were to start making FF sensors with two pixel densities: one very dense (perhaps 32 or 36 mpix) for those 3-4 fps 5D and 1Ds series cameras, and a lower density (maybe 24 or 18) mpix sensor for a 1D series camera.

The lower pixel density FF sensor would give unprecedented high-iso performance and allow huge fps. It'd be great for sports, journalism, things like that. It'd be great for video too!

Question then is of cost. Right now APS-H sensors are only put into 1D cameras. Would it be cheaper for Canon to produce two formats only? Would a low-density FF sensor cost significantly more than a APS-H sensor with similar pixel count?


----------



## hlphoto (Jun 29, 2011)

What if Canon didn't focus on very dense FF sensors nor APS-H...?



Rocky said:


> I think Canon should make a 7D size APS-H body with the price to match.


But I'm afraid you're about the only one who really wants this. Well, there might be a few people.. but Canon doesn't gain a lot by serving themselves with another cheap competitor for a more expensive camera like they did with the 5D Mk2 / 1Ds Mk3 earlier...



Rocky said:


> "Same Technology", I am assuming you mean same pixel density. The picture quality (noise) per pixel is identical regardless of the acyual sensor size. The FF will have more pixel than the APS-H and hence better picture quality. Hydyn1971 is half right about the comparision of APS-C ans APS-H with the same pixel density. besides a widen angle with the same lens, The APS-H will also have a higher resolution and hence better opicture quality.


Only partly true. Everybody seems to be forgetting that the bigger a sensor grows it also grows very different thermal specifications. I'm 99% sure that if you grow the 7D sensor to 56x36mm and still have it run at ISO 6400 (native), it would drive you mad with noise and kill your batteries in a snap(shot).

Same goes for FF: The 5D classic is very close to the 5D Mk2 in terms of noise (in print, not per pixel), but has some trouble with amp noise, especially if you push it (high ISO, slow shutter, in hot danceclubs like I used to do).

That said... I think APS-H has to come to an end too. I regularly shoot the 1D Mk3, 1D Mk4, both the first and second 5D, and sometimes a 1Ds Mk3. Despite it is somewhat an older camera I really like the 1D Mk3, because it feels really solid, is extremely fast and serves me with more than decent ISO 2500 shots which can be denoised quite nicely. The 5D Mk2 makes cleaner images, but is not worth it's 21mp of data at ISO 2500 concerning detail. The 10.1mp files out of the 1D are really detailed.

Just yesterday I took the 1D Mk4 and the 5D Mk2 with me for a shoot... edited the pictures last night. You would expect the 1D Mk4 to beat the 5D Mk2 in terms of noise, right?

WRONG. The 1D Mk4 might have a little less noise, but the structure of this noise and the way it damages colours is horrible. Also: It is very hard to remove this noise! Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One and DPP all can't really handle the 1D sensor output like they do the 5D2.
I found myself dropping loads of ISO 5000 shots out of the 1D4 while using several ISO 5000 shots out of the 5D and even a ISO 12800 shot (although it needed a lot of work, especially the blue channel gets baaad when you push it this hard).

Out of all Canons cameras, if you'd make me mix & match all parts into a new body, I would say make a 1D out of:
- give it the 1Ds Mk3 AF (which I've found to be more reliable than the 1D Mk4 AF when things get really dark - Canon be ashamed!);
- update the 1Ds Mk2 sensor to todays standards - ISO 12800, gapless microlenses, decent DR/colour rendition etc. (I even like the 5D Mk1 high ISO "grain" better than that of the 1Ds Mk2, but 12.8mp isn't enough for the near future, even though it is for my standards);
- higher ISO than 12800 is a possibility.. but tell me, does anybody EVER use more then ISO 12800? I did once and it took ages to edit those pictures. The only reason to do so was for a stop more DOF, and if I was there again I wouldn't even try. Cut the crap Canon, forget the high ISO race;
- where is that rumoured DIGIC 5? Give us two. I bet handling 12 frames of 16.7mp per second wouldn't be a single problem;
- ISO 25 would be nice, but at least 50 without losing DR;
- Would like to see an AF point controller which is actually reachable without squeezing my enormous hand between my head and cambody when in portrait mode - this is NOT fast at all;
- give Nikon a run for their money by pushing 12fps - we all know both the mirror assembly and shutter should be capable, Nikon already managed 11 with the D3. Is it useful? No. Is it fun? Sure  

I would price my camera somewhere between the 5000 and 6000 dollar mark, and make it possible to buy something like "CPS Plutonium" (in stead of "CPS Platina"): say 750 dollars for 1 day exchange-service and free quarterly calibration through the first two years. That is pro service like pro service should be. Enables hobbyists to get a massive camera for less money than pros doe and enables pros to concentrate on their work.

Also... make a simple version of this camera with 3 fps, less fancy AF, the slower mirror/shutter assembly of the 5D Mk2, simpler (only centered?) light metering, maybe even plastic body like the 60D etc. and call it 5D Mk3. Price it around 3500 dollars (yes, it will sell). Make sure both are capable of very high spec video (maybe full resolution?) - the 5D has a very big set of fans in both high-end prosumer photographers and videographers. 

I bet a camera like "my 1D" would be a winner for both studio and sports. No 1Ds needed. If you're such a hotshot and really need your megapixels... buy medium format!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 29, 2011)

AJ said:


> What if:
> 
> Canon were to start making FF sensors with two pixel densities: one very dense (perhaps 32 or 36 mpix) for those 3-4 fps 5D and 1Ds series cameras, and a lower density (maybe 24 or 18) mpix sensor for a 1D series camera.
> 
> ...



Cost of a sensor is relative to the size, pixel count is not important. Canon has a good white paper explaining this. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38542576/Canon-Cmos-Wp

Production costs for a full-frame sensor can exceed twenty times the costs for an APS-C sensor. Only 20 full-frame sensors will fit on an 8-inch (200 mm) silicon wafer, and yield is comparatively low because the sensor's large area makes it very vulnerable to contaminantsâ€”20 evenly distributed defects could theoretically ruin an entire wafer. Additionally, the full-frame sensor requires three separate exposures during the photolithography stage, tripling the number of masks and exposure processes.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR

Pixel densities on FF cameras is pretty low compared to 1.6 crop, and extremely low compared to point and shoot cameras, so pixel density is relative.

Density of the 7D would yield a 46mp FF, so 36mp would be like a 14mp crop camera.

And if a FF had the density of the 10mp G12 and S95, it would have about 200mp!

So FF has a long ways to go to catch up density wise.

Of course, large pixel counts result in large files which are hard to manipulate in editing software.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2011)

Rocky said:


> I have nor heard of any body decrease the pixel size in the same sensor with the same pixel count. May be you can quote me an example.





Rocky said:


> Until you can show me an example of camera maker actually decrease the pixel size for a given sensor with the same pixel count, you are just arguing for the sake of argueing.



Note that you and Bob are not talking about the same thing. Sorry, but where did Bob mention "same sensor" or "same sensor size"? Let's see:



Bob Howland said:


> It's entirely possible for two sensors, designed and built years apart, to have the same pixel pitch/size but use different "technologies".



Bob is not saying smaller pixels in the _same sensor_ - he's saying you may find the _same pixel sizes_ in different sensors designed years apart (e.g. the 5DII from 2008 and the 20D from 2004 have the same pixel pitch). 

I don't think any manufacturer would release a new sensor where the only/main change was a reduction in the pixel size, keeping sensor size and pixel count the same. Obviously, the usual trend is to use smaller pixels in the same sensor size, (e.g. 10 MP APS-C to 18 MP APS-C), and there Canon has done a good job of keeping the overall IQ consistent despite decreasing pixel sizes. Canon has also bucked the usual trend, going from a 12 MP PowerShot G9 to a 14 MP PowerShot G10, but then down to a 10 MP G11/G12, all with the same 1/1.7" sensor. 



Bob Howland said:


> Moreover, it is possible for the newer sensor to have smaller pixels but the same number of them as the older and, because of technology improvements, provide a better image quality.



Bob is also saying that a new sensor, one with the same pixel count but smaller pixels (but again, not the same size sensor) might have better IQ than the older sensor with larger pixels. If you'd like a specific example (as close as I can find, at any rate), compare the 1Ds (original) with the 1D MkIII - similar MP (11 and 10.1 MP, respectively), but the 1DIIII has ~33% smaller pixels (based on area, pitch is 8.8 Âµm vs. 7.2 Âµm), and 5 years of improved technology behind it's smaller pixels. DxOMark shows that the 1DIII bests the 1Ds across the board. For a related example, you could compare the 1DsII with the 1DIV, where the MP count is quite similar (16.6 vs. 16.1 MP), the pixels are ~50% smaller (based on area, pitch is 7.2 Âµm vs. 5.7 Âµm), the sensor is smaller, but the IQ is equivalent. In both cases, 5 years of technological advancements compensated for, and in one case improved upon, the handicap of both smaller pixels and a smaller sensor format.


----------



## hlphoto (Jun 29, 2011)

@ neuroanatomist: Now go out and shoot the 1Ds Mk2 at ISO 1600 next to a 1D Mk4 and tell me how much is left out of your IQ. Also check out the DR on the Nikon D90/D7000 sensors as measured by DxO and compare that to 5D Mk2/1D Mk4/D3s/D700.

IQ is only partly measurable will be your only conclusion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2011)

hlphoto said:


> @ neuroanatomist: Now go out and shoot the 1Ds Mk2 at ISO 1600 next to a 1D Mk4 and tell me how much is left out of your IQ....IQ is only partly measurable will be your only conclusion.



Looking at the equivalent images from the DPR reviews, the 1DIV seems less noisy at ISO 1600 than the 1DsII. 

The DR issue (or less-DR-than-there-should-be, in the case of Canon's sensors) is pretty well known.


----------



## Terry_157 (Jun 29, 2011)

*Rethink: APS-H for Semi Pro Applications - Serious Amateurs *

I've done my best to follow the APS-H discussions on the forums. Today, I shoot with a Canon 7D (APS-C) and have three lenses, 24x70mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.8 and 100MM f/2 and plan to purchase over time, a number of L series lenses. 

So far, although the 7D is not the perfect camera, I am well satisfied with my investment and have had some outstanding results and a few mishaps but most of those are user error. I do see some noise on occasion but this is an $1,900 camera vs. $8,000 FF so I have learned to live with it. I see some minor issues with color from time to time and would like to see Canon improve color quality etc. 

For the limited amount of video work I do, this is fine as I am not intending to use this as a video professional. I do however, as I grow in skills and lens assets, to eventually have a part time studio and be paid for my work. So, I study a great deal. 

Sure, I would love to have a 32+ mega pixel FF but again, $8K is a huge investment. $5K for me for a body is about my limit right now unless I win the lottery. So, APS-H is a viable format for my needs.

The limit I see vs. FF is wide angle and perhaps more noise vs. FF. Sure, you can argue the image quality for a FF is better but if you are shooting with an L-Series lens vs. standard, you get darn good results. If image is that critical, I would go to Medium Format as an option for landscape (or 4x5) and use a Medium Format for Studio work for portraits etc. The Leica S2 is a fine camera for those applications as example as are others. But, now you are getting into serious money. That is more than I paid for my Chevrolet Impala. 

I do not wish to see Canon kill the APS-H. I would like to see higher quality images with less noise (improved low light sensor), better color quality in that format vs. another mega pixel war with Nikon. I also would like to see an APS-H with NO VIDEO as I have that covered and really, don't need it at this point. It is just overkill and more camera weight and distractions for still work I wish to do. I also have a Nikon p7000 for point and shoot and like Nikon as a company. I like that they focus more on the quality of image and color quality vs. meta pixels which I think is smart. But, trying to figure out their FX lens line is a challenge for D700, D3s and D3x. 

So, here is my wish list for a camera:

1) 24 mega pixels - APS-H format with emphasis on larger pixels in an improved sensor with less noise - improvements in color quality. (image benchmark as close as possible to Nixon D3X today - yes I know it is FF) 
2) 5 fps or better. 
3) No video please!
4) 51 AF points or so -- as good of an AF system as possible. 
5) CF Type II slot (two) 128GB or better each. 
6) Two DIGIC 5s 
7) Thunderbolt technology developed by Intel (under the code name Light Peak)
8) Far Better Canon post processing software vs. what they have to day with perhaps a cross licensing agreement with other software vendors. Perhaps create a "Lite" Version of other post processing tools and allow upgrades if user is willing to pay for such. When you pay $5K for a camera, we deserve better software. As I am a founder of a software publisher firm, I am not pleased with Canon software nor its user interfaces. I think it needs significant remake including making updates easier and simple. I think it is very poorly designed and a pain to use vs. other tools out there. 
9) Include a viewfinder viewer (to block direct sunlight) as an attachment for outdoor use as part of camera. Seeing the viewfinder in daylight conditions at times has its challenges. And, eye pieces as part of base package for those of us that wear glasses. I just think some things should be FREE and included in camera when you are paying $5K+. 
10) Dual Battery built in body of camera with a dual battery charger included. This way, if you wish to add WIRELESS, you can use it with two batteries built into body vs. one as that is a separate attachment as is the dual battery set up now. These puppies eat power like mad and need it. Oh and include the two batteries FREE! ($5K package)
11) Decent camera strap please instead of going after market. Geez, what Canon provides is a throw away. When you wear the darn thing all day or night and you want that investment on your body to be secure, then provide a better strap. I just think the strap they provide in the box is cheap and this is not a pocket camera. 
12) I've read about 7D Mark II and sounds great as a naming convention but I think it should be in a APS-H format vs. APS-C for Pro, Semi Pro and prosumer use as a market. 

Let the lesser cameras target the consumers and certainly Canon has more than enough camera bodies to cover that market now - I think there are holes to fill in semi pro and pro versions NOW. If they come out with an 18-270mm f/3.5 lens (L series please?), I would buy it and put on my current 7D and use the many L Series lenses I plan to buy for the new APS-H camera and shoot with both. The 85 and 100MM lens I have now could then go on the old 7D as I will go with the higher end L Series primes etc. 

If I am going to pay $8,000 plus and "If" Canon wishes to keep my business vs. moving to Nixon D4 when it is released, they need to fill these gaps by end of August. I am going to look seriously at Nixon D4 when it is released if Canon does not address the market but I suspect and believe they will. If I do elect to pay for an $8K camera, I will look at all options and not simply stay with one brand. Canon marketing needs to get that. If they come out with an APS-H for $5K like I described, I would buy that puppy ASAP. 

If I win the lottery, I may buy a Leica S2 as a new toy. (smile) 

T


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 29, 2011)

hlphoto said:


> - higher ISO than 12800 is a possibility.. but tell me, does anybody EVER use more then ISO 12800? I did once and it took ages to edit those pictures. The only reason to do so was for a stop more DOF, and if I was there again I wouldn't even try. Cut the crap Canon, forget the high ISO race;



Yes, people do use higher ISOs. Last Christmas, I wanted to photograph Yuletide re-enactors in a room lit by three candles. ISO 51,200 would have permitted me to use 1/60 @ f/2.8. I have also photographed (or rather tried to photograph) jazz musicians in similarly-lit clubs, although I would have used 1/125 @ f/2


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2011)

*Re: Rethink: APS-H for Semi Pro Applications - Serious Amateurs *



Terry_157 said:


> So, here is my wish list for a camera



I like your wish list, except I'd want at least 8 fps, and preferably 10 fps.



Terry_157 said:


> If I do elect to pay for an $8K camera, I will look at all options and not simply stay with one brand. Canon marketing needs to get that.



The conventional wisdom is glass before body. I suspect that most people considering investing in a new 1-series camera already have several thousand $ invested in lenses, so switching brands is not quite as simple as getting a Honda Accord to replace your Chevy Impala. I bet Canon marketing gets _that_ quite well.


----------



## AJ (Jun 29, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > What if:
> ...



True. But there has to be some savings in mass production?


Right now they can make a 5D2 for less than a 1D4. Yes I know there's a huge difference in build. But it goes to show that sensors aren't the only thing determining camera cost.


Another thought: Maybe Canon can't beat Nikon in the high-iso department unless they increase the size of the sensor?


----------



## Terry_157 (Jun 29, 2011)

Neuroanatomist,

My statement was 5 fps or better so if they could go 10 fps, all the better. Works for me. 

I get the glass investment -- may not seem much but I have about $3K right now in glass due to costs of insurance etc. That is more than the $1,900 body. But, I plan to keep 7D regardless if I change brands. 

But, if I was going to invest $8K for a body and go to D4, one does that before he continues to invest too much in glass so I think we are on the same page. What I have now, I am happy with. 

I still think Canon is likely to bring to market new bodies by August/Sept that I will like. I also have another application that is work related that I can use the 7D for given its remarkable 200/300/400/500/600/800mm glass capabilities. For that purpose 1.6 crop factor has value. 

So, I am not unhappy with Canon. I just want to see APS-H stay in tact and improve in that direction. Hopefully, meeting the specs I laid out. All in all, I may break down and get an EOS 1D Mark IV for now so we'll see what August brings.

I also just read that in test, the 7D did better than Nikon D300 with noise overall. 

T


----------



## hlphoto (Jun 30, 2011)

@ Terry: What's wrong with video in a body when it decreases the price of that same body just by being there?

@ ISO 51200 dude: But for noise only I would have opted for a 35 1.4 and shot wide open at 12800 ISO. Wonder where this high ISO hunger came from in the first place - people used to max out at 3200 B&W earlier and nobody really complained.

About 1Ds Mk2 / 1D Mk4 comparison: Is it all about noise? IQ is not equal to signal-to-noise ratio! Try reducing the noise in any application. A good example is 50D / 30D. The 50D goes higher in ISO, makes about equal noise in print, but when you need to fix it in post the 30D is the easier camera to use.
I would think twice about having a 50D push 3200 ISO, but use the 30D at 3200 without a doubt. With the 7D sensor, that has gotten a lot better again. Although there isn't much less noise at high ISOs than with the 50D (and even more at and below 1600), there's more per-pixel detail and noise reduction has gone back to quite effective again.

Reducing noise reduces detail too. If the noise is hard to kill and the detail isn't, there is no point in having a camera with a little bit less noise.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 30, 2011)

hlphoto said:


> @ ISO 51200 dude: But for noise only I would have opted for a 35 1.4 and shot wide open at 12800 ISO. Wonder where this high ISO hunger came from in the first place - people used to max out at 3200 B&W earlier and nobody really complained.



Actually, I used a 24 f/1.4. Going to f/2.8 would have allowed me to use a 24-70 or a 70-200 IS. I was surrounded by people at the time and shooting time was extremely limited.

Nobody really complained? I know lots of people who complained...or they didn't even try to get the shot. The D3s does what I want. Why shouldn't Canon make a camera that does just as well or even better? (And, no, I'm not switching to Nikon, not with $20,000 in lenses.)


----------



## hlphoto (Jun 30, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Nobody really complained? I know lots of people who complained...or they didn't even try to get the shot. The D3s does what I want. Why shouldn't Canon make a camera that does just as well or even better? (And, no, I'm not switching to Nikon, not with $20,000 in lenses.)


Then the question becomes what do you think is important? I would rate DR and IQ over high ISO performance or megapixels. 

And yes, high ISO performance is different than IQ. I prefer the 5D Mk2 over the 1D Mk4 for image quality (in print!) all the way up to ISO 6400, ISO 12800 in some situations. Above that, I would prefer using a D3s, but then again I wouldn't even shoot Canon if it wasn't for the videomode.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2011)

hlphoto said:


> About 1Ds Mk2 / 1D Mk4 comparison: Is it all about noise? IQ is not equal to signal-to-noise ratio!



No, it's certainly not. While I know you can't really boil a sensor down to a single metric, the DxOMark overall scores are equal for the two. In fact, the 1DsII actually fares a little better than the 1DIV for ISO noise performance based on DxOMark. But my point was that the overall IQ of those two cameras is pretty similar, which is an impressive feat of technology considering that the 1DIV has smaller pixels in a smaller sensor.


----------



## NXT1000 (Jun 30, 2011)

good riddance, it is not here nor there. Just some where in between, like the 150m track race, a mickey mouse sensor size. What is the point today, if you can get good yield on full frame. If they can make a 1.6x sensor which have as good IQ as 1.3x, same noise performance, and pro body, no pro will use 1.3x. 1.3 is so has been.


----------



## hlphoto (Jun 30, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> hlphoto said:
> 
> 
> > About 1Ds Mk2 / 1D Mk4 comparison: Is it all about noise? IQ is not equal to signal-to-noise ratio!
> ...



Well.. I'm not all that impressed. More impressed by what Sony has done to their sensors and/or Nikon to their software: Compare the D80 and the D7000 for noise/IQ at ISO 3200 & get scared.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jul 5, 2011)

Good riddance. The 1.3x has little use once a full-frame high fps camera is released. Anyone who can't afford the lenses will go to the 7D with a grip, a solid camera for sports. The 1D has always been confused as to whether it was a studio camera or a sports camera, though granted it does both VERY well. It's time to move on. I would also surmise that the next 1Ds or equivalent will have a crop mode.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 5, 2011)

Eagle Eye said:


> The 1D has always been confused as to whether it was a studio camera or a sports camera



It seems pretty clear that Canon has targeted the 1D series towards pros shooting action/sports/nature/photojournalism, and the 1Ds series toward studio and landscape pros. From the 1DIV white paper: "_For whom is the EOS-1D Mark IV designed? To begin with, it is for the EOS-1 Seriesâ€™ traditional constituency: professional photographers in virtually every category from photo- journalism and sports through nature..._" From the 1DsIII white paper: "_The EOS-1Ds Mark III is intended, most obviously, for professional studio photographers and landscape photographers..._" Yes, they go on to enumerate other uses for those bodies after I inserted the ellipses, but that's to avoid alienating a potential customer by excluding their chosen line of work.

As Darth Vader said, "There is no conflict." 

As a tool, a camera may be designed for one use but can serve other purposes. A 5DII _can_ be used to shoot sports, it's just not the best tool for the job, much in the way that you can use the handle of a screwdriver to pound in a nail. The APS-H sensor seems to fit a need in the practical sense, but also in the economic sense (i.e. sensor production cost is a limiting factor).


----------



## rossbeckernz (Jul 12, 2011)

I've just bought my 2nd 1D4 to replace a damaged 1D3. I carry both on a Black Rapid double strap.
An ultra-wide zoom on one side, EF-S 10-22mm, modified to fit the 1D4 which restricts it to 12-22 giving an EFL of 15 -27mm on the 1.3 crop.
A tele-zoom on the other side, EF 80-200mm f2.8L (magic drainpipe) on the other.
In my front bag carry a EF 20-35mm f2.8L when I really need something in the middle but usually I crop the ultra-wide image which saves changing lenses with dust everywhere.

Why two 1D4s? When I'm in a dust laden dangerous disaster zone (which seems to be the norm these days), then I have found anything other than a 1 series doesn't cut it. I don't need the high frame rate or 21MP. I do need the mechanical features that the 1 series gives.
You can see what I mean here http://goo.gl/zqwgK


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 12, 2011)

rossbeckernz said:


> I've just bought my 2nd 1D4 to replace a damaged 1D3. I carry both on a Black Rapid double strap.
> An ultra-wide zoom on one side, EF-S 10-22mm, modified to fit the 1D4 which restricts it to 12-22 giving an EFL of 15 -27mm on the 1.3 crop.
> A tele-zoom on the other side, EF 80-200mm f2.8L (magic drainpipe) on the other.
> In my front bag carry a EF 20-35mm f2.8L when I really need something in the middle but usually I crop the ultra-wide image which saves changing lenses with dust everywhere.
> ...



Thanks, Ross. I'm looking forward to more posts from you. Great practical information from someone with actual experience.


----------

