H. Kretzschmar wrote:
Another advantage of a thick filter is to decrease problems due to dust on the sensor.
Agreed. I love that I can grab the Rebel and I don't have to worry about dust spots. With the 1Ds I do test shots for dust before every important shoot.
I actually like Michaels work and I wish I had taken some of his older photos but I agree with you all that I want to know if I can buy this unit and have it all rather than the 1Ds which won't do much for my studio or horse photgraphy. On the AA filter issue thats nice info but we have to go futher. It is true that 10D and Rebel photos require post processing to make them sharp but the facts are that they are sharp when you do it - very sharp.
So what I want to know is - is the 1D-II a Rebel with about 33% more in the quality or not and at 24 by 36 inches in a landscape what are the differences in detail after post processing between it and the 1D-s
Bruce Connelly wrote:
at 24 by 36 inches in a landscape what are the differences in detail after post processing between it and the 1D-s
I am interested in this too. It would seem that, due to file size differences, that the 1Ds will maintain some level of higher detail in large prints. But how much difference? Will it be more, or significantly more, than just what would be expected due to the difference between 8 MP and 11 MP?
It will be interesting to see the results from a number of people when the MK II becomes generally available.
It's obvious that Michael is and always has been a "real world" reviewer and doesn't dwell on numbers and specs. When you have the real thing in your hands, it becomes a "photo" game and no longer a "numbers" game. Great reviewer and great website!
I agree that MR is being a bit dogamatic in not talking about the actual resolution of the camera (perhaps Canon told him he couldn't). But he does provide the only detailed SNR figures I have seen. This shows that the 1D MKII has substantially lower noise figure than 1Ds, and to some extent the 10D. This is a key consideration for me, as high ISOs are a huge helper when it comes to wildlife shoot, early in the morning.
The noise figure at least for me, is more important than the resolution. I use my 10D with my 500mm instead of 1Ds because of the excellent noise figure even at ISO 400. The 1Ds is really bad here, especially if you happen to underexpose.
So while I would have liked to see more detailed picture quality tests, the noise data still provides much insight to the actually quality produced by this camera.
As to MR not know what he is doing, as a subscriber to his excellent video journal, I have to say that he is a hell of a lot better than most people. His skills are certainly better than mine .
All the maths on the planet might tell you how good IN THEORY it is -- but a camera is only any good if it actually produces images. Noise doesn't have to be a problem (aka grain on Film) provided it's "the right sort of noise".
A S/N graph is obviously an indication -- but REAL photographers going out to do REAL shoots want to know what the REAL image quality is like. Everything else IMO is subordinate to that.
I'm sure we'll know soon enough but a review that doesn't discuss image quality in any significant depth is rather like writing a car review without being allowed to drive the wretched beast.
I doubt if the MK II can act as a replacement for the 1Ds -- it *could* be a cheaper alternative if you really don't need the incredible detail obtainable with the 1Ds.
I'm sure other more in depth reviews will appear now the camera has started shipping.
I doubt if the MK II can act as a replacement for the 1Ds -- it *could* be a cheaper alternative if you really don't need the incredible detail obtainable with the 1Ds.
Or you can buy both!!!!!!!!
I wish!!! If the kidney sale on ebay comes thru then i may get a 1dmkII before Summer!
Nicholas M wrote:
I enjoyed the review and his viewpoint. He is a photographer first and foremost and makes no bones about his style or opinions. refreshing.
Well you certainly couldn't tell it by the examples he provided. He is using a 500 f/4L IS and his pics look like they came out of a P&S.
I would expect to se much better images coming from MR in the near future. He went on a photoshoot but didn't get any 'keepers'. That's just the way it is sometimes.
He says he shot 1,000 frames with the camera. I can't imagine a dodo like me shooting 1,000 frames with *any* camera and the worst lens on the planet and getting images that bad. He shoots 1,000 frames with the best "L" lenses and *those* are the best three images he got? Something is seriously wrong. I'm a subscriber to his video journal and love it (I have learned quite a bit - thanks Michael) but to post these horrible images in the first real review of Canon's best camera was very disappointing to say the least.
... but he does have an opinion of his own and it is well argumented. You can disagree with him and choose to skip his reviews. I think he has a valid point, and I for one am very interested in ergonomics which in the long run will give as much pleasure in the field as sharp images give on the monitor. I love my 17-40 every day more, not because it is the sharpest lens around but because of the lovely weight balance with my D60+battery grip, the light but sturdy feel, the smooth operation (USM), the fact that it focusses much more consistent than my 50/1.8 Mk I etc. These things also count. But yes, sitting before my monitor the 50/1.8 produces sharper images (when in focus).....
Let's take the ease of use argument to it's logical conclusion. My wife has a 2 MP Sony DSC-U20. It's increadibly small & light. There are no controls at all except for the shutter. What could be easier to use? No f-stops, no worrying about exposure or technique. It even has a very low shutter lag. Why don't we all dump our DLSR's in favor of the U20?
To turn the argument around, why would anyone ever want to shoot with a 4x5 field cam? It's large and cumbersome, takes a long time to set up and use, you have to carry around a lot of accessories, film is expensive, etc. Why would anyone in their right mind ever want to use a 4x5? Can anyone tell me?
Logical? That is not the logical conclusion. He said the image quality was terrific and it is from the same mold as the 1Ds. And offered little or no more comment on it, as there really isn't a whole lot to say if that is the case. Your logic is without regard to image quality. He clearly says the image quality is no the differentiating factor; if the image quality was crap, now it would be differentiating, now wouldn't it.
A tempest in a teapot. If the review is dishonest or misleading in someway, I understand the complaints. But going on about so much about a review simply because it doesn't include what you want is a waste of time, which begs the question why I am even bothering to read/write this.
Incidentally, he used to shoot large format, but found it too cumbersome and went to medium format.
Image quality will always matter. It matters for cropping. We will not all go out and buy the hottest slide film from K or F or whoever. Now we must buy the "film" with the camera. It always will matter. Either C or N (or S or O or F or ...) will be ahead in any generation. I'd like to know by how much and how it limits my art.
Paul Kierstead wrote:
If the review is dishonest or misleading in someway, I understand the complaints.
His reviews are either dishonest and misleading or he is really stupid - take your pick. To maintain that all digital cams available now have more or less the same image quality is ridiculous. 8x10's from the Sony 828 look crappy. I couldn't in good faith try to sell them.
Tom Conte wrote:
My view of him as he presents these sophistic arguments:
Image quality will always matter. It matters for cropping. We will not all go out and buy the hottest slide film from K or F or whoever. Now we must buy the "film" with the camera. It always will matter. Either C or N (or S or O or F or ...) will be ahead in any generation. I'd like to know by how much and how it limits my art.
Tom
Bah! He never said that quality does not matter, simply that it is not too far removed from the 10D or the 1Ds that came before it.
Further, I don't think any of the 1 series digital cameras on the market today should be terribly limiting to anyone's art. I manage to get my 10D, which is supposedly a prosumer/toy camera, to meet the expectations of my art on a regular basis. THIS is what MR is talking about; most modern digital cameras deliver the goods on image quality, so the next logical think to think about is usability and system design. The image quality of the 10D, D60, D100, D70, S2, 300D, etc etc etc are, as far as I have been able to tell from limited to extensive personal experience, acceptable, though different, from each other. What MR is saying is that the 1D II delivers image quality similar to the 1Ds with a reduced pixel count. That's his opinion of course, and you are free to come to your own conclusions based on sample provided by Canon, reviews, and on your own personal experience once the camera comes in. But what he is focusing on is the ergonomics, and holding image quality to be equal to or slightly better than what else is out there.
Further, I would second Paul's comment. If you don't think MR's review tells you what you need, that's fine, but to spend time creating a thread discussing how Micheal Reichmann's writings don't slake your thirst for photographic knowledge is more than a little pointless. Of course, I guess it's just as pointless for me to be responding on that very thread, but I can never seem to resist.
bouch wrote:
His reviews are either dishonest and misleading or he is really stupid - take your pick. To maintain that all digital cams available now have more or less the same image quality is ridiculous. 8x10's from the Sony 828 look crappy. I couldn't in good faith try to sell them.
I think he is referring to cameras in the same class. He is implying that all pro series bodies have roughly equivalent image quality in prints. I don't know how true that is, but between the D100, 10D, and 300D, I have certainly found that to be true. With the 1Ds, you take a step up, but you are also entering a different class and price point.
I would certainly agree with MR on that point on the digital bridge cameras having equal quality.. equally poor in my opinion. They all generate crappy image quality unsuitable for prints, so to discuss the nuance of image reproduction from one $1000 P&S versus another is somewhat meaningless. I have some great pictures I took a little over a year ago with a P&S that I had, and to this day I wish I had my current kit or better; the images simply can't be printed 8x10 without some significant artifacts showing up.
.
