![]() So by in camera sensor cropping to 1.3 the photos came out clear and sharper than they did when they used a program to do the cropping on the full frame cameras to get the same closeness as the crop sensor. Canon wanted to keep as much light coming in as possible but also keep the iso down to keep the noise out and still have a fast aperture and higher shutter speed to make moving objects clear with our blur and be able to see the faces of the players on the football field from the sidelines with out loosing a lot of light. using a crop sensor allowed the user to be closer to the action with the same mm lens with out moving closer to the subject and not having to use a bigger lens that used a lower f stop like 4.0 instead of 2.8. This APS-H sensor was put there on purpose because it was made to be a sports camera and for fast moving objects that's why it has 40 tracking points. If you take both shots from the spot the depth of field will be identical, but the subject will be smaller on the full frame. As such, the depth of field in the resultant image will be shallower. If you put the same lens at the same aperture on a full frame and APS-H camera, you will need to get closer to the subject with the full frame to have the subject the same size. Fortunately they had become sought after since their discontinuation so I sold it for a fraction less that I had paid for it! When the 5DmkIII came out with top-of-the-line AF and 6.5 fps, the decision became clear and I sold the 1DmkIV. In summary I don't think there's anything magic about the 1.3× crop, unless you need the reach I think it can be quite annoying. I also missed the 85mm FOV, my 85mm was a bit too long and my 50mm was a bit too wide. The only problem with this was that the mirror would hit the back of the lens if I accidentally zoomed right out. Ultra wide angle lens options were very limited, I ended up using the EF-S 10-22 which I modified to fit the EF mount and was usable without vignetting from 13-22mm. However over time I began to find the crop factor annoying. I found no fault with the camera in terms of its AF, speed, or features, but I had to convince myself I could live with the crop factor. This prompted me to switch from full frame to APS-H, as I could still get large prints if I needed to. The 1DmkIII was a 2MP upgrade from its 8MP predecessor, whereas the 1DIV jumped to 16MP. I waited for the 5DmkII to come out and when it did I was very disappointed that they addressed neither the speed or the AF performance. ![]() I was a 5D user but was never fully satisfied with either the speed or more importantly the autofocus with the outer points. Would be an interested to see an answer from a late-model 1D-user! ![]() Even so the decision wasn't universally popular, especially with photographers that appreciated the extra reach from the 1D crop factor. They were able to exceed the speed of the last 1D whilst improving resolution (slightly) and offering a full frame sensor. For this reason Canon chose to continue offering a faster, lower resolution 1.3× crop body in the 1D line.įor whatever reason, Canon decided to end the 1D line with the introduction of the 1DX. However the 1Ds was slower than the 1D, and offered less reach with telephoto lenses, so was less popular with sports and wildlife photographers. They followed it up with the 1Ds which was full frame. When Canon released the first 1D, APS-H was simply the largest sensor they could get away with, economically. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |