Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: IMAGE QUALITY: D3, D300 vs. 1D/1Ds Mk III vs. ZD  (Read 27994 times)
Snook
Guest
« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2007, 09:16:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been using the 1Ds,1dsMII and 5D, for several years now for Magazines double page spreads the size of W and V magazines, Billboards AS big as you can imagine and NEVER have I had one complaint,even from my self, about the quality! Period
Yes I have been disappointed about some lens quality.
Medium Format I think it for people that want the most dynamic range possible and that do HUGE prints for art and photo type Prints.
It does not surprise me that Annie is using the 1DsMII. Many are using the 1DsMII and will use the 1DsMIII.
I personally feel the MFD gives a little more 3D look, But it might be my wishful thinking as well.
I have download several images from Phase and from Leaf and They really are Not ALL that different to my eyes.
Of course I do not print that big so that is where the difference comes in maybe.
Or maybe you can crop in more with the extra MegaPixels...
One things I worry about is that even with the 1DsMII I am going through external harddrives like wild fire and it is a constant saving and copying battle all the time.
I do shoot a lot but I would definelty have to shoot a lot less with a MFD camera as the space would really disappear quickly..:+]
I really wanted to go to Medium format for the Bigger Viewfinder the nicer lens etc... Not so much for the "better" quality as I have been fine with the 1DsMII.
The ZD was going to be a way to "check" out MFD with out breaking into my profits which would take a big chunk that my clients atleast are not willing to pay extra for as everything has been fine with out it..
Snook
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2007, 08:04:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Anybody Shot the ZD with an RZIId yet?
Snook
Logged
wilburdl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 27, 2007, 10:26:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I still believe that the differences between the image quality in the ZD and 1DsIII will be very minimal at best. With the step up to 14bits 35mm is making a hard case to be considered as the go-to format for people shooters. Obviously, for special applications--i.e. big job, you'd go to a bigger format but that's for the high end shooters... Everybody else will just continue to rent those backs when the job calls for it. 1Ds (series) will continue to rule the glossy pages IMO.
Logged

Darnell
Editorial Photographer | Cartoonist
darnellwilburn.com
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2007, 03:13:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps this will force Canon to give up the 1.3x crop factor sensor, and only keep the full frame & the 1.6x crop sensor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed.

Just one week ago I believed that there was a big inherent price difference between Canon's 19x28mm 1D format (1.3x) and 24x36mm, partly based on repeated statements from Canon to that effect, including Canon's correct statement that in general steppers impose a chip size limit of 26x33mm unless special, slower and more complicated procedures are used. This 26x33mm is the standard size used by most Canon and Nikon steppers, and in particular no current Nikon stepper goes larger AFAIK.

But now the Nikon D3 is priced at only $500 (11%) more than the 1DMkIII. The cost gap might still be there, with with Nikon accepting low margins, either in an attempt to take turn from Canon, or on the basis of higher sales volume than the 1Ds series which makes lower margins profitable. But maybe the sensor cost barrier is not so great a problem in this high price range.

Either way, Canon has worked very hard to make people believe that "bigger is better and crops are bad", so it will be hard to launch a 1DMkIV with a smaller sensor than its Nikon competitors and 1.3x crop, especially with no matching "19x28 format lenses".

So I expect 24x36 format in the next high frame rate professional body from Canon, and thus in all future high end professional bodies from Canon.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2007, 01:53:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is no question that the ZD beats 1Ds Mk III and D3 in image quality hands down (low ISO). 

Tests need to be done to verify or disprove this.

But I think a key point is that the 1DsIII uses a full frame sensor, and so is using the entire image circle. The ZD is still a cropped format, so is using a cropped image circle. Presumably the Mamiya has room to grow.

I recall reading years ago that MF lenses do not resolve as highly as 35mm ones. I'm not sure if that is true.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7975



WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 30, 2007, 04:03:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But now the Nikon D3 is priced at only $500 (11%) more than the 1DMkIII. The cost gap might still be there, with with Nikon accepting low margins, either in an attempt to take turn from Canon, or on the basis of higher sales volume than the 1Ds series which makes lower margins profitable. But maybe the sensor cost barrier is not so great a problem in this high price range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cost and price have nothing to do with each other, it has always been clear that Canon was making very large margins on the 1ds2.

Besides, Nikon has overall been able to provide more features per Yen than Canon in the past few years. Whether it means that they make less margin or whether it means that their production process is more optimized is anybody's guess.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Kevin W Smith
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 30, 2007, 02:06:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Cost and price have nothing to do with each other, it has always been clear that Canon was making very large margins on the 1ds2.

Besides, Nikon has overall been able to provide more features per Yen than Canon in the past few years. Whether it means that they make less margin or whether it means that their production process is more optimized is anybody's guess.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My guess is that Nikon is working on slimmer margins than Canon, might even lose money on some models while they try to restore market share. Pretty common business practice when you're behind the curve and trying to catch up.

Then again, we don't know how Canon is amortizing their CMOS manufacturing investment. It's hard to believe they'll make any money on the upcoming 40D, it's a whole lot of camera for the money.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7975



WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2007, 05:27:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My guess is that Nikon is working on slimmer margins than Canon, might even lose money on some models while they try to restore market share. Pretty common business practice when you're behind the curve and trying to catch up.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My analysis happens to be different. Nikon has been producing bodies in Thailand for a few years now. They have a very large facility with about 15.000 people there.

I believe that this one of the keys to their agressive pricing.

Another aspect is that they buy their sensor from Sony and these standard parts end up being probably cheaper than the in house sensors made by Canon since they are manufactured in significantly larger numbers.

Canon has been pretty bad at standardization, most of their bodies use different sensors while the Nikon lineup has been based on having different bodies use the same sensor (D50 and D70s, D40x and D80 for instance).

My feeling is that Canon will soon be unable to compete on price in the low end if they stick to using in house sensors that end up having little performance advantage if any. They are already using Sony sensors for their compact cameras, I wonder if pride and image are not the only 2 things that keep them from doing the obvious: select a standard part instead of making their own at a higher cost.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 30, 2007, 06:37:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder if pride and image are not the only 2 things that keep them from doing the obvious: select a standard part instead of making their own at a higher cost.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Two points -

Your sources for stating Canon's CMOS sensors are made at a higher cost?

Canon just announced a big factory (in Japan) to manufacture CMOS sensors for digicams. They are obviously shifting away from using other brand sensors in as many of their products as possible.
Logged

Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2007, 08:25:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes they are buying chips from sony at this time, BUT this will also change soon. Canon is investing a lot in beeing able to produce all there chips and that is most of the time better fro a company.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7975



WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 30, 2007, 11:49:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes they are buying chips from sony at this time, BUT this will also change soon. Canon is investing a lot in beeing able to produce all there chips and that is most of the time better fro a company.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Using an automotive example, how do you explain that the fraction of car sub-components manufacturered by suppliers has been growing every single year to reach a level of about 70 to 80% nowadays?

Why did GM sell Delphi and why did Ford sell Visteon?

The only reason why engines are not sub-contracted on a wide bases yet is that there are not so many manufacturers who are willing to share their expertise. Besides, it isn't that easy to design a car without anything to say about the engine you will be using.

Electronics is even more advanced in this trend, very few of our household appliances use components manufactured by the OEM we buy the product from.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 7975



WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 31, 2007, 12:01:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Two points -

Your sources for stating Canon's CMOS sensors are made at a higher cost?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I confess that I do not have insider information on this point, but I don't see why Canon would be able to escape from the well known laws of economics and manufacturing. If you make 3 times more of something, you can mostly reduce your cost significantly.

This is backup by the fact that nikon makes record profits while selling at low prices cameras using these sensors while offering a physical quality overall superior to the Canon counterparts. Granted, this could result form the fact that Nikon manufactures in thailand.

Quote
Canon just announced a big factory (in Japan) to manufacture CMOS sensors for digicams. They are obviously shifting away from using other brand sensors in as many of their products as possible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, but that move would probably be driven from the idea that the current Sony CCDs for digicams suck, and we all know that they do.

As far as DSLR chips go, the gap of performance between Sony and Canon is really small as we speak.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #52 on: September 01, 2007, 05:46:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Using an automotive example, how do you explain that the fraction of car sub-components manufacturered by suppliers has been growing every single year to reach a level of about 70 to 80% nowadays?

Why did GM sell Delphi and why did Ford sell Visteon?

The only reason why engines are not sub-contracted on a wide bases yet is that there are not so many manufacturers who are willing to share their expertise. Besides, it isn't that easy to design a car without anything to say about the engine you will be using.

Electronics is even more advanced in this trend, very few of our household appliances use components manufactured by the OEM we buy the product from.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I can answer one question here-
GM sold Delphi basically to break a union contract. The Delphi workers had a traditional UAW-style contract, meaning fairly decent health care and retirement benefits. GM kept demanding ever lower prices from Delphi, which was forced to compete just like any other vendor for their business. This led its management to basically gut the company trying to reduce costs. Once they had stripped it down to the bare skeleton and costs couldn't be reduced any further, management demanded massive give-backs from the union, then torched the company and sold the debris.
Logged
thierryd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 48


WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 02, 2007, 04:00:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Tests need to be done to verify or disprove this.
I recall reading years ago that MF lenses do not resolve as highly as 35mm ones. I'm not sure if that is true.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is true. But there is such a gap between a 24x36 and a 4x5" (or even a 6x6 cm), than it doesn't matter even with less resolving lenses. On a film, MF is far better than slr.
But the gap is not so high with digital, between a 24x36 and a 48x36 mm sensor.
Logged
John_Black
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 263


WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 02, 2007, 06:45:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We know....
1) Image quality of the 1D Mk III seem like a crop of 1Ds Mk III.
2) There is nothing in the D3 that speaks of a very significant imrovement in image quality over other DSLRs.
3) The image quality of the ZD or any medium format digital is a very significant improvement in image quality of any DSLR.

With the D3 Nikon has presented a 36 x 24 mm sensor based DSLR with what sonds like highly competitive image quality compared to other DSLRs. The D3 has high ISO capabilities. The sensor in D3 is unlike medium format sensors such as the ZD not focused on ISO 50-400. Nikon seem serious in going after the sports and PJ market with what they need. Assumably since they have done their homework on doing so, one could speculate that what is rumored that they will present in six months is something serious for higher MP in high image quality at perhaps lower ISO.

Canon simply took the 1D Mk III's 1.3x crop sensor and made it 36 x 24mm 1.0x. Nikon cannot do that. They need to use a higher MPand high quality 36 x 24mm sensor, or else their upcoming camera may not have image quality to compete with the now announced D3. My thinking is thus on what sensor could do such a task?

Assumably that sensor/camera will have less image quality than my one month old Mamiya ZD camera.... or else slight dissappointment since I am in process of selling all my Nikon gear. Of course... what matters is images... and my ZD will still help me capture nice images.    If I am not misstaken, no DSLR (except ZD) has yet been built with a quality sensor from Dalsa or Kodak, or could that be up for a change? Or could a 36 x 24mm sensor from other sensor fabricator do the task, perhaps Foveon or Fuji type???

Regards
Anders
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When did (28.7mm x 18.7mm) x 2 = 36mm x 24mm?  The 1D3 white paper talked about ISO (noise) improvements; whereas the 1Ds3 white paper says ISO is similar to the 1Ds2.  The 1Ds3 also incorporates distortion, light fall-off and CA corrections via DPP.  It's safe to assume those corrections would be different for a cropped sensor.  Frankly, you're making some pretty big assumptions when we have no sample images from the 1Ds3 (or the Nikon D3).
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #55 on: September 03, 2007, 02:40:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We know....
1) Image quality of the 1D Mk III seem like a crop of 1Ds Mk III.
2) There is nothing in the D3 that speaks of a very significant imrovement in image quality over other DSLRs.
3) The image quality of the ZD or any medium format digital is a very significant improvement in image quality of any DSLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We certainly do not _know_ the first two, and the third is also debatable, at least until the 1DsMkIII amd D3 have been compared to various MF options.

On (1), the 1DMkIII has larger photosites than the 1DMkIII and Canon claims lower noise at high Exposure Index (EI, or ISO), while a 1.3x crop from the 1DsMkIII give more pixels than the 1DMkIII, and so probably somewhat higher resolution. The 1DMkIII sensor it is not simply a 1.3x crop of the 1DsMkIII sensor; they offer different noise/resolution trade-offs.

On (2), Nikon claims a major improvement in IQ for the D3, in the area of lower noise at high Exposure Index. That might not interest you, but it cannot be ignored when asking if the D3 offers any significant IQ improvements.

The claims of reduced high EI noise also hint at improved dynamic range (reasonable, as it has the largest photosites of any DLSR sensor since the original 1Ds). This is because the sensor is claimed to have several stops higher usable EI and so probably several stop less shadow noise at equal EI, with only a one stop increase in minimum EI (base-ISO speed).
Logged
Paul Kay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2007, 02:28:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I figure that the point is often being missed in discussions such as these. Image quality arguments seem to lack the practicality side of things IMHO. I shoot using fast lenses (the fast Canon 'L' fixed focals from 24 to 85) in low light and anticipate using such lenses for the foreseeable future. The D3 is a very appealing camera to me (I am an ex-Nikon user) but to be perfectly blunt about it, Nikon simply don't build the lenses that I want to use, so debates over their cameras versus others interest me only as much as the possibility of them producing lenses appropriate to my needs to match their cameras.

No discussion about image quality can be complete without reference to the lenses usable to lay down the image in the first place and I personally would be interested to hear from specialist photographers about which camera/lens/sensor combination is used or would be of greatest interest to them. Polarisation on brand is something which palls after a time with nuances often becoming overly important. In this case the Mamiya would be of no interest to me even if it had substantially better image quality but I would be interested to hear from other photographers who shoot low light about their lens/sensor desires/experiments.
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 493



WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2007, 12:29:15 PM »
ReplyReply

On pricing between Canon and Nikon, there is more there than just the costs associated with manufacturing. It's a little like Porsche and Chevy. A 911 will always cost more than a Corvette. The Corvette provides tremendous value for the dollar, but Porsche isn't about to drop the price on the 911 because the Corvette is cheaper.

For many years, it's been perceived (rightly or wrongly) that in the digital arena, Canon provides a better product. (The technical innovation has certainly surpassed most of the competition.) As such, they believe their product is worth what they charge, regardless of competition. The 1Ds2, has held pretty steady at $8K because it has no direct competition. Even the 1Dxx has held pretty steady because, while the D2x comes close, to Canon, it's no cigar.

The advent of the new D300 and D3 may have a very slight pricing effect on the new Canons (or at least the 1D3), but not much. The 5D has seen far greater discounting because it's perceived by Canon as not a top-tier camera on the level of the 1-series, and therefore more at risk from Nikon competition.

Personally, I wouldn't trade my Canon's for anything else on the market. I think, after all these years, Nikon has finally hit the sweet spot with it's new cameras.

Nemo
Logged

Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 460


WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2007, 01:21:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On pricing between Canon and Nikon, there is more there than just the costs associated with manufacturing. It's a little like Porsche and Chevy. A 911 will always cost more than a Corvette. The Corvette provides tremendous value for the dollar, but Porsche isn't about to drop the price on the 911 because the Corvette is cheaper.

For many years, it's been perceived (rightly or wrongly) that in the digital arena, Canon provides a better product. (The technical innovation has certainly surpassed most of the competition.) As such, they believe their product is worth what they charge, regardless of competition. The 1Ds2, has held pretty steady at $8K because it has no direct competition. Even the 1Dxx has held pretty steady because, while the D2x comes close, to Canon, it's no cigar.

The advent of the new D300 and D3 may have a very slight pricing effect on the new Canons (or at least the 1D3), but not much. The 5D has seen far greater discounting because it's perceived by Canon as not a top-tier camera on the level of the 1-series, and therefore more at risk from Nikon competition.

Personally, I wouldn't trade my Canon's for anything else on the market. I think, after all these years, Nikon has finally hit the sweet spot with it's new cameras.

Nemo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The Difference is Canon still has the edge marketing wise. Nikon has yet to produce and ship a camera with more than 12MP, much less a full frame one. So the Canon 1Ds mk2 with 16MP STILL stands alone at the top and the 1Ds mk3 will, for years. Its not until Nikon challenges the 1Ds directly with a camera that is full frame and close to it in MP at a lower price that Canon will budge. They will have to budge. The Canon 5D was ahead of its time when introduced. Maybe Canon though Nikon was on the verge of releasing their own full frame DSLR then at a much lower price than the 1Dsmk2 so Canon wanted to add a lower priced full frame alternative. Even though the D300 and D3 were introduced we will have to wait for those cameras to be shipped AND be widely tested and used for them to have credibility, only then will they really affect pricing on the Canons. If the IQ turns out amazing on the D3 then Canon will probably budge but probably not until Nikon introduces and ships the D3x with 16-20MP.
Logged
richs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #59 on: September 09, 2007, 02:25:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Brief user report on the D3 by a sports pro here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...essage=24736304

Regards,

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

Ad
Ad
Ad