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

[joebloe]

There'll never be another 1.3 crop sensor in a 1D, nor in any Canon body for that matter. The "pool of users" for that sensor will be plenty happy when an 8.5fps 12-14MP (or 16?) FF 1D comes out at about $4500 in around 12 months. Yeehaw! The rest of us will be plenty happy with the flood of 1DMkIIn bodies on eBay going for $2000.

-joseph

Well given that the size of 1.3x puts it between APS and FF, yes,
the 1.3x sensor can offer an excellent compromise between the two,
in terms of sensor real estate, quality, and price. I'm looking
forward to seeing what Canon does with their 1.3x sensor format.
They have a huge pool of users who use the 1.3x sensor, due to the
success of the 1D and 1D MKII, so I think they will definitely
carry on with it in some shape or form.

--
Canon.

 

[joebloe]

Please explain WHY ANYONE would ever WANT that.

I keep hearing this, and it's completely nutty. Come on. Memory isn't a limiting factor anywhere here. If someone sells you a $500 camera that takes 18MP images, you'll go right out and buy 2GB cards for it and never once say "gee I wish I could just use 1/2 of my sensor because GOSH DARN these files are just so packed full of extra useless detail." (Note: JPEG setting comes in different sizes.)

As for cropping, if you really do want just the tender inside of your photos and not the crispy outside, then you can choose one of about 100 equally effective methods for automatically and blindly lopping all that "extra" stuff off in your workflow without having to lift a finger.

-joseph

Maybe so, but I see Canon potentially offering FF sensors with an
internal 1.3x crop. This could allow the sensor to produce a
larger RAW file at full sensor size, while delivering a smaller RAW
file in 1.3x crop mode, while allowing 1D/1D MKII users to get the
1.3x crop that they've been accustomed to. Some people may not see
much point in a 1.3x crop, but others do.

--
Canon.

 

[Lee Jay]

Please explain WHY ANYONE would ever WANT that.

I keep hearing this, and it's completely nutty. Come on. Memory
isn't a limiting factor anywhere here.

Think about this a moment. Let's say the rumors are true and the next generation 1-series is a 22MP full-frame 8-10 fps camera.

A 22MP RAW file will be on the order of 30 megabytes. At 8fps, that's 240MB/second. So a 1 GB card will last 4 seconds, a 2GB card will last 8 seconds. Remind you of film? A roll of 36 in a 1VHS will last 4-5 seconds.

This might be a good reason for cropped-RAWs. At 10MB each (give or take), an 8MP RAW will stretch each card 3 times longer.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[T3]

There are people who like 1.6x, there are people who like 1.3x, and there are people who like FF. I think Canon understands quite well that there is no one single format to suit everyone. And likewise, not all the sensor formats cost the same to produce either. Plus, you have to wonder why so many would be "plenty happy with the flood of 1DMKIIn bodies on eBay"...it's because a 1.3x body offers a very nice price/performance/sensor sweetspot, not only for a certain group of users, but also for Canon. I would not be so confident that there will NEVER be another 1.3x sensor in any new Canon body. Car manufacturers offer different sizes of engines at different price points. Likewise, the same can be said of sensor sizes. We consumers may not think the manufacturing cost differences between FF and 1.3x to be of much significance, but it definitely makes a HUGE difference to companies like Canon. A "mere" difference of a couple hundred dollars in production cost, multiplied by 1000s and 1000s of units really adds up. Rest assured, companies pay careful attention to even the most modest of cost differences because their profits live in the margins.

-joseph

Well given that the size of 1.3x puts it between APS and FF, yes,
the 1.3x sensor can offer an excellent compromise between the two,
in terms of sensor real estate, quality, and price. I'm looking
forward to seeing what Canon does with their 1.3x sensor format.
They have a huge pool of users who use the 1.3x sensor, due to the
success of the 1D and 1D MKII, so I think they will definitely
carry on with it in some shape or form.

--
Canon.

 

[T3]

Do you have any idea how many shots the average sports photographer shoots at a typical sporting event? Shooting an 18mp FF sensor would fill up that 2gb card of yours in minutes, or less. The difference in file sizes can quickly make a HUGE difference in everything that follows the creation of that image, from storage, to transfer, to processing. Furthermore, like it or not, a 1.3x crop gives you a tighter framing than a FF sensor, which can effectively give you more "telephoto". A lot of people find that extremely useful. Yes, you can argue the acedemic merits of all this, but the fact is, an internal crop can deliver a smaller file size, and an internal crop can deliver a "telephoto" effect on images. And we're talking about the average high volume pro shooter here, not your average hobby photographer who thinks a 2GB CF card is plenty of storage for the day. Besides, it would be an OPTION. You'd be able to turn it off and use the full sensor if you wanted to. It's not like anyone is FORCING you to use it.

I keep hearing this, and it's completely nutty. Come on. Memory
isn't a limiting factor anywhere here. If someone sells you a
$500 camera that takes 18MP images, you'll go right out and buy 2GB
cards for it and never once say "gee I wish I could just use 1/2 of
my sensor because GOSH DARN these files are just so packed full of
extra useless detail." (Note: JPEG setting comes in different
sizes.)

As for cropping, if you really do want just the tender inside of
your photos and not the crispy outside, then you can choose one of
about 100 equally effective methods for automatically and blindly
lopping all that "extra" stuff off in your workflow without having
to lift a finger.

-joseph

Maybe so, but I see Canon potentially offering FF sensors with an
internal 1.3x crop. This could allow the sensor to produce a
larger RAW file at full sensor size, while delivering a smaller RAW
file in 1.3x crop mode, while allowing 1D/1D MKII users to get the
1.3x crop that they've been accustomed to. Some people may not see
much point in a 1.3x crop, but others do.

--
Canon.

 

[PicOne]

So the obvious ideal solution if possible would be to sell ONE body with modular sensor size/MP ratios availalble. Outfit your 1-series with a 10mp 1.6 crop sensor, a 14mp 1.3crop sensor or a 20mp FF sensor... maybe a 1ds-A/B/C.. throughput and fps perhaps limited by the bandwidth available.

 

[T3]

May as well face it. Canon is not going to give up a huge line-up
of lens designs and inventory to these goofy theories.

Breaking news, James! FF lenses work fine on crop-sensor bodies!

And by the way, BMW, Mercedes, and all other car manufacturers produce different sized models of cars with different sized engine options at different price points, catering to different customer preferences. DSLR bodies aren't much different these days. In the film days, we were bound by a single film format for any particular camera/lens system. In the digital era, we're not bound by film canisters and film rails of a specific size. Hence Canon's 1.6x, 1.3x, and 1.0x sensor options. It's a three-pronged approach to meeting the diverse needs of the photographic community.

 

[joebloe]

The next 1D isn't going to be 22MP 8-10 fps. There will still be two 1D bodies (and probably always will be at least two), and the next one would likely be a high speed 12-16MP FF to replace the 1DMkII, sometime in a year or so - unless the updated hires 1Ds comes along, but that'll still be 3-5fps.

In any event, a pro shooter will take up to about 1,000 exposures at a typical sports event, and let's say he's using a 14MP body. With RAW+JPEG that's, let's say, a max of 15-16 GB total, which is a good day's work, but no big deal. Meanwhile a 4GB Ultra II will hold over 200 exposures, which is about what a shutter-happy photographer would take during a quarter of a ballgame.

Also no big deal.

Someone owns his own equipment and cares about how much he spends will probably be happily shooting with a 1DMkII (w/ or w/o the 'n') for a couple more years. But the technology to support 10-20GB of photos per photographer per day is nothing exciting. SI shoots - AND SORTS INDIVIDUALLY THROUGH - 10,000+ images at major events.

-joseph

Please explain WHY ANYONE would ever WANT that.

I keep hearing this, and it's completely nutty. Come on. Memory
isn't a limiting factor anywhere here.

Think about this a moment. Let's say the rumors are true and the
next generation 1-series is a 22MP full-frame 8-10 fps camera.

A 22MP RAW file will be on the order of 30 megabytes. At 8fps,
that's 240MB/second. So a 1 GB card will last 4 seconds, a 2GB
card will last 8 seconds. Remind you of film? A roll of 36 in a
1VHS will last 4-5 seconds.

This might be a good reason for cropped-RAWs. At 10MB each (give
or take), an 8MP RAW will stretch each card 3 times longer.

--
Canon.

 

[jonrobertp]

The Canon rep I spoke with in Minneapolis said the 1.3 will continue, so I'm expecting it within a year. So many naysayers!! Canon is big enough to handle several lines at once. Shock and Awe !!
--
Life is about choices.

 

[joebloe]

The cost of a FF sensor will not be a significant issue in 3-4 years.

The reason people will be happy with a flood of $2000 used 1DMkII bodies is that they are nice bodies, not that they have 1.3 crop sensors.

-joseph

There are people who like 1.6x, there are people who like 1.3x, and
there are people who like FF. I think Canon understands quite well
that there is no one single format to suit everyone. And likewise,
not all the sensor formats cost the same to produce either.

--
Canon.

 

[Lee Jay]

The next 1D isn't going to be 22MP 8-10 fps. There will still be
two 1D bodies (and probably always will be at least two),...

Canon specifically said the 1-series will merge in the next iteration.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Kung Pao Panda]

If you'd be so inclined, could be interesting.

Take a shot at 65mm with the 5D at say f/5.6
Take same shot at 50mm with the 5D.

Here's a sample with the 24-105 at 35mm and 28mm at f11. I'll redo
it at f5.6 if you like.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Hi. Wouldn't this test would be more valid if a resolution chart was shot instead of shooting tree limbs? Im thinking there must be some motion in the tree limbs that might invalidate the test. Also tree limbs are not exactly parallel to the plane of focus of the camera/lens so how can one tell if the corners are really sharp? Im assuming a tripod and mirror lock up was used for the shots?

Thanks.

 

[Lee Jay]

Hi. Wouldn't this test would be more valid if a resolution chart
was shot instead of shooting tree limbs?

I hate those things for wide-angle shots. You have to shoot from so close that the DOF is tiny and field-curvature can cause an erronious result.

Im thinking there must be
some motion in the tree limbs that might invalidate the test.

It was dead calm but there were a couple of birds occasionally moving the limbs around. You can easily see when they were.

Also
tree limbs are not exactly parallel to the plane of focus of the
camera/lens so how can one tell if the corners are really sharp?

In every shot, at least some of the tree limbs at the corners are within the DOF. As I mentioned, you have to look for them at the wide f-stops.

Im assuming a tripod and mirror lock up was used for the shots?

Yes.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[T3]

The cost of a FF sensor will not be a significant issue in 3-4 years.

So you say. But even a minor cost difference is pretty significant. The cost of a 1Ds MKII is $7200, while the cost of a 1D MKII is $4000, even though they essentially use the same bodies. Much of that $3200 price difference is attributed to the difference in cost of the sensors. But just for kicks, lets say that the difference in cost of a 1.3x sensor versus a 1.0x sensor is ONLY $300. That might not seem like much of a difference to you or I, but multiply that by 10,000 units per month (probably a very conservative number), multiplied by 12 months in a year, and you come up with a difference of $36,000,000. Canon isn't going to just throw away $36 million by ignoring the "insignificant" cost difference between a 1.3x sensor and a 1.0x sensor. Don't be foolish. For a company that charges $50 for a cable release and $40 for a plastic lens hood, Canon is definitely not in the business of giving away their products. And they would not consider the cost difference between a 1.3x sensor and a 1.0x sensor to be "insignificant". Canon isn't a charity. They are out to maximize their earning potential and profitability with all their products, in every way that they can.

 

[Lee Jay]

The cost of a FF sensor will not be a significant issue in 3-4 years.

So you say. But even a minor cost difference is pretty
significant. The cost of a 1Ds MKII is $7200, while the cost of a
1D MKII is $4000, even though they essentially use the same bodies.
Much of that $3200 price difference is attributed to the difference
in cost of the sensors. But just for kicks, lets say that the
difference in cost of a 1.3x sensor versus a 1.0x sensor is ONLY
$300. That might not seem like much of a difference to you or I,
but multiply that by 10,000 units per month (probably a very
conservative number), multiplied by 12 months in a year, and you
come up with a difference of $36,000,000. Canon isn't going to
just throw away $36 million by ignoring the "insignificant" cost
difference between a 1.3x sensor and a 1.0x sensor. Don't be
foolish. For a company that charges $50 for a cable release and
$40 for a plastic lens hood, Canon is definitely not in the
business of giving away their products. And they would not
consider the cost difference between a 1.3x sensor and a 1.0x
sensor to be "insignificant". Canon isn't a charity. They are out
to maximize their earning potential and profitability with all
their products, in every way that they can.

While that's true, users of those products won't hesitate to purchase a full-frame camera for much more than $300 more than a 1.3 crop camera as $300 is a pretty insignificant amount compared to their overall investments in cameras, lighting, accessories and lenses.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Jimmy Drew20683]

if Canon cannot duplicate the performance of the 1.3 crop factor in the FF sensor than 1.3 is here to stay. I thank everyone for your comments but it appears there is no firm evidence to prove that the 1.3 sensor is history. Actually, by the arguments presented here I would say that the sensor is here to stay and just might be "The One". Can anyone of the experts out there tell us that FF gives you better IQ? Now I'm talking about equal MP's here not a 8.5MP versus a 17MP. I believe Canon will keep the 1.3 format and up it to 12-17MP's and keep the 8.5FPS and put it in a 5D size body.....if it does....Nikon and the rest will be in a world of trouble.

Jimmy Drew

 

[T3]

The cost of a FF sensor will not be a significant issue in 3-4 years.

So you say. But even a minor cost difference is pretty
significant. The cost of a 1Ds MKII is $7200, while the cost of a
1D MKII is $4000, even though they essentially use the same bodies.
Much of that $3200 price difference is attributed to the difference
in cost of the sensors. But just for kicks, lets say that the
difference in cost of a 1.3x sensor versus a 1.0x sensor is ONLY
$300. That might not seem like much of a difference to you or I,
but multiply that by 10,000 units per month (probably a very
conservative number), multiplied by 12 months in a year, and you
come up with a difference of $36,000,000. Canon isn't going to
just throw away $36 million by ignoring the "insignificant" cost
difference between a 1.3x sensor and a 1.0x sensor. Don't be
foolish. For a company that charges $50 for a cable release and
$40 for a plastic lens hood, Canon is definitely not in the
business of giving away their products. And they would not
consider the cost difference between a 1.3x sensor and a 1.0x
sensor to be "insignificant". Canon isn't a charity. They are out
to maximize their earning potential and profitability with all
their products, in every way that they can.

While that's true, users of those products won't hesitate to
purchase a full-frame camera for much more than $300 more than a
1.3 crop camera as $300 is a pretty insignificant amount compared
to their overall investments in cameras, lighting, accessories and
lenses.

That's ASSUMING that the cost difference is only $300, and ASSUMING that Canon would proportionally reflect that cost difference in the cost of the camera. Whatever the cost differential for Canon, expect them to double or triple it to the consumer, just like paying $30 for an $8 bottle of wine in a restaurant. With the cost difference of $1700 between the 1.6x 20D and FF 5D which use a similar class of body, and $3200 between the 1.3x 1D MKII and FF 1Ds MKII which use a similar class of body, I think it's fair to assume that the cost difference between sensor sizes is not something that Canon considers to be "insignificant", and that is reflected in the price of their products. I think in the next few years, we can expect to see the price difference between a 1D MKII-type camera and a 1Ds MKII-type camera to narrow significantly from its current $3200 price differential. But don't expect that it will narrow so much as to erase the market usefulness of a 1.3x body at a lower price point than a flagship FF body.

If you want an affordable priced FF body, it's called the 5D.

 

[Lee Jay]

I think in the next few
years, we can expect to see the price difference between a 1D
MKII-type camera and a 1Ds MKII-type camera to narrow significantly
from its current $3200 price differential.

Since Canon has said the two are going to be combined (they could always change their mind), I expect 1.3 to either end or end up in a fast but small new body for those that don't want the weight of the 1-series but want pro features - much like an EOS-3.

There's still a small possibility in my opinion that the 20D replacement will be 1.3 crop but compatible with EF-s.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Hellashot]

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

No. I was commenting on 2 cameras with that post, Einstein. He commented on 22MP likely being the 1Ds2 replacement whenver that comes AND that 1.3x would be discontinued and not progressed any further.

 

[Hellashot]

Nothing I've posted is wrong. My comment, again, was about 2 cameras - both of the 1-series digital. The next 1D2 will likely merge into a FF sensor since they've ended research on their 1.3x sensor. Once they get buffer and processing speed good enough to give high fps on FF because the 1D2N and 1D2 are now 8.5 fps for sports shooters.