1DMkII - Why the mad excitement?

Zaid · Mar 30, 2004

By the way, there was a time when I was in the market for a 1Ds and I was checking out the Kodak 14n at the same time. I just DID NOT like the way that camera felt in my hand, nor the way the controls felt to me. The EOS-1 body is just much more natural and balanced to me, and everything was more intuitive.

For me, ergonomics and overall "feel" count just as much as image quality. For that reason, I don't think I will consider the Kodak offerings.

Zaid

Zaid said:
unbound said:

But for this type of photography you don't 'need' a Mk2. That
camera adds very little to your style of photography. Might I
suggest that you keep using whatever you are using now, and wait a
couple of months for the Kodak DSLR/C and see how that works out.
It might be a much better choice, since the Mk2 is primarily an
'action' camera, while the Kodak is an 'art' (landscape,
portraiture, studio) camera with excellent latitude and almost
twice the resolution as the Mk2, for the same price. You are an
artist, and a good one at that.

Edward

Click to expand...

David Reichlein · Mar 30, 2004

You paint good looking naked woman with latex then photograph them.
Hey works for me! You are the MAN!!!

Dave R

Zaid said:
For me, ergonomics and overall "feel" count just as much as image
quality. For that reason, I don't think I will consider the Kodak
offerings.

Zaid

Zaid said:

unbound said:

But for this type of photography you don't 'need' a Mk2. That
camera adds very little to your style of photography. Might I
suggest that you keep using whatever you are using now, and wait a
couple of months for the Kodak DSLR/C and see how that works out.
It might be a much better choice, since the Mk2 is primarily an
'action' camera, while the Kodak is an 'art' (landscape,
portraiture, studio) camera with excellent latitude and almost
twice the resolution as the Mk2, for the same price. You are an
artist, and a good one at that.

Edward

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

David Martin · Mar 30, 2004

...but someone has to do it!
Way to go, and great pics, Zaid!

David Reichlein said:
Dave R

Zaid said:

For me, ergonomics and overall "feel" count just as much as image
quality. For that reason, I don't think I will consider the Kodak
offerings.

Zaid

Zaid said:

unbound said:

But for this type of photography you don't 'need' a Mk2. That
camera adds very little to your style of photography. Might I
suggest that you keep using whatever you are using now, and wait a
couple of months for the Kodak DSLR/C and see how that works out.
It might be a much better choice, since the Mk2 is primarily an
'action' camera, while the Kodak is an 'art' (landscape,
portraiture, studio) camera with excellent latitude and almost
twice the resolution as the Mk2, for the same price. You are an
artist, and a good one at that.

Edward

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

Larry H. Smith · Mar 30, 2004

FWIW (not much, I know, ...just another opinion):

Zaid said:
Sorry man, I didn't mean to be a jerk. I just got a little incensed
at the implication that the people buying this camera don't know
what they need or want nor how to get choose the appropriate tool
for the job.

Z, unless you want to be totally swayed by the "'nother thing" follow-up flattery, I don't see anything a* -holish at all about your response.

Rather, it seemed to me an appropriate response to the "I am the authority, ...here are my pronouncements!" tone of the post(s) to which you responded.

(As in the one quoted below, ...i.e. "All the reasons you gave re. why you might want/need the 1DII, except one, ...have no merit at all."

A statement which your further explanations disprove ...at least to MOST people(excluding self-appointed authorities.) Those further explanation were'nt necessary, as "justifiying" ourselves to one another is not called for here.

IMO, the wrong person apologized. ;-)

Don't see why opinions can't be presented w/o trashing someone else's!

Larry

Zaid said:
unbound said:

Interestingly, of all of the items that you list below, only the
frame rate has any approximation of truth to it.

Click to expand...

Well, there you have it folks, ...carved-in-stone and handed straight to Moses!

Tom O'Neil · Mar 30, 2004

Dear 10D and 300D owners,

Sorry if this sounds condescending, but if you've never used a 1D, you just don't get it. What made the 1D worth 2-3x as much as a 10D? After all, the 1D had fewer pixels. Here's a hint: It wasn't just the frame rate.

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?

nanook s · Mar 30, 2004

unbound said:
The problem with ETTL is that it's tied to the focus point, and if
you are doing any recomposing, the flash meters in the wrong area,
often causing grossly incorrect exposure.

That's what the 45 focus points are for, so that you can move the focus point instead of recomposing. Like Ger Bee, I wish for even more focus points, more spread out.

unbound said:
So you have to play all
kinds of games to get the flash to meter the correct area (unlink
focus from shutter button, preflash, etc).

CF4 delinking focus from shutter is something that you should be doing anyway if you want to utilize simultaneous manual focus with USM lenses. I hardly ever FEL because the toughest flash exposure situations for me are tripod-mounted group pictures with multiple 550EX and 420EX wireless remote flashes controlled with a 550Ex from my 1Ds. Since the camera is on a tripod ready to be triggered by a wired remote shutter release, FEL is unusable.

unbound said:
The ETTLII removes that focus point linkage, turning the flash into
a smart 'averaging flash', where something that is obviously not
within the programmend flash depth of field gets ignored during
metering. Much better.

That's why I'm taking a wait and see approach to 1D Mark II. I don't want no damn "averaging flash." I don't want the camera to give me the same average grey whether my subjects are groomsmen in black tux or the bride in white wedding gown. How is the camera going to know whether the scene has more "black" or "white" to begin with?

Forrest41926 · Mar 30, 2004

unbound said:
Please avoid comparing the 1DMkII to the 1Ds... they are completely
different cameras with completely different purposes, and they
should not be compared regardless of the price.

Then why does the 1D Mark 2 warrent a ( very selective ) comparison to the 10D?

Forrest41926 · Mar 30, 2004

lemvo said:
Are you going to put the Mark II on automatic all the time.. ??
Reading your manuals, can also help..

So ... what kind of paint and brushes do you use?

Forrest41926 · Mar 30, 2004

unbound said:
Remember when only a crazy person paid $1500 for a camera body...
the good old days of film... now we look at $4500 and say "hmm,
good price".

If it came with free film and development for the life of the camera, and let you change your ASA/WB rating on a per-shot basis...?

Forrest41926 · Mar 30, 2004

unbound said:
You are right, it's not up to me to decide what anyone should buy.
Why do you claim that I'm saying that... just because I ask what is
so great about the camera that justifies the extreme difference in
cost?

I think what you wrote "So you admit you don't need..." might have something to do with it.

Forrest41926 · Mar 30, 2004

Larry H. Smith said:
IMO, the wrong person apologized. ;-)
Don't see why opinions can't be presented w/o trashing someone else's!

I agree on both counts.

MarkMiller · Mar 30, 2004

Zaid said:
Zaid

Zaid said:

unbound said:

But for this type of photography you don't 'need' a Mk2. That
camera adds very little to your style of photography. Might I
suggest that you keep using whatever you are using now, and wait a
couple of months for the Kodak DSLR/C and see how that works out.
It might be a much better choice, since the Mk2 is primarily an
'action' camera, while the Kodak is an 'art' (landscape,
portraiture, studio) camera with excellent latitude and almost
twice the resolution as the Mk2, for the same price. You are an
artist, and a good one at that.

Edward

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

MarkMiller · Mar 30, 2004

Tom O'Neil said:
Dear 10D and 300D owners,

Sorry if this sounds condescending, but if you've never used a 1D,
you just don't get it. What made the 1D worth 2-3x as much as a
10D? After all, the 1D had fewer pixels. Here's a hint: It
wasn't just the frame rate.

Tom I honestly believe some are not interested in the why's on this thread.

Tom O'Neil said:
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...

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

Keith Chan · Mar 30, 2004

Tom,

This is an interesting point you bring up. I am a film (Elan) amateur who is looking to get into digital photography (my stupid Nikon scanner is crapping out, and I am jealous of how 10D friends have instantaneous feedback and do not have to carry 30+ rolls of film on trips), and I find the 1Dmk2 to be great in terms of the 1.3x, 8mp, etc. What else is there that you really liked about the 1D that you would put $$ into that is above the 10D?

Thanks,
Keith

Tom O'Neil said:
Sorry if this sounds condescending, but if you've never used a 1D,
you just don't get it. What made the 1D worth 2-3x as much as a
10D? After all, the 1D had fewer pixels. Here's a hint: It
wasn't just the frame rate.

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...

Forrest41926 · Mar 30, 2004

Michael Long said:
Quality builds upon quality. What true painter would not use the
best brushes he can find? What true violinist would not dream of a
Stradivarius?

Michael Long said:
Just the simple act of picking up and using that camera warms my soul.

A true violinist who truly believes someone else can make a violin as well as the Stradivari family might want other than a Stradivarius. At least that's how it is with guitarists. We want a machine that sounds beautiful, but also has the strings positioned at just the right distance from the neck that it "feels right" under our fingers, and so on.

Anyway, your point is well taken. And I hope I feel the same way about whatever I replace my D60 with, as you feel about your 1Ds.

MarkMiller · Mar 30, 2004

Keith Chan said:
Tom,

This is an interesting point you bring up. I am a film (Elan)
amateur who is looking to get into digital photography (my stupid
Nikon scanner is crapping out, and I am jealous of how 10D friends
have instantaneous feedback and do not have to carry 30+ rolls of
film on trips), and I find the 1Dmk2 to be great in terms of the
1.3x, 8mp, etc. What else is there that you really liked about the
1D that you would put $$ into that is above the 10D?

build quality - faster response time of the camera - ie faster to power on etc etc. feels better in the hand - weather sealing, much better 'balance', bragging rights (jk)

Keith Chan said:
Thanks,
Keith

Tom O'Neil said:

Sorry if this sounds condescending, but if you've never used a 1D,
you just don't get it. What made the 1D worth 2-3x as much as a
10D? After all, the 1D had fewer pixels. Here's a hint: It
wasn't just the frame rate.

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...

Click to expand...

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

Zaid · Mar 30, 2004

And flattery will warm me up every time!

Zaid

Larry H. Smith said:
Rather, it seemed to me an appropriate response to the "I am the
authority, ...here are my pronouncements!" tone of the post(s) to
which you responded.

(As in the one quoted below, ...i.e. "All the reasons you gave re.
why you might want/need the 1DII, except one, ...have no merit at
all."

A statement which your further explanations disprove ...at least to
MOST people(excluding self-appointed authorities.) Those further
explanation were'nt necessary, as "justifiying" ourselves to one
another is not called for here.

IMO, the wrong person apologized. ;-)

Don't see why opinions can't be presented w/o trashing someone else's!

Larry

Larry H. Smith said:

unbound said:

Interestingly, of all of the items that you list below, only the
frame rate has any approximation of truth to it.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Well, there you have it folks, ...carved-in-stone and handed
straight to Moses!

Zaid · Mar 30, 2004

Believe me, it actually IS a lot of hard work. It takes about 3 hours to get the paint on, I'm broken out in a sweat by the time it's over, and the poor model really isn't very comfortable while I spray cold, wet, sticky paint on her most intimate of body parts. But the final results are always worth it and they come away happy with the experience.

Zaid

David Reichlein said:
You paint good looking naked woman with latex then photograph them.
Hey works for me! You are the MAN!!!

Dave R

Andrew MacBeth · Mar 30, 2004

unbound said:
And as far as buying the camera "so I can
take it to the beach"... well... let's just say that you would
never catch me using a $4500 camera + $$$ lens at the beach to take
casual photos; in a professional setting, yes, but casually...
never, regardless of camera build. You want trouble... change the
lens on your 'sealed' camera on a sandy beach with even a slight
breeze blowing (not just sand, but salty humid air on your sensor.)

Not disagreeing with any your arguments in this thread - but to answer the above, yes absolutely. If I were so concerned about my camera gear as to not take it anywhere and everywhere, then I shouldn't have bought it in the first place. I mean, its purpose is to take pics right? Not to polish and show people whilst sitting in a cafe sipping latte's.. (Not suggesting you do).

I took this with my 10D and 28-70 f/2.8L.. My $500 tripod sitting in the corrosive surf.

And I can tell ya, it was EXTREMELY windy and I walked away with very wet and salty tripod legs & the 10D was covered with spray...

Gave it a clean, no worries... If it had of stuffed it, I would have been upset with myself but got on with life.

And this one, was taken again at the beach.. This time though, in the pouring rain. Only one hand on the umbrella, another one on the cable release.

So yes, not disagreeing with any of your arguments, but to say your gear is to good to be used is rather pointless. Kinda like people who buy wines which are too good to drink..... But I digress, if one is careless and damages their gear, they won't get much sympathy from me!

Just my opinion of course..

Andrew.
http://www.andrewmacbeth.com

Roger Nordin · Mar 31, 2004

I'm not quite sure I follow you on that one though. Does the Canon 1D MarkII support Write Acceleration technology, as the first Canon dSLR? Or is the information on the officail Lexar site about Write Acceleration partners incorrect? Of course the 1DMarkII is rather new. But the cameras listed on their support list seems rather new, it doesn't seem like outdated information. See below

"Current camera partners supporting Write Acceleration Technology

Kodak Professional
Nikon
Sanyo
Sigma
Pentax
Olympus

Current cameras supporting Write Acceleration Technology

All Kodak Professional cameras and pro camera backs, such as the DCS Pro Back 645, DCS Pro Back Plus, DCS 720x, DCS 760, DCS 760m and DCS 14n
Nikon D1x, D1h, D-100 (Requires camera firmware upgrade by Nikon. See Nikon’s web page for more details) and D2h
Sanyo DSC-MZ3
Sigma SD-9
Sigma SD10
Pentax *ist D
Olympus E1
Olympus C5060"

I can't see Canon mentioned anywhere.

From what I understood reading the Write Acceleration white paper:
http://www.lexarmedia.com/pdf/WA_White_Sheet.pdf

the WA technology prodivdes a more efficent transfer protocol with less overhead (up to 30 perfect more efficient they claim). However, the WA technology does not, if I understand things correctly, have anything to do with the speed rating itself.

A 24x card is still a 24x card, with or without WA support. But WA enables more of the maximum potiential to be used, allowing for an up to 30 percent faster effective transfer speed, camera to CF media. So even a 40x card should be faster then a 16x card in a camera not supporting WA - it doesn't seem speeds above 16x are depending exclusively on WA support to be of use. Perhaps you didn't mean that either.

Of course there are other factors involved, such as the processing time itself within the camera. At some point, there will be no point in using a faster media since the media will not be the bottleneck (when it takes less time to write an image to CF than it takes to internally process it per image). Does anyone have a link to a comprehensive test, surely this must have been tested already?

Regards,
Roger

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.

[...]

1DMkII - Why the mad excitement?

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

David Martin

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Active member

Active member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts