Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1D Mark 3?  (Read 7562 times)
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2004, 03:47:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In what ways would the 1D MKII limit your photographic vision?
Huh?? You mean compared to a 1dsMKII?  Are you serious?  Vastly better quality large prints.  In what way would a 3 Mpixel point and shoot limit your photographic vision?  No way at all, if you don't want to ever print larger than 5x7.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2004, 08:04:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How soon you figure MKII for you, Jonathan?
It's going to be a while, unfortunately, due to some financial setbacks. But if I could buy one and pay my mortgage too, I'd be all over it.
Logged

didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2004, 05:42:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
fast, sports shooting cameras that can produce greater than large format quality
Hmmm, that would take a few pretty big leaps in lens and sensor technology and may or may not be possible ever at all.  It's hard to predict fundamental technology breakthroughs.  However, I'll settle for a marginally backpackable MF DSLR outfit with 4x5 film level resolution.  I'm very confident that we'll have that within a few years, and for no more than the cost of a 1dsMKII.  No big breakthroughs or miracles required, just a bunch of engineering detail work.
Logged
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2004, 04:51:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.

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.
Film was cheap before digital, it is still cheap these days. And you don't need to scan for printing, you can print straight from the neg or slide. I understand the advantages of digital over film, but they are not strong enough for ME at THIS point in time. I see no reason to spend 3-4 times the price of one EOS 1V, when I can get excellent results from Velvia 100F, and still have money left to buy top quality glass. Also, it is funny that Fuji reports that their sales of pro-slide film have increased. And some people are converting their important digital images into slides, to be sure that they will have something in the future. The point is, each one should use what fits him/her best.

When I asked if he was going to use the extra resolution, the point was "is he going to print that big anyway?". Or was that just "lust" for more Mpixels? He already answered the question above.

You have very sharp powers of observation.
Logged

RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 597


« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2004, 06:44:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I like film a lot.  I still shoot 35mm Velvia once in a while with my Zeiss lenses on an old manual focus Contax body, (actually, that's the only camera I can use at the moment, until I buy my digital body) but, much like Michael Reichmann, I now prefer the workflow of digital, and so, I'm switching.  

I also have an old 1939 foldable Kodak Vigilant Six-20 in mint condition which I use for fun sometimes.  I take 120 Fujichrome Velvia and roll it onto a 620 spool so I can actually use it in the camera.  After I go digital, I don't see using either of these systems, unless film is required by whomever, for whatever reason.  But then again, I think I will buy a Mamiya 645AFD a little later, and shoot 645 if it's required by some old school agency, and get ready for the digital backs, just like Michael did.

I'm a Michael Reichmann copy-cat

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

Posts: 2030



« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2004, 03:11:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
proposing the cost argument to most amateurs as in such extreme form as is often done, is IMHO not entirely correct.
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
Logged
Sabercat04
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2004, 05:23:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I am currently a film user and waiting until the digital is a bit more affordable before switching. Meanwhile, I think there is still one important advantage of film over digital and that is for slide shows. The current digital projectors are not able to do justice to a good digital image and are still far inferior to a standard light projector for 35 mm slides. I am hoping that soon the digital projectors will be significantly improved in their resolution.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2004, 01:31:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But please, digital storage is "bomb proof"? Give me a break... Are you sure you will be able to read your CDs/DVDs/Hard drives in 5 years time? In 10 years time?

CDs/DVDs, No. They will certainly rot after two years or less as the tech stands today. It would not suprise me one bit however to pull out a hard drive 20 years from now that I store today and find it still accessable with all my data.

The bigger question would be if the data is accessable due to changes in the file structure support of future machines, interface connections, and support for the files on the drive.

With digital storage, as Diger pointed out, regular maintanance will net you unlimited archiveability.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #28 on: November 24, 2004, 11:20:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
though if these are music CDs
Of course I know that music CD's won't readily show slight deterioration and that pressed CD's are probably more stable than burned and I'm sure there's first generation music CD's that have been abused considerably but will still play.  I'm talking about CD ROM's that I burned back in the early history of that whole technology when a burner cost around $2000.  These antique CD ROM's that go back to my old Mac G3 days still work.

Jonathan:  I'm not much into "people" photography (maybe India some day, though), but that picture of yours would just have to charm and delight anyone who still has a heart that's beating.  This picture also very much vindicates the notion that shooting a lot of frames does NOT dilute quality; rather it enhances the odds of quality in many circumstances.  Maybe for a very expert landscape shooter few frames works OK, but as a way to learn if you're not so very expert, even landscape work benefits greatly from being able to shoot lots of frames.  I work all the light hours (and then some) when I'm out shooting and I'm out a LOT and I work "meditatively" all the time, but I still very much like to shoot a lot of frames.  I have for years expounded the view that my creative efforts, certainly including photography, depend more on getting into a sort of calm and inspired meditative state than on any formulas or expertise.  Of course technical expertise (especially Photoshop) is also very necessary, but the inspiration is the most important thing.  For me top quality equipment and a digital work flow support this inspiration the best and get in the way the least.

Anyway, Jonathan, thanks for posting that picture; my smile for the day.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2004, 11:51:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I wouldn't doubt it. I'd like to do some traveling, but haven't had the budget lately.
Logged

didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #30 on: November 25, 2004, 07:45:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Ho, ho, best dynamic range of any photographic device Michael has ever used.  I assume that Michael considers shooting negative film as "using a photographic device", so the Dalsa technology is obviously some sort of huge tech breakthrough.  HOW ARE THEY DOING THAT?  Fuji took a small step forward with two sensor elements per sensor location.  Foveon took a leap forward with three sensor elements per sensor location, but at the cost of rather large size elements and for some reason this technology has not moved forward into the high resolution pro realm.  This Dalsa achievement apparently goes far beyond what many folks have thought was theoretically impossible with anything like the available technologies.  So how is this done?  Can we expect this to migrate to levels that people other than the most extremely wealthy can afford?
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 597


« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2004, 01:49:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you want a camera, just buy it.
Now that's what I needed to hear.  I think I'll pick up a 1Ds instead.

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

Posts: 597


« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2004, 10:50:32 AM »
ReplyReply

They're both great cameras, but I have found from several tests that the 1Ds definitely produces more detail in it's images with little noise, compared to the 1D Mark II, which produces great images that are extremely clean, but not as sharp in detail.  I think the 1Ds would be more flexible for me and stock agencies, as well.  Not everyone wants or needs 11mp, however, I am one, picky bastard.

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

Posts: 2030



« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2004, 12:12:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's why I still have a LF camera LOLOLOLOL!
Yeah?  But how much do you use it?  How often do you schlepp the whole kit up to 12,000 feet cross country and across mean talus and scree slopes?  I still have my old Crown Graphic, but.....
Quote
better than the 1Ds, it remains to be seen by how much...
Yeah, especially with those troublesome ultrawide lenses.  I might just skip 1dsMKII and wait and see what happens with MF DSLR's in the next couple of years.  35mm is probably maxed out and then some at this point and MF digital hasn't even gotten properly "ignited" yet.  I expect MF DSLR's that will exceed 4x5 film quality before I'm too old to do more than reminisce about "the good old days" in a nursing home.  For now it's skip the camera or skip the freedom to get out and shoot a lot.  No brainer; 1ds it is for a while longer.
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 597


« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2004, 03:53:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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).
Pbizzaro,
You're exactly right.  I now realize that I should not have considered the 1D Mark II if I was searching for a high resolution camera that would last me a good, long amount of time.  

I could easily buy a Large Format camera for under $1500, (or less if it's used) and produce amazing prints -- but that's not how I shoot.  Shooting large format is slow.  Even the Medium Format cameras with the 22 megapixel backs are just that - they're SLOW, and don't offer the versatility that Canon does, along with their fast autofocus, and large selection of lenses.  

I think a 16megapixel 35mm DSLR is an amazingly versatile machine.  One day you can shoot fast moving wildlife, or nature, the next day, you can shoot landscapes, and still retain Medium Format quality, and approach Large Format (although that's still debatable, of course).  Obviously, sports shooters won't want to use the 1Ds Mark II, but 4fps is #### good, along with the autofocus.

My dream arsenal of cameras include a fast, high resolution 35mm DSLR, and then in the future, a Medium Format with a monster digital back for slow shooting, or maybe large format film for the present day.

I have a funny feeling that in the future, we'll have fast, sports shooting cameras that can produce greater than large format quality.  We're lucky to be living in these photographic times, and I guess we should really take advantage of the technology.

T-1000
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2004, 12:07:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They're both great cameras, but I have found from several tests that the 1Ds definitely produces more detail in it's images with little noise, compared to the 1D Mark II, which produces great images that are extremely clean, but not as sharp in detail.  I think the 1Ds would be more flexible for me and stock agencies, as well.  Not everyone wants or needs 11mp, however, I am one, picky bastard.

T-1000
The 1Ds certainly does gather more detail than the 1D MkII but that's a given due the the higher MP count. The 1D Mk II is nothing to shake a stick at. It has a stronger AA filter than Canon's other cameras and simply requires stronger sharpening in post in order compensate.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2004, 11:25:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Film was cheap before digital, it is still cheap these days. And you don't need to scan for printing, you can print straight from the neg or slide. I understand the advantages of digital over film, but they are not strong enough for ME at THIS point in time. I see no reason to spend 3-4 times the price of one EOS 1V, when I can get excellent results from Velvia 100F, and still have money left to buy top quality glass. Also, it is funny that Fuji reports that their sales of pro-slide film have increased. And some people are converting their important digital images into slides, to be sure that they will have something in the future. The point is, each one should use what fits him/her best.
Film is NOT cheaper if you're an active shooter. Between my 1Ds and 1D-MkII, I have exposed over 70000 frames in the last 18 months. What's film & processing for 70000 frames of 645? It's more than the cost of the 1Ds and the 1D-MkII put together, with plenty left over for glass and accessories and computers and printers and monitors and other digital crap.

BTW, there's a reason why most film shooters scan rather than print optically; the quality of the results. This is especially true when printing large. And nobody is seriously using slides as a backup for digital images.
Logged

howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2004, 04:01:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I have no idea what it will be called, but I doubt Canon is done.  There will be another new camera.
Logged
howard smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1237


« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2004, 05:39:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Eight grand or so will buy a lot of film/processing for my old film camera.  And buy the time I have spent $8K, a 1ds will be about $1.39 on eBay.  And the latest Canon will be at $8K.
Logged
Paulo Bizarro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1635


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 24, 2004, 12:06:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Jonathan, obviously for someone that shoots as much as you do, it makes perfect business sense. No argument from me there. My question would be, have your photographic skills and vision improved proportionaly? Out of 36 shots (1 film roll), do you have more keepers now then before? Blasting away at high speed motordrives is easy, but I prefer to photograph in a more "meditative" way.

Didger, I am not trying to push that "film is better than digital", I am trying to argue that for lots of folks, film is still a valid medium to do photography. Something you seem to have a problem with. 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. But please, digital storage is "bomb proof"? Give me a break... Are you sure you will be able to read your CDs/DVDs/Hard drives in 5 years time? In 10 years time? And then when the digital storage support media changes, do you think it will be fun to migrate your thousands/millions of images? If you change PCs, are you sure that it will read your CDs/DVDs? Right...

Take care.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad