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 [url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/aps-h-is-alive-cr2/]here[/url].


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.


[b]With a FF sensor, whenever you need 1.3x focal length on your lenses, just corp the image. But [/b][b]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!
[/b]


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 (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 [url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/06/aps-h-is-alive-cr2/]here[/url].


<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.