citizensmith1664875108 Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 This is pretty much academic as I can't afford either of these right now but... Say you've got your 10D with a 300mm lens giving an effective 480mm lens and you take your 6mpxl photo. The person next to you is using the same 300mm lens but they have a 1DS. Assuming they have to crop down their photo to get it nicely framed, who ends up with the better resolution and sharpness. A 10D photo or a 1DS photo cropped to the same field of view. Another way of looking at it may be, which sensor has the better pixel density but I feel that may be over simplifying things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_doan Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 You know, I've been wondering the same thing! I eagerly await the answer, hopefully with examples! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qtluong Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Looking at the specs, the 10D has the better pixel density,but I have no idea whether this translates to better imagequality on the same sensor area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 <i>better pixel density</i><p> Ouch. There's a can of worms. Bigger pixels are better through giving higher sensitivity with lower noise. Smaller pixels are better through giving higher resolution. Bigger pixels are better as they are not so demanding of lens sharpness. Thus which is <i>better</i>?<p> However, the 10D does offer lower noise than the 1Ds at any given resolution through the advances made. The 1DS is very much on a par with the D60 for noise.<p> If both sensors fully saw the same FOV, of course the 1DS will give the better image, since it is higher resolution and the noise is thus less of an issue since it is not enlarged as much. Lens performance is not so pushed on the 1DS also since the image is enlarged rather less. <p> The pixel sizes of the two cameras are 8.8 um for the 1Ds and 7.3 um for the 10D, so if you were to crop the 1Ds image down to the same FOV as the 10D then the 10D image would be higher resolution. Since the resulting enlargement level would also then be the same, the 10D holds the noise advantage also. The 1DS maintains a sharpness advantage however by virtue of higher precision AF (assuming that a lens fast enough to enable this is used). Of course, the 1DS is more likely to get the shot right with regard to AF or MF (much better viewfinder and focusing screen) and metering. <p> However, the question is academic at present prices, because if you can afford the 1DS, you can afford the 500 F4L IS to go with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 <em>However, the question is academic at present prices, because if you can afford the 1DS, you can afford the 500 F4L IS to go with it</em> <p> I wish! <p> If I bought a 1Ds, that would be all the money I could afford to dump into a system and I'd have to use a 50/1.8II for a long while! <p> I don't know anyone who's done the test you suggest but my guess is that, if they both ended up with the same field of view, the 10D image would be better. Probably not a huge amount better, but still better. The 10D would have 6.3 MP in the image, the 1Ds would have 4.3 MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 You've already got the 500 F4.5L if I recall correctly Bob... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver_s. Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Bob, it's 10D vs. 1D<i><b>s</b></i>; with a "pixel distance" of 10.8µm, the 1D can't really compete.<p>At 7.4µm vs. 8.8µm according to Digital Photography Review's <a href="http://dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/">EOS 1Ds review</a>, the 10D should provide slightly higher resolution. But then the 1Ds should have less noise and higher dynamic range, i.e. it should get more detail out of the shadows. But then the difference in pixel size is small, and the 10D is darn good in this respect, too.<p>But then the 1Ds is more demanding on heads and tripods. Unless you use a system for ENG cameras, the 10D wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrick_morin___fallon__ne Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 I would just be curiuos to know how many buyers would (could) consider any pixel/noise/res arguements when price is considered. $1,500 vs. $8,000 is extreme. $6,500 would buy a lot of great glass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 The 10d isn't $1500. Most potential buyers already have glass for 35 mm film and the wide angles for the 10d cost a lot of extra, if they even exist. That extra investment will be essentially lost once the full-framers come out for a lower price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markci Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 >> The 10d isn't $1500.<p><a href="http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=13076301&location=PHONET&storeId=10001&processRequest=10002&prp=541166674&langId=-1&catalogId=10001">Yes it is.</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrick_morin___fallon__ne Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Okay, Ilkka, you got me. I paid $1499 for mine. And I don't know many photogs who wouldn't buy some new glass if they had an extra $6500 and a new 10D. As far as the cheaper full frame - I can't wait til it comes out - literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillip_dezwarte Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 As a 1Ds owner, I have considered this same point. Much of my favorite photography is nature related, and particularly hummingbirds. As such, FOV is critical. That said, AF performance and lag times are also critical. When I bought my 1Ds in Dec., the D60 was the next step down, and it was(still is) my opinion that the two were incomparable. However, with the introduction of the 10D, I have given serious thought to selling my 1Ds and purchasing a 10D and a second hand 500 or 600 IS. I have not yet done so for the following reasons: 1) Unwilling to give up AF system of 1Ds. Although I have yet to try 10D AF, it would have to be pretty incredible to match. 2) Unwilling to take the big hit on wide end. For instance, at the auto show, I would have to back up a heck of a lot further for same FOV, including lots of subject matter I don't want. 3) Faster shutter speed and sync speed of 1Ds comes in handy particularly with fast birds, not sure if 10D would be "good enough." 4) I really dislike less than 100% viewfinders. 5) I use spot meter predominantly. What I really need is to use a 10D for a week and see if I can live with all of the faults, and to see if the 1.6x factor makes up for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Well, here's an academic answer. I'd take the 1Ds no matter what, even if in that specific test the 10D will prove to be better. It is just SO much better in all other respects.... Happy shooting , Yakim. BTW, I suspect that most will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrick_morin___fallon__ne Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 No matter what? I envy your wallet. No doubt most would rather have a 1Ds for obvious performance advantages, but who can afford one? As far as what MOST will do, I suspect the 10D will outsell the 1Ds by well over 10 to 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Mark, my point was that the prices for the 1Ds and 10D can't be directly compared as most users aready have a set of 35 mm lenses, some of which would become close to useless for their original purposes with the 10D (24 T/S) and other lenses would need to be added (such as a 14 mm wide angle at $1800). Some users will argue that the longer lenses will make up for this loss, but that's only for those who need superteles - I don't. Actually, my 300 mm lens would get very little use with a small-frame DSLR. -- Obviously this issue doesn't compensate for the price difference between the two cameras but it does narrow it. I agree that the 10D is likely to sell really well (probably more than Canon is prepared to manufacture) - it has really created a boom here. OTOH, surprisingly many people have bought the 1Ds too, and sometimes traded a huge amount of Nikon glass to get it - which certainly adds to Canon's profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Oliver. I know it's a 1Ds not a 1D. 4.3MP is the number of pixels you'd have if you cropped a 1Ds image to the size of a 10D image (which has 6.3MP). While the cropped 1Ds image may have less noise, there's no way it can have equal resolution. The 10D image will have higher resolution and should appear sharper and enlarge to higher sizes before "falling apart". 4.3 MP is also the total pixel count of the 1D, but that's just a coincidence! A 1D(no s) image cropped to the same size as a 10D image would have only about 2.8MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Derrick, you missed my first sentence, It's "an academic answer". I currently can't afford neither. I am still struggling to buy some decent lenses. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now