5D and 1D question

[Derrel]

When the Canon 1D came out, the 1.3x size sensor was a compromise between sensor size, and cost of sensor. It is often referred to as being an "APS-H-size" sensor. According to Canon's Chuck Westfall, the 1.3x sensor was a compromise that Canon made, years ago, and that now that prices and fabrication to create 24x36mm size sensors are lower, and easier and more-efficient, Canon would be discontinuing the 1.3x or APS-H size, and going to the FF or roughly 24x36mm size, and MERGING the 1Ds FF "high-resolution" body and the 1D "speed" body into one,single model the 1DX.

The Canon 1D has been iterated multiple times. It has always been a high-quality, well-made machine, capable of superb results for the era in which it was current. Well, except for the thousands of 1D Mark III models that could not autofocus quite right, for 18 months....that's why the Mark IV was introduced. That was a huge, huge issue that Canon never really could get sorted out in the right way, and it caused huge public relations nightmares for them, and a lot of bad feelings. Back to your question: the 1D versus the 5D. I own a 5D and have for years, and it is a CHEAP BODY, with very,very basic subsystems...it is like an EOS ELAN 7, or in other words, a $389 film-era body, with digital guts. A Canon 1D is another animal--it is built tough, fast, and SOLID.

 

[ronlane]

Thanks to everyone for helping me understand better about the 1D and the 5D.

 

[swiftparkour94]

Which 1D are you talking about because the 1DSmk1/2 and3 are full frame

^ this