I tried to discuss the issue of HOW low noise is achieved in the D3 thread. But bringing up that topic killed the buzz of those giggling with excitement over Nikon's new camera. I'll try again here. I do have a mkIII on order, and a little bit of buyers remorse since the D3 announcement.
Canon's new DSLR head guy touches on the topic:
Q: As for future sensor developments...
A: For the pro and high amateur, concentrate on noise (S/N) as it is important to picture quality. For the lower end products, use image processing to handle noise as high megapixel count is the trend... and you can't go backwards on this.
So how is Nikon achieving such high ISO numbers? If Nikon has achieved lower noise by higher s/n, then Canon has truly been beaten. But likely they've done most of the improvement by image processing. Nikon may have done it well, but there are going to be problems with the images. They can't create image data the sensor didn't collect. And they can't help but eliminate some real data in the noise removal process.
It's too soon to be disappointed in Canon.
I'm really happy so many here seem unhappy with the 1Ds3 specs and consider it to not be worth the upgrade from the 1Ds2, as that is fewer pre-orders to compete with to get this camera ;-)
I feel that the upgrade to 14 bit color is itself a huge upgrade. Then throw in the 5 fps motor, the anti-dust features, the larger LCD, the improved AF, and of course the 21.1 MP and I am in line with a pre-order.
Too bad Pentax does not have the sensor technology to go with their 22 bit A/D. They are a sleeper that will some day get a sensor and then will kick both Nikon and Canon in the slats. I've never been a Pentax fan, but they are doing the preliminary work now while they await a sensor. Which gives me hope that they may be the one to push both N & C to release the technology they are holding back on.
jcbenner wrote:
I'm really happy so many here seem unhappy with the 1Ds3 specs and consider it to not be worth the upgrade from the 1Ds2, as that is fewer pre-orders to compete with to get this camera ;-)
I feel that the upgrade to 14 bit color is itself a huge upgrade. Then throw in the 5 fps motor, the anti-dust features, the larger LCD, the improved AF, and of course the 21.1 MP and I am in line with a pre-order.
Hopefully they back off the AA filter too. Canon will never do it, but the AA should be user installable.
For me I would add Live View to your list, as well as the new menu system.
But be honest, isn't the lack of ISO improvement surprising? That's always useful, except for a studio camera.
StevenPalowsky wrote:
maybe this has been covered before (i don't know) but cant some of the "minimal" upgrade hoopla from canon be attributed to nikon?
..................
Yes, but we only know what is possible by the current state of the art camera. If Nikon's increased IO camera match the IQ quality of Canons cameras, then Canon users should be disappointed.
Paul Gardner wrote:
Too bad Pentax does not have the sensor technology to go with their 22 bit A/D. They are a sleeper that will some day get a sensor and then will kick both Nikon and Canon in the slats. I've never been a Pentax fan, but they are doing the preliminary work now while they await a sensor. Which gives me hope that they may be the one to push both N & C to release the technology they are holding back on.
22 bit A/D is just a spec. If the camera doesn't have the best light collection and amplifier design on the analog side, it's meaningless overkill. I'm not sure that the three engineers still employed at Pentax can build a state of the art chip.
Low noise amp design is well understood and the technology is well in hand. I would suggest that interested persons look at the A/D technology info that is online . I designed with 16 bit A/Ds well over 30 years ago. I suspect that Pentax is getting its learning curve up to speed in anticipation of someday having a sensor to make use of the technology it already has in place. Bottom line is that A/Ds are so cheap that it doesen't make sense not to use them.
Exactly my point, the A/Ds are cheap and not a highly differentiated component. Putting 21 million photodiodes on a chip, each with their own amplifier, is a bit tricky.
Given we print in 8 bits, I'm not sure that 22 bits is going to mean anything. The constraint seems to be S/N.
That said, a this point any medium size company can buy the components necessary to make a pretty good cmos or cd camera.
Who prints in 8 bits? Certinaly not I. I send my 75 Mb 16 bit tifs to a service which prints them at 16 bits on a $75000.00 lightjet printer. Granted not cheap. Approx $110.00 for a 24X36. Both of my film scanners are 48 bit. Not cheap either, but the files are beautiful. You should get what you pay for, and you would not buy a model T at the same price as a corvette, which is what N & C are asking you to do. If Ford charged a escort at the same markup as Canon you would pay over $100,000 for it. In closing, I will say that Canon does make the best 35mm digital, but they are only doing the minimum to stay ahead of the compitition so they can continue to overcharge. They could do much better if they wished.
All Done!
Paul Gardner wrote:
Who prints in 8 bits? Certinaly not I. I send my 75 Mb 16 bit tifs to a service which prints them at 16 bits on a $75000.00 lightjet printer. Granted not cheap. Approx $110.00 for a 24X36. Both of my film scanners are 48 bit. Not cheap either, but the files are beautiful. You should get what you pay for, and you would not buy a model T at the same price as a corvette, which is what N & C are asking you to do. If Ford charged a escort at the same markup as Canon you would pay over $100,000 for it. In closing, I will say that Canon does make the best 35mm digital, but they are only doing the minimum to stay ahead of the compitition so they can continue to overcharge. They could do much better if they wished.
All Done!...Show more →
I totally agree with you Paul, Canon has technology right now to give us a 50 megapixel 24x36 sensor camera with noise levels at iso 6400 that are comparable to 1DmkIII iso 1000 noise levels.
but they want to milk us for every half assed upgrade they come out with....come on, they had 3 long years to design the 1Ds mkIII. now that nikon came out with the D3 and if its specs live up to themselves in real life, i suspect that might give canon an incentive to push out the technology faster, dont get me wrong, im a pro and shoot with canon gear and like it, but the 1Ds2 to 1Ds3 upgrade is a joke for $7999.99 usd
Thomas McConville wrote:
dont get me wrong, im a pro and shoot with canon gear and like it, but the 1Ds2 to 1Ds3 upgrade is a joke for $7999.99 usd
But a significant upgrade for the lots of people I hear from who (like myself) kept using their 1Ds :-)
...and $8000 (I never use x9.99 notation ;-) would be rather cheap if Canon in the UK didn't have their own personal exchange rate (before anyone suggests going to the US to buy - I'd like a usable warranty ;-)
Thomas McConville wrote:
So what do you base this opinion on? It just took Nikon over five years to catch up and deliver a full frame with vaporware specs that nobody has verified yet and are still at 12 MP.
Seems like canon has heard out it's consumers and delivered (5fps, 14 bit, 21MP upgraded sensor, larger LCD, anti-dust, etc.) and people are still unhappy with the product (before they have had a chance to use it )
Nikon with it first full frame D3 (12.2 MP) - is a long ways away from where Canon is. Canon never had any competition from other SLR manufacturer's when it comes to their "1Ds" series SLR's and it seems like they still don't.
I am curious as to how many who have replied to this thread actually intend to buy the body and how many are only posting opinions. I don't see myself spending $8k on the new 1Ds body. However, I do myself getting a 1Ds Mk II for a decent price.
pascal03 wrote:
Seems like canon has heard out it's consumers and delivered (5fps, 14 bit, 21MP upgraded sensor, larger LCD, anti-dust, etc.) and people are still unhappy with the product (before they have had a chance to use it )
Nikon with it first full frame D3 (12.2 MP) - is a long ways away from where Canon is. Canon never had any competition from other SLR manufacturer's when it comes to their "1Ds" series SLR's and it seems like they still don't.
I am curious as to how many who have replied to this thread actually intend to buy the body and how many are only posting opinions. I don't see myself spending $8k on the new 1Ds body. However, I do myself getting a 1Ds Mk II for a decent price. ...Show more →
Well stated, agree entirely. Canon might have the technology to make a 50mp full frame sensor, but at what cost and more importantly what level of dependabity. I don't believe any of the manufacturers are "Holding Back" on their technology, as some have suggested.
To answer your last question, Yes I am planning to upgrade from my 5D to the 1Ds Mk3; I did not see enough advantage in the 1Ds Mk2 over the 5D to justify the $8000 cost of the Mk2, but do see enough to justify the cost of the Mk3. I will probably hold off purchase for a little while, mostly to see if any problems with Image Quality, don't care about autofocus, FPS or high ISO, just need an excellent reproduction at ISO 100 or 200 for my use.
pascal03 wrote:
I am curious as to how many who have replied to this thread actually intend to buy the body and how many are only posting opinions. I don't see myself spending $8k on the new 1Ds body. However, I do myself getting a 1Ds Mk II for a decent price.
I will buy it. Still doesn't change the fact that a better LCD would be nice (one like on the iPhone, so it can't be cost; I said that as soon as I got the 1D3, before the Nikon announcement) and two CF cards would be nice as well (something Canon said wasn't possible in the MK2 bodies due to size, but since they went and changed the body for the MK3 this would have been possible).
I would also have liked if they didn't kill useful features that could be preserved simply with custom functions (X button to switch to registered AF point, given that the functionality of the AF-ON button is already programmable).
I just stick with my 1ds2, since there's not a whole lot difference for the upgrade, and the ds3 has some AF problem as well. I'd buy it if it was 6k, 8k? way overpriced
I have a question for those of you that know more than me,...I keep reading where megapixels don't matter so much as sensor size, and was wondering, that if this is true, then why are they putting out a 21.1 megapixel sensor, if the 16.7 meg sensor is the same size, and all they are doing is just cramming all this into smaller units on the same sensor. Does anyone know the real story here? I would tend to believe that more megapixels does make a difference, but I would like to hear from some of you that are more knowledgeable on this than me. The reason that I am asking, is that I have been planning on upgrading from my 20D to a 1ds Mark III next year.
This is an explantion of sensors. The improvements seem to occur with the closer spacing provided by improving the microlenses so that the cells receive less light splatter. Larger cells produce more photon capture which is why a lot of pros use MF cameras such as Phase1.
There are several white papers on Canon's sensor technology available on the web. Their technology seems to be unsurpassed, and I have no complaints about the sensors. I would just like to see better impletation of the data we already have from the sensor.
)