Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CANON 1DS Mark lll  (Read 45346 times)
KenRexach
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2006, 10:23:17 AM »
ReplyReply

The site clearly says its a 1Ds Mark II N, so its probably going to be a slight upgrade from the current 1Ds mk II just like the 1D mark II N was to the 1D mark II.

Basically, larger lcd screen, a tad more speed (memory/buffer etc) and some other options like picture styles etc., which are basically internal software upgrades. Mecanically and sensor wise the camera should be the same as the current 1Ds mk II.

Longshot posibilities are a crop mode and maybe more MP but its doubtful at this point.
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2006, 04:45:23 AM »
ReplyReply

This is something I find interesting in the progression of photography. At some point we will have enough data to show with one wide angle lens at a specific aperture and just take the entire scene in without care for composition or anything else. Then we'll just start cropping the image like we want it. In other words, just shoot big and crop into the image what you should have done anyway while taking the picture. Better yet, just pay someone 20.00 US to take your camera out to a predefined location, for landscapes, set it on the tripod, and tell them to press the button while aiming at the horizon 100 times while the sun sets in aperture priority at F11. They don't even need to get the horizon line level. Use a good 20mm prime. We are being replaced by our superior counter parts--machines. I mean think about it. You can create an entire album using a hardware synth machine and a computer. If you don't believe it, listen to either The Prodigy, "The Fat of the Land" or The Chemical Brothers, "Dig Your Own Hole." Not one instrument on either album, but you would never know it. And the first song on "Fat of the Land," although it does have real vocals, extends digitally the range of the vocalists own voice to amazing ranges. I mean like no range any human could hit for that long--something like 2 minutes without breathing. And it sounds real, excepot you know no human could hold a note that long. It's pretty amazing. Go machines!  

Quote
- 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...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71842\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2006, 04:53:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Yep, because why should they expend anymore money now when they can keep doing R&D without the expense of production retool for a completely new model? They have the market cornered. The next big leap in digital photography from Canon will come when some competition thumps them with a practical update and newer technology that everyone just "has to have" and that uses Canon lenses. I mean that's what I would do--make a back that fits Canon lenses, let Canon make the lenses for your new company, and beat them at the camera back game by using all your capital on the back and not the lenses.

I also noticed Canon are now making digicams in the 400 dollar range. Is that a new venture for them?

Quote
The site clearly says its a 1Ds Mark II N, so its probably going to be a slight upgrade from the current 1Ds mk II just like the 1D mark II N was to the 1D mark II.

Basically, larger lcd screen, a tad more speed (memory/buffer etc) and some other options like picture styles etc., which are basically internal software upgrades. Mecanically and sensor wise the camera should be the same as the current 1Ds mk II.

Longshot posibilities are a crop mode and maybe more MP but its doubtful at this point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: July 28, 2006, 05:01:03 AM by dwdallam » Logged

Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2006, 08:59:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is something I find interesting in the progression of photography. At some point we will have enough data to show with one wide angle lens at a specific aperture and just take the entire scene in without care for composition or anything else. Then we'll just start cropping the image like we want it. In other words, just shoot big and crop into the image what you should have done anyway while taking the picture. Better yet, just pay someone 20.00 US to take your camera out to a predefined location, for landscapes, set it on the tripod, and tell them to press the button while aiming at the horizon 100 times while the sun sets in aperture priority at F11. They don't even need to get the horizon line level. Use a good 20mm prime. We are being replaced by our superior counter parts--machines. I mean think about it. You can create an entire album using a hardware synth machine and a computer. If you don't believe it, listen to either The Prodigy, "The Fat of the Land" or The Chemical Brothers, "Dig Your Own Hole." Not one instrument on either album, but you would never know it. And the first song on "Fat of the Land," although it does have real vocals, extends digitally the range of the vocalists own voice to amazing ranges. I mean like no range any human could hit for that long--something like 2 minutes without breathing. And it sounds real, excepot you know no human could hold a note that long. It's pretty amazing. Go machines!

I agree with everything you say.  But realistically for a 20mm to crop down to 600mm I'd need even more mpx than 24

Take a browse of Ray Kurzweil's - the Singularity is Near.  One of his thoughts is that given the exponential growth in the areas of bio-tech, computers and nanotechnology by 2050 the distinction between man and machine will very very blurry.

I hope the fact  "You can create an entire album using a hardware synth machine and a computer." isn't new news to you    I did that myself 20 years ago with a Commodore 64 with a Casio 1000 and a Yamaha DX7.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #44 on: July 29, 2006, 05:30:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hope the fact  "You can create an entire album using a hardware synth machine and a computer." isn't new news to you    I did that myself 20 years ago with a Commodore 64 with a Casio 1000 and a Yamaha DX7.
And Jean-Michel Jarre did it before you.
Logged

Jan
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8901


« Reply #45 on: July 29, 2006, 05:31:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree with everything you say.  But realistically for a 20mm to crop down to 600mm I'd need even more mpx than 24

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=71992\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just a few more, I'd say. How about 1.35 gigapixels on a 35mm sensor? If you cropped the image from a 20mm lens to the equivalent FOV of a 600mm lens (a crop factor of 30x) and provided lens technology had progressed to the point where a 20mm lens could be built that is diffraction limited at f1.4, delivering about 500 lp/mm at 50% MTF, then you could get a really noisy 1.5mp crop covering an area of around 0.8mmx1.2mm on the sensor. That's lower resolution than the D30 and probably much noisier than the cheapest current P&S digicam.

If you try to fit more than 1.35 gigapixels on the sensor, the pixel pitch would have to be smaller than the wavelength of red light (0.74 micron), which apparently would reduce efficiency significantly and increase noise dramatically. You would then also need a 20mm lens diffraction limited at an even larger aperture than f1.4, say f1. Just a bit unrealistic!  
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #46 on: July 29, 2006, 07:49:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just a bit unrealistic! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At this point in time, yes. Remember that the Hubble telescope is enhanced using hardware enhancement, which works very well and was unheard of 10 years ago. Unless is goes against quantum mechanics, the time will come when you can take a 3MP image and blow it up to 6 feet and have it look near perfect. Pixel density isn't the only thing that can make a giant picture from a small crop. Remember too that it is impossible for humans to add more than two numbers at a time, but computers can do multiple calculations all at the same time--that would have seemed like sorcery 200 years ago. But you know where I'm going of course. It will happen. On another note, I read or watched a program where computer scientists said that in teh next 100 years, we will gain more knowledge into the workings of physics, chemistry, biology and all otehr areas of technology, not to mention computers--in other wrods, technological advancement will progress faster in the next 100 years than it has in the last 2, 000 by a factor of over 10x. That is mind bogling.

To give you an exmaple, in a tech magazine I read a few years ago there was a one page essay on motherbaords. At MIT (or another technology institution) a group of people programmed a computer with all known information relevant to build a motherboard. Well, it spit out a blueprint, and even though the engineers did not understand how some of the things the computer desinged would work, built it anyway to the exact specs that the computer called for.  They had a picture of it, and it was a strange thing indeed. I remember thiking it looked like something out of the Borg on Star Trek. It had pipes and weird shaped electronic devices all over it, with strange shaped sphere like appendages. They installed it, and sure enough, it outperformed anything we have built to that time. Engineers said they have no idea what the strange looking appendanges are for, but it worked, and it was very fast.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8901


« Reply #47 on: July 29, 2006, 08:30:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Unless is goes against quantum mechanics, the time will come when you can take a 3MP image and blow it up to 6 feet and have it look near perfect. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We can do that already. It just depends on how far away you are viewing the image. Appearances are appearances. Reality is something else.

I vaguely remember we've had this conversation before. Interpolation does not create additional information. It just makes an image look smoother; removes the jaggies on edges.

However, given sufficient computing power, sophisticated algorithms might be able to make guesses that are sometimes accurate. Was it Descartes who claimed, if we could know the exact position and velocity of every atom in the universe, we could predict the future for all time? I believe we now understand that idea goes against the theories of Quantum Mechanics.
Logged
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2006, 12:15:28 AM »
ReplyReply

YOu are referring to the Heisenberg  Uncertainity Principle. THis principle states that one cannot measure values (with arbitrary precision) of certain conjugate quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle. These pairs include the position and momentum. Mathematics provides a positive lower bound for the product of the uncertainties of measurements of the conjugate quantities. The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927.
Quote
We can do that already. It just depends on how far away you are viewing the image. Appearances are appearances. Reality is something else. This principle

I vaguely remember we've had this conversation before. Interpolation does not create additional information. It just makes an image look smoother; removes the jaggies on edges.

However, given sufficient computing power, sophisticated algorithms might be able to make guesses that are sometimes accurate. Was it Descartes who claimed, if we could know the exact position and velocity of every atom in the universe, we could predict the future for all time? I believe we now understand that idea goes against the theories of Quantum Mechanics.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8901


« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2006, 02:57:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
YOu are referring to the Heisenberg  Uncertainity Principle. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you, MarkKay. It's always helpful to know what one is talking about   .
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #50 on: July 30, 2006, 06:59:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At this point in time, yes. Remember that the Hubble telescope is enhanced using hardware enhancement, which works very well and was unheard of 10 years ago.
I'm not sure where you get these ideas from, but:

1) The wavelengths of visible light won't change in the foreseeable future; that is just an obstacle we won't get past. We might be able to make better use of other wavelengths of electromagnetic waves, but that's something different.

2) The hardware enhancements of Hubble haven't been revolutionary to technology or science in themselves, but they have occasionally been very clever engineering feats.
Logged

Jan
ddolde
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


« Reply #51 on: July 30, 2006, 01:50:28 PM »
ReplyReply

CameraWest is taking preorders already !

http://www.camerawest.com

When I asked him if he had any specs he said he should know more in August.
Logged
alainbriot
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



WWW
« Reply #52 on: July 30, 2006, 02:28:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
CameraWest is taking preorders already !
http://www.camerawest.com
When I asked him if he had any specs he said he should know more in August.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Looks like this website isn't concerned by non-release agreements!
Logged

Alain Briot
Author of Mastering Landscape Photography, Mastering Composition, Creativity and Personal Style., Marketing Fine Art Photography and How Photographs are Sold.
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
fnagy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35



WWW
« Reply #53 on: July 30, 2006, 07:59:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey everybody,

I like to fantasize and wish for things too in new equipment, but am not really enthusiastic about paying for new bodies.

Yes there are things that can improve the 1DS II, that has been covered in length by more eloquent individuals.

But hey, every camera has its positives and negatives, we make our descisions based on preferences and shooting styles and adapt.  The 1DS II has been a great camera for how and what I shoot, no real problems that have been disasterous, a real reliable workhorse if you maintain it regularly, keeps on ticking!

We can go on and on about what is better etc. the price as value per usable and valuable images, really make it.

I have shot with Zeiss lenses, as well as Nikon and some lot of Leica, as well as Blad lenses and an assortment of Rodenstock and Schnieder glass, and wish that Canon would get it's act together to produce usable wide angle lenses (both zoom and fixed!).  I hope that this is what they have in mind and not just a new 1DS III,  I do not really care about that right now, maybe later I will change my mind about it,  just give me glass that can match the sesor's performance and I would be one very satisfied individual.
Logged

Love & Peace
Frank
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2006, 04:11:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not sure where you get these ideas from, but:

1) The wavelengths of visible light won't change in the foreseeable future; that is just an obstacle we won't get past. We might be able to make better use of other wavelengths of electromagnetic waves, but that's something different.

2) The hardware enhancements of Hubble haven't been revolutionary to technology or science in themselves, but they have occasionally been very clever engineering feats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your two points are actually what I was getting at. But at one time wasn't the Hubble a little out of focus, but either softwre or hardware allowed the images to be enhanced to a very much higher and more useful level that without enhancement? If I'm correct, then why can not similar technology do the same for digital camera images? That's all I meant and I did not mean to get into a scientific debate about the physics of light--which I admit I have little if any useful knowledge.
Logged

janagten
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #55 on: July 31, 2006, 05:05:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Looks like this website isn't concerned by non-release agreements!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72168\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

my shop whispered me 1dsmkIIn and 50mmL1.2
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2006, 06:22:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Your two points are actually what I was getting at. But at one time wasn't the Hubble a little out of focus, but either softwre or hardware allowed the images to be enhanced to a very much higher and more useful level that without enhancement? If I'm correct, then why can not similar technology do the same for digital camera images? That's all I meant and I did not mean to get into a scientific debate about the physics of light--which I admit I have little if any useful knowledge.
Yes, similar technology can do the same for digital camera images, and that similar technology is:

 - DxO Optics Pro
 - PTLens

... or, in some simple cases, just the lens correction tools in your raw converter.

Basically, Hubble's optics weren't of quite the quality that they wished for, and until they could replace the parts, they had to fiddle in software.

Also keep in mind that space telescopes and similar usually don't have the most advanced available technology, because they tend to spend a lot of time testing and checking the stuff before sending it into space. They're interested in "proven" technology, too. It's more important to have decent quality and premium reliability than the hippest, newest thing.
Logged

Jan
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8195



WWW
« Reply #57 on: August 02, 2006, 05:44:52 PM »
ReplyReply

This is an interesting discussion, but I see it falling a little bit into the easy "progress has no limit" trap.

Progress has very clear limits, and these are the laws of physics, that we can reasonnably assume to have very good models of at this stage.

When people at Betterlight advise against buying their higher definition models (higher than 6000 * 8000) for landscape use because of how diffraction will affect image quality at apertures smaller then f8, you start to get a feel for the limits of progress...

My feeling is that we will at best get middle format sensors that go up to 10000 * 15000 pixels and - MAYBE - 24*36 mm sensors around 5000 * 7500 with foveon like pixels, not more than that - and that will pretty much be the end of it in terms of resolution.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
williamrohr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 14, 2006, 10:52:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been doing a number of resolution tests recently with long lenses.  I am increasingly impressed with the little effect ISO setting up to 400 has on measured resolution in the digital realm.  Given that and the nonexistent stock of RS film cameras ... a RS digital camera would be a market winner .... and would reduce the number of sources for mechanical malfunction .... and seal the sensor away from dust etc.   This would also increase the justification for bringing out new versions of the 50mm f1.0 and 200mm f1.8 ... and all us wildlife long lens nuts would die for the lowered mechanical vibration ...
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #59 on: August 15, 2006, 09:19:08 AM »
ReplyReply

One things that no one seems to have mentioned here when discussing how they think that the 1d and 1ds lines will be combined is the price.  I'm not totally current on my figures, but I know that the 1Ds II is signifigantly more than the Mk II N (thousands more!).  The 1d and its line is aimed straight up at PJs and the like, often times a very tight-budget group.  There's a reason you see so many using D200s and 20Ds, they just can't afford better.  Now, if you combine lines that ever further away from feasable for many working pros.

Thoughts?
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad