Is the end of the APS-H Format (1.3x) nearing?

[BigBlueDodge]

Many people question how long the APS-H format (1.3x) will exist in the Canon lineup. In prior years, the response from this forum was generally that the 1.3x sensor was not going anywhere.

Well, skip forward 3 years and Nikon has significantly stepped up their offering to put added pressure on Canon. In prior bodies it was difficult to identify which Nikon body competed with which Canon body. Now it's pretty clear that

Nikon D300 -> Canon 40D / 50D
Nikon D700 -> Canon 5D MKI / MKII
Nikon D3 -> Canon 1D MKIII
Nikon D3x -> Canon 1Ds MKII

At the release of the D3, many said that the D3 competes more with the 1DsMKIII instead of the 1D MKIII. I think with the release of the D3x, it's pretty clear that Nikon is targeting the D3 as the competitor to the 1D MKIII.

Nikon chose to put a FF sensor in the D3 while Canon is sticking with 1.3x crop sensor in the 1D MKIII. Nikon is standardizing on 2 sensor designs (1.5x and FF) while Canon still continues to offer 3 (1.6x, 1.3x and FF). Given Nikon's choice to put a FF sensor in their sports oriented body, do you think Canon will alter their strategy and start offering a FF sensor in the 1D MKXXX series? Before, there was no pressure for Canon to go FF in the sports camera space, but times are different now.

I understand why Canon began offering the 1.3x sensor. It was a larger sensor than the "consumer" model 1.6x sensors from Canon, and more importantly, bigger than Nikon's cameras. And since FF sensors were very expensive when it was introduced, it was a nice comprimise between size and cost. Now that FF is being offered more and more, it just seems like the 1.3x is loosing any competitive advantages than when it was release.

I'm not trying to make this another Nikon vs Canon debate. It's more of a discussion on Canon's choice to continue offering a 1.3x when the market is moving in other directions.

[brianch]

I am sure one day Canon will eliminate the 1.3x Crop. It doesn't effect anybody though, you can use the same lenses on all other bodies. Unlike 1.6x bodies and EF-S lenses. The D700 actually cuts a bit in to the 1D Mark III market and the D300 cuts deeper into Canon then the 40D and 5D. As well I think the D3 cuts a bit in to the 1Ds market as well.

[suyenfung]

i surely hope so. FF mark IV? that would be my next camera for 100% certain.

[jhawksley]

As a photographer who shoots a lot of sports, the idea of a full frame sports camera has piqued my interest. The equipment room where I go to school has a dozen or so D3's, and they are almost never available due to the number of students checking them out to shoot sports.

The flexibility of being able to shoot in DX and FX interchangeably is pretty popular, but to be honest, most people just shoot full frame and crop later. That being said, I think Canon would be smart in releasing a high-FPS FF camera aimed at sports photographers.

One of my friends works primarily with a 5D and one of the school's 300 2.8's when shooting field sports, and I have to say that the depth of field in his shots that is a result of a FF sensor is very noticeable.

As a current 1DmkII owner, I am waiting for what Canon has to counter the D3. It's great to see competition in the field; in the end, both sides release better cameras, and we all win.

[BigBlueDodge]

Well, you bring up a point that has been brought up before. The argument being existing lens don't have the same "reach" when using FF over a 1.3x crop. Nikon solved that problem by allowing the D3 to shoot in FF mode or DX mode (1.5x). You could argue, that with a FF, you could simply crop down in post processing. However, alot of the sport photographers don't have the luxory of post processing, and must send the pictures asap. I think Canon could do the same thing with the Digic processor, by simply having the processor throw away pixel data outside the crop area when saving to CF card.

[ed rader]

Well, you bring up a point that has been brought up before. The argument being existing lens don't have the same "reach" when using FF over a 1.3x crop. Nikon solved that problem by allowing the D3 to shoot in FF mode or DX mode (1.5x). You could argue, that with a FF, you could simply crop down in post processing. However, alot of the sport photographers don't have the luxory of post processing, and must send the pictures asap. I think Canon could do the same thing with the Digic processor, by simply having the processor throw away pixel data outside the crop area when saving to CF card.


yeah i don't think so. you get what a 5 mp file?

i've used the mark III for a year.

i used the 5d for a year before that.

and i've used several different 1.6 crop cameras for several years.

by far i prefer the the 1.3 crop. the IQ is better than my 5d as is the performance at hi-ISOs.

the 5d threw my lens kit into disarray.....

-- the 24-70L was too short for portraits

-- the 70-200L was too short for sports

so i needed a longer lens for sports and wildlife....but i soon learned that i also needed a crop camera.

and since i sometimes shoot alot of wildlife i found that i was using a 30d more than my 5d and therefore sacrificing IQ and gaining ISO noise.

the 1d mark III combines the best attributes of FF and 1.6 crop .... great IQ, noise handling and REACH.

i for one pray like hell canon keeps the 1.3 crop. i sure hate to be using a 30 mp FF camera some day just to carve away most of the file.

ed rader

[jbgeach]

I hope canon follows Nikon on this one. the 1D IV should be full frame. It can have much less resolution (16-18 MP) but should still be FF. then the 1Ds IV should really up the ante. I wonder if Canon has considered a 0.7x crop. Just make the body deeper, Anyway, just some semi random thoughts.

[basroil]

I hope canon follows Nikon on this one. the 1D IV should be full frame. It can have much less resolution (16-18 MP) but should still be FF. then the 1Ds IV should really up the ante. I wonder if Canon has considered a 0.7x crop. Just make the body deeper, Anyway, just some semi random thoughts.

Yea, and make it so no lenses can focus properly, and of course screw up the diffraction as well (the further from the aperture the plane of focus goes, the more diffraction comes into play). Sorry to say it, but changing backfocus distance is something that should never be done unless they are moving to a new lens format (R series lenses, then FD, then EF, all had different backfocus and that's why you can't make an adapter without glass).

Sports and some photojournalism people would not like this one bit. 1.3 crop is great for sports and most PJ work, you can go much wider than a 1.6 crop body but you still get a bit more reach per pixel.

[jbgeach]

OK, so you caught me talking out of my ass. I was just wondering how a 0.7 crop could work. Anyway, my (supposedly) good point was that FF is nice and if they just make a pixel difference instead of a crop difference, it would make life much simpler

[BigBlueDodge]

you can go much wider than a 1.6 crop body but you still get a bit more reach per pixel.

The widest lens available for use on the 1.3x sensor, is the Sigma 12-24. That gives you an effective 16mm focal length. You can get the same focal length with the EFS 10-22mm. So at best, the 1.3x only matches the 1.6x on the wide end. If you consider the 4.5mm and 8mm fisheye lenses from Sigma, then the 1.6x format will always give you WIDER focal length than the 1.3x format. The 1.6x format will always give you longer reach per pixel than the 1.3x.

In terms of focal length and the current crop of lenses available for market, the 1.6x format actually provides more versatility than both the FF and APS-H format.

1.3 crop is great for sports and most PJ work

Please explain this one. Why is 1.3x crop any better than FF or 1.6x for these types of situations?

[Yohan Pamudji]

Who can fathom the mind of Canon? One would think the D3 would signal the end of the Canon 1.3x sports cam, but lots of us thought Canon would have an answer to the D700, but we got the 5DII instead. It's logical to think that the next 1D will be FF, but Canon might just ignore the competition altogether and continue with a 1.3x. Who knows?

A FF 1D Mark IV would be mighty tempting. The 5DII's 21MP sensor and 10 fps? Finally, a true all-purpose camera from Canon without going for broke with the overpriced 1Ds. I dare not dream such an impossible dream.

[FJ LOVE]

1.3x crop is a good compromise for me between full frame and 1.6 crop, i hope canon keep it

[ed rader]

Who can fathom the mind of Canon? One would think the D3 would signal the end of the Canon 1.3x sports cam, but lots of us thought Canon would have an answer to the D700, but we got the 5DII instead. It's logical to think that the next 1D will be FF, but Canon might just ignore the competition altogether and continue with a 1.3x. Who knows?

A FF 1D Mark IV would be mighty tempting. The 5DII's 21MP sensor and 10 fps? Finally, a true all-purpose camera from Canon without going for broke with the overpriced 1Ds. I dare not dream such an impossible dream.


why do you not consider the 1d mark III an all-purpose camera? i think many would argue with you on that point, and i would be first :D.

i think what's happening here is the guys who really aren't all that familiar with 1.3 crop want the 1d mark IV to be the camera they thought the 5d mark II should have been.

ed rader

[ed rader]

The widest lens available for use on the 1.3x sensor, is the Sigma 12-24. That gives you an effective 16mm focal length. You can get the same focal length with the EFS 10-22mm. The 1.6x format will always give you longer reach per pixel than the 1.3x.

In terms of focal length and the current crop of lenses available for market, the 1.6x format actually provides more versatility than both the FF and APS-H format.



Please explain this one. Why is 1.3x crop any better than FF or 1.6x for these types of situations?


far superior noise handling to 1.6 crop which really does suck! PJ and sports both need high ISOs.

ed rader

[BigBlueDodge]

yeah i don't think so. you get what a 5 mp file?

The 1D MKI and Nikon D2Hs seemed to work just fine with their puny 4MP images for many years.

the 5d threw my lens kit into disarray.....

-- the 24-70L was too short for portraits

-- the 70-200L was too short for sports

so i needed a longer lens for sports and wildlife....but i soon learned that i also needed a crop camera.

With regards to your point on the lenses, they worked just fine in the 35mm film days. I don't understand why the 1.3x format suddenly makes them not usable. Personally the 24-70L became MORE usable to me when I went FF, than when I used it on the 1.6x crop camera. Likewise, I wouldn't buy a 70-200 lens for my FF if I needed a 300mm or 400mm focal length. So yes, I could see how it would be too short for sports if I needed longer focal length. And let's be honest, the 70-200L becomes a 91-260mm lens on the 1D which isn't that significant. I could most likely crop the 5D MK images to the same apparent field of view and be close to the same megapixel size as the 10MP on the 1D. With the 5D MKII I could crop to the same apparent field of view as the 1D MKIII and have MORE MP after the fact.

and since i sometimes shoot alot of wildlife i found that i was using a 30d more than my 5d and therefore sacrificing IQ and gaining ISO noise.

the 1d mark III combines the best attributes of FF and 1.6 crop .... great IQ, noise handling and REACH.

i for one pray like hell canon keeps the 1.3 crop. i sure hate to be using a 30 mp FF camera some day just to carve away most of the file.

Last you are mixing two discussions here. Your 1D MKIII produces stunning images, not because it is a 1.3x sensor. It does so because of the Dual Digic III engines, lower pixel densities, larger pixels, etc. If you chopped down the same 1.3x sensor to a 1.6x size without making any other changes, then guess what, it will still produce stunning images (albeit just at lower MP). Who's to say that the 30D with dual Digic III processing chips wouldn't produce the same stunning images?

The reason I think you like the 1.3x format, is due more to the camera it is in. I'm quite sure that if you put a 1.6x format sensor in the 1D III, then you would like it just as much. The sensor size does not contribute to the IQ. That is a function of the Digic processing engine, and the pixel size and spacing.

[ed rader]

The 1D MKI and Nikon D2Hs seemed to work just fine with their puny 4MP images for many years.



With regards to your point on the lenses, they worked just fine in the 35mm film days. I don't understand why the 1.3x format suddenly makes them not usable. Personally the 24-70L became MORE usable to me when I went FF, than when I used it on the 1.6x crop camera. Likewise, I wouldn't buy a 70-200 lens for my FF if I needed a 300mm or 400mm focal length. So yes, I could see how it would be too short for sports if I needed longer focal length. And let's be honest, the 70-200L becomes a 91-260mm lens on the 1D which isn't that significant. I could most likely crop the 5D MK images to the same apparent field of view and be close to the same megapixel size as the 10MP on the 1D.



Last you are mixing two discussions here. Your 1D MKIII produces stunning images, not because it is a 1.3x sensor. It does so because of the Dual Digic III engines, lower pixel densities, larger pixels, etc. If you chopped down the same 1.3x sensor to a 1.6x size without making any other changes, then guess what, it will still produce stunning images (albeit just at lower MP). Who's to say that the 30D with dual Digic III processing chips wouldn't produce the same stunning images?

The reason I think you like the 1.3x format, is due more to the camera it is in. I'm quite sure that if you put a 1.6x format sensor in the 1D III, then you would like it just as much.

no i don't think you get it. rent a mark III and check out the noise and IQ compared to your 5d and then come back and let's talk.

ed rader

[Yohan Pamudji]

why do you not consider the 1d mark III an all-purpose camera? i think many would argue with you on that point, and i would be first :D.

i think what's happening here is the guys who really aren't all that familiar with 1.3 crop want the 1d mark IV to be the camera they thought the 5d mark II should have been.

ed rader

I think what's happening here is you're speculating without knowing me ;) I have a 1DII, so I'm familiar with 1.3x.

Every camera is an all-purpose camera to a certain extent, and until a have-it-all camera is made each camera will be stronger in some areas and weaker in others. I just feel a FF is better equipped to be an all-arounder than a 1.3x because the lack of wide angles for 1.3x makes it an awkward format for wide angle shooting.

[BigBlueDodge]

far superior noise handling to 1.6 crop which really does suck! PJ and sports both need high ISOs.

ed rader


Again Ed, you are associating the 1.3x sensor to a specific camera (1D MKIII). Will a 1D MKIIN give me far superior noise handling and high ISO than my a 20D / 30D. The 1D MKIIN is the same generation, and according to your argument, because it is a 1.3x it should give better ISO performance. However, it offers about equal performance at high ISO. The 1D MKIIN had a single Digic II processor, as did the 20D and 30D, and the high iso, noise handling was about the same.

Canon elected to put 2 Digic III processors in the 1D MKIII, and a single Digic III in the 40D. I would certainly hope that the 1D MKIII would deliver better noise handling. But I attribute that better noise hanlding to having more processing power, than I do to the 1D having a 1.3x sensor.

[basroil]

The widest lens available for use on the 1.3x sensor, is the Sigma 12-24. That gives you an effective 16mm focal length. You can get the same focal length with the EFS 10-22mm. The 1.6x format will always give you longer reach per pixel than the 1.3x.

In terms of focal length and the current crop of lenses available for market, the 1.6x format actually provides more versatility than both the FF and APS-H format.



Please explain this one. Why is 1.3x crop any better than FF or 1.6x for these types of situations?

Perhaps I should have qualified it better. For sports and PJ, f2.8 is the law, and widest f2.8 zoom for any canon camera is the 16-35 (lets not get into random third party lenses i would not want to get caught out in the rain with). f4 and slower lenses can't really be used when you are already at iso3200 f2.8 and using flash (trying to balance it against the background without introducing too much motion blur).

As for 1.3 being better than either one, it's not, it's just that carrying a 300 2.8 is much easier than carrying a 400f2.8 (and on a 1.3 300 is about the same as 400 on ff). And having 21mm is better than having 26mm (16mm on both 1.3 and 1.6) when you want wide. More of the fact that you can have two of the same body camera and have the right mix of reach and breadth than it being better than either of the other two. Yes, you can always just get a 1dsmkii/iii and crop, but that's the lazy way ;)

[ed rader]

I think what's happening here is you're speculating without knowing me ;) I have a 1DII, so I'm familiar with 1.3x.

Every camera is an all-purpose camera to a certain extent, and until a have-it-all camera is made each camera will be stronger in some areas and weaker in others. I just feel a FF is better equipped to be an all-arounder than a 1.3x because the lack of wide angles for 1.3x makes it an awkward format for wide angle shooting.


rent a 1d mark III. it is an entirely different camera. canon makes three FF cameras if wider angles is all you want.

ed rader

[ed rader]

Again Ed, you are associating the 1.3x sensor to a specific camera (1D MKIII). Will a 1D MKIIN give me far superior noise handling and high ISO than my a 20D / 30D. The 1D MKIIN is the same generation, and according to your argument, because it is a 1.3x it should give better ISO performance. However, it offers about equal performance at high ISO. The 1D MKIIN had a single Digic II processor, as did the 20D and 30D, and the high iso, noise handling was about the same.

Canon elected to put 2 Digic III processors in the 1D MKIII, and a single Digic III in the 40D. I would certainly hope that the 1D MKIII would deliver better noise handling. But I attribute that better noise hanlding to having more processing power, than I do to the 1D having a 1.3x sensor.


the earlier 1.3s and none of the 1.6 crops are even in the same league as the mark III in terms of IQ or ISO noise.

if you don't believe me ask Pekka or Rob Gailbraith.

i've owned them.....the mark III is in a different league.

ed rader

[BigBlueDodge]

no i don't think you get it. rent a mark III and check out the noise and IQ compared to your 5d and then come back and let's talk.

ed rader


Ed, I really don't understand this statement. What I'm talking about a 1.3x format camera, I'm not specifically talking about a 1D MKIII. I'm talking about Canon's decision to continue offering cameras with a sensor in the APS-H size (1.3x). You keep asserting that 1.3x cameras provide far superior noise handling and high ISO than the 1.6x counterparts. What you are really saying is that the 1D MKIII provides better high ISO handling than the 40D & 50D, which is not the discussion we are having here. We are talking about the merits of maintaining a APS-H sensor, when the competition is moving to FF or APS-C sensors.

I don't disagree that the 1D MKIII provides excellent high iso images. You keep asserting that this is due to the sensor size. My response is that it's not the sensor size that makes the 1D MKIII images so clean at high iso. It is a function of the dual Digic processing chips combined with the pixel size and density found in the 1D MKIII. I guarante that the 1D MKIII would still offer those excellent high iso images if you were to keep the same pixel density and dual Digic processing chips, but scale down the sensor from 1.3x size, to a 1.6x size.

[ed rader]

Ed, I really don't understand this statement. What I'm talking about a 1.3x format camera, I'm not specifically talking about a 1D MKIII. I'm talking about Canon's decision to continue offering cameras with a sensor in the APS-H size (1.3x). You keep asserting that 1.3x cameras provide far superior noise handling and high ISO than the 1.6x counterparts. What you are really saying is that the 1D MKIII provides better high ISO handling than the 40D & 50D, which is not the discussion we are having here. We are talking about the merits of maintaining a APS-H sensor, when the competition is moving to FF or APS-C sensors.

I don't disagree that the 1D MKIII provides excellent high iso images. My response is that it's not because the 1D MKIII has a 1.3x size sensor that make the images so clean at high iso. It is a function of the dual Digic processing chips combined with the pixel size and density found in the 1D MKIII. I guarante that the 1D MKIII would still offer those excellent high iso images if you were to keep the same pixel density and dual Digic processing chips, but scale down the sensor from 1.3x size, to a 1.6x size.

BBD -- i don't think you'll ever see a 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera that handles noise as well as the current 1d mark III ... or the 5d for that matter. and i think it's sensor size. now, say they prove me wrong and improve the 1.6 crop....wouldn't they be able to make an even bigger improvement to a larger sensor?

AFAIK, there isn't much difference in that regard between the 20d, 30d, 40d or 50d. in fact some say that 30d was the best. i can't really say because i haven't used 40d or 50d....i do own the 30d tho.

my buddy has a 40d and he doesn't like it past iso 800.

i've said my peace.....i'm outta here :D!

ed rader

[BigBlueDodge]

Well Ed, I think we are arguing two different things. Your discussion if focused around comparing specific Canon camera models and which is better at high iso. My discussion is focused around Canon's choice to continue building cameras with a particular sensor size which is different than what the competition is offering. They are two different discussions.

[JeffreyG]

A shortcut on this dicussion:

People only get 'reach' from using smaller formats because to date these formats have also had highe pixel density. FF could give the exact same 'reach' provided one is willing to crop down to the same size, but most FF bodies have not had enough pixels to support cropping all the way to 1.6X and still print large.

As pixel counts climb in FF though, the ability to crop is viable and the reach advantage of the smaller formats decreases. A 5D2 / 1Ds3 cropped all the way to 1.6X still delivers 8MP which is plenty for 8x10 prints at maximum quality.

An added bonus for sports shooters then is that cropping in post instread of by using a small fomat allows you to shoot 'loose' and keep extremeties and the ball in the frame until you decide to crop later.

So yes, 1.3X seems precariously positioned. FF bodies are moving to the point where a crop down to 1.3X will still yield enough pixels to support just about any reasonable print size at maximum quality.

[bacchanal]

Jeffery has it right imho. An increase in MP will eventually negate the need or desirability for a 1.3x crop. And with dual digic4s, I would assume a 1DIV could handle plenty of MPs without giving up any FPS. I'm not saying the 1DIV will be full frame, but it will probably happen in the next generation or two.
I don't think cost savings is really an issue at this point (at least in the 1D bodies).

[Iocol]

Jeffery has it right imho. An increase in MP will eventually negate the need or desirability for a 1.3x crop. And with dual digic4s, I would assume a 1DIV could handle plenty of MPs without giving up any FPS. I'm not saying the 1DIV will be full frame, but it will probably happen in the next generation or two.
I don't think cost savings is really an issue at this point (at least in the 1D bodies).

I think this is the thing that keeps me from diving into the 1MKiii - I love all the features on the camera, including the speed and high ISO but I'm just worried aobut its long-term viability. I suppose there may always be some sort of market for the 1.3 crop and to be honest, anything bigger than 10-12 megapixels is just too big for me right now (hard drive space, memory cards, etc).

However, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the MarkIV in a FF format. It makes sense, given the way the industry is going. I just hate the idea of spending a lot of money on a format that may not be around for much longer. I really wish Canon had a high speed FF camera, a la the D3. That would be just perfect for me :)

[bacchanal]

I think this is the thing that keeps me from diving into the 1MKiii - I love all the features on the camera, including the speed and high ISO but I'm just worried aobut its long-term viability. I suppose there may always be some sort of market for the 1.3 crop and to be honest, anything bigger than 10-12 megapixels is just too big for me right now (hard drive space, memory cards, etc).

However, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the MarkIV in a FF format. It makes sense, given the way the industry is going. I just hate the idea of spending a lot of money on a format that may not be around for much longer. I really wish Canon had a high speed FF camera, a la the D3. That would be just perfect for me :)

The thing is, it doesn't really matter (1.3x vs. FF) in terms of longevity. You'll be buying EF lenses either way, you might change your lens line up around a little bit if you move from 1.3x to FF, but heck, I do that all the time anyway.

A FF 1D4 won't make a 1DIII obsolete any faster than a 1.3x 1D4 would.

[jacobsen1]

how about the next 1 series is this:

30mp FF ~5fps
~15mp (BOTH sRAW AND CROPPED!!!) ~10fps

that way we all win.

oh, and as for crops -vs- FF in terms of noise, FF will always win with the same pixel #, but it's the pixel size that matters combined with the processors... So the 5Dii and 30D have similar sized pixels, but one is years newer. The 50D and 1DsII have similar MP counts, the 50D has smaller pixels, but it can hang because it's got a newer processor...

It's hard to compare generalizations because it all comes into play, but generally, with the same processors and MP, the FF sensor will win because it has larger sites. but there are a ton of assumptions in that statement.

[Natural Imagez]

NO next 1d IV will have digic 4's dual, 15 MP and have hd video incorporated into it for PJ purposes, still be a 1.3 crop for the SI sports shooter and be 10-12 FPS :)

[echo]

no i don't think you get it. rent a mark III and check out the noise and IQ compared to your 5d and then come back and let's talk.

ed rader

Ed speaks the truth. I too hope the 1.3 crop stays.

[nicksan]

I also like the 1.3x crop.
For my style of shooting, it really does offer the best of both worlds.
I took the same path from the 5D to the 1D MKIII, and really, it was a pretty nice step up in all areas. It's one of those things where once you get a taste of a 1 series, it's just mightly hard to use anything else.

Looking forward to seeing what the next get 1 series will offer us!

[jbgeach]

I fail to see any benefit to a cropped camera. Yes, you get better reach, but as we get more pixels, the reach advantage goes away. While with FF, you get improved high ISO, decreased noise. improved contrast and an overall better picture. Anyway, I do believe the 1d3 is the best camera available. However, if the 1d4 comes out with FF a 15mp sensor and 10 FPS.

Basically, it seems like it would be easier for canon and everyone.

[Tom W]

Personally, I think that the 1D3 is the last of the 1.3X bodies. I think that Canon will replace it with a full-frame sensor in the next rendition.

The 1.3X was produced solely due to the inability (at the time) to produce a single-cut full-frame sensor. I think that's changed, or will shortly.

[jbgeach]

Ed keeps stating that the 1D3 is better than the 5d. I agree, but the question is whether it is better than a 1d3 with a FF sensor and the same number of MP.

Personally, I will take the bigger sensor with all the other variables held constant.

[Tom W]

Ed keeps stating that the 1D3 is better than the 5d. I agree, but the question is whether it is better than a 1d3 with a FF sensor and the same number of MP.

Personally, I will take the bigger sensor with all the other variables held constant.

I had a 1D3 - in most every respect, it IS a better camera than the 5D (except for that pesky focus issue that I had). But you're correct - the argument isn't about a specific camera, but the format in general. And I really do see the 1.3X format going away.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The only advantages that a 1.3x can offer over FF are mitigated by an FF sensor with equally high or higher pixel densities (which 1Ds and 5D now have) and through put that allows the same speed burst rate (not yet there)

Nikon's solution to allow in camera cropping would solve the bandwidth issue for higher speeds, while also offering the option for a more sensible use of "SRaw" .. ie, get the smaller RAW file from a faster cropped image.

I've always loved the 1.3x crop and hope it sticks around, but again, if the above are addressed, so that an FF body offers the speed of the 1.3x, then it's like two cameras in one. If that can be done without compromise to the utility of the 1D legacy, .. and without needlessly increasing the cost of the camera,..

[PIXmantra]

Many people question how long the APS-H format (1.3x) will exist in the Canon lineup. In prior years, the response from this forum was generally that the 1.3x sensor was not going anywhere.

The APS-H format exists for both manufacturing reasons, as well as operational ones. As an example, Canon's latest 50 MPixel sensor (for surveillance/industrial applications) is produced on an APS-H form-factor (not FF).


In prior bodies it was difficult to identify which Nikon body competed with which Canon body. Now it's pretty clear that

Nikon D3 -> Canon 1D MKIII

At the release of the D3, many said that the D3 competes more with the 1DsMKIII instead of the 1D MKIII.

The D3 could never compete with the detail and resolving power of 1Ds MarkIII. Moreover, Nikon chose a FF sensor, with a gapless microlens design, yet a higer read-out noise sensor and a total lower full-well capacity at ISO200, and still cannot really outperform Canon's APS-H sensor, smaller, denser, yet packed with pure performance, sensel-by-sensel, and not giving away in final image quality.

Therefore, it is Canon who takes, again, the engineering crown.


Before, there was no pressure for Canon to go FF in the sports camera space, but times are different now.

Canon has no real pressure (in reality) to stuff a FF sensor on the 1D-series. In fact, the 5DMKII sensor already equates to approx. 12 Mpixels in APS-H terms (and the 5DMKII already BEATS anything that Nikon can offer, today, in terms of IQ, with more and smaller sensels). As for an APS-H 12 Mpixel sensor, talk about compact, clean, zoomed-in files with no bad-corners, and wonderful tele. results, yet excellent high-ISO .

At the end of the day, what really matters here is the following: a) how well the task/job at hand is being addressed (Sports/Action/Tele), b) how profitably and competitively you can do it. For these reasons, and unless today's yield and profitability on FF manufacturing is same of APS-H, I believe APS-H is here to stay.

Enjoy!

PIX

[pieq314]

The only advantages that a 1.3x can offer over FF are mitigated by an FF sensor with equally high or higher pixel densities (which 1Ds and 5D now have) and through put that allows the same speed burst rate (not yet there)

Nikon's solution to allow in camera cropping would solve the bandwidth issue for higher speeds, while also offering the option for a more sensible use of "SRaw" .. ie, get the smaller RAW file from a faster cropped image.

I've always loved the 1.3x crop and hope it sticks around, but again, if the above are addressed, so that an FF body offers the speed of the 1.3x, then it's like two cameras in one. If that can be done without compromise to the utility of the 1D legacy, .. and without needlessly increasing the cost of the camera,..

I made a posted with similar idea in the rumor forum concerning 1D Mk IV.

1. It will be full frame at about 17MP, 10 fps

Why only 17MP? Because if it is higher, the dual digic (whatever) processors may not be fast enough to handle the increased data at 10 fps.

Why not 12MP? Because at 12MP, it will have less "reach" compared with 1D Mk III, and existing users will not like their lenses losing "reach" after upgrading.

2. It will have a 1.3x crop mode. At this crop mode, the camera will be at 12 fps.

With these specs, it should beat Nikon D3. (Canon will also guess what Nikon will do next, so Canon may improve either the MP count and/or shutter burst speed from what I listed above).

3. It will be announced in 2009, at least half a year before the expected 3 year cycle.

[PIXmantra]

I made a posted with similar idea in the rumor forum concerning 1D Mk IV.

1. It will be full frame at about 17MP, 10 fps


...that it will be full-frame, as you describe. A FF sensor, for an action/sports camera (where WA is NOT the key), is simply a drawback, in general terms. It also introduces another array of issues/problems with sRAW: sRAW-b (binned) or sRAW-c (croppped)? All sRAW formats x 2? :-)

In any case, and having said all this, I would personally prefer Canon to enlarge the sensor to FF with just the hope of preserving the existing 7.2 micron pitch, thus allowing a full enlargement of micro-lenses, reduction of read-out noise and next-gen AA filter. Talk about clean ISO6400 (without Nikon's marketinguese/fictitious claims as well as massive noise-reduction), excellent resolution and even improved per-pixel-sharpness. In shor, the final, ultimate balance of resolution, sharpness, sensitivity, reach, etc.

However, there is now the technology to raise the existing APS-H sensor to 12Mpixels, and still preserve current ISO performance, and do all this at a lower cost than a FF sensor (which in 2009, profitability is going to be key).


Enjoy,

PIX

[statsman]

Moreover, Nikon chose a FF sensor, with a gapless microlens design, yet a higer read-out noise sensor and a total lower full-well capacity at ISO200, and still cannot really outperform Canon's APS-H sensor, smaller, denser, yet packed with pure performance, sensel-by-sensel, and not giving away in final image quality.

Therefore, it is Canon who takes, again, the engineering crown.
Sorry but that sounds very much like a fanboy statement. I've seen some outstanding ISO 3200 images and some pretty decent ISO 6400 images from the D3/D700 that I am not sure that the 1DmkIII can top.

Having said that, I have always been a fan of the APS-H sensor. Just wished I could justify the cost of a 1D body. The 1DmkIII + 24-105 f/4L would be my ideal everyday combination. I am not an ultrawide fan, so the 1DmkIII + 17-40 f/4L would be plenty wide enough for landscapes and large group shots (17-40 on the 1.6x sensor is not quite wide enough).

Looking forward to the day that a clean ISO 6400 can be produced so that I can shoot high school basketball at f/4 and 1/400.

[Sean]

Not sure if it's the end, but it might be. If Canon can come up with something more sophisticated, or new that can replace the 1D, then it will fly with photographers. I think they should consolidate some of their product lines personally, but it up to them.

I will never get a 1Ds due to it's $7500CDN price tag, so If I go FF, it will be a 5DII or what ever is out when I do. I'd love a 1DIII or 1DIV when it comes out if it does, but who knows.

I'll even say this, I'd take a D3x or two if I was given all the lenses or accessories, or won the lotto (along with all the Canon gear as well).

[bohdank]

Personally, I think that the 1D3 is the last of the 1.3X bodies. I think that Canon will replace it with a full-frame sensor in the next rendition.

The 1.3X was produced solely due to the inability (at the time) to produce a single-cut full-frame sensor. I think that's changed, or will shortly.

I would be extremely surprised if Canon produces another 1.3x sensor.

[Mr. Clean]

Personally I love the 1.3 format. Adds a bit of 'reach' and a give great DOF control with the lenses I had. I don't want it to go anywhere! I still lust after my Mark III I had...
Need to track down Harleypugs and see how he's doing...

[TeeTee]

If the 1D was no longer a 1.3x crop, what would differentiate it from the 1Ds?

I understand the logic that FF is now much more achievable and realistic, however other than the FF factor (DOF, pixel density, perspective) what obvious benefit is to be gained by going FF? The 1D Mark III already had the best ISO performance and highest DSLR burst speed at the time of its release. If either of these were to be sacrificed for FF I doubt many users would appreciate that.

Leave the 1Ds FF and make it faster & cheaper, but keep the 1D as 'fast' (FPS, reach without having to crop, burst, AF) as possible.

[Yohan Pamudji]

If the 1D was no longer a 1.3x crop, what would differentiate it from the 1Ds?

The 1D would be the lower-res, higher frame rate camera, while the 1Ds would be the higher-res, lower frame rate camera, just like they are now.

[Iocol]

If the 1D was no longer a 1.3x crop, what would differentiate it from the 1Ds?


assuming Canon follows Nikon's approach of having two high-end FF bodies, the 1D would be the fast sports camera with 12-20megapixels while the 1Ds would be the slower, studio camera with 30 megapixels or more...

I think there's a market for both...although I can still appreciate why the 1.3 crop works well with sports.

[pieq314]

If the 1D was no longer a 1.3x crop, what would differentiate it from the 1Ds?

I understand the logic that FF is now much more achievable and realistic, however other than the FF factor (DOF, pixel density, perspective) what obvious benefit is to be gained by going FF? The 1D Mark III already had the best ISO performance and highest DSLR burst speed at the time of its release. If either of these were to be sacrificed for FF I doubt many users would appreciate that.

Leave the 1Ds FF and make it faster & cheaper, but keep the 1D as 'fast' (FPS, reach without having to crop, burst, AF) as possible.

1Ds Mk IV will have 25-30MP.

As to why go full frame on 1D Mk IV, here is what I reason: when reach is not an issue, full frame will collect 70% more photons, so you can increase the shutter speed by 70% without increasing the noise in the printed photo (I am not talking about noise in each pixel because that will depend on how many pixels you divide the sensor into).

I do think Canon missed an important opportunity with 5D Mk II: if Canon offers a crop mode (say 1.3x to 1.5x crop), it can increase the frame rate to 7-8 fps, and sell the camera for $100 more, it will attract a lot of additional users.

[Iocol]

I do think Canon missed an important opportunity with 5D Mk II: if Canon offers a crop mode (say 1.3x to 1.5x crop), it can increase the frame rate to 7-8 fps, and sell the camera for $100 more, it will attract a lot of additional users.

I think it's more likely that they would put this feature into the 1d series to give pro sports shooters the option of the crop. I'm guessing that Canon envisioned the 5D to be a landscape/wedding camera and to keep it in that niche. Although I would be perfectly happy with a larger frame rate :D

[TeeTee]

I do think Canon missed an important opportunity with 5D Mk II: if Canon offers a crop mode (say 1.3x to 1.5x crop), it can increase the frame rate to 7-8 fps, and sell the camera for $100 more, it will attract a lot of additional users.


You make very valid points, however this is where I disagree.

The 5D MkII AF likely would not have kept up with 7-8fps in AI Servo and as such would have produced a flawed camera. I do however believe if they make the 1D full frame, they will implement yours/Nikons crop idea to speed things up.

All in all we likely all agree that this has become a very interesting time of change in the DSLR market. Kudos to Nikon for lighting the fire under Canons a$$.

[DDCSD]

Kinda funny, some Nikon users are complaining that there is no DX format pro body now....
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/forum/topic/714125

[jr_senator]

Knowing (praying) that someday I would get a 1D2n I started my lens selections with that in mind. The lenses worked well on my 20D while I waited for the money to get the 1D2n. Of course, it took so long to come up with the money that the 1D3 came out. Except for the 24L TS-E and the 100mm macro I wouldn't want any of the other lenses if I had a FF camera. I use my 1D3 as a everything camera and am very pleased with the results. Even if Canon quit offering a 1.3 an APS-H format...I have one and it being my last camera (I'm pretty sure) I don't care if the APS-H format is discontinued or not.

[JeffreyG]

I have one and it being my last camera (I'm pretty sure) .

Are you over 80 years old or suffering from a terminal condition?

I know some old Leicas go for decades but I doubt that a Canon dSLR is going to. Even if the body were to last that long, people might stop making software that could manage the RAW files, and then people might stop making computers that can run the software versions you have now.

Canon discontinues things....think of the EF 200 1:1.8 lens. If you have one and it breaks then you are out of business. There are no parts. The same fate awaits your 1D mk2.....and hopefully before you die.

I wish you a long enough life to have to replace your camera!:D

[4x4rock]

I really hope they do one more round of 1.3x before kill it off. Make it the best 1.3x ever and let the legacy lives on.

Then 4 years from now I can get it for $1000 :)

[jr_senator]

Are you over 80 years old or suffering from a terminal condition?

Rude, that's the only thing I can call your statement. The particulars of my health should not be an issue here. What if I do have a terminal condition. Do you really expect me to answer your question? Do you think I appreciate your making light of my condition? Rude, that's the only thing I can call your statement.

[jbgeach]

Hey Jr. Senator, re reading your first post I see how Jeffery misunderstood your premise. I believe he was assuming you were planning on using your camera for at least 20-30 yrs. I am very sorry if you were offended. But I think his point was made in good faith. Anyway, I'm glad you like your camera.

[JeffreyG]

Rude, that's the only thing I can call your statement. The particulars of my health should not be an issue here. What if I do have a terminal condition. Do you really expect me to answer your question? Do you think I appreciate your making light of my condition? Rude, that's the only thing I can call your statement.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you are dying, and I fact I rather thought that my last sentence made that clear. Perhaps you didn't read that far.

It just struck me that these cameras are rather short lived from a technology standpoint. My opening was made more for the juxtaposition than as a genuine request. The point was that few people actively plan to die soon enough that they really need to think of one of these cameras as a last camera.

I was reminded of my grandfather once buying a car that he had particlarly wanted and commenting that this could be his last car. His grandchildren all told him that they would prefer he needed to buy a few more cars yet.

[jr_senator]

Perhaps you didn't read that far.

I did, so now why do you think I consider your opening statement rude?.




It just struck me that these cameras are rather short lived from a technology standpoint...The point was that few people actively plan to die soon enough that they really need to think of one of these cameras as a last camera.

In the 70's I started to build a 135 format SLR system. I used it for 25+ years before going digital. It took just as good a picture when I last used it as it did when I first got it even though it had long since been 'state of the art'. I expect my 1D3 to perform as well 10-15-20 years from now as it does now. BTW, besides death, retirement (and it's lower income) or up coming medical bills can dictate whether one can keep up with technology or not. Or perhaps one plans to use money for something else that would prevent the purchase of a newer camera. Until a few years ago I had and used a Mamiya RB67 system and guess what? No batteries required. But, it took really great pictures.

[smcclelland]

I for one hope that Canon will keep the APS-H sensors around for some time as the 1D3 is the bread and butter for my photography. I don't have the ability to zoom with my feet all that much given that there's a dozen cars traveling on the track at 200km/h so anywhere I can get the extra reach via a crop sensor is a huge benefit to me. I still have one of my 40D's for that reason, I'll attach the 70-200 for it and get some great flexibility for different compositions with the crop.

I've never been a fan of the adaptive FX/DX format stuff, I find that Nikon always reduces the DX format to a rather unusable state and frankly I'd rather not have my camera doing the cropping for me when I can come in from the races and do quick crops properly myself. I'm not a megapixel maniac, 10mp is quite reasonable for the stuff I do and gives me plenty of room to crop but there's something about a camera giving me 21mp and then in crop mode I get 8mp or something that just doesn't feel right.

[Yohan Pamudji]

In the 70's I started to build a 135 format SLR system. I used it for 25+ years before going digital. It took just as good a picture when I last used it as it did when I first got it even though it had long since been 'state of the art'. I expect my 1D3 to perform as well 10-15-20 years from now as it does now.

I think JeffreyG's point is that you could do so with old camera systems that were more mechanical than electronic, but with DSLRs you're at the mercy of the manufacturer. When they stop servicing your camera model, you're more or less out of luck. So if the sensor dies or the main board shorts out, it's not so easy to just find a spare part and stick it in the way it is with older cameras. In other words, you might be perfectly content with a DSLR for years to come, but if the camera dies you might have to buy a new one instead of repairing it.

[versedmb]

. The point was that few people actively plan to die soon enough that they really need to think of one of these cameras as a last camera.


And if you are dying soon get the Hell off your freaking computer, grab your camera and go travel to all the places you've ever dreamed of shooting. ;)

[jr_senator]

...if the camera dies you might have to buy a new one instead of repairing it.

Nah, I'd find a good used RB67 and not have to buy batteries again.

[PIXmantra]

Sorry but that sounds very much like a fanboy statement. I've seen some outstanding ISO 3200 images and some pretty decent ISO 6400 images from the D3/D700 that I am not sure that the 1DmkIII can top.

...That's the problem: using the "fanboy" label as a rationalization of your own beliefs/limitations...

Let me know if you would like me to show you examples of the 1D3, from ISO1600 to ISO6400 and anything in between.

In the mean time, check this out: ISO6400, 1D3 left, and D3 right, pretty much the same image, except some minor differences, but an overall very controlled test, and with the best NR the 1D3 can get (my NRx workout) and pretty much the best the D3 can get which is its own conversion engine):

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/image/102913073/original

I have a barrage of actual 1D3 samples, because I regularly exploit the camera accross its entire ISO range.

Let me know.


Looking forward to the day that a clean ISO 6400 can be produced so that I can shoot high school basketball at f/4 and 1/400.

That can be done today, provided that you know what you are doing. Nevertheless, an express road to get to such results but is highly appreciated, for sure, but they can still be achieved today, by resorting to the principles used in today's notion of "high ISO" (e.g. an emphasis in Noise Reduction instead of pure sensitivity).

Enjoy,

PIX

[Willie]

Nah, I'd find a good used RB67 and not have to buy batteries again.

I'd rather buy batteries than film.

Much cheaper and much easier to find.

[Croasdail]

I am sure one day Canon will eliminate the 1.3x Crop. It doesn't effect anybody though, you can use the same lenses on all other bodies. Unlike 1.6x bodies and EF-S lenses. The D700 actually cuts a bit in to the 1D Mark III market and the D300 cuts deeper into Canon then the 40D and 5D. As well I think the D3 cuts a bit in to the 1Ds market as well.

It would absolutely impact me. I use the 1D for field sports, and the crop sensor gives me better reach. I use a D3 for indoor sports. 1.3x is a boon for those shooting at long distances. It would be missed greatly.

[Yohan Pamudji]

It would absolutely impact me. I use the 1D for field sports, and the crop sensor gives me better reach. I use a D3 for indoor sports. 1.3x is a boon for those shooting at long distances. It would be missed greatly.

It only gives you more reach if it has a higher pixel density than other sensors. Already the 21MP sensor used in the 5DII has a higher pixel density than the 1DIII, so if they slapped that sensor in the 1DIV and called it a day you'd have more reach with a FF than you do now with a 1.3x.

[DDCSD]

I'd rather buy batteries than film.

Much cheaper and much easier to find.

And reusable!

[Sauk]

Here is my dream 1D Mark IV Specs:

1. 16mp to 18mp file sizes (sRaw at 10mp)
2. ISO 6400 Native with choices between 1600 to 3200 (same as it is now) and 3200 and 6400 (like 4000, 4500, 5000, etc..)
3. 1.3 crop factor (love it and it is perfect for sports. I do not like full frame for sports as it causes me to have to purchase longer glass)
4. No Video, don't need it
5. Dual CF Card Slots
6. WIFI ability built in
7. Option to select 1.6 crop factor
8. 10 to 12 FPS no matter what size the image.

That right there is my dream camera! In a few years when they start to use black silicon for the sensors ISO will mean nothing as you can use ISO 25,600 and get zero noise ;)

[kindollfamilly]

I see no reason why they wouldn't want the next 1D to be 1.6x crop to be perfectly honest. There is no reason that they couldn't keep the MP the same and just make the camera a low noise machine.

Think about it. It would keep the Crop Frame Viable and legitimate. It would lower the amount of different kind of sensors that they would have to produce. It would give people a real reason to buy fully into the EF-S system such as the 17-55, 10-22, and Siggy 30/1.4 for example. could allow for higher frame rates, etc.

I mean still have a FF 1D as well, but I think the sports oriented 1D should be 1.6x.



Brandon

[jr_senator]

Here is my dream 1D Mark IV Specs:

1. 16mp to 18mp file sizes (sRaw at 10mp)
2. ISO 6400 Native with choices between 1600 to 3200 (same as it is now) and 3200 and 6400 (like 4000, 4500, 5000, etc..)
3. 1.3 crop factor (love it and it is perfect for sports. I do not like full frame for sports as it causes me to have to purchase longer glass)
4. No Video, don't need it
5. Dual CF Card Slots
6. WIFI ability built in
7. Option to select 1.6 crop factor
8. 10 to 12 FPS no matter what size the image.

That right there is my dream camera! In a few years when they start to use black silicon for the sensors ISO will mean nothing as you can use ISO 25,600 and get zero noise ;)

As a 1D3 owner and user, these comments.

1- I don't know about this. I am well satisfied with IQ as is. Sometimes there can be too much of a good thing. It appears there are problems associated with a given format exceeding a certain number of pixels. And, I wonder how the larger files would affect the buffer, recording speed and fps.

2- A non issue for me. I'm not a speed demon. Actually, I would prefer that ISO 25 was available.

3- Yeah, I like the format too. Leave it alone.

4- Don't care, never use it or want to.

5- No, no, no, I record RAW to the CF card and JEPG to the SD card. I don't get them mixed up that way. I'm one of those that needs all the help he can get.

6- WIFI? Why not? I won't use it but others may like it.

7- See my comments for #3.

8- Don't we already have that?

[Sauk]

With tech always getting better we might be able to get bigger image sizes with the same amount of detail.

8. We have 10 FPS what I am saying is move it up to 16mp and keep the same FPS or even give us 2 more of them

[jr_senator]

8. We have 10 FPS what I am saying is move it up to 16mp and keep the same FPS or even give us 2 more of them

See my comment for #3.

[cdifoto]

BBD -- i don't think you'll ever see a 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera that handles noise as well as the current 1d mark III ... or the 5d for that matter. and i think it's sensor size. now, say they prove me wrong and improve the 1.6 crop....wouldn't they be able to make an even bigger improvement to a larger sensor?
If it's strictly sensor size, every XXD would perform the same regarding ISO as every XXXD, and every 1D would perform the same as every 1D II, 1D IIN, & 1D III. The 5D and 5D II would perform the same as the 1Ds, 1Ds II, and 1Ds III.

We all know they are not equal. They already have proven you wrong.

[jr_senator]

...1D would perform the same as every 1D II, 1D IIN, & 1D III. The 5D and 5D II would perform the same as the 1Ds, 1Ds II, and 1Ds III.

Who's on first?

[René Damkot]

I'd only like a FF camera if the AF fields were moved out further. Otherwise I prefer 1.3 crop. The AF points are centred too much as it is already.

As for mega pixels: Either an 8 to 10Mp sRaw, or no more then 12Mp. Please. My HDDs fill up fast enough as it is.

10fps is plenty.

Video: Don't care either way.

ISO 6400 would be nice, and will probably happen.

Option to select 1.6 crop factor: Don't see the need. EF-s lenses cannot be used regardless (would hit the mirror), and I can crop in post if needed.