What's The 1Ds Point?

Steven Geller · Sep 12, 2002

11MP sounds great...but can someone tell me if this will translate into better quality 8x10's?? Noticably better 11x14's?

I'm loving my 13x19's with the 1D, I even blew up a great pic of my daughter to 2' x 3' with no grain or pixels or noise of any kind. A little softer...but the truth is, maybe I'm trying NOT to regret my $5K investment, but do want to blow up our pores into poster sizes??

Don Lashier · Sep 12, 2002

About the -only- reason I'm looking forward to a 1Ds eventually is that maybe 1 out of 5000 or 10000 pics I -would- like to print poster size. Cropability is a non-issue here because I always compose in the viewfinder and only rarely find the need to crop other than sometimes altering the aspect ratio to 4:3 rather than 3:2. I'll also appreciate the zoom splits being at a little more logical places, particularly the 28-70.

DL

Steven Geller said:
11MP sounds great...but can someone tell me if this will translate
into better quality 8x10's?? Noticably better 11x14's?

I'm loving my 13x19's with the 1D, I even blew up a great pic of my
daughter to 2' x 3' with no grain or pixels or noise of any kind.
A little softer...but the truth is, maybe I'm trying NOT to regret
my $5K investment, but do want to blow up our pores into poster
sizes??

John Foote · Sep 12, 2002

Drooling for more detail dude. It extends the eye.

Lin Evans · Sep 12, 2002

Steven Geller said:
11MP sounds great...but can someone tell me if this will translate
into better quality 8x10's?? Noticably better 11x14's?

I'm loving my 13x19's with the 1D, I even blew up a great pic of my
daughter to 2' x 3' with no grain or pixels or noise of any kind.
A little softer...but the truth is, maybe I'm trying NOT to regret
my $5K investment, but do want to blow up our pores into poster
sizes??

Hi Steven,

Yes, and no. It all depends on the subject. The "magic" of medium format is realized in those incredibly sharp landscapes which elude 35mm. Probably the same differences will be apparent between six and 12 mega-pixel digital.

A 3 mega D30 head and shoulders portrait printed at 16x20 with proper interpolation can be absolutely stunning! A six mega or even 35mm color film group shot of something like a 4th grade class with about 30 children enlarged to 16x20 begins to show the effects of insufficient native resolution. The same shot with a 16 mega digital back can be nearly as stunning as the head and shoulders D30 portrait enlargement. 11 plus mega is not 16, but it's much closer than six, and because of the anticipated low noise will probably be considerably superior to 35mm color film at this size and larger.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

RobD · Sep 12, 2002

What's the point??? I need all the MP's I can get for my business and I have resisted buying the less than full frame sensor sized SLR's. With the 1Ds and what ever Nikon counters with I may just pick one for my digital system.

Steven Geller said:
11MP sounds great...but can someone tell me if this will translate
into better quality 8x10's?? Noticably better 11x14's?

I'm loving my 13x19's with the 1D, I even blew up a great pic of my
daughter to 2' x 3' with no grain or pixels or noise of any kind.
A little softer...but the truth is, maybe I'm trying NOT to regret
my $5K investment, but do want to blow up our pores into poster
sizes??

Jason Hutchinson · Sep 12, 2002

Lower noise via downsampling of course. Why not have the larger pixels to begin with then you don't need to downsample? Then you're more likely to get aliasing artifacts. Everybody wins with the 1DS.

Jason

Steven Geller said:
11MP sounds great...but can someone tell me if this will translate
into better quality 8x10's?? Noticably better 11x14's?

I'm loving my 13x19's with the 1D, I even blew up a great pic of my
daughter to 2' x 3' with no grain or pixels or noise of any kind.
A little softer...but the truth is, maybe I'm trying NOT to regret
my $5K investment, but do want to blow up our pores into poster
sizes??

Hugh Rea · Sep 12, 2002

Hi Lin,

Well front page DPreview: Sinar using a 22MP from
Kodak Model number used is 22000 but probably the
dollar amount

Cheers,

Hugh

Lin Evans said:
Steven Geller said:

11MP sounds great...but can someone tell me if this will translate
into better quality 8x10's?? Noticably better 11x14's?

I'm loving my 13x19's with the 1D, I even blew up a great pic of my
daughter to 2' x 3' with no grain or pixels or noise of any kind.
A little softer...but the truth is, maybe I'm trying NOT to regret
my $5K investment, but do want to blow up our pores into poster
sizes??

Click to expand...

Hi Steven,
Yes, and no. It all depends on the subject. The "magic" of medium
format is realized in those incredibly sharp landscapes which elude
35mm. Probably the same differences will be apparent between six
and 12 mega-pixel digital.

A 3 mega D30 head and shoulders portrait printed at 16x20 with
proper interpolation can be absolutely stunning! A six mega or even
35mm color film group shot of something like a 4th grade class with
about 30 children enlarged to 16x20 begins to show the effects of
insufficient native resolution. The same shot with a 16 mega
digital back can be nearly as stunning as the head and shoulders
D30 portrait enlargement. 11 plus mega is not 16, but it's much
closer than six, and because of the anticipated low noise will
probably be considerably superior to 35mm color film at this size
and larger.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

--
Hugh Rea

Hugh Rea · Sep 12, 2002

Hi Steven,

Eyes forward... and does anyone remember the
first High-End Recording CD-Rom's that went
for $13,000 or more. My first computer CD and it was
just play back was $210.00 (1x) ...
Well you get the Idea....

Hugh

Steven Geller said:
11MP sounds great...but can someone tell me if this will translate
into better quality 8x10's?? Noticably better 11x14's?

I'm loving my 13x19's with the 1D, I even blew up a great pic of my
daughter to 2' x 3' with no grain or pixels or noise of any kind.
A little softer...but the truth is, maybe I'm trying NOT to regret
my $5K investment, but do want to blow up our pores into poster
sizes??

--
Hugh Rea

Steven Geller · Sep 12, 2002

Yea, ok, but again, for the 1-in-a-100, or 500, or 1,000 that you NEED that detail - is it worth the overhead of all those RAW files that will eat through your hard-drives??

I mean, won't your drool only spill on the posters? 8x10 and 11x17 won't be all that different...

John Foote said:
Drooling for more detail dude. It extends the eye.

Steven Geller · Sep 12, 2002

Um...not everyone...including (and I hope it's not just me) the people who invested in the 1D. This is different, even than computers I think. The magic computer price point was ALWAYS $3,000 - and for that you got really a multi-function machine. Go back to the early 1980's and you will see in all the ads, the most expensive computer system was $3,000. And it was upgradable...

These digital camera thingy's are going to be an interesting thing to manage by all but the most highly paid photogs. I hear what you are saying about downsampling and aliasing artifacts...and I also understand that we're talking NOT about digital vs. 35mm anymore, but the 1Ds really starts the digital vs. medium format debate. I guess thats the hook right there, we're all looking for the perfect picture, this is just another yellow brick in the road...

Jason Hutchinson said:
Jason

Steven Geller said:

11MP sounds great...but can someone tell me if this will translate
into better quality 8x10's?? Noticably better 11x14's?

I'm loving my 13x19's with the 1D, I even blew up a great pic of my
daughter to 2' x 3' with no grain or pixels or noise of any kind.
A little softer...but the truth is, maybe I'm trying NOT to regret
my $5K investment, but do want to blow up our pores into poster
sizes??

Click to expand...

Steven Geller · Sep 12, 2002

Hi Hugh, but I think thats the wrong analogy...we're not talking getting the same performance at a cheaper price...we're talking about Moore's Law of performance increases raising it's ugly (and expensive) head in the digital camera arena. I think the acceleration from Nikon D1 to EOS 1D to EOS 1Ds is MUCH faster than the progression from the Kodak 265 to the Nikon 990...etc. Maybe it just seems that way because the investments are much bigger and significant events...but if we are talking about tripling performance every 12 months...aren't we ALL in "trouble"?

Race you all to eBay!!!

Hugh Rea said:
Eyes forward... and does anyone remember the
first High-End Recording CD-Rom's that went
for $13,000 or more. My first computer CD and it was
just play back was $210.00 (1x) ...
Well you get the Idea....

Hugh

Steven Geller said:

11MP sounds great...but can someone tell me if this will translate
into better quality 8x10's?? Noticably better 11x14's?

I'm loving my 13x19's with the 1D, I even blew up a great pic of my
daughter to 2' x 3' with no grain or pixels or noise of any kind.
A little softer...but the truth is, maybe I'm trying NOT to regret
my $5K investment, but do want to blow up our pores into poster
sizes??

Click to expand...

--
Hugh Rea

Phil Flash · Sep 12, 2002

I could care less about the increased resolution -- the current DSLR resolution and high ISO capabilities are good enough for anyone. I'm just interested in a 20mm lens giving a 20mm field of view, and a full sized viewfinder.

In otherwords, a D-SLR mimicking the shooting experience of a real film SLR is what I'm after. I'd be happy with FF 6mp if that's the way it came.

Steven Geller · Sep 12, 2002

So seriously, how come nobody talks about the Contact? 6MP, full size sensor...

Bippy said:
I could care less about the increased resolution -- the current
DSLR resolution and high ISO capabilities are good enough for
anyone. I'm just interested in a 20mm lens giving a 20mm field of
view, and a full sized viewfinder.

In otherwords, a D-SLR mimicking the shooting experience of a real
film SLR is what I'm after. I'd be happy with FF 6mp if that's
the way it came.

Jimmy Chen · Sep 12, 2002

Steven Geller said:
So seriously, how come nobody talks about the Contact? 6MP, full
size sensor...

1. Lousy noise ... sub ISO 200 is pretty much what you can use.

2. Most people will have to buy new lenses, as it cannot use any existing 35mm lenses.

--
jc
F707 w/ Nikon 5T/6T
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery

Hugh Rea · Sep 12, 2002

Steven,

Check out Steve's DigiCam page ... a cat out of the bag..
Said "Canon Europe spoke to soon on the EOS-1Ds out
at the Photokina with 11.1 megapixel body...?" and it
would be nearly full 35mm equiv.....

Hugh

Steven Geller said:
Bippy said:

I could care less about the increased resolution -- the current
DSLR resolution and high ISO capabilities are good enough for
anyone. I'm just interested in a 20mm lens giving a 20mm field of
view, and a full sized viewfinder.

In otherwords, a D-SLR mimicking the shooting experience of a real
film SLR is what I'm after. I'd be happy with FF 6mp if that's
the way it came.

Click to expand...

--
Hugh Rea

RobD · Sep 12, 2002

Contact?

Steven Geller said:
Bippy said:

I could care less about the increased resolution -- the current
DSLR resolution and high ISO capabilities are good enough for
anyone. I'm just interested in a 20mm lens giving a 20mm field of
view, and a full sized viewfinder.

In otherwords, a D-SLR mimicking the shooting experience of a real
film SLR is what I'm after. I'd be happy with FF 6mp if that's
the way it came.

Click to expand...

Evrim72723 · Sep 13, 2002

The point is that it is a studio camera. There are many studios that have 35mm, medium and large format. With digital backs.

I am talking about commercial shooters here. And also other bigger studios. Also for pros who do things other then sports, like product shots.

With this camera, you do not need to have all of them - one workflow.

Adam-T · Sep 13, 2002

Steven Geller said:
So seriously, how come nobody talks about the Contact? 6MP, full
size sensor...

Because it costs the earth, doesn't deliver the goods (from what I've read), there is hardly a massive market in affordable used / 3rd party glass and forget any chance of Image stabilization let alone at 28-135IS prices..

If it cost the same as a D60 and took Canon or Nikon Glass it would be a different matter.. Fuji Were real smart with the S2 basing it on a Nikon body in that respect..

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300, E10, Canon D60.

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Michel26604 · Sep 13, 2002

That's the part I don't get. If it were a studio camera, you wouldn't need a 90-point environmentally sealed, ruggadized, built-like-a-tank body with lightning fast AF... A D30/D60 body suffices in that respect (apart from the viewfinder and metering maybe)...
--
gr. Michel
http://www.beijlevelt.net

Peter (B) · Sep 13, 2002

Maybe Canon needed the extra space that is available in this body for extra electronics to push around those many megabytes. So they could have chosen to just use the existing body i.s.o. developing a new body for this camera.

Michel said:
That's the part I don't get. If it were a studio camera, you
wouldn't need a 90-point environmentally sealed, ruggadized,
built-like-a-tank body with lightning fast AF... A D30/D60 body
suffices in that respect (apart from the viewfinder and metering
maybe)...
--
gr. Michel
http://www.beijlevelt.net

--
In the beginning there was nothing, and then even that exploded.

What's The 1Ds Point?

Forum Enthusiast

Don Lashier

Guest

John Foote

Guest

Lin Evans

Guest

Active member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Member

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts