Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's Tests of EOS-1Ds  (Read 17183 times)
sergio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #60 on: October 02, 2002, 06:29:52 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']I wonder if these new DSLRs as the new Canon and Kodak will enter into the medium format quality, at least for medium sized prints. If thats true, why bother carrying around a heavy film based 6x7?

What do you think?

Sergio  ::[/font]
Logged

Marshal
Guest
« Reply #61 on: October 03, 2002, 02:24:17 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael:

I don't know if you'll see this, but your time exposure photo of the Milky Way over the lake at dusk with the 1Ds was fabulous!! Gorgeous picture had it been taken with any camera. There are probably some astronomy clubs near you that would enjoy that picture and it may also have stock potential.

It would be interesting to print a 13X19 of it not only for the enjoyment of it, but also to see how much if any noise it shows from the long exposure. Thank God and Canon for CMOS![/font]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #62 on: October 09, 2002, 10:44:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[font color=\'#000000\']What's more, it is almost certainly an engineered inhibition. CCD sensors can now achieve 14 stops range, and do so completely linearly. I don't know any reason why CMOS should be worse, so it sounds like Canon have knobbled the range.


Tony Sleep Photography ::[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Tony,
It never occurred to me that the limited dynamic range of the D60 and 1Ds (and other DSLRs) might be a deliberate engineering limitation to make the image look more 'punchy'. I tended to assume that the limitation was raw computing power. If you want high dynamic range, you not only need the sensors to be capable of it, but perhaps more computing power than can be fitted into a 35mm size body without slowing down the whole process. Typical MF backs which, until recently, needed to be tethered to a laptop at least, were capable of 11 f/stops. The 35mm format has to be more flexible.

Dale,
I gathered you are an 'arty type' from your excellent introduction to composition. Nevertheless, you seem to have a good understanding of the technical issues as well. The notion that, because 35mm lenses cannot resolve finer than 6 microns (whatever circumstances of f/stop and contrast ratio etc apply!!), therefore any digital sensor with pixels of a similar dimension has reached the limit of 35mm lens technology, is clearly false. It's a fallacy.

If a lens is capable of resolving a particle 6 microns in diameter, you need a digital sensor containing  pixels considerably smaller than 6 microns in order to 'extract' the most out of the lens.

There's a 'law of diminishing returns' that applies, as with scanners. 2700 dpi gets you most of the detail available on 35mm. 4000 dpi gets you a bit more. 6000 dpi gets you an even smaller bit more, as does 8000 and 12000.

To get the relativities in perspective, if the 3MP D30 had been designed as a full frame digicam with no multiplier effect, it would have been a 7.8MP camera (assuming the pixel density was not diluted). The 1Ds at 11.2MP does not have a significantly greater pixel density than the D30, and has less than the D60. I think we can safely assume that there's still a fair amount of improvement to be achieved before we reach the limit of 35mm lenses.[/font]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2002, 11:48:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
[font color=\'#000000\']Why do we assume that the resolving power of the lenses is limited to XYZ microns?

How have we measured this?[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Rainer,
Good question. And I certainly don't have the answer. I've been running with this 6 micron limit because it came from an Olypus representative who was promoting another format. I figured it would be a very conservative figure and close to real world results as opposed to laboratory tests with high contrast ratios which, I believe, would show resolution limits  far smaller than 6 microns.[/font]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #64 on: October 24, 2002, 04:45:00 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']I would surmise (as you've gathered, I'm no expert - just fishing in the dark for the few facts available) that Kodak have omitted the anti-aliasing filter because aliasing and other artifacts are reduced as the resolution of the sensor reaches and exceeds the resolution of the lens. I would predict that the 14n will be relatively free of artifacts at F/8 and greater, but not with a good lens at large apertures. This is one advantage of using sensors that exceed the resolution of the lens, and AA filters as you know reduce ultimate resolution somewhat and therefore are best avoided if possible.[/font]
Logged
Rainer SLP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 381



WWW
« Reply #65 on: September 26, 2002, 05:35:23 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Michael,

Thanks for the first really independent test of this camera. Also for the shots.

While I have read with much interest everything the comparison of the 1Ds with the provia 100F film what I did not like is that you presented a 10% bigger sized scan of the provia film. For the 645 you reduced it to a similar size of the 1Ds but the scanned crop of the 100F 35mm you left it on 553pixels wide.

I allowed myself for comparison purposes to set all 3 images in one row for comparison puposes.

http://rainerehlert.com/fotos/1Ds.jpg

After seeing the 3 shots together my decision to buy a 1Ds has never been nearer than now.

I will keep attention to you further test and if it is possible it would be nice if you could later on provide some RAW files to experiment with them. Will it be possible to open those RAW files with Photoshop 7.0.1?[/font]
Logged

regards Rainer

please visit www.rsfotografia.com


Thank You
Marshal
Guest
« Reply #66 on: September 28, 2002, 02:35:15 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael:

I came to this site late Friday evening, actually early Saturday to read the next installment of your 1Ds diary and didn't see any updates. I was disappointed. But I figured you were probably tired after a full day of shooting with the new camera and maybe printing some 13X19s. Right? I'll look forward to the next update later today.[/font]
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1089



WWW
« Reply #67 on: September 29, 2002, 04:34:21 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Ray,

Digital cameras respond differently with regard to dynamic range.  My subjective impression is that their dynamic range is somewhere between negs and good transparency film *but* with one caveat: easily burnt out highlights.  You have to err on the side of underexposure.  That means shooting Raw.  Seeing a burnt highlight, it would be easy to conclude, I think wrongly,  there was a problem with dynamic range.

There is another factor here.  The scanners a lot of people use to scan their transparencies have very limited dynamic range.  Forget the marketing nonesense that would have you believe xyz brand of $200 flatbed has a dynamic range of 4.2, or whatever.  I read some tests recently that showed even some quite expensive and well regarded scanners had limited dynamic range.  So, in comparison, a DSLR can really win out.  Film is, if you like, being held back.

Finally, most DSLRs are 12 bit.  That's pretty good, but 14 or 16 bit would be better.

Quentin[/font]
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
jwarthman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #68 on: October 01, 2002, 02:50:27 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']There have been recent discussions about the usefulness of 11 MPs if one doesn't care about making large prints.

I contend that more pixels are only better if an image must be "ressed-up" to print at the desired PPI. For instance, if printing a 4 x 6 inch print at 360 PPI, a 3 MP D30 image has sufficient pixels to avoid interpolation altogether.

But printing that same image at 12 x 18 inches requires significant up-ressing using Genuine Fractals, bicubic interpolation, or some other process.

If one were to compare an 8 x 12 inch print using a 3 MP image and an 11 MP image, I would expect visible differences - assuming the image contained fine details like the texture of distant foliage.

I wonder if Michael could conduct a test - or make a full-size 1Ds image available for others to do the test.

One could print a full-size 1Ds image at 360 PPI. Then down-sample the image to D30 size (~3 MP). Then use Genuine Fractals to up-res the image to its original size, and print again at 360 PPI. I'd like to compare the fine details between the two prints.

Has anyone done such a test?

Enjoy!

-- Jim[/font]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #69 on: October 02, 2002, 06:06:35 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']There's one thing that worries me about these comparisons. Most of the images are taken with different lenses, are they not? Now I know if one is comparing a Canon DSLR with a Nikon or SD9, there's basically no alternative. The lens mounts are different. But what about comparisons between, say, the D60 and 1Ds. We still use different lenses to compensate for the D60's 1.6x factor. The Canon 100-400 IS Zoom set at 400mm or 160mm does not have the same performance (necessarily) as it does at 250mm or 100mm. Jim mentioned downsampling a 33MB 1Ds file to 9MB to put it on the same footing as the D30 and then upsampling both files to search for differences. I'm not sure if such an experiment is going to be at all useful. One would expect any differences, if any, to be very subtle. But if you did see any differences, with a magnifying glass, how would you know they were not differences in the lenses used?

On the issue of converting digicam pixels to line pairs/mm, I've assumed that a camera pixel is roughly equivalent to a scanning dot and that it takes a little more than 2 dots to depict the narrowest line pair.[/font]
Logged
Jeffrey Behr
Guest
« Reply #70 on: October 02, 2002, 06:32:09 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Sergio, Michael too is wondering the very same thing.[/font]
Logged
Bernard
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #71 on: October 02, 2002, 09:37:16 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']In Part 5 of the 1Ds review, Michael writes, "the 1Ds is a much more sophisticated camera than the Nikon-based 14n." Is there a fuller discussion of this comparison somewhere? I wanted to know more. Thanks.[/font]
Logged
jwarthman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #72 on: October 10, 2002, 02:47:27 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
The 1Ds at 11.2MP does not have a significantly greater pixel density than the D30, and has less than the D60.
Ray,
According to dpreview, the pixel "pitch" (in µm) of the 1Ds is 8.8 x 8.8 which is roughly halfway between the D30 (9.9 x 9.9) and the D60 (7.4 x 7.4).

Hence, the 1Ds pixels are more densely packed (smaller) than those of the D30, by about the same amount as the 1Ds pixels are less densely packed (larger) than those of the D60.

You can see the comparison table here.

Enjoy!

-- Jim[/font]
Logged
Rainer SLP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 381



WWW
« Reply #73 on: October 11, 2002, 12:29:06 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi,

I have been following this thread.

Why do we assume that the resolving power of the lenses is limited to XYZ microns?

How have we measured this?

Could it not be that our measuring devices are not up to date?

That we have had no necessity to improve our measuring devices?

Just putting down what came to my mind about this theme.[/font]
Logged

regards Rainer

please visit www.rsfotografia.com


Thank You
Marshal
Guest
« Reply #74 on: October 24, 2002, 12:52:57 AM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']When Michael goes to the Photo Expo, or any of you for that matter, I hope he'll(you'll) go to the Kodak booth and see what he(or you) can learn about the 14n and any sample prints or display posters they might have. And also ask about the AA filter issue.[/font]
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #75 on: October 31, 2002, 06:50:52 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']
Quote
In fact his projected Normalized Image Quality published on this website shows the Canon 1Ds at only 1.03 which seems a bit low based on Michael's real world tests.
Yes! Koren's IQ figure for the 1Ds does seem a bit conservative. I'm reminded of some good advice I heard recently. We should strive to be emotionally optimistic but intellectually pessimistic.

Reading Norman Koren's tutorial on scanners recently, I came across the following statement.

"Given the difficulty that optical systems have in reconstructing the original analog signal, the rule of thumb that the number of line pairs per mm a scanner can resolve is less than half its pixel (or dots) per mm resolution is essentially correct. If the Nyquist theorem could be applied precisely (using sinc(x*dscan) reconstruction), it would be very close to half. But in reality you need more than two pixels to resolve one line pair of actual image detail (for example, a window screen). I've seen the number four used as a rough estimate, but that seems overly pessimistic in light of the results below. Three seems to be a pretty good number, especially when sharpening is applied."

The above paragraph caught my attention because I had previously arrived at a position where it seemed to me there could be a 'worst case' scenario where 4 pixels were required to depict one line pair. Samirkharusi pointed out that only 2 pixels are required. It now seems that 4 pixels is the pessimistic extreme and 2 pixels is the optimistic extreme. 3 pixels is just about right.

Now I might be making an erroneous assumption if I equate scanner resolution with digital sensor resolution, but on the basis that the same principles apply and that it takes 3 camera pixels (on average) to depict one line pair, we get the following results. Maximum resolution for the 1Ds (at MTF 50% ?) is 38 lp/mm and for the D60, 46 lp/mm.

Now, if you think I don't know what I'm talking about, do me a favour and let me know, won't you?[/font]
Logged
Joe Decker
Guest
« Reply #76 on: September 26, 2002, 05:57:58 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']While I understand folks feelings about the large price of the 1Ds, a quick calculation shows me that film, processing and drum scans are costing me about US$2,500/year, not counting the driving involved in all of those.  Even mitigating this a bit for batteries and memory sticks, the 1Ds might just pay for itself for me.[/font]
Logged
Dan Sroka
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 27, 2002, 09:02:47 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael,
You mentioned that some people have criticised you for your method of doing reviews and tests, for using postprocessed images, or not being scientific enough, etc. Well too bad for them! I wanted to let you know that I very much appreciate your style of reviewing and testing. We already have two excellent sites (dpreview and imaging-resources) which try to go into exhausive objective detail about new technology. What I appreciate and learn from your website is YOUR take on a camera (or technique) based on YOUR subjective opinion. It's refreshing and helpful to see how things relate to your professional experience. Please, keep doing what you are doing![/font]
Logged
willt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #78 on: September 29, 2002, 08:52:12 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Jim Warthman writes:
Quote
I think it does everyone a disservice to propogate the subjective opinions that DSLRs have a smaller dynamic range than (negative) film.


Canon has proudly proclaimed that the 1Ds will at least equal—and in some cases perhaps even surpass—professional slide film. It stands to reason, then, that if Canon believed the camera were capable of the broad latitude provided by print film, it would have stated as much. It didn't. And as far as I know neither has any other digital camera manufacturer. Yet.

All of the speculation aside, however, it's an easy thing to test with one roll of slide film, one roll of print film, and one digital camera. My own tests show that CCD digicams and DSLRs provide less latitude than slide film, with almost no tolerance for overexposure. I have not had the opportunity to test a CMOS camera but plan on doing so soon. Nevertheless, I doubt that that test will conflict with Canon’s announcement proclaiming the 1Ds equal to professional slide film—not print film. And at the end of the day, that’s an improvement.

Will Tompkins[/font]
Logged
Rainer SLP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 381



WWW
« Reply #79 on: October 01, 2002, 06:56:48 PM »
ReplyReply

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Jim,

In the page www.digitalcamera.jp

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/report/EOS-1Ds-020924/index.htm

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/report/SD9-020927/index.htm

On this 2 pages you find the same motif taken with the 1Ds ~11' MioPixel as well as with the SD9 ~3' MioPixel.

I downloaded the 2 files ISO 100 from the page and made a print test 12x18 inches and you really see a difference. I resized both to have 300dpi for printing on an Epson Stylus Pro 7500 with 1440dpi on the printer.

The difference in sharpness is clearly visible.

My wife due to the fact that she does not do any photography is always called to check the prints.

Try this 2 files. It is very interesting and eye opening.[/font]
Logged

regards Rainer

please visit www.rsfotografia.com


Thank You
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad