Scott Larson
Veteran Member
In that case, yes, FF can deliver the resolution and image quality of the original 4 megapixel 1D so there's no reason for 1.3x crop to exist any more.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
maybe Canon won't make any further 1.3x cropped cameras but
there is a selection on Nikon cameras to let you use 1.2x mode.
with D800 you can shoot 5 fps in 1.2x mode which is nice.
it let you trade off 0.5 stops image quality for extra speed.
there is a selection on Nikon cameras to let you use 1.2x mode.
with D800 you can shoot 5 fps in 1.2x mode which is nice.
it let you trade off 0.5 stops image quality for extra speed.
That I think is the right way moving forward, I think biggest
Imitation on high mp sensor running fast fps is read out speed, increasing read out channels appear to have adverse effect on iq. If by cropping, The camera can leave the top and bottom sections of the sensor unread, it may increase read out speed for the rest of the sensor. That may be what Nikon is doing.
I'm not wrong, you just happen to disagree.
But as you think my format is too short, here is the long version:
Unlike all the people who think the 1.3 crop is great for longer reach, I would rather put a longer lens on. Or prefer to do the cropping in Photoshop.
I prefer all my cameras and lenses to give me the exact reach and framing I have grown accustomed to in the course of my professional career. I don't want to juggle FF and 1.3 crop camera bodies and have to consider which lenses I put on which body and make conversion calculations on the fly, to know which lens I should but on which body for any given situation. I want to go with my experience and gut feeling.
There's absolutely nothing magical about the 1.3 crop that can't be achieved in a better way, by other means. The Nikon approach of providing alternate crop modes in-camera makes a lot more sense, as it gives you the option between long reach, fast frame rate and smaller files typically for sports or wildlife BUT without sacrificing the full-blown wide-angle hi-res experience that a landscape photographer would typically want, thus giving you the best of both worlds without having to sacrifice anything.
THAT is why I think 1.3 crop is a useless format - something that Canon marketing came up with to sell double the amounts of cameras (1D and 1Ds) rather than providing us with the perfect all-in-one camera.
But as you think my format is too short, here is the long version:
Unlike all the people who think the 1.3 crop is great for longer reach, I would rather put a longer lens on. Or prefer to do the cropping in Photoshop.
I prefer all my cameras and lenses to give me the exact reach and framing I have grown accustomed to in the course of my professional career. I don't want to juggle FF and 1.3 crop camera bodies and have to consider which lenses I put on which body and make conversion calculations on the fly, to know which lens I should but on which body for any given situation. I want to go with my experience and gut feeling.
There's absolutely nothing magical about the 1.3 crop that can't be achieved in a better way, by other means. The Nikon approach of providing alternate crop modes in-camera makes a lot more sense, as it gives you the option between long reach, fast frame rate and smaller files typically for sports or wildlife BUT without sacrificing the full-blown wide-angle hi-res experience that a landscape photographer would typically want, thus giving you the best of both worlds without having to sacrifice anything.
THAT is why I think 1.3 crop is a useless format - something that Canon marketing came up with to sell double the amounts of cameras (1D and 1Ds) rather than providing us with the perfect all-in-one camera.
Yes it is not here today, but it could have been if canon felt it was warranted. Based on available current technology (assuming nikon's cropping and variable FPS is accessible by canon, they are not particularly hi-tech anyway), 1Dx could have been a 7 FPS 27mp camera with x1.3 16mp 11 FPS mode. but canon obviously felt the market is not asking for such a product, to their view the market wants a full frame 10 FPS product like D3s, that is why you have the current 1Dx.
RRJackson
Veteran Member
Isn't the cinema DSLR supposed to shoot video in a 1.3x cropped mode?
I have been shooting sports professionally or semi professionally with everything from no fps (SLR w/o motordrive) to 10 fps and I have tested a lot of cameras for an action-oriented photo magazine.For decent coverage, anything below 8 fps is getting dodgy, I'm afraid. 5fps is virtually identical to the 4fps of the 5d2 and simply won't cut it...not even for schoolboy soccer.Of course if you are a dedicated professional sports shooter your best bet is a Nikon D3/D4 or Canon 1D4/1DX.
But 5 fps with pro level AF and pro level shutter response as on D800 can do a decent job, just as I believe a 6 fps 5D3 also will do a decent job.
Just as important as fps is shutter response and AF. The problem with a camera like 5D2 is the slow response and AF.
There is no problem shooting sports with a 5 fps camera like the Canon 60D, but again the shutter response is a little less than what you want.
The 6 fps Nikon D7000 feels a lot faster in that regard, even though there is only 1 fps nominal difference.
The old Nikon D300 did 6 fps and with good AF and fast shutter there is no problem shooting soccer (which you mentioned).
Of course a 9 fps Nikon D3s is even better. But again, the speed at which it fires the first shot also is a part of the pro feel.
Same story with the 10 fps Canon 1DMK4.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
PhotoKhan
Forum Pro
This " positive dogma reinforcement " introduction precluded me to read any further.
PK
--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
sparkling elk
Leading Member
i think there is a reason canon announced the 1DX first and made it as fast as possible (12fps). remember they always first announced the new 1D speed model and then the 1Ds version... Looks like 1D (APSH) became 1DX (FF) and the new high resolution camera might be 1DS again - or 3D - or whatsoever. its not the 5D3 IMO (while still possible). its not too difficult and expensive to put a high res sensor in the new developped 1DX body.
i think the strategy is that the flagship 1DX is leading by speed (summer 2012 sport events ! ) and not by resolution. nikon went the other way.
but i think you're right and the future pro bodies will have 2-3 crop modes and be fast and expensive enough
--
e.aland
Nice shots BTW...!
I'm not saying one cannot shoot sports at all with a 5fps camera, of course one can on a casual basis. I'm not saying AF, metering, ISO, buffer et al arent important either. They are (and I have, in fact, assumed them as a given in this discussion) but so is the frame rate.
When one is engaged professionally to cover a serious sports event then one has to look for faster cameras. Because then you must not only catch all critical moments but you must catch them in the best possible configuration...that's what you're being paid for. There are, afterall, other sports photographers and the competition is stiff. This is clearly a different world from casual shooting. Under these circumstances a 5-6fps camera simply won't do. An 8fps camera would be generating 33-50% extra shots in bursts of equivalent length and considerably more images to choose from. In soccer the effect is obvious. 9-10 fps would be even better for some frenetic sequences. The (1Dx and D4) would be ideal.
Try covering the first serve of a serious tennis player (like Federer or Nadal). A 6fps camera wont provide enough frames to sequence the serve. An 8fps one provides sufficient critical in-between shots to make a decent stab at it and provides a better chance of catching the exiting ball in the frame. Of course the 12-14 fps of the 1DX would be ideal. 5fps would be a disaster.
You might want to have a look at Marianne Oelund's website [ http://actionphotosbymarianne.com/ ] to get an idea how intense a serious sports pro's work can get. According to her some typical numbers from her sports photography business are:
"At least 8fps burst speed required
About 100 frames taken per minute of action
2000-3000 frames per hour of event
Up to 15 event hours per day."
[ http://forums.dpreview.com/....asp?forum=1021&thread=40819774&page=6]
The D300 with its 6fps was state of the art once upon a time but then so was the Nikon F in 1959. Times have changed and new standards have evolved - both in terms of what can be delivered by photographers and the expectations of clients. I dont think you'll find any serious pro attempting to cover a complete soccer match at 5-6fps in 2012.
The D800 is what it is, an excellent camera for landscapes, studio work and many other things, but heavy duty sports/action isn't its forte.
I am not sure really about how much we disagree. Of course for a working sports pro Nikons and Canons heavy duty sports cameras are the way to go. But if you are an allround PJ with some sports work involved sometimes I think the new breed of Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800 is a big step up in capability from a 5D2 because of the pro level AF and shutter response.
So, I think they can cover sports and you would come home with a lot of usable images on an assaigment. But if I was at the sidelines of a world class event with competitors using the 9-12 fp cameras, I would want to use the same stuff as they do.
About tennis - SLR without motor drive (could not afford it then). But of course the SLRs had virtually no shutter lag, making it easier to time a moment.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Yes, but still not fast enough, unless all one wants is to get some shots without pressure - which I'd categorize as casual shooting. I believe any serious PJ will have more than one camera body...and I believe at least one of them will be something faster like a 7D or 1D4 (or equivalents). With one's professional reputation on the line I believe one will choose the appropriate tool for the job...!
Absolutely.
Outstanding...!
...but 5-6 fps is still unlikely to provide a 'side-on' sequence of images properly covering Federer's first serve, and 8fps competitors will still generate the missing intermediate 33-50% …!
I don’t think we’re saying essentially different things, we can actually agree to differ on the exact definition of ‘casual coverage'…!Lol.
BTW, who’s the tennis player…? Looks familiar…
Its Bjorn Borg, five times Wimbledon-winner, during a tournament in Munic, Germany.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Neil Schofield
Leading Member
I believe that there are only 12 lenses in existence that go native beyond my 800mm, and I can't afford any of them, and I don't have a sherpa
Thats ok for you and you now have two new FF bodies to choose from, good luck life looks promising for FF togs for the forseeable
Your view, I have used the 1D crop for over 5 years now, my lenses are geared upto the format, I like the image quality, and want to upgrade to a 1D ASPH again with the best AF and low light performance, fast frame rate, weather sealing, and great battery life
The 1D came about I believe to enable faster frame rates at reduced cost in sensor production and in my view it is a great compromise for what I shoot, the 1D bodies are more versatile than FF, and whilst I accept that IQ and ISO performance will be better on FF equivalent body, the 1DX is here to meet the D3s/D4 Challange
The 1DX tries to bridge the gap, it fails for me on loss crop factor and loss of AF at f8, other than that the new AF sounds magic and the high ISO performance is said to have been improved, thats why a crop option would appeal to me
In Canon's middle range of camera. It cannot go against FF for the high priced cameras, but it would be awesome for say the XXD and 7D class of camera. I think it would be genius move. Some how adapt it to use EFS lenses, but using it on those bodies would make the closest sensor to a super affordable FF with out actually being FF. It would kill all the competitors who have 1.5 crop sensors in terms of noise and performance.
--
Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
--
Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
sparkling elk
Leading Member
sparkling elk
Leading Member
i meant, it could be the end of APSC SLR, regarding an expanding mirrorless APSC standard. APSH consumer-semi-pro-SLR (7D-body-like) could compete with this new segment and make the difference. efs-lineup wont be compatible with such a hypothetic APSH SLR, but it could be compatible with a hypothetic futur mirrorless APSC from canon and coexist (while EF-S not being produced anymore) aside a lighter EF-X mirrorless mount.
nikon already avoided a APSC mirrorless camera system and came up with this mirrorless toy system ... but they have nothing like a APSH sensor up their sleeve and they will never have it again and continue to ride on their 1.5 APSC.
SO. is Canon APSH death forever ?
--
e.aland
sparkling elk
Leading Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum