> Sure, but seriously, who uses a set of cheap consumer lenses with a 1DsIII?
...are you saying that a serious photographer using a 1Ds3 should not use a 50 f1.8 because, although it works well, his public would be disappointed? I just don't get it. The camera works. The lenses work. Who cares. I am grateful for the extra detail, which saves time and makes new things possible, and satisfies clients. You want me to wear a hair shirt with a fancy label because you have some fixed idea about how many megapixels is enough. You stick to 12 megapixels - I am glad that you're happy, but there's no need to sneer at other photographers who decide, in the cold light of day, that their working methods will be improved by a higher detail ceiling.
Just to put things into perspective, there are only a few things that I absolutely need in the camera body I will be buying this year, and it is virtually a certainty that they will be in whichever "prosumer" or "semi-pro" or "advanced amateur" body I buy:
Spot metering.
Big and bright VF.
Usable ISO 3200 RAW files as the minimum high ISO performance I would settle for given current technology.
3" LCD screen.
Auto ISO capability so I can set the creative values of aperture on my OM lenses, shutter speed on the body, and simply not worry about ISO.
Reliable low-light AF or AF-confirm for MF. Dosen't need to be super-quick, just accurate.
Enough MPs that I can print beyond A3. (Modest, I know.)
Much faster start and review times than what I'm currently cursing.
Plenty of customizable settings, including a "my menu" option.
It then becomes a question of which system as a whole is the smallest (1 body, a slow ultrawide, fast 24mm, fast 50mm, and medium telephoto).
Any weather sealing of any sort would be most welcome.
Those are the things I need for travel and general photography. I am pretty sure that Canon, Nikon and Sony will all deliver products with all of these things for me this year. I would also consider a Leica DRF if they release a cheap M9 this year... though i aren't holding my breath on that one
So for me personally, there are a number of companies capable of delivering what I want, and given this level of competition, I hope to have some cash left over to spend on some of that travelling I bought that wonderful camera for in the first place
brainiac wrote:
...are you saying that a serious photographer using a 1Ds3 should not use a 50 f1.8 because, although it works well, his public would be disappointed? I just don't get it. The camera works. The lenses work. Who cares. I am grateful for the extra detail, which saves time and makes new things possible, and satisfies clients. You want me to wear a hair shirt with a fancy label because you have some fixed idea about how many megapixels is enough. You stick to 12 megapixels - I am glad that you're happy, but there's no need to sneer at other photographers who decide, in the cold light of day, that their working methods will be improved by a higher detail ceiling....Show more →
No, that's not what I'm saying, and I'm not talking about professional photographers. I use some cheap lenses myself, of course that works well. I'm just relating what I see around me and on these forums, just as others in this thread do. People (as in the general photographer on the street) buy into a myth that they need L glass, just as they buy into the need for masses of megapixels that they need just as little. If they think they need a 1Ds III they will also think they need the L glass. For those who never will print a poster or use an image as a double spread in a glossy magazine the value of more pixels is overrated, and ties up a lot of money for very little gain.
Just to clarify one thing, I include myself in "the general photographer on the street" and I have bought into the myths just as much as the next guy.
Edited by FretNoMore on Jul 24, 2008 at 02:28 PM GMT
brainiac wrote:
[...] Assuming that the pixel quality is acceptable, and in the case of the 1Ds3 and 450D it is, then why on earth wouldn't a photographer want more pixels? You don't have to drive your Porsche at an average speed of 100 mph, but sometimes it's very useful to have the capability.
If I had to choose between low res and high ISO and DR, as opposed to lower DR, less sensitive ISO and higher res, I'd opt for the first. But that ties in with the shooting I like to do most. The smaller the pixel pitch, the more difficult it is to keep things clean and prevent early saturation. But I can't blame a manufacturer to perform this balancing act different from what I'd like to see.
You can build an engine/gearbox and optimise it to go into a fast lightweight sportscar, or you can build and optimise an engine/gearbox to go into a slow heavy truck. To do both with the same hardware is quite a challenge.
Tentacle wrote:
If I had to choose between low res and high ISO and DR, as opposed to lower DR, less sensitive ISO and higher res, I'd opt for the first. But that ties in with the shooting I like to do most. The smaller the pixel pitch, the more difficult it is to keep things clean and prevent early saturation. But I can't blame a manufacturer to perform this balancing act different from what I'd like to see.
OK - but right now, the 1Ds3 is both the highest resolving (per image) Canon, and also its best high iso camera. It doesn't give much away in DR either, although there are some Canons that have marginally more. Funnily enough, I bought my 1Ds3 because I wanted a camera that was better at iso 3200 and 6400 than my 5D's and 1D3. It is, so one 5D and the 1D3 are sold.
brainiac wrote:
OK - but right now, the 1Ds3 is both the highest resolving (per image) Canon, and also its best high iso camera. It doesn't give much away in DR either, although there are some Canons that have marginally more. Funnily enough, I bought my 1Ds3 because I wanted a camera that was better at iso 3200 and 6400 than my 5D's and 1D3. It is, so one 5D and the 1D3 are sold.
Are my eyes deceiving me? According to this page at DPR the 1D Mk III and 5D looks better than the 1Ds Mk III. Were you looking at 100% crops or identical print size?
FretNoMore wrote:
Yes, among several other sites. I've been trying to stop going there though, it's not good for you. I'm not visiting nearly as much as I used to, the noise level and rudeness has increased a lot lately. Some of the ugliness there tends to rub off on you if you don't watch out, and I'm not proud of how I've let it make me grumpy and less polite than I want to be at times. It's just hard to not respond to some of the more inane things that are "truths" online. The main thing that's good about dpreview is the high traffic, dpreview is a source of a lot of info and news - if you could just tolerate the noise level.
In fact, I probably should take a breather from Internet in general and concentrate more on real life. Difficult to do though, since IT and Internet is a big part of my day job....Show more →
Agreed. I stopped posting there about a year ago. I couldn't take it anymore after getting into it with a real scumbag, and I do mean scumbag. I too go to see the "news", but the stupidity over there is frightening. I've thought of posting occasionally while slumming, but then I catch myself and decide it's not worth it, regardless of how offensive the individual really is. Besides, there are a lot of DPR people that come over here and start the same nonsense, but it has a shorter half-life. It can be just as wearing though.
Anyway, just turn your cookies off for that site, assuming you can of course. When you're not logged in, the temptation to properly assess someone's genetic history is "slightly" lessened.
Regarding the traffic, a sewer has a lot of "traffic" too, but I don't want to play in one. DRP is no different, it's truly an internet sewer.... And I don't think much of Phil or his crew either....they actively support the behavior...
John Ferguson wrote:
Since you think you know so much, how bout listing those specs? You don't know the specs. I have owned a couple of 5Dusts and most every Canon DSLR made. Am betting (by selling off some of my Canon glass in prep) the 5DII will be a disappointment ... and if so I'll jump to Nikon for pro features in a reasonably sized / priced camera and a couple of great lens (14-24 F 2.8 and 200-400 F4 VR)
Canon execs are happy because they are LUCKY to still have a job ... read this article!
Nikon has been taking Canon to the shed and whipping their butt. ...Show more →
John, how's this for a bet?: your pick of any of my Canon lenses (I have a few) if the replacement for the 5D is a disappointment as you state.
Guys, Nikt is right on the money. Approx 18MP, ISO improvements, and one particular feature that has been unheard of in DSLR before.
Why do you think the D700 made it out so soon after the D3? Answer: Nikon knew the 5D II was coming and the D700 would be a 'nothing' camera (comparatively speaking) after Q3 2008.
Are my eyes deceiving me? According to this page at DPR the 1D Mk III and 5D looks better than the 1Ds Mk III. Were you looking at 100% crops or identical print size?
IMO it's not your eyes which are deceiving you but Phil Askey, and Nikon's in camera noise processing. To properly compare, let's say, the D3 and 1Ds3 in the 3200 samples, Phil really should have downrezzed the 1Ds3 to 12 megapixel, or better still, uprezzed the D3 file to 21. You can see that the 1Ds3 crop is much more magnified, because Phil is making the mistake of scrutinizing the 1Ds3 file much harder than the others. It makes a big difference. If you look carefully at the detail you can see that the 1Ds3 is giving more information about features in the image than any of the others. Factor in that noise reduction reaps greater rewards in post processing of Canon files because they haven't yet been NR'ed, and you find that what you are looking at there is the 1Ds3 OUTPERFORMING the D3 at iso 3200. This was my cause in another thread to say that D3 fans have found a potato that looks like Jesus and are calling it the second coming. To be fair, you have to post-process the 1Ds3 files to surpass the D3, so if you need a jpeg in a hurry, the D3 is the answer. But in final image quality at very high iso's, the 1Ds3 seems to be better if you actually do a fair comparison by printing the picture or uprezzing the D3 file to match the pixel rate of the 1Ds3 file. Look at Phil's 3200 iso crops again, and then try to factor in magnification, and a bit of colour noise smoothing in photoshop.
BTW, those crops also _overestimate_ the performance of the 1D3 because it should be uprezzed to 12 megapixels for a fair comparison. In other words, onscreen comparison of crops should always take place at the same physical magnification, in order to be fair. A comparison like Phil's is like making an A3 print from one camera, and an A4 print from another, chopping a square inch out of each print, and comparing the two square inches: completely unfair. It is a scientifically reliable method of drawing the WRONG conclusion.
Right now some people are buying D3's instead of 1Ds3's in the mistaken belief that the former gives a better result at iso 6400 or 12800. It's an internet myth supported by less than thorough reviewers.
Edited by brainiac on Jul 24, 2008 at 02:15 PM GMT
Tentacle wrote:
The weathersealed L lenses (though not all L lenses are weathersealed) have a rubber ring on the lens collar which will seal off the lens collar-lens mount connection. The Mk II TCs also have the gaskets
Tentacle wrote:
The weathersealed L lenses (though not all L lenses are weathersealed) have a rubber ring on the lens collar which will seal off the lens collar-lens mount connection. The Mk II TCs also have the gaskets
I know very little about processing but as I understand, Phil is a very respectable person (and tester) and thus my assumption would be that any trickery is not performed i.e. all were tested with the same parameters. If that is not done, what use all these comparisons have?
Yakim Peled wrote:
I know very little about processing but as I understand, Phil is a very respectable person (and tester) and thus my assumption would be that any trickery is not performed i.e. all were tested with the same parameters. If that is not done, what use all these comparisons have?
Look at the tree in the iso 3200 crops. Are they all the same size? Yes, or no? If not, why not? Noise per pixel is not the same thing as noise per square inch of print. It is the latter quality that matters. Stop, think, understand what I am saying, and then speak to me about the incontrovertible truth of everything you see in a Phil Askey review.
Phil says "There's no doubt that the D3 is the winner once you get above ISO 1600, and that its output remains usable right to the top of its extended range."
However, he has not made prints to a particular size, but instead based his judgment on 100% crops. To fairly compare D3 and 1Ds3 he must uprez the D3 file to 21 megapixel, or he is, quite frankly, talking out of his arse. Respectable, trusted, deceived by his own simple error, and leading everyone astray.
Edited by brainiac on Jul 24, 2008 at 02:27 PM GMT
brainiac wrote:
However, he has not made prints, but instead based his judgment on 100% crops. To fairly compare D3 and 1Ds3 he must uprez the D3 file to 21 megapixel, or he is, quite frankly, talking out of his arse and leading everyone astray. Respectable, trusted, and deceived by his own simple error.
Has anybody pointed this out to him? Seriously. He seems to be a decent enough guy to be able to accept and acknowledge his misconception..... I don't know this for sure, I am just guessing, of course.
brainiac wrote:
Look at the tree in the iso 3200 crops. Are they all the same size? Yes, or no? If not, why not? Noise per pixel is not the same thing as noise per square inch of print. It is the latter quality that matters. Stop, think, understand what I am saying, and then speak to me about the incontrovertible truth of everything you see in a Phil Askey review.
Phil says "There's no doubt that the D3 is the winner once you get above ISO 1600, and that its output remains usable right to the top of its extended range."
However, he has not made prints, but instead based his judgment on 100% crops. To fairly compare D3 and 1Ds3 he must uprez the D3 file to 21 megapixel, or he is, quite frankly, talking out of his arse. Respectable, trusted, deceived by his own simple error, and leading everyone astray.
I think that making up data through uprezzing or interpolation is no worse an offense. It's like painting an orange red to compare it to an apple. I don't completely disagree with you, but interpolation introduces errors of it's own.
brainiac wrote:
OK - but right now, the 1Ds3 is both the highest resolving (per image) Canon, and also its best high iso camera. It doesn't give much away in DR either, although there are some Canons that have marginally more. Funnily enough, I bought my 1Ds3 because I wanted a camera that was better at iso 3200 and 6400 than my 5D's and 1D3. It is, so one 5D and the 1D3 are sold.
cwphoto wrote:
Guys, Nikt is right on the money. Approx 18MP, ISO improvements, and one particular feature that has been unheard of in DSLR before.
Well we have live view, so the next evolution is video and from what I've heard it's going to be HD video. I hope though, if it's true that's the big headline act and not something more useful like much improved AF and speed and some sealing.
My technical instinct (if such a thing exists, else call it educated guesswork) says that both the Mk III cameras are using the same generation sensor technology. Shaky assumption perhaps, but I'll run with it.
Then you can assume that both sensors have the same per-area sensitivity to light. If so, then the 1Ds3 needs more gain in order to get the same output than the 1D3. More gain = more amplification of noise = bad. Likewise, full photo site saturation depends on the physical size, so bigger pixels = better DR. So there is enough grounds for me to be skeptic about it.
I'd like to see a one on one comparison before I really embrace your idea that the 1D3 is outperformed noise-wise by the 1Ds3.
