Anyone else interested in 1Dx M2 with APS-c sensor?

[J.R.]

I say, and do have empirical evidence to support my assertion, that if you take any same generation crop and ff sensors and use the same lens and just crop the ff image down to the same fov as the crop camera image there is precious little difference, even in optimal test conditions at optimal settings.

So cropping a 5DS and a 1DX MkII to match a crop camera, there would be very little difference since the 5DS has similar pixel density to a 7D Mk II?

Jarrod

Forget pixel density, it is far less relevant than people realize. Think sensor generation and area instead. Normalize the output from a cropped 5DSR and 1DX MkII and the full frame from a 7D MkII and there will be little difference regardless of the pixel numbers.

I have been interested in a 5DSR, but I have found that a resampled 1DS MkIII image IQ to be within a hairs breadth of the same thing, with the caveat being at base ISO, that is the one area where newer sensors vastly outclass older ones.

Keith at Northlight images agrees with you ... well, sort of

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-print-comparison.html

 

[Mikehit]

So cropping a 5DS and a 1DX MkII to match a crop camera, there would be very little difference between the two full frame cameras since the 5DS has similar pixel density to a 7D Mk II?

Jarrod

Art Morris did just that in comparing 5D3 and 7D2 and marginally preferred the 7D2

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014/10/19/eos-7d-mark-iieos-5d-mark-iii-comparison-they-thought-that-it-would-be-easy/

 

[Mikehit]

Keith at Northlight images agrees with you ... well, sort of

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-print-comparison.html

Thanks for the link JR. I love this bit

Even when I pointed to detail in the biggest prints, several people 'couldn't see the difference'. One even said they liked the 1Ds print the best (I'm told the look on my face was worth seeing...

Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people.

I've long said that this quest to 'give the customer the best possible output' is more about the photographer's ego than what the client wants or needs.

 

[J.R.]

So cropping a 5DS and a 1DX MkII to match a crop camera, there would be very little difference between the two full frame cameras since the 5DS has similar pixel density to a 7D Mk II?

Jarrod

Art Morris did just that in comparing 5D3 and 7D2 and marginally preferred the 7D2

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2014/10/19/eos-7d-mark-iieos-5d-mark-iii-comparison-they-thought-that-it-would-be-easy/

Yup and now is out there shooting with the 5DSR.

I've found it rather strange that he uses it for BIF despite the fact that it has a slow frame rate - but then he's too good at it and has so much experience shooting BIF that he can work around it in ways that most can't.

 

[Mikehit]

He admits himself that birds in flight is not really his main subject - he will do it if the opportunity arises but he is more about behaviour so he takes the hit on the frame rate reducing his chance of getting the wings in the 'perfect' position. Mind you, one reason he doesn't use the 1Dx as much now is its weight and his health, so it is a decision based in part in practicality. [should I get a 1Dx while I am still fit enough to carry one....?]

 

[J.R.]

He admits himself that birds in flight is not really his main subject - he will do it if the opportunity arises but he is more about behaviour so he takes the hit on the frame rate reducing his chance of getting the wings in the 'perfect' position. Mind you, one reason he doesn't use the 1Dx as much now is its weight and his health, so it is a decision based in part in practicality. [should I get a 1Dx while I am still fit enough to carry one....?]

True.

That being said, in the entire technical discussion that follows in his blog post, this comment stands out (useful for people here too)

 

[Mikehit]

I just stumbled on this by pure coincidence. The thread as a whole illustrates choices and compromises but Art's post sums it up

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/135064-1DX-II-vs-5DsR-Which-is-best-for-Birds

I have written tons on the 5DS R on the blog over the last six months. I own and use two of them. My 1D X II will be here in two days. I will use it for flight, action, and high ISO needs. I am sure that 1DX II image files will look great but they will not hold a candle to a sharp 5DS R image file. I have made many wonderful flight and action photos with my 5DS R bodies. As much as I feel that the 7D II is the greatest value ever in a digital camera body, the image files are rubbish when compared to 5DS R files. And they will surely suffer in comparison to 1DX II image files, especially at the higher ISOs.

ps to Arash et al: I own a 7D II and never use it anymore for bird photography. Different strokes for different folks of course but folks need to realized the an individual's style is of paramount importance when selecting a camera body. As I approach 70 I am not very good any more in flight and action situations. Young studs like Arash and Patrick Sparkman and David Salem would clean my clock there on a regular basis. If however, the bird or animal is just sitting there I am gonna work clean and tight I am gonna make the best image most of the time... So for me, the 5DS R is right. None-the-less I look forward to getting my hands on a 1DX II especially to see how much better the AF system is...

 

[9VIII]

I was very interested in this comparison when the 7D came out, I owned the 1DS MkIII and extensively tested the two to see how much difference there was between cropping the FF against using all the frame of the crop camera given the 7D would give me more than double the pixels in the same area. It turned out that even under test conditions set up to favour the 7D the differences were minimal.

The 7D has a notoriously strong AA filter, everything past the 650D using that sensor was much sharper on the pixel level. At low ISO I think the Rebel 760D has the sharpest image overall right now, Canon still keeps the AA strong on the 7D2, and I think the 80D is still softer than the 760D.
Which seems to indicate that Canon is more concerned about moire on the higher end models.

 

[Monchoon]

I was very interested in this comparison when the 7D came out, I owned the 1DS MkIII and extensively tested the two to see how much difference there was between cropping the FF against using all the frame of the crop camera given the 7D would give me more than double the pixels in the same area. It turned out that even under test conditions set up to favour the 7D the differences were minimal.

The 7D has a notoriously strong AA filter, everything past the 650D using that sensor was much sharper on the pixel level. At low ISO I think the Rebel 760D has the sharpest image overall right now, Canon still keeps the AA strong on the 7D2, and I think the 80D is still softer than the 760D.
Which seems to indicate that Canon is more concerned about moire on the higher end models.

May I ask how do you know all this? So the 80D with new sensor according to you is worse than the rebals? And so is the 7D2?

 

[wsmith96]

Isn't this the 7D Mk II with a battery grip?

I think he means literally just take out the sensor on a 1Dx and replace it with an APS-C sensor.

I guess that could be done if Canon wanted to do that. Would that make it a 1.6Dx?? ;D

I could see there being a niche market for something like this, but who knows what would have to be redesigned inside to accommodate a chip swap like that. I figure that if someone is going to want to spend between 4-6k on a camera that it would likely be using a FF sensor.

 

[scottkinfw]

For me, I love the images from ff, much better than crop. Therefore, I would not be interested.

sek

 

[nvsravank]

Maybe they should put a new 50 mp full frame sensor in it but fix the crop mode so that it doesn't read the whole sensor and only the central portion. This way you kill two birds with one stone.

Studio photography folks who want a 50 mp sensor in a 1d body as well as crop body crowd looking for 1d body.

This will require new sensor with on chip ADC I think so as to be able to get read only the central portion and get some faster frame rate.

 

[tron]

I like the feel and function of the 1D bodies. Yes they are large and heavy but for the most part I can live with the size.

I would like to see Canon place an APS-c Sensor in a 1Dx M2 body. Best AF possible, best ergonomics, S/N, ...

Would anyone else be interested in this. Hopefully the price would not be $6,000.

Well the S/N will be similar to that of 7D2 since it will be a crop camera. S/N has nothing to do with the "1" or the size of camera.

 

[unfocused]

...if you take any same generation crop and ff sensors and use the same lens and just crop the ff image down to the same fov as the crop camera image there is precious little difference, even in optimal test conditions at optimal settings.

I would agree. But, would also add this. It only works like that if you are not distance limited and don't need to crop the image much beyond the equivalent framing.

The 1DX II will give you about 8 mp when cropped to APS-C size. (20/1.6 /1.6). That's fine. But, at some point beyond that you will lose detail. If you are distance limited and your 7DII image has to be cropped to 9 m.p., you would be down to 3.5 mp on a 1DX II. It still might be okay, depending on the size of your final output, but if you keep going, sooner or later, you won't have much detail left in your image. Under most circumstances, you can compensate by getting closer or using a longer lens. But, with some subjects that's not possible or practical and cropping is necessary.

So really, when people disagree over using an APS-C for more reach and cropping a full frame image, I would say they are both right and both wrong.

 

[AdamBotond]

Would be interested in a 7D III as long as Canon can make reasonable upgrades, especially when it comes to IQ. The N brand has released a flagship APSC camera, which is way ahead of any other APSC cameras hands down, equals IQ to FF practically. If Canon could manage a breakthrough in that area, I will be a buyer. 80D shows some improvements in DR, however not much in high ISO capabilities. 1 DX II does not show much high ISO improvements, either, which led me to assume Canon is stuck with their sensor development regarding high ISO.

 

[bdunbar79]

Would be interested in a 7D III as long as Canon can make reasonable upgrades, especially when it comes to IQ. The N brand has released a flagship APSC camera, which is way ahead of any other APSC cameras hands down, equals IQ to FF practically. If Canon could manage a breakthrough in that area, I will be a buyer. 80D shows some improvements in DR, however not much in high ISO capabilities. 1 DX II does not show much high ISO improvements, either, which led me to assume Canon is stuck with their sensor development regarding high ISO.

Yes, the 1Dx2 is at the top of high ISO improvements. What do you want? How many stops do you think can be improved at high ISO? We're at the limit. Period. The improvements to be had are in read noise which is mostly noticed at lower ISO's. Don't understand the high ISO comments.

 

[bdunbar79]

I like the feel and function of the 1D bodies. Yes they are large and heavy but for the most part I can live with the size.

I would like to see Canon place an APS-c Sensor in a 1Dx M2 body. Best AF possible, best ergonomics, S/N, ...

Would anyone else be interested in this. Hopefully the price would not be $6,000.

Well the S/N will be similar to that of 7D2 since it will be a crop camera. S/N has nothing to do with the "1" or the size of camera.

Yes. Nobody wants a 1Dx body with the DR of an APS-C sensor.

 

[Ozarker]

Would anyone else be interested in this.

No, not ever.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

...if you take any same generation crop and ff sensors and use the same lens and just crop the ff image down to the same fov as the crop camera image there is precious little difference, even in optimal test conditions at optimal settings.

I would agree. But, would also add this. It only works like that if you are not distance limited and don't need to crop the image much beyond the equivalent framing.

The 1DX II will give you about 8 mp when cropped to APS-C size. (20/1.6 /1.6). That's fine. But, at some point beyond that you will lose detail. If you are distance limited and your 7DII image has to be cropped to 9 m.p., you would be down to 3.5 mp on a 1DX II. It still might be okay, depending on the size of your final output, but if you keep going, sooner or later, you won't have much detail left in your image. Under most circumstances, you can compensate by getting closer or using a longer lens. But, with some subjects that's not possible or practical and cropping is necessary.

So really, when people disagree over using an APS-C for more reach and cropping a full frame image, I would say they are both right and both wrong.

I was one of those on the crop vs. FF battles that went for reach on the crop camera every time. Now, though, I'm not so sure...

Back story - I have been surprisingly underwhelmed with the 7D2 so far (AF-related), which has me contemplating a switch...perhaps to a 1D series. But somewhat disappointingly the 1DXs are all FF, so before I drop $6K I wanted to find out if I REALLY would miss the extra reach or not. So, for the first time, at an ice skating event (where I normally would use a crop camera like the 7D) I picked up a 200mm 2.8 and went for my 5D3 instead. I did bring the 7D2 as a backup but the 5D was going to be my main camera. To my surprise, it turned out the 7D never left the bag.

Why? Well, I'm finding that when the 5D nailed focus, the IQ was simply breathtaking - truly professional-grade, virtually indistinguishable from agency pictures. Well beyond anything any of my crop cameras have ever put out. Even the "almost there" and "slightly off" ones could be made fairly decent (or usable) with some USM tweaking in post. A few of these shots needed to be cropped extensively, some down to as small as 4 MP. (I typically don't have to crop below 10MP with the 7D.) I quickly found that for some reason, the 5D images tended to hold up much better to this extensive cropping than what I've gotten out of the 7D and 60D in the past. (a 7D image cropped all the way down to 4MP looks like crap in my eyes, sorry!) So I'm wondering now...Yes, when reach-limited, crop can provide more detail by getting more pixels on the sensor...but in my experience, those pixels have been of a lower quality...so to TRULY make a difference, a)either the AA filter on the crop camera needs to be removed and/or the AF improved, or b) the situation is such that you fill 1/4 or less of the frame of the FF camera with your subject, and getting closer is not possible or feasible.

(As an aside..it also reaffirmed my dissatisfaction with the 7D2 focus system...I found the 5D3's AF to be noticeably more consistent and reliable than the 7D with relatively still subjects and subjects moving side-to-side (skaters spinning or gliding slowly). I've had instances where the 7D2 would miss just about EVERY shot in a similar series. Both cameras seemed about the same with quicker action, mixed results overall- higher hit rates in some scenarios and lower in others. MAYBE I'd give the SLIGHT edge to the 7D.)


Another instance that sealed the deal for me is that the other arena where I've ALWAYS used a crop-sensor camera is animal photography. But I was out with the 5D3 one day, 70-300 attached, shooting a festival and ended up in a shaded area. I saw a squirrel up in a tree and decided to try to get the shot. He was fairly low, so it turned out 300mm on FF was enough to fill most of the frame. Then I saw a bird scurrying around and took a couple there as well. When I downloaded the shots, I was blown away at the level of detail in the furs, and the somewhat punchier colors. Never had I had a squirrel image so crisp and clear like that. It seemed like when I used the 7D, that detail would always be lacking, unless in the rare instances I get very close and the animal is in bright sunlight...Again, it feels as if I'm still getting lower quality from the crop pictures even though the images are larger...the reach difference has to be significant, it seems. I dunno...I'm torn right now.

FF image quality is still quite a revelation for me sometimes...

 

[danski0224]

Act444-

High ISO on a crop sensor falls apart faster than the same ISO on a "full frame" sensor. Therfore, the pixels on the full frame sensor have more image quality.

In perfect conditions, the crop sensor would deliver better image quality. Perfect conditions means no image stabilization, near base ISO and a shutter speed that is 2x the focal length.

Other things like the anti alias filter and color filter array in front of the sensor also make a difference.

I never used my 7D once I got a 5DII.