Reading mode: Light Dark

Sharper pictures on 1D vs. D60 because of CCD chip?

Go to last post
matt said:
A friend of mine told me that despite the 6mp res. on the D60 vs
4mp for 1D, the 1D has sharper pics because the CCD chip is better
and bigger than the D60 CMOS chip. Any insights on this? Thanks.
Click to expand...
for goodness sake, stop all these comparing and go back to taking photos! ;p

Does it really matter??? What's probably more important, are u shooting with tripod religiously for shots that makes sense to use tripods, so as to make the full use of all that resolution? Are you employing good technique to make the full use of your lenses?

and if u REALLY want an opinion, top of the line Leica lenses on either their M series rangefinder bodies or their R series SLRs will have the 1D and D60 crying like the sad puppies they really are :D The sweet bokeh from these jewels will leave even the best Canon lenses in the mud.....

and the Leicas will do so shooting wide open at f1.4 ;)

Of course that's another debate for another time....and probably another kind of forum........

--
Red Dawn
 
I'm just glad I don't REALLY want to always carry a camera around with me. If I did, I'd probably have to splurge for a Leica rangefinder. And I thought Canon was expensive.

I just can't imagine what the price would be if they were digital!
Red Dawn said:
and if u REALLY want an opinion, top of the line Leica lenses on
either their M series rangefinder bodies or their R series SLRs
will have the 1D and D60 crying like the sad puppies they really
are :D The sweet bokeh from these jewels will leave even the best
Canon lenses in the mud.....

and the Leicas will do so shooting wide open at f1.4 ;)

Of course that's another debate for another time....and probably
another kind of forum........

--
Red Dawn
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
What's funny is that the current price structure of DSLRs has us believeing that a D60 is "cheap"!. I boguht a Canon Elan IIe because I thought the 1v was outrageously priced! Now, I wish I could get a 1v level DSLR for "only" $1800.
DavidP said:
Even some of the pros who "justified" it probably didn't really do
so on a cost basis. It's probably more of a rationalization for
some of them. Just like for me.
Mike Greer said:
I'm trying to cost justify a 1D right now. So far, I'm not being
too successful with myself.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
 
Well, I haven't upgraded yet but I do want to....

So according to some here...

...as I shoot product shots for catalogs, product after albeit boring product..., at the same distance in Manual mode, in a studio with a tripod and heavy lighting and remote capture releasing the shutter of the camera...

...I would be better served (to the point of being ridiculed if I didn't go).... with the one that boasts 8fps, environmentally sealed gaskets, and 45 point AF and metering, and better performance at higher ISOs for the extra 3K dollars.

Hmmmm, can I even ask how the prints compare, or just get the 1D and not look back?

Bill(y)
Cau Nguyen said:
CN
matt said:
A friend of mine told me that despite the 6mp res. on the D60 vs
4mp for 1D, the 1D has sharper pics because the CCD chip is better
and bigger than the D60 CMOS chip. Any insights on this? Thanks.
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flatarts.com/
 
DavidP said:
I'm just glad I don't REALLY want to always carry a camera around
with me. If I did, I'd probably have to splurge for a Leica
rangefinder. And I thought Canon was expensive.

I just can't imagine what the price would be if they were digital!
Click to expand...
do u know, u can stick on Leica lenses on your 1D with an adapter? ;)

both Leica M mount or R mount lenses...... i did it before......the resulting pics are amazing, even on a D30....:)~

there are FAQs on the net describing the tools needed. you will lose AE, but that's not a problem if u use a lightmeter. As for AF, u're supposed to AF those precisely engineererd Leica lenses anyway - that's part of the Leica experience! hahaha......

Do u know, a Leica rangefinder is perfect for low light photography and concerts (esp classical ones) in general? their quietness and rangefinder design allows you to shoot with slower shutter speeds without camera shake.

Leica lenses smokes at big apertures like f1.4 - the very best ones are sharp corner to corner, and stopping down only improves DOF and contrast, not sharpness ;) Great for concert photography....

Something to think about when one has bought all the L lenses in the world (and if one reads this forum everyday, that's not difficult to do) and need to spend some money. LOL!

--
Red Dawn
 
Is there no end to the arguing... you guys can debate this stuff forever. : )

If you are going on and on about all of it... at least back it up with some comparison images and not just "it looks better/sharper to me". Let us decide.

For example: The Scene comparisons from the reviews
Here is the page from the 1D review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1d/page22.asp

Here is the page from the D60 review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60/page20.asp

Each camera has its advantages. The D60 clearly gains a little detail from its resolution when you put the 1d strip and the d60 strip side by side. But then the 1d was also shot at 200 iso for 1/125 of a second and the D60 was at 100 iso for 1 second.

Point is this - People who have and love their 1D's should realize that just because Canon comes out with a less expensive camera that maybe has a few advantage over theirs doesn't make their camera any less capable of taking wonderful pictures. It is part of the industry.. we are going to see this same battle every release of a new camera (god forbid they would ever make a better cheaper version of my camera!! Crappy progress!!). People who have D60's or are in the long process of purchasing one should realize that they got a great deal on a camera, but it isn't going to have the heavy duty build, spectacular autofocus or high iso and frame rate of its more expensive cousin.

BOTH are capable of taking great pictures... Realize that people were taking awesome photographs long before auto focus and mp resolutions were invented.

Not to mention, think about the post. This guy is either a troll or someone asking a legitimate question. Either way endless debating isn't going to help. Back it up. You really want to help this guy out... point him to the website reviews... show him your own samples... let him make the conclusions.

bk
--
Ansel Adams once said, 'You don't take a photograph, you make it'.
 
If only the focal lengths were longer. That'd suit my style more.

Of course, then the lenses would weigh so much, it'd sorta defeat the purpose of having the small rangefinder.
Red Dawn said:
Do u know, a Leica rangefinder is perfect for low light photography
and concerts (esp classical ones) in general? their quietness and
rangefinder design allows you to shoot with slower shutter speeds
without camera shake.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Yes, just buy the 1D. Don't bother to compare prints. Trust us. You'll kick yourself if you don't get the 1D.

ROFL. j/k (I hope that was apparent).

I'd probably recommend the D60 in your case. Not so much because I think the pictures would be that much better than using a 1D, but because I think you'd be wasting your money on the 1D.
Bill(y) said:
Well, I haven't upgraded yet but I do want to....

So according to some here...

...as I shoot product shots for catalogs, product after albeit
boring product..., at the same distance in Manual mode, in a studio
with a tripod and heavy lighting and remote capture releasing the
shutter of the camera...

...I would be better served (to the point of being ridiculed if I
didn't go).... with the one that boasts 8fps, environmentally
sealed gaskets, and 45 point AF and metering, and better
performance at higher ISOs for the extra 3K dollars.

Hmmmm, can I even ask how the prints compare, or just get the 1D
and not look back?
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Feel free to look at my website for examples. Shots before March of this year were D30 (as long as they aren't before November, 2000, that is).

The problem is you're looking at web-sized pics, not the full-blown ones in TIF format. And, of course, no two concerts are exactly the same in terms of lighting, etc. Plus, there are instances where I know of specific problems that I encountered, where I'd discount the results of either camera.

I never had a D30 and 1D on location at the same time for a more fair comparison. It's rather subjective.

If you're serious about the comparison (using my website), I'd confine your analysis to shots that I've taken from the Texas Opry Jamboree in Magnolia, TX (quite a few series from there . . . all located AFTER the Wilkinsons pictures). I'd have to find the exact date of when I started using the 1D, though. If interested, I'll dig that up for you.

Oh, another thing. With the 1D, I'm typically using the 70-200/2.8 IS + 1.4xTC. With the D30, I typically used the 70-200/2.8 IS without the TC, and for some of the early shots I didn't have the IS-version yet. Just another factor that makes direct comparisons somewhat problematic. But at least the lighting's typically the same, and I'm usually in the same place (I think only once was I in a different spot -- on the front row -- it should be obvious). Oh, yeah, another thing. On the D30, I was shooting at ISO 800. I generally shot ISO 1000 or 1250 with the 1D. I sure make it easy for a direct comparison, don't I? LOL.
Brian Kulig said:
If you are going on and on about all of it... at least back it up
with some comparison images and not just "it looks better/sharper
to me". Let us decide.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
I hear ya. I never thought I'd consider spending close to $2,000 for a lens, either. But the 70-200/2.8 IS was just TOO sweet not to get it.

And now, heaven forbid, I had actually considered a 200/1.8 - thankfully, I think I finally found my ability to say NO!
Mike Greer said:
What's funny is that the current price structure of DSLRs has us
believeing that a D60 is "cheap"!. I boguht a Canon Elan IIe
because I thought the 1v was outrageously priced! Now, I wish I
could get a 1v level DSLR for "only" $1800.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
...in resolution of detail and smoothness of images.

And if you 'know' me, than you know someone who regularly prints larger than 19x13. I keep my Epson 7000 busy enough printing 21x14s and 31x21s.

