Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Any disadvantages to the Mark II over 1Ds  (Read 7987 times)
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2004, 07:22:49 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
I think I understand that the 1D and 1DS are "pro" cameras (I have the 1D, 1DS, 1D Mark II, 10D, D30, DCS-760, Kodak Pro back and a couple dozen fixed lens digicams),
Lin,
Keeping the thread on track, I'd be interested to know just how great is the time interval between one shot and the next on the Mark ll in continuous mode. Clearly, you can't have 8 frames per second if each exposure is 1/8th sec or greater. There has to be some shutter speed threshold below which the camera gives less than 8 frames per second, perhaps 1/15th or 1/20th. Is this a known (or advertised) specification?

As regards autobracketing for the purpose of increasing dynamic range, the 1D Mark ll would appear to have an advantage over any other camera. Those 3 bracketed shots would likely occur within less than 1/2 sec. in reasonable lighting, and the 2 consecutive shots (underexposed and overexposed) in possibly less than1/3rd sec. This means that much of the time a tripod would not be required for this technique of blending images.[/font]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2004, 08:10:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[font color=\'#000000\']It "appears" to simply slow to the rate you have set manually and keep chugging.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Lin,
You mean in continuous mode there's a variable speed setting up to a maximum of 8 frames/sec?[/font]
Logged
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 375


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2004, 02:42:22 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Isn't the double frame trick essentially what Fuji does with one of their new sensors? I think it's the SR that has two sets of pixels, one of which is much less sensitive than the other (tucked in the spaces between the bigger pixels). They actually work during the same exposure if I understand it correctly. Of course, you lose some resolution by doing this (you don't cut it in half, because the low sensitivity pixels are much smaller, but you DO lose 30% or so). Highlights record on the small, low sensitivity pixels, while shadows are on the larger, higher sensitivity ones. I think this is what the S3 is supposed to do. I don't know about the noise implications, because the highlights are effectively being captured with digicam sized pixels, but the small pixels are using a VERY low iso (operating two-three stops down from main exposure), and capturing highlights, not noisier shadows.

  -Dan[/font]
Logged
Lin Evans
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2004, 03:29:16 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']That's essentially the way I've understood it from the rather non-technical explanations I've read.

Fuji has pioneered several interesting features on their consumer cameras and "field tested" the public acceptance before making them available in their dSLR's.

I'm still trying to understand the process they use for multiple exposures. Logic would dictate that they save each frame to a buffer and then combine them in firmware before writing to the media, but I sincerely don't believe that's how its done. The Fuji manual for the S7000, for example, says there is "no limit" to the number of multiple exposures one can make. This seems more like they are simply letting the electron charges spill over after an exposure sort of like filling buckets of water from a waterfall and only flushing the cells after the user selects the option to write the file to the media. The trick would be how they avoid the problems of adjacent sensor current bleed (blooming) but I really haven't a clue how it's done. I know that with the very high costs of buffer RAM, I can't see how they could afford to have enough to provide "unlimited" exposures when even a 1 gigabyte card can't provide that.[/font]
Logged

Lin
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2004, 11:14:10 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
for such a system to be worthwhile, you might need to time the relative fill-up rate of, say 3 megapixels within 1/4000th of a second, not to mention the time it takes to apply an algorithm to the different rates.
Look, I said we should leave the little trivia to the engineers, and us idea geniuses can focus on the occasional brilliant basic concept and cashing our royalty checks.

Same thing applies to dealing with LCD transparency levels and the presently way too slow LCD response times and present total impossibility of making an LCD grid anywhere near that dense.  Just let the engineers take care of those details.  That's what engineers are for.  They don't have time for great breakthough ideas; I don't have time for trivia.  It all works out.[/font]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2004, 09:25:14 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Interesting idea. I must admit I sometimes like to wander off into science fiction speculation as to what might be possible as processing power increases, and that's what it all boils down to - how fast can the calculations be done.

I'm not qualified to even guess if it would be practical to construct an image based upon the time it takes for individual photosites to 'fill up', but in principle it seems feasible, given enough power. The question is, could a device capable of measuring time in billionths of a second be incorporated into a small camera?[/font]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #26 on: May 31, 2004, 09:42:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[font color=\'#000000\']Put an LCD element in front of each CCD sensor element. Each LCD element can be controlled to be totally transparent or quite dark. [/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']My objection to this idea would be - nothing's totally transparent, not even a Zeiss 21mm lens  Cheesy .[/font]
Logged
jeffreybehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2004, 11:55:20 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
Are there any disadvantages to the Mark II over the 1Ds? I know that you can't go above a f/5.6 on the 10D, how about the Mark II?
First, in my perhaps-uninformed opinion, the 2 disadvantages of the 1D2 compared with the 1Ds is the former has a smaller sensor and is lower resolution. Of course if you shoot with long lenses a lot, the former is an advantage. But a 1D2 would make my 28mm lens have the same angle of view as a 36mm lens on a full-frame camera (almost no longer a wide angle) while a 10D would make it same as a 45mm lens on a full-frame camera, about the same as a 'standard-length' lens.

To offset the lower resolution, the 1D2 apparently has lower noise than the 1Ds.

What does 'can't go above a f/5.6 on the 10D' mean? (And do you mean smaller or larger aperture?) All the Canon digitals have no restrictions on use of apertures.[/font]
Logged

Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2004, 12:39:44 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
Canon has measured the 1DS at greater than 8 and less than 9 stops of dynamic range

I'm surprised to read that.

If I point a 1Ds and a long lens at a grey card or a small patch of evenly lit blue sky it shows up as a narrow band on the histogram. If I then dial in both plus and minus compensation, and re-shoot until that narrow band hits both ends of the histogram scale, it results in a latitude range of less than seven stops. That seems to me a practical test of useable latitude, and it fits with my real world 1Ds experience.

Interestingly the width of that histogram band isn't uniform across the range, which maybe suggests the Canon firmware is applying an exposure curve. But even so I struggle to believe there's eight to nine stops of latitude. I'm sure Canon wouldn't deliberately mislead, however perhaps the additional latitude that they measure is buried so deep in the noisy shadows that it's of little practical use?[/font]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8943


« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2004, 07:05:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[font color=\'#000000\']Two separate exposures later combined or two frames as a "double" exposure without dumping the first before the second occurs with the "combine" operation occuring in firmware would essentially be the same.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Lin,
As I understand it, the electric charge in each individual photodetector has to be 'dumped' or cleared before the next exposure can occur. What you seem to be saying is that within one exposure and one press of the shutter button, there can occur two electronic exposures. This might be an advantage speed wise. With autobracketing there's probably an additional delay between one shot and the next. But essentially, it's the same process of blending 2 images with different exposures. Providing the camera with 'blending' technology could be a time saver, but the software would have to be [/I]very good.[/font]
Logged
Lin Evans
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2004, 11:22:22 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
I figure to always go out with a tripod and to do bracketed shots if I have the slightest doubt. Blending in Photoshop is quick and easy and bomb-proof with the $20 Miranda plug.

But bracketing with multiple exposures and blending the exposures must, by default, mean that the sensor has the latitude of "holding" the full dynamic range you are able to achieve with the blend of two or more exposures.

The point we are discussing concerns theoretical ways of doing exactly what you achieve with the PhotoShop action with a single press of the shutter rather than multiple presses. Also, it would elilminate the absolute necessity of using a tripod and the care necessary in seeing that there is no mirror slap or even the slightest movement of the camera to avoid even minute motion blur.[/font]
Logged

Lin
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2004, 12:34:45 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
The point we are discussing concerns theoretical ways of doing exactly what you achieve with the PhotoShop action with a single press of the shutter rather than multiple presses.

But the biggest question about that is what it has to do with the original intent of the thread?

Alain Briot's latest addition to the Aesthetics and Photography series, Determining The Best Exposure goes into determinging a film/sensors DR. Anyone curious how their camera stacks up can try that. I havn't tried it with my 300D, but in experience it seems there is around 5 stops of light with an extra stop of info at either end of the histogram (when in RAW).

audibeara6, as to your question and asuming, based off the fact that your here, you will be doing nature photography:
The 1Ds obviously has the advantage in resolution and the fact that it's full-frame wich comes in handy for wide angle lenses.

The 1D MkII has a 1.3 crop so corner sharpness/etc isn't a great concern with that camera. It also helps with zooms if that's your thing. The 1DMkII is much faster. Not a great concern when shooting a mountain, but can be a very nice thing when shooting birds and animals or that UFO that just sucked up your photo assistant. From what I've read and seen of samples, it also is the best camera at high ISO shooting with the least amount of noise I've seen in a digicam (agian helpfull for that UFO since they usually come at night).

There's been alot of squaking at the DPreview forums of the 1DMkII being soft. It uses a stronger AA filter but with some strong sharpening you can pull the detail back out.

I don't know what the smallest aperture AF will work at on either camera but the 10D is f/8.[/font]
Logged
Lin Evans
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2004, 10:24:10 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
In any case 1d and 1ds are both pro cameras and fortunately not burdened with a kluge like automatic in camera double exposure and blending.

I think I understand that the 1D and 1DS are "pro" cameras (I have the 1D, 1DS, 1D Mark II, 10D, D30, DCS-760, Kodak Pro back and a couple dozen fixed lens digicams), I make my living with the pro models and collecting and experimenting with digicams is a long standing hobby. The process may be "kluge" to you, but anything which improves my ability to get a better image is important to me.

I'm sorry if I have confused you. I'm using the Fuji and Hewlett-Packard models as examples only because they happen to have the features and are convenient to discuss. The theoretical use model I'm presenting is intended for the pro sensor. The pro sensor does indeed have the capacity to "hold" the full dynamic range - you're not fully understanding the process here or we have a different understanding of the term "hold". Whether this type feature is desirable or not is a marketing issue. I like the idea and apparently you don't and that's fine - that's why there are features on cameras which I don't care for and features which you don't care for - there is no perfect solution to everyone's satisfaction.

As for your concerns with camera shake etc., and the speed of the capture, that's an engineering issue and not of any serious importance. I can hand hold and get perfectly focused images at 1/30th second and even slower with my better stabilized lenses. For landscape work This is more than ample time for processing.

It's obvious that you have no interest in this theoretical approach and see no utility in it and you've made that perfectly clear. I do see promise in it and I've made that perfectly clear and since the thread has migrated far from the original question and the tone is changing from a sharing  of ideas and potential to argumentative, I'll stop here.

Regards,[/font]
Logged

Lin
Lin Evans
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2004, 09:05:20 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']No, if you are in manual mode and set the shutter speed lower than the selected burst speed, such as 8 frames per second, it seems to simply use the speed you have set. It appears in that sense to work exactly like the 1D.[/font]
Logged

Lin
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2004, 10:34:33 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
The question is, could a device capable of measuring time in billionths of a second be incorporated into a small camera?
Faster and smaller go together; fast has to be small.  As for billionth of a second, that's a pretty long electronic time interval nowadays.  Consider that a $200 Sony Playstation 2 at about 7 gigaflops is 7 times faster than the first generation of $10 million+ Cray supercomputers. I wouldn't worry about speed being a bottle neck.
I had an equally crazy idea, but even more useful for a landscape photographer.  Put an LCD element in front of each CCD sensor element.  Each LCD element can be controlled to be totally transparent or quite dark.  Do a test exposure with full transparency of all LCD elements.  Then you can instruct your camera to darken the LCD elements where the test exposure CCD elements showed the most brightness.  By controlling the selective darkening of bright areas, you could end up with exactly the final contrast you want, with no black shadows and no clipped highlights, all in a single final exposure.  Only for tripod exposures, obviously.  I suppose the test exposure and then adjusting the LCD pattern to exactly compensate for no highlight clipping before doing the real exposure could all be done automatically and fast enough so that you could do perfect contrast shots even without a tripod.  High end cameras could have different LCD response curves for different latitude control effects and you could do something like autobracketing, but where the camera takes several quick shots with different latitude compensation algorithms.  The key is the LCD grid, the rest is trivial software issues.
Let's patent both ideas, but the clever Japanese engineers can work out all the minor technical aspects and just send us frequent big royalty checks for the vital genius of the ideas.[/font]
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 711


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2004, 08:56:57 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']I just received my new Canon 1D Mk2 as an upgrade from 1 yr old Canon 10D.  I cannot speak for the 1Ds as I have never used one, but the 1D Mk2 is a truely amazing camera.

The high speed motor drive and buffer allows my to shoot Raw and not missing any action shots (mostly critters in the woods). The shutter is noiser than my 10D (which is the quietest SLR I've ever owned), but will all of the other features, this is not a complaint.

I've only had the 1D Mk2 for 2 days so I'm still reviewing the images and learning how to use all of the features of this marvelous camera. So far, the images are looking real fine. However, I can see that the various 1GB CF cards for my 10D get filled up much faster with the 1D Mk2's larger file size. It looks like I'll be ordering a couple of 2GB CF cards soon.

The real test is when I have a few nice shots to print to 13 x 19 on my Epson 2200 printer using Hahnemuhler papers. I'm looking forward to this.

Cheers.

Bud James[/font]
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad