Any comments on the reveiws of this new camera? AF etc
jan
Canon 1D mark IV
Any comments on the reveiws of this new camera? AF etc
jan
I'm also curious to hear more about this camera as well.
Am i correct to "think" a pro body would be full frame, thus allowing a 45 point focus grid. A better sensor, with more pixel resolution. Bascally, what are the reasons to acquire a pro-body vs a 7d or 50d.
As a newbie, i'm working on the fundamentals, it's just nice to plan out a "correct" equipment acquistion list, and timetable!
Thks for your input!
Don
Not FF. 1.3 crop, like 1DIII.
Thks, okay i guess i was way off, so it's not a FF. My 50D is a 1.6; is there a big difference betwen that the 1.3.
Thks,, i guess my next body should be a FF if i plan to do this forever.... at least i suppose.... looks like i'll need a brinks truck bag of dollars as well.
Don
This is a bird photography site, so FF vs. 1.3 vs. 1.6 IS indeed a big thing. For instance, a 400mm f5.6L will give 400mm of reach on a FF camera, 520mm-equivalent on a 1.3 crop-sensor and 640mm on a 1.6 crop-sensor, all at f5.6 and before adding a TC. When comparing the cost of a crop-body vs. something like a 600mm L-series lens, you'll see that it's a high value proposition to consider investing in a crop-body.
If you went from a 50D to a 5D2 the reach of your lens would drop 40%. OTOH, the FF body would give you improved high ISO performance and stunning wide angle images. Generally, in the grossest terms, a 1.6-crop, like the 7D, all other things being equal, is better for birds, wildlife and macros, while a FF 5D2 is better for scenics, people, buildings and things requiring "reach" under 400mm.
I'm looking forward to the IQ comparisons between the 1D4 and the 7D. Everybody's been busy comparing the 5D2 to the 7D, but I think that the 1D4 is a better comparable for two cameras aimed more at sport and wildlife than the 5D2. We'll see soon, I'm sure.
Dave
Dave, thks so much for taking the time, and throwing down an excellent explanation. I really appreciate the details and your time here. This forum is so valuable!!!!
Don
Scroll down a bit in this forum, there are a couple of other threads on the 1D4. From the information available so far it seems that this will be an excellent camera. Best to remember that the camera doesn't make the photographer though... AF accuracy, and high noise capability don't matter nearly as much as your skills as a photographer :)
Adrian yes; excellent point. Thks don
Jan if you look a few post further donw Artie has some comments on the camera. All the reports seem excellent and if you want one get on a list quick !! Normally they are in short supply !!
I have heard that pre orders are very strong. Mine is one of them - very early - with Hunts.
David,Originally Posted by David Stephens
Crop factor has nothing to do with telephoto reach. Crop factor and equivalent focal length only affects the field of view. Three and only three things dictate the number of pixels on the subject in an image:
1) distance to subject
2) lens true focal length (not equivalent focal length)
3) pixel pitch (the spacing from one pixel to the next).
50D pixel pitch = 4.7 microns
1DII pixel pitch = 6.4 microns
7D pixel pitch = 4.3 microns
The 50D would have 1.36 times the linear pixels on the subject (6.4/4.7). So if a 400 mm lens gave a bird 1000 pixels tall on the 5DII, it would result in 1362 pixels on a 50D. The 7D would have 1488 pixels (1000*6.4/4.3).
The disadvantage of smaller pixels is the spacing gets closer to where the contrast delivered bt a lens is less to the point that no additional detail is recorded due to lens aberrations and diffraction, and the pixels collect less light, so the signal-to-noise ratio is less per pixel. That means the dynamic range is less too.
For example, at f/8, the diffraction from green light has zero contrast at 4.7 micron spacing.
There is also common confusion on equivalent f/ratio in relation to crop factor.
More about crop factor and digital cameras here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/cropfactor
Roger
Aaaha, thanks for the discussion Roger and your article as well. Helped me to understand the issue a lot better!
Roger
Excellent reading on that topic on your website. Way to set things straight!
Dan in Parker
Very good stuff Roger. Thanks for the discussion and link.
Interestingly, before I bought a 7D to supplement my 5D2, in another forum, I asked a similar question about, "Why wouldn't I get the same result by cropping my 5D2 images?" I was wrongly directed to the "reach" argument.
I don't regret by 7D purchase, because it's AF is more flexible with its Expanded Spot mode and the 8fps are useful. I'm clearly not seeing any improvement in my finished images once I crop the crop-sensor image. The crop image in the viewfinder does encourage greater accuracy with the focus point. I would use Spot mode with the 5D2, which actually is very close to the size of the 7D Expanded Spot, but the larger image in the viewfinder is giving me more precision for BIF.
Now I'm taking two bodies into the field, with a wide-angle to short-tele zoom on the 5D2 and the gimbal mounted 400mm f5.6L on the 7D. It IS a nice luxury to have two lens always at the ready. Even if IQ is the same ultimately, what you see in the viewfinder has a lot to do with how you frame the image and think about what you're doing.
Dave
Roger your article was very interesting to read, however for the sake of discussion I have to disagree with the following statements in your conclusion.
“Crop factor and the associated focal length multiplier only affects field of view. They do not affect telephoto reach.”
This may be due to how one defines things. You have some very good points. I don’t know if the math behind the multiplier factor is correct or not and I do not have a way to test that. But for the average consumer who is familiar with the 35mm format, the effective focal length works (assuming the camera manufactures actually did the math correctly). This is because many people just want to take the picture and make a print. If you take that into consideration then telling someone that a crop factor camera does not increase the telephoto reach would be inncorrect.
After reading your article this is my conclusion.
The focal length multiplier can affect the telephoto reach of a lens when compareing fullframe digital SLRs and crop factor digital SLRs if you do not plan to crop your imagaes. But if you plan to crop your images then the focal length multiplier becomes obsolete and you have to consider focal length, pixel pitch and pixel spacing when comparing effective focal lengths of a lens on different digital SLRs. In which case the effective focal length would be more accurately described as the number of pixels on the subject.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would be a more accurate conclusion. I just don’t believe one can ignore the fact that many people will not bother to crop their prints. In which case the crop multiplier factor becomes true.
Rodney,
What you describe is a different effect. You are arguing because someone makes a print, that makes the multiplier effect real. But what size print? Suppose person 1 makes 4x5 inch print and person 2 makes 8x10 inch prints. Does person 2 then have a telephoto with twice effective focal length because his image is larger? It doesn't change the original lens focal length. So you are mixing image enlargement (whether print, or on screen image) with camera focal length. Post production image enlargement has nothing to do with focal length and image detail in the camera.
Roger
thnks for all your very useful comments my conclusion is that I will buy the new 1 D mark 1V as a second body to my 1D mark 111 .The I d mark 111 is a wonderful body for the 500mm f/4 lens when taking portrait shots.I will then use the new MK1V for my birds in flight shots with difficult BG
thnks
jan
Roger,
I am actually talking about comparing the same size print from a full frame camera to that of a crop body. This is how I understand it. If you were to design an experiment and set up a 400mm lens on a tripod and put a subject such as a teddy bear on a stool. Leave both the lens and subject sitting in the same places and only change the camera bodies. You would take one picture with a Full Frame body and then take that body off of the lens and replace it with a crop body and take one picture. During the experiment the lens and teddy bear would not be moved.
Next you would take the picture from the full frame body and make an 8x12 inch print. Then you would take the picture from the crop body and make an 8x12 inch print. Now it is my understanding that if you compare the two prints the teddy bear will appear larger in the 8x12 inch print from the crop body than it does in the 8x12 inch print from the full frame body.
I realize the focal length of the lens does not change, but on the crop body the 400mm lens would behave as if it were longer than 400mm when the 35mm format is being used as the standard. In other words if I wanted the teddy bear to be the same size in the 8x12 inch print from the full frame camera as it is in the 8x12 inch print from the crop body I would have to use a larger lens on the full frame body.
Is that not the case?
Rodney, the point is that if you take the image from the FF body and crop it to equal the crop-body image, generally (dependent on variable pixel-pitch) the IQ will be much the same, with the FF body potentially being a little better. You end up with roughly the same number of pixels on the subject, which is an important factor in determining IQ at the print level.
Look at the North Star images again. In that example, the FF image, even after cropping, showed more faint stars than the cropped images.
One great advantage of a crop sensor, in my experience, is that for birds, which are likely to be heavily cropped in processing, the crop-sensor viewfinder gives me a closer image to the final than a FF will. Also, tracking with a Spot or Expanded Spot AF point is easier with a crop-sensor's viewfinder. Of course, that all assumes that you don't give up too much IQ to gain this advantage. Also, with manual focus, it's easier to see the critical focus in the crop sensor viewfinder than in FF.
Dave
Dave,
I understand all of that. It just seems to me that if you compared the Nikon D700 and the Nikon D300 that the D300 is effectively increasing the telephoto reach. And it sounded like Roger was saying that could never be true. Maybe the wording in the conclusion just doesn't make sense to me or my definition of effective focal length is totally different.
Of course writing is not my top skill, so I may not be really getting across what I am trying to say.
Rodney
I think you're writing pretty well.
Maybe if I rephrase one more time it might "click" for you like it did for me. I think that Roger is defining "Reach" roughly as meaning the number of effective pixels on the subject. All the crop-sensor does is reduce the field of view. It doesn't consentrate more pixels on the subject, like a longer telephoto lens would.
All other things being equal, the total pixel count goes down with a crop-sensor, but for a given focal length lens the pixels on the subject will not change. Forgetting for the moment that not all pixels are the same, if the subject has the same number of pixels in either a FF or crop-sensor camera, then when you equalize the size of the subject in the final print, then there will be no difference.
Of course, not all other things are equal when comparing any two cameras, but that general rule applies. Still, comparing my FF 5D2 images to my 7D images after cropping both, there's no improvement with the 7D. I've taken thousands more images with the 5D2, so the odds are much in its favor. (I haven't done a set up test, like your teddy bear suggestion). My thinking was similar to yours and I thought that the 7D would be the same as using my 5D2 and changing the 400mm lens for a 640mm lens. That AIN'T the case. When I get the subjects to the same size on the screen or in a print, the IQ is very similar.
Hope that helps.
Dave
Guys, great discussions, and i'm learning a lot. A newbie question:
What is "IQ".. are you refering to image Quality?
Don
Correct, Image Quality.
Okay I read the article a third time and this is what I am getting now.
The crop factor and associated focal length multiplier is only helpful in discovering what the field of view of a particular lens is like on a crop body. So if you like how a 24mm lens looks on a full frame body then you can divide 24 by 1.6 (Canon 7d multiplier) and discover that a 15mm lens would give you the same field of view.
If you want to find out whether or not a crop body will effectively provide more telephoto reach than a full frame body you have to take a look at the pixel pitch to find out whether or not the crop body puts more pixels on the subject than the full frame body.
The Canon EOS 1D Mark III has a pixel size of 7.2µm.
The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III has a pixel size of 6.4µm.
I don't have time to figure out the math right now, but it looks like the EOS 1DS Mark III would actually put more pixels on the a subject. Thus the 1Ds Mark III would actually have more telephoto reach than the 1D Mark III. Whether or not the difference is significant or not I don't know. Maybe I will get a chance to do the math later.
So maybe I am starting to make more sense of this. Is that right?
Yes, you're getting it Rodney. Just remember that all pixels are not created equal and even the best pixels are dependant on the alogrythms that convert analog to digital and vice versa. So, the newer generation 1D might actually have a better IQ. Still, all other things being equal, you're on the right track.
Dave
Rodney,
I think you got it now, but let's do one more thought experiment. Let's make your 8x12 prints again, but this time all from the same crop factor camera. Consider 1.6x crop cameras: 10D (6 megapixels), 30D (8 megapixels), 50D (15 megapixels), and 7D (18 megapixels). Let's throw in some mythical cameras: A= 1 megapixels, and B= 0.1 megapixel.
Now photograph the same subject with the same lens with each camera, and assume the lens is very sharp. The subject appears the same size on each print. But the 0.1 megapixel camera will have few pixels on the subject and the image probably will not look very good. The 7D image will have the most pixels on the subject, and assuming the lens delivers a sharp image, will give the sharpest image.
But by the crop factor equivalent focal length idea, all these sensors should give the same telephoto reach. Obviously that is not correct. In each case it is the pixel pitch that determines the pixels on the subject, not the crop factor.
Roger
thnks
jan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote