14 bit, Digic III and wider micro-lenses mean it should do better than a 1Ds2 frame cropped down to 10 megapixels. The AA filter may affect this, but for pure resolving power the 1DsII should still win when taking the same picture. However resolving power isn't the only measure: the tone and low noise of the iii count for a lot.
The 1DsIII will be here soon. Just think of the release of the 1DIII as a rumour about what feautures on the new Ds will be like (a rumour that is actually true).
brainiac wrote:
14 bit, Digic III and wider micro-lenses mean it should do better than a 1Ds2 frame cropped down to 10 megapixels. The AA filter may affect this, but for pure resolving power the 1DsII should still win when taking the same picture. However resolving power isn't the only measure: the tone and low noise of the iii count for a lot.
How can the resolving power differ if the pixel pitch is the same for the 1DsII and the 1D III A 1DIII sensor (crop 1.281x) upscaled to FF would net 16.58 mpixel. Close enough to make no difference. Am I missing something?
Derek,
I hear you as I was hoping for the 1Ds MkIII at the PMA as well but it certainly looks that we have to wait somewhat longer now. Oh, well. BTW, are you still using the same 1Ds body you bought from me over two years ago?
Canon doesn't owe us a thing. Our cameras did not begin to malfunction as result of PMA announcements or non-announcements.
Frankly I am thrilled with the 1D3 even though I expect I will never buy it. Clearly a huge amount of thought and development went into it and that confirms my faith in Canon. There are many features that bode well for the 1Ds3 and a 5D successor, two cameras I am vitally interested in.
[Why is this thread not merged into the post-PMA thread?]
dhphoto wrote:
I think it is purely a question of profit.
It takes an enormous amount of money to design and retool for a new model and a high end model will be very expensive and sell a lot less than a 400D
By making the 1D3 Canon have leapt ahead of Nikon in the eyes of most photographers but they seem to feel that the really high end camera can wait. I think it is just economies of scale - they will sell a lot more 1D3's than they will 1DsIII's
It will come, in the mean time for the stuff you do a 1DsII or a 5D will do you just as well
johnastovall wrote:
They've already done the design and retooling for the 1Ds you see that in the 1DMkIII. It's just question of tweeking firmware and the sensor bits.
Some of the parts are no doubt interchangeable but others like the viewfinder, mirror assembly, VF prism, screens, focusing system will have to be made/adapted especially for the new 1Ds series, a costly undertaking
1. I am extremely happy with the Mk III. As a 1D (Mk I) owner it is the fulfillment of all my dreams and wishes. It's as if someone at Canon heard my thoughts and made them come true. Now to the problematic part, to save for it......
2. If indeed the 16-35 Mk II is indeed significantly better than the 17-40/4 and as flare resistant as it, I'll start saving for it as well.
3. Whatever came of the Erwin and Erwin S? Vaporware?
Atlasman2 wrote:
In my neck of the woods, the 17-55 is $1400 and the 135L is $1100—that Canon has made available the 17-55 tells me that their plan is to bolster the line-up with high end type glass.
Regarding the FF, I own the 5D and have 1st hand experience with the merits of this format. As a professional photographer, I use, and continue to use both the 1.6 and FF formats—as the shooting conditions require.
Just as in my film days, I used MF and 35mm as required, today, digital enables FF (5D) has replaced my MF equipment (at least for the work I do).
I hope Canon continues development of the 'S" line with other high end glass.
Prior to having FF, I thought that 1.6 would eventually fade into history, I don't see this now....Show more →
For most consumers and many prosumers, who never print larger then 8x12, 8MP is sufficient for a nice, high quality print. So a 10MP APS-C sensor, is probably fine, for consumer "Rebel" like cameras. For prosumers and photojournalists, the next level up, a 14MP APS-H would probably be sufficient, and a 22MP full frame would be fine for the majority of the rest of shooters. If you really want more, Hassy has a $30K digital MF back at 39MP, would Canon move into that territory, or simply buy an existing MF camera maker, to add that capability.
D. von Briesen wrote:
As a fine arts landscape photographer I constantly compete with medium and large format film shooters and I've been anxiously awaiting Canon's 1Ds upgrade.
Well if higher res files worry you, for the price you'd pay for what you are hoping Canon might announce later you can buy a 4x5 camera with all the accessories right now. Judging from your galleries you obviously know your way around a camera. Anyways, just an option.
A slightly snarky remark was posted: "When you find it impossible to improve on your equipment, improve upon your skills."
But if your skills are quite good you will likely be able to take advantage of better equipment to produce even better technical results.
Working to "improve upon your skills" is not the alternative to using good gear. In an artistic medium that relies so heavily on technology, one must keep the "skills" and the technology in balance.
In general a really good photographer strives to develop the best skills (and vision, etc.) using the best and most appropriate technology available.
Edited by danmitchell on Feb 25, 2007 at 03:48 PM GMT
gpfmartin wrote:
Better photos than mine? Yes. Better than he can do? No. There's always room for improvement.
Derek is looking for more tonal gradations, decrease in shadow noise, increase in dynamic range and of course, increase in resolution. Just by getting all those features in a new camera, he would improve his future images by quite a bit. I believe he is pushing the envelope of his 1Ds MarkII already. Room for improvement on his skill? Yeah, always but that has to do more with catching the perfect lighting conditions and certain circumstances by being there more frequently. I couldn't figure out how else, could you?
I thought Nikon had overtaken Canon in unit sales for the first time in 20 years -- at least I recall reading that?? I still use Nikon and Canon kit ... but if I wanted more IQ - I'd buy a Big H with a third party digital back. (OKay I'm ducking the triple A ;-))
I'm rather sad there was no Mark II 100-400 or indeed a 400/5.6 IS but then we can't everything we want ;-(
A 1DIII sensor (crop 1.281x) upscaled to FF would net 16.58 mpixel. Close enough to make no difference. Am I missing something?
? Not much skill improvement is needed, if any.