If the 1Ds was "only" 6MP, then this zoom advantage would be lost:
a D60 would be preferable for slow-moving long zoom work, since it
would have 1.6x the resolution within the same 62% FOV crop.
By going for 11MP, the 1Ds gets to have its cake and eat it, too:
not only does it fit 15% more pixels (6.9MP) into the D60's FOV,
but you don't lose any wide-angle.
You can look at it like this: on a D60, the 28-135 lens becomes a
45-216. On the 1Ds, the 28-135 becomes a 28-216 if you need 11MP
quality (rare), or a 28-248 at 6MP! If you can live with a 3MP
image, then the same lens becomes a 28-500!!!
Again, if you only "need" 3MP output, a 16-35 becomes a 16-130! Of
course whether you can get by with a 3MP image or not depends on
the quality of the pixels. I doubt that the D1s's pixels are of
any worse quality than the 1D's or the D60's pixels, they are only
15% smaller than the D60's pixels, in which case 3MP is OK most of
the time provided the shot is well-framed.
This is amazing stuff. Many photographers will be able to justify
a 1Ds purchase by their resultant savings in lens purchases. A
28-70 combined with a 70-200 would give you 28-200 at 11MP, 28-370
at 6MP, and 28-740 at 3MP. Honestly, how many of us need more than
that? To get the same 3MP coverage on a D60, you'd need to add a
17-35, and even then you'd still be short 100mm.
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??
--
D60, 28-135 IS, 550EX
This could indicate that sensitivity will have increased as well. Will it give us ISO 1600 and maybe more ??
