A full frame version of this exact sensor technology will outperform it in image quality. For that I hope. However, it looks like a great all-round camera that will deserve to sell by the crateful.
____________________________Richard
AS THE PIXEL SIZE IS NOW THE SAME ON THE 3d AS THE 1dS2...7.2 MICRONS, WOULDNT THE IMAGE DETAIL BE THE SAME ON BOTH IF THE APPROPRIATE FOCAL LENGTH LENS WAS USED. I would appreciate some help in this. I would have thought that even though one is ff and one aps-h, if a lens of appropriate focal lengyh was used to frame the subject equally, then the detail would be the same.
To get the same picture on full frame, with the same sensor technology, from the same distance, you would use a longer lens. If the lenses are equally good then the full frame camera will give you a better quality image because the pixels are just as good, but there are more of them.
Equally, if you used the same lens on each camera, you would achieve the same picture on full frame by approaching the subject, so once again, the greater number of pixels would give you a higher overall image quality, and a higher image quality in the corners provided that the lens's full-frame corner performance isn't more than 1.3 times worse than the corner performance within the cropped frame (unlikely).
In the real world these conditions generally hold, especially with stopped down lenses, so the full frame camera will give you significantly higher resolution images.
: 5D vs MkIII .... quite equal....not too much impressed ...considering too that 5D crop is slightly darker to my eyes.
!! - the 5D has way bigger photosites!
Ultimately, that is of no concern to me! As long as the 5D does what I want it to (and it does), who cares how it achieves its image quality?
P.S. This also is a good omen for the 5D replacement. If it performs this well now, how good is it going to be when they squeeze all that MkIII technology into it
: 5D vs MkIII .... quite equal....not too much impressed ...considering too that 5D crop is slightly darker to my eyes.
I don't understand your point, and believe me I am not trying to be antagonistic. In this comparison (if it is indicative of what we can really expect), to my eyes, the 1D is clearly the better image. I'm not an expert, however, but it looks pretty good.
Are you talking about the overall cost vs. IQ disparity? As in "Look how much more expensive the 1D is and it doesn't provide a commensurately better level of IQ"?
Perhaps I misunderstand. The advantage of the 5D over the 1D (size and weight considerations notwithstanding) has been marked IQ advantage of the 4 extra mp's coupled with the lower price, plus the FF considerations for those who might need/want that, but it looks like the IQ gap has been significantly narrowed with the advent of the 1DIII, at least in my perception.
I sold my MkIIN precisely so I could get better resolution and IQ (as an amateur--not a PJ or sports shooter), with my eyes on the 5D or 1DsII, if the 1DsIII came out and dropped the DsII's price. To me, this puts the 1D in a very similar resolution/IQ category with the 5D.
Again, I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems like a fantastic upgrade for 1D users in terms of overall image quality, if the images do in fact meet the standards of this comparison and if the reality meets the potential. But I haven't had my coffee yet, so bear that in mind...
Of course none of which addresses the "intended use" aspect of the discussion, as many people will need to choose the 1D over the 5D depending on what they shoot primarily, and vice versa.
dcmiller wrote:
What will be the crop factor of a 10mp crop from the a 22mp full frame 1DsIII? I would do the math myself, but I'm always told I'm wrong.
Assuming the same size sensor as the 1DIII, that is actually 1.28 or thereabouts.
Works out to about 13.5MP
Jim Leary wrote:
OK, glad to hear it. I had hoped that rumor was false.
I believe what will end up being true is that the future 1DsIII is forcing IQ improvements to some lenses. The 1DsII challenges some L zooms. The next gen will be even harder on glass. I don't think the release of the 16-35II was primarily motivated by the 1DIII.
I would like to see a 24-70II. But I think the next lens will be the 70-200/2.8 IS II.
Joel,
you know, i'm into astronomy, so IQ (on long exposures esp.) is very important.
From what i see from those crops the difference, in normal conditions, is not so evident.
You say MkIII better than 5D...uhm...1/3 stop (1/2 stop hardly)? OK? no more than that IMO.
Since i own a 5D and if i would have $$$$ to spend to upgrade, well, this 1/3-1/2 stop is no worth the $ ~4000.
Yes, new camera is fulled of new features, but here i'm talking about IQ only.
Oh, i forget that we still have not a low light comparison. Lets wait for them.
Edited by SunBlack on Feb 26, 2007 at 07:59 PM GMT
dcmiller wrote:
I believe what will end up being true is that the future 1DsIII is forcing IQ improvements to some lenses. The 1DsII challenges some L zooms. The next gen will be even harder on glass. I don't think the release of the 16-35II was primarily motivated by the 1DIII.
I would like to see a 24-70II. But I think the next lens will be the 70-200/2.8 IS II.
Since 24-70 is lacking IS, my bet is that it (and possibly 100-400 as well) will be updated before 70-200 f/2.8 IS.
At first I was very happy. Now that the Mk III is out, Mk II and Mk II N will be sold cheaply so I could afford one. But then I read the white paper and began to cry. The Mk III is the fulfillment of all my dreams and wishes but I can not afford it.....
A kidney, a lung or a liver are therefore for sale. Used but in good condition......
SunBlack wrote:
Joel,
you know, i'm into astronomy, so IQ (on long exposures esp.) is very important.
From what i see from those crops the difference, in normal conditions, is not so evident.
You say MkIII better than 5D...uhm...1/3 stop (1/2 stop hardly)? OK? no more than that IMO.
Since i own a 5D and if i would have $$$$ to spend to upgrade, well, this 1/3-1/2 stop is no worth the $ ~4000.
Yes, new camera is fulled of new features, but here i'm talking about IQ only.
Oh, i forget that we still have not a low light comparison. Lets wait for them.
I can't disagree with you. Of course, the 1D isnt' exactly the astrophotographer's first choice among DSLR's, for multiple reasons. Everybody's going to have to personalize the pros/cons of any body and find the one that best suits their needs. If it just boils down to one virtue, the choice is that much easier. I mean, it's either good at long exposures or it's not, pretty simple.
I'll be interested to see if the DIII performs better than the D2N, which I didn't find to be especially good (noise-wise) in exposures longer than 90 seconds or so, but that's not really what it was designed for. If that were my main criterion, I'd go with a 5D or even 20D, based on what I've seen/read. But if the DIII is comparable to the 5D when it comes to noise, the live preview/mirror lock-up is going to be tempting for astrophotos, providing it doesn't explode the telescope's clock drive with all that exra weight...
I shoot a fairly wide variety of things, so noise on long exposures isn't my chief concern, I want a versatile body. Seems to me that if the 1D fulfills its promise, it will be one of the more versatile options currently available.
dcmiller wrote:
I was asking it the other way - a 22mp FF 1DsIII will do about 100mps
if it has a crop mode that does 10mp at 10 fps, what will be the crop factor of that 10mp image?
The crop factor is the square root of the pixel amounts (well, in this case). Square root of 22/10 = 1.48, so it is in practice the same as in Nikon cameras.
A more Canonian way would be to use the 1.6 crop factor, which requires a 26-27 MP sensor, depending on whether you use exactly 1.6 crop factor or the equal pixel size than in 400D.
eva1978 wrote:
perfect camera foe wedding photography? would it be the 5d or the new 1d mk3?
cant understand why the new 1d doesnt have the same 13MP as the 5d or do you think a new 1Ds is on the way?
The existing 5D sensor would not be able to provide the read-out speed that the FPS machinegun 1DIII needs. And full frame sensors are substantially more expensive than APS-C (1.6x crop) or APS-H (1.3x).
And yes, a new 1Ds seems likely. The 1D II and 1Ds II were also both introduced in the same year.
brainiac wrote:
Equally, if you used the same lens on each camera, you would achieve the same picture on full frame by approaching the subject, so once again, the greater number of pixels would give you a higher overall image quality, and a higher image quality in the corners provided that the lens's full-frame corner performance isn't more than 1.3 times worse than the corner performance within the cropped frame (unlikely).
In the real world these conditions generally hold, especially with stopped down lenses, so the full frame camera will give you significantly higher resolution images.
Phew! That was exhausting.
Actually the figure should be "1.28 times worse" (in the corners) for the 1DIII, and this would approximately equate to a rating of .78 on an MTF-chart.
A number of Canon lenses do fall below this mark in the extreme corners, BUT the best lenses, which presumably would be used by a "pro", nearly always stay above it,...and, combined with the relative un-importance of the extreme corners in MOST images, ... this means that I agree with your "generalized" conclusion.
Often, though, in wildlife work,...the "approach" to fill-the-frame solution is un-workable,...so the situation changes in favor of the cropped sensor.
...considering too that 5D crop is slightly darker to my eyes. 
