Stefan Schott
Veteran Member
Thank you. At least one person who gets my point ;-)Hi Stefan
You pointed out the true problems about warranty.
Ciao
Stefan
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thank you. At least one person who gets my point ;-)Hi Stefan
You pointed out the true problems about warranty.
That last sentence has to be one of the most outrageous statements I have heard in my entire life!!! I'm still laughing.With cars, we ARE THERE -- we get from A to B, with comfort, etc.
There haven't been any real progress in car industry in last decade
or two.
It seems that many people are purchasing a 1D now since there has
been a significant price decrease. However, $3600 is still a lot of
money for a camera that probably will be replaced in the very near
future and become yesterday's news. With PMA just around the
corner, the logic escapes me. What am I missing? Isn't it worth
waiting a short time for a pro camera that will have twice as many
mp's and be less cost than the 1Ds?
It seems that many people are purchasing a 1D now since there has
been a significant price decrease. However, $3600 is still a lot of
money for a camera that probably will be replaced in the very near
future and become yesterday's news. With PMA just around the
corner, the logic escapes me. What am I missing? Isn't it worth
waiting a short time for a pro camera that will have twice as many
mp's and be less cost than the 1Ds?
You control the subject . . . can place it where you want it.
You can postion yourself so that the background is suitable across
the frame.
You can get as close to the subject as you wish so that the frame
is filled
with the FL you have available, whatever that may be.
In wildlife photography these conditions often (usually?) are not met.
The 1D is not a "crop friendly" camera . . . the file size is too
small.
Attacking those who often find cropping a useful tool to arrive at
the images they need/want will not change this. It is a deficiency
of the camera . . . not the "lazy" photographer.
Cropping has been going on since the first negative was slapped
into an enlarger . . . there is nothing lazy or sloppy about it!
It is a photographic fact of life and will remain so. And, in this
respect, the 1D is lacking.
--I hate cropping..... I always
beat myself up if I have a shot that would have been good if the
subject filled the frame properly. I will often trash a shot if it
needs any cropping at all. IMO, having to constantly crop and
adjust the exposure in the digital darkroom is a sign of lazy
shooting.
Terry Danks
Nature & Wildlife (Hummingbirds!) Photography
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/n1dcmc78/home.htm
--It seems that many people are purchasing a 1D now since there has
been a significant price decrease. However, $3600 is still a lot of
money for a camera that probably will be replaced in the very near
future and become yesterday's news. With PMA just around the
corner, the logic escapes me. What am I missing? Isn't it worth
waiting a short time for a pro camera that will have twice as many
mp's and be less cost than the 1Ds?
andA good photographer should have a decent amount of control over the
subject within the viewfinder though.....
Hi Ben,If you work harder at your photography and use the proper
equipment, you can get the shot right straight from the camera
without having to crop.
That last sentence has to be one of the most outrageous statementsWith cars, we ARE THERE -- we get from A to B, with comfort, etc.
There haven't been any real progress in car industry in last decade
or two.
I have heard in my entire life!!! I'm still laughing.
If you compare a 1983 ANYTHING to a 2003 equivilent, for instance
take a 1983 or even a 1993 Chevy truck and a 2003 Chevy truck and
map the "progress" in any area (passenger safety/comfort/fuel
efficiency/build quality/performance/appearance/etc...) you'll
definitely see some "real progress.
- Chris
--Bottom line is that the 1D is one fine instrument. If you buy it
now, you will use and enjoy it now. If you don't - you won't.
That simple. Your logic eludes me, frankly.
Mike
--It seems that many people are purchasing a 1D now since there has
been a significant price decrease. However, $3600 is still a lot of
money for a camera that probably will be replaced in the very near
future and become yesterday's news. With PMA just around the
corner, the logic escapes me. What am I missing? Isn't it worth
waiting a short time for a pro camera that will have twice as many
mp's and be less cost than the 1Ds?
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
--It seems that many people are purchasing a 1D now since there has
been a significant price decrease. However, $3600 is still a lot of
money for a camera that probably will be replaced in the very near
future and become yesterday's news. With PMA just around the
corner, the logic escapes me. What am I missing? Isn't it worth
waiting a short time for a pro camera that will have twice as many
mp's and be less cost than the 1Ds?
http://www.pbase.com/shickox/favorites
I count 2000 line pairs. 2000 x 2 = 4000.
And if you're right, why do we have 10,000 dpi scanners for 35mm
negative film, which would be roughly 200 lp/mm (or 400 lp/mm,
using your method).
PS -- you stated "For any conventional digital imager, apparent
resolution (without aliasing) will not exceed N-1 and should never
be less than N/2 (a rule of thumb with no basis except observation)
with a conventional sensor"
The N/2 part of that quote correlates quite nicely with my
calculations.
--On your line-pair resolution arithmetic... there are actually N-1
line pairs across an imager frame, where N is the number of pixels.
Since a line pair is two samples, Nyquist is satisfied. So, for
instance, an imager with 4000 real pixels across the frame would
have a maximum Nyquist-limited resolution of 4000-1, or 3999 line
pairs horizontally. Note that each line pair marks a transition in
frequency/amplitude and each transition shares one pixel with the
previous transition. But... except for the Foveon sensor, actual
resolution is degraded by frequency/amplitude averaging (low-pass
filtering) due to the mosaic color mask over each pixel...i.e each
pixel imaged is actually the average of at least three pixels in
the imager. Also, resolution is different in each direction due to
different pixel radius, spacing and averaging at each angle.
Unlike film, which has uncorrelated, random grain, (hence iniform
resolution at all angles) digital sensor resolution must be
averaged across all angles to determineaverage resolution.
What to conclude? For any conventional digital imager, apparent
resolution (without aliasing) will not exceed N-1 and should never
be less than N/2 (a rule of thumb with no basis except observation)
with a conventional sensor. Aliasing will be in the form of a
rainbow-like color or intensity burst in areas of fine detail.
Camera software or physical low-pass filters in front of the imager
usually prevent this.
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
So...lets take a real world example...the D60. The Canon D60 has
3072 (virtual) pixels horizontally, and by your measure should
resolve 3072/2=1536 line pairs. Normalizing this to 35 MM terms
yields (approximately) 1536/35=44 lp/mm maximum resolution,
ignoring lens imperfections and averaging caused by pixel averaging
in the sensor. But the D60 has been measured by several sources as
having between 50 and 54 35 mm equivalent lp/mm. Oooops! Much
better than the N/2 theory would suggest.
--I'll bet you £50 against the value of the drop in the official
price of a 1D within the 4 weeks following PMA!
It seems that if you don't have anything important to shoot over
the next 4 weeks, it makes sense to wait and save some cash!
--Bottom line is that the 1D is one fine instrument. If you buy it
now, you will use and enjoy it now. If you don't - you won't.
That simple. Your logic eludes me, frankly.
Mike
--It seems that many people are purchasing a 1D now since there has
been a significant price decrease. However, $3600 is still a lot of
money for a camera that probably will be replaced in the very near
future and become yesterday's news. With PMA just around the
corner, the logic escapes me. What am I missing? Isn't it worth
waiting a short time for a pro camera that will have twice as many
mp's and be less cost than the 1Ds?
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
Neil
http://buchangrant.ezhoster.com/bgp/
--I'll bet you £50 against the value of the drop in the official
price of a 1D within the 4 weeks following PMA!
It seems that if you don't have anything important to shoot over
the next 4 weeks, it makes sense to wait and save some cash!
--Bottom line is that the 1D is one fine instrument. If you buy it
now, you will use and enjoy it now. If you don't - you won't.
That simple. Your logic eludes me, frankly.
Mike
--It seems that many people are purchasing a 1D now since there has
been a significant price decrease. However, $3600 is still a lot of
money for a camera that probably will be replaced in the very near
future and become yesterday's news. With PMA just around the
corner, the logic escapes me. What am I missing? Isn't it worth
waiting a short time for a pro camera that will have twice as many
mp's and be less cost than the 1Ds?
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
Neil
http://buchangrant.ezhoster.com/bgp/
--Correct me if I am wrong in my intepretation, Mike
--I'll bet you £50 against the value of the drop in the official
price of a 1D within the 4 weeks following PMA!
It seems that if you don't have anything important to shoot over
the next 4 weeks, it makes sense to wait and save some cash!
--Bottom line is that the 1D is one fine instrument. If you buy it
now, you will use and enjoy it now. If you don't - you won't.
That simple. Your logic eludes me, frankly.
Mike
--It seems that many people are purchasing a 1D now since there has
been a significant price decrease. However, $3600 is still a lot of
money for a camera that probably will be replaced in the very near
future and become yesterday's news. With PMA just around the
corner, the logic escapes me. What am I missing? Isn't it worth
waiting a short time for a pro camera that will have twice as many
mp's and be less cost than the 1Ds?
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
Neil
http://buchangrant.ezhoster.com/bgp/
--Mike Ezell
Mike, your last sentence just about sums up my feelings on the subject too.Risk? Hardly. Fact is that I got my 1D a number of months ago.
Paid 5 grand. Zero regrets. Bought my D30 when then were first
introduced. Paid $2700. Zero Regrets. If I wanted another 1D,
I'd buy it right now - again with zero regrets. Time is life, my
friend.
Mike