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

[romanr74]

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.

Can someone explain me why on earth you would even want that????

Three reasons:

1) Reach
2) Reach
3) Reach

Seriously, though, you can spin APS-C and reach two principal ways (if you have good light): you can go longer with the big superwhites you already own, or you can get as far as you used to with FF with a less expensive and less heavy/large superteles.

- A

This is exactly the argument i don't understand. There is no such thing like reach attached to a smaller sensor.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Can someone explain me why on earth you would even want that????

Three reasons:

1) Reach
2) Reach
3) Reach

Seriously, though, you can spin APS-C and reach two principal ways (if you have good light): you can go longer with the big superwhites you already own, or you can get as far as you used to with FF with a less expensive and less heavy/large superteles.

- A

Got any empirical evidence from same generation crop and ff sensors to back up a meaningful 'reach advantage'? I've looked many times and have yet to see any.

 

[ahsanford]

Got any empirical evidence from same generation crop and ff sensors to back up a meaningful 'reach advantage'? I've looked many times and have yet to see any.

Whoa, I'm not alleging the shots will be better with crop vs. FF. I want nothing to do with that debate.

I'm just saying that if you want to fill your frame with some varmint at a set distance away, a 'crop 1DX' will get that shot with a less expensive lens, that's all.

- A

 

[bdunbar79]

Entirely fair. It's also possible that the higher end folks asking for more resolution just moved up to medium format to get it.

- A

Unless I misunderstood your comment, I would say that if they went to MF instead of choosing the 5DSr, then it means having a high MP 1Dx2 would not have been sufficient to keep them with Canon anyway. People buy the 1Dx2 primarily for AF speed, framerate and whole bag of other tricks. MF does not come close on any of those so again there is no market overlap for Canon to address.

Remember the old split Canon had years ago?

1D line: APS-H + speed
1Ds line: FF + highest resolution

They then put out the 1DX as the 'fusion' / crossover product for both camps. 1D4 people bought into the 1DX and the 1Ds people were only lukewarm to it. Now, 4 years later, the 1DX II seems to be hitting all cylinders for the action crowd and 1Ds folks feel a bit abandoned on the detail front.

I'm saying folks who want high-res in a 1D feature set for non-action / framerate reasons (i.e. they like the 1D for it's metering, integral grip, build quality, etc.). So a medium format rig might be an option for them if Canon won't give them what they want.

Old 1Ds studio and landscape folks have three options:

• Enjoy the 1DX or 1DX II and wish you had more pixels
• Enjoy the 5DS and wish you had the 1D feature set
• Go medium format to cover your high detail needs
• Bounce to Nikon

As the third and fourth options are not particularly reasonable ones (some may entertain an MF rig), I contend that there are a number of 1Ds owners who would pony up $6-7k on the spot for a 50 MP FF sensor sitting in a 1DX II body (obviously at a lower framerate).

- A

The 1Ds3 and 1Dx2 are 1 MP apart. Only thing is, the 1Ds3 retailed for $2k MORE than the 1Dx2 when released. I'd say there's no gap anymore. However, I don't think the 1Dx2 has nearly as strong of a CFA.

 

[romanr74]

Re: Anyone else interested in 1Dx M2 with APS

Got any empirical evidence from same generation crop and ff sensors to back up a meaningful 'reach advantage'? I've looked many times and have yet to see any.

Whoa, I'm not alleging the shots will be better with crop vs. FF. I want nothing to do with that debate.

I'm just saying that if you want to fill your frame with some varmint at a set distance away, a 'crop 1DX' will get that shot with a less expensive lens, that's all.

- A

But not through more reach. Only through smaller area (to be filled).

 

[privatebydesign]

Entirely fair. It's also possible that the higher end folks asking for more resolution just moved up to medium format to get it.

- A

Unless I misunderstood your comment, I would say that if they went to MF instead of choosing the 5DSr, then it means having a high MP 1Dx2 would not have been sufficient to keep them with Canon anyway. People buy the 1Dx2 primarily for AF speed, framerate and whole bag of other tricks. MF does not come close on any of those so again there is no market overlap for Canon to address.

Remember the old split Canon had years ago?

1D line: APS-H + speed
1Ds line: FF + highest resolution

They then put out the 1DX as the 'fusion' / crossover product for both camps. 1D4 people bought into the 1DX and the 1Ds people were only lukewarm to it. Now, 4 years later, the 1DX II seems to be hitting all cylinders for the action crowd and 1Ds folks feel a bit abandoned on the detail front.

I'm saying folks who want high-res in a 1D feature set for non-action / framerate reasons (i.e. they like the 1D for it's metering, integral grip, build quality, etc.). So a medium format rig might be an option for them if Canon won't give them what they want.

Old 1Ds studio and landscape folks have three options:

• Enjoy the 1DX or 1DX II and wish you had more pixels
• Enjoy the 5DS and wish you had the 1D feature set
• Go medium format to cover your high detail needs
• Bounce to Nikon

As the third and fourth options are not particularly reasonable ones (some may entertain an MF rig), I contend that there are a number of 1Ds owners who would pony up $6-7k on the spot for a 50 MP FF sensor sitting in a 1DX II body (obviously at a lower framerate).

- A

There is a 5th option, and one I, as a long time 1DS MkIII user have taken, stick to the 1DS MkIII.

As for your four other 'choices'.
1, Not possible, my customers are asking for bigger reproductions which require more MP not less.
2, Not prepared to do that, too many intangibles.
3, Cost, functionality, handling, reliability etc. MF cameras are not in the same league for general uses as the 135 format.
4, Nikon don't have an 11-24, or a TS-E 17, or a 35mm f2 IS, which are my three most used lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

The 1Ds3 and 1Dx2 are 1 MP apart. Only thing is, the 1Ds3 retailed for $2k MORE than the 1Dx2 when released. I'd say there's no gap anymore. However, I don't think the 1Dx2 has nearly as strong of a CFA.

A 1Ds3 is also 9 years older! 1Ds3 users who bought into Canon for the high resolution + 1D feature set has been waiting many years for an update. 1DX2 will not completely serve their needs, and neither will a 5DS.

- A

 

[bdunbar79]

The 1Ds3 and 1Dx2 are 1 MP apart. Only thing is, the 1Ds3 retailed for $2k MORE than the 1Dx2 when released. I'd say there's no gap anymore. However, I don't think the 1Dx2 has nearly as strong of a CFA.

A 1Ds3 is also 9 years older! 1Ds3 users who bought into Canon for the high resolution + 1D feature set has been waiting many years for an update. 1DX2 will not completely serve their needs, and neither will a 5DS.

- A

I would say for that we'd need a 1Ds type body with about 36 MP. Put a strong CFA in and have all the 1D series body features and I would buy one for sure.

 

[privatebydesign]

Got any empirical evidence from same generation crop and ff sensors to back up a meaningful 'reach advantage'? I've looked many times and have yet to see any.

Whoa, I'm not alleging the shots will be better with crop vs. FF. I want nothing to do with that debate.

I'm just saying that if you want to fill your frame with some varmint at a set distance away, a 'crop 1DX' will get that shot with a less expensive lens, that's all.

- A

And I'm saying have you got any empirical evidence to back that assertion up?

None of the same generation crop camera vs cropped ff images I have seen have ever illustrated a meaningful advantage to the crop camera. My point is that the idea of that cheaper shorter lens is essentially a myth.

 

[ahsanford]

And I'm saying have you got any empirical evidence to back that assertion up?

None of the same generation crop camera vs cropped ff images I have seen have ever illustrated a meaningful advantage to the crop camera. My point is that the idea of that cheaper shorter lens is essentially a myth.

That's not what I am trying to prove to you. I am saying a 'crop 1DX' (or 7D2) + 400 prime will fill the frame with your varmint in a similar* way to how you'd frame it with a FF 1DX + 600 prime.

...for a lot less money. In a shorter overall Lens + body footprint. In a lighter aggregate weight. That is plenty meaningful to some folks.

*I did not say the IQ would be better or the DOF/bokeh would be the same. I'm just saying you'd frame the shot basically similarly. I am not arguing that it is better by any stretch.

- A

 

[wsmith96]

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

 

[bdunbar79]

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.

 

[Mikehit]

And I'm saying have you got any empirical evidence to back that assertion up?

None of the same generation crop camera vs cropped ff images I have seen have ever illustrated a meaningful advantage to the crop camera. My point is that the idea of that cheaper shorter lens is essentially a myth.

That's not what I am trying to prove to you. I am saying a 'crop 1DX' (or 7D2) + 400 prime will fill the frame with your varmint in a similar* way to how you'd frame it with a FF 1DX + 600 prime.

...for a lot less money. In a shorter overall Lens + body footprint. In a lighter aggregate weight. That is plenty meaningful to some folks.

*I did not say the IQ would be better or the DOF/bokeh would be the same. I'm just saying you'd frame the shot basically similarly. I am not arguing that it is better by any stretch.

- A

But what is the advantage in practical terms if not image quality?
The only difference I can see is that you would need to crop the 1Dx picture in post processing

 

[bdunbar79]

And I'm saying have you got any empirical evidence to back that assertion up?

None of the same generation crop camera vs cropped ff images I have seen have ever illustrated a meaningful advantage to the crop camera. My point is that the idea of that cheaper shorter lens is essentially a myth.

That's not what I am trying to prove to you. I am saying a 'crop 1DX' (or 7D2) + 400 prime will fill the frame with your varmint in a similar* way to how you'd frame it with a FF 1DX + 600 prime.

...for a lot less money. In a shorter overall Lens + body footprint. In a lighter aggregate weight. That is plenty meaningful to some folks.

*I did not say the IQ would be better or the DOF/bokeh would be the same. I'm just saying you'd frame the shot basically similarly. I am not arguing that it is better by any stretch.

- A

But what is the advantage in practical terms if not image quality?
The only difference I can see is that you would need to crop the 1Dx picture in post processing

This scenario gets discussed quite often. I think at 100% on my computer monitor, if I put 18 MP on subject with a 7D at ISO 100, that looks better to me than taking the shot with a 1Dx, cropping to the same FoV (approximately 7 MP on subject). At higher ISO's I don't find that to be true however. Scientifically no it's not technically more reach but putting more MP's on subject at low ISO always looks better to me at least. With the 5Ds/R the point is moot.

 

[privatebydesign]

And I'm saying have you got any empirical evidence to back that assertion up?

None of the same generation crop camera vs cropped ff images I have seen have ever illustrated a meaningful advantage to the crop camera. My point is that the idea of that cheaper shorter lens is essentially a myth.

That's not what I am trying to prove to you. I am saying a 'crop 1DX' (or 7D2) + 400 prime will fill the frame with your varmint in a similar* way to how you'd frame it with a FF 1DX + 600 prime.

...for a lot less money. In a shorter overall Lens + body footprint. In a lighter aggregate weight. That is plenty meaningful to some folks.

*I did not say the IQ would be better or the DOF/bokeh would be the same. I'm just saying you'd frame the shot basically similarly. I am not arguing that it is better by any stretch.

- A

And I am saying to you that is a bogus contention.

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. As soon as you use AF, don't have maximum contrast in your lighting, or come off base iso any differences are minuscule and vary more on the shooting conditions than the camera used.

Now I'd like to see if that still holds up with the 1DX MkII and 7D MkII, but I have no reason to doubt it, pixel numbers don't mean a thing it is the quality of those pixels that is much more important.

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.

 

[J.R.]

With the 5Ds/R the point is moot.

That sums it up nicely

 

[kaptainkatsu]

The one thing I like better about my 1DX2 vs my 7D2 w/grip is the vertical thumb stick is better positioned so I can reach the main dial easier.

I seriously doubt the 7D3 will come with an integrated grip. Canon likes to differentiate their lines and force upgrades.

The one major complaint I see with the 1D series is its so big. But realistically it's no bigger than having a battery grip. Making the camera smaller and offering an optional grip allows canon to sell to more people. From a manufacturing standpoint, making two identical cameras but one without a grip and one integrated in doesn't make sense.

 

[jarrodeu]

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 between the two full frame cameras since the 5DS has similar pixel density to a 7D Mk II?

Jarrod

 

[j-nord]

And I'm saying have you got any empirical evidence to back that assertion up?

None of the same generation crop camera vs cropped ff images I have seen have ever illustrated a meaningful advantage to the crop camera. My point is that the idea of that cheaper shorter lens is essentially a myth.

That's not what I am trying to prove to you. I am saying a 'crop 1DX' (or 7D2) + 400 prime will fill the frame with your varmint in a similar* way to how you'd frame it with a FF 1DX + 600 prime.

...for a lot less money. In a shorter overall Lens + body footprint. In a lighter aggregate weight. That is plenty meaningful to some folks.

*I did not say the IQ would be better or the DOF/bokeh would be the same. I'm just saying you'd frame the shot basically similarly. I am not arguing that it is better by any stretch.

- A

But what is the advantage in practical terms if not image quality?
The only difference I can see is that you would need to crop the 1Dx picture in post processing

This scenario gets discussed quite often. I think at 100% on my computer monitor, if I put 18 MP on subject with a 7D at ISO 100, that looks better to me than taking the shot with a 1Dx, cropping to the same FoV (approximately 7 MP on subject). At higher ISO's I don't find that to be true however. Scientifically no it's not technically more reach but putting more MP's on subject at low ISO always looks better to me at least. With the 5Ds/R the point is moot.

I agree, in ideal lighting, crop = more pixels on the subject if you are going to crop anyway. However, Ive also found that at higher ISOs those additional pixels don't help. 5DSR has crop sensor pixel density with way more pixels, you can easily crop by 1.6 and get just as many pixels on subject. The difference here, though, is 5 fps vs 10 fps on the 7DII for example. 7Dii offers more pixels on subject (other then the 5DSR), at a higher fps, for less money.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.