(Sorry for posting this twice, ...just sent it, and realized that this was the appropriate thread for it :-0
Michael writes:
"I heard today from a large Canon dealer, (in a country and city that will remain unnamed), that the Canon distributor has asked them to get deposits from anyone wishing to place an order for a 1Ds. No reason is forthcoming, but my surmise is ..."
How likely is it that Canon is using this 'deposit' requirement to guage acceptance of their too-high intro price, ...since these depositers will be doing so without knowing whether the price will come down, and to-what. Why not just give Canon a blank check?
Maybe if anyone who puts down a deposit under this current price-rumor had to actually PAY this price, when the camera comes, and KNEW that they would, ...then the deposit-list would give a truer picture of market-acceptance-at-this-price!
Larry
???
Full Version: Michael's Tests of EOS-1Ds
The moire of the 1Ds seems to be an issue not only for fashion but for advertising photography in general. Is this caused by Canon's software settings (to be corrected by a firmware update if necessary) or is it a hardware "issue" that stays with you once you buy the camera?
Thanks for any info on this.
J.
Thanks for any info on this.
J.
Hi,
I guess you already saw it but if not Michael released part 3 and 4 of his EOS 1Ds review.
I guess you already saw it but if not Michael released part 3 and 4 of his EOS 1Ds review.
Hi Jim,
The 1Ds was far superior than the SD9. I did not even apply Unsharpen Mask.
On this 2 Images I did not see noise.
I took a look at the new images from Phil Askey in the dpreview.com forum and I would say what people saw as noie I can live with it because it looks more like film grain.
I think that since the digital came out the people have forgotten that there was someting like grain and they are now fooled with the digital images because they are so clean that sometimes they think there is more resolution in it which I think is not true.
I still think that film has more resolution than digital compared even to the ~11 MioPixel from Canon and the unseen samples of the Kodak ~14 MioPixel.
OK the software interpolation is in any case cleaner with a digital rather than on an analog filmscan, but with interpolation you do not win sharpness in my opinion. Afterwards applying sharpness just increases the contrast between lowlight borders and highlight borders.
Have taken a deep look what sharpening makes?
I always try to figure out on a landscape ¿ with how many pixels do I resolve some motif scanning it at 4000dpi and this same motif how many pixels are delivered by the DSLR?
4000dpi optical scanning resolution are ~157 pixels/mm and the highest resolution of the D60 is ~135pixels/mm, the 1Ds is ~113pixels/mm and the Kodak will have ~127pixels/mm. So there is still a long way to go to get the 157píxels/mm of the scanning.
The other thing I still do not understand is how the people calculate the resolution in Line pairs per mm for a digital camera?
The 1Ds was far superior than the SD9. I did not even apply Unsharpen Mask.
On this 2 Images I did not see noise.
I took a look at the new images from Phil Askey in the dpreview.com forum and I would say what people saw as noie I can live with it because it looks more like film grain.
I think that since the digital came out the people have forgotten that there was someting like grain and they are now fooled with the digital images because they are so clean that sometimes they think there is more resolution in it which I think is not true.
I still think that film has more resolution than digital compared even to the ~11 MioPixel from Canon and the unseen samples of the Kodak ~14 MioPixel.
OK the software interpolation is in any case cleaner with a digital rather than on an analog filmscan, but with interpolation you do not win sharpness in my opinion. Afterwards applying sharpness just increases the contrast between lowlight borders and highlight borders.
Have taken a deep look what sharpening makes?
I always try to figure out on a landscape ¿ with how many pixels do I resolve some motif scanning it at 4000dpi and this same motif how many pixels are delivered by the DSLR?
4000dpi optical scanning resolution are ~157 pixels/mm and the highest resolution of the D60 is ~135pixels/mm, the 1Ds is ~113pixels/mm and the Kodak will have ~127pixels/mm. So there is still a long way to go to get the 157píxels/mm of the scanning.
The other thing I still do not understand is how the people calculate the resolution in Line pairs per mm for a digital camera?
MTF curves could provide more precise info about the system. However I only care for the results I get in my photographs, not in theory or in photographed charts. How good is good enough? Does it do the job? Are the results pleasing? Is it fun to use? Those are things I care more about than scientific sensor tests.
Are they jaggies in the diagonal lines of the parabolic antenna in the Eos 1Ds review? I dont see them in the film photographs, just in the Eos 1Ds
Does anybody see them too?
Does anybody see them too?
QUOTE (Guest @ Oct. 04 2002,10:47)
Since the 1Ds fits 11.4 million pixels in a 35.8 x 23.8 mm imager and the 14n will fit 13.89 in the same area, that suggests the 14n's pixel pitch will be 7.2 microns. Working backward (and presuming my math is correct), 16.72 million pixels, each at 6 microns, would meet the ceiling imposed by lens resolving power.
This is not to suggest that even a 16.72 megapixel camera would provide the ultimate resolution for 35mm format. I think Foveon has taught us that. I want a full-frame, 17 megapixel X3 dSLR for XMas.
This is not to suggest that even a 16.72 megapixel camera would provide the ultimate resolution for 35mm format. I think Foveon has taught us that. I want a full-frame, 17 megapixel X3 dSLR for XMas.
Dale:
To be more precise about the MP numbers of the Canon and Kodak cameras, the actual effective megapixels are 11.1 and +/- 13.5 respectively, not 11.4 and 14MP. So how many microns they actually are, are still in question. No offense, but these speculated micron numbers are very theoretical.
They may be around 7-8 microns, but micron count doesn't mean nearly as much to me as what I actually see when I'm looking at a 13X19 print and evaluating the image quality. The clarity, sharpness to my eye, not some mathematical equation. That's where it is. How clean or grain free is the image? Does it look like a medium format image?
We can throw around numbers till you know what freezes over, but as the old saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words." What matters are actual photos taken by these cameras. A lens resolution chart is a start, but show me some real world samples like the kind we've looked at from the Canon, Kodak and Sigma/Foveon and then it becomes real world stuff.
I'm looking forward to seeing more samples from Phil, the Imaging resource guy(can't remember his name), Kumio Yamada and others. And seeing some 13X19 prints from the 1Ds on the LLVJ coming out in November. I would actually rather see those prints then hear Michael discuss his impressions about them. If Michael wants to discuss his impressions about the AF and AE ability and various other features(voice recording, durability, etc)then cool. But we already have a good idea of Michael's feelings about the image quality. To me, the proof is in the picture(s).
QUOTE (samirkharusi @ Oct. 20 2002,02:47)
Perhaps the following is useful and easy to remember:
1. Nyquist theory says that you need two pixels to resolve a line pair. Yes, I actually verified this with a D30. Not 4 pixels.
3. The "diffraction limit" is not a hard cutoff. It depends on definitions used. If you start with black & white bars and accept very low contrast in the output, lenses can deliver absurdly (and uselessly) high lp/mm. This is the primary source of those 100+ lp/mm claims that you used to see in decades past. Photodo has a lengthy expose on this on their MTF explanations. You need a definition that delivers a usefully high contrast level. Astronomers tend to use FWHM (Full Width at Half Maximum of the Airy disc) since this is what they use to match pixel sizes to telescope configurations, seeing conditions, and the Nyquist criterion (two pixels per line-pair). With this definition the theoretical diffraction limit of a lens in lp/mm = 1000/f-no for a wavelength of 4900 Angstroms (yellow light). Ie a theoretically perfect lens delivers 125 lp/mm at f-8. It would be more lousy in deep red light (< 90 lp/mm) and a lot better in deep blue (> 160 lp/mm).
1. Nyquist theory says that you need two pixels to resolve a line pair. Yes, I actually verified this with a D30. Not 4 pixels.
3. The "diffraction limit" is not a hard cutoff. It depends on definitions used. If you start with black & white bars and accept very low contrast in the output, lenses can deliver absurdly (and uselessly) high lp/mm. This is the primary source of those 100+ lp/mm claims that you used to see in decades past. Photodo has a lengthy expose on this on their MTF explanations. You need a definition that delivers a usefully high contrast level. Astronomers tend to use FWHM (Full Width at Half Maximum of the Airy disc) since this is what they use to match pixel sizes to telescope configurations, seeing conditions, and the Nyquist criterion (two pixels per line-pair). With this definition the theoretical diffraction limit of a lens in lp/mm = 1000/f-no for a wavelength of 4900 Angstroms (yellow light). Ie a theoretically perfect lens delivers 125 lp/mm at f-8. It would be more lousy in deep red light (< 90 lp/mm) and a lot better in deep blue (> 160 lp/mm).
Samirkharusi,
Thanks for clarifying some of these points. I remember making an assumption a few years ago that one pixel, or scanning dot, was equivalent to one resolution line (a line being just a series of dots joined seamlessly). It seems my original assumption was correct, provided one understands that a black line on a white background has no more significance than a white line on a black background.
I'm not so sure about this Rayleigh's Law figure of 1000. I've seen figures ranging between 1800 and 1000. Again I assumed the lower figure related to red light.
However, I'm surprised at your assertion that there's no advantage in using pixels smaller than 6 microns in a 35mm digital sensor. If this is true, there is clearly a different relationship between lens and sensor, and lens and film. Can you elaborate on these differences, please?
Another of your statements which appears to be in conflict with other information (perhaps misinformation) available on the internet is in regard to 35mm lenses being optimised for best performance at F8. Are you referring to an overall compromise where corner sharpness at F8 might be much improved although centre sharpness is well beyond the diffraction limit? Do you give much credence to the theory that film performs best at large F stops such as F/22 and most 'good' lenses perform best at either one or two F/stops down from maximum aperture? I have an 400mm F/4 Sigma prime lens which is sharpest at F5.6, but at F5.6 there's noticeable light fall off at the corners (Minolta mount!). At F11, there's no noticeable light fall off at the edges or corners. Would you describe this lens as being optimised for best performance at F5.6 or F11?
QUOTE (Raymond @ Oct. 21 2002,09:42)
I'm not so sure about this Rayleigh's Law figure of 1000. I've seen figures ranging between 1800 and 1000.
However, I'm surprised at your assertion that there's no advantage in using pixels smaller than 6 microns in a 35mm digital sensor. If this is true, there is clearly a different relationship between lens and sensor, and lens and film. Can you elaborate on these differences, please?
Another of your statements which appears to be in conflict with other information (perhaps misinformation) available on the internet is in regard to 35mm lenses being optimised for best performance at F8.
However, I'm surprised at your assertion that there's no advantage in using pixels smaller than 6 microns in a 35mm digital sensor. If this is true, there is clearly a different relationship between lens and sensor, and lens and film. Can you elaborate on these differences, please?
Another of your statements which appears to be in conflict with other information (perhaps misinformation) available on the internet is in regard to 35mm lenses being optimised for best performance at F8.
Raymond, pardon the late response. Here goes:
Diffraction Limit has many definitions. Rayleigh's is simply the diameter (radius?) of the Airy Disc to first minimum. Using FWHM is the diameter of the same disc but at half the peak intensity. There's also something called Dawe's Limit. What matters is to note that there's no sharp cutoff as to how many line-pairs you can see. Photodo explains this at length. It's a matter as to how low a contrast you are willing to tolerate. Using the 1000/f-no relates to an MTF contrast of about 33% as plotted on photodo. Astronomers use "critical sampling" because they are all too aware that increasing sensor resolution dramatically increases noise. But when there's plenty of light (shooting planets and the Moon) they do use "over-sampling". This would be equivalent to using pixels much smaller than, say, the D60 7.5 microns with 35mm lenses. It's not that you do not resolve more, it's just that you pay in a lot more noise. The Nyquist criterion is the generally accepted point for compromise.
Lenses optimised for f8? I actually tested 5 prime lenses on a D30. A Sigma 500/7.2 APO was so lousy we need not discuss it further, max resolution 35 lp/mm. The other 4, Tamron 14/2.8, Canon 28/2.8, Canon 50/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 macro all peaked at f8. I expected variations. Coincidence? so I can only conclude that they were actually designed that way ;-)
As for 35mm lenses being the limiting factor with both the D60 and the 1Ds, I would refer any doubters to test their best lenses using Norman Koren's lens test chart:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html
It's very educational since he brings contrast into his chart, as opposed to the USAF chart.
Then don't buy a 1Ds, Doug. All that cra...er...FILM equipment is NOT the same as a 1Ds and will not produce the same results. And I know that all that film equipment would produce better results from some perspectives, but at what price in time and processing costs and lack of conveneince?
Pick your poison, boys. There'll be lots of fotografic soul-searching done the next few months.
Pick your poison, boys. There'll be lots of fotografic soul-searching done the next few months.
Amazing how not only the same week and within 2 days mind you, of the official announcement across the pond, Michael has a 1Ds to test already in Canada.
In looking over the sample pics of the Toronto skyline, I have to draw the same conclusions as he did. I look forward to seeing the comparison between the 1Ds and the D60 and in RAW format at that. Even if we have to wait a few more weeks.
And speaking of file formats, apparently the tests Michael made were with Jpegs if I understand correctly. If RAW was not available to test because of the lack of new software, then the sample pics came from Jpeg or Tif files. I apologize in advance if I misunderstood what you said about that Michael. Looking forward to new test results and also any pics shot on a nature shoot. I have a feeling the next edition of LLVJ will be a very popular one.
In looking over the sample pics of the Toronto skyline, I have to draw the same conclusions as he did. I look forward to seeing the comparison between the 1Ds and the D60 and in RAW format at that. Even if we have to wait a few more weeks.
And speaking of file formats, apparently the tests Michael made were with Jpegs if I understand correctly. If RAW was not available to test because of the lack of new software, then the sample pics came from Jpeg or Tif files. I apologize in advance if I misunderstood what you said about that Michael. Looking forward to new test results and also any pics shot on a nature shoot. I have a feeling the next edition of LLVJ will be a very popular one.
Dear Michael,
Please make sure to include the 1Ds's level of dust proneness/resistance in your review. It has been hypothesized that the dust proneness would be quite low, like the D30/60, because of the CMOS chip. On the other hand, the sample images that Canon released for the 1Ds looked rather dusty. What's the story?
Thank you.
Please make sure to include the 1Ds's level of dust proneness/resistance in your review. It has been hypothesized that the dust proneness would be quite low, like the D30/60, because of the CMOS chip. On the other hand, the sample images that Canon released for the 1Ds looked rather dusty. What's the story?
Thank you.
Michael,
Thanks for the detailed review of the 1Ds. In my view, the ISO 50 shot had marginally more detail in the shadows, but overall does the 1Ds display an increase in dynamic range? I don't know, but I think not from the sample pics. Yet you would expect it to because of the larger pixel size. Perhaps the raw files will reveal this.
Also, according to my calculations, the D60 should display marginally better resolution than the 1Ds at equal focal lengths, the trade off being the D60 image will be cropped. Is this in fact the case? Shooting at the long end of the most powerful zoom in the camera bag could be a 'real world' situation, could it not?
Thanks for the detailed review of the 1Ds. In my view, the ISO 50 shot had marginally more detail in the shadows, but overall does the 1Ds display an increase in dynamic range? I don't know, but I think not from the sample pics. Yet you would expect it to because of the larger pixel size. Perhaps the raw files will reveal this.
Also, according to my calculations, the D60 should display marginally better resolution than the 1Ds at equal focal lengths, the trade off being the D60 image will be cropped. Is this in fact the case? Shooting at the long end of the most powerful zoom in the camera bag could be a 'real world' situation, could it not?
One of Michael's comments in Part 4 suggests Canon should change the .TIF file name suffix used by the 1D and 1Ds to something else. He points out the risk of unintentionally rewriting the raw file when using a tool ignorant of the true nature of the file.
Canon could substantially lower the risk of that particular error by simply writing the files with the read-only attribute set to "true." Sounds like a very simple change I'd like to see.
Bob
Canon could substantially lower the risk of that particular error by simply writing the files with the read-only attribute set to "true." Sounds like a very simple change I'd like to see.
Bob
Rainer,
Thanks very much for the pointers - very interesting! (Now, if only I could read Japaneese! ;-)
I may print both the SD9 and 1Ds samples, and also the 1Ds sample downsized-then-upsized to simulate this image taken with the D20, just for comparison sake.
Enjoy!
--- Jim
P.S. I forgot to ask, was it the 1Ds that you thought superior? How does the "noise" appear in your two prints?
Thanks very much for the pointers - very interesting! (Now, if only I could read Japaneese! ;-)
I may print both the SD9 and 1Ds samples, and also the 1Ds sample downsized-then-upsized to simulate this image taken with the D20, just for comparison sake.
Enjoy!
--- Jim
P.S. I forgot to ask, was it the 1Ds that you thought superior? How does the "noise" appear in your two prints?
QUOTE (Dick @ Sep. 30 2002,15:22)
I was surprised to see the venue of Michael's shots change from Toronto to Florida... Do you think he likes the camera so much that he has taken it on the run?? 
I was hoping this was a new reality-based show. One where Michael takes off with Canon's camera, then posts pics from around the globe while Canon tries to track him down. Given his recent movements (Toronto ->Florida ->Northern Ontario ->Yellowstone) I may not be wrong. (Hint: you can hide from Nikon in Cologne ;>)
Michael, I meant to post a "thank you" for your D60 review in the spring. Thanks also for this review - for listening to and answering the concerns of posters on your site, for keeping a close focus on the pragmatic, and for patiently putting up with of the net BS.
Have a good trip! (Or better: enjoy your rest when you finally get home.)
Best,
Michael T.
QUOTE (Guest @ Oct. 04 2002,10:47)
"...According to Olympus, most current lenses for 35mm SLRs resolve down to about 10 microns, and top-end lenses to around 6 microns."
Dale,
Have you any idea what this statement really means? I think we can safely assume it refers to a 'real world' context of low contrast ratios, say 1.6:1 to 30:1. According to my maths 0.006mm is equivalent to 167 lines/mm or 83 lp/mm. Since this is roughly equal to the resolving power of good film in low contrast situations, the product of the two gives a maximum system resolving power for 35mm of about 40 lp/mm. Would that be about right? Sounds a bit low to me.
But digital sensors are not film and the same formulas do not necessarily apply. What formulas do apply?
QUOTE (RS Foto @ Oct. 01 2002,21:00)
Hi Jim,
The 1Ds was far superior than the SD9. I did not even apply Unsharpen Mask.
On this 2 Images I did not see noise.
I took a look at the new images from Phil Askey in the dpreview.com forum and I would say what people saw as noie I can live with it because it looks more like film grain.
I think that since the digital came out the people have forgotten that there was someting like grain and they are now fooled with the digital images because they are so clean that sometimes they think there is more resolution in it which I think is not true.
I still think that film has more resolution than digital compared even to the ~11 MioPixel from Canon and the unseen samples of the Kodak ~14 MioPixel.
OK the software interpolation is in any case cleaner with a digital rather than on an analog filmscan, but with interpolation you do not win sharpness in my opinion. Afterwards applying sharpness just increases the contrast between lowlight borders and highlight borders.
Have taken a deep look what sharpening makes?
I always try to figure out on a landscape ¿ with how many pixels do I resolve some motif scanning it at 4000dpi and this same motif how many pixels are delivered by the DSLR?
4000