I have both of these fantastic cameras, and just as a matter of interest I decided to take an identical picture with the 24-105mm lens on, adjusting the zoom to compensate for the crop so both pictures captured pretty much 100% of the same scene. I shot in RAW and then adjusted both in Rawshooter Premium.
The results surprised me a little as I was expecting the 16.7MP to blow the 8.2MP out of the water - but it doesn't.
Sure there is a little bit more detail, but not as much as you might imagine. Of course to double the image size you would need four times the pixels (which would be a 32.8MP to double the 1D MkII N image).
The only reason why I bring this up is the ever-raging desire for the maximum number of pixels possible. People will trade in cameras left right and centre for the newest, highest pixel count camera when a lot of the time it isn't necessary.
I shoot weddings, so I equipped myself with the best resolution money can (or could at the time) buy. The 1D MkII N was bought to cover as a spare and the fact I shoot sports events too, particularly equestrian where the FPS is vital for capturing jumping horses.
Had I known just how good the 1D MkII N was I wonder whether I might have just had two of those and not the 1Ds MkII.
If Canon are indeed thinking of bringing out a 1Ds Mk III or 1Ds Mk II N or whatever it will be called, I don't think I'll bother. The full frame on the 1Ds Mk II shows imperfections in some of Canon's most expensive "L" lenses at the edges even those costing £2000 or more, so a bigger pixel count will only emphasize that even more, plus the images from 8.2MP cameras is printable at great sizes and detail.
Remember when top of the range was 4.1MP? I wonder whether the desire for 'megapixel consumer demand' is pushing camera technology in the wrong direction. Many PNS cameras these days have 8, 9 or more megapixels and only get used for printing 4"x6" photos.
I'd be interested if anyone else feels the £2000 or more difference between top and next to top Canon models is justified, or even worth it. Don't forget 12.8MP can be yours for £1700 on a 5D, albeit without weather sealing and a few of the pro features.
I was saving for a 1Ds MkII, maybe for next year, but if your conclusions are valid, then I shouldn't bother, I could save some serious cash and go for the 1D MkII N...
AND get some great glass while at it!
Could you please be so kind as to post some 100% crops so that we can see the difference?
Both 1 inch samples 100% crop, shows the higher resolution of the 1Ds MkII, but not a massive difference.
Upsampled 1D MkII N:
Yes, it is worse than the 1Ds MkII, but this is 100% crop, so printed out at this magnification the original image would be 70 inches across (at 72dpi). I don't think it is really that much worse, certainly not £2000 worse. Add to the fact the 1D MkII N has a bigger screen, better menus, and is built to the same high quality, and has 8.5fps - I think you are paying £2000 for 8.5MP more.
Edited by clocksley on Jul 10, 2006 at 01:12 PM GMT
Major differences in the two images; contrast, color and detail. Thanks for the side-by-side comparison.
To me, it's worth the price difference (in a sick sort of way) as I currently can't afford either while paying off a recently aquired 85L Mk II and then next satisfing my lense lust with a 35L purchase; all being attached to an outdated, by a couple generations, 10D
I think the right expectation, knowing that I'm writing to the choir, is that it depends on your usage.
Sports and weddings, the 1D II shines as the 1Ds II shines for weddings also. But megapixels/DR/portraits and landscape to me is where the 1Ds II shines.
Myself, I'm a landscape kinda guy and DR and detail means everything to me as I try to dig DR out of a 10D
After this next bout of lense buying that I've earmarked, I see a used 1Ds II in my near/far future and then I can start upgrading the computer and printer and software and .....
Agreed, a very interesting comparison! I have been using the 1D2N for around 6 months now and it never fails to amaze me in terms of image quality and speed. I had the opportunity to use a 1Ds2 on my 500/4 IS with a 2x on a Wimberley Sidekick last weekend and carefully compared the shots. The difference is there but it is not the great improvement I imagined it to be. At higher ISOs the story is different also, the 1Ds2 leaps into the lead but taking care to expose correctly to retain detail in the shadows, a proven PP routine to reduce much of the remaining noise, the 1D2N can produce an outstanding image!
Interesting test comparasion but in the computer monitor will be very dificult to see the diffrences until you start to print 11" x 17" and above then you will notice the detail diference between both cameras.