The 1D is a fabulous, excellent camera, the best in its professional class. The '60 can be merely CONTRASTED, not compared, with it...EXCEPT in image quality.

It's YOU who is making 'the outrageous and ignorant comments that the D60' cannot be 'superior to the 1D in any way shape or form'.

------------------
I love my D60!
http://community.webshots.com/user/jeffreybehr
 
Have you tried printing 1D files at those sizes before? And playing around with either blurring or median filters to get a "smoother look" from the 1D ?

I'm curious how the images compared, if you've been able to do this.

Fortunately, I don't make prints that size very often. Very hard to do when shooting wide-open in available light. Which brings up a good point . . . my previous comments about the 1D looking sharper were made not only at high ISO, but at max aperture. Also (maxima mea culpa), I've actually been comparing to the D30 I used, not a D60. Still, I made some comparisons of tests shots from the web that I printed of the D30 vs. D60 . . . yes, I could see some resolution improvement, but it was less noticeable, IMO, than the differences in the D30 to 1D was (at high ISO and max aperture).

Anyway, those are HUGE prints you're talking about. What's your application that results in such large prints? And at what distance do you start to not really notice the difference from the 1D and D60? (Ignoring things like differences in color, etc - just on the sharpness/resolution).
Jeffrey Behr said:
...in resolution of detail and smoothness of images.

And if you 'know' me, than you know someone who regularly prints
larger than 19x13. I keep my Epson 7000 busy enough printing
21x14s and 31x21s.

The 1D is a fabulous, excellent camera, the best in its
professional class. The '60 can be merely CONTRASTED, not
compared, with it...EXCEPT in image quality.

It's YOU who is making 'the outrageous and ignorant comments that
the D60' cannot be 'superior to the 1D in any way shape or form'.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
matt said:
A friend of mine told me that despite the 6mp res. on the D60 vs
4mp for 1D,
Click to expand...
Lee Rothman said:
Those that make the outrageous and ignorant comments that the D60
is superior to the 1D in any way shape or form
Click to expand...
Lee Rothman said:
Those that make the outrageous and ignorant comments that the D60
is superior to the 1D in any way shape or form
Click to expand...
Lee, I like your posts and yours is one of the names I "scan" for when I'm browsing this forum. Like everyone else, I try to get my photo right the first time. However, the nature of my work (and, OK, skills) is that I make great use of the wide end of my 16-35L for groups of people, and then I typically crop. Sometimes, it's just a matter of fine-tuning composition, sometimes it's serious surgery. I can't speak to the difference between working with 4+ mp and 6+ mp, but I can sure say that the difference in jumping from 3+ to 6+ has been huge. More mp matters. It adds to the photographic/artistic possibilities. It only invites sloppy composition among the sloppy. I might well go for the next generation (higher mp) of tru-pro camera. If I do, I'll have the glass to match. Money matters, but my decision to go with the D60 was a professional one, not financial. Meantime, there is at least one "shape or form" in which the D60's higher resolution is (for me) superior.
--
Neal Martin
 
No doubt about it, when taking pictures of 100+ people, having more resolution (like the D60 offers) is beneficial.

Of course, the improvement in resolution of 6.0 megapixels to 4.3 megapixels (hope I got those numbers right -- D30 vs 1D) is "only" 18% in a linear sense.

Every little bit helps, of course. Just don't try to crop out a face and blow it up to a 4x6 -- LOL.
Neal Martin said:
However, the nature of my work (and,
OK, skills) is that I make great use of the wide end of my 16-35L
for groups of people, and then I typically crop. Sometimes, it's
just a matter of fine-tuning composition, sometimes it's serious
surgery. I can't speak to the difference between working with 4+
mp and 6+ mp, but I can sure say that the difference in jumping
from 3+ to 6+ has been huge. More mp matters. It adds to the
photographic/artistic possibilities. It only invites sloppy
composition among the sloppy. I might well go for the next
generation (higher mp) of tru-pro camera. If I do, I'll have the
glass to match. Money matters, but my decision to go with the D60
was a professional one, not financial. Meantime, there is at least
one "shape or form" in which the D60's higher resolution is (for
me) superior.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Matt and all:
matt said:
A friend of mine told me that despite the 6mp res. on the D60 vs
4mp for 1D, the 1D has sharper pics because the CCD chip is better
and bigger than the D60 CMOS chip. Any insights on this? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Check this out:

http://www.tow.com/photo/articles/canon_comparison/

It's obvious in this example that the D60 bests the 1D in the resolution department. The details in the original 100% crops are clearer and more defined in the D60 images than in the 1D's.

If you agree that resolution = sharpness, then you would conclude that the D60 Sharpness >

1D Sharpness. I don't think everyone agrees with the above point, hence the number of back-and-forth arguments in this thread.

Was your question to the forum directed towards a possible purchase of either the D60 or the 1D, Matt? If so, I would suggest you look at differentiating factors other than sharpness/resolution to determine your purchasing choice, such as:

1) Build quality
2) Size and weight
3) AF
4) Battery life
5) Workflow functionality
6) ISO performance
7) etc.

There are a number of threads on this forum that go into the differences between the D60 and the 1D.

-adam

--
Adam Tow
Web: http://www.tow.com/
Portfolio: http://www.tow.com/portfolio/
Tomorrow begins today.
 
Adam,

This is great... And I appreciate your efforts... BUT...

I don't think it's a fair comparison. I keyed on the two shots @ISO200 of YoDA* on top of the stand...

You cropped the image to the same size, but what you really need to have done is make Yoda's head the same size... Of course when something is blown up to a larger size you will see more definition... It's like magnifying it!

Now don't get me wrong The D-60 is Awesome... Especially when you consider price vs. 1D. But I don't think don't think that this is a valid comparison... For that I think you would need the object to be the same size, and view the RAW files.

I have the 1D and I love it. I'm not going to get into the which is better debate.. I think it's childish and counter-productive. I would leave it at "They Are Both The Best, In Their Respective Categories, period.

Regards.... Tony B.
 
So you want the D60's shots to be downsampled so they are the same size as the 1D? Or do you want the 1D's upsampled to the size of the D60? Either way things aren't going to get much better for the 1D in this situation.
Tony B said:
Adam,

This is great... And I appreciate your efforts... BUT...

I don't think it's a fair comparison. I keyed on the two shots
@ISO200 of YoDA* on top of the stand...

You cropped the image to the same size, but what you really need to
have done is make Yoda's head the same size... Of course when
something is blown up to a larger size you will see more
definition... It's like magnifying it!

Now don't get me wrong The D-60 is Awesome... Especially when you
consider price vs. 1D. But I don't think don't think that this is a
valid comparison... For that I think you would need the object to
be the same size, and view the RAW files.

I have the 1D and I love it. I'm not going to get into the which
is better debate.. I think it's childish and counter-productive. I
would leave it at "They Are Both The Best, In Their Respective
Categories, period.

Regards.... Tony B.
Click to expand...
 
Tony and all:

When we did the test back in April, we decided to show area crops displaying the same amount of information. These are original 100% crops. No resizing done. I don't think resampling the images using Photoshop would not have been a fair comparison. We positioned both cameras so they had approximately the same field of view using a 24mm lens.

That being said, I do see your point about comparing same-sized images. At the pixel level, however, I'd think that the differences would be negligible. I'd venture to say that Photoshop could make one look sharper than the other and vice versa.

I own a 1D myself and have used the D60 only for a short period. Like you, I'm not going to get into the debate here about which is better. Both are good cameras. What I do want to say is there's a lot more to choosing a camera than determining which is sharper (if that is what the original poster is asking).

-adam

=======
Tony B said:
Adam,

This is great... And I appreciate your efforts... BUT...

I don't think it's a fair comparison. I keyed on the two shots
@ISO200 of YoDA* on top of the stand...

You cropped the image to the same size, but what you really need to
have done is make Yoda's head the same size... Of course when
something is blown up to a larger size you will see more
definition... It's like magnifying it!

Now don't get me wrong The D-60 is Awesome... Especially when you
consider price vs. 1D. But I don't think don't think that this is a
valid comparison... For that I think you would need the object to
be the same size, and view the RAW files.

I have the 1D and I love it. I'm not going to get into the which
is better debate.. I think it's childish and counter-productive. I
would leave it at "They Are Both The Best, In Their Respective
Categories, period.

Regards.... Tony B.
Click to expand...
--
Adam Tow
Web: http://www.tow.com/
Portfolio: http://www.tow.com/portfolio/
Tomorrow begins today.
 
Jason Hutchinson said:
So you want the D60's shots to be downsampled so they are the same
size as the 1D? Or do you want the 1D's upsampled to the size of
the D60? Either way things aren't going to get much better for the
1D in this situation.
Click to expand...
Jason,

It's not easily resolved.... But If I got closer to your face.. Could I see the pores of your skin more easily?

Tony B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top