D2H and E1 relation

Roger Beckett said:

If the Nikon is blasting off 12 frames a second how would you
follow a racing car as it impacts against a wall, when the image is
being taken the mirror is up, i.e. you cannot see through the
viewfinder, or does it slap up and down, hope it's built well and
there is no dust.
--
Roger

Click to expand...

Use a sportfinder in the shoe?

What would a 35mm SLR do if it could manage 8 fps?

Roland Karlsson said:

Yes - of course, but ...

... I know for certain that I hear continous operations from
the pro photographers cameras when something BIG is
happening.

I can compare to Quake 3. A rocket launcher fires 2 times a second,
you have to time it yourself, you can do better. Just firing all the
time and you will not hit a thing. A plasma rifle fires 5 times a
second,
you just push the trigger. Not even the best players times plasma
balls
at 5 times a second.

It would be nice with some facts now. Do anyone know how
good a pro photographers can be - can he or can he not time
better than the D2H in contionous mode? Can or can he not
hit 1/100 second accuracy? Has anyone done enay meassurements?

Click to expand...

Hmmm... aren't sports photographers also human ? Meaning they are all individuals and like to work in their own way ?

Maybe some think/believe they can or actually CAN time the shots very well and others like to shot series as fast as the equipment allow.

To 'measure' how good a certain photographer or a bunch of them can time their shots wouldn't prove a thing. The interesting point is how they like to do their job, and what 'turns them on' (equipment wise). Based on that they will decide what to use.

So, give it a break and go out and take a nice shot....or a series of them....

Roland Karlsson said:

Roland

Click to expand...

I was taking pictures of a baseball pitcher with my E-10 and tried firing off shots at 3 frames a second and it was just not fast enough to get the pitcher in the spot where I wanted. Iam guessing that 8 frames a second would be much more likely to get that one good one.

I found it was much easier to try to time a single shot than hope for one good frame from a burst.

LasseN said:

Roland Karlsson said:

Yes - of course, but ...

... I know for certain that I hear continous operations from
the pro photographers cameras when something BIG is
happening.

I can compare to Quake 3. A rocket launcher fires 2 times a second,
you have to time it yourself, you can do better. Just firing all the
time and you will not hit a thing. A plasma rifle fires 5 times a
second,
you just push the trigger. Not even the best players times plasma
balls
at 5 times a second.

It would be nice with some facts now. Do anyone know how
good a pro photographers can be - can he or can he not time
better than the D2H in contionous mode? Can or can he not
hit 1/100 second accuracy? Has anyone done enay meassurements?

Click to expand...

Hmmm... aren't sports photographers also human ? Meaning they are
all individuals and like to work in their own way ?
Maybe some think/believe they can or actually CAN time the shots
very well and others like to shot series as fast as the equipment
allow.
To 'measure' how good a certain photographer or a bunch of them can
time their shots wouldn't prove a thing. The interesting point is
how they like to do their job, and what 'turns them on' (equipment
wise). Based on that they will decide what to use.

So, give it a break and go out and take a nice shot....or a series
of them....

LasseN159958 said:

Roland

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Canon S110 Oly E-10 Vivitar 283 Nikon FE(gathering dust)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
Can the drummer hit his drums

Roland Karlsson said:

when a car passes some marks on a wall with 5 ms
accuracy?

Click to expand...

He's a drummer and not a photographer. He isn't trained to do that sort of thing.

Roland Karlsson said:

I don't believe this. The camera takes 1/25 second (or more) from
pushing the button until opening the shutter. The photographer
must compensate 40 ms while hitting with 10 ms accuracy.

Click to expand...

Of course he must compensate for the 40 ms. Just like the drummer who must start to swing the drum stick some time before he want the drum to sound. This comes natural after enough practice, both for the drummer and the photographer.

Roland Karlsson said:

NOTE - the D2H has a 120 ms delay beteen pictures. This
means that the there is a 8 percent probability to hit the
moment within 1/100 second, just by pure chance. The
photographer must be better than this 8 percent to be better
than the 8 fps camera.

Click to expand...

And he is. A pro photographer friend of mine got almost insulted, when "machinegunning" with a motor camera was mentioned. For him, waiting for the correct moment and pressing the shutter at exactly the right time was the only method worth speaking of. He's an "old school" photographer, but still...

Jorgen

LasseN said:

Hmmm... aren't sports photographers also human ? Meaning they are
all individuals and like to work in their own way ?

Maybe some think/believe they can or actually CAN time the shots
very well and others like to shot series as fast as the equipment
allow.

To 'measure' how good a certain photographer or a bunch of them can
time their shots wouldn't prove a thing. The interesting point is
how they like to do their job, and what 'turns them on' (equipment
wise). Based on that they will decide what to use.

Click to expand...

Hi Lasse ... yes of course ... everyone to his liking.

Personally I am the kind of person that wants to know
the truth. So ... if someone thinks he can e.g. manage to
hit a picture with 1/100 s accuracy, I will challenge that.
That is how I am.

Many years ago there were a test in a Swedish photo
magazine. Some photographers claimed that they could
hand held their tele lenses at unbelievable slow shutter
speeds. They believed it. So - there was a test made. They
could not do that of course - but they were MUCH better
than a reference group of photographers. So, they were
good ... very good ... but not near what they believed
themselves. I would imagine that the same goes for those
that believe that they can hit 1/100 s accuracy. In
practice they probably can manage 1/20 s, and that is
extremely good. You and I can probably only hit 1/5 s.

I find the misconceptions of humans interesting. How we can
make us self believe the most outrageous things.

There is an experiment you can do. It is not easy, but you
can do it if you really want to. Put a small object in the end
of a thin short string. Then hold the string above your head
so that the object is hanging just in front of you. Then you
can start, using only your mind, to move the object. After
a time you will probably succeed. Most people that try hard
enough manages eventually. Now, think of it, moving
an object with your mind only! Psychokinesi! And it feels 100%
as you did it. But ...

LasseN159958 said:

So, give it a break and go out and take a nice shot....or a series
of them....

Click to expand...

I am not all that interested in action shooting myself
Many years ago I was interested in bird shooting - but
my most interesting project was building a gadget that
could fire the camera automatic by sound or light detection.
Never got any birds - but I built lots of electronic gadgets,
and loudspeakers, and exposure meters for my enlarger,
etc, etc, etc.



Roland

Thanks Jorgen

I'm sure you're right about this - Roland want's proof, but I don't know how you could possibly design a controlled experiment - possibly with his dongle on a piece of string?

kind regards
jono slack

Jorgen Bergfors said:

Jorgen Bergfors said:

when a car passes some marks on a wall with 5 ms
accuracy?

Click to expand...

He's a drummer and not a photographer. He isn't trained to do that
sort of thing.

Jorgen Bergfors said:

I don't believe this. The camera takes 1/25 second (or more) from
pushing the button until opening the shutter. The photographer
must compensate 40 ms while hitting with 10 ms accuracy.

Click to expand...

Of course he must compensate for the 40 ms. Just like the drummer
who must start to swing the drum stick some time before he want the
drum to sound. This comes natural after enough practice, both for
the drummer and the photographer.

Jorgen Bergfors said:

NOTE - the D2H has a 120 ms delay beteen pictures. This
means that the there is a 8 percent probability to hit the
moment within 1/100 second, just by pure chance. The
photographer must be better than this 8 percent to be better
than the 8 fps camera.

Click to expand...

And he is. A pro photographer friend of mine got almost insulted,
when "machinegunning" with a motor camera was mentioned. For him,
waiting for the correct moment and pressing the shutter at exactly
the right time was the only method worth speaking of. He's an "old
school" photographer, but still...

Jorgen

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Jono Slack said:

Thanks Jorgen
I'm sure you're right about this - Roland want's proof, but I don't
know how you could possibly design a controlled experiment -

Click to expand...

Personally I would do it this way. I would talk to some of
the photographers - asking what kind of things they think
they can catch with their technique. Is it a car at an exact
position? Is it the exact moment when spomeone jumps?
Then I would set up an experiment that tests their claims.

One simple test would be to draw a line on the road and see
if they can hit the moment when the front wheel is exactly
on the line. Another would be to se if they can hit exactly when
a a swimmer hits the water at start. A third would be to repeatedly
catch the same moment. The important thing is that the
photographers must agee that it is really a valid test. If they
don't, then no one will care about the test.

Then I would make the same test for a control group of
ordinary human photgraphers, like you and me. Then I would
do the same test with just an 8 fps camera "filming" the event.

If the test involves something that is not easy to meassure,
it can simultaneously be filmed with a fast movie camera. Then it can
be judged what frame is nearest to the shots.

It is easy - if some good photographers are willing to participate.

Roland

Roland Karlsson said:

Jono Slack said:

Thanks Jorgen
I'm sure you're right about this - Roland want's proof, but I don't
know how you could possibly design a controlled experiment -

Click to expand...

Personally I would do it this way. I would talk to some of
the photographers - asking what kind of things they think
they can catch with their technique. Is it a car at an exact
position? Is it the exact moment when spomeone jumps?
Then I would set up an experiment that tests their claims.

One simple test would be to draw a line on the road and see
if they can hit the moment when the front wheel is exactly
on the line. Another would be to se if they can hit exactly when
a a swimmer hits the water at start. A third would be to repeatedly
catch the same moment. The important thing is that the
photographers must agee that it is really a valid test. If they
don't, then no one will care about the test.

Then I would make the same test for a control group of
ordinary human photgraphers, like you and me. Then I would
do the same test with just an 8 fps camera "filming" the event.

If the test involves something that is not easy to meassure,
it can simultaneously be filmed with a fast movie camera. Then it can
be judged what frame is nearest to the shots.

It is easy - if some good photographers are willing to participate.

Roland

Click to expand...

When I started to shoot sportspictures I couldnt afford a motor-camera. Nikon F2 and Canon F1 with motordrives was pretty expensive then. When I tripped the shutter then, I knew that I had the shot. If you could anticipate the action ( I shot a lot of soccer then) you often got the shot in the exact right moment. Some years later I used Nikon FMs/FEs with their 3,5 fps drives and Nikon F3/MD 4 with 5,5 fps. There is no question that the motordrives was a great plus, you got a lot more pictures to choose from, but you didnt knew exactly what you got until you saw your negs. That tiny delay, caused by the drives vs a manual shutterrelease, really did a noticable difference.

Regarding the fps-question: I think 3,5 fps was usable, around 5 fps is enough, but 3 fps will be considered too slow by sportsphotographers. 8 fps is of course good but anyway to slow to just shoot away for some sports. For instance if you catch the ball on players tennis racket or a golfball in the swing its pure luck and the ball will only be in one picture of the series. In those cases you have to anticipate the moment.
--
http://www.pbase.com/interactive

We are talking about two different markets here. Most sports can be shot at 1/500 of a second unless you are in very bright light. Unless you need to catch a series 3fps should be enough. My 1D shoots 8 fps but I rarelly use it. Keep in mind I shoot football, basketball, volleyball, Soccer, and many other sports. I personally do not like to use flash where sports are concerned. Some indoor sports that are in poorly lit Gyms or on poorly lit High School football fields are going to require a very fast lens or flash. If you want to shoot indoors without flash, then a 2.8 lens is not really going to cut it in most High School Gyms. Nikon will gain another advantage here since they do offer some 1.8 lenses like Canon does. If the E-1 is going to come into the market for less money, a higher number of Mp and a larger MP size than each will offer their own distinct advantages. To me the Nikon is only coming with a 4 mp camera that is only slightly faster Fps and larger buffer as compared to Canon 1D. WiFI is a nice option but you have to pay extra for it. It is not the end all catch all for most photographers. In fact, I believe that some smart company just might come along and build Wifi into the larger Compact flash cards. It would only take a firmware update to be able to use it. I do not see pro's buying the E-1 for sports, although it will be possible to use it for that, just as I do not see the D2H buyers, buying that camera for Studio or Landscape.

Jason

Roger Beckett said:

BJN said:

The E-1 spec is 3 frames per second for 12 frames vs. the D2H's 8
frames per second for 40 frames. The D2H by virtue of sheer speed
is targeted at action/sports photographers. I'm not sure who the
E-1 is targeted at, but it's not the D2H's market segment.

--
BJN

Click to expand...

Your so right 1/4000 is too slow for action....NOT

Some of the best action/sports photographers have answered, when
asked how many continuous shots they take, "one". Remember the
days of film, my Nikon would shoot a max of 5 frames/sec.

Action/sport photography calls for quick shutters and fast lens'.
12 frames/sec will help an average photographer "capture the
moment" but a good pro doesn't need it.
--
Roger

Click to expand...

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!

Not Hardly, Even if you can buy a lot of stuff with the $5000 difference is price, the bottom line is you will will not have a 1Ds or the capablity of it. That statement in itself is like saying a 35mm film camera is close to a Medium format camera. There is no comparison and the Medium format images will bear that out.

Jason

littlebabylon said:

You could think of it as a poor man's 1Ds. $5000 buys a lot of
extra stuff.

an interesting point

kevin

Click to expand...

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!

PerL said:

When I started to shoot sportspictures I couldnt afford a
motor-camera. Nikon F2 and Canon F1 with motordrives was pretty
expensive then. When I tripped the shutter then, I knew that I had
the shot. If you could anticipate the action ( I shot a lot of
soccer then) you often got the shot in the exact right moment. Some
years later I used Nikon FMs/FEs with their 3,5 fps drives and
Nikon F3/MD 4 with 5,5 fps. There is no question that the
motordrives was a great plus, you got a lot more pictures to
choose from, but you didnt knew exactly what you got until you saw
your negs. That tiny delay, caused by the drives vs a manual
shutterrelease, really did a noticable difference.

Regarding the fps-question: I think 3,5 fps was usable, around 5
fps is enough, but 3 fps will be considered too slow by
sportsphotographers. 8 fps is of course good but anyway to slow to
just shoot away for some sports. For instance if you catch the ball
on players tennis racket or a golfball in the swing its pure luck
and the ball will only be in one picture of the series. In those
cases you have to anticipate the moment.

Click to expand...

At last - someone that has experience of fast shooting!

What would you say - if you shoot a picture of a golf swing - what
is the chance that you can take a picture where the golf ball is
say within 0.7 meters from the peg? How many tries must you do
before you can get that photo?

The golf ball travels at 70 meter/sec, so 0.7 meter is 1/100 sec.

Note - that in average you have to do 12 tries before you can
manage to get that photo with a 8 fps movie camera, i.e. the
Nikon D2H.

Can you do better?

Roland

Roland Karlsson said:

PerL said:

When I started to shoot sportspictures I couldnt afford a
motor-camera. Nikon F2 and Canon F1 with motordrives was pretty
expensive then. When I tripped the shutter then, I knew that I had
the shot. If you could anticipate the action ( I shot a lot of
soccer then) you often got the shot in the exact right moment. Some
years later I used Nikon FMs/FEs with their 3,5 fps drives and
Nikon F3/MD 4 with 5,5 fps. There is no question that the
motordrives was a great plus, you got a lot more pictures to
choose from, but you didnt knew exactly what you got until you saw
your negs. That tiny delay, caused by the drives vs a manual
shutterrelease, really did a noticable difference.

Regarding the fps-question: I think 3,5 fps was usable, around 5
fps is enough, but 3 fps will be considered too slow by
sportsphotographers. 8 fps is of course good but anyway to slow to
just shoot away for some sports. For instance if you catch the ball
on players tennis racket or a golfball in the swing its pure luck
and the ball will only be in one picture of the series. In those
cases you have to anticipate the moment.

Click to expand...

At last - someone that has experience of fast shooting!

What would you say - if you shoot a picture of a golf swing - what
is the chance that you can take a picture where the golf ball is
say within 0.7 meters from the peg? How many tries must you do
before you can get that photo?

The golf ball travels at 70 meter/sec, so 0.7 meter is 1/100 sec.

Note - that in average you have to do 12 tries before you can
manage to get that photo with a 8 fps movie camera, i.e. the
Nikon D2H.

Can you do better?

Roland

Click to expand...

Hard to tell, but getting that shot would be sheer luck, 8fps or not. I have seen high speed cameras capturing Tiger Woods swing at 60 fps, and if I remember right there was only one frame with the ball after the hit.
--
http://www.pbase.com/interactive

Jason Stoller said:

Not Hardly, Even if you can buy a lot of stuff with the $5000
difference is price, the bottom line is you will will not have a
1Ds or the capablity of it. That statement in itself is like
saying a 35mm film camera is close to a Medium format camera.
There is no comparison and the Medium format images will bear that
out.

Jason

Click to expand...

Well, noone said that the E-1 is directly competing with the 1ds in a sense that one really serious about getting the 1ds is loosing sleep about the question if should not better get an E-1. But I really think that they both target the same type of photographer, of course in seperated market segments due to their different prices.

Both are built for people who do not prefer extreme speeds in favour of picture quality. Both offer the best built body in their class an try to optimize for picture qualitly. And both offer cameras fitting to their lens systems.

So I think that they really are trying to address the same needs. That with a 4 times bigger pricetag you are well allowed to expect a better performance goes without a saying, though I am really curious how big the picture quality difference will come out in practical use - it might be not so big as the sensor specs may let it appear.

Peter

--
http://linux23.kri.uni-koeln.de/~herth/digital/

Peter Herth said:

Jason Stoller said:

Not Hardly, Even if you can buy a lot of stuff with the $5000
difference is price, the bottom line is you will will not have a
1Ds or the capablity of it. That statement in itself is like
saying a 35mm film camera is close to a Medium format camera.
There is no comparison and the Medium format images will bear that
out.

Jason

Click to expand...

Well, noone said that the E-1 is directly competing with the 1ds in
a sense that one really serious about getting the 1ds is loosing
sleep about the question if should not better get an E-1. But I
really think that they both target the same type of photographer,
of course in seperated market segments due to their different
prices.

Click to expand...

If it was the same type of photographer, price would not be an issue. I used to think the same when when I was shooting my E-10/20 cameras, and I disagreed, I think is was Ger Bee that said that price was not the real issue. I experienced this personally when I moved from the E-20 to the Canon 1D.

Peter Herth said:

Both are built for people who do not prefer extreme speeds in
favour of picture quality. Both offer the best built body in their
class an try to optimize for picture qualitly. And both offer
cameras fitting to their lens systems.

Click to expand...

But there are bigger differences. The 1Ds has a 45 point focus system and its focus speed matches the 1D. There are many more lenses available for the 1Ds and they are faster than 2.8

Peter Herth said:

So I think that they really are trying to address the same needs.

Click to expand...

The 1Ds is full frame, with real wide angle. I doubt they address the same needs. Its all in how you view the equipment and the capablity of the equipment.

Peter Herth said:

That with a 4 times bigger pricetag you are well allowed to expect
a better performance goes without a saying, though I am really
curious how big the picture quality difference will come out in
practical use - it might be not so big as the sensor specs may let
it appear.

Click to expand...

I would not say that price determines anything. I also owned an Olympus E-100 that was capable of 15 fps. Along with the C2100 uz they were the too most overlooked cameras until people realized their capablities and by that time they were selling down from over a grand at $399 and sometimes less. The Kodak 14N is another example that really hit home. Price does not matter if the quality is not there, and if you do offer quality, then its not always recognized. The only thing that price is relative to is how much someone will pay for any given product.

Peter Herth said:

Peter

--
http://linux23.kri.uni-koeln.de/~herth/digital/

Click to expand...

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!

PerL said:

Hard to tell, but getting that shot would be sheer luck, 8fps or
not. I have seen high speed cameras capturing Tiger Woods swing at
60 fps, and if I remember right there was only one frame with the
ball after the hit.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with this. With a 8 fps camera you must repeat
the experiment until you get the ball, maybe 10 or 20 times.

And ... I think this proves my point really. A good photographer
cannot time a shot with 1/100 second accuracy IMHO.

So ... what accuracy can a good photographer get - worse or
better than 1/20 s - worse or better than 1/10 s?

Roland

Jason Stoller said:

Peter Herth said:

Jason Stoller said:

Not Hardly, Even if you can buy a lot of stuff with the $5000
difference is price, the bottom line is you will will not have a
1Ds or the capablity of it. That statement in itself is like
saying a 35mm film camera is close to a Medium format camera.
There is no comparison and the Medium format images will bear that
out.

Jason

Click to expand...

Well, noone said that the E-1 is directly competing with the 1ds in
a sense that one really serious about getting the 1ds is loosing
sleep about the question if should not better get an E-1. But I
really think that they both target the same type of photographer,
of course in seperated market segments due to their different
prices.

Click to expand...

If it was the same type of photographer, price would not be an
issue. I used to think the same when when I was shooting my
E-10/20 cameras, and I disagreed, I think is was Ger Bee that said
that price was not the real issue. I experienced this personally
when I moved from the E-20 to the Canon 1D.

Click to expand...

You misunderstood my post.

I said they both address the same type of photographer, in terms like "how much speed is needed" and how he rates equipment overall.

Jason Stoller said:

Jason Stoller said:

Both are built for people who do not prefer extreme speeds in
favour of picture quality. Both offer the best built body in their
class an try to optimize for picture qualitly. And both offer
cameras fitting to their lens systems.

Click to expand...

But there are bigger differences. The 1Ds has a 45 point focus
system and its focus speed matches the 1D. There are many more
lenses available for the 1Ds and they are faster than 2.8

Jason Stoller said:

So I think that they really are trying to address the same needs.

Click to expand...

The 1Ds is full frame, with real wide angle. I doubt they address
the same needs. Its all in how you view the equipment and the
capablity of the equipment.

Jason Stoller said:

That with a 4 times bigger pricetag you are well allowed to expect
a better performance goes without a saying, though I am really
curious how big the picture quality difference will come out in
practical use - it might be not so big as the sensor specs may let
it appear.

Click to expand...

I would not say that price determines anything. I also owned an
Olympus E-100 that was capable of 15 fps. Along with the C2100 uz
they were the too most overlooked cameras until people realized
their capablities and by that time they were selling down from over
a grand at $399 and sometimes less. The Kodak 14N is another
example that really hit home. Price does not matter if the quality
is not there, and if you do offer quality, then its not always
recognized. The only thing that price is relative to is how much
someone will pay for any given product.

Click to expand...

You go into great length into comparing the features of both camereas but the point is moot. I did say in my previous post that of course I recon the 1ds as "better" in many points. That does not need to be discussed. Its the simple fact that the 1ds costs 4 times as much as the E-1 which makes the final difference. Stretching myself to the borders, I might summon the money of an E-1, but an 1ds is out of my reach by far. (Of course with both cameras you have to add the costs for lenses into the calculation, but that doesent change it much either way). And like me even many less-amateur-than-me photographers may be looking for an alternative to the 1ds for the simple fact that they cannot afford it.

To give an example: both Toyota and Mercedes-Benz build 4x4 station wagons. So they both address to a certain extend the same needs, in this case "4x4 station wagon". But of course they are of different capability and are sold to different customers, due to the price tag they carry.

In this way I, and I may assume other posters here, compared the 1ds and the E-1. If I may cite: "poor-mans 1ds", this summs up what I just said in lot less words.

Peter

Roger Beckett said:

BJN said:

The E-1 spec is 3 frames per second for 12 frames vs. the D2H's 8
frames per second for 40 frames. The D2H by virtue of sheer speed
is targeted at action/sports photographers. I'm not sure who the
E-1 is targeted at, but it's not the D2H's market segment.

--
BJN

Click to expand...

Your so right 1/4000 is too slow for action....NOT

Some of the best action/sports photographers have answered, when
asked how many continuous shots they take, "one". Remember the
days of film, my Nikon would shoot a max of 5 frames/sec.

Action/sport photography calls for quick shutters and fast lens'.
12 frames/sec will help an average photographer "capture the
moment" but a good pro doesn't need it.
--
Roger

Click to expand...

--
charlie

In that case, following your analogy at the bottom, a Ford Escort could fit the bill. Whats funny Peter is that there is a point where any photographer decides what their personal limits are. No one can argue with that. The 1Ds is only 3 times the speculated price of the E-1 right now, but we really do not know. Taking into consideration your car analogy again, there are many people who let others take the hit on the depreciate of a new product and then reap in the savings by picking up the model they really wanted after a year or so. If you really want a 1Ds then you will find a way. The same could be said for many others who are contemplating an E-1 purchase. It is much more expensive by the time you consider the lens cost. Unfortunately Olympus has not offered any lenses as a reasonable price yet. So they will get you one way or another before its over.

Peter Herth said:

Jason Stoller said:

Peter Herth said:

Jason Stoller said:

Not Hardly, Even if you can buy a lot of stuff with the $5000
difference is price, the bottom line is you will will not have a
1Ds or the capablity of it. That statement in itself is like
saying a 35mm film camera is close to a Medium format camera.
There is no comparison and the Medium format images will bear that
out.

Jason

Click to expand...

Well, noone said that the E-1 is directly competing with the 1ds in
a sense that one really serious about getting the 1ds is loosing
sleep about the question if should not better get an E-1. But I
really think that they both target the same type of photographer,
of course in seperated market segments due to their different
prices.

Click to expand...

If it was the same type of photographer, price would not be an
issue. I used to think the same when when I was shooting my
E-10/20 cameras, and I disagreed, I think is was Ger Bee that said
that price was not the real issue. I experienced this personally
when I moved from the E-20 to the Canon 1D.

Click to expand...

You misunderstood my post.
I said they both address the same type of photographer, in terms
like "how much speed is needed" and how he rates equipment overall.

Peter Herth said:

Peter Herth said:

Both are built for people who do not prefer extreme speeds in
favour of picture quality. Both offer the best built body in their
class an try to optimize for picture qualitly. And both offer
cameras fitting to their lens systems.

Click to expand...

But there are bigger differences. The 1Ds has a 45 point focus
system and its focus speed matches the 1D. There are many more
lenses available for the 1Ds and they are faster than 2.8

Peter Herth said:

So I think that they really are trying to address the same needs.

Click to expand...

The 1Ds is full frame, with real wide angle. I doubt they address
the same needs. Its all in how you view the equipment and the
capablity of the equipment.

Peter Herth said:

That with a 4 times bigger pricetag you are well allowed to expect
a better performance goes without a saying, though I am really
curious how big the picture quality difference will come out in
practical use - it might be not so big as the sensor specs may let
it appear.

Click to expand...

I would not say that price determines anything. I also owned an
Olympus E-100 that was capable of 15 fps. Along with the C2100 uz
they were the too most overlooked cameras until people realized
their capablities and by that time they were selling down from over
a grand at $399 and sometimes less. The Kodak 14N is another
example that really hit home. Price does not matter if the quality
is not there, and if you do offer quality, then its not always
recognized. The only thing that price is relative to is how much
someone will pay for any given product.

Click to expand...

You go into great length into comparing the features of both
camereas but the point is moot. I did say in my previous post that
of course I recon the 1ds as "better" in many points. That does not
need to be discussed. Its the simple fact that the 1ds costs 4
times as much as the E-1 which makes the final difference.
Stretching myself to the borders, I might summon the money of an
E-1, but an 1ds is out of my reach by far. (Of course with both
cameras you have to add the costs for lenses into the calculation,
but that doesent change it much either way). And like me even many
less-amateur-than-me photographers may be looking for an
alternative to the 1ds for the simple fact that they cannot afford
it.

To give an example: both Toyota and Mercedes-Benz build 4x4 station
wagons. So they both address to a certain extend the same needs, in
this case "4x4 station wagon". But of course they are of different
capability and are sold to different customers, due to the price
tag they carry.
In this way I, and I may assume other posters here, compared the
1ds and the E-1. If I may cite: "poor-mans 1ds", this summs up what
I just said in lot less words.

Peter

Click to expand...

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]

We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their new products!

I think everyone is making valid points. I think it can be considered a poor man's "1Ds" under some circumstances.

Some examples:

May be considered are poor man's 1Ds:

• person does not want a FOV multiplier on their new DSLR.
• person does not have Canon lenses
• person needs only 1-2 lenses

May NoT be considered are poor man's 1Ds:

• person has lots of Canon glass
• person requires features not available in E1 and 4/3rds
• person requires lenses not available in E1 and 4/3rds

Jason Stoller said:

Peter Herth said:

Jason Stoller said:

Peter Herth said:

Jason Stoller said:

Not Hardly, Even if you can buy a lot of stuff with the $5000
difference is price, the bottom line is you will will not have a
1Ds or the capablity of it. That statement in itself is like
saying a 35mm film camera is close to a Medium format camera.
There is no comparison and the Medium format images will bear that
out.

Jason

Click to expand...

Well, noone said that the E-1 is directly competing with the 1ds in
a sense that one really serious about getting the 1ds is loosing
sleep about the question if should not better get an E-1. But I
really think that they both target the same type of photographer,
of course in seperated market segments due to their different
prices.

Click to expand...

If it was the same type of photographer, price would not be an
issue. I used to think the same when when I was shooting my
E-10/20 cameras, and I disagreed, I think is was Ger Bee that said
that price was not the real issue. I experienced this personally
when I moved from the E-20 to the Canon 1D.

Click to expand...

You misunderstood my post.
I said they both address the same type of photographer, in terms
like "how much speed is needed" and how he rates equipment overall.

Jason Stoller said:

Jason Stoller said:

Both are built for people who do not prefer extreme speeds in
favour of picture quality. Both offer the best built body in their
class an try to optimize for picture qualitly. And both offer
cameras fitting to their lens systems.

Click to expand...

But there are bigger differences. The 1Ds has a 45 point focus
system and its focus speed matches the 1D. There are many more
lenses available for the 1Ds and they are faster than 2.8

Jason Stoller said:

So I think that they really are trying to address the same needs.

Click to expand...

The 1Ds is full frame, with real wide angle. I doubt they address
the same needs. Its all in how you view the equipment and the
capablity of the equipment.

Jason Stoller said:

That with a 4 times bigger pricetag you are well allowed to expect
a better performance goes without a saying, though I am really
curious how big the picture quality difference will come out in
practical use - it might be not so big as the sensor specs may let
it appear.

Click to expand...

I would not say that price determines anything. I also owned an
Olympus E-100 that was capable of 15 fps. Along with the C2100 uz
they were the too most overlooked cameras until people realized
their capablities and by that time they were selling down from over
a grand at $399 and sometimes less. The Kodak 14N is another
example that really hit home. Price does not matter if the quality
is not there, and if you do offer quality, then its not always
recognized. The only thing that price is relative to is how much
someone will pay for any given product.

Click to expand...

You go into great length into comparing the features of both
camereas but the point is moot. I did say in my previous post that
of course I recon the 1ds as "better" in many points. That does not
need to be discussed. Its the simple fact that the 1ds costs 4
times as much as the E-1 which makes the final difference.
Stretching myself to the borders, I might summon the money of an
E-1, but an 1ds is out of my reach by far. (Of course with both
cameras you have to add the costs for lenses into the calculation,
but that doesent change it much either way). And like me even many
less-amateur-than-me photographers may be looking for an
alternative to the 1ds for the simple fact that they cannot afford
it.

To give an example: both Toyota and Mercedes-Benz build 4x4 station
wagons. So they both address to a certain extend the same needs, in
this case "4x4 station wagon". But of course they are of different
capability and are sold to different customers, due to the price
tag they carry.
In this way I, and I may assume other posters here, compared the
1ds and the E-1. If I may cite: "poor-mans 1ds", this summs up what
I just said in lot less words.

Peter

Click to expand...

--
Jason Stoller [email protected]
We are just Beta Testers who pay the Camera Companies to test their
new products!

Click to expand...

LOL, How about this for may not: person needs some real (11) megapixels (for bayer sensor anyway).

And what's with the: person does not want FOV multiplier on their new DSLR? The E1 does* have a 2x multiplication.

Paul

digital_ray_of_light said:

digital_ray_of_light wrote:
I think everyone is making valid points. I think it can be
considered a poor man's "1Ds" under some circumstances.

Some examples:

May be considered are poor man's 1Ds:

• person does not want a FOV multiplier on their new DSLR.
• person does not have Canon lenses
• person needs only 1-2 lenses

May NoT be considered are poor man's 1Ds:

• person has lots of Canon glass
• person requires features not available in E1 and 4/3rds
• person requires lenses not available in E1 and 4/3rds

Click to expand...