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

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by stephen_persky, Mar 9, 2005.

  1. Hello,

    I was just comparing many of my old prints to the 1Ds Mark II. I
    have many prints from Leica cameras and medium format. The range is
    8x10 to 13x19 to 16x20 prints. I have to say that the prints from
    the 1Ds mark II beat them all. The resolution is just amazing even
    at all resolutions. I feel that 35mm does not even come close to the
    Digital prints from the 1Ds Mark II. I would say that the only close
    film comparison would be film 6x6 or larger. It is truly amazing to
    have the versatility of a 35mm camera combined with Medium format or
    better quality.

    Just really happy with the Canon DSLR. I hope this post does not
    offend.

    Regards,
     
  2. If it just weren't for those pesky 8,000 reason's I can't get one......darn it!

    Yes it is, for now, the ultimate.
     
  3. Dear God, before I die, may I please find a 20D clone that has fullframe 35? Please? thankyou.
     
  4. "I hope this post does not offend." <p> Only tho$e of u$ without the ca$h...
     
  5. Here is a sample shot. I used a B&W conversion in photoshop.
    00BRQq-22271084.jpg
     
  6. the prints I make from my $8000 Canon 1Ds Mark II, are better than those from my $179 Minolta SRT-101. sorry to offend.
     
  7. Well here is what happened. I was all ready to buy the 1D mark II and I decided to download some Raw shots from the 1Dmark II and the 1Ds Mark II. My wife and I compared many printouts, and we could see an obvious difference. Both cameras beat my 35mm film shots. So I just asked my wife for the extra 4k for the 1Ds Mark 2. She said sure it is like having medium format and 35mm all rolled into one. It seemed cheap when you look at it that way:)

    Regards
    Steve
     
  8. It's going to get even better, just wait another year or so when the release the mark-3, with a bajillion more pixels. They are no longer cameras, they are consumer electronics. Gone are the days when you could buy an OM2N and it would work for the next 30 years with nothing to beat it.
     
  9. "For now" is the key. There will be improvements to sensors and probably even more to processing speeds and memory. It won't be too long before the 8000 reasons will be reduced to only 1000 to 1500.


    They strung us along for 20 years telling us they were making exposure better, then they strung us along for 20 years telling us they were making autofocus better, they have spent the last 10 years actually working on something new and they'll spend the next 10 perfecting it. That will give them the next 20 year phase to string us along while they work on autofocus again in a continual attempt to improve it. Then they'll realize that they do not need the lens at all for imaging purposes and figure away to get rid of that! Some sort of x-ray, lazer, radar, ultrasound, cellular, RF, 3-d hologram imaging device with colour. I do hope they'll leave me alone in my retirement to finish off the last bits of film and flash cards. I certainly do not want to have to learn something new again!
     
  10. Just don't post this on the Leica forum or you'll get stoned (and not in a good way...) for your blasphemy.
     
  11. Hopefully
     
  12. >>Just don't post this on the Leica forum or you'll get stoned (and not in a good way...) for your blasphemy.<<

    Yeah, but can it do Glow? :)
     
  13. this is a question, not an answer. Would the B&W print you get from the inkjet printer of the above digital image be as good as the print that you would get if you used film camera and the old wet chemical printing process? I just can't get any decent B&W prints from my inkjet printer.
     
  14. "So I just asked my wife for the extra 4k for the 1Ds Mark 2. She said sure it is like having medium format and 35mm all rolled into one. It seemed cheap when you look at it that way:)"

    Up next: Stephen asks his wife for the money to buy a turbo Porsche so he can drive to the room he wants to rent for a month at the Playboy mansion...AND GETS IT!
     
  15. "I was just comparing many of my old prints to the 1Ds Mark II. I have many prints from Leica cameras and medium format. The range is 8x10 to 13x19 to 16x20 prints. I have to say that the prints from the 1Ds mark II beat them all."

    That can't be! Where's the super-film crowd with their tests and FBI links (but no images) to PROVE that expired drugstore ISO 200 print film makes the images from your 1Ds mkII look like somebody spit on a roll of 110 film before printing? And if you have Leica glass in front of that 35mm drugstore film...MEDIUM FORMAT, WATCH OUT!

    (Sorry, couldn't resist. BTW, does your wife have a single sister? I'm looking for a woman who will just give the OK whenever I want to spend large sums of money on camera equipment ;-)
     
  16. "I'm looking for a woman who will just give the OK whenever I want to spend large sums of
    money on camera equipment ;-)"

    I don't bother to ask my wife. I just buy it. All cameras and lenses look the same to her...
     
  17. Stephen, I'm glad you like your new camera. I wish I could motivate buying but that price point isn't something I'm willing to spend (then add L glass). Partly, I think you are just high on high quality digital! :) A DSLR w/ good lens/es is a perfect tool for shooting kids, which is what I use it a lot for.

    Can it get better? Sure, one just have to pay more money.

    That the resolution and print quality of a $8K camera vs. a $1,000 Leica or any-brand-SLR is higher/very impressive isn't really a shocker. But that doesn't change the fact that they serve different purposes, nor that resolution is everything.

    In a perfect world, I wish I could own/use all of them! :)
     
  18. Dan, I have said it before. You buy the equipment first, and then justify it to the wife later.
    After all, does she consult you before dropping a few hundred at the beauty parlor /
    clothing store / shoe store? I'll bet not, and I'll also bet she does that several times a year
    at each location!
     
  19. well as long as there is no clear way to get those digital image in the same quality to a baryth paper, as I can with my Mamiya 7 I would never spend that much in getting high quality pixel images I can watch on my computer. My goal is getting high quality long lasting B&W barith prints. I don?t like those inkjet prints in tone and quality.
     
  20. The best time for guys to ask for pemission from their ladies to buy camera equipment etc is in the pre orgasmic instant, so you need to hone those others skills up too! I hope this useful post does not offend! Just real happy with my new Porsche!
     
  21. At $8k, it better be good.<br>
     
  22. Doesn't offend me at all, but my husband and bank manager might be very displeased :D
    I'm hopping over this generation and waiting for the Mk3 instead.
    Cheers/Anna
     
  23. "I don't bother to ask my wife. I just buy it. All cameras and lenses look the
    same to her..."

    Unfortunately, I made the mistake of telling my wife that she only needed to
    worry when the lenses that arrive are white...one can't hide a 70-200IS very
    easily.


    And right now, the 1DsII is the carrot for many photographers to turn pro, or
    take on paid work they'd normally turn down...IT BETTER BE GOOD!
    Personally just waiting till they get a LOT cheaper.
     
  24. 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?). =)
     
  25. ky2

    ky2

    Grant, yeah-- but the 16-35 and 24-70 are black ;)
     
  26. >> 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.
     
  27. 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.
     
  28. David said: "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?). =)"
    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.
    (cue old skoda jokes...)
    Ian
     
  29. "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.
     
  30. 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.
     
  31. 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?
     
  32. 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
     
  33. 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.
     
  34. "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.
     
  35. Stephen glad your happy,<br>
    Is the 1Ds Mark II 8 times better then a 10D with the same "L" lens?
    <br>
    Just curious..
     
  36. "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.
     

Share This Page