1DMkII - Why the mad excitement?

But before I get into that, please keep in mind that putting high speed cards in a 10D, although it doesn't hurt, it doesn't help either, since the 10D is NOT 'write acceleration' capable. But non-WA cards, up to 16x, do perform much better than older cards.

The 10D is slow if you do a lot of 'chimping', in other words, you spend a lot of time looking at your photos on the screen. The 10D will not display a preview as long as the buffer is busy, which can make it annoying if you need to review photos a lot. I tend to setup and check the first couple of photos, and then shoot away, only rechecking when things changsubstantially. But then, I shot film for many, many years, so chimping isn't something that I have-to-do while shooting.

But the buffer on a 10D tends to empty fairly quickly under a regular shooting pace, certainly sufficiently fast to sustain the occasional 4 frame burst. But then, there are some photographers that shoot like they are making movies, hoping to catch a good moment. And then they get the cover of SI and they can say "See what a great photographer I am?"

Does the 1DMkII suffer from the same 'no chimping while buffer busy' problem? If so, taking 20 frames in a row will probably keep you waiting a mighty long time! Hopefully Canon avoided the problem in this new camera.

Roger Nordin said:

However, I don't know where you got those figures from. You must be
using extremely slow CF memory to attain such sluggish performance
from the 10D. Quoting Phil's review here for RAW buffering
performance:

"9 x RAW images and approx. 8 seconds later indicates space to
shoot 6 more"

Even when using my old IBM Microdrive 1GB (which by modern
standards is a very slow CF media) I can take the next shot within
5 seconds, typically 3-4 seconds, after having shot a full burst of
RAW shots.

Replacing the memory card with a better media such as Sandisk
Ultra2 CF would probably give a dramatically improved performance
indeed, but that's just speculation from my side as I haven't tried
it myself. It isn't unfair to make a comparsion with such a fast
media though, considering the 1DMarkII really would need such a
fast media to realize its full potential, to be able to get rid of
that 69 megapixels per second from its internal buffer to the media
itself...

Anyways, I just don't recognize where you're getting those 20
seconds from.

Regards,
Roger

pgrupp said:

The thing is -- the 10D is not a bad camera if you shoot in JPEG --
but the minute you set it to RAW, be prepared to wait for
everything. Even shooting models under strobes, it is embarassingly
slow. If you fill the buffer in RAW mode, the camera is essentially
unusable for the next 20 seconds or so. Snap one more frame, and
you have another 20 second wait. That's simply unusable. The 1D, on
the other hand, manages snappy performance in RAW mode, thus
earning my love and respect. I shoot 100% in RAW these days.

So for me, comparing the 1DMkII to the 10D just doesn't cut it.

Click to expand...

[...]

Click to expand...

Nill Toulme said:

See page 3-18 in the 1D software manual, regarding PF-23.

Nill
~~

Click to expand...

.. timer time outs ...

I still don't see anything to keep the recorded FEL setting after shooting.

I can change the length of time the setting stays active until the shot is taken but this is not what we are looking for.

jerpat said:

I don't NEED it; I WANT it so I ORDERED it! OK? (nt)

Click to expand...

-----------------------------

Good for you.

So you admit that you don't need it, but you want a new toy, just because you want it. That's a valid reason. Not one that agrees with my life/photography philosophy (I wouldn't have posted my original question otherwise), but a valid reason for you. Enjoy.

Well, I am speaking as a shooter, not a tester.

But there is no way I get 6 frames back after only 8 seconds in RAW on the 10D.

Another possibility -- check the ISO you are testing at. I find when I shoot at high ISO, as I do often, it takes a lot longer for the 10D to write its buffer.

I'm using a variety of cards -- including the IBM microdrive you mention. All I can say, is I use the same cards in both cameras -- dog slow on the 10D, much faster on the 1D.

I'll test the actual write times on the Microdrive at ISO 1600 and get back to you.

Roger Nordin said:

However, I don't know where you got those figures from. You must be
using extremely slow CF memory to attain such sluggish performance
from the 10D. Quoting Phil's review here for RAW buffering
performance:

"9 x RAW images and approx. 8 seconds later indicates space to
shoot 6 more"

Even when using my old IBM Microdrive 1GB (which by modern
standards is a very slow CF media) I can take the next shot within
5 seconds, typically 3-4 seconds, after having shot a full burst of
RAW shots.

