brambor Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I have a D30 and the largest telephoto in my arsenal is about to become a 200mm 2.8 lens. I shoot mostly hockey although whenever I can I get out to shoot nature shots. The 135mm 2.0 is enough with the aid of the 1.6 crop factor but I see it inevitable that I will get a full sensor body when I woll be able to afford it. My question is with 1Ds or any future 11megapixel full sensor camera. Could I theoretically keep the 135mm on a 1Ds, shoot the action at 11mp, crop the image similar to 1.6 crop factor and still expect an image equal to my 3mp print I get from a D30? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 That would be theory. Though the actual pixel size would come into play with noise and the such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_dowling Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Are you talking about 2 lenses here? Do you have a 135 2.0, and are going to purchase a 200 2.8? Anyway, the 135mm is still a 135mm. The 200mm is still a 200mm. You get no increase in zoom, only a crop of the frame on the D30, D60, or 10D. 135 or even 200 is a bit short for an ice rink, unless you only shoot plays near you. I do a LOT of shooting at rinks, and use 300mm and 400mm lenses on D60 and 10D. As to question 2, yes, print size is governed by how many pixels you have to work with. If you are satisfied with prints you get from 3 million pixels, then you could take 1/3rd or so of the 11 million pixels and achieve similar results if not better (11/3=3.666 megapixels). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 Theoretically it should even be better, since the 1.6x crop out of the center of the 1Ds image is more like 4MP of data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted September 14, 2003 Author Share Posted September 14, 2003 Chuck, yes I shoot when the action is in my end of the rink and the 135 is more than enough. The 200mm was to get face better expressions during the battles close to the boards. I find that I need to run ISO 800 with shutter speed of at least 250 to get decent action shots at f stop 2.0 or 2.5 Now to the actual question - I think that you answered it. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wojtek_rychlik Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 1Ds has a better pixel density than D30 and has a better autofocus (extremely important: the diffefence is apparent in low light situations). So, yes, you will have better shots with 1Ds. A 200mm is somewhat too short. If you've already got one, consider a teleextender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 OT; I use iso 800 color film at 1/250 to 1/500 at F2.8 at our rink. The longest lens I use is a 180mm F2.8 ; with a 105mm F2.5 used alot. The Newspaper uses a F2.8 zoom on a digital; about 80 to 200mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 My question to you would be: since you seem to do mostly telephoto work, why not get a 10D instead? Keep in mind that in order to equate the 200L f/2.8 'crop effect' on a 1Ds you would have to buy a 300L f/2.8, not a cheap lens. Add the cost of the 1Ds and you are in it well over $10K. I mean, I don't know if you are rich or not but, the point is you can get GREAT shots with a 10D and a 200L f/2.8 with less than a 1/3 the cost. Just my 2c worth :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I meant to type "less than a 1/5 the cost"...sorry about the typo :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted September 14, 2003 Author Share Posted September 14, 2003 Giampiero,You are right. At 10K cost for the 10Ds it is more worth to either get the 10D or better yet keep the D30 (which is what I'm going to do) but I expect the prices for a full frame SLR to change dramatically within 2 years or less. So with that in mind I was wondering whether I should plan on getting a 300/2.8 or save the money for a full frame Canon SLR when the right time comes. By keeping the current lenses, shoot at 11mp and crop the excess to achieve same or better results during hockey shots. Of course thw bennies come when I use the camera for nature shots at full 11mp potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 "but I expect the prices for a full frame SLR to change dramatically within 2 years or less." Or disappear completely! Smaller sensors are the norm now and are likely to become the standard in years to come. Not many will want to carry a 1Ds even if they could afford one. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted September 14, 2003 Author Share Posted September 14, 2003 Interesting perspective although I don't expect that is 'the norm' to remain constant. How else would you market a new camera - 'well it's the same sensor as last year's model. Get one now before it's too late' ... I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 My suggestion still would be to get a 10D and use the 200L f/2.8 - I have both and the images produced are stunning! The ONLY thing I miss compared to a 1Ds would the AF and metering system (which comes from the 'old' EOS3 precursor). I am not one who does wide angle work very often (and REAL wide angle work one should be done using a rangefinder anyway) so I actually like the 1.6 crop factor. Keep in mind too that working on a file from a 1Ds requires much more PC power, memory, etc... If you really must have a full frame sensor, you will have to invest in more expensive lenses, processing power for your PC, etc... In other words, if as you questioned, you plan to keep the 135 and then crop the image I see no point in getting a full frame camera, unless of course you are rich :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted September 14, 2003 Author Share Posted September 14, 2003 I'm with you but I don't see a real reason other than noise reduction at high iso to switch to 10D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry_szarek Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 The 10d has twice the pixels the D30 has. The noise profile is better for the 10d however the D30 can be fixed using neatimage. I would not hold your breath for the 1ds dropping much. It is purely a problem of yield, you can get roughly 4 times the number of 10d chips vs the 1ds chips, on top of that the yield is significantly greater because of the area (defects go up function(chip area, etc) powered growth). Side note, which chip speed doubles every 18 months, it is the feature size that is dropping not the area of the chip increasing. In the CMOS / CCD case you are increasing the area covered not the feature size being reduced. Gerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 >"but I expect the prices for a full frame SLR to change dramatically within 2 years or less." Or disappear completely! Smaller sensors are the norm now and are likely to become the standard in years to come. Not many will want to carry a 1Ds even if they could afford one. -- Puppy Face , September 14, 2003; 03:22 P.M. Eastern < Yep. Just like in the film days when NOBODY carried a Hasselblad in the field because 35mm was so readily available and convenient :) Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 1. For a tele-shooter, the 10D is actually better than the 1Ds. It enables you to get the same magnification with cheaper and lighter lenses. 2. Prices of full frame sensors will probably NOT change considerably in two years time* so this whole debate is rather academic. Happy shooting ,Yakim. * Oh, Canon. Please prove me wrong.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_dowling Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 "For a tele-shooter, the 10D is actually better than the 1Ds. It enables you to get the same magnification with cheaper and lighter lenses." Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whayne_padden Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 I would like a 10D for wildlife and a 1D/3D (I can dream) for everything else. Beats carrying around a 600 f/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_jones1 Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 "For a tele-shooter, the 10D is actually better than the 1Ds.." Huh? If the subject doesn't fill the frame of the 10D, Yakim is right - the 1.6 "format factor" together with the greater pixel density of the 10D vs the 1Ds - means the 10D shooter will get a better picture than the 1Ds shooter given the same lens - 6MP vs somewhere over 4MP... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now