Reducing 1.3 crop by.1 at a time

I had a thought why dont they reduce the 1D mark IV's crops by .1 each model and in 3 models later well have FF this is the most plausible option to me for canon.

Because Canon (in the past) ran 2 1D line bodies. A 1.3crop and a fullframe option. At present the 5DM2 has really taken the seat as their leading fullframe sensor, though most are expecting canon to release a 1D line fullframe at some point in the future - expected to somewhat bridge the gap between the very action 7D and the very studio 5DM2 (ie a fullframe with good AF)

Not to mention that would mean producing a whole new sensor every year which would be slightly if not off the charts cost prohibitive.

I maintain both the s series and the crop bodies. I like the crop bodies for that extra little reach that it does give you when shooting wildlife. My 600 f/4 becomes a 780mm lens and then if you add teleconverters you get alot or reach. I like the concept of separate lines.

Seems like you could just switch to FF and add a 1.25x TC in the box for free.

Why do people keep on saying that Canon should quit the 1.3x crop bodies and go strictly with a FF sensor for their 1D (or 1Ds) series bodies?

If you don't like a 1.3x crop sensor, that's fine...but some of us DO!! You have plenty of other options for a full frame sensor DSLR from Canon...both currently, and in the future!

There's the 1Ds, 1Ds Mk II, 1Ds Mk III, 5Dc, 5D Mk II, and probably soon the 1Ds Mk IV, and the much ballyhooed 5D Mk III. Isn't that enough FF options for you all?

What is so wrong with Canon producing cameras with three different size sensors? If you don't like the 1.3x crop sensor cameras...DON'T BUY THEM! But don't keep saying that Canon should stop making them for those of us who DO LIKE THEM!!

Perhaps if Canon would FINALLY make a FF 1Ds body (with the BUILT IN GRIP) that shoots 8-10 FPS like their 1VHS FF film bodies did, then maybe some 1D series body owners wouldn't mind going to full frame. But until that day arrives (and I don't know what's taking Canon so long to do that!), photographers who would like to go to FF, but want or need higher than 4 or 5 FPS will stick to the 1.3x 1D series bodies.

Several years ago, a Canon Inc executive indicated that Canon intended to go to a single 1-series camera.
http://www.e-fotografija.com …publish/article​_440.shtml

However, they never have. I suspect that as long as the professionals who want the very highest frame rates (which, given their best technology, will always be more possible with slightly less data to carry and a slightly smaller mirror), they have decided to keep producing the 1.3 crop.

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #12578835
What is so wrong with Canon producing cameras with three different size sensors? If you don't like the 1.3x crop sensor cameras...DON'T BUY THEM! But don't keep saying that Canon should stop making them for those of us who DO LIKE THEM!!

Because it fragments the lineup and provides zero benefit to the end user. A higher density FF sensor with a 1.3x crop mode (complete with VF crop) would provide the exact same benefits that an APS-H body has right now, while still allowing for the advantages of a FF body.

tkbslc wrote in post #12580423
Because it fragments the lineup and provides zero benefit to the end user. A higher density FF sensor with a 1.3x crop mode (complete with VF crop) would provide the exact same benefits that an APS-H body has right now, while still allowing for the advantages of a FF body.

This camera will have to cost more than the 1Ds model. Those who just want 1D will be unhappy to pay almost twice as much.

I read that and immediately tossed my two 1D Mark III cameras in the trash. Clearly they don't provide any value to me.

tkbslc wrote in post #12580423
Because it fragments the lineup and provides zero benefit to the end user. A higher density FF sensor with a 1.3x crop mode (complete with VF crop) would provide the exact same benefits that an APS-H body has right now, while still allowing for the advantages of a FF body.

PixelMagic wrote in post #12582455
I read that and immediately tossed my two 1D Mark III cameras in the trash. Clearly they don't provide any value to me.

That's exactly what I said

If they had a FF sensor, shot the same burst speed and had 1.3x crop modes, would they provide any less value? So why make the end user decide between a big sensor or fast burst? Why have the progression go 1.6x crop, FF, 1.3x crop, FF. Based on pricing for the 5Dmk2, it is not like a large density FF sensor costs thousands to make and even the 5Dmk2 with a 1.3x crop mode would have higher resolution than your 1Dmk3.

pieq314 wrote in post #12582428
This camera will have to cost more than the 1Ds model. Those who just want 1D will be unhappy to pay almost twice as much.

Why? Nikon's D3s doesn't cost more than a 1Dmk4. Canon's 5D sensor is apparently pretty cheap because the 5D is almost half the price of the 1Dmk4.

tkbslc wrote in post #12583265
Why? Nikon's D3s doesn't cost more than a 1Dmk4. Canon's 5D sensor is apparently pretty cheap because the 5D is almost half the price of the 1Dmk4.

Nikon's D3s has low pixel density, which means less "reach" if telephoto is important (such as bird photography or some sports). If Canon makes a full 1D with the same pixel count, then, the current 1D users will certainly be unhappy about the loss of "reach".

In terms of cost, although a high density sensor may not cost much more, but Nikon sells its high density version (D3x or D3s, I could never remember which is which) at a lot more than its low density version. So if the high density version can do dynamic cropping with 10fps, it will cost more than D3x (assuming I get the label right), which was $8k.

That difference is probably not the sensor. The construction of the 1-series as well as the electronics are superior to that of the 5D by an extremely large margin.

RDKirk wrote in post #12584159
That difference is probably not the sensor. The construction of the 1-series as well as the electronics are superior to that of the 5D by an extremely large margin.

Most 5D2 owners would have payed extra to get it better weatherprotected and with better AF. Canon should not have needed much money extra to cover these issues, while still leaving lots of differences up to a more expensive 1Ds body.