Replacing the memory card with a better media such as Sandisk
Ultra2 CF would probably give a dramatically improved performance
indeed, but that's just speculation from my side as I haven't tried
it myself. It isn't unfair to make a comparsion with such a fast
media though, considering the 1DMarkII really would need such a
fast media to realize its full potential, to be able to get rid of
that 69 megapixels per second from its internal buffer to the media
itself...

Anyways, I just don't recognize where you're getting those 20
seconds from.

Regards,
Roger

pgrupp said:

The thing is -- the 10D is not a bad camera if you shoot in JPEG --
but the minute you set it to RAW, be prepared to wait for
everything. Even shooting models under strobes, it is embarassingly
slow. If you fill the buffer in RAW mode, the camera is essentially
unusable for the next 20 seconds or so. Snap one more frame, and
you have another 20 second wait. That's simply unusable. The 1D, on
the other hand, manages snappy performance in RAW mode, thus
earning my love and respect. I shoot 100% in RAW these days.

So for me, comparing the 1DMkII to the 10D just doesn't cut it.

Click to expand...

[...]

Click to expand...

--

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

With a Microdrive in my 10D at ISO 1600, if I fill the buffer, it will be six to eight seconds before I can take the next shot. Take another one as soon as the BUSY light goes out, and it's another six to eight seconds. This is with the LCD turned off completely -- if you've seen my posts before, you'll know I think chimping is for chumps.

So I was wrong -- it's only six to eight seconds to get a frame free after filling the buffer. But I can tell you, in the real worldl, it seems like 20 seconds! For a large number of types of photography, six to eight seconds between shots is an eternity. When models start rolling their eyeballs as you curse the buffer, you know it's a long time!

In the 1D, remember that you get a full 16 frames before you hit the buffer limit -- which in itself is a good thing. But getting the next frame back after the buffer is full -- using exactly the same Microdrive that was in the 10D takes just at 2 seconds on my 1D, and the next frame is ready just 1 second after that.

So according to my calculations -- the 1D is 3-4X faster shot to shot than the 10D when the buffer is full -- and with it's much larger buffer, it's harder to fill that buffer as well. Finally, I believe if I bought a super-high-speed card, I would see a substantial improvement in the write times on the 1D, but the 10D would stay the same.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

Roger Nordin said:

However, I don't know where you got those figures from. You must be
using extremely slow CF memory to attain such sluggish performance
from the 10D. Quoting Phil's review here for RAW buffering
performance:

"9 x RAW images and approx. 8 seconds later indicates space to
shoot 6 more"

Even when using my old IBM Microdrive 1GB (which by modern
standards is a very slow CF media) I can take the next shot within
5 seconds, typically 3-4 seconds, after having shot a full burst of
RAW shots.

Replacing the memory card with a better media such as Sandisk
Ultra2 CF would probably give a dramatically improved performance
indeed, but that's just speculation from my side as I haven't tried
it myself. It isn't unfair to make a comparsion with such a fast
media though, considering the 1DMarkII really would need such a
fast media to realize its full potential, to be able to get rid of
that 69 megapixels per second from its internal buffer to the media
itself...

Anyways, I just don't recognize where you're getting those 20
seconds from.

Regards,
Roger

pgrupp said:

The thing is -- the 10D is not a bad camera if you shoot in JPEG --
but the minute you set it to RAW, be prepared to wait for
everything. Even shooting models under strobes, it is embarassingly
slow. If you fill the buffer in RAW mode, the camera is essentially
unusable for the next 20 seconds or so. Snap one more frame, and
you have another 20 second wait. That's simply unusable. The 1D, on
the other hand, manages snappy performance in RAW mode, thus
earning my love and respect. I shoot 100% in RAW these days.

So for me, comparing the 1DMkII to the 10D just doesn't cut it.

Click to expand...

[...]

Click to expand...

When designing sensors, you don't increase the size of the sensor in only ONE dimension. That would change the aspect ratio of the sensor. What you do is to increase the size of the senor in BOTH dimensions so that you retain the aspect ration. Hence, the two cakes or two pages analogy is not valid. What would be valid, would be to say, take the ingredients needed to make two cakes, and make only one with those ingredients. What would be the resulting size (width, length, and area). Area should be double. Width and Length should each be roughly 40% longer. That is what happens with sensors.

Joo

DMillier said:

DMillier said:

To people brought up on the A system, if it takes two A4 sheets to
cover an A3 then A3 is double the size of A4. That equates to 8MP
being twice 4MP and hence capable of double the size prints.

It seems odd to me, but some photographers seem to think that twice
the size means that both linear dimensions have to be doubled
(which seems like 4x the size to me).

Cultural differences, I guess.

Joo said:

The 1D Mk II's sensor provides 15.5% more pixels in a single
dimensions (linear) than the 10D. They way you arrive at this is to
take the square root of the 1.33 (133%). You take the square root
because, as you say, the MP of the sensor is the AREA of the sensor.

Unbound is correct in his calculations.

Joo

greentank said:

a 25% increase in pixels WILL give you 25% more information - which
means 25% more surface area. The IMAGE size IS 25% larger....in
terms of area. A 10x10 room is 100 sf. vs 14x14 room which is 200
sf. The 14x14 room is twice as large, but in terms of wall length
is only 40% larger.

In my view, it comes down to cropping. You can crop 25% of the
pixels on an 8mp image and still have the resolution of a 10D.

The proof will be in the pudding, though...I'm selling my 10D AFTER
I get my mkii.....so I'll do some side-by-sides for fun.

Mark

unbound said:

The math is correct... 25% more pixels do not give you an image
that is 25% larger. Think of it this way (and I'm keeping the math
simple)... a 2000 x 2000 pixel sensor is 4MP, and gives you an
image that will print at 1x size. Now if we more than double the
pixel count, to 9 MP, you have a sensor that is less than 3000 x
3000, which would result in an image 1.5x size.

So if going from 4MP to 9MP gives only 1.5x the print size, going
from 6MP to 8MP is really more like 1.15x an increase. Not much at
all... and (besides pixel size), as sensor counts increase, the
difference between sizes becomes less and less significant in terms
of print size.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/greentank
10D, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8L IS, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS

Click to expand...

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll

blame the equipment.



http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.daehwang.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.

http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.daehwang.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/

No offence, but the closed eye syndrome can easily be avoided even with a 10D, just use the second curtain for your flash !!
Are you going to put the Mark II on automatic all the time.. ??
Reading your manuals, can also help..

On the other side I am waiting for a Mark II too, but then this is for reasons which are hardly to overcome with the D60..

Ger Bee said:

I find it terrific for the eyes closed syndrome, my chances of
having one frame will all eyes open is a very high probability,
when I was trying one shot or the 10D I found that people had time
to recover between shots and blink again from the pre-flash.

Click to expand...

unbound said:

BTW... I'll post where a topic belongs... and the topic here is the
MkII and it's attributes... so take your 'go somewhere else
attitude' and shutup. Your whole attitude sucks. Enough said.

Ger Bee said:

.... you would know.

If you were trying to make a living with the 10D then you'd
appreciate how easier it is with the 1D, the MKII improves on this.

If you use flash a lot …. I don’t even have to finish my sentence!!!

Worth the 3 grand? If you have to ask, you really don't know but
I'm sure 10D owners will take solace in your words, try posting it
there, where I’m sure it will be appreciated more.

I’ve mine paid for so I’m not worried about the cost, money is
nothing and is very cheap, if YOU want it go talk to your bank
manager, you’ll get little sympathy here.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

• Maybe one day I'll take a decent picture. In the meantime, I'll blame the equipment.

http://www.singularlight.com/
http://www.daehwang.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dcphotogs/

greentank said:

a 25% increase in pixels WILL give you 25% more information - which means 25% more surface area. The IMAGE size IS 25% larger....in terms of area.

Click to expand...

Huh? Are you saying that if the sensor is the same size, adding pixels increases the total area of the sensor? What parallel universe follows those laws?

Actually, if you look at a 10D and a 1DMK2, they are very similar in terms of resolution. If you crop the 1.3 magnification of the MK2 to be the 1.6 mag of the 10D, you end up with roughly a 6MP resolution.

My guess is that the MK2, since it has a newer sensor and electronics, will be much better in terms of noise and dynamic range than a 10D, but in terms of pure resolution, they are very similar.

It attracted so much attention because it is getting really close to the good all around camera that everybody wants. I think the next generation may actually reach that sweet spot. Which for me would be: full frame, fast frame rate over 10 megapixel with scaleable file sizes. Granted the 1dm2 should be pretty sweet already if some of the early unofficial reviews of it's image quality pan out. Just for the record, in most case 8 megapixels are just fine except for large groups. The same goes for ff. Like I said this camera is getting really close.

John

unbound said:

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

Click to expand...

--
John Walsh

unbound said:

But before I get into that, please keep in mind that putting high
speed cards in a 10D, although it doesn't hurt, it doesn't help
either, since the 10D is NOT 'write acceleration' capable. But
non-WA cards, up to 16x, do perform much better than older cards.

The 10D is slow if you do a lot of 'chimping', in other words, you
spend a lot of time looking at your photos on the screen. The 10D
will not display a preview as long as the buffer is busy, which can
make it annoying if you need to review photos a lot. I tend to
setup and check the first couple of photos, and then shoot away,
only rechecking when things changsubstantially. But then, I shot
film for many, many years, so chimping isn't something that I
have-to-do while shooting.

But the buffer on a 10D tends to empty fairly quickly under a
regular shooting pace, certainly sufficiently fast to sustain the
occasional 4 frame burst. But then, there are some photographers
that shoot like they are making movies, hoping to catch a good
moment. And then they get the cover of SI and they can say "See
what a great photographer I am?"

Does the 1DMkII suffer from the same 'no chimping while buffer
busy' problem? If so, taking 20 frames in a row will probably keep
you waiting a mighty long time! Hopefully Canon avoided the problem
in this new camera.

Click to expand...

Nah, the buffer is sorted - you should be able to chimp all you want!
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

I have a 10D, and I don't NEED that. I'm just an amateur hack. But the thing is, I enjoy it - it's fun. And I'm going to have an MKII soon. More enjoyment, more fun - that's my life/photography philosophy.

Howie

unbound said:

jerpat said:

I don't NEED it; I WANT it so I ORDERED it! OK? (nt)

Click to expand...

-----------------------------

Good for you.

So you admit that you don't need it, but you want a new toy, just
because you want it. That's a valid reason. Not one that agrees
with my life/photography philosophy (I wouldn't have posted my
original question otherwise), but a valid reason for you. Enjoy.

Click to expand...

Could this also be related to the file sizes? Remember that you are comparing a 4MP file to a 6MP file, and compressing/writting the files can take considerably longer with the bigger files. And a 10D file is 50% bigger in absolute terms. Also, I can't remember if 1D RAWs are compressed like in the 10D, the math for doing that that might be slowing down things, but then that would be compensated for by a faster write time.

Regardless, the 10D is slooow to write, and filling the buffer brings things to a grinding halt. No dispute there.

So yes, a bigger buffer will be helpful for certain types of shots. Interestingly, I also shoot a lot of fashion, and I never come anywhere near the buffer limit on a 10D. Actually using bursts like yours for 'people' photography is rather rare, and certainly not my style. Maybe because I was a MF format shooter, and still am when necessary, and getting 1 frame every 2-3 seconds is a very fast pace in that format. Besides, I use strobes, and that us the real limit to frame speed in studio.

Yes, the 10D is slow with a full buffer, and unusable (a couple of minutes?) with a full buffer and the user chimps. But if you do chimp a lot, hopefully the Mk2 will allow you to preview while the buffer is writting, or you will also be waiting a whle lot of time to see your last shot.

I could be wrong (often am), but I don't think firing the shutter cancels the FEL. So if you increase the timeout, it should still work after making the shot unless you do whatever it is that does cancel the FEL. ("To turn off the function's activation time midway, press the button or button or button." ...?)

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net

Ger Bee said:

Nill Toulme said:

See page 3-18 in the 1D software manual, regarding PF-23.

Nill
~~

Click to expand...

.. timer time outs ...

I still don't see anything to keep the recorded FEL setting after
shooting.

I can change the length of time the setting stays active until the
shot is taken but this is not what we are looking for.

Click to expand...

David Martin said:

So let's put it this way:
What's not to like?

Click to expand...

Easy!

My Nikon lenses won't fit it :-(

Well, I'm a civil servant, I don't have a business and the only expense it will be is ...an expense.

Be reasonable Ger, Canon make their money from amateurs not pros. You get this 'business expenses' kit only as a brand recognition exercise for Canon and as a driver for profitable mass market sales.

Don't knock serious amateurs who can recognise quality gear just because they don't make a living from your trade and don't assume that the high price of this kit isn't an obstacle - it is for many.

Ger Bee said:

... stop it with all the poor mouth trap please.

the MKII is a professional camera, it is a business expense. It
does not mater how much it costs, it will go through the books,
save as much on taxes and get written off as soon as I need another
one.

I only wish Canon were charging double for it.

Anyway in eighteen months time we will all be suing some form of
Kodak anyway, Canon will still be making copiers and office gear
and won’t even miss us all.

Click to expand...

John Walsh said:

John Walsh said:

Just for the record, in most case 8 megapixels are just fine except for large groups.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I keep wondering when people are going to decide that a digital camera can do large groups! :0)

I tend to think a 6mp camera did a pretty good job. 8 has to be 25% better.

I guess it depends on your defiinition of "large", but I feel like my current 6mp camera can easily handle a group fo 100 or so... presuming 6 rows of say 16 or so. If you start stretching your group WAY out, perhaps it gets a little questionable, but I have no problem printing 24x30 inch prints from my 6mp camera. 30x40's are a bit of a push, but I look for the Mark II to get me closer to the 30x40 really nice looking image.

classici

John Walsh said:

It attracted so much attention because it is getting really close
to the good all around camera that everybody wants. I think the
next generation may actually reach that sweet spot. Which for me
would be: full frame, fast frame rate over 10 megapixel with
scaleable file sizes. Granted the 1dm2 should be pretty sweet
already if some of the early unofficial reviews of it's image
quality pan out. Just for the record, in most case 8 megapixels are
just fine except for large groups. The same goes for ff. Like I
said this camera is getting really close.

John

Click to expand...

I can see that for some people like landscape guys the FF is goiong to be very important, but for an awful lot of us the more forgiving nature of lensees when used with a 1.3 factor sensor is going to go a long way to make up for it.

I must admit that some of the rumours of Canon looking at their version of a 3-colour sensor in the next generation after the 1Ds2 or whatever it is called are pretty tempting, but just the same I think that the 1D2 is starting to reach a level where many of us would be happy to use it indefinitely.
It's it's lack of apparent weakness in any area which is really the draw.
It just sounds downright all-around capable.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

I remember someone once saying that no one would ever need more than 512k (NOT MB) of memory on a computer.

We don't always know where technology will lead us. How about images that are not resolution dependent? The ability to crop to your hearts desire?

Digital cameras are still in their infancy.

David Martin said:

John Walsh said:

It attracted so much attention because it is getting really close
to the good all around camera that everybody wants. I think the
next generation may actually reach that sweet spot. Which for me
would be: full frame, fast frame rate over 10 megapixel with
scaleable file sizes. Granted the 1dm2 should be pretty sweet
already if some of the early unofficial reviews of it's image
quality pan out. Just for the record, in most case 8 megapixels are
just fine except for large groups. The same goes for ff. Like I
said this camera is getting really close.

John

Click to expand...

I can see that for some people like landscape guys the FF is goiong
to be very important, but for an awful lot of us the more forgiving
nature of lensees when used with a 1.3 factor sensor is going to go
a long way to make up for it.
I must admit that some of the rumours of Canon looking at their
version of a 3-colour sensor in the next generation after the 1Ds2
or whatever it is called are pretty tempting, but just the same I
think that the 1D2 is starting to reach a level where many of us
would be happy to use it indefinitely.
It's it's lack of apparent weakness in any area which is really the
draw.
It just sounds downright all-around capable.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

Click to expand...

Nill Toulme said:

I could be wrong (often am), but I don't think firing the shutter
cancels the FEL. So if you increase the timeout, it should still
work after making the shot unless you do whatever it is that does
cancel the FEL. ("To turn off the function's activation time
midway, press the button or button or button." ...?)

Click to expand...

.... I know the 10D still has FEL in memory after taking the shot, three shots as far as I am aware, my 1D is packed up to go to Canon in the morning for the hotshoe fix so I can’t try it, but I will remember this at some stage and try extending the 16sec timeout without trying it I am of the impression that the 1D cancels after the first shot at least it felt this way to me, and I noticed it did not on the 10D.

I will try it, thanks,