1DMkII - Why the mad excitement?

[DavidMillier]

I think culture rather than maths plays a part here.

To people brought up on the A system, if it takes two A4 sheets to cover an A3 then A3 is double the size of A4. That equates to 8MP being twice 4MP and hence capable of double the size prints.

It seems odd to me, but some photographers seem to think that twice the size means that both linear dimensions have to be doubled (which seems like 4x the size to me).

Cultural differences, I guess.

The 1D Mk II's sensor provides 15.5% more pixels in a single
dimensions (linear) than the 10D. They way you arrive at this is to
take the square root of the 1.33 (133%). You take the square root
because, as you say, the MP of the sensor is the AREA of the sensor.

Unbound is correct in his calculations.

Joo

a 25% increase in pixels WILL give you 25% more information - which
means 25% more surface area. The IMAGE size IS 25% larger....in
terms of area. A 10x10 room is 100 sf. vs 14x14 room which is 200
sf. The 14x14 room is twice as large, but in terms of wall length
is only 40% larger.

In my view, it comes down to cropping. You can crop 25% of the
pixels on an 8mp image and still have the resolution of a 10D.

The proof will be in the pudding, though...I'm selling my 10D AFTER
I get my mkii.....so I'll do some side-by-sides for fun.

Mark

The math is correct... 25% more pixels do not give you an image
that is 25% larger. Think of it this way (and I'm keeping the math
simple)... a 2000 x 2000 pixel sensor is 4MP, and gives you an
image that will print at 1x size. Now if we more than double the
pixel count, to 9 MP, you have a sensor that is less than 3000 x
3000, which would result in an image 1.5x size.

So if going from 4MP to 9MP gives only 1.5x the print size, going
from 6MP to 8MP is really more like 1.15x an increase. Not much at
all... and (besides pixel size), as sensor counts increase, the
difference between sizes becomes less and less significant in terms
of print size.

--
http://www.pbase.com/greentank
10D, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll

blame the equipment.



http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.daehwang.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/

 

[David Martin]

Linguistic, more like - I don't understand these percentage arguments, as the dispute is usually about what it is a percent of - they are obviously very different for linear against areal calculations.

Looking at the confusion this seems to cause, I reckon it's a good job we are photographer's, not statisticians!

To people brought up on the A system, if it takes two A4 sheets to
cover an A3 then A3 is double the size of A4. That equates to 8MP
being twice 4MP and hence capable of double the size prints.

It seems odd to me, but some photographers seem to think that twice
the size means that both linear dimensions have to be doubled
(which seems like 4x the size to me).

Cultural differences, I guess.

The 1D Mk II's sensor provides 15.5% more pixels in a single
dimensions (linear) than the 10D. They way you arrive at this is to
take the square root of the 1.33 (133%). You take the square root
because, as you say, the MP of the sensor is the AREA of the sensor.

Unbound is correct in his calculations.

Joo

a 25% increase in pixels WILL give you 25% more information - which
means 25% more surface area. The IMAGE size IS 25% larger....in
terms of area. A 10x10 room is 100 sf. vs 14x14 room which is 200
sf. The 14x14 room is twice as large, but in terms of wall length
is only 40% larger.

In my view, it comes down to cropping. You can crop 25% of the
pixels on an 8mp image and still have the resolution of a 10D.

The proof will be in the pudding, though...I'm selling my 10D AFTER
I get my mkii.....so I'll do some side-by-sides for fun.

Mark

The math is correct... 25% more pixels do not give you an image
that is 25% larger. Think of it this way (and I'm keeping the math
simple)... a 2000 x 2000 pixel sensor is 4MP, and gives you an
image that will print at 1x size. Now if we more than double the
pixel count, to 9 MP, you have a sensor that is less than 3000 x
3000, which would result in an image 1.5x size.

So if going from 4MP to 9MP gives only 1.5x the print size, going
from 6MP to 8MP is really more like 1.15x an increase. Not much at
all... and (besides pixel size), as sensor counts increase, the
difference between sizes becomes less and less significant in terms
of print size.

--
http://www.pbase.com/greentank
10D, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll

blame the equipment.



http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.daehwang.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[DavidMillier]

As support for my hypothesis, I would say that if someone baked a cake with twice the ingredients the resulting cake would be considered to be twice the size but according to the linear argument you would need 8x the ingredients to double the size of the cake (which would be the size of a small house!)...

To people brought up on the A system, if it takes two A4 sheets to
cover an A3 then A3 is double the size of A4. That equates to 8MP
being twice 4MP and hence capable of double the size prints.

It seems odd to me, but some photographers seem to think that twice
the size means that both linear dimensions have to be doubled
(which seems like 4x the size to me).

Cultural differences, I guess.

The 1D Mk II's sensor provides 15.5% more pixels in a single
dimensions (linear) than the 10D. They way you arrive at this is to
take the square root of the 1.33 (133%). You take the square root
because, as you say, the MP of the sensor is the AREA of the sensor.

Unbound is correct in his calculations.

Joo

a 25% increase in pixels WILL give you 25% more information - which
means 25% more surface area. The IMAGE size IS 25% larger....in
terms of area. A 10x10 room is 100 sf. vs 14x14 room which is 200
sf. The 14x14 room is twice as large, but in terms of wall length
is only 40% larger.

In my view, it comes down to cropping. You can crop 25% of the
pixels on an 8mp image and still have the resolution of a 10D.

The proof will be in the pudding, though...I'm selling my 10D AFTER
I get my mkii.....so I'll do some side-by-sides for fun.

Mark

The math is correct... 25% more pixels do not give you an image
that is 25% larger. Think of it this way (and I'm keeping the math
simple)... a 2000 x 2000 pixel sensor is 4MP, and gives you an
image that will print at 1x size. Now if we more than double the
pixel count, to 9 MP, you have a sensor that is less than 3000 x
3000, which would result in an image 1.5x size.

So if going from 4MP to 9MP gives only 1.5x the print size, going
from 6MP to 8MP is really more like 1.15x an increase. Not much at
all... and (besides pixel size), as sensor counts increase, the
difference between sizes becomes less and less significant in terms
of print size.

--
http://www.pbase.com/greentank
10D, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll

blame the equipment.



http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.daehwang.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/

 

[O.Olsson]

I have the 10D and asking for this improvment.
Better build body.
Faster AF.

Higher burst rate (3fps is to slow I want at least 5-6 - Reason not to go for the 1Ds).
I have not asked for better image but the 1DmkII will give me that -lower Noise.
It will also give me lite more wide from my lenses and a better flash system.
So for me it was a no brainer when I tested the pre production one

O.Olsson

I agree that the 1DMkII is a great replacement for the 1DMkI for
new buyers that need the characteristics that the camera offers,
but I also think that there are lots of people buying the camera
for the wrong reasons (pixel count and frame rate), when they would
be much better served spending the $3000 difference from a 10D on
better lenses, monitor calibrator, monitor, software tools,
storage, etc.

One thing that the 1DMkII offers that might justify the
'upgrade'... the best shutter lag figure amongst all DSLR (40ms
shooting wide open). But then again, only certain shooters really
need that capability, and most think that current DSLRs have no lag
at 100ms anyway.

BTW - I both do and talk about it... do you do... or just talk?

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

this is the first camera to combine resolution with frame rate.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

sports shooters are not the only people who want frame rate and
fast af. wildlife photographers - papparazzi - photo journailsts
etc etc

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

c> >

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

1/2 the price of the 1ds

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

The final answer is it is a combination of it all the frame rate,
the higher resolution, improved af, improved ttl. Or as somebody
else has already said - the best camera in 40 years.

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

--
O.Olsson

 

[David Reichlein]

Fifty Five years of Life and I must agree. Get the damn thing and enjoy it! What the hell or you waiting for!

Dave R

I feel that we only live once. We never know when may be our last
day. If you derive great pleasure from photography as I do,
enhanced even further by doing so with the true state of the art
(1D2), the pleasure is even further enhanced. Once we leave this
earth.......these opportunities are no longer available to us. (By
the way...I am NOT an "old man".)

Enjoy yourself.....you only go this way once, and once only!!!!
Photo Man.

 

[Jim-H]

Dave R

I feel that we only live once. We never know when may be our last
day. If you derive great pleasure from photography as I do,
enhanced even further by doing so with the true state of the art
(1D2), the pleasure is even further enhanced. Once we leave this
earth.......these opportunities are no longer available to us. (By
the way...I am NOT an "old man".)

Enjoy yourself.....you only go this way once, and once only!!!!
Photo Man.

 

[Steve Densmore]

"BTW - I both do and talk about it... do you do... or just talk?"

I am not even sure I understand what yoiu are trying to tell him there. What were your impressions on the image qualtiy and focusing speed and accuracy of the 1D MKII? What if you already have a monitor calibrator, great software, and all the storage space you'll be needing?

I agree that the 1DMkII is a great replacement for the 1DMkI for
new buyers that need the characteristics that the camera offers,
but I also think that there are lots of people buying the camera
for the wrong reasons (pixel count and frame rate), when they would
be much better served spending the $3000 difference from a 10D on
better lenses, monitor calibrator, monitor, software tools,
storage, etc.

One thing that the 1DMkII offers that might justify the
'upgrade'... the best shutter lag figure amongst all DSLR (40ms
shooting wide open). But then again, only certain shooters really
need that capability, and most think that current DSLRs have no lag
at 100ms anyway.

BTW - I both do and talk about it... do you do... or just talk?

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

this is the first camera to combine resolution with frame rate.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

sports shooters are not the only people who want frame rate and
fast af. wildlife photographers - papparazzi - photo journailsts
etc etc

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

c> >

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

1/2 the price of the 1ds

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

The final answer is it is a combination of it all the frame rate,
the higher resolution, improved af, improved ttl. Or as somebody
else has already said - the best camera in 40 years.

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

 

[Marco]

As support for my hypothesis, I would say that if someone baked a
cake with twice the ingredients the resulting cake would be
considered to be twice the size but according to the linear
argument you would need 8x the ingredients to double the size of
the cake (which would be the size of a small house!)...

 

[classici]

Just remember - no matter how good you think the 1DII is, in 18
months time it will be a doorstop after the next one comes out and
you will have wasted your hard earned cash on a pile of junk.

dd (and for the humour-impared, the last statement, while true as
regards product replacement, is tongue-in-cheek)

I tend to disagree, even though you are tongue in cheek...

Sure, Canon will bring out the Mark III or whatever, but I think more so than in the past 3 years, we are finally approaching cameras that truly meet a much broader set of needs, and will not need replacing nearly as soon as in the past. I anticipate that I could easily sit out the next round of replacements. Of course, we don't know what the future holds... I think the newer cameras will also hold their value better too, unless new technology comes along that is so much less expensive that it wouldn't make sense to by the predecessor. I don't see how Canon can continue to lower the price point on their pro-line digital cameras without them entering the consumer realm. Many thought that the new Mark II would come in the door at $3000 (below the price point of the original 1d). But it didn't. Canon (and all other manufacturers) has to keep it's market segmentation in order. With that being said, I think replacements to the Mark II would not dip too much below where we are at now.. maybe $3995 instead of $4500. I see the 1ds replacement probably dropping to the mid 5K price point (personally)...and then settling in there.

classici

 

[Ger Bee]

AFAIK the 1D has a PF setting letting you control the FEL timeout?
(or just keep the FEL button pressed all day if you have an extra
finger to spare! )

.... I have just looked, either it's not there or I am missing it. Nice try '))

 

[Paul Grupp]

Back in the days of film, you could buy yourself a nice Nikon FTN and some lenses for a reasonably low price, or you could buy a Hasselblad and a set of lense for about 10X the price. A lot of people never understood why the Hasselblad was worth so much more -- but those of us who did bought what we needed, and got on with our life.

It will always be like this. There are a lot of choices, at a lot of different price points. You pays your money, and you takes your chances. One thing you have to admit about Canon -- when they charge more for a camera, there is usually a good technical reason for it -- more MP, faster performance, more rugged, etc. Compare this to say, Leica, where they make a special color, or give it a special name, or change the viewfinder magnification, and then charge 4X what it is worth!

You're right -- we only live once -- if photography is one of the most important things in your life, buying the best possible gear is the right choice.

I feel that we only live once. We never know when may be our last
day. If you derive great pleasure from photography as I do,
enhanced even further by doing so with the true state of the art
(1D2), the pleasure is even further enhanced. Once we leave this
earth.......these opportunities are no longer available to us. (By
the way...I am NOT an "old man".)

Enjoy yourself.....you only go this way once, and once only!!!!
Photo Man.

--

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

 

[Nill Toulme]

Isn't this criticism equally applicable to those trying to compare the 1D2 to the 10D?

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net

Please avoid comparing the 1DMkII to the 1Ds... they are completely
different cameras with completely different purposes, and they
should not be compared regardless of the price. Full frame -vs- 1.3
frame, 11MP -vs- 8MP. If you are a wide angle shooter, or a
resolution hound, the MKII does not fit the bill even if it is half
the price.

 

[Rune Moberg]

.... I have just looked, either it's not there or I am missing it.
Nice try '))

I was pretty sure someone mentioned a FEL timeout PF a while back, but it's not mentioned in the 1D manual (the pdf version anyway), so mea culpa.

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

 

[Masterdeath]

ok, we were talking about 2 different things.. I was refering to pixel count you were refering to size increase of print..

In that cases the difference between the 1ds and Mark II is still not very much, when you break it down that way..

The math is correct... 25% more pixels do not give you an image
that is 25% larger. Think of it this way (and I'm keeping the math
simple)... a 2000 x 2000 pixel sensor is 4MP, and gives you an
image that will print at 1x size. Now if we more than double the
pixel count, to 9 MP, you have a sensor that is less than 3000 x
3000, which would result in an image 1.5x size.

So if going from 4MP to 9MP gives only 1.5x the print size, going
from 6MP to 8MP is really more like 1.15x an increase. Not much at
all... and (besides pixel size), as sensor counts increase, the
difference between sizes becomes less and less significant in terms
of print size.

 

[Masterdeath]

When talking about linear he is correct...To double the print you need to mutiply by 4x...

Easy.. you would need a 24MP camera get double the print size from a 10D...

The 1D Mk II's sensor provides 15.5% more pixels in a single
dimensions (linear) than the 10D. They way you arrive at this is to
take the square root of the 1.33 (133%). You take the square root
because, as you say, the MP of the sensor is the AREA of the sensor.

Unbound is correct in his calculations.

Joo

a 25% increase in pixels WILL give you 25% more information - which
means 25% more surface area. The IMAGE size IS 25% larger....in
terms of area. A 10x10 room is 100 sf. vs 14x14 room which is 200
sf. The 14x14 room is twice as large, but in terms of wall length
is only 40% larger.

In my view, it comes down to cropping. You can crop 25% of the
pixels on an 8mp image and still have the resolution of a 10D.

The proof will be in the pudding, though...I'm selling my 10D AFTER
I get my mkii.....so I'll do some side-by-sides for fun.

Mark

The math is correct... 25% more pixels do not give you an image
that is 25% larger. Think of it this way (and I'm keeping the math
simple)... a 2000 x 2000 pixel sensor is 4MP, and gives you an
image that will print at 1x size. Now if we more than double the
pixel count, to 9 MP, you have a sensor that is less than 3000 x
3000, which would result in an image 1.5x size.

So if going from 4MP to 9MP gives only 1.5x the print size, going
from 6MP to 8MP is really more like 1.15x an increase. Not much at
all... and (besides pixel size), as sensor counts increase, the
difference between sizes becomes less and less significant in terms
of print size.

--
http://www.pbase.com/greentank
10D, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll

blame the equipment.



http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.daehwang.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/

 

[Nill Toulme]

See page 3-18 in the 1D software manual, regarding PF-23.

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net

.... I have just looked, either it's not there or I am missing it.
Nice try '))

I was pretty sure someone mentioned a FEL timeout PF a while back,
but it's not mentioned in the 1D manual (the pdf version anyway),
so mea culpa.

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

 

[jerpat]

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

 

[KevinDufff]

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

--
If only thire wos money to mayke owt of typo's

 

[Robert Vance]

Pixel size is an openly published specification for all EOS Digital SLRs. Here's the list:

EOS Digital Rebel, 10D and D60: 7.4 x 7.4 microns (6.3MP CMOS sensor)
EOS-1D Mark II: 8.2 x 8.2 microns (8.2MP CMOS sensor)
EOS-1Ds: 8.8 x 8.8 microns (11.1MP CMOS sensor)
EOS D30: 10.5 x 10.5 microns (3.11MP CMOS sensor)
EOS-1D: 11.5 x 11.5 micron (4.15MP CCD sensor)

--------------------
Chuck Westfall
Director/Technical Information Dept.
Camera Division/Canon U.S.A., Inc.

The math is correct... 25% more pixels do not give you an image
that is 25% larger. Think of it this way (and I'm keeping the math
simple)... a 2000 x 2000 pixel sensor is 4MP, and gives you an
image that will print at 1x size. Now if we more than double the
pixel count, to 9 MP, you have a sensor that is less than 3000 x
3000, which would result in an image 1.5x size.

So if going from 4MP to 9MP gives only 1.5x the print size, going
from 6MP to 8MP is really more like 1.15x an increase. Not much at
all... and (besides pixel size), as sensor counts increase, the
difference between sizes becomes less and less significant in terms
of print size.

 

[Roger Nordin]

I have no reason to doubt your need for a faster camera.

However, I don't know where you got those figures from. You must be using extremely slow CF memory to attain such sluggish performance from the 10D. Quoting Phil's review here for RAW buffering performance:

"9 x RAW images and approx. 8 seconds later indicates space to shoot 6 more"

Even when using my old IBM Microdrive 1GB (which by modern standards is a very slow CF media) I can take the next shot within 5 seconds, typically 3-4 seconds, after having shot a full burst of RAW shots.

Replacing the memory card with a better media such as Sandisk Ultra2 CF would probably give a dramatically improved performance indeed, but that's just speculation from my side as I haven't tried it myself. It isn't unfair to make a comparsion with such a fast media though, considering the 1DMarkII really would need such a fast media to realize its full potential, to be able to get rid of that 69 megapixels per second from its internal buffer to the media itself...

Anyways, I just don't recognize where you're getting those 20 seconds from.

Regards,
Roger

The thing is -- the 10D is not a bad camera if you shoot in JPEG --
but the minute you set it to RAW, be prepared to wait for
everything. Even shooting models under strobes, it is embarassingly
slow. If you fill the buffer in RAW mode, the camera is essentially
unusable for the next 20 seconds or so. Snap one more frame, and
you have another 20 second wait. That's simply unusable. The 1D, on
the other hand, manages snappy performance in RAW mode, thus
earning my love and respect. I shoot 100% in RAW these days.

So for me, comparing the 1DMkII to the 10D just doesn't cut it.

[...]