« Random Excellence: Cheryl Jacobs Nicolai | Main | Gordon's Print Sale is a Wrap »

Tuesday, 20 October 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The 1.3x is a big part of what distinguishes the 1D from the 1Ds, and seems to be mostly about sports, where Canon has generally been dominant. Not much reason for them to change anything.

Surprising not to get a 1Ds iv announcement, but I imagine it's coming.

Just incase anyone wants to know what video looks like from this camera -

Sports and critters, hence 1.3x. Though I would have thought that some critter shooters might have wanted the bigger FF viewfinder.

All technical issues aside: man, that is one ugly camera!

@Timprov The 1Ds typically trails the 1D by a few months.

Very ugly and very large

Phew! Matthew said it: a graceful and elegant design it is not!

"Are Canon-shooting p-js just used to it?"

Yes, you just get used to it. Been shooting with the 1D series since the original came out. Eight years or so now? No big deal, really. My Mark II bodies have 4+ years on them, still going strong.

But I would like to have had a full frame 16MP sensor in this one. Would have made it MUCH easier to justify the upgrade.

What a brick. I'll bet my grandma's pajamas there isn't a PJ in the world who really wants to carry that.

It's a Brick. House. It's mighty mighty.

Actually (though I own neither), I find the rounded look of the Canon 'EOS 1' series, ever since its first film iteration, to be far more aesthetically pleasing than the clunky Nikon equivalents, which still carry far too much of the appalling F4's DNA. Still, they're all bricks, and I wouldn't dream of putting that sort of pressure on my vertebrae.

hmm i'll hold my breath for a 5D mark IV…

"Sports and critters, hence 1.3x."

This one has me seriously baffled. Do sports and critters look better with a crop factor? Genuinely asking.

"Do sports and critters look better with a crop factor?"

No, but it increases the reach of your telephoto lenses. A 400mm lens mimics a 520mm lens, and so forth....


Really quite disappointing - compared to the 7D at nearly 1/3rd the price, I don't see a lot of compelling features, and for those who want extra "reach", pixel density, or however you want to phrase it, 18mp on a 1.6 sensor is much more bang for buck.

Of course I am assuming the image quality at normal ISOs will be pretty similar.

I guess much will be made of build quality. However, I have been using a 5D (old) and 1DIII side by side for around 2 years, they are treated similarly, and while I'm not particularly rough on cameras, I don't molly coddle them either. I also shoot a lot from boats on the sea, so spray is a constant issue.

Over those 2 years, the 1D3 has been in the shop 3x (admittedly 2 were manufacturer recalls, 1 was a locking pin failure). My 5D has never caused a problem.

My previous 1D2 suffered shutter failure at 50K clicks.

For some 10fps vs 8fps IS important, as is being able to shoot in the dark ... but it seems these capabilities come at a hefty premium.



I cannot justify the price but I would carry one of these around. I'm a squatty, 215 pound guy with long, bass-guitar-playing fingers. Big camera bodies fit well and when shooting sports a 300 (or 200) with 2X converter on a Rebel feels awkward, at least handheld.

When I switched from Nikon to Canon (with the 10D) I missed the look of my FM and N90, but the smoothness(?) of the new Canon grips/bodies is preferable to the grippy Nikon ones. Plus, to people who like the way Canons look, Nikons look "knobby".
The 1 series is ugly/beautiful to Canon guys. It ain't EOS 3 beautiful though.

If your a Pro charging big bucks a day your not showing up on the job with a little camera (no matter how good it is).
I don't think they can do 10 frames/sec. with a full frame yet.
16 mp is just fine for a double spread or major over kill for the internet.
If you want real quality check out the new Mamiya DM22 or 28. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102102mamiyadm22dm28.asp

Oops. Someone dropped a lense in that cow pattie.

"Do sports and critters look better with a crop factor?"
No, but it increases the reach of your telephoto lenses. A 400mm lens mimics a 520mm lens, and so forth....

I don't think you can say that a smaller sensor "increases the reach of your telephoto lenses". You could get exactly the same image by shooting the same lens on a full frame camera & then cropping it. All it's changing is field of view, not magnification as a true increase in focal length would do.

This is such a tiresome topic. I'm sick of it coming up every time the subject pops up. I knew with absolute certainty it was going to pop up as soon as I wrote that earlier comment.

But here goes again: it's not the same thing because of the way you SEE. You see with a viewfinder. You don't see "cropped." The fact that you can TECHNICALLY crop with a full-frame camera and get the same magnification does not make it equivalent to working with a 1.3X camera. Cropping after the fact is a kludge, and kludges make it more difficult to work with a camera because they make it harder to visualize what you're doing.

I don't mean to pick on you, Michael, I'm just well past being interested in repeating myself on this subject for the umpteenth time.


I have a 1ds mk lll and the weight and size has took some getting used to. But as I've been a manual worker all my life there's weight and then there's weight (all relative I know)

@ Michael W

You don't lose 1.3X of your pixels doing it in camera

I agree it's a tiresome topic & I'm equally tired of reading that a smaller sensor increaes the focal length & then having it explained that it's actually just a viewfinder illusion. All I want is correct terminology. The lens is doing the same job, you just see less of it, so it feels like the narrower field of view of a long lens.

I suppose you'll get really annoyed now because the only thing you hate more than someone bringing up crop factor is when they go on to debate you about it. Go ahead; I still love you.

When all DSLRs are made full-frame, with "crop modes" like Nikon has, the topic will go bye-bye.

...You see with a viewfinder. You don't see "cropped."...
So, what about the Leica viewfinder ?
No trying to be argumentative, just asking since I never even held a Leica. Many praise its viewfinder exactly because it allows to see beyond what is captured.

The fact that angle of view changes with format size is just nothing new. It's been true of photography since forever. The notion of "translating" focal lengths into 35mm equivalents is just a shorthand convenience to help people with the potentially confusing proliferation of formats in digital. But it's no different and no more significant than when it first dawned on you that 300mm is not a "telephoto" angle of view on an 8x10 camera.

More to the point, is there anybody who doesn't understand this at this point in history? "Crop factors" is digital 101, and most of us learned the what's what of it years ago. So why does this have to come up every time somebody says that such-and-such a lens is a such-and-such equivalent? Who doesn't understand what's being said?

MY point here is that an APS-H sensor is NOT just like cropping the middle part of a larger sensor, unless the viewfinder lets you see some approximation of the crop when you're composing. It's an inherent property of the camera, that affects how you use it and how you conceive of the pictorial effects your lenses give you.

But you know all this, and I know it all too, and most people reading this already know it. It's just something we are obligated to waste our time on whenever someone uses the standard locution. I wish the term "crop factor" had never come into use, so I could be spared this particular torture from amongst the many new forms that have sprung up in recent years. We had enough of them already, some but not enough of which have mercifully died with the decline of film....


I don't think you can say that a smaller sensor "increases the reach of your telephoto lenses". You could get exactly the same image by shooting the same lens on a full frame camera & then cropping it.

Not true; if you shoot full-frame and crop, you'd get a lower resolution image if you're shooting Canon, because the full-frame camera's pixel density isn't as high (that's the number of pixels in a given area of the sensor; per square cm, per square inch, whatever).

You shoot Canon. Your longest lens is a 500mm + 1.4 teleconverter. You photograph birds. There's a bird 100 yards away. You can't get closer. With your "crop-frame" Canon 1D, he just about fills the frame, all 16.1 megapixels of it.

And if you reach for your "full-frame," 21-megapixel Canon 1Ds or 5DII, figuring you'll crop it later? Using the same lens, from the same distance, on the same bird, the full-frame camera only has 12.6 megapixels in the area of the "cropped-frame" camera's sensor (27.9mm x 18.6mm).

Not only is your effective resolution lower with the full-frame image (bird gets only 12.6mp instead of 16.1); you're also recording 8 or 9 megapixels of wasted image area with the full-frame camera, since you can't get any closer to the bird, and those 8-9 megapixels dramatically increase your file size if you're shooting RAW. Larger file sizes mean both a slower frame rate (for both Canon and Nikon, their full-frame camera shoot only half as many frames-per-second as their crop cameras can) and an effectively much smaller buffer. Both of those things matter quite a bit to a sports photographer.

Bird-in-flight photographers are also well aware of these facts. Shooting full-frame and then cropping does them no good if [a] their subjects rarely fill the frame of a crop camera and [b] if the pixel density of the larger-frame camera isn't at least as high as that of crop frame camera.

"More to the point, is there anybody who doesn't understand this at this point in history?"

Hi Mike, I teach a lot of beginners, been doing it for more than ten years, starting back when everyone shot film. These days I constantly have students insisting to me that their DSLR has some kind of magical tele-extender built into the body. They truly believe that it transforms their 100mm lens into exactly the same as a 150mm lens. I explain to them that all they are getting is the field of view of the longer lens but not the magnification or compression that an actual longer focal length brings, which are important optical properties. A lot of them don't believe me because they so want to think their camera has this wonderful property. So the answer is there's a lot of people out there who don't understand this.

I've no problem at all with someone saying that cameras like the Canon 1D are ideal for sports & wildlife, it makes perfect sense to me. But if someone asks why I would say 'the smaller sensor gives a narrower field of view' rather than "it increases the reach of your telephoto lenses".

"No, but it increases the reach of your telephoto lenses. A 400mm lens mimics a 520mm lens, and so forth...."

Ah, see, I hadn't realized sportspeople were such shy creatures :)

(I am duly sorry for having played a part in the ensuing to-and-fro, but I can say that, if it was old news to you, parts of the argument were quite illuminating to me.)

Dear Mike (et al),

Call it "scale factor", not a crop factor.That's what I do. Seems to avoid almost all the nonsense, because it doesn't carry the irrelevant implications of words like "equivalent" or "crop."

pax / Ctein

I love Canon digital cameras. I started with a D60, moved onto a 5D, a 30D and a 40D and many associated L series and non-L-Series heavy lenses. Then, I rediscovered photography and switched to Leica cameras (digital and film) and Leica lenses. Love shooting with lighter, smaller and simpler Leica equipment. Now I find my Canon equipment too heavy and a burden to carry around and have revitalized my love for photography.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007