Options
1ds Mark I -vs- 50D Image size and quality
I currently have a Canon 1Ds 11.1 medapixel camera. And was wondering what the difference between a full frame 11.1 megapixel camera vs the new 50D 15 megapixel with the smaller sensor size? Would I be getting bigger files with the 50D? I am guessing since my 1Ds is 5 years old that maybe the images would not be as nice as the new 50D with its new processor. Any help would be great. :thumb
Thanks,
Carl
Thanks,
Carl
0
Comments
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/190|0/(appareil2)/267|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon
For 8" x 10" images I don't think you will see a dramatic difference.
The one area where the 50D would excel, compared to the 1Ds, is in dynamic range at higher ISOs. I think you might see some expansion in DR that would allow better retention of highlight detail especially.
I do think that the 1Ds has a more accurate AF section although speed of AF is probably similar.
The 50D will yield a different FOV with your existing lenses. Most noticeably your wide lenses will not seem so wide anymore.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
And the zooms will be greatly increased. 500mm becomes a 800mm. So that's a bonus. Where as a 16mm becomes a 25.6mm.
OneTwoFiftieth | Portland, Oregon | Modern Portraiture
My Equipment:
Bodies: Canon 50D, Canon EOS 1
Lenses: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8
Lighting: Canon 580EXII, Canon 420 EX, 12" Reflector, Pocket Wizard Plus II (3), AB800 (3), Large Softbox
Stability: Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 Tripod, Manfrotto 488RC4 Ball Head, Manfrotto 679B Monopod
Is that really the case? A cropped sensor and lens does not reach out further. It simply is less of the image than what you get from a FF camera. Right?
cb4photo -- I'm looking forward to your decision and findings.
I don't beleive so... But let's get some second opinions.
OneTwoFiftieth | Portland, Oregon | Modern Portraiture
My Equipment:
Bodies: Canon 50D, Canon EOS 1
Lenses: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8
Lighting: Canon 580EXII, Canon 420 EX, 12" Reflector, Pocket Wizard Plus II (3), AB800 (3), Large Softbox
Stability: Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 Tripod, Manfrotto 488RC4 Ball Head, Manfrotto 679B Monopod
The effect of the reduced FOV may be compared to an increase in focal length relative to "full frame" imagers. The actual focal length does not change but rather the "effective" focal length changes by the so called "crop factor" of the sensor, usually 1.5x for Nikon, Pentax, FujiFilm, Sony and Samsung crop cameras, 1.7x for Sigma, 1.6x and 1.3x for Canon and 2x for Olympus, Panasonic and Leica crop cameras.
It would be nice if everyone used the same nomenclature in describing the effect of lenses on crop imagers, but you will hear it described in any number of different fashions. While some descriptions are more technically accurate than others I don't think any are worth an argument.
If someone tells me that a lens "becomes" this or that on a crop imager I just translate the terms into what makes sense to me and continue the conversation. No biggee.
The terms that I try to use are "equivalent focal length" and "reduced FOV". I think that those phrases are both accurate and reasonably well understood.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I understand the lens conversion, the 1.6, that i would lose my wide angles. I guess what I was really wondering is how far has the advancements in image sensors come in the last five years. Would I get bigger files? Would there be a noticeable difference in quality, color, sharpness?
Once again, thanks to all who have replied,