What do you think of the new 1DsmkII?

[ike k]

Seems that Canon really catching up with MF, with the release of their new 1DsmkII with

16.71/17.7?? megapixels, it's just incredible how they did it. BTW here's the link

 

www. eos-d-slr.net/1ds_mark2.html

 

Dunno about the price but seems to be the same price with the 1st 1Ds which was $7999,

maybe they will lower it around $6000 who knows?.

 

Ike

[scott_eaton]

I can find situations that using film with my RB67 will make the best out-put from a 1Ds II look like dull electronic garbage and other situations the dSLR's take full advantage. Neither situation has anything to do with how many megapixels Canon can cram into a sensor, which is a trend I predict will become quite common, and annoying

 

The mkII could have 50 megapixels for all I care and it will still be inferiour to lower megapixel Phase One capture, etc., and it doesn't change the fact Canon isn't making very many lenses that can take advantage of the higher sensor density anyhow.

[jbq]

Ike: assuming that it's true, I'm not quite surprised. The sensor is not any bigger than what they already had 2 years ago, and the pixel density is (much) lower than other sensors on the market. Don't misinterpret me, it's gonna take great pictures, and with about 20% more resolution it's gonna be a measurable (and probably visible) improvement over the regular 1Ds.

 

With pressure from Kodak and Nikon they may indeed have to lower the price compared to the original 1Ds - it'll still be way outside of my budget, though, so as far as I am personally concerned it's irrelevant.

 

Scott: I used to dislike the pictures from my 10D (too dull and lifeless when straight out of the camera) until I started to learn how to make them come to life in post-processing. Took me quite a few months, during which I really wondered why I had spent the money.

[majid]

<a href="http://www.eos-d-slr.net/1ds_mark2.html">clickable link</a>

[majid]

My Japanese is seriously rusty, but one interesting snippet: apparently there is an optional wireless data transmitter WFT-E1.

[rich815]

Ah, the "Hummer" of the digital SLR world has arrived.

[ike k]

I don't think making 50MP Dslr camera is quite necessary and the thing about this 35mm

dslr is "price" just far lower than digitalback for MF ($15k to $30k?). Even many pro

photographer still consider the 1DS is more than they need but I guess Canon still

continue to eat up the MF market. Not that I care is just pitty how MF digitalback

manufacturer will compete on the pricewise. And as we can see the price of used 1DS is

hitting the $5k mark (last time I saw on fredmiranda forum).

[scott_eaton]

If you're a studio/commercial photographer that can't tell the difference in quality between a high end capture back and a 1Ds, then you likely can't tell the difference between 35mm and 645/6x6 either.

 

I'm serious - the difference between the D-Reb and 10D 6meg sensor and the 1Ds is not neary as great as the difference between the 1Ds and Phase One class gear. As far as I'm concerned the MK II would only benefit those who need greater DPI to fulfill the needs of magazine spreads, etc. There won't be a leap in terms of dynamic range over the current 1Ds, and both cameras will still fall flat on their face under low contrast lighting.

 

My 10D output is amazing, and if you haven't seen my work with the camera you should. While I wouldn't mind working with a higher rez and larger sensor like the 1Ds, it's kind of ignorant to assume either supplant MF unless your only criteria is the raw number of pixels. I don't need more pixels - I need Canon to make better lenses and their sensors work better under low contrast lighting.

[max_fun]

Scott, the improvements Canon has made to its sensors go beyond just megapixels. That's why even with much smaller sensors, the 1DmkII has a wider dynamic range than the 1D, and why the 20D has lower noise than the 10D. If you think about what Canon has managed to achieve with such dense sensors, the new 1DsmkII is much less dense than either of these cameras, which means that Canon can potentially improve noise and dynamic range much more dramatically than previously thought possible. If the quality can even come close to MF, to maybe match MF film, then I expect many people to abandon their MF gear for the convenience of the 1DsMkII. Of course people who can afford full sized MF digital backs might not bat even an eyelash, but there are many others who can see the benefits.

[franka t.l.]

From what's been surfaced, though, that the Fuji S3-Pro might turn out to be the real dark horse. With proper post exposure processing, it might be the DSLR to look for.

 

That said, I am having my $$ saved up for the Nikon Coolscan 9000ED ( ro whatever that might prop up when I got the money )

[k._rivkin]

It's all beutiful, but my problem with 35 mm:

 

1. Small viewfinders, no ability to mount any respectable size ground glass.

2. 3x2 ratio is good for 4x6 or 20x30 prints, and does not work good for anything in between. And I don't make either 4x6 or 20x30 prints. So if I frame something really tight I'm faced with a prospective of printing some freaky 10x15 and getting its custom framed for megadollars.

 

Both things are not likely to be ever corrected. So I will eventually go 100% digital, but not that I'm really enthusiastic about this.

[scott_eaton]

<i>Before barking away substituting manner for 'matter' probably a good idea to actually USE the gear.</i><P>You got some nice work there Peter A, and considering <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2703087">this work of art </a> you have posted I'm guessing you need the better white balace on the 'II' to produce a clean shot as well. How many times did you have to fill the buffer on your 1Ds to get that focus right?<I><P>Scott describe some of those situations please it would make interesting reading the contortions you would have to enter into </i><P>Yeah, shooting under overcast skies are such unique conditions for Canon's mushy CMOS I might as well be talking about shooting on the moon, and considering your expert samples from digital capture who am I to talk about a P25 vs a 1Ds II? I've worked with a lot of Phase One capture and have used two 1Ds for different part time gigs. The Phase Ones killed the 1Ds capture, and considering this is a MF forum anyhow who uses their RB or Hassie to shoot sports or action anyhow. God, what a frikken putz - somebody buy this loser a life and have him come back when he can at least upload a color balanced shot from digital capture.<P><I> If the quality can even come close to MF, to maybe match MF film, </i><P>Sounds like another 'MF = Megapixel arguement' to me, which is fine .....if you've never used slide film in your life outside the studio. Had a chance to mess with a 20D yesterday and simply found it's improvements so negligible over my 10D that I've put off my plans to get one. I bet Peter A wants one though along with a Canon 24mm 2.8 - over a Phase One.<P>I have absolutley no idea why you guys are having orgasms over Canon sticking more pixels in a given sensor area while selling $1500 dSLR's with severe AF focus problems and Toys -r- Us viewfinders that make $200 film Rebel seem like a Leica M6. I have to say I'm with the anti digital crowd on this one in that I'm not forking over that kind of coin for a 1DS or 'II' simply because it fixes what's broken in Canon's lower tier and over-priced SLRs. Rather than give me grief for not being overwhelmed with the 'II' and it's magical increase in pixel count, I'm giving the rest of you the burden of proof to show me examples of what the 'II' fixes over the current 1Ds besides simply driving down the price of the older model so you can afford one. I know how to shoot with dSLR and produce solid images, so I don't need to defend myself, and none of the half dozen or so digital based studios in town work with a 1Ds.

[aristotelis_grammatikakis]

Seeing the sample images online, gives me even more faith in using film

with my cameras. They clearly show that megapixels have very little to

do with picture quality.<P>

The problems of digital such as color fringing, cold metalic look, ugly pixelated sharpness, etc are still quite evident.

Unless they are dealt with, digital will always remain behind film no

matter the megapixel count.<P>

Unfortunately only an artist would care about such trivial image qualities. The professionals of speed and the gadget-loving amateurs

don't even notice.<P>

a.

[Dave Luttmann]

Scott,

 

I don't think think that attacking someones photos proves your point in any way. As far as Canon's "mushy" CMOS sensor goes....if indeed you find the output mushy, might I suggest adjusting the curves somewhat in Photoshop to match what your film already does in the way of an S shaped curve. If your shots look mushy, it's because of your processing, not the sensor. As far as studio use goes, I can think of quite a few studios that use the 1DS. I've had the pleasure of using a betterlight back on my Shen Hao. The resolution difference is large. The dynamic range however, is not that huge a difference. With the new 1DS MKII, at 16x24, the difference betwen a Leaf back and the Canon will be small to unnoticable. And the Canon will be much more responsive than your digital back (that you don't have, by the way).

 

Most of the problems you mention between the Canon, and larger back, can be attributed to your processing....not the sensor.

 

In the future, you might want to tame down your "seagull" method of response to others. It overshadows and undermines what you have to say.

[bas1]

Scott,

 

Really, for a talented photographer such as yourself, you really ought to watch your manners. Taking one shot from someone and taking it appart over white balance isn't a really nice thing to do now is it, especially if it doesn't, in now way whatsoever, have anything to do with the argument that Peter made.

 

His point was basically horses for courses and that with the new II Canon digital simply has access to more courses then it did before. That you cannot argue and is a rock solid argument.

 

MF digital back will knock the socks of any 35mm d-slr but just as film MF they are simply more cumbersome to use then 35mm dslr's. Now go and wash your keyboard out with some soap.... :-)

[gary_ferguson1]

"it doesn't change the fact Canon isn't making very many lenses that can take advantage of the higher sensor density anyhow"

 

I don't find the 1Ds restricted in the slightest by the 24mm T&S, 35mm 1.4 or 2.0, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.2, 135mm 2.0, 70-200 2.8, 500 4.0 etc etc. And they'll all be every bit as effective with the Mark II.

[jan_brittenson]

Let's see what I learned from shooting Canon DSLRs since the D30 came out:<br><p>

<bl><li>Mushy files -- OLPFs and NR that consume detail and dynamic range

<li>Mediocre lenses -- the 300/2.8 IS, Macro 180, 135/2 are the only acceptably good ones

<li>Disneychrome color perception -- spectral sensitivity to optimize ISO speed, not perception

<li>15-30 minutes per file of my unpaid time and labor to get publishable skin tones

<li>Other than the 1Dmk1, awful specular highlight appearance

<li>Did I mention the horribly twisted input color gamut (color perception)?

<li>Excessive chromatic aberrations with lenses with large, close-to-imager exit pupils (e.g. 24/1.4), rendering them expensive paperweights

<li>Still can't get close to the limit of 35mm film, because the lenses can't get there to begin with

<li>Great if you're learning photographic basics (such as knowing what you're going to get before you press the shutter release), and need to chimp to see what you actually captured

<li>Great if your previous experience is consumer CN film developed at the nearest drug store

</bl>

<p>

$8000? LOL!

[jan_brittenson]

<i>If you're a studio/commercial photographer that can't tell the difference in quality between a high end capture back and a 1Ds, then you likely can't tell the difference between 35mm and 645/6x6 either.</i><br><p>

Scott, allow me to illustrate. I looked through the nice set of shots from the Kalamazoo hot rod event you posted. They can only be classified as very nice! About as good as can be expected from a subject one has little or no control over in setting up. The smooth colorful surfaces with no texture (in fact, texture would be a negative) is very well suited for 35mm digital. Good job!

<br><p>

If I were to shoot the same in the studio, things would be a little different. First off, I'd be paid by someone, perhaps the auto maker, a reseller, or the body shop doing the paint job. This means the color has to be spot on, it can't look warm for effect or slightly off. In the film world, it's simply a matter of reaching for a film with super-realistic color reproduction (the subject is already intensely colorful, painted by artistic people for impact and appearance; all that's needed is to capture their expression). Where you got fairly pale blue in the speculars I would have liked a tad deeper, cooler blues to contrast with the warm paint hues. I'd gel the lightboxes blue that create the speculars and carefully set the exposure to barely partially blow out. Too much and I get halation, too little and the edge transfer softens to a gradation. I'd want both a sharp edges and soft blue gradations where appropriate. Canon DSLRs in my experience are too high contrast in this tonal range and go pale very quickly (like your pale blue skies in the chrome).

<br><p>

Once I've got this set up, there's the next issue: the model. Can't sell hotrods or other boytoys without barely legal, skimpily clad girls. With an input profile selected to produce good product color and highlight hues, the girl is most likely to look blotchy and unattractive. One fix is a paintbrush job a la Playboy magazine -- which might be acceptable or even desirable and expected for bike/car magazines due its similarity in readership -- but most likely we'll have a mismatch issue. We can get the product color right, or we can get the skin hues right, but fixing one breaks the other. Bad color gamut, bad, bad, bad!!!

<br><p>

I'm totally with you that the MF products are in a different class -- they get all this right! Every time! All you need to control is basic parameters like temperature, white balance, and tonal response. If you want to turn it into disneychrome, no problem, you can always throw information away. But there ain't no goin back the other way if you aint got it to begin with. I'm much more excited about the Imacon/Leica back. Good lenses, and a company (Imacon) with experience in accurate color reproduction. This could be the first 35mm DSLR product that, IMO, qualifies as a time and labor saver over film... At least that's my sincere hope. I've got the back on preorder. If it doesn't deliver I guess there's always ebay and if I sell it before it starts collecting on store shelves and warehouses I should be able to get most of my buckaroos back.

[Dave Luttmann]

Peter,

 

You may as well save your breath. Scott is known for swooping down, making uneducated and uniformed statements based on his limited real world experience....not to return to the thread again. He simply reads magazines about what the big boys do and wishes to be big as well. Chances are good that he has never used a digital back of any type....not that this would stop him from forming an opinion mind you.

 

All the best.

[anders_br_the]

Just relax guys, I noticed mr Scott got his account deleted yesterday. You should have no more trouble with his seagull tactics.

[Dave Luttmann]

Thanks for the update Anders. The forums will be a safer, and more informed world.

 

All the best.

[peter_kim2]

Im gonna miss scott...and Dave, he does know what he is talking about although sometimes he sounds like a jerk his helpfull advice over the years has more than made up for it I think.

[Dave Luttmann]

It looks like someone let Scott back in. And as an aside, the manner in which he treats people does overide his contributions. Much like the autofocus issue mentioned before, as I said, he swoops down, makes judgement, and when proven incorrect, never responds or apologises to those he critisized. I'm sorry, I won't miss him in the least. Unfortunately, he's back. Maybe he can behave himself now.