APS-H vs FF, which makes more sense to be on the 1D Mark IV?

[Benjamin]

Canon Rumors said today that the upcoming 1D Mark IV camera will still sport an APS-H sensor. See here ("http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/aps-h-is-alive-cr2/).


I wonder what is the advantage of having the APS-H sensor anymore? Since Nikon uses a FF on their D3 for around $4500, I don't see FF is either hard or overly expensive to implement on such a camera. Even if a FF 1D IV is sold at around $5000, I think it will still hold its market.


With a FF sensor, whenever you need 1.3x focal length on your lenses, just corp the image. But if what I have is an APS-H sensor to begin with, whenever I want 16mm from my 16-35L, I'll be screwed. In fact, I will never have any real super wide angle as the camera won't accept any EF-S or similar lenses!



I will be quite willing to buy a FF 1D IV, not an APS-H one just like the one now. If that's the case I'll just get the 1D III right away now for relatively very cheap. I need to go from APS-H to FF bad, not to go from 10MP to 15MP in the same format!


<span style="color: #ff0000;"]Come on Canon! It's FF time now!


Please convince me if you think APS-H is still the way to go - I don't mind to be flamed as long as you have a good reason.


Ben

[Dallasphotog]

You explained the popularity of the 5DMKII. There really is a market for the full frame sensor and it is an advantage to those of us who want 24mm to look like 24mm. I think there is some effort to define a niche for every body (and thus get us to buy them all). The APS-H sensor is of some benefit to a sports shooter as the 300mm just became a 390 on the 1.3 crop factor body...and who can't use more lens shooting sports.


I'm already on my way to owning way too many camera bodies...

[Daniel Browning]

With a FF sensor, whenever you need 1.3x focal length on your lenses, just crop the image.


It's a little more than that. For the optimum experience, everything about the camera should be able to switch between 1.0X and 1.3X, even the optical viewfinder.


But cropping isn't really the same. One of the most significant limitations on resolution is the in-camera processing. Because it can't do 900 MP in a 90-frame burst at 9 FPS, the camera designers have to decide the maximum resolution they can push through the camera before it gets too slow for the intended market. If a certain level/amount of electronics in the 1D4 will allow them to do 21 MP at 9 FPS, then they have to choose between 1.3X and 1.0X. If it's 1.0X, then users who crop to 1.3X will only get 12.4 MP. Whereas if the entire sensor is 1.3X, then they will get the full 21 MP.


The 1.0X sensor would have to be 35.5 MP in order to have a 21 MP 1.3X "crop". Ideally it would be high FPS at 1.3X, and slow at 1.0X. But the sensor design and ADC may be very different for a 35.5 MP 1.0X sensor vs. a 21 MP 1.3X sensor.


It's hard to build a tool that's everything to everyone.

[Jon Ruyle]

I think eventually things will get fast enough that the shutter is the limiting factor even with pixel density high enough for sports shooters. (Actually, I would have guessed the pixel density of the 1DII was high enough for sports, but apparently not).

[wickerprints]

A future EOS 1D Mark IV would necessarily be APS-H, since that is what the model series specifies. If/When Canon makes the next version of their flagship 35mm sensor format camera, it would probably be called the EOS 1Ds Mark IV. The additional "s" distinguishes the two branches of the EOS 1D-series. The reason, as others have mentioned, for these two different formats is the slightly different shooting needs of pro photographers--studio versus fast action. It isn't really about sensor pixel density.

[Benjamin]

I sort of get what Daniel means. Thanks for the replies people!


That will be sad if I see once again an APS-H 1D IV. Would you think that if the 1D4 remains in APS-H but with some inner upgrades such as pixel density, it would fall into the situation like the 50D - a slightly better camera in terms of just about everything, but not fundamentally different at all. If that's the case, I could easily be very happy with a 1D III when it gets to a very reasonable price. ($2000 for a new or very slightly used)


One thing I can see is that if the 1D4 has some 16MP FF sensor, the 1Ds3 will get hit quite bad. But that does not explain Nikon has two FF bodies with 2x pixel difference. Just make a 32mp 1Ds4 and sell for $10,000 then[:)]

[Jon Ruyle]

The reason, as others have mentioned, for these two different formats is the slightly different shooting needs of pro photographers--studio versus fast action. It isn't really about sensor pixel density.


That seems to me to be like saying "the 5D and 50D are different because of differing needs of photographers. It has nothing to do with sensor size."


I agree that the two cameras are designed to meet different needs. I agree that the 1D line is for fast action. But the way that need is met has a lot to do with pixel density. Pixel density gives you reach + resolution, and you must have high pixel density and high frame rate, you can't have full frame, because the data rate is not fast enough. (I think I'm just repeating what Daniel said, and not as well, so I'll stop).


I wonder how many sports shooters really feel that 1.3fovcf is just right... ie, ff would be too big and 1.6fovcf would be too small.

[pierlux]

The reason, as others have mentioned, for these two different formats is the slightly different shooting needs of pro photographers--studio versus fast action. It isn't really about sensor pixel density.


That seems to me to be like saying "the 5D and 50D are different because of differing needs of photographers. It has nothing to do with sensor size."





John, I think if Wickerprints is not exactly right, he is not far from the truth.


In addition, 1D bodies eventually equipped with FF sensor would not cost much less than the corresponding 1Ds bodies. They share the same rugged construction and sealing, dual DIGIC and so on. Actually, apart from the mirror and shutter size whose cost is not much different, the biggest difference is represented by their sensor size. The manifacturing cost of a FF sensor is NOT only slightly higher than APS-H or twice that of APS-C, as one would expect considering only their surface area, but over 10 times with respect to APS-H and 20 or more times as much as an APS-C sensor for the reasons explained here: http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/White%20Papers/Canon_CMOS_WP.pdf ("http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/White%20Papers/Canon_CMOS_WP.pdf) (see pages 11-12). In this respect, pixel density does not make any significant difference in terms of manifacturing cost, so 24, 21, or 16 Mp over the same surface area makes practically no difference. Who would go with a 1D mark IV if it was priced similarly to the corresponding 1Ds body?


Again, as usual, I'm not so confident with my English, so apologies if I have written something not properly clear...

[peety3]

Canon Rumors said today that the upcoming 1D Mark IV camera will still sport an APS-H sensor. See here ("http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/aps-h-is-alive-cr2/).


<span style="color: #ff0000;"]Come on Canon! It's FF time now!





I'll flame first: Canon knows about full-frame. That's why they offer two full-frame cameras. What more do you want?


That said, APS-H offers them some advantages, and one that jumps to mind is higher x-sync speed. The 1D series has been a leader (at least within Canon's lineup) for this, and full frame would set them back.


I've been keeping an eye on the 1D4 rumors, as I'm in the market for another body soon (however, repair frustrations with my current 1D3 means I might be tempted to switch to Brand-N). One of the rumors suggested that it'll be a 16mp FF model at 10fps. Obviously, a few years of technology means it'd have better image quality/noise than a 1Ds2, but would you buy a FF camera that had the same resolution as the 1Ds of a few years ago?

[Daniel Browning]

That said, APS-H offers them some advantages, and one that jumps to mind is higher x-sync speed. The 1D series has been a leader (at least within Canon's lineup) for this, and full frame would set them back.


That's a good point. I forgot how hard it is to scale mirror speed with size. That's probably the primary reason. Vibration goes up with the fourth power of mirror height, which makes a huge difference for 1.3X. Nikon obviously figured out how to do a fast mirror with full frame, but I think it's still a factor.

[HiFiGuy1]

Canon Rumors said today that the upcoming 1D Mark IV camera will still sport an APS-H sensor. See here ("http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/aps-h-is-alive-cr2/).


<span style="color: #ff0000;"]Come on Canon! It's FF time now!





I'll flame first: Canon knows about full-frame. That's why they offer two full-frame cameras. What more do you want?


That said, APS-H offers them some advantages, and one that jumps to mind is higher x-sync speed. The 1D series has been a leader (at least within Canon's lineup) for this, and full frame would set them back.


I've been keeping an eye on the 1D4 rumors, as I'm in the market for another body soon (however, repair frustrations with my current 1D3 means I might be tempted to switch to Brand-N). One of the rumors suggested that it'll be a 16mp FF model at 10fps. Obviously, a few years of technology means it'd have better image quality/noise than a 1Ds2, but would you buy a FF camera that had the same resolution as the 1Ds of a few years ago?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



peety,


I would.


I have, like you, a 10 MP body right now. 16 MP would be a pretty significant jump up, especially when you factor in at least two generations better DiGiCprocessing, vastly improved MLA, AF microadjustmentand hopefully at least as good of a focusing systemas the Mark II stuff has proven to be.


Apparently the N-brand thinks, with their D3, thatyou can do it with only 12+ MP. [:)]


I will say, though, that I see the APS-H as agood compromise for the guy who wants a do-it-all body. I really don't want a 5D Mark II, as great as it is, because I want the weather-proof durability and heft of the 1D series. Even if I could afford a 1Ds Mark IV, it probably won't be fast enough for my tastes. So the 1D is the next best thing to FF, but with more reach,blazing speed, weather sealing, and it hasa wider perspective than an APS-C like my 40D for any given lens' focal length.


In short, I am eagerly awaiting tests on the AF performance of the 1D Mark IV when it arrives, in hopes that it meets or exceeds the performance of Mark II bodies, and I'm already saving my pennies!

[Benjamin]

I'll flame first: Canon knows about full-frame. That's why they offer two full-frame cameras. What more do you want?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Nikon now has 3 FF cameras, with difference price tag and aim at different markets. If you agree that the D3 is Nikon's attenpt to beat the 1D III (So far I think they did a good job), then there's nothing try-hard about Canon to fight back with a FF 1D IV. The 5D is FF, but I don't think that's a camera for me because it is not fast enough and it does not have a good AF coverage - why whenever I want 10FPS and a large focus screen on FF body, I have to go for the 1Ds? Speed is a big deal for me.






That said, APS-H offers them some advantages, and one that jumps to mind is higher x-sync speed. The 1D series has been a leader (at least within Canon's lineup) for this, and full frame would set them back.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





It's about trade off, would you trade double x-sync speed for a FF? I think I would. I always take the advantage of the high-speed sync offered by my 430EX II, so at whatever speed I'll be able to sync. Of course, you may have some application that require the high speed.






One of the rumors suggested that it'll be a 16mp FF model at 10fps. Obviously, a few years of technology means it'd have better image quality/noise than a 1Ds2, but would you buy a FF camera that had the same resolution as the 1Ds of a few years ago?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Again, speed along is just a big deal, not need to mention the improvemets over the years. 1Ds is a different class than the 1D as you know, it's rather pointless to compare between a current 1D camera with an antique 5 years ago. It only means that the technology allows the 1D series now to surpass the 1Ds series back in 2004 by far.





Daniel,


I remember Canon once had the F1 with high speed booster like this one ("http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1976-1985/1984_nf1-hsmd.html?lang=us&amp;categ=crn&amp;page=1976-1985&amp;p=1), it looks and weighs ridiculously but it can do 14FPS on FF. I feel the shake of my 1V at 10FPS to be noticeable, but it's does not seem to interfere my shooting and there is no noticeable effect showing up on my images even when I'm using the 10FPS with rather low shutter speed (1/80s, this speed may not result in 10FPS anymore but quite close). If Canon could do a great job on their 1V-HS a decade ago for a lot less than any of the 1D bodies, then I think they can do a lot better now.[:)]

[alexniedra]

I decided I'd hop on the band wagon, too[:)].



This seems to be a very popular discussion, and we have discussed this before.



Canon has been very successful with their 1D and 1Ds bodies, and for different reasons. Studio and wedding photographers many frequently use the 1Ds Mark III for its resolution. Sports photographers and photojournalists will take the 1D for its speed and added "reach".


IMHO, a full-frame 1D Mark IV would be redundant. I can't see resolution as the sole difference between the bodies. Also, I don't think it's fair to compare the upcoming 1D Mark III (which is looking to be in the 16 MP area) to the 5 year old 1Ds Mark II. Like Benjamin mentioned, many improvements have been made. Noise at high ISO's has diminished dramatically, and sensor design has improved greatly, to name a few improvements.



The 1D and 1Ds cameras are very different cameras, and appeal to different types of photographers. I trust that Canon will keep the APS-H sensor size for a while to come.

[Jon Ruyle]

John, I think if Wickerprints is not exactly right, he is not far from the truth.


Not far, perhaps. [:)] The only part I took exception to was his assertion that the reason for two different formats in the 1D and 1Ds lines has nothing to do with pixel density.

[peety3]

IMHO, a full-frame 1D Mark IV would be redundant. I can't see resolution as the sole difference between the bodies. Also, I don't think it's fair to compare the upcoming 1D Mark III (which is looking to be in the 16 MP area) to the 5 year old 1Ds Mark II. Like Benjamin mentioned, many improvements have been made. Noise at high ISO's has diminished dramatically, and sensor design has improved greatly, to name a few improvements.





Even if the 1D4 ends up being 16mp and full-frame, resolution wouldn't be the sole difference: the 1D4 and 1Ds4 would differ in frame rate, and likely ISO performance. Regardless, I too think that a 16mp/FF/10fps body would be an odd duck, considering that we had a 16mp/FF/4fps body a few years ago.


I love my 1D3, and I'm about ready for a second body in that caliber. If the 1D4 ends up full-frame and 16mp, I'd have two bodies with similar pixel density (neither would have a cropping advantage) but one would have a wide-angle advantage. My thoughts of living with a 16-35, 50, and 70-200 could be a little rough, as the gap between 35mm and 91mm (70mm x 1.3) is fairly large, and the 50 would do different things on different bodies. However, if the 1D4 ends up APS-H and 16mp, I'd have two bodies with similar crop factor (less need to think about which lens on which body) and I can see 16-35/50/70-200 as a workable combo. (I'm trying to find ways to let my girlfriend use our 24-105 full-time, without me feeling an instant urge to get the 24-70 at the same time as a new body...) And, I'd always have the option of buying a second 1D3 instead of a 1D4 (in whatever variation they come out with).

[Eugene Bautista]

Np choice but to go full frame, make the 1D an FF withmoderate MP, high FPS, great High ISO unit for sports/PJs, and make the 1Ds a high MP, low FPS, great DR &amp; IQ in low ISO camera.


APS-H was intended to compete with APS-C 1.5x cameras from the other manufacturers, as has been admitted by Chuck Westfall. 1.3x/1.25x FOVCF was the largest sensor they could make in a single-pass of their photolithographic equipment at that time. Now, they could make bigger than 36x24mm sensors in a single-pass, so APS-H shouldn't be used with 1-series cameras anymore. They could still make a 7D/9D APS-H pro-class crop camera and make ita D300/D400 beater, something the xxD-class cameras now werenot intended to be.

[alexniedra]

They could still make a 7D/9D APS-H pro-class crop camera


I kindly disagree. IMHO, we could eventually rename it the 1D Mark IV. The 1.3x crop factor is really nice for sports photographers. They can get a (significant) 640mm 2.8 lens with the EF 400 2.8 L IS, a 35mm equivalent that cannot currently be matched without significant size, weight, and cost. On the other hand, they can still get very nice coverage with a fisheye lens.



make the 1D an FF withmoderate MP


With a full-frame camera, the 640mm 2.8 lens they previously had with the 1D Mark III is now a real 400mm 2.8 lens. They would have to crop the image or resort to the 600 f/4, which may not be usable in their lighting conditions.


See what I mean?



make the 1D an FF withmoderate MP, high FPS, great High ISO unit for sports/PJs, and make the 1Ds a high MP, low FPS, great DR &amp; IQ in low ISO camera.


I can't see this as being the general difference between the 2 bodies. Either or has significant disadvantages in certain situations. And the 1Ds Mark IV high ISO performance? And the 1D Mark IV dynamic range?


IMHO, ideally both would be dramatically improved in both bodies, with the sensor size and resolution being the main determining factor. 1.3x, 12-16MP 1D Mark IV, and a high MP, full-frame 1Ds Mark IV.


Currently, owners of 1D Mark III see the disadvantages of the "awkward" (if you want to call it that) sensor size. There is no wide angle lens currently available with a 16mm 35mm equivalent. But, I could believe that the main market for these cameras is the working professional, either in photojournalism, sports, or wedding photography.


So IMHO, when they need extreme wide angle coverage, and/or high MP, they can break out the 5D Mark II or 1Ds Mark IV.

[wickerprints]

The format size drives the range of choices for pixel density, not the other way around. Canon doesn't start with a specified pixel density and then choose what size sensor to make with that density. That's what I am saying. When they choose a camera design, they think about what kind of photographic needs it is expected to satisfy, then design to those needs. Thus the reason for the existence of the 1D series and the 1Ds series is driven by a variety of shooting conditions, not because Canon wants to make one body with a higher pixel density than another. That is what my original statement means.

[Daniel Browning]

The 1.3x crop factor is really nice for sports photographers. They can get a (significant) 640mm 2.8 lens with the EF 400 2.8 L IS, a 35mm equivalent that cannot currently be matched without significant size, weight, and cost.


That's 1.6X, I think you meant 520mm f/2.8. But when you consider total light gathering power, depth of field, diffraction, etc., the 400mm f/2.8 on 1.3X is really more like 520mm f/3.6 on FF 35mm (autofocus excluded). The FF body would be set at a higher ISO (because of the narrower f-number), but would still have the same noise, thanks to more surface area.


HTH.

[Jon Ruyle]

Canon doesn't start with a specified pixel density and then choose what size sensor to make with that density.


I never said they did. I don't claim to know anything about their deisgn process.



That's what I am saying.


That's what you're saying now. What you said before, and what I disagree with, is



It isn't really about sensor pixel density.


I disagree, but I won't repeat for a third time why I think pixel density matters.



When they choose a camera design, they think about what kind of photographic needs it is expected to satisfy, then design to those needs.


I would hope so.

[alexniedra]

That's 1.6X, I think you meant 520mm f/2.8



Yep, that's it.

[pierlux]

And now for something completely different concerning why APS-H is better than FF in 1D bodies: larger mirror and shutter means heavier stuff to be flipped up and down and heavier curtains to be opened/closed. A greater mass means a greater inertia, i.e. the resistance of an object to change its state of motion (or rest). Forget 10 FPS with FF in a 1D body regardless of pixel count and processor speed, or be prepared to spend a lot of money to have the same FPS because it wouldn't be easy - or inexpensive - to achieve the same results in terms of velocity and control of vibrations for engineers and designers at Canon dealing with this problem. Again, as already said, 1D+FF and 1Ds bodies would cost more or less the same. Better introducing a completely new DSLR sporting a 16 MP FF sensor and 6-7 FPS instead, if so many photographers want it, and let the forthcoming 1D Mark IV be what it is born to be.

[Colin]

Okay, I think we've got the answer....





Just make the 1Ds mkIV clock in at 10 FPS with an optional in camera sensor and viewfinder 1.6 and 1.3x crop and toss on .jpg files, and metadata on raw files!


Canon, get Crackin'!

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Let'skeep it that way [:)], that'll give me excuse to own a 1Ds Mark IV and 1D Mark IV.





Seriously, I like the 1.3 crop because I shoot bird and the longer I get to the bird without cropping precious pixelis huge plus. And if you ask since I like the crop factor so much why not stick with a 1.6 crop sensor? Well, the 1D series camera do have better AF performance, if Canonputs the 1D series' AF in their 40D/50D bodies, I would never need a 1D series. There are many luxuries in a 1D series that an amature like myself don't need.

[pierlux]

Okay, I think we've got the answer....





Yes and no. I would like to point out that I'm not saying it is impossible to have 10 fps in a FF body (actually, the FF Nikon D3 shoots at 9 fps and reaches 11 fps in DX mode), but simply that it is not inexpensive to obtain such frequency. What I have said is pure speculation, although based on a logical deduction: nobody offers more than is needed, so I would not expect Canon to design a part, which is intended to function under certain conditions, in such a way as to support an unnecessary workload. Therefore, I reasonably suppose that you can't just pick the shutter and mirror of the 1Ds and put it in a camera that can shoot 10-12 fps without redesigning the part, which implies an additional cost (but, as I'm writing this, I'm hoping to be wrong, since it's only a matter of time since we'll see 10-12 fps in a 30 Mp FF...).


Anyway, the concluding remark is the same: assemble a 1D Mark IV with FF sensor and you'll have it cost nearly as much as a 1Ds. So let's be happy with it equipped with APS-H at a considerably lower price. I'm presently owing one FF and one APS-C, but would love to expand the capabilities of my glasses with APS-H in the future, that's why I'm hoping APS-H will never die!


Pierluigi


post scriptum


I never expressed my sincerest thanks to Bryan for all he has done and is doing, so please excuse me if I do it here: THANKS A LOT! And thanks to everybody else who is participating in this forum. I love this community, it has become a part of my life, I read all of you daily, although I don't write much first because of my poor English, then because I'm antipodal so I'm awake while you sleep and "vice versa", and also because I'm so slow in writing, revising, correcting, checking that I actually meant what I intended to say that usually, when I'm ready to post, there's always someone who has already said the same things faster and better! But, anyway, at least I'm improving my English...[8-|]

[Christian]

It seems that many are happy with APS-H in this forum. I've no idea about Canon plans on APS-H, but in recent times I read few articles that let me see harder the possibility to have an APS-H camera again.


In CPN site, Canon Europe presents 5D II and its full frame sensoras a panacea for all pj needs:


http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/in_focus/photojournalism_the_eos_5d_mark_ii.do


Please note the sentence"the crop factor wasn&rsquo;t too popular".


In an old CNet interview, Chuck Westfall answers to some paltry questions. Some of them are interesting for this APS-H/FF debate:


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9865553-39.html


Chuck simply admitted that price is the only advantage APS-H has over FF.


My (still open) conclusion: we are going to see a full frame 1D Mark IV. After all, if Nikon can sell a ff camera for the same price tag and Canon doesn't find APS-H so attractive for PJ, why should they continue the old path? for sports shooters only?


Anyway, if there will be a future for APS-H, I think the most intelligent move Canon could do would be the long awaited 3D: a fast APS-H camera with compact body, pro features and a lower price tag than 1D.

[Keith B]

I think a 1.6 in a pro body would be a good idea. I'd love to have the reach of a 1.6 in a body with a super fast AF and I knew I could take anywhere. 1.3 isn't enough of a difference from FF for me. Or maybe the 1D could have a APS-H/C option like Nikon has, so that they don't cannibalize the 1D sales. Then folks could use their EF-S lenses too.


I'm sure someone has technical reason why this won't work but I threw it out there.

[peety3]

I have some questions for the rather vocal "dynamic crop" camp: how do you suppose the viewfinder would change? Are you suggesting an optical change, or merely blackout curtains? Are you hoping for a faster frame rate at crop, or just a tighter framing? Are you expecting a proportional decrease in pixel count, or are you supposing it'd stay the same MP? What is there to be gained by adding this much complexity?

[Keith B]

I'm not a techie guy, but I only say it since I see it is on Nikons. I'd only look for the tight framing. I would totally expect pixels size and frame rate to remain the same just already cropped. I think with my suggestion viewfinder would be the only issue.

[HiFiGuy1]

Let'skeep it that way /emoticons/emotion-1.gif, that'll give me excuse to own a 1Ds Mark IV and 1D Mark IV.





Seriously, I like the 1.3 crop because I shoot bird and the longer I get to the bird without cropping precious pixelis huge plus. And if you ask since I like the crop factor so much why not stick with a 1.6 crop sensor? Well, the 1D series camera do have better AF performance, if Canonputs the 1D series' AF in their 40D/50D bodies, I would never need a 1D series. There are many luxuries in a 1D series that an amature like myself don't need.
<p style="CLEAR: both"]


Amen, brother! IF my 40D had the AF performance of a 1D Mark II, it would be just about the perfect camera for me. The only other thing the OCD side of mewould want would really be the AF Microadjustment. I would like the weather sealing, too, I guess. I have needed that and had to leave my camera in the bag before because I couldn't take the chance.


Okay, fine.Just make the damn 1D Mark IV already!! The suggestion for making it 1.6x APS-C would suit me just fine, too. I really would be happy with a rebodied 40D with the updated DiGiC IV, AF adjust,and focusing performance improvement. I don't really need the vertical grip, but I do like it. I've learned to just shoot by rotating my hands. It isn't that big a deal.