1Ds vs 1D successor

[dbarthel]

I don't get most of the folks who want a cheap 1Ds as the 1D successor. Let's look at what the 1D does. 1. Fast frame rate. Great for sports and bird flight.
1.3 multiplier Great for sports and birds. Where does full frame enter in here? All we're looking for is a few more megapixels in the same great fast focusing, high frame rate body. Not a cheap 1Ds.

Dan

[CyberDyneSystems]

As someone who shoots 90% telephoto,. I agree!

Who needs full frame? With that crop favctor you can get better performance from some lenses. Yes,. a full frame sensor IS importanat for many if not most shooting,. but for what the 1D is made for,. the crop factor is an advantage.

[hmhm]

The only advantage of small sensors is cost, there is _no_ technical advantage to a "crop factor".

There can be technical advantage to pixel density, but a larger sensor is always better than a smaller sensor, if they have equal density (except the larger one is more expensive).
-harry

[Longwatcher]

I would like to point out that it is a crop factor, a full frame sensor could be cropped to the same dimensions as a 1.3x or 1.6x sensor.

What the full frame capability is needed is for wide angle shots, something the crop factor is not good for (unless Canon makes a digital lens to give the 1.6x crop factors a true wide angle lens).

Why everyone wants a 1D upgrade that is a cheap 1Ds is we want the FF sensor of the 1Ds while only paying 1D price range for the camera. Me I would settle for 10D functionality (except I also want the ability to change the focusing screens) with a FF sensor at a 1D price (at or under $3000).

And yes I love having the 10Ds 1.6x sensor when doing telephoto, but I could get even better pictures with the 1Ds sensor. I just can't afford the 1Ds sensor at this time.

Just my opinion.

[CyberDyneSystems]

hmhm wrote:
The only advantage of small sensors is cost, there is _no_ technical advantage to a "crop factor".

There can be technical advantage to pixel density, but a larger sensor is always better than a smaller sensor, if they have equal density (except the larger one is more expensive).
-harry


I beg to differ,

Cost is but one of the advantages,. size and weight is another. As long as we use 35mm lenses it is true that size and weight do not improve,. but the potential is there as with Nikons 12mmm Zoom and Canon's new 18mm zoom for the 300D. This one point was important enough for a major manufacturer to use it as the basis for an entire product line. (Olympus) you can be that others will soon follow.

Another benifit where lenses is concerned is image quality! (or is that not considered a technical advantage?)

A 1.6 crop factor can improve the overall image quality from a given lens by using less of the outer edge of a lens,. the areas of a lens that cause the most distortion. Barrel distrotion and pincushion are reduced. There are lenses that look sharper on a 10D than on film for this precise reason.

The crop factor allows us to use longer/larger more effective lens hoods. Again improving image quality by allowing less direct light to hit the glass and then reflect within the elements reducing clarity.