Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CANON 1DS Mark lll  (Read 45893 times)
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2006, 03:48:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What does seem clear, however, is that any resolution advantage of the 1Ds2 is so slight that professional photographers have great difficulty demonstrating the fact over the internet, which seems very odd to me because I have no difficulty demonstrating the superior resolving power of the 20D compared to the 5D, even using a medium quality lens like the Canon 100-400 IS at 400mm.

I think it's worth reminding people, in the context of what you have written, that to double resolution, it is necessary to almost quadruple megapixel count.

Bearing this in mind and being someone whose camera is:

a. Permanently on a tripod
b. Always set to RAW
c. Always set to Manual

All of the bells and whistles, as well as the tougher 'in the field' build quality, associated with the 1Ds Mark ll are irrelevant to me. And the 5D at sub $3k becomes a no-brainer! ;-)

D.
Logged
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2006, 03:58:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Canon have got it right to about 90% with the 1DS II, but a few things could be addressed with whatever follows.

Buffer speed can catch me out on some shoots.
Resolution is not such a big issue for me anymore, but less noise at high ISO would be usefull.
Most of the prime lenses are more then good enough, but the wides could be a bit better in the corners.
All the Tilt shifts are great..

I've hired medium format backs for a couple of shoots and I think they have a ways to go before they come anywhere near the D1S II 's for ease and speed of use and lens selection.
That's what I'm spending my money for..

David.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2006, 05:45:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I suspect the 35mm DSLR is already there
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60019\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would not be surprised if Canon were not to go much further with pixel count, but that would be partly due to insufficient demand to justify the R&D cost of the needed higher resolution lenses.

Technologically, it does seem quite feasable for 24x36mm format to have sensors with pixel spacing down to about 5 microns, and lenses that can keep up, which would get good old "24x36" to about 30MP. I believe this because
- the Sony CMOS sensor for the Nikon D2X, Kodak FFT CCD sensor for the E-300/E-500 and the Panasonic nMOS sensor for the E-330 show that roughly 5 micron pixel size can give quite good quality as far as dynamic range and such. Especially at low to moderate ISO speeds, which is surely where a large proportion of 30MP photography would be done.
- the Schneider and Rodenstock lenses for "large digital formats" also seem up to handling this 5 micron resolution, and what those companies can do for 60mm image circle (36x48mm), Canon can probably do for the slightly easier goal of 43mm image circle (24x36mm) ... at sufficiently high cost and weight!

P. S. I would love to see MTF data for the Fuji lenses for the Hasselblad-Fuji 645 system. Are they really sharper than the Mamiya, Zeiss/Kyocera/Contax or Pentax 645 lenses, as their high prices and some comments suggest? That is, did Hasselblad and Fuji set a higher standard, in preparation for digital needs?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2006, 05:49:30 PM by BJL » Logged
gguida
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2006, 10:17:32 AM »
ReplyReply

We may all be disappointed but I already booked my trip to Photokina just in case. According to all the speculations, there seems to be a few very straightforward scenarios:

1 - Photokina yields nothing (or just an N version with a larger screen). Canon, as everybody else, is working on next generation sensors and won't be ready to show anything until later next year. Doesn't sound very likely as all the others are trying hard to catch up and will come up with new stuff.

2 - We get a completely updated camera, smaller, with a modern interface, different battery, very high frame rate, larger pixel count etc.. Not impossible and most people expect just that. Tentative specs would be 20+MP (just because they can), 6 to 8 FPS (because that would be very useful and cancel the need for a separate 1D line), 5D-like interface (because the 1D interface is unnecessarily complex and because with Canon, ergonomic advances tend to trickle from medium range upwards) with 1D-like Build, AF and Metering (no need to change something that works). Could be made significantly smaller by using Li-Ion batteries. Again, possible but not so likely.

3 - We get halfways with an N type update and a new sensor but not much else. This is my personal favorite because it asks for the least effort from Canon. The advance in quality the 5D brought shames the old 16.7MP sensor so it seems urgent to bring it up to par. For marketing reasons, it would be necessary to increase the number of pixels so customers can be persuaded to trade up. Making the rest of the camera conform to 1D MkII N specifications is just a matter of picking parts in the common bin. The "magic" 22MP everybody has been mentioning is not that silly as it allows you to take your picture, crop a good chunk off it (necessary for layout even if the framing was perfect) and still print at optimum resolution on a double page spread, the publishing standard. So quite likely. Although it would make sense to make it as fast as possible to be able to get rid of the 1D, I am not sure it is technically possible now with that many pixels.

A playable joker would be the introduction of a 3D to complete the range (12MP 5D, 16MP 3D, 22MP 1D) and fill the gap left by the 1D Mk II in the price hierarchy if it is discontinued. If it is not, it probably deserves to be upgraded to 12MP.

I expect that Canon will be concentrating most of its efforts at Photokina on its new line of IPF printers with a 6000 and 7000/8000 joining the 5000 and 9000. They were not properly demonstrated in the previous photographic shows and need a good public introduction. The fact that Canon downplayed the photographic prowess of their previous large format printers for several years waiting for the IPF to come out probably means it's an important long term strategical device for them to which they will want to give its due soon.
Logged
n1x0n
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2006, 01:05:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Let's face it, our most critical viewing distance in terms of all round image quality is when we hold an A4 magazine or brochure in our hands.

Actually, i find B2 /50x70 cm. poster/ format to be THE most critical, since the usual use of such posters suggests viewing distances shorter /in relation to size/ than to A4.

Since most printing houses suggest 200dpi for large format printing - 22MP sensor will be the perfect one, since it gives exactly 50x70 at 200dpi. Any MP above that will be a wasted disk space for me.

After that? Let them deliver some extra DR, layered sensors, etc. but no more MP's please :-)
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2006, 01:09:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The "magic" 22MP everybody has been mentioning is not that silly as it allows you to take your picture, crop a good chunk off it (necessary for layout even if the framing was perfect) and still print at optimum resolution on a double page spread, the publishing standard. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll bet a beer on your #3.  

I also agree about the 22mpx.  I don't need 22 mpx to print a superb 17x25 (Michael's measuring megapixels DVD proved that for me) but I'm always getting caught by my desire to frame tightly (1d2) and avoid cropping since at 8 mpx I don't have a lot to spare.  For basic landscapes this isn't such a problem, but I would have had a lot more keepers from a recent shoot at the Toronto Grand Prix and even last weekend at the zoo if I could crop 22mpx ff down to about 11 or 12 at a 1.3 equivalent.

I can imagine the come-back now when someone asks me why I need 22mpx:  "I'm not a good enough photographer to rely on 10!"
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2006, 01:10:23 PM »
ReplyReply

to make the next big canon better or put it in the same category as MF backs, the least problem is resolution, as we can see from the 5D...25% less pixels but still in the same ballpark....the problem is pixel depth...if you want a 22 mipx camera with a 37x48mm sensor get the ZD, but you are still shooting 12 bit...all MF backs shoot 16 bit which is 4x the pixeldepth which is why they are slow and big and the filesizes are a joke..but they simply deliver much better color, DR and much much better transitions and the files have a lot more room for tweaking in PS (or other)...also the pixels are bigger and that is where canon has pretty much hit a wall because of the 24x36mm limit and i don't see them changing that anytime soon (as much i would love to see they come out with a 30x36 or something like that)
the 1DsmkIII will probably have a new sensor built on the one in the 5D, just more pixels, so it will be a 18?,20?mpix with incredibly(until the next) smooth 800asa and 6fps raw...all still at 12bit...hopefully a larger and better screen...and probably 15% more shots per battery charge...
i have no secret info, all i have to do is look at the last 5 years of canon (or other) releases and this is the next step..maybe there will be some surprises is one way or another, but all in all cameras have gotten more resolution, smoother files and faster processing..step by step...
and if you look at the prices, they have never really come down...this will be the top of the line, 1DsmkII (or even 1Ds) are still selling at top dollar (even used) so why should canon ruin their own market?
the step up from canon (if you are looking fro image quality) will always be MF backs...
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2006, 03:27:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
if you want a 22 mipx camera with a 37x48mm sensor get the ZD, but you are still shooting 12 bit...all MF backs shoot 16 bit
I was under the impression that several were 14 bpc.

Quote
which is 4x the pixeldepth
No, you double for each extra bit, so 4 extra bits means 16x.
Logged

Jan
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8385



WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2006, 04:46:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
to make the next big canon better or put it in the same category as MF backs, the least problem is resolution, as we can see from the 5D...25% less pixels but still in the same ballpark....the problem is pixel depth...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71643\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi there,

Agreed that bit depth is key, but I don't see why you look at the resolution issue this way.

Looking at it the other way around, you could say that Canon would have the potential to deliver a 22 MP camera whose outstanding sharpeness per pixel makes it look more like a 30MP one. The 12 MP D2x/5D have been shown numerous times to be close to the 1dsII in resolution with no disadvantage in terms of moire, this only shows that the 1ds2 is a poor performer.

Besides, this whole discussion does IMHO forget the most important element... The main problem of Canon with both the 1ds2 and 5d remans the wide angle lenses, and a 1ds3 or 2ds wouldn't interest me the least bit if Canon doesn't release a convincing new wide zoom with it.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2006, 04:59:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Besides, this whole discussion does IMHO forget the most important element... The main problem of Canon with both the 1ds2 and 5d remans the wide angle lenses, and a 1ds3 or 2ds wouldn't interest me the least bit if Canon doesn't release a convincing new wide zoom with it.
The unofficial word to parts of the Norwegian press is that Canon intends to release several new lenses in August or at Photokina. But whether that actually improves the situation or not remains to be seen; rumors are good but I remain skeptical until Canon displays the goods.
Logged

Jan
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 24, 2006, 07:10:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Re bit depth, I agree -- that is Canon's current Achilles heel.

So... What is the word on Canon's tri-color sensor?  

I think it is *possible* the 1Ds3 might be on the order of 18 to 24 MP, true-color capture FOVEON style.  Wouldn't that be sweet!

,
Logged

John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #31 on: July 24, 2006, 10:18:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Re bit depth, I agree -- that is Canon's current Achilles heel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I once thought so, but I have come to realize that the real bottleneck to DR is readout noise.  Every Canon has blackframe noise somewhere around a standard deviation of 2 at ISO 100 - much more than quantization noise.  Having an increase in bit-depth without a decrease in noise will have only a very small advantage that most people would never see.

Along with the deeper bit depth, you would also need better calibration of line-by-line blackpoint, and less random noise in the readout process.  12 bits can actually be a lot better than what we have now.
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 25, 2006, 12:41:06 PM »
ReplyReply

i absolutely agree that canon needs much better wideangle lenses...the ones available are junk...that is even obvious on the 1DmkII...
the 5D/1DsmkII comparison shows that every 6-12months the chips simply get improved and each pixel on these chips are simply of higher quality, so a chip with less pixels can actually compare with an older chip with higher resolution....this will never stop and the technology trickles down to consumer products...
i had a sigma/fovenon camera and loved it (the files) amazing what marketing (or lack of) and smaller marketshare can do to a superiour product....i can only hope that eventually all chips will be layered, but i think for now the existing technology will be milked to the max....can you imagine canon coming out with a 12mpix (or 36mpix on 3 layers) flagship? nobody (except for me) would buy it, because : hey you can buy a digicam with 10mpix for $600 now, why spend 8000 on 12?....resolution is like horsepower, a number that has to be seen in relation to the entire machine, a hummer with 500hp will never catch up to a golf with 200hp and i won't talk about handling, but both are very different and have different pros and cons (although i haven't seen any pros in a hummer:)....from my personal experience: the files from the 1DsmkII are great, but they are not even close (color, sharpness, depth..) to files from the P20 (even cropped to fit 8x10)..and both have 16mpix
Logged

DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 25, 2006, 01:25:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi there,

Agreed that bit depth is key, but I don't see why you look at the resolution issue this way.

Looking at it the other way around, you could say that Canon would have the potential to deliver a 22 MP camera whose outstanding sharpeness per pixel makes it look more like a 30MP one. The 12 MP D2x/5D have been shown numerous times to be close to the 1dsII in resolution with no disadvantage in terms of moire, this only shows that the 1ds2 is a poor performer.

Besides, this whole discussion does IMHO forget the most important element... The main problem of Canon with both the 1ds2 and 5d remans the wide angle lenses, and a 1ds3 or 2ds wouldn't interest me the least bit if Canon doesn't release a convincing new wide zoom with it.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71658\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I had heard a rumour that Canon was coming out with a series of Refractive Optics lenses which will have a blue ring on the end - something like 'L' with red rings, DO lenses with Green rings. These lenses will be targetted at the wider end of the range and complement the DO lenses which have traditionally been used at the telephoto end. Whilst the DO lenses are lighter, have less chromatic abberation the suffer a trade off in resolution, the RO lenses will have higher resolution, though will be heavier and perhaps have a bit more chromatic distortion.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267



WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2006, 01:54:20 AM »
ReplyReply

On a slightly different tack, don't be surprised if Canon releases something rather different (seperately from the MkIII) in the not too distant future. Something with bellows!  

Just a rumour I heard. But from a source that carries some weight.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9298



WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2006, 07:53:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dinarius, I suggest you read Michael's recent article on his latest digital system.  One of the take-home lessons from that article is that few of Canon's lenses hold up to the merciless resolving power of the 1Ds II.  It can be argued that even the best are being pushed to their limits.  It stands to reason that a higher-megapixel sensor in a 24x36 frame will simply exacerbate the problem.  In other words, we'd get more but lousier pixels.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=59977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that's accurate but the question is, does Canon (or any other manufacturer) think they will lead the market with a bigger chip (which I suspect is a lot harder than solving the problem above; fixing all the lens for digital)? Does Canon want to put one more nail in Nikon's coffin (full frame yet?). Same for medium format expensive backs. I suspect very, very few users need more pixels these days. That hasn't stopped these companies from trying to convince us otherwise.

Oh if they would only help us with software! Imagine if they played nice and supported .DNG or provided instructions as to how they render the in camera JPEGs so RAW converters could produce an identical default rendering of the RAW (go listen to Lightroom Podcast #10).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2006, 02:42:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I feel obligated to post the 1D MkIII picture again. It's obviously a fake since it has no Direct Print button.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

heh, those are always fakes. They're just "fun."
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2006, 02:45:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'll add this to the mix.  I found this post by Simon Dai over at RobGalbraith's forums:
(the bold emphasis is mine)

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A new lineup of the EFxL lenses. My stomach feels like puking. I just bought the 24-70L, the 70-200L IS, and the 16-35L less than a year ago.  I wonder what the resale price of those lens will be when the "new" truly digitally pushed lenses come out? I also wonder if my heart will withstand the stress of my buying those three lenses again? Very depressing, and at the same time good news.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2006, 03:10:44 AM »
ReplyReply

...
Logged

gguida
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2006, 06:30:05 AM »
ReplyReply

- I can imagine the come-back now when someone asks me why I need 22mpx:  "I'm not a good enough photographer to rely on 10!" -

I like that. I shoot mostly moving subjects and if I crop too tight in camera, I always seem to loose something important (leg, wing, wheel...) so by experience, I tend to pad generously, which means more cropping in post production. Even with a 16.7 MP camera, I then find that many of my pictures fall short of the 30MB files required by my stock agent. So the more MP, the better as far as I am concerned.

Even for those shooting landscapes, I don't see how 2/3 or 3/4 or square should always be the right ratio for the image. What I would really like is a very large square sensor I can crop any way I like after the shot.

And if people disagree, I can always say I am not good enough to shoot 10MP...
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad