Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

New Canon no crop factor how many will miss it
David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 10:57 AM on 10.21.11
->> New Canon no crop factor how many will miss it or a crop mode. Just wondering.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Simon Wheeler, Photo Editor, Photographer
Ithaca | NY | USA | Posted: 11:11 AM on 10.21.11
->> Count me for one. I find a 16-36 on one body and a 70-200 on the other with 1.3 factor bodies to be an ideal combo. Add a 300 and a 1.4x for emergency reach I have everything I need.

I hardly ever need to be wider than the 21 that one gets with a 16 on a 1.3 factor. 24-70 isn't wide enough on a full frame and I don't use the 50-70 range either. 200 is too short on a full frame but I don't want to carry the 300 any more than I have to.

But this is all academic anyway. Neither I nor my publication will probably ever be able to afford a 1DX. I'll be looking to pick up your Mark IV's to replace the Mark III I just got now they are down in price. Does it focus, sort of. But it goes to iso 6400 so I'm at a higher shutter speed in all my dark gyms to I think my percentage is better than at iso 3200 on a Mark II with a slower shutter speed.

Simon
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:19 AM on 10.21.11
->> I too wonder how many newspapers will be able to afford a $6800 camera with budgets being slashed every month.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Stew Milne, Photographer
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 11:40 AM on 10.21.11
->> Our local paper is dealing with broken down II & IIn bodies, plus lots of old lenses. They are using 7D bodies now.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dennis Wierzbicki, Photographer
Plainfield | IL | USA | Posted: 12:01 PM on 10.21.11
->> Maybe Canon is figuring that the higher ISO performance of their new camera will be so solid that, should you want the equivalent reach of a 1.3X crop camera, you would just plop a 1.4XTC on the back end of a lens. You'd lose one stop of aperture, but perhaps the 1Dx's better ISO performance will more than make up for the need to bump ISO up by a stop? If this is true, and you don't suffer any A/F or image quality issues with the TC in your optical chain, you'd have a full frame when you need it, and be able to add reach when desired. Dunno, just thinkin' "out loud".
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:14 PM on 10.21.11
->> Chuck, I can see a Dilbert cartoon out of this with a table piled high with 1Dx boxes and the pointy haired boss asking why they are still unopened. Dilbert responds.....because you laid off all of the photographers to pay for them.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (15) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gregory Greene, Photographer
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 12:21 PM on 10.21.11
->> I will. The option for a lower cost 1.3x crop body at the 1D pro level was so nice to have. This to me is just greed on Canon's part to force 1D owners into only one upgrade path at the 1Ds price point ($6800). Plus, for those of us that many times shoot FL limited the 1D4's pixel density is really nice to have and not matched on the 1DX so the "flagship" comes with some compromises at 40% more in cost.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
Salisbury | NC | USA | Posted: 12:44 PM on 10.21.11
->> Continuing with Mark's Dilbert cartoon:

"And what's with all the Etch-A-Sketch boxes?"

"Those are your new tablets. You hold them over your head and shake them to boot them up."
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (5) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Erik Markov, Photographer
XXXX | IN | | Posted: 12:49 PM on 10.21.11
->> Thanks Jeff, that was good. :)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:04 PM on 10.21.11
->> A 1.3x or 1.4x sensor does not give you extra reach. It's just a full-frame sensor cropped 1.3x. It doesn't add to your focal length.

If you get a camera with a full-frame sensor and miss the crop factor, just click on your cropping tool in Photoshop and crop the image. The end result is the same.
 This post is:  Informative (9) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dan Routh, Photographer
Greensboro | NC | USA | Posted: 1:07 PM on 10.21.11
->> "I too wonder how many newspapers will be able to afford a $6800 camera with budgets being slashed every month."

Sort of a sad commentary on our business when the full time professionals are the ones who can't afford to buy the "professional" equipment.
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dave Einsel, Photographer, Photo Editor
Houston | TX | United States | Posted: 1:29 PM on 10.21.11
->> Several years ago I was chatting with a Canon rep at a conference after the 5D was introduced. I commented that it was great to see a full frame camera again. A student next to me responded, "What do you mean? My camera is not full frame?" It's all a matter of perspective. However, if the camera has a high enough resolution so you can effectively crop to the 1.3 space, it doesn't really matter.

