jamesf99 wrote:
Why would Canon EVER make a hypothetical "3D", which would be higher in the food chain than the FF 5d, with a dreaded little cropped sensor? Never gonna happen and thank God for that.
My vote is for no more of those cropped little sensor cameras.
Ahhh, but Canon wants to sell to ALL voters. Ask any wildlife or sports shooter if they wouldn't mind getting extra reach from their expensive long glass. IF there was a pro-grade 1.6 crop camera (8fps, weather sealed, awesome AF, blah blah) I guarantee it would sell. I know it would replace the 1dm2 at the top of my wish list!
Tim, you already sort of have that in the 1D Mk IIN with a 1.3 factor, don't you?
I mean the difference between APS-C and FF in terms of crop factor is pretty substantial (as Jay states above).
But with 1.3x you still get the 390mm FOV out of your 300mm lens, so I think that crop factor is still pretty favorable for the sports shooter looking for reach.
Well, it's true that the 1.3 gives some of the added view, but at 1.3 an $1100 300/4L becomes 390mm. But, on a 1.6 crop it gets another 90mm yielding 480mm. For a wildlife shooter where the mantra is "your lens isn't long enough", that 90mm can be significant.
Oh, and Jeff is it time for this thread to die? Photokina is basically done, so all that's left is arguing about whether Canon execs should be falling on their swords. Although, it is a classic now since we reached the 2000 post milestone.
Jay S wrote:
This only matters if you need to crop the 5D image, e.g. if you can't fill the frame with your current lenses, which is usually an issue on the long end such as if shooting birds or wildlife
This has always seemed like a strange point to me. It seems that virtually all of us pick lenses to match our cameras, so when we move to full-frame bodies we (eventually, at least) adjust our lens collections to match - maybe lose the widest lens and pick up a longer tele.
The intent would be to not have to crop any more on a full-frame body than on a crop sensor body, thus making this point fairly irrelevant for most users.
I guess we could say that, except in the case of people who have the wrong lens selection for their camera, this issue is not significant
Actually the focal length stays the same, just the field of view changes. You really haven't gained a thing. The magnification is the same. If you crop to the same size, they are both the same.
Its relevant for bird and wildlife shooters and it isn't about "wrong" lens selection. Practically speaking, you can't avoid thinking about the lenses given the size, weight and price of supertelephotos. A 600 f4 is extremely cumbersome on a mobile safari but a 300 f4 + 1.4x is very handy, even a 300 2.8 fits in a normal camera bag and is handholdable. On the shorter end the differences between lenses are not big, e.g. 17-55 2.8 IS vs 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 F4 IS.
It's worse in my opinion, because it's a crop and zoom. So you're magnifying deficiencies, errors, and aberrations in the lens as well as any inherent sensor-based lack of resolution in the process.
The nicest part of bird (and other) images with 5D is that you can crop like hell and use your files as 100% ones if necessary, provided you have done your job well as the camera operator (well, I seldom do, but still sometimes).
In practice this means that in a few of the images I shot of a little bird with 2.2 m distance with 180L (since I hadn't anything longer or quicker to focus), the bird at 100% is too large for a proper composition in the official viewing screen size of 1400 x 1050 of our national wildlife photo competition. So I would have to use less than 100% crop, but technically there is no need for that - decreasing the magnification didn't in that case seem to improve the IQ.
No, I don't plan to show the image and I won't send it to the competion either- it is a dull bird picture which you can find everywhere, but technically perfect.
Yep, Jeff should convert this to an ordinary, non-sticky thread - at least I think I have had my share of RUMOR speculation this time.
Edited by Koivulehto on Sep 28, 2006 at 09:53 AM GMT
danmitchell wrote:
This has always seemed like a strange point to me. It seems that virtually all of us pick lenses to match our cameras, so when we move to full-frame bodies we (eventually, at least) adjust our lens collections to match - maybe lose the widest lens and pick up a longer tele.
The intent would be to not have to crop any more on a full-frame body than on a crop sensor body, thus making this point fairly irrelevant for most users.
I guess we could say that, except in the case of people who have the wrong lens selection for their camera, this issue is not significant...Show more →
To me, the issue is on the longer lenses. Currently I am using my 70-200 mostly at 200 for shooting butterflies. With the 20D it is effectively a 320mm and at that it is too short. I was going to go with a 300mm F4 L IS but decided to wait and see what Photokina produced. I was hoping for either a new 1.6 or 1.3 body and/or a 400mm IS. Obviously, none of my wished for items made it.
If I go with a FF body then the 300mm will be too short, just as the 200 is on the 20D. I could move to a 400mm but I would lose IS unless I go with the 400mm 2.8 IS and there is a mere $5500 penalty to go that route. Obviously, this creates somewhat of a dilemma and it is not easy to resolve. I could just crop a FF but the PPD (pixels per duck) ratio drops to unaccceptable levels. I could stay with the 20D but I have reach the point where its AF performance and limited buffer are getting to be more than a mere annoyance.
If you start to throw in factors such as weight, AF capabilities and FPS the whole situation turns into a bloody mess. Switching to a Nikon D2X would be an option but the lack of a 300mm IS kills that idea. Now throw in the reality that much of my shooting would benefit from full frame and the headache grows even worse. Bottom line is I just don't know what the hell I am going to do. Probably end up with a 1DMkII as a compromise or wait until the spring.
In other words, what Canon ought to do is make a 1.6x extender
All those folks who go full frame, but want to keep their APS-C derived extended reach would just slap on the 1.6x extender and live happily with their existing lens set untill, over time, they can invest into longer reach glass
Taff Reardon wrote:
Or get closer to the subject they are shooting?!!!!
Well, we were kinda implicitly talking about birding and wildlife photography here. Getting closer isn't always an option. And it's not just with wildlife and birding. With, say, concerts or sports you can't always get close either.
It's looking to me as though, God, Jeff and Fred willing, that there is the demand there fora speculation forum.
250 pages is a bit big for a thread, or easy access to what is in it, but a foum for speculation, Canon and otherwise, would just about fit the bill and avoid cluttering other forums.
What do you think?
Regards,
DaveMart
Tentacle wrote:
Well, we were kinda implicitly talking about birding and wildlife photography here. Getting closer isn't always an option. And it's not just with wildlife and birding. With, say, concerts or sports you can't always get close either.
Tentacle wrote:
In other words, what Canon ought to do is make a 1.6x extender
All those folks who go full frame, but want to keep their APS-C derived extended reach would just slap on the 1.6x extender and live happily with their existing lens set untill, over time, they can invest into longer reach glass
With that in mind, they should make a 1.6 extender that accepts EF-S lenses. That way when you upgrade your 30D to a 1DMKIV or whatever you can keep all your lenses
Next time send in some supporting smileys though 