Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1D Mark 3?  (Read 7335 times)
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« on: November 21, 2004, 11:12:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I should probably never have spent so much time looking at Michael Fatali and David Muench prints from large format.  More sensor elements and larger sensors and spending ever so much research and testing time and money for sharp enough lenses are the only ways that we can gradually get closer to large format quality with DSLR's.  Call it pixel peeping, call it pointless lusting for new toys, call it anything, but a room full of very sharp large size prints always takes my breath away and that's where I want to go with backpackable digital to whatever extent technology and my circumstances allow.  Maybe just another picky bastard.  To each his own.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2004, 05:37:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think that there are vastly cheaper ways of getting BIG high quality landscape prints other than spending so much money in the likes of full-frame DSLRs.
Um, wanna list those vastly cheaper ways??  LF is not cheap if you consider film and processing and scanning costs.  In any case, the advantages of digital over film have been discussed so exhaustively and frequently, there's no need to do it again here.  Additionally, for me it all has to be backpackable.  Panorama stitching is cheap, but rather limited and a huge hassle; not cheap if your time is worth anything.  When the morning or evening light is just right, you might have time for a dozen single shots or if you're lucky, one panorama stitching session.
Quote
Of course you will have more resolution with the 1Ds than with the 1D MKII, but will you use it?
Huh?  What kind of question is that?  Any time you're printing larger than 8x10 you're "using" the extra resolution.  At 16x20 you're really "using" it.  At larger than 16x20 it becomes essential.  If you want substantial freedom to crop it becomes essential.

I've observed an almost universal phenomenon on this and other forums, namely that people tend to argue that whatever they happen to have is good enough and that anyone that has or wants more than that doesn't quite have their act together somehow.
Logged
jliechty
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2004, 04:19:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's surely no need to try to argue anyone into doing anything different than what they enjoy doing (for whatever reasons).
However, trying to argue digital people into the "advantages" of film is a particularly tough go.
I know a few people that keep horses and I enjoy their enthusiasm for this and I agree that horses are beautiful creatures and that all the "horse stuff" (learning to shoe a horse, learning about tack and horse health issues, etc.) is fascinating, but these folks don't get on internet forums and argue that horses are superior transportation.   Cheesy
Maybe I didn't say clearly enough that I thought that digital has plenty of advantages. I just don't think it has the universally and vastly superior advantages over film at this point in time that cars have over horses. That day will come, and it is probably not far off... My only complaint is with people who place greater emphasis on the cost "advantages" of digital by selecting the set of numbers that most greatly reinforce their decision.

Perhaps it's because I'm a fan of "editing through the viewfinder," but I probably spend between $300 and $400 per year on film and processing. Hence, given the almost disposable nature of low-end DSLRs that are in my price range, and the constant desire to upgrade (it's like a computer), it seems that a DSLR doesn't make any sense based on cost, because it would be several models out of date, and possibly non-functional (what's the life of a D70 or 10D anyway?) by the time it paid for itself.

I don't deny, however, that for some styles of photography, more prolific shooting is required (amateurs shoot sports, too), and for that a DSLR makes more sense.
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 591


« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2004, 07:28:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hence, given the almost disposable nature of low-end DSLRs that are in my price range, and the constant desire to upgrade (it's like a computer), it seems that a DSLR doesn't make any sense based on cost, because it would be several models out of date, and possibly non-functional (what's the life of a D70 or 10D anyway?) by the time it paid for itself.
Wow.  First off, I'm surprised by how many posts I've received in this thread.  I thought I would be bashed in this thread for asking you guys to foresee the future, which is impossible, of course - Thanks for all the replies so far.

To jliechty:
You are correct, because I am one of those people who kept shooting film, even when the D70 came out, as well as the 10D, and also, a few of my friends bought D70s as well.  I used their DSLRs and my conclusion was simple - it was so darn fun shooting digital, but at the time, I didn't think it was good enough to totally switch from film.  So I continued to shoot film, and not even purchase a 6mp DSLR for fun.  Having said all that, I now have some extra money to spend, and I know, not everyone does, but right now, I do.  

Reading all of Michael's experience, (and others), with the 1Ds has lead me to believe that buying the Canon will not be a mistake.  I can get it new for $5999.99.  I'm confident that it will last a long while, and then the upgrade to the 1Ds2 will be that much easier.  By then, who knows what other digital tools will be available?  Just something to think about.

There's nothing wrong with playing it safe and waiting for digital to explode, although to some people it already has.  Just 3 months ago I told myself I would wait for digital to evolve for another 3 years, but I changed my mind pretty quickly.  I don't think about film costs very much.  To me, digital seems more enjoyable, while shooting and while processing and editing, but there's TONS of people who still love looking at transparencies on a light table.

T-1000
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2004, 03:28:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, this thread has totally mutated from the original intent several times, but at last some real practical value is emerging.  I'm inclined not to bother buying a DVDR drive now.  CDR is good enough for occasional use to send somebody something and why bother archiving on a very questionable medium?  Besides, hard disk storage is now about $1 per GB, so it's feasible to just keep buying hard drives for archiving.  Even if you store everything in duplicate, you'd have to do a serious lot of shooting before this would be prohibitive.  You'd only need to put the drives on line now and then, since you wouldn't be using your archives for routine day to day use, so the issue of bearings wearing out is not critical.  It's also nice to have an archive medium that you can edit if you want.  I figure I'll be able to hold onto my work for the rest of my life easily enough (63 now).  I don't care what happens to it when I'm gone.
Logged
Graham Welland
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610


« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2004, 01:16:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'll have much more to say on this, but just to give you a hint the game isn't about megapixels any more!
My guess:

4. It's the colour, dynamic range and highlight & shadow detail ....

(which is what a lot of people have been saying for a long, long time).
Logged

Graham
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 591


« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2004, 11:01:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey guys, I'm about to pick up a 1D Mark II and was wondering how long it would be before I get to trade it in for the next release in the 1D series?  Do any of you believe there will be a 1D Mark 3 that's just as fast, but has more than 8mp, or at least 11mp, and maybe even more?

Where do you think Canon will go with this series of camera?  

The 1Ds series seems a little too expensive for me, especially the 1Ds Mark II, but who knows, maybe I'll give in, and end up buying the 1Ds anyway.
Logged
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1578


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2004, 03:30:22 AM »
ReplyReply

In what ways would the 1D MKII limit your photographic vision?

If you just want a new toy, go ahead, buy one, and then dump it into my lap when the replacement comes along.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2004, 11:52:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I should probably never have spent so much time looking at Michael Fatali and David Muench prints from large format.
 
That's why I still have a LF camera LOLOLOLOL!

But seriously, I agree the 1Ds is still a better camera detail-wise than the 1DMKII.  

While the 1DsII is undoubtedly even better than the 1Ds, it remains to be seen by how much...  

At least IMO,
Jack
Logged

Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1578


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2004, 04:59:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that there are vastly cheaper ways of getting BIG high quality landscape prints other than spending so much money in the likes of full-frame DSLRs. I have nothing against them, mind you, as soon as they become affordable for me, I will buy one.

135mm format has its limitations, and spending USD 8000 just to push the envelope a bit further, seems odd. Of course you will have more resolution with the 1Ds than with the 1D MKII, but will you use it? And in the end, when you look at the results from LF (e.g. Muench), the BIG and detailed prints, was it worth it?

What I was challenging was the original poster's mentality/approach regarding "I am buying a camera now, how soon before I trade it in for the next one with more megapixels". If he needs the largest possible quality prints from 135mm format, then the answer is the 1Ds (I or II). It's that simple. That is why I asked him in what ways would the 1D MKII limit his photographic vision, or photographic business, for that matter (if he plans to sell big prints).
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 591


« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2004, 06:26:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I think I was dreaming, rather than thinking.

T-1000
Logged
jliechty
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2004, 01:53:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Film is not cheaper if you're a pro who has a job and needs to shoot x number of images regardless of what medium is being used. On the other hand, I know many amateurs in real life (not implicating anyone on this forum) who shoot much more prolifically in digital than they formerly did with film, and then brag to me (trying to make me feel bad about my ancient and totally inferior, now unusable and obsolete film technology, I suppose) about how much money they're saving by shooting digital. However, because digital is "free" to shoot, they tend to disconnect the mind from the eye and shutter finger, and hence they end up with no more (or even fewer) "keepers" than before.

While I recognize that high end DSLRs have many other advantages over film (the 1Ds beating 35mm film in resolution, for example), proposing the cost argument to most amateurs as in such extreme form as is often done, is IMHO not entirely correct.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2004, 04:58:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Being an "edite through the view finder" fan, all I can say is "Go jliechty."
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2004, 07:23:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I shoot about 40000-50000 frames per year. For me and others who shoot a lot, film makes zero sense. For someone who shoots 500 frames a year at most, costs work out a bit differently. YMMV
Logged

didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2004, 07:48:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am trying to argue that for lots of folks, film is still a valid medium to do photography
I've never contested this; not even once in the many times this issue has arisen.  I do contest claims that film is superior and implications that folks that want to go digital ought to reconsider and that folks who want high resolution DSLR's are wasting their money unless they meet some stringent requirements of yours (IF this and IF that and IF the other).
Quote
As is digital, IF you can afford it, IF it makes sound business sense. If you are a pro, making a living, you are out taking pictures, not wasting time in forums like this.
How about IF you enjoy working with digital better, IF you've found you (personally) get better results and more satisfaction, IF you find that field review of images is a huge benefit, IF you find that being able to take a lot of shots without counting the cost is a huge benefit, IF you want the best possible resolution in a relatively compact camera?
As for "pro" or "wasting time on forums".  I'm only sporadically "pro" and I also spend a hugely great deal more time shooting than I do on forums.  However, I've learned a lot of extremely useful things on this forum, so I don't need to justify the time I spend here.  If you think it's a waste of time, what's YOUR justification for being here?  You like wasting time?
"Meditative" photography?  That's the only kind I do.  I've never done any machine gun style shooting, but I do like to be able to try lots of exposure variations and other subtle variations and then choose what I like best later when I can really see what I have.

Digital storage?  I have plenty of CD's at least 10 years old and I've never yet experienced a single CD failure or any OS or platform incompatibilities so far.  Sure, it's a possibility, but a small one, and a very small one if you're diligent with backup.  As for migration of millions of images eventually (after a really long time), sure that's a hassle and expense, but at least it's a way of preserving your work for a really long time.  What do you do with a bunch of deteriorated slides after a really long time?  Long term digital storage is not "perfect" (what in this world is?), but at least it's possible.

Pbizarro, here's a direct quote from you:
Quote
full-frame DSLRs. I have nothing against them, mind you, as soon as they become affordable for me, I will buy one.
So, maybe some of us have found them already affordable.  Any problem with that?  Are you afraid that some of us are letting our children starve or robbing banks to buy our cameras?  Sheeesh.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2004, 03:16:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There are cases (as Didger has pointed out) where CDs are perfectly readable after 10 years - though if these are music CDs then they include a lot of error detection/correction algorithms to protect against fault data bits...

CD/DVD storage live has nothing to do with the way the info is written to the disc. It's all about the materials it's made of. Current writtable discs are made of the cheapest crap out there and the material rots natturally. The older CDs Diger talks about probably are made with different materials than current discs are (ultra-low price is not a huge concern when tech is brand-new). I would not trust any disc I write today to be readable two years from now. It has been proven even that some discs even begin to rot two months after they're written.

Writting faults with CD-R/CD-RW drives have more to do with buffer issues than anything else. If the buffer does not fill quick enough to keep up with the writting speed of the disc, a gap can occure in the data corrupting the disc. DVDs are written in a different mannor and buffer issues are not an issue like they are with CDs.

Now, CDs (software discs, music CDs, etc) you buy in a store will certainly last you longer. They have the data stamped onto a very thin sheet of aluminum or tin. CD-R and CD-RW discs have data written by means of burning knotches into a soft material by the laser (CD-R) or by altering the color of a dye on the disc (CD-RW).

Quote
Hard Disks are like any other magnetic media and degrade over time. Many  large companies used to (and still do to a lesser extent) store back up data on magnetic tape in offsite storage, however, more often than not, when an old tape was retrieved the data was found to be corrupted.

Lets not forget that tape backup drives quite physically differently than Hard-drives. A hard drive stores information magnetically on metal platters (some old ones used glass). These platters are not touching each other and so there is no risk of one magnetically charged platter effecting the one above or below it. This is the main problem with tape backups. The magnetically charged tape is resting upon itself and data can "bleed" into other portions of the tape over time.

The magnetically charged discs on a hard-drive can last up to 4,000 years before the charge is lost naturally. The thing that really is a problem with hard-drive life are the electronic components and the bearings on the drive. Those will fall appart or not be compatable by future computers long before the magnetic charge on the drive is lost.

Quote
All media will fail - archiving is not about which media the images are stored on, but the ongoing process of checking and replacing faulty media.

File formats and the ability to read data over a 10 year period is less likely to be an issue as there is so much equipment/data out in the world that needs to be supported from a legacy point of view. If you are following an archiving process that swaps out faulty media on a regular basis, then converting from one file format to another can be done at the same time. It is a case of getting away from a mentality of store and forget, towards one of constant maintenance.

Exactly. As with all things, maintenance is required.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2004, 09:37:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I really will have to get out with my camera next time I spend a few months in Bombay.  There's potentially charming people shots all day long in every direction everywhere and there's the extra zip of the exotic nature of India too.  Even in Bombay (financial/industrial capital of India) you still see lots of people in traditional India clothing, and occasional elephants in the streets; certain other cities more elephants, lots of camels, lots of bullock carts.  You can't really imagine India if you've never been there.  You'd love it, Jonathan, for the photography opportunities, in spite of what the streets smell like.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2004, 04:35:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
he good news is that I have the original slide safely stored away.
I'm sorry to note that you've had such trouble with digital storage, but glad to note that slides suit your needs so well.
Logged
raghu_mani
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2004, 01:19:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I didn't want to start a new thread, so I'll ask this question in here:

MR says:
"I was working with my new Canon 1Ds Mark II, and also the Phase One P25 back on a Contax 645. These are both wonderful tools, though very different in their character and capabilities. I'll have much more to say on this, but just to give you a hint the game isn't about megapixels any more!"

What do you guys think this means?  Three things come to my mind:
I think Michael just answered that question. Take a look at his comment about dynamic range in the Dalsa thread.

  - RM
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2004, 05:16:15 AM »
ReplyReply

The 1D-MkII and 1Ds-MkII are fairly newly arrived to market, so the next model update isn't likely for about 2 years, if past Canon history is any guide to future product introduction. Canon has indicated theat the 1D/1Ds will be combined in the future into one model having both high megapixel count and frame rate, basically an 8FPS or faster 1Ds-MkIII or Mk-IV. If you want a camera, just buy it.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad