wickerprints,


You seem to know a lot about Canon and Nikon.


Let me make my thoughts clearer into just one question here: why does the upcoming camera (whatever it's gonna be called) that replaces the current 1D III better to remain in APS-H?


I totally agree with you about the naming issue, I can see Nikon has somewhat messed up their lineup by giving names that does not come as a whole. I'm also not in any way insisting either on what a FF 16MP camera would be called or should a replacement of the 1D III be FF. However, there're questions that's not answered, or at least not satisfactorily convincing; such as is there any technical difficulty to make a fast FF digital camera? I can see the benefit of a FF replacement of the 1D III while I don't quite understand why an APS-H sensor is here to stay unless there're very solid reasons.


On the other hand, if naming has a lot to do with the format, please think back to the film ages when Canon still made 5 lines of SLRs. They all shoot film, from the top-of-the-line EOS 1V to EOS 3, followed by Elan, Rebel T and Rebel K in different production lines. They were all in the same format as 35mm film; but their feature, function, utility, reliability, etc divided them into 5 different categories. Today Canon makes 5 lines of digital SLRs, unfortunately they're in different formats mainly due to manufacture cost of their sensors. Canon once said to eventually generalize FF sensor on most of their products - I think that will eventually form a similar lineup as the film ages - cameras differ because of their utility, quality and price, not the format itself.


I will appreciate if you can share more thoughts on the replacement of the 1D III since that's really why I'm here to argue. As I said, I see FF being superior as a sensor along, and Canon should do it whenever possible. I'd like to see Canon makes most of their cameras in FF format at reasonable costs in the future.


Ben