I have found that both cameras are very different each one for the intended purpose the 1D MkIIN for sport/journalism and the 1DS MKII fro studio/landscaping.
It's still a bit apples-to-oranges. Shoot the picture with the same focal length on both cameras. Crop sensors are just that: a crop, not a magical change in focal length. On top of that, a zoom lens is going to perform slightly differently at different focal lengths.
Of course this is splitting hairs, but that's what we're looking for in the first place.
crivera wrote:
Interesting test comparasion but in the computer monitor will be very dificult to see the diffrences until you start to print 11" x 17" and above then you will notice the detail diference between both cameras.
I have found that both cameras are very different each one for the intended purpose the 1D MkIIN for sport/journalism and the 1DS MKII fro studio/landscaping.
Cesar
A very good point. The OP's point, that the differences between the two are small, I agree with. But the small differences can make a real difference in a large print. For printing 8 X 10s and even 100% crops on a monitor, the differences are inconsequential but those who print large regularly see the difference.
I guess it also has to do with (implicit) expectations: if a camera has double the number of pixels, people expect it to be 'double' better even if reason says the resolution hasn't doubled.
I remember a thread where Ben Horne compared the original 1D with the 1D2. The difference was smaller than expected.
lexvo wrote:
I guess it also has to do with (implicit) expectations: if a camera has double the number of pixels, people expect it to be 'double' better even if reason says the resolution hasn't doubled.
Exactly !
According to the OP's own words, the expectation seems to be "Massively better", "Blow away".
Lex you used the word, "Double better".
They are all about subjective impressions, which is not quantitative.
I think I was trying to warn myself away from spending £7000 on any new 25MP body that comes out!
Especially when I notice some top wedding photographers shoot jpeg in medium mode!
The 24-105, or any other zoom for that matter, is not a great lens for finding the differences between the two cameras. Your results will be limited by the poor quality of the lens.
If you want to see the advantage of the Ds2, try using a good prime like the 135L, mirror lock up, remote release and a sturdy tripod.
I ran a test like this with my 5D and Ds2 and the Ds2 was clearly the winner. At the same distance with the same 135L, the 5D resolved 14 point type, while the Ds2 resolved 9 point type.
On landscapes, the Ds2 shows better fine detail, giving my 13X19 prints a more 3-D look.
Based on these results, I am looking forward to a 22 or 25MP Canon.
clocksley wrote:
Remember when top of the range was 4.1MP? I wonder whether the desire for 'megapixel consumer demand' is pushing camera technology in the wrong direction. Many PNS cameras these days have 8, 9 or more megapixels and only get used for printing 4"x6" photos.
I'd be interested if anyone else feels the £2000 or more difference between top and next to top Canon models is justified, or even worth it. Don't forget 12.8MP can be yours for £1700 on a 5D, albeit without weather sealing and a few of the pro features.
that is such a great point. And the funny thing is, that the 7,8 and 9MP PNS cameras DONT have the RAW option, just straight JPEG. I was actually looking into getting a nice PNS, but to get a cam in this MP range to shoot RAW, you are looking at a PRO SUMER camera and the size is about that of an XT or so. I decided to save my money and get a singh-ray filter and a new lens.
BobbyP wrote:
The 24-105, or any other zoom for that matter, is not a great lens for finding the differences between the two cameras. Your results will be limited by the poor quality of the lens.
If you want to see the advantage of the Ds2, try using a good prime like the 135L, mirror lock up, remote release and a sturdy tripod.
I ran a test like this with my 5D and Ds2 and the Ds2 was clearly the winner. At the same distance with the same 135L, the 5D resolved 14 point type, while the Ds2 resolved 9 point type.
On landscapes, the Ds2 shows better fine detail, giving my 13X19 prints a more 3-D look.
Based on these results, I am looking forward to a 22 or 25MP Canon....Show more →
Poor quality? This is one of the best zooms Canon make - and most of us need zooms on a day to day basis. If zoom lenses are so poor then Canon need to address that before bringing out even bigger sensors.
"mirror lock up, remote release and a sturdy tripod. " - not really possible running around at a wedding...