I don't have a dog in this hunt since I returned to shooting Nikon but I think Canon may have missed both ends of the market with the specs on this camera.

A close friend in the LA entertainment niche (studio and location) as been waiting for an update to his 1Ds MkIII and was pretty disappointed with the announcement. He and other high-end massive megapixel photographers do not need 50,000 ISO or 12 frames/second. Less resolution for the same money doesn't compute for him.

Editorial/Journalism/Sports photographers I have talked with love the specs but are also disappointed because of the price point. The MkIV appears to be a fine machine for almost $2000 less.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 1:49 PM on 10.21.11
->> Bradly,

Respectfully it is not the same resolution though. A 1Dx file cropped to match the dimensions of a 1DIV sensor will give you 10.8mp equivalent vs. 16.1mp for the IV (and matching the mkIII). The pixel density of the IV is almost 50% higher (the III is slightly lower). For those moving from the II, IIn or III, yes you could crop down without a loss (or even moderate gain) in "pixels on subject", but those moving from a IV would see a drop. That is only one of a long list of considerations though.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:53 PM on 10.21.11
->> I won't miss it as I don't see the point in buying the camera at this time. Five years ago, I'd been all over this, salivating like a pitbull in Michael Vick's backyard and looking forward to having two by next August. However, I'll be sticking to IIn bodies until Canon no longer services them. The high ISO and higher resolution on the new body is nice, but with the publishing world moving to digital platform, neither is a priority as it would be if the industry continued to be dominated by print.
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Rob Foldy, Photographer
Gainesville | Fl | USA | Posted: 1:53 PM on 10.21.11
->> Dennis mentioned adding a 1.4x to a 300 for extra reach because you may now be able to afford that stop in bumping up the ISO.

so along that same thought pattern, I wonder if this will increase the sales of 500mm f4 lenses, as the 400mm 2.8 that most sports photogs use as their "bread and butter" lens was about 520mm with the 1.3x crop. The full-frame sensor will also make that 200-400 f4 lens a lot more appealing despite the "slower" f4 aperture...if that lens ever comes out.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Simon Wheeler, Photo Editor, Photographer
Ithaca | NY | USA | Posted: 2:21 PM on 10.21.11
->> Bradley,

I understand what you are saying and the thought to just crop had occurred to me. But then one doesn't have the edges of the frame to know where that annoying bright spot at the corner of the image is so I can lean left or right a bit to keep it out of the frame. I guess I could always take a fine point Sharpie to the focusing screen, just kidding sort of, they're almost a throw away item on a $6,800 camera. Then I would have best of all worlds. Leica like frame lines so I can see the action coming, 1.3 crop and the ability to pull out a bit if I shoot too tight by accident. The bummer is I'm not getting the full value of the viewfinder image size.

Simon
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Ip, Photo Editor, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 2:59 PM on 10.21.11
->> I won't miss it. I shot mkIIIs since they came out, then I switched to 5d mkIIs.

I'm sort of with Bradley on this one. Who really needs 18 megapixels? Crop in and you're left with 10 or so, that's the same as a mkIII.

Besides for those of you who still work for papers, a 4 mp image is more than sufficient for web or newsprint.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 3:18 PM on 10.21.11
->> Simon
Why not pitch your idea to katz eye or one of the other focus screen makers? They already make screens with crop lines. Also if I recall one or more bodies can be set to specific crop ratios and it darkened but does not black out those portion of the screen. I will have to check my D3s tonight to see what happens tonthe screen when set to 1.2 crop.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 3:20 PM on 10.21.11
->> @ Mark P.

I never said anything about file size, just the fact that a 1.4 crop sensor doesn't increase your focal length.

On that note, sure, you'll see a drop in megapixles, but, as Michael noted, even if you crop the 16.1mp down to 10.8mp it's going to leave you with more than enough file size to be acceptable for most applications.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Svein Ove Ekornesvaag, Photographer
Aalesund | Møre og Romsdal | Norway | Posted: 3:26 PM on 10.21.11
->> Won't miss it.

In fact it will be nice to be able to crop after I shoot instead of letting the 1.3 sensor crop before shooting. With the fullframe sensor the 400mm will be almost like a 310-520mm f/2.8 since it will cover more in the wider area and still have enough megapixels to crop it like 520mm (400mm on 1.3 crop).
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:42 PM on 10.21.11
->> The whole "crop factor" thing started because it was just too darned expensive to manufacture a 24x36mm sensor. Camera manufacturers then came out with optically "crippled" lenses that only covered the smaller image size because those lenses could be manufactured more cheaply.

Now they have a marketing problem because it's now economically feasible to make full-frame sensors but they also have a large installed base of the crippled lenses.

The two lines of cameras/lenses exist only due to marketing reasons.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Derek Regensburger, Photographer
Thornton | CO | United States | Posted: 3:45 PM on 10.21.11
->> The 1DX looks to be a killer camera, just not for $6800. The crop factor is 30%. Hence it's 14 megapixels, not 10.8. That being said, I can see high-end landscape and fashion shooters opting for Nikons and Sonys in the near future over Canon. 5DIIs have never been able to autofocus, and all but the lowest end Nikons have professional quality autofocus capabilities built in. It will remain to be seen what the 5DIII looks like. If it is no better than the 7D in the autofocus department, I would look strongly in the other direction.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Troutman, Photographer
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 4:21 PM on 10.21.11
->> What Mark said.

The 1DX looks *fantastic*!

I thought I'd miss the crop when I went from the D2X to the D3 when it first came out.

Trust me...you won't miss it. At all.

Chomping at the bit for a D4...
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 4:48 PM on 10.21.11
->> Dereck, take the pixel density (pixels per square mm) of the 1Dx sensor and then multiply that by the area in square mm of a 1.3 crop body. I think you will find the result is indeed 10.8.

1Dx sensor is 24x36 or 864sq mm with 17.9mp. or just over .02mp per sq mm. A 1DIV sensor is 18.6x27.9sq mm or 518.94sq mm. Taking the 1Dx density and multiplying it by the 1DIV sensor size gives you 10.8mp. Alternatively you can simply divide the area of the IV sensor (518.94) by the area of the x sensor (864) and multiply by the mp of the x (17.9) and you will get the same answer. (You will also find the crop is actually about 40%)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Corey Perrine, Photographer
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 5:03 PM on 10.21.11
->> Larger sensor = wider pixel = better pitch = less noise at high ISO's

Coming back to Canon on a 1.3x from a D3s, because of what work issues me, has been a struggle. The files on a D3s at 1600 and higher, knock out a Mark IV's high ISO abilities any day of the week.

You can tout megapixel and fps but at the end of the day it's the quality of sensor it was recorded on.

I look forward to the 1DX in the future. And hope it lives up to the hype. Should be interesting what Nikon shells out with the D4.

My two cents.
 This post is:  Informative (4) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 11:28 PM on 10.21.11
->> Oh, and the camera manufacturers played up the illusion of increased telephoto performance (actually just a crop,) which was at the expense of a very real loss in wide-angle performance.

The full-frame cameras are simply a return to the way they would have built them if they could have sold them.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gregory Greene, Photographer
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 2:49 AM on 10.22.11
->> Crop has no effect on increased telephoto performance. A sensors pixel density does however. For those shooting in FL limited situations it's no illusion. While the FOV loss on a crop is definitely a disadvantage I never really found it that limiting on my 1D2 or 1D4 but I don't shoot ultra wide either. The 16-35 still serves me very well.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chris Peterson, Photographer, Photo Editor
Columbia Falls | MT | USA | Posted: 9:47 AM on 10.22.11
->> The distressing part of this is the price points of these new cameras. You could spend 20 grand on a body and 2-3 lenses and still not have enough cash for a friggin flash.

Both Canon and Nikon are reaching Leica's price points, which is scary.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Garrett Cortese, Photographer, Photo Editor
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 10:27 AM on 10.22.11
->> Remember when this wasn't an issue because 35mm really meant 35mm? Since when should a photographer have to become a mathematician to figure out if a camera's sensor fits his/her needs? The only math I'm concerned with right now is the ridiculous cost. Regardless of pixel counting, in camera cropping, and piggy bank breaking, I'm pretty sure all the top photographers got along fairly well back in the day of the Canon EOS 1v and Nikon F5, and those definitely didn't have "crop factors." Wanna get closer? You've got three options: 1. Move; 2. Throw on a teleconverter; 3. Get longer glass; or 4. All of the above. Having shot the 5D Mark II for a while now I would very much enjoy a fast 1D body that is made to use Canon's lenses the way they are supposed to be used.

I'm no wise old sage of a veteran by any means (still consider myself somewhat of a lucky kid), but I've been working in the magazine industry for almost ten years. My first published digital photo was shot with the Canon D30 (yes, the 3 MP pro-sumer gem). The magazine actually cropped it and ran it as a spread. That was in 2002 and it didn't look too bad. You wanna give me 18 MP, 12 FPS, and a bajillion ISO? I'll take it and I think I'll be able to make some pretty nice-looking images with it... Heck, I think I might even take 9 MP, 6 FPS and 1/2 a bajillion ISO... but only at 1/4 of the cost... (insert winky face symbol thing here)

Happy shooting everybody, whatever your crop factor might be.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Fischer, Photographer
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 11:32 AM on 10.22.11
->> I shot Canon for 2 or 3 years before moving back to Nikon.

At first that crop factor thing seemed like a pretty good idea but as some of this discussion indicates, it's not exactly as advertised.

For those of you that don't think having full frame capability is a good thing, go borrow a Nikon D3 and a 14-24mm for three or four days.

Being able to go wide is the real issue here, and I think Canon users that invest in this camera are going to be very pleased with the return of wide angle capabilities.

I have a D300 which I occasionally use - it's a back up body - and it's back up in part because of the crop issue.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 11:50 AM on 10.22.11
->> I shoot pro football and no without the crop when I was using a 1.4 I will need a 2 x my combination of a 70 200 with a 1.4 always on it and a 400 with or without a 1.4 is changed. need a wide angle get a 5d has always been my thought. So when you guys say just put an extender on there woud if you already were?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (8) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Troutman, Photographer
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 2:23 PM on 10.22.11
->> "go borrow a Nikon D3 and a 14-24mm for three or four days"

^ This.

That, and shoot some night stuff at ISO 10,000 with flash dialed down on a D3S.

Even if the 1DX can match or exceed this performance (in terms of image quality, not specs), Canon still has nothing to match that lens.

Meanwhile, the D4 is imminent...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Seelig, Photographer
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 3:26 PM on 10.22.11
->> It amazes me how many people want to make everything my stuff is better then your stuff
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Troutman, Photographer
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 3:44 PM on 10.22.11
->> Right now (on paper at least) the 1DX is better than any of the other "stuff" out there...

Better, as in enables you take take better, more creative pictures in a greater variety of shooting conditions than are possible with other kinds of "stuff".

Your mileage may vary, of course...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gregory Greene, Photographer
Durham | NH | USA | Posted: 4:40 PM on 10.22.11
->> I don't really shoot ultra wide that often so the 1.3x crop is not that big of a deal to me but I understand those people that want it. I find myself limited by reach far more often then wanting wider FOV. Plus I don't really like those lenses with large protruding lens elements (Nikon 14-24 or Canon 14mm) with relatively small lens shades to protect them. Way to much risk for me. I like the 16-35 with a filter to lock out the weather. It may not be the absolute best when it comes to edge to edge quality but I never see those imperfections on a 1.3x crop.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Denny Kyser, Photographer
Russell | Pa. | United States of America | Posted: 12:35 AM on 10.25.11
->> I do a lot of studio work along with sports and this is a great thing for me. I missed the full frame of the 1Ds III, but wanted the speed of the 1D IV so went with 2 1D IV's and sold the 1Ds III.

This camera will fit my needs perfectly and glad I purchased the 400 2.8 when I was torn between it and the 300 2.8.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Nic Coury, Photographer
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 1:13 AM on 10.25.11
->> Alls I know is that the best camera is the one in my hand at the moment of, say, a major crash from the MotoGP World Champion at turn 5 at Laguna Seca with a D700 and 300 f/2.8 that got me a GREAT photo published all over...

It's just another camera that I can't afford and I like technology as much as the next person, but if I can't afford it into my budget, what's the point?

That being said, the D3 sensor is my favorite camera and made me a bunch of great pictures.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (2) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Froschauer, Photographer
Tacoma | WA | USA | Posted: 10:29 PM on 10.25.11
->> Lack of crop is what I love about the 5D and 1ds series cameras, adding speed and focus to a full frame body is the top reason for me. I prefer using the crop tool when needed as opposed to the camera artificially cropping the the image when I want a specific lens look. You know situations like wanting the look of a 100mm F2 and not having to back out a room and into a hallway to shoot a photo because of the dang crop.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ron Scheffler, Photographer
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 11:18 PM on 10.25.11
->> @Rob Foldy wrote:

"I wonder if this will increase the sales of 500mm f4 lenses, as the 400mm 2.8 that most sports photogs use as their "bread and butter" lens was about 520mm with the 1.3x crop. The full-frame sensor will also make that 200-400 f4 lens a lot more appealing despite the "slower" f4 aperture...if that lens ever comes out."

I don't see there being more 500mm lenses on the sidelines. First of all, the new version of the 500 is nearly the same price as the 400. Second, with the 400 on a 1D cropper, shots from the sideline at the line of scrimmage were often too tight, whereas 400 was just right on film.

I think I will somewhat miss the crop because since the IV with its higher pixel density I no longer shoot with TCs and crop instead when needed. But, if I ever do get the X, I will probably also have the 200-400 with built-in 1.4x TC, which hopefully will be a good performer and be an adequate replacement of the 400 2.8. I'm more interested in this lens actually than the camera...

But I don't really do that much sports work any more. For $7K, if Leica announces an M10 in 2010, I would seriously consider that instead and expand my rangefinder kit. I could easily get along fine with my current IV and III outfit for sports.

I also find it ironic that the X is the 'dream' sports/PJ camera, yet Canon has priced to in 1Ds territory that will make it that much more difficult for many freelancers and papers to justify. Where I am, the paper just issued D7000s to the photogs to replace ancient and dying D2 series cameras and as backups to their D300 primary cameras... and its a 100K circulation paper that had a very healthy profit in 2010... I would be extremely surprised if they ever bought another pro-grade camera in the future, especially anything in the $5K+ range.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Denny Kyser, Photographer
Russell | Pa. | United States of America | Posted: 3:13 PM on 10.26.11
->> I could be wrong, but my thinking is this.

With the larger file size, and full frame (shallower dof) loosing the crop factor should not be an issue with the 400 2.8, I would think it would be the perfect equation. You will be able to crop in and still have plenty of file size, and have that great bokeh we love.

When I did some tests with my 1D III vs 1Ds III seems that loosing the crop factor in exchange for more pixels and full frame was not noticeable.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

James Durbin, Student/Intern, Photographer
Carbondale | IL | USA | Posted: 4:07 PM on 10.26.11
->> Gregory a few posts back: "I don't really shoot ultra wide that often so the 1.3x crop is not that big of a deal to me but I understand those people that want it. I find myself limited by reach far more often then wanting wider FOV. ..... I like the 16-35 with a filter to lock out the weather. It may not be the absolute best when it comes to edge to edge quality but I never see those imperfections on a 1.3x crop."

My thoughts exactly. I am used to the 1D series of cameras and their 1.3x crop, I cannot stand 1.6x and I honestly just don't have a ton of experience with digital full frame. But if keeping 1.3x means the camera is $2000 cheaper to me (i.e. 1Dmk4) then I will stay with the 1.3x. I don't like the distortion that comes from super wide images anyway and for those rare occasions where I need it I have a 14mm 2.8 in addition to the 16-35. But even the 14mm lens doesn't get as much use as the 24-70 that I would rather have in its place. (Anybody want to trade me?)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 9:18 AM on 10.27.11
->> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZEdDMQZaCU

No seriously, I agree completely with Garrett. Too bad Canon went bat shit on their pricing, because the throw back, full frame-pro body (a la 1V, F5, etc.) is something I've been wanting for a while now. I'd hazard a guess that folks who started with film are inclined to agree.

Oh well. Here's hoping whatever replaced the current 5d is as good a camera.

- gerry -
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: New Canon no crop factor how many will miss it
Thread Started By: David Seelig
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Rick says: "Stop Complaining!" ::..