briansquibb said:
I guess you just have to compare the pro sports usage of the 7D vs the 1D4 to understand what is being said here.
I have both the 7D and the 1D4 - the 7D just does not compete.
For every improvement that is made to APS-C can be reflected in the APS-H and the APS-H will always be better.
The 1D4 is not designed as a low light camera - but is happy to iso6400 - well beyond APS-C. With the 1.3 crop more of the lens is in the sweet spot so the lens perform better than on a ff.
The 1D4 is not designed as a landscape body - so to say that it doesn't do uwa is a red herring - it delivers the longest reach of all Canon bodies - so what you lose(duh!) at the uwa you more than gain at the long end.
I can only assume that the APS-C supporters have not had the pleasure of using a 1D3/4.
I don't know why I do this to myself. But, here we go again.
Brian, as you know, I have never disputed the quality of the 1D4. My issue has always been with the economic viability of the format. Or perhaps more accurately, with what I perceive to be Canon's view of the continued economic viability of the camera.
I cannot find any indication from Canon that they intend to retain the format in their stills DSLRs. They have, in contrast, taken actions and made statements that lead myself and many others to believe that they have dropped the format.
My problem with this particular thread was that the OP titled the thread and wrote an initial post that made a very bold claim. A claim that lacked any supporting evidence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and there is certainly no law against starting new threads that rehash the same topic over and over again. This forum has plenty of them.
But, this is a discussion forum and having made a bold statement, it seemed logical to me that the OP would expect others to challenge his claim. Why start a discussion thread if you don't want to discuss the topic?
Mt Spokane quickly and effectively responded. I seconded that opinion. And, yes I was a bit of a smart ass about it. Feeling a bit badly about that, I decided to expand upon my opinion and challenged the OP to defend his position using some real world examples from his own profession as a wedding photographer (and from his website, he appears to be quite good at his craft).
The challenge was met with a snide post. Okay. Fair enough.
Brian, you know I have great respect for the work you do. I have defended your work when others attacked it. I also appreciate Wicked's comments and sense of humor about this whole debate. He adds a nice perspective and does it without being offensive.
If quality alone were the criteria, the APS-H format might be around forever. Unfortunately, companies have to turn a profit and it appears Canon has determined that the APS-H format doesn't currently fit into its business plan. They know their business better than any of us. So, if we are going to dispute their analysis, shouldn't we do so on some basis other than just making unsubstantiated statements?
The title of this thread is: "If Canon wants to kill off Nikon/Sony/Pentax drop APS-C and go APS-H"
All I am suggesting is that no one has offered the slightest defense of the original premise.
Now, I realize this isn't your thread so you don't have to defend it. In fact, I give you and Wicked credit, the two of you have always pretty much argued the superiority of the quality of APS-H, without pretending to know the profitability or lack thereof for the format.
So, I ask just this: somebody make a business case for APS-H, because I haven't heard a valid one yet.
... Oh, and lets not forget the former Kodak digital sensor division (which is still active).
