Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: From D70 to a 1Ds  (Read 6588 times)
scout
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« on: June 05, 2005, 03:22:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not a big fan of the APC sized sensors, I'd rather have those larger light wells and the higher dynamic range that goes with them. As for the lenses, I'm not too heavily invested in Nikon glass. I agree that the Canon lenses are quite expensive, but you get what you pay for! I really like the versatility of the DX2, but I'm looking for the superior sensor.

btw, thank you for the responses, it helps!
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2005, 06:54:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Scout and Bernard - one more point - and again it is not my desire to re-open issues that have been debated to death on this forum, but anyone facing a D2X or Canon choice also needs to consider the post-capture processing issue, because post-capture processing is every bit as important as basic camera quality these days. I have no idea how well Nikon's RAW converter works either in terms of process or quality, but if it were me, I would not be attracted to a technology that has a lock on it preventing firms such as Phase and Adobe from making the kind of top notch RAW conversion software they are able to provide for cameras from other manufacturers who have not crippled access to critical code. This may or may not be a critical issue for everyone, but anyone buying a new camera should at least put it in the package of issues to consider.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2005, 05:40:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
MarkDS and jani,

   your observations on the 20D (and comparisons to the 1DII) make me wonder how good a successor could be that is at "EOS-3" or better level on the non-digital side.  Meaning using the same EF-S lens mount and "1.6x" sensor size, but with a viewfinder with a larger image size and 100% coverage, more rugged construction, and such.  The price difference on the non-digital parts might be under US$1,000, comparing film body prices: wouldn't such an option be appealing at under $2,500? In other words, leveraging the far high production volume and other economies of the mainstream sensor size.
Such a camera might be an easy sell to me.

But I'd like to add a couple of extra points to the wish list (before it's sent to Canon), some of which have been noted in other threads:

1) User interface

As the camera complexity grows, so does the user interface. Controls are becoming cumbersome, and buttons are either all over the place, too small, or protruding in an annoying manner. And please make it easier for me to change e.g. ISO sensitivity with mittens on.

2) More customizable controls, more stored preferences

The degree of customization in today's camera controls is so eighties-like. No, wait, in the eighties, they knew how to do it, it's later that we forgot. I'm willing to accept going through a bunch of menus to set up controls - once per setup. And let me store a dozen different setups if I want to.

I'm way too tired of forgetting to turn mirror lock-up off.

3) Built-in level

Because it can be done. Electronic view or an actual down-to-earth bubble level, anything's an improvement.

4) Choice of cryptographic protection of images

A cryptographic co-processor that allows the camera to write only encrypted data to storage if I want it to, for those precious or sensitive data that only you want. Use GPG (that nice brother of PGP) or some other public key crypto to solve this.

5) Self-cleaning sensor

A sensor that's at least partially self-cleaning, e.g. by using ultrasonic sound waves, preferably not of the kind that would disturb bats.

6) Easy cleaning of sensor

Accessing the sensor on my 20D is a royal PITA.

7) Replacable sensor

Seriously, why do we figure it's okay to shell out more money on a DSLR body these days than on a pro-level film body? And that's not even for the pro-level DSLRs! This also combines well with point 2 above. Serious disadvantage: controls must be redesigned. While we're day-dreaming: upgradable image processor and buffer memory, too.

Cool Removable/replacable non-visible light filter

Taking pictures of males or females in light clothing isn't the only use for IR photography. It would also be cool if the choice of removing the bayer filter (or substituting a custom filter) was there, too, but that would probably be even less practical. But consider the extra opportunities in selling extra gadgetry, Canon!

9) Multi-sequence exposure bracketing

Why only three? Why not e.g. "From -6 to +6, in 1-stop intervals"? 2/3-stop, 1/2-stop and 1/3-stop optional. That's two different settings only.

10) Give me my DEPTH mode back.

Feel free to keep A-DEPTH along for the ride, I don't care.

11) Persistent in-camera buffer

How about an in-camera buffer that can buffer pictures while the memory card isn't in the camera, until the buffer is full? 5 RAW shots are better than 0 (but I hope you'll double the buffer size).

12) Open RAW format

Please.

13) Open firmware

Let people introduce their own bugs, eh, features, too. Not a high priority, but definitely a cool thing. This could increase sales among nerds and geeks. You know, people who happily spend thousands of dollars on a piece of equipment because of the technical coolness factor. Market it as "Personalized EOS Digital" or somesuch.

14) Viewfinder information

Hey, Canon, look at your competition for a second. Nikon has taken some hints, such as displaying the chosen ISO level.

15) A rear LCD status monitor

The 350D has it, the Nikon D2X has it. But there's no need to drop the top LCD status monitor.

16) Connectivity

WLAN/WiFi might just as well be built-in, just don't forget the security features.

High-speed FireWire wouldn't hurt alongside regular maximum speed USB 2.0.

It would be really nice if the camera could utilize an external storage device (tethered, bluetooth, WLAN-based or whatever).

Ditto for GPS, it doesn't have to be built-in.

These peripherals pose a sales opportunity for Canon. Hey, maybe you guys could make a really small portable printer, so that we could do "polaroids" if we're on e.g. a street photography rampage. It could be a friendly gesture to the subject, hmm?

17) ISO sensitivity

Given how good ISO 3200 looks on the 20D, I'd be willing to accept the compromise of ISO 6400, if it were available.

18) Noise reduction

Could I please be allowed to choose different noise reduction settings, more or less aggressive, two or three different algorithms perhaps?

And while you're at it, check to see if the sensor is sufficiently protected against electronic noise from other parts of the camera or external sources.

19) Vertical grip

If you do make it optional as on the 20D, in order to cater for different markets, please don't make it both a) too expensive  too shoddy, as is the case today. You're losing money.

20) Exchangable grip

Come on, not everybody's hands are the same. You had this for the 650 back in '87, why not now? This can be outside the environmental seals, too.

21) Look to your competitors

I know I've mentioned Nikon earlier, but there are others with excellent ideas in terms of features, usability and what have you. Learn, adapt, license technology if you have to.


And to Canon's competitors: give'm a good run for the money. If your cameras are lacking in any of the above points, and you think you can implement them easily enough, some of them make for excellent selling points versus Canon.
Logged

Jan
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2005, 02:03:28 PM »
ReplyReply

While you're at it, a AF mode switch like the nikon's have, button press, twiddle dial, button press, all while having your eye away from the viewfinder is a royal PITA.

Oh the option of exposure lock with AF in all modes, not just evaluative, for those like me who focus recompose it's a real drawback not being able to use partial/spot metering unless I use a specific focal point over the face...
Logged

scout
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2005, 09:40:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello all! I'm new to this forum so I hope I'm not going over old ground here. I'm moving from Nikon to Canon, or more specifically, a D70 to the 1Ds. I'm in the process of doing my own research, but I thought I would ask for your opinions as to what to look out for (CF card issues, etc...).

Thank you!
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586


« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2005, 10:04:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, you'll be switching to a whole new set of lenses for basically nothing.  Give the D2x a try.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2005, 05:18:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Once you've decided to make that kind of investment, one assumes you've done your homework and know exactly why you are opting for a 1Ds versus a D2X. A second-hand 1Ds and a new D2X probably are not that far apart in price. I have been using a second-hand 1Ds since last October (you're talking the original model I presume, and not the Mark II). Mine has had about 20,000 activations. I am using 1GB Sandisk Extreme cards (they are well-priced, and in the rare event of a card failure there are only 73 or so images on it, rather than hundreds). I shoot RAW+JPG so I can view the JPGs on my Epson P-2000 (that is one issue - if you want to see the pictures on a P-2000 you need to shoot RAW+JPG with the 1Ds because the P-2000 cannot display 1Ds RAW files, but of course it can store them. The Epson P-2000 is just a great device for viewing and storage in field. See Michael's review of it.

I have really found nothing to "look out for" with this camera. The camera performs very reliably. I have had no issues with it. The electronics are by now a bit dated, so it is somewhat slower off the mark than the more recent 20D, for example. Also, it is more limited and awkward than the 20D for zooming images on the display, but the P-2000 is a far better display device than ANY digital camera viewing screen - the inconvenience being that you must transfer the card from the camera to the P-2000 and back.

Other than those few points - no complaints, no big ticket issues. It just works and works and delivers beautiful, well balanced, detailed images. I'm using a relatively inexpensive Canon 28-135 USM IS zoom lens and the more expensive IS USM DO 70 to 300 zoom lens. Both very satisfactory. Noise has not been troublesome except for some night pictures at 640 ISO or above, and Noise Ninja followed by PK Sharpener Pro disposes of it smartly without sacrificing detail.

I love the viewfinder - big bright image - makes you want to take pictures. And that raises an important point. Much of the choice between high-end cameras really depends on what "feels good" and that is very personal. If you can, you really should give yourself an opportunity to play with a Nikon D2X and a 1Ds, if only in the shop. Look at what you see through the viewfinder, get a feel for the controls and how thy're used on each model. That way, you'll have a better appreciation of what works best for you, because either one of them will give you great images regardless of the sensor size.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2005, 06:26:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Glad for your confidence, Bernard, because until I have a chance to test it - not obvious how or when - not sure what I would conclude, nor do I wish to get into a debate over something half of which I have no experience with. I'd have to see - there are so many dimensions, and my bottom line is always VISIBLE DIFFERENCES IN RESULTS for what is important to me, as well the ergonomics in handling and using the equipment. Whether designs are a bit newer or older matters only in terms of those criteria. That is why I think "Scout" should try to do some hands-on stuff and see what works best for him. He'll get great pictures either way.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
scout
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2005, 07:42:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard / Mark,

Thank you for helping me with my research, I value your
opinions! This is a big step for me as I'll be using the camera
to pay for itself (freelance PJ work, landscape, & potraits).
Don't worry, I have a full time job too
Anyone else want to add anything?

Take care,
Mike
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2005, 08:25:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Mike,

You are most welcome - but allow me to add one more thought. Now that you mention specifically the kind of work you will be doing with the camera, you may also wish to examine the relative merits of a Canon 20D. Professionals I know personally are using this at least as a second camera - and one very well known professional, the primary. Compared with the 1Ds, the reasons are related to its very speedy response time, relatively discrete presence and ease of handling, with built-in flash - all very useful stuff for photojournalism if that is what you mean by "PJ". These people have found that 8 MP is ample for landscape and portraiture work, especially without lots of cropping and for making prints up to or a bit larger than A3. Other key features of this camera are its relatively low price and the new Canon DIGIC II processor. (Bernard has a point that the size of the sensor isn't everything.) While it isn't built to the standard of a 1Ds (good as a weapon in case you get attacked taking photos with it) and the viewfinder image isn't as big (smaller sensor), I would suggest if cost is an issue you have a careful look at the 20D and read all you can about it before landing on a 1Ds or a D2X. Also examine the excellent work done with the 20D that Michael has displayed on this website. The trade-off here will be your judgment on cost versus adequacy relative to your needs (especially maximum print size).
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5120


« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2005, 11:08:42 AM »
ReplyReply

MarkDS and jani,

   your observations on the 20D (and comparisons to the 1DII) make me wonder how good a successor could be that is at "EOS-3" or better level on the non-digital side.  Meaning using the same EF-S lens mount and "1.6x" sensor size, but with a viewfinder with a larger image size and 100% coverage, more rugged construction, and such.  The price difference on the non-digital parts might be under US$1,000, comparing film body prices: wouldn't such an option be appealing at under $2,500? In other words, leveraging the far high production volume and other economies of the mainstream sensor size.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7745



WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2005, 02:12:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
4) Choice of cryptographic protection of images

A cryptographic co-processor that allows the camera to write only encrypted data to storage if I want it to, for those precious or sensitive data that only you want. Use GPG (that nice brother of PGP) or some other public key crypto to solve this.
Something like this?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060602lexarlocktight.asp

Unfortunately only supported by D2x and D2h so far.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 5120


« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2005, 10:27:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Jani,

just one comment, on even higher "ISO" speed settings. I am fairly sure that all current 3200 speed settings (and 1600 on many cameras) is done by "pushing" in the digital domain, with the on-chip analogue pre-amplification only going up to 800 or 1600. In other words, the sensor is set at ISO 1600 and then all the digital level numbers from the A/D converter get multiplied by two before gamma compression. That is what jargon like Canon's "enhanced H" and Nikon's "ISO boost" seems to mean.

If true, this means that
- higher speeds could probably be added by a simple firmware update (see your item 13!)
- Exactly the same effect can be achieved by underexposing one stop at 3200 (or -2 stops at the sensor's maximum operating speed of 1600), and then "pushing" in RAW conversion or whatever.
Logged
scout
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2005, 08:02:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I though I'd give some closure to this post. I decided to stick to my guns and have went with the 1Ds. I received
my lenses last night and I'll be undergoing a Canon indoctrination this weekend! I would like to thank everyone for their views. It helped me to ensure that this is really what I was wanting to do.
It was also fun to watch the topic of the post "evolve".

Mike
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7745



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2005, 08:56:23 PM »
ReplyReply

My I ask why you are not considering the D2X instead?...

The price of a second hand 1Ds will not be that much lower compared to a D2X, and you will end up with a camera whose successor (1DsMKII) is considered by many as being only on par with the D2X (better in some areas, worse in others).

I am not even mentioning the prices of the lenses...

You might want to check the recent review of the D2X published on www.dpreview.com.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 7745



WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 05, 2005, 06:02:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not a big fan of the APC sized sensors, I'd rather have those larger light wells and the higher dynamic range that goes with them. As for the lenses, I'm not too heavily invested in Nikon glass. I agree that the Canon lenses are quite expensive, but you get what you pay for! I really like the versatility of the DX2, but I'm looking for the superior sensor.
With all due respect, all evidences point to the fact that the D2X sensor outperforms the FF sensor of the 1Ds in just about every way.

You are basing your decisions on a generally valid theory which just isn't backed up by facts.

At least please also consider the part of the theory that stresses the theoretical problems of large sensors on wide angle lenses. That part IS completely backed up by facts... :-)

Inertia is just as strong as the force in Luke, people still believe that a 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 is faster than a 2.6 Ghz Athlon FX55... those people base their feelings on a basic spec of a device to assess the quality of the output, this is logically wrong. There are many reasons why people who have been using Canon successfully for a few years are not interested in acknowledging the possibility that another player raised the bar higher, but intertia is probably the main one.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure that the 1Ds is a very good piece of gear and that it still delivers wonderful results as Mark just testified, but it is a 3 years old design. I am fully confident that Mark would acknowledge the superiority of the D2X if he were to give it a try along with DX lenses.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2005, 08:46:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Canon 20D. Professionals I know personally are using this at least as a second camera - and one very well known professional, the primary. Compared with the 1Ds, the reasons are related to its very speedy response time, relatively discrete presence and ease of handling, with built-in flash - all very useful stuff for photojournalism if that is what you mean by "PJ".
Yeah, I guess it's relatively discreet, but it's very far from inconspicuous. A rangefinder works far better in that regard, and a camera phone is unsurprisingly almost a clear winner.

Quote
These people have found that 8 MP is ample for landscape and portraiture work, especially without lots of cropping and for making prints up to or a bit larger than A3.
I also like to point out that it's quick to turn on, it's very good at power saving, lovely response time, and the 5 fps shooting rate can be enjoyable.

Quote
and the viewfinder image isn't as big (smaller sensor)
The viewfinder image is the big negative thing about the camera for me. Not only is the image smaller because of the cropped field of view, but then it's also cropped to 95% of that as well.

I also miss the environmental seals.

Apart from that, I've seen lots of people (well, comparatively, anyway) sell off their 1D MkII and get a 20D instead. I was almost going to get a 1D MkII, but changed my mind and spent the difference on lenses instead.
Logged

Jan
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2005, 02:36:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
4) Choice of cryptographic protection of images
Something like this?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060602lexarlocktight.asp
While it does offer the fundamental functionality of crypto, it's nowhere near what I desire. I consider this a proprietary stopgap measure.

I don't want my desire to encrypt data to be yet another vendor lock-in excuse, and I certainly don't want nebulous specifications of the technologies used.

GnuPG (GPG) and PGP serve the needs much better, are very well documented, as well as "proven" technologies.

Now if this was done in a way that hid the process from the camera, such as a memory card that accept normal reads and writes while encrypting before storing the data, it would be nice, except that it crashes with my wish #11 for a persistent in-camera buffer.

If the data isn't encrypted regardless of the storage device, then it's not good enough.

Ideally, encryption should happen before the data enters the in-camera buffer, too.
Logged

Jan
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7745



WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2005, 09:04:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Congratulations and good luck with your new camera.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad