1:1 or 1:3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CT
  • Start date Start date
CT

CT

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
26,617
Edit My Images
Yes
With the impending arrival of the 5D, there are now three options from Canon in larger sensor sizes. I'd like to hear any views/arguments in favour of each option - ignoring price as a factor.

If you're currently a 1.6X sensor user and wouldn't consider making the change, I'd be equally interested in your opinions as to why not - apart from price. I'm purely interested in some objective views on the photographic advatages or disadvantages of the 1DS, 1D, or 5D.

I'm leaning towards the 1D at the moment, but I change my mind every time I think about it. It's not a fate accomplis by any means, just something I'm thinking about.

Thanks in advance. :)
 
What are we comparing, just sensor size ignoring pixel count?

If so then a larger sensor would always be better because it'll allow more light to be collected and therefore a cleaner picture.

The only advantage I can see of a crop sensor is in the telephoto effect it has, but this is when comparing two sensors with the same pixel count.




I think.
:)
 
The only one I'd consider is the EOS 1D Mk2, and not for anything to do with the sensor size. The higher FPS and bigger buffer would be beneficial for the sports stuff I like.

Having said that I've no plans to change the 20D for anything at the moment, it does everything I need and I find the 1.6X crop factor a benefit rather than a disadvantage. In terms of resolution prints up to A4 are packed with detail, certainly more than adequate for my needs at this stage.

Edit: the weather proofing is also a big attraction for me on the 1D. The 5D misses the mark on so many levels for me it just doesn't even come into the reckoning.
 
Ah - I see how my post is a bit confusing - I'm interested in the relative merits of each camera including sensor size. I'll amend the original post.:thumb:
 
Ummm well for me the only benefit would be the weather sealing and "built in grip". My 20D does everything else that I require good enough for it to be my skill holding back the photography. Then again I rearly shoot sports or wild animals and don't have a budget to allow an upgrade anyway.
If you are asking for an unreasonable wish list without a budget, then full frame would be on it for me but I would then require to change my lens collection to add in a very long and medium length lens.
 
Steve said:
If you are asking for an unreasonable wish list without a budget, then full frame would be on it for me but I would then require to change my lens collection to add in a very long and medium length lens.
Click to expand...

Tha's a good point Steve. You need very long lenses to fill the frame and really take advantage of the 1:1 sensor size.
 
IF i was to change the 20D ! I would consider the 1D Mk 2 or the 1Dn Mk2 ! Im not of the school that sees full frame as a benefit, i have managed to get some (by my standards) very decent shots ! and i cant see the full frame sensor giving me any benefit to that ! The main reason i would upgrade is the weatherproofing and the buffer etc ! Most of my shots are either wildlife or motorsport/aircraft !

The 5D for me would be a complete waste of time !


Is all a bit daft me thinking of it ! Couldnt afford a 1d anyway ! lol
 
Having just had a look at Milou's thread with the 17-40 on the 650 that's another reason why I wouldn't want full frame, I can't be doing with the sloping verticals it creates on buildings at the wide end.
 
dod said:
Having just had a look at Milou's thread with the 17-40 on the 650 that's another reason why I wouldn't want full frame, I can't be doing with the sloping verticals it creates on buildings at the wide end.
Click to expand...

You can turn that argument the other way though. With a larger sensor size you dont need to use such wide lenses to get a given scene in the frame so you actually have less distortion to deal with.
 
I pass my sloping verticals off as art.

(but the PS lens distort tool can save the day)

I fancy trying a panoramic camera for a few rolls of film. Wonder if I could hire one locally?
 
I fancy trying a panoramic camera for a few rolls of film. Wonder if I could hire one locally?
Click to expand...

If we can pick something/somewhere to shoot inbetween Southampton and Calne you're more than welcome to run some rolls through the 6x17.
 
I can't remember who posted it, but I thought that article on whether Nikon will be producing any cameras with full-frame sensors was a really good read.

The idea that we should be thinking about the future, rather than attempting to conform to past standards, is a sound one IMO. I'd much rather they started reducing the size of lenses to take advantage of economics - namely that smaller sensors are much cheaper to produce and, with time, will increase in resolution to the point where they rival full-frame sensors.

Smaller lenses. Lighter. Less to cart about. Win.
 
Isn't there an issue with light though if things get smaller? I.e. less light equals more noise.
 
milou said:
I pass my sloping verticals off as art.
Click to expand...

Wasn't having a go at your shots milou, just used as an example in this context :)

dazzajl, very true, but I have to make a decision based on the lenses I have, it would more or less make my 17-40 redundant. I could sell it and buy say a 24-70 but that means more expense.
 
yeah, I read it too Jamey but it was biased to their underlying tech. CCD and CMOS are very different and both have pros/cons. However, I think it's still an issue that it's harder to focus the same amount of light onto a smaller area with the same sharpness.
 
I guess that stands to reason. But it's a sliding scale (with the lenses on phone cams being at the 'xtremely crap' end) and if it was barely noticeable then I'd be in favour of getting the full wideness in a lighter package.

So what's the difference between CCD and CMOS then? I never realised it was two seperate things. Would someone be kind enough to quickly list a few of the bigger pros/cons of each?
 
Cheers CT. Basically it seems that CMOS isn't as good as CCD yet in terms of image quality but it's ok for things like optical mice. And might be good enough to rival CCDs sometime soon.
 
In Kodak's labs.

However, Canon have worked on these issues and produced CMOS sensors that produce just as good output aka their current range of DSLRs!

Another slant on this is that CCD can capture better images but there is a REAL problem with getting that image off the CCD without adding noise due to the fact that only the end pixels can be read and thus requires the image to be shunted across row by row, reading off the end value.
CMOS has a real advantage here in that each pixel can be read independantly of the others and so a quick scan is all that is required, faster and with much less noise being introduced.

A comparable battle is the one between old style CRT monitors and LCD displays. Ten years ago, to get the best quality you'd use a CRT and LCDs were crap, now LCDs combined with digital graphics cards are more likely to give you a better result.

:)
 
The 1d mk2 is being discontinued as it has been replaced by the 1d mk2 N (all 1D comments are aimed at the newer N body).

I'll mention what I think are the good points and bad points about this bit of kit, and I'll try to be as accurate as possible.


EOS 5D.
Good points.
Resolution 12.7 million pixels full frame.
Increased ISO range.
Full spot metering, increasing the metering modes to four.
Larger buffering.
2.5" LCD as apposed to 1.8" or 2.0".
Weight and dimentions: At 895g and 152x113x75 this camera is about the same size and weight as the 10D, (its slightly higher by about 4mm).

Bad Points.
Uses the Multi basis TTL, 9 focus points for the auto focus (same as 20D).
Exposure compensation +/-2 stops (3 stops on pro bodies).
Uses the same metering as the 20D.
Uses the same battery as the 20D.

This camera is aimed to fill the gap between the 20D and the 1D, but comes with a price not far behind the 1D.
For this amount of money I would have liked to of seen the Autofocus system, the metering system and the battery life that comes with the 1D.
I would have also liked to see the same button configuration as the 1D. You wouldn't believe how much easier it is to change the settings on the pro bodies.
I would also have liked to see a better media slot cover.
This camera has the same design as the 10D/20D, my 10D media slot cover would open with the slightest movement of the hand whilst holding the grip.
There's also the environmental seals (if the 3 points highlighted above had been included on the camera, I don't think this would have been a problem).

The only real plus point for buying this camera over the 1D would be the resolution (oh, and you might save yourself a few quid).
You could capture a lot more detail in your images using this camera.

If I was stepping up from a 10D/20D, I would bypass this camera and go for a pro body (oh, I did :D).

All you need to do is decide what you want to do.
Go for the 8.2Mpix 1D mk2N or the flagship 16.7Mpix 1Ds mk2 (you know you want one ;)).
These cameras are identical except for resolution, cropfactor and fps (oh, and the gold lettering on the 's' model :naughty:).



I can see a newer version of the 1d coming out with the same sensor they have put in the 5D, but I don't think it will be unveiled for a year or so, as it will kill all potential sales of the 5D.
 
Good write up Matt - thanks. :)

The 5D would be my last choice out of the three, with it's limited use for action stuff and lack of weather proofing.

What are the differences with the new 1D Mk11N apart from the larger preview screen? They must be fairly substantial given the price differential?
 
Sammy - as far as I know most graphics and FX houses still use CRTs for their finishing because they are still better quality than LCDs/Plasmas/TFTs/Whatever.

They are, however, a lot more expensive when you're talking about grade one monitors. Other grades are cheaper but I think for colour correction stuff nobody uses anything other than grade one.
 
Which is kinda my point, the original tech is so mature now that its best is still the overall best. I.e. the best CCD is still better than the best CMOS chip, it's just costs a fortune! :)
CMOS is good for us as its a lot cheaper to make than CCDs.
 
The differences over the 1d mk2 are:
The primary changes are a new 2.5" wide viewing angle LCD monitor, improved buffering characteristics,
new 'Picture Style' image parameters and the ability to write different formats simultaneously to SD and CF cards.
Click to expand...

I think they've just revamped it, so they can get a few pennies out of it before they up the anti on the sensor size.
I would go for the 1d mk2 and save a few hundred quid over the N version (thats if one can be sourced).
 
Nice write up Matt. Must admit the full frame aspect of the 5D was - is- very attarctive but the weather sealing of the 1d and its handling make it more so.
 
Strange the way things work sometimes. My brother in laws girlfriend used to work for Venture and she's left to set up her own studio. She was here on friday night with her brand new 1DS Mk2.

It feels so much nicer than the 20D plus grip. The unprocessed output in RAW was unbelievably high in sharpness at large print sizes.
 
Kill her, hide the body and all evidence and stroke his new possession and call it George?
 
milou said:
Well, you know what you have to do then....
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not a chance at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top