10D v 1D

[G.lens]

If the 10D AF is as good as or better than the Elan 7 AF, which some readers are saying is as good as the EOS3 AF, then surely the 10D will be great competition for the 1D, esp with the 10D having 6.3mp.I have a D60 and shoot alot of sport and get by with its AF and 3fps, if the AF is as improved as they say it is then bye bye D60.

 

[Jason Hutchinson]

The Elan 7 AF isn't as good as the EOS 3. You're going to see lots of people complaining about the 10D AF once they try it. Those same people would complain if they had an EOS1V as well. There are some that can't be pleased, and expect to point a camera at no contrast under dim lighting and expect AF.

Jason

If the 10D AF is as good as or better than the Elan 7 AF, which
some readers are saying is as good as the EOS3 AF, then surely the
10D will be great competition for the 1D, esp with the 10D having
6.3mp.I have a D60 and shoot alot of sport and get by with its AF
and 3fps, if the AF is as improved as they say it is then bye bye
D60.

 

[Jeffrey Lazo]

I sitll do not thing that the two can be compared. One is a consumer level camera, the other a pro body.

Its not just AF, which by the way, the ID having 45 points makes a big difference, it is also build, metering, wieght, color, etc.
--
--
Jeffrey Lazo
-Check out my D60 Galleries-
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj
-Newbie Lens Information/Prices -
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj/lenses/lenses.html
Please don't use your local shops as 'Internet show-rooms'

 

[Chris Epler]

Its not just AF, which by the way, the ID having 45 points makes a
big difference, it is also build, metering, wieght, color, etc.

..not to mention price.

--
Chris A. Epler
http://members.fotki.com/cepler/

 

[John Kim]

If the 10D AF is as good as or better than the Elan 7 AF, which
some readers are saying is as good as the EOS3 AF, then surely the

He said the Elan7's AF was faster than the EOS3, which is probably true since the Elan7 came out almost 3 years after the EOS3.

However, the EOS3's AF is rated down to EV0, while the Elan7's AF is only rated to EV1. My Elan7e tends to hunt a lot in low light with an 85mm f/1.8 attached.

 

[Marc Brackhahn]

Its not just AF, which by the way, the ID having 45 points makes a
big difference, it is also build, metering, wieght, color, etc.

..not to mention price.

...not to mention FPS!

--
Chris A. Epler
http://members.fotki.com/cepler/

--

D60, G2, Elan 7E QD, Rebel 2000, 24-70L, 70-200L IS, 100-400L IS, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, 135mm f/2, 200mm f/2.8 USM, 1-550EX, 2-420EXs, MT-24EX, Bogen Tri-pod w/head, Bogen monopod and the usual filters, cable releases and accessories.

 

[G.lens]

Dude
Look at the price difference!

It all comes down to one thing the guy behind the FINGER.ESP with sport.

I sitll do not thing that the two can be compared. One is a
consumer level camera, the other a pro body.

Its not just AF, which by the way, the ID having 45 points makes a
big difference, it is also build, metering, wieght, color, etc.
--
--
Jeffrey Lazo
-Check out my D60 Galleries-
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj
-Newbie Lens Information/Prices -
http://homepage.mac.com/lazoj/lenses/lenses.html
Please don't use your local shops as 'Internet show-rooms'

 

[mike kobal]

If the 10D AF is as good as or better than the Elan 7 AF, which
some readers are saying is as good as the EOS3 AF, then surely the
10D will be great competition for the 1D, esp with the 10D having
6.3mp.I have a D60 and shoot alot of sport and get by with its AF
and 3fps, if the AF is as improved as they say it is then bye bye
D60.

for sports, the 1D cannot be beat.
mike kobal

 

[G.lens]

What about the 4.1mp? Getting a bit dated ain't it!

If the 10D AF is as good as or better than the Elan 7 AF, which
some readers are saying is as good as the EOS3 AF, then surely the
10D will be great competition for the 1D, esp with the 10D having
6.3mp.I have a D60 and shoot alot of sport and get by with its AF
and 3fps, if the AF is as improved as they say it is then bye bye
D60.

for sports, the 1D cannot be beat.
mike kobal

 

[aevoegels]

sucks... considering the price.

If the 10D AF is as good as or better than the Elan 7 AF, which
some readers are saying is as good as the EOS3 AF, then surely the
10D will be great competition for the 1D, esp with the 10D having
6.3mp.I have a D60 and shoot alot of sport and get by with its AF
and 3fps, if the AF is as improved as they say it is then bye bye
D60.

for sports, the 1D cannot be beat.
mike kobal

 

[Stefan Schott]

What about the 4.1mp? Getting a bit dated ain't it!

You're kidding, right? How big did you say you blow up your Rugby pix?

Ciao
Stefan

 

[G.lens]

Don't have a 1D....bugger! I use a D60 6.2mp, up to A2, lets say you can't get away with much cropping off the oringnal image if you are going to blow it up to A3 with the 1D, Ive seen the results here in magazines.

What about the 4.1mp? Getting a bit dated ain't it!

You're kidding, right? How big did you say you blow up your Rugby pix?

Ciao
Stefan

 

[John Kim]

What about the 4.1mp? Getting a bit dated ain't it!

A lot of the megapixel hype is marketing driven. At 2,464 x 1,648 resolution:

Graphics displayed on a monitor look good at about 72 dpi. You'd need a monitor 34" x 23" in size to view a 4MP picture at that resolution.

Graphics printed on a dot-matrix or thermal transfer printer look good at about 150 dpi. You'd need paper 16" x 11" to view a 4MP picture at that resolution. Even printed on paper that size, an individual pixel would be 0.17mm in width - about the width of a human hair.

So unless your eyes are good enough to spot sub-human-hair sized details when viewing a picture that large, 4MP is plenty. The extra megapixels are only really useful if you're cropping or enlarging beyond the above sizes.

 

[koalafarm140687]

assuming good composition, an 8x10 still crops out a bunch of pixels.
150dpi on a printer is minimum
print out at 300dpi a top quality laser printer

What about the 4.1mp? Getting a bit dated ain't it!

A lot of the megapixel hype is marketing driven. At 2,464 x 1,648
resolution:

Graphics displayed on a monitor look good at about 72 dpi. You'd
need a monitor 34" x 23" in size to view a 4MP picture at that
resolution.

Graphics printed on a dot-matrix or thermal transfer printer look
good at about 150 dpi. You'd need paper 16" x 11" to view a 4MP
picture at that resolution. Even printed on paper that size, an
individual pixel would be 0.17mm in width - about the width of a
human hair.

So unless your eyes are good enough to spot sub-human-hair sized
details when viewing a picture that large, 4MP is plenty. The
extra megapixels are only really useful if you're cropping or
enlarging beyond the above sizes.

--
The more things change, the more things change

 

[MKW26615]

If the 10D AF is as good as or better than the Elan 7 AF, which
some readers are saying is as good as the EOS3 AF, then surely the
10D will be great competition for the 1D, esp with the 10D having
6.3mp.I have a D60 and shoot alot of sport and get by with its AF
and 3fps, if the AF is as improved as they say it is then bye bye
D60.

--
------------------------------------------------
M.K. Whitley
http://www.mkwphotography.com

'I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.'

• Mark Twain

 

[jonlg]

a 1D, 45 AF points plastered around it's screen, it can track in AI servo mode........ well almost anything.
1D AF points > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1d/page5.asp

7 point AF will be better, but not by a whole lot, sports photogs ain't lining up for this consumer cam.
Don't get to excited now.
John

If the 10D AF is as good as or better than the Elan 7 AF, which
some readers are saying is as good as the EOS3 AF, then surely the
10D will be great competition for the 1D, esp with the 10D having
6.3mp.I have a D60 and shoot alot of sport and get by with its AF
and 3fps, if the AF is as improved as they say it is then bye bye
D60.

--
http://www.digi-images.com

For the best solution to archiving your digital photos http://www.pictureflow.com/ArchiveCreator/Pages/AC-Main.html

 

[Stephen Waits]

So unless your eyes are good enough to spot sub-human-hair sized
details when viewing a picture that large, 4MP is plenty. The
extra megapixels are only really useful if you're cropping or
enlarging beyond the above sizes.

They're easy as heck to spot when they're in nice little square shapes called pixels or dots.

And monitor resolutions suck, please let's not compare that to print. Anyone can see the individual RGB (Bayer pattern) dots on any monitor (yes, 0.25 or any dot pitch you want) if they just look at it.

And BTW, the "monitors are 72dpi" thing is way old and outdated. The original piece of junk Mac fit that description and now everyone seems to stick by it like it's gospel.

--Steve

 

[John Kim]

They're easy as heck to spot when they're in nice little square
shapes called pixels or dots.

So what printer outputs pixels as nice squares?

And monitor resolutions suck, please let's not compare that to
print. Anyone can see the individual RGB (Bayer pattern) dots on
any monitor (yes, 0.25 or any dot pitch you want) if they just look
at it.

Well sure, if you plaster your nose right up to the monitor, of course you can see the individual dots. That's irrelevant since nobody views pictures like that except obsessed photo geeks.

And BTW, the "monitors are 72dpi" thing is way old and outdated.
The original piece of junk Mac fit that description and now
everyone seems to stick by it like it's gospel.

72 dpi doesn't come from the Mac. 20/20 vision is defined as the ability to resolve details the size of one arc-minute (1/60th of a degree). At 10 inches, that works out to 343 dpi. If you view your monitor at 24 inches, that works out to 143 dpi. Since this is the smallest detail you can resolve with 20/20 vision, halve it for comfortable viewing and you get 71.5 dpi, usually rounded up to 72 dpi. This figure cannot grow "old or outdated" unless our eyeballs evolve beyond 20/20 acuity.

A 15" 1024x768 LCD monitor is 85 dpi
A 17" 1280x1024 LCD monitor is 94 dpi
A 21" 1600x1200 CRT monitor is 95 dpi

None of these are substantially higher than the old 72 dpi standard.

Same goes for printed output. If you're viewing it at 24 inches (about handheld with a bent elbow) and you have 20/20 vision, anything beyond 150 dpi is imperceptible.

 

[Stephen Waits]

They're easy as heck to spot when they're in nice little square
shapes called pixels or dots.

So what printer outputs pixels as nice squares?

We weren't discussing a printer limitation - we're talking about the limits of original image size. Of course printer "dots" are usually just that, dots. But, we're talking about printing square pixel data at low resolution. Yes, you can upres, and do all sorts of fancy filtering along the way to make things not so square, however, you understand my point - you're a sharp guy.

And monitor resolutions suck, please let's not compare that to
print. Anyone can see the individual RGB (Bayer pattern) dots on
any monitor (yes, 0.25 or any dot pitch you want) if they just look
at it.

Well sure, if you plaster your nose right up to the monitor, of
course you can see the individual dots. That's irrelevant since
nobody views pictures like that except obsessed photo geeks.

Exactly. But in my reply I was addressing the idea that it's stupid to bring up monitors and 72dpi in talking about printed output. Apples, Oranges.

And BTW, the "monitors are 72dpi" thing is way old and outdated.
The original piece of junk Mac fit that description and now
everyone seems to stick by it like it's gospel.

72 dpi doesn't come from the Mac. 20/20 vision is defined as the
ability to resolve details the size of one arc-minute (1/60th of a
degree). At 10 inches, that works out to 343 dpi. If you view your
monitor at 24 inches, that works out to 143 dpi. Since this is the
smallest detail you can resolve with 20/20 vision, halve it for
comfortable viewing and you get 71.5 dpi, usually rounded up to 72
dpi. This figure cannot grow "old or outdated" unless our eyeballs
evolve beyond 20/20 acuity.

Ok, perhaps the Mac thing was an urban legend. I picked that up in one of Bruce what's-his-name's (the BruceRGB guy) books. Apparently he's misinformed too.

A 15" 1024x768 LCD monitor is 85 dpi
A 17" 1280x1024 LCD monitor is 94 dpi
A 21" 1600x1200 CRT monitor is 95 dpi

None of these are substantially higher than the old 72 dpi standard.

But not 72, which was my point.

We agree way more than you thought!

--Steve

 

[John Kim]

So what printer outputs pixels as nice squares?

We weren't discussing a printer limitation - we're talking about
the limits of original image size. Of course printer "dots" are
usually just that, dots. But, we're talking about printing square
pixel data at low resolution. Yes, you can upres, and do all sorts
of fancy filtering along the way to make things not so square,
however, you understand my point - you're a sharp guy.

AFAIK, pretty much all modern printers have built-in anti-aliasing algorithms to take care of the problem you're alluding to.

Exactly. But in my reply I was addressing the idea that it's
stupid to bring up monitors and 72dpi in talking about printed
output. Apples, Oranges.

It wasn't stupid. There are two ways to view digital images - on a monitor, and printed out. So I gave numbers for both methods.

72 dpi doesn't come from the Mac. 20/20 vision is defined as the
ability to resolve details the size of one arc-minute (1/60th of a
degree). At 10 inches, that works out to 343 dpi. If you view your
monitor at 24 inches, that works out to 143 dpi. Since this is the
smallest detail you can resolve with 20/20 vision, halve it for
comfortable viewing and you get 71.5 dpi, usually rounded up to 72
dpi. This figure cannot grow "old or outdated" unless our eyeballs
evolve beyond 20/20 acuity.

Ok, perhaps the Mac thing was an urban legend. I picked that up in
one of Bruce what's-his-name's (the BruceRGB guy) books.
Apparently he's misinformed too.

The Mac probably helped standardize 72 dpi, but the number is based on the human eye. It wasn't a number pulled out of thin air by Apple because it fit the monitors they put on the original Macs. Rather, they selected the monitors based on the number.

A 15" 1024x768 LCD monitor is 85 dpi
A 17" 1280x1024 LCD monitor is 94 dpi
A 21" 1600x1200 CRT monitor is 95 dpi

None of these are substantially higher than the old 72 dpi standard.

But not 72, which was my point.

We agree way more than you thought!

A significant number of my friends with 17" LCDs complain text at 1280x1024 is too small and run them at 1024x768 (75 dpi) even though that requires interpolation and messes up the aspect ratio. Either way, it's only a 20%-25% margin of error. My point still stands that 4MP is more than plenty for making a pretty big picture on paper, and a humongous picture on video.