-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D2x & 1Ds Comparison
- Thread starter Ted_Pedersen
- Start date
Ted_Pedersen
Active member
I matched the exposures by taking readings off common neutral gray areas -- in this case, the gray patch below the words PACIFIC on the sign (it's practically a gray card). The readings on both files were approx. RGB 127.
I custom neutral balanced on a triangular patch of sidewalk to the right of the gray Toyota SUV. Readings for the neutral balance were RGB 181 for both files. EOS Viewer Utility was used to convert Canon, and Nikon Capture v4.2.1 for the D2x.
I removed the EXIF date intentionally to protect the 1Ds owner's privacy. I could post a PDF capture of the non-revealing part of the data if requested.
The similar color/sharpness of files surprised me too. The custom neutral balance was all it took to match the colors so closely – nothing else was done. It would be tough to distinguish between them in print, except for a slight difference in contrast.
We've come a long way since the Leaf DCBII, Kodak NC2000, Minolta RD175 etc....
Thanks,
Ted
SG2
Forum Enthusiast
Duncan... it's 1Ds1 that is compared here, not 1Ds2.
I think Phil was doing 1Ds2 comparison.
ie. D2X on the same level as the old 1Ds1 Canon...
=/
I think Phil was doing 1Ds2 comparison.
ie. D2X on the same level as the old 1Ds1 Canon...
=/
Paul Johnson236837
Forum Enthusiast
Well, the 1ds does have a nonsharpend default sharpness advantage at the pixel level over the 1dII and 1dsII. (if that makes since). This is largely due to the stronger AA filter in the II models.
The II's more strongely resist moire and as a trade off require a certain amount and type of additional sharpening to bring out the details.
I can tell you that once the 1dsII images have been sharpened to match the 1ds, the resolution difference is exactly what you would expect with going from 11 - 17 mp.
Paul
The II's more strongely resist moire and as a trade off require a certain amount and type of additional sharpening to bring out the details.
I can tell you that once the 1dsII images have been sharpened to match the 1ds, the resolution difference is exactly what you would expect with going from 11 - 17 mp.
Paul
Jonathan Kardell
Senior Member
Even the math says that there should not be a big difference in resolution, the 4mp "advantage" is largely offset by a stronger antialias filter. User feedback from the Canon shooters has been that there is not much increase in resolution over the 1Ds. This tracks with everything that reasonable tests have shown. If Phil stops the Canon down to f11, it might register a small increase in resolution - but nothing worth bragging about. (or maybe he will use a Zeiss lens on the 1Ds2, and put a LensBaby on the D2x - yep, that's how they do it in Spain!)
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'Most cameras and most lenses are better than most photographers.'
win39
Veteran Member
andrea buso
Senior Member
Well, I had the same thought that Ron had, when I saw the 2 shots.
I also thought than in landscapes like those, with soft light on a rainy day, all the far tiny details are too small for being resolved properly by these kind of cameras, and therefore they tend to show less differences than what they would show in different circumstances. For exanple: shots from 5/6 meters away from the subject.
If we would had done another identical shot, with a 1Dmark2, it would be pretty close as well and we all go whow!!! (for the 1dmark2).
Same cars and plates taken from 5 meters away instead, would show more differences between sensors.
Those shots are just on the edge of the resolving power of those sensors.
Then again, they look so close, that they seem from the same camera.
andrea buso
Senior Member
I have heard of that.
But normally, this is stated by 1ds 'classic' owners, who tested a 1ds mark2 and said: "not worthed the upgrade". Sure!!
I'm not considering very seriously, all the lousy shots and comments (made with the 1ds mark2) that we have seen so far in DP forum. Even just looking at the photos in Canon web site, if using a bit of common sense (and the old 1ds), it is very easy to realize, that there is no "bloody way", that we can even get close to those shots with the old 1ds.
Some people says there is not much difference between the old and the new., but in my opinion there is a lot.
I agree with you that the Spanish test was a joke. I do not think, just because some guys uploaded their "test" on an "official" web site. we should take them seriously.
Unfortunately I have to agree on this one as well.....
Ciao.
A.
Bernie Ess
Veteran Member
Hmmm... I always thought it the other way round: Big objects, like portraits, show less difference, and even some compact cameras can do amazing photographs there, however only the highest rez DSLRs can resolve landscapes in a satisfactory way. I have seen impressive landscapes - for example a gorgeous shot of the golden gate bridge with the city in the background, made with the 1ds Mk II, with a Zeiss lens. I would like to use this camera, I just cannot afford it.
Now if the original 1ds resolves exactly as much as the D2x one could even say (pixel peeping) that the D2x has slightly more pixels, not edge falloff and should render the scene better. But it doesn't.
Regards, Bernie
--
'Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see.' Cole, the 6th sense
I'm really becoming in doubt about the D2x. I've seen "fair" comparison that show good detail in the files similar to 1DsII files and I have seen bad files in less forgiving lighting conditions. The D2x files somtimes look like a 1Ds files, detail wise, but in general they remind me of the 20D files resolution wise, but noisewise, I don't even want to think of this camera, let alone the D2x iso100=1DsII iso 50 threads, which means that shooting the D2x at iso400, you will have the iso800 noise of the 1DsII at iso200 speed. Yikes. To me this new flaggship is a great disappointment. I'm sticking to my 14n.
HorsePix
Well-known member
The give away for me was the difference in DOF. Note the wire running through the image, 1/3 down, with the rain drops. OOF in 1ds, not in d2x.
Now, whether that's good or bad depends on your subject and tastes. For my work, I fight DOF constantly (the shot's no good if the rider is in focus, but the horse's head is OOF). Try that in a dark arena where no flash is allowed on a horse in motion. f/2.8 is out due to DOF. The FF sensor would force me into a longer lens with lower DOF to obtain the same image magnification. Of course that assumes that the ISO & noise is consistant across bodies, and that may not be a valid assumption.
--Michael
Bernie Ess
Veteran Member
I think the only way to really know what a camera can do is to use it. I may loan it from a camera shop in Berlin for a week- end or so. But I guess the resolution will be very clearly above the 20d level.
Otherwise, having a S3 as my current main camera, I may try to get a used Kodak if I find a good deal. I let a 14n pass by on ebay the other day, good price, because I just don't yet know enough of it. How is the 14n in outside sunny conditions? I read on the Kodak forum that bright light can lead to funky effects.
Is the SLR-n better? I know that both dont have good ISO performance, but I dont care, I want a hi rez camera, to shoot from a tripod. The D2x is just too expenive for not being a 100% solution.
regards
Bernie
andrea buso
Senior Member
....Close ups.
I said from 5 meters away. Not the same thing.
We all know that that in close ups, even the lower resolution cameras (4/6 mp) perform astonigshly well with a good lens, at least until we do not put one of those next to an high res one. ;-)
Althought it is true that a landscape, can be the best test in a sunny day at f 11, with two cameras that can resolve in full, all the details. IMO it does not work for 2 cameras that are able to "almost resolve" the small details properly (as the 2 cameras under test). Here, we are evaluating tiny details that are just on the edge of being blurred away and are not represented properly. the photo has low contrast due to the overcast with a bit of haze. In those conditions, all the small details are a bit blurred and differences between the two set of sensor/lens are disminished.
Since we were pixels peeping.... I went all the way being very picky. Sorry about that.
I said from 5 meters away. Not the same thing.
We all know that that in close ups, even the lower resolution cameras (4/6 mp) perform astonigshly well with a good lens, at least until we do not put one of those next to an high res one. ;-)
Althought it is true that a landscape, can be the best test in a sunny day at f 11, with two cameras that can resolve in full, all the details. IMO it does not work for 2 cameras that are able to "almost resolve" the small details properly (as the 2 cameras under test). Here, we are evaluating tiny details that are just on the edge of being blurred away and are not represented properly. the photo has low contrast due to the overcast with a bit of haze. In those conditions, all the small details are a bit blurred and differences between the two set of sensor/lens are disminished.
Since we were pixels peeping.... I went all the way being very picky. Sorry about that.
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
Bring both into PS CS, use Image, Adjust, Shadow/Highlight. Open the shadows 50% and you will see that the D2x actually has MORE shadow detail preserved - hence greater DR relative to the shadows anyway.
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
My tests would indicate very similiar resolution between the D2x and the SLR/n at ISO 100. There might be a very slight advantage to either one depending on subject and lighting. And, as much as I loved the SLR/n resolution I hated the lens optomization issues - that sometimes did not work - and the color artifacts and moire' that kept popping up. To date I see very little real resolution differences between the D2x, 1Ds II, 1Ds, and the 14n or SLR/n. My guess is that we are bumping into a resolution barrier somewhere near 11-12 megs. I think this is a combination sensor and lens issue.
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Both 14n and SLR/n are known to show magenta around bright subjects, but I never see it in my pictures. When overexposed the 14n will give you red ghosting around the brights and sometimes artefacts within the frame because of the red colored sensor. This also generates red blobs in the centre of the frame shooting primes at smaller apertures. In general the SLR/n is the better camera because it has most problems solved, but I prefer the 14n for it's cleaner file. (And most red blobs if they ever occur can be dealt with in PS easily and red ghosting prevented by balancing background and fill light well) My own side by side test has shown me no difference in noise between slr/n and 14 from 160 to 400 iso. And the 14n is currently very cheap if you can get it.
Bart
Bart
Mike Spinak
Forum Enthusiast
Johnathan,
Yes, it is like Paul said. My 1DsMarkII has a lower acutance than my 1Ds, requiring about 50% stronger unsharp masking or sharpening than the orginal 1Ds, to achieve the same apparent sharpness; however the actual per-pixel resolving power of my 1DsMarkII is at least as high as my original 1Ds, possibly slightly higher (further testing necessary)--so the 1DsMarkII gives the resolution of a 1Ds x 1.5 (or maybe a little better). In my experience and in my opinion, the resolution advantage of the 1DsMarkII over the original 1Ds is quite significant.
If you doubt me, I would be happy to email you a file to demonstrate this.
--Mike
Yes, it is like Paul said. My 1DsMarkII has a lower acutance than my 1Ds, requiring about 50% stronger unsharp masking or sharpening than the orginal 1Ds, to achieve the same apparent sharpness; however the actual per-pixel resolving power of my 1DsMarkII is at least as high as my original 1Ds, possibly slightly higher (further testing necessary)--so the 1DsMarkII gives the resolution of a 1Ds x 1.5 (or maybe a little better). In my experience and in my opinion, the resolution advantage of the 1DsMarkII over the original 1Ds is quite significant.
If you doubt me, I would be happy to email you a file to demonstrate this.
--Mike
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Steve
The SLR/n has a minimum ISO of 160 unless you use the special blended multiple exposure longer mode!
The SLR/n has a minimum ISO of 160 unless you use the special blended multiple exposure longer mode!
fabgo
Senior Member
Not sure about the diminishing returns. The increase in linear resolution between the 1Ds II and D2x is only 16.7%. I wouldn't expect to see a big difference. But looking at detailed scans from 35mm film has convinced me that the resolving power of a good lens is much higher than what current DSLRs can produce. I fully expect a 24.4MP D3x to show the expected 41% increase in resolution.
For an example of what a 35mm lens is capable of, see this link:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
(scroll to the bottom for the Canon 10D vs. 5000 DPI Velvia scan comparisons)
--
Fabian Gonzales
http://www.goldengateimages.com/
Jonathan Kardell
Senior Member
Actually I saw postings from two different 1dS2 shooters who agreed that resolution is not the compelling reason to upgrade. There are other aspects of the camera and its images that could add up to a compelling upgrade for Canon shooters. There is no doubt that it is a fine machine. Arguably still the top of the heap in DSLR land.
The margin of leadership is much thinner now than ever before. In terms of pure theoretical resolution, disregarding all the other factors, it boils down to a bit more than four megapixels. At the 12mp level that difference will not be compelling in any sense - even if it was fully taken advantage of.
I really believe that all reasonable testing will show that we are now at the point of just choosing the details of the tool that we like best. Resolution is not an issue any more. Choice is good. Long live competition.
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'Most cameras and most lenses are better than most photographers.'
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum