Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 1Ds3 specs up !  (Read 28609 times)
ronno
Guest
« Reply #80 on: August 28, 2007, 09:49:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
From the white paper (p12):

() At low ISO speeds, the dynamic range is about the same as that of the EOS-1Ds Mark II.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Right, but the Highlight Prio. does not work at low ISOs, only 200 and up, correct? So how's the D.R. at 200 and up?

Just wondering if someone with the 1D3 in hand might shed some light on perceived increases in D.R.

Thanks.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 09:52:40 AM by ronno » Logged
Kevin W Smith
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #81 on: August 29, 2007, 07:33:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I remember, years and years ago, Nikon used to make this "threaded sync cord" that would literally SCREW INTO THE BODY. That's what we need for tethering. Give it a "quick release" in the middle of the cable f you want, in case a makeup artist trips over the cord, similar to the MagSafe adaptor in the MacBook, but at least let it screw into the body and LOCK.

Nikon's still have that, BTW. You can use a standard PC synch cord or buy/build a treaded one.


There's absolutely no reason that the camera companies couldn't do something like that for data transfer/tethering, and I emailed both Canon and Nikon with that very suggestion a few years ago because I got sick of using photo tape to hold the tether cable in place.

All they have to do is provide a pigtail - a short cable with their proprietary camera jack on one end, and either USB or 1394 on the other. From there you'd run a standard cable to the computer. For extra security you could tape that connection, or they could supply both cords with a velcro strap that mates to the other side of the connector.

Frankly, USB or otherwise, I'm amazed that any camera is still using connecters that were made for computers, not cameras.

FWIW, USB2, if properly implemented (it rarely is) can transfer data at FW400 speeds. Case in point, the Lexar professional CF card readers. I have the USB version and a friend has the 1394 version, so we had a little drag race. The transfer times were too close to mention. Then we switched readers and he discovered that his aging Powerbook had a pretty slow USB2 interface, while either reader ran at the same speed on my desktop PC. BTW, their semi-pro USB2 card reader, the little gray one with the cover that flips down, runs at half the speed of their bigger Pro readers. Both say USB 2.0 on them, one runs twice as fast.
Logged
phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #82 on: August 30, 2007, 06:39:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Some user info via  http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_1DS_MkIII.html

"The firmware is still being tweaked, and testers get regular visits from a Canon rep to install new firmware and take detailed reports on problems/issues/performance. Some of the comments I've received (in no particular order)

Liveview focussing works a treat - people doing product work are loving it
Good lenses are showing their benefits, but others are not as bad as some had expected
The highlight tone priority is ideal for anyone working outside on sunny days :-)
People are using DPP to process the RAW files for the time being, although many are converting to DNG for further work.
Some of the amount of extra dynamic range that can be pulled out of the 14 bit files still needs some software tricks, but expect some pretty interesting results when the various specialist raw processing software vendors get to work.
Overall colour accuracy is a definite improvement over the 1Ds2, particularly noticeable in reds/skintones
The amount of fine detail visible suggests that a relatively weak (compared to 1Ds2) AA filter is in use. The improvement looks more than would be expected from the 16->21 MP increase.
The improved viewfinder really shows if you have to go back to using a 1Ds2
At A3 sizes(and above) prints and large glossy magazine images look noticeably better than the MK2
High ISO noise performance is much better (than the Mk2) with less chroma noise and better detail.
At 100 ISO there has been the suggestion of a bit more shadow noise - not visible in real work, and perhaps more suited to 'Angels on a head of a pin' arguments on DPR ;-)
Unless you are working in a very well lit studio environment the P25 MF back is easily matched, and a P45 can be bested if the lighting is not optimal."
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad