Is 1.3 crop factor the ultimate for use with....

[Lee Jay]

I'm comparing, of course, to the full-frame film camera my Mark II
replaced, which has the same "reach" as the full-frame 5D. I'm
not sure we are talking about the same thing-- I'm referring only
to crop factor.

Crop factor is irrelevant to reach.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Jim Dawson]

some Canon executive implied that in an interview and it has been blown out of proportion in foums like this.

--



Canon 1D Mark IIN, 20D, Pentax Optio 555, and G-III QL (yes - film)

 

[bdnc]

No. Anything the 1DII can do, the 5D can do better image-quality
wise.

I found the image quality practically indistinguishable between the 2 cameras. Yes the 5D has more of the same in identical shots, (meaning camera position and lens, etc), but crop it to the 1D2 size and you have the same image (for practical purposes).

But it is very nice having a FF camera around...

 

[Lee Jay]

I found the image quality practically indistinguishable between the
2 cameras. Yes the 5D has more of the same in identical shots,
(meaning camera position and lens, etc), but crop it to the 1D2
size and you have the same image (for practical purposes).

Right. But frame it the same and you have all those extra pixels and the extra DOF control.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[bdnc]

thinking you meant an inherent image quality advantage - but, yes, if you frame alike you'll get more detail in the 5D.

 

[Lee Jay]

thinking you meant an inherent image quality advantage - but, yes,
if you frame alike you'll get more detail in the 5D.

Oh. Actually, I'd be inclined to guess the 1DII would have the advantage there because it's cost and pro-status might justify a higher-Q AA filter.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[joebloe]

That's simply not true on the 5D.

Even my 70-200/2.8L IS has noticeable falloff shooting wide open at 200mm on my 5D. My 200/1.8L has more. There is no way around aperture vignetting and the "cosine fourth" law for large apertures.

-joseph

I have a 5D, 10D and a 20D. I have NO vignetting with any of my
lenses, NOR is there any appreciable "softness" or "tearing" at
corners!

--
Canon.

 

[Kung Pao Panda]

Cropping is a new thing?

"Projecting slides"?!?

In the past, no one ever went out to buy $5000 of camera kit just
to create slides to project. Well, probably someone did, but that
would be considered nutty by people who didn't have money to burn
as well as professionals who knew it was just stupid.

And in the past, people never "mainly print[ed] full frame at
8x10." Printing full frame at 8x10 is something students do for
practice, portrait photographers do for Mom and Dad, and everyone
else does once in a blue moon if ever.

In the past, people did exactly the same things people do with
cameras and images now - with a little more thought because it was
a nuisance to develop hundreds of lousy exposures. It's just that
when you hand someone a digital SLR, it apparently bestows a
mistaken sense of competence and cluefulness that rarely happened
in the good old days when someone used a plain old film SLR.

Apparently, millions of person-years of experience with the things
you can do with a 24x36mm rectangle isn't something that Mr."What
Is the Perfect Sensor Size for Me to Buy" is going to let stand in
the way of an off-the-cuff remark.

-joseph

Your generalizations are not true.

Many slide and negative film shooters do just that, fill the frame for projector or print. Pros and photo enthusiasts. I don't thinks pros thought it was stupid to shoot slides because many stock agencies would only accept slides ie. transparencies.

Many photographers in the golden days of film shot for the full frame 24mmx36 mm. and other format sizes. One of the reasons was to "fill the frame" as an esthetic expression in photographic style. To show the viewer that the image was intended to be framed that way. Also as is true of digital capture... cropping subjected the image to increased grain (similiar to digital noise).

BTW there must be a whole lot of "nutty" photographers that spent and continue to spend thousands of dollars ie. $5000+ for camera kits ie. Leica, Contax, Nikon Hasselblad, and Canon etc....would you agree that even today's digital cameras and a few good "L" lenses can be just as or more expensive?

24mmx36mm is not the ratio for 8"x10" prints, but it is for 9"x12"(that is "full frame" not printing 8"x10"). Many photographers would enlarge and print the full 24mmx36mm to those dimensions.

Who care?.

 

[DD22]

I'm comparing, of course, to the full-frame film camera my Mark II
replaced, which has the same "reach" as the full-frame 5D. I'm
not sure we are talking about the same thing-- I'm referring only
to crop factor.

Crop factor is irrelevant to reach.

--
Lee Jay

That's nice. So you're saying that when I mount my 300mm lens on my Mark II it will produce the same magnification ratio as it does on my 1V? "Reach" to me is simply the ability to magnify, or in other words, produce a narrower AOV.

 

[KEG]

--
KEG ( http://www.pbase.com/k_e_g )

 

[FretNoMore]

Are you comparing the lens, the captured frame or a 100% crop?

• Anders @ http://www.andersostberg.com *

 

[Jim Dawson]

I think it is the ratio for 8X12, not 9X12.

24mmx36mm is not the ratio for 8"x10" prints, but it is for
9"x12"(that is "full frame" not printing 8"x10").

--



Canon 1D Mark IIN, 20D, Pentax Optio 555, and G-III QL (yes - film)

 

[Lee Jay]

That's nice. So you're saying that when I mount my 300mm lens
on my Mark II it will produce the same magnification ratio as it
does on my 1V? "Reach" to me is simply the ability to magnify, or
in other words, produce a narrower AOV.

Okay, then my camcorder will out-reach your 1DII and 300mm lens since it produces a full image at an over 800mm equivalent angle of view.

Angle of view is a useless measure of "reach".

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Kung Pao Panda]

Thanks. You are correct.

24mmx36mm is not the ratio for 8"x10" prints, but it is for
9"x12"(that is "full frame" not printing 8"x10").

--



Canon 1D Mark IIN, 20D, Pentax Optio 555, and G-III QL (yes - film)

 

[Hellashot]

In an interview with Canon CEO back in August or so before the 5D was announced. That's where they said the 1Ds2's replacement would likely be 22MP whenever that occurs.

 

[Corinto47]

In an interview with Canon CEO back in August or so before the 5D
was announced. That's where they said the 1Ds2's replacement would
likely be 22MP whenever that occurs.

That's about the 1DsII replacement,
not about the 1DIIn replacement, ...
quite a difference, ...

Carpe diem.

--
Corinto

 

[PIXSurgeon]

..."Crop a FF-frame" to weed-out the offending corners (which you ABSOLUTELY WILL get, right from the 1Ds and on), just to get... what you will essentially capture, in resolution and size, with a 1.3x sensor?

Does not sound intelligent or efficient at all, to me.

At this point, the only way for Canon to actually "merge" the FF/1.3x classes seems to simply produce a 1.3x "croppable" 16Mpx sensor, which will yield in low-speed FF and high-speed 8.2Mp or more, while still utilizing existing developments (keeping cost low), and divesting production of current 1.3x sensors.

The problem is that, in order for such proposition to work, the price of the camera should stay around the $4K mark, which means a $3k departure from the current $7K price for the 16Mp camera. This, in turns, suggests that the 1.3x sensor may not necessarily be discarded, yet, as its disposal may create a large hole in Canon's current portfolio.

We will soon see how Canon will embrace this issue. As long as they do not cripple the on-board .JPG "engine", it will not matter to me if a larger 1.3x sensor or a croppable FF Sensor finds its way into the new 1D/2D MarkII/MarkIII or whatever it is called. I will be jumping into it, no matter what! )

Happy shooting!

 

[Alonso Perez]

A 1.1x crop sensor would in my view be ideal.

Why?

First, it's a small step from FF and to most intents and purposes would be interchangeable with FF as a working size.

But mostly, because it would permit motion compensation (anti-shake), at the sensor, and hence with all existing lenses.

There would also be slight cost and chip yield advantages, and that kind of thing.

On a 1.1 standard, differentiation steps would be based on resolution, ISO, speed, anti-shake, weather-proofing, viewfinder quality, and so forth.

1.3 is neither here nor there. It's too limiting for wideangles, yet does not allow use of cheaper 1.6-type lenses.

But I do agree that there is no reason to be a FF taliban. Camera makers should take the opportunity to experiment a little.

 

[Alonso Perez]

that whether we were shootong slides or negatives, some of the image
would be cropped, either by the slides frame or through printing.

True.

Another good reason for a 1.1 crop factor, which I proposed below...

 

[Dom Avery]

I found the image quality practically indistinguishable between the
2 cameras. Yes the 5D has more of the same in identical shots,
(meaning camera position and lens, etc), but crop it to the 1D2
size and you have the same image (for practical purposes).

This is very true, it cant be any better , Both the 5D and the 1DMk2N have the same size pixel, 8.2 x 8.2 µm , therefore if you crop out the soft edges on the FF you are left with the same image, no difference in image quality. so are the extra pixels to make up the cmos size, are they worth the money? no not IMHO.