Does it get any better than the 1Ds mark II?

>> I don't bother to ask my wife. I just buy it. All cameras and lenses look the same to her...

 

All cameras and lenses look the same to my wife as well. Trouble is, she can easily spot the difference in our bank account.... :-(

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Try the Orgasmic Technique Yakim, Then when she says "What is this $5000 payment at Bennys Camera shop for Yakim?" you can reply "Remember dear, when we sent the kids to the shop last month on Saturday afternoon, when we were cosy and alone together, I asked you a little later in the day if I could purchase a Canon 300 2.8, you replied "Oh yess! , yessss! ,yessssssss!" You may need to tape record the permission, for proof it was given.

David said: "<i>My car is now worth cca. $4.000 (a 4 year old Fiat), so I gueass a $8.000 camera must be that good (can it drive You some place?). =)</i>"<p>

 

The used 10D that I've just bought cost more than my car is worth. But then I do drive an 8-year old Skoda.<p>

 

(cue old skoda jokes...)<p>

 

Ian

"I don't bother to ask my wife. I just buy it. All cameras and lenses look the same to her... "

Ditto for me although I obviously don't have the cash that puppy face has....

 

"All cameras and lenses look the same to my wife as well. Trouble is, she can easily spot the difference in our bank account.... :-( "

Ditto again, but we have seperate accounts and mine is online only - no statements.

I'm sure I'll get shot down on this one by the fine art paper snobs. But here goes. My personal opinion is the weakest link in digital has been printing. For me the output on matte and fine art papers from an inkjet is an absolute joke both from me the and from so called "internet photographic masters". The only options in my book for B&W have been to outsource to lightjet on a photographic matte paper or equally high quality is the output from a 2200 with a good RIP like Imageprint 6 on Pictorico High-Gloss film with an over spray of McDonald SureGard Matte special (not 100% matte). It's taken me several years to finally slap myself in the face and get on "with it". I have a cabinet full of fine are papers Hahnemühle Photo-Rag, Entrada ect....

 

So my point is...yes you can do excellent B&W with an inkjet. I just think you need to ignore some of what you hear on the net a little bit.

 

P.S. If you take a look at some of the "traditional masters" like Clyde Butcher for example whose work is selling for 10 grand and up that have begun to work digitally with an inkjet they are printing on high gloss paper. By the way Pictorico's archival properties are better than Photo-Rag and Silver.

Just an after thought. There are two printer that came out this year offering a solution for printing on "gloss" papers with archival inks that I had high hopes for. One is the Epson Epson Stylus Photo R1800 with gloss optimizer. The output I have seen from this printer has problems. Areas of fine detail look smudged or blocked up. Maybe this could be solved with an RIP (Imageprint does not yet support this printer). The other printer is the HP Photosmart 8750 with interchangeable color and gray ink cartridges. The output I have seen from this printer looks pretty good. However, with the HP driver the output shows poor shadow and highlight detail (this maybe solved with an RIP or custom profiles), the ink cartridges are tiny and over the top expensive, it only works on HP papers, and you have no control of the print tone.

 

Sorry for seeming to be off topic but a cameras image quality becomes irrelevant if your prints are not of equally high quality. What's the point?

In answer to some of oyur questions and comments. I used the link http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm for some great references into Black only Digital printing. I use most of the techniques described there and I really enjoy the results.

 

I also understand that cameras will continue to improve, but I think we will reach a point of diminished returns. Maybe Canon will release some awsome new camera in the next year or two. Eventually how much better can image quality be from a digital print? There has to be a theoretical limit.

 

Regards,

Steve

I think it's great we need you and more people like you Stephen. Because in

two years time that $8K Canon will be repalced by another $8K 20 MP body

(notice no price drop) and then I'll buy yours for $3350...so you do serve a

purpose.

"Grant, yeah-- but the 16-35 and 24-70 are black ;)"

 

Yaron, I know! Good thing I didn't teach her about the RED ring...I'd really be in trouble. Or I'd have to use a black marker on them. 24-70 and 200/2.8 came in under the radar.

 

Separate bank accounts and UPS delivers to my office.

Stephen glad your happy,<br>

Is the 1Ds Mark II 8 times better then a 10D with the same "L" lens?

<br>

Just curious..

"Is the 1Ds Mark II 8 times better then a 10D with the same "L" lens?"

 

Funny that you ask. From a resolution standpoint on the same lens, no, it's not any better. The 1DsII and 10D sensors have roughly the SAME pixel density. Very truly just the difference of the 1.6 crop factor. To get to 20D resolving power a full frame sensor, it will need to be just under 22 megapixels. So to be fair, the 1DsII is 1.6^2x or only 2.56 times better than a 10D.