Micky Bill wrote:
Well, it's a gear forum, so folks will want to talk about gear. And its a lot easier to endlessly debate technical things then aesthetic aspects of images.
It's also a lot easier to endlessly debate technical things than to go out and actually make good photos.
Then why in the world are you reading a, and posting on, a gear forum That would be like any of us showing up at a wine tasting and complaining about everyone talking about the taste of the grapes.
Not feeling blue. Just a little contemptuous........I use Canon geat too, but I prefer to use it than to debate megapixels.
I'm always surprised when a megapixel count thread centers on print size, when to me, the point of pixel count is editing headroom. Unless you are printing wall size prints, tons of pixels to spare are useless, IMHO. However if you have pixels to spare to crop (which did get some attention before) that's a huge plus, especially if you like primes. And once you are in PP, well we stay in RAW to preserve data, and non-destructive editing in PS is a help, but the simple fact is that every edit in PS destroys data. The higher res and greater bit depth you start with, the more editing headroom you have. That's the main reason I prefer my 5D over my 20D. Neither is in the 21 mpxl league to be sure, but if I ever felt a need for that kind of sensor, it would be most likely for editing headroom.
Similar thoughts about 14 bit depth sensor. Many threads say they don't see the diff, but I am sure, if you expose to the right and then recapture detail in the highlights of a 14 bit sensor, you will have way improved tonal gradation.
IMHO, re: pixel count and bit depth, think editing head room, not print size.
Sean Reidy wrote:
It always saddens me to see gearheads debating endlessly the relative merits of different lenses or bodies. How many of you can say that you are truly getting the best results out of the equipment you have?
I'm a gearhead, yes, but also enjoy taking lots of pictures.
And while this is a discussion of megapixels, the reason I'm
so tempted to get a 5D when the rebates arrive is ..........
Viewfinder Size.
I want a larger viewfinder than my 30D gives me, and I want great
manual focus control. For my level of development and the relatively
few prints I actually make, the 5D should do the job nicely.
The first camera I bought, back in high school, was a Minolta
X-700. A great value body with a beautiful viewfinder. Going to digital
was a big improvement in almost every way for me, but the crop body
viewfinders have always stuck in my craw.
I have been shooting with a 1DsMkIII for about a month and will tell you unequivocally that it produces much better images than either my 1DMkIII did or my 20D. There are tonal variations, reduced PP, increased resolution all of which combine to produce higher quality images with greater flexibility. Please note, I'm not talking about huge prints - you can see the difference on the screen and small prints as well.
BTW... I have done about 5,000 frames with it over the last three weeks and have barely had time to casually review many of the images. Go out and shoot comments are insulting.
My experience is that a well-executed 5D file (tripod, MLU, excellent lens), will hold up extremely well printing a landscape at up to 24" in the long dimension, which is about 180 dpi. When i print anything about 18", instead of printing at 180 dpi, I uprez the image to 360 dpi, and, after uprezzing add simulated (digital) grain. The simulated grain still gives you an essentially "grainless" looking print, but makes edges look sharper and hides any softness due to uprezzing.
My background is printing 6cm x 9cm Velvia slides shot with view cameras and drum scanned. up to 24" in the long dimension, the 5D images hold up extremely well.
Beyond 24" in the long dimension, the 5D is still vg to about 30", but, for my tastes, at least for landscapes, I wouldn't print beyond that.
As pixel densities get higher and higher, you might want to ask yourself how steady does the camera have to be before camera shake of any type will take away potential resolution increase. I don't own a 1DSIII, but I do have the opinion that in crop cameras, the progression from 6.3 mp to 8 to 10 to 12, has not resulted in huge increases in "real world" resolution. Certainly not for handheld shots anyway.
LMCasey wrote:
As pixel densities get higher and higher, you might want to ask yourself how steady does the camera have to be before camera shake of any type will take away potential resolution increase. I don't own a 1DSIII, but I do have the opinion that in crop cameras, the progression from 6.3 mp to 8 to 10 to 12, has not resulted in huge increases in "real world" resolution. Certainly not for handheld shots anyway.
Regards,
Casey
This is an interesting topic. There's a thread that's been going on DPR on this topic. The theory is that the true benefit of the 1Ds3 over the 5D or 1Ds2 is not going to be seen unless strobes are being used to stop vibrations. The pixel density of the 1Ds3, as far as I know, is equivalent to the 20D/30D so there really shouldn't be, in theory, any more problem with movement blur in the 1Ds3 than those cameras. However, with the larger mirror of the 1Ds3 combined with that pixel density, it is, in fact, harder to handhold and see the full resolution benefits of the 1Ds3. It would appear the old rule of thumbs of using a shutterspeed equal to the reciprocal of the lens, and using MLU when shooting at 1/15s or slower is no longer applicable in this case.
Now, that being said, I am seeing a definite improvement over my own 5D files at everyday shutterspeeds while using a tripod (sometimes with and without MLU but always without a strobe). Whether that improvement represents the full potential of the 1Ds3 is an argument for another day
While there is, obviously, some potential for greater resolution with the higher pixel density, reports I've read suggest that this may not be the most significant IQ difference with the 1DsMKIII.
That would be like any of us showing up at a wine tasting and complaining about everyone talking about the taste of the grapes. 