[CT]

With the impending arrival of the 5D, there are now three options from Canon in larger sensor sizes. I'd like to hear any views/arguments in favour of each option - ignoring price as a factor.

If you're currently a 1.6X sensor user and wouldn't consider making the change, I'd be equally interested in your opinions as to why not - apart from price. I'm purely interested in some objective views on the photographic advatages or disadvantages of the 1DS, 1D, or 5D.

I'm leaning towards the 1D at the moment, but I change my mind every time I think about it. It's not a fate accomplis by any means, just something I'm thinking about.

Thanks in advance.

[SammyC]

What are we comparing, just sensor size ignoring pixel count?

If so then a larger sensor would always be better because it'll allow more light to be collected and therefore a cleaner picture.

The only advantage I can see of a crop sensor is in the telephoto effect it has, but this is when comparing two sensors with the same pixel count.




I think.

[dod]

The only one I'd consider is the EOS 1D Mk2, and not for anything to do with the sensor size. The higher FPS and bigger buffer would be beneficial for the sports stuff I like.

Having said that I've no plans to change the 20D for anything at the moment, it does everything I need and I find the 1.6X crop factor a benefit rather than a disadvantage. In terms of resolution prints up to A4 are packed with detail, certainly more than adequate for my needs at this stage.

Edit: the weather proofing is also a big attraction for me on the 1D. The 5D misses the mark on so many levels for me it just doesn't even come into the reckoning.

[CT]

Ah - I see how my post is a bit confusing - I'm interested in the relative merits of each camera including sensor size. I'll amend the original post.

[Steve]

Ummm well for me the only benefit would be the weather sealing and "built in grip". My 20D does everything else that I require good enough for it to be my skill holding back the photography. Then again I rearly shoot sports or wild animals and don't have a budget to allow an upgrade anyway.
If you are asking for an unreasonable wish list without a budget, then full frame would be on it for me but I would then require to change my lens collection to add in a very long and medium length lens.

[CT]

Originally Posted by Steve

If you are asking for an unreasonable wish list without a budget, then full frame would be on it for me but I would then require to change my lens collection to add in a very long and medium length lens.

Tha's a good point Steve. You need very long lenses to fill the frame and really take advantage of the 1:1 sensor size.

[IanC_UK]

IF i was to change the 20D ! I would consider the 1D Mk 2 or the 1Dn Mk2 ! Im not of the school that sees full frame as a benefit, i have managed to get some (by my standards) very decent shots ! and i cant see the full frame sensor giving me any benefit to that ! The main reason i would upgrade is the weatherproofing and the buffer etc ! Most of my shots are either wildlife or motorsport/aircraft !

The 5D for me would be a complete waste of time !


Is all a bit daft me thinking of it ! Couldnt afford a 1d anyway ! lol

[dod]

Having just had a look at Milou's thread with the 17-40 on the 650 that's another reason why I wouldn't want full frame, I can't be doing with the sloping verticals it creates on buildings at the wide end.

[dazzajl]

Originally Posted by dod

Having just had a look at Milou's thread with the 17-40 on the 650 that's another reason why I wouldn't want full frame, I can't be doing with the sloping verticals it creates on buildings at the wide end.

You can turn that argument the other way though. With a larger sensor size you dont need to use such wide lenses to get a given scene in the frame so you actually have less distortion to deal with.

[milou]

I pass my sloping verticals off as art.

(but the PS lens distort tool can save the day)

I fancy trying a panoramic camera for a few rolls of film. Wonder if I could hire one locally?

[dazzajl]

I fancy trying a panoramic camera for a few rolls of film. Wonder if I could hire one locally?

If we can pick something/somewhere to shoot inbetween Southampton and Calne you're more than welcome to run some rolls through the 6x17.

[fingerz]

I can't remember who posted it, but I thought that article on whether Nikon will be producing any cameras with full-frame sensors was a really good read.

The idea that we should be thinking about the future, rather than attempting to conform to past standards, is a sound one IMO. I'd much rather they started reducing the size of lenses to take advantage of economics - namely that smaller sensors are much cheaper to produce and, with time, will increase in resolution to the point where they rival full-frame sensors.

Smaller lenses. Lighter. Less to cart about. Win.

[SammyC]

Isn't there an issue with light though if things get smaller? I.e. less light equals more noise.

[fingerz]

Erm... Dunno. I wasn't the only one who thought it was an interesting read though. So some of you more knowledgeable types must have thought there was something in it.

[dod]

Originally Posted by milou

I pass my sloping verticals off as art.

Wasn't having a go at your shots milou, just used as an example in this context

dazzajl, very true, but I have to make a decision based on the lenses I have, it would more or less make my 17-40 redundant. I could sell it and buy say a 24-70 but that means more expense.

[SammyC]

yeah, I read it too Jamey but it was biased to their underlying tech. CCD and CMOS are very different and both have pros/cons. However, I think it's still an issue that it's harder to focus the same amount of light onto a smaller area with the same sharpness.