Sorry if it is a repeat but I just read the excellent review by Micheal Reichmann on the 1Ds MKII. It was refreshing to see a real review, as opposed to spec lists mascarading as reviews elsehwere. A few details missing but not pretty good regardless.
The key learning for me was better than 10D noise figure. There is as much as 4db better S/N compared to 1Ds, solving one of my major issues with that camera. Can't wait to shoot wildlife at ISO 400 with this camera.
The big miss is the clunky UI for locking the mirror. How sad as this is just software.
uhhhh you should wait for the excelents photographers in this forum....and put Mr:
Micheal Reichmann in your garbage can for now or for ever....................)
Hm. I'm not grokking this correctly, from the review:
The Viewfinder
Though the bodies are almost identical, the viewfinder on the Mark II is simply not as bright and large as the one of the 1Ds. This is due, of course, to the use of a 1.3X smaller than "full-frame" chip, and the fact that the viewfinder image is therefore smaller and thus less bright. If you're used to a Canon 10D or other 6MP camera you'll find the viewfinder of the Mark II to be bright and large, but it does suffer in this regard by comparison with its "big-sister", the 1Ds.
How does the sensor size have anything to do with the viewfinder?
The finder trys to display 100% of the image you will capture. Since the 1D-II chip is smaller than the 1Ds chip, the image in the finder will be smaller and therefor a little harder to use. Similarly, moving from a 10D to a 1D-II will be a big improvement because of the larger chip.
Also Uwe Stein at Digital Outback took a quick look at the 1D-II. His big finding is a real disappointment: Canon is using a strong AA filter on the 1D-II like on the 10D, and unlike the 1D which had a relatively weak filter. So like the 10D and unlike the 1D, images out of the camera are relatively soft.
Thanks, I hardly complete his review, I couldn't swallow his tone of writing. He sounds so offensive to readers. Of course, he is a webmaster, a writer, he can say whatever he want. But reading the last part on his update, he seems to trash other website and in the defensive mode too much.
I like the personal tone he gives to his reviews. One may not always agree with it, but as he states, he isnt setting out to do a fair and unbiased assessment. There are tons of other sites that provide those type of reviews and they are typically rather boring to read, each one is about as dry and generic as the next. They serve there purpose of course, just as MR's review serves a different purpose.
I liken MR's writing to the opinion pages of the newspaper and other sites to the front page news.
GO BACK and read the review again. Michael has added some additional info at the bottom.
His reviews tell it like he sees it and I concur with his thinking.
Regards, Fred
His answers to the questions at the bottom are ridiculous. What could be more important than image quality? He not only refuses to discuss it, he puts down those of us who are interested in it. An examination of the Mk II's image quality is very important to many on this site who want to know if they can replace a 1Ds with a Mk II. Reichmann didn't give the slightest indication of how the image quality compares between these two cameras. Instead he told us a bunch of stuff we already know - it's solidly built and shoots 8 fps at 8 MP. Big deal - we read the specs two months ago.
The much shorter review on Digital Outback Photo is far more useful.
I guess I must be a pixel peeper, since I care how big I can print and how much detail my photos have.
From the Q&A at the bottom: People shouldn't look for some dramatic change in this area. The real story with this camera is the shooting performance, not the image quality — which is terrific.
No, but I think photographer is someone who takes good pictures, not someone who starts a web site and posts BS reviews (Yes, I'm aware he posted his resume).
OK, fine, honestly i don't understand the aggressive posture you're taking.
I've read and reread the specs and stats and everything else that's been available for this camera.I've checked out every sample image that's been posted, I've pshopped some of them, even printed some out.
Reichmans review was useful to me because it was the first to actually describe how the camera 'felt' out in the field. It was by no means 'in-depth' and it did leave me wanting more but it was sufficient at this stage in this cameras lifespan.
Wait for the DP review, you'll enjoy it more I'm sure.
Sure, the 1DMKII's pictures may be a littlebit soft without sharpening, but this sure is due to the thick AA-filter. But without that filter moire artefacts would be the alternative. Another advantage of a thick filter is to decrease problems due to dust on the sensor.
Sure, the 1DMKII's pictures may be a littlebit soft without sharpening, but this sure is due to the thick AA-filter. But without that filter moire artefacts would be the alternative. Another advantage of a thick filter is to decrease problems due to dust on the sensor.
yes...i agree...pics are nice...thick aa filter reduces detail...but pics are very clear...a trade off.
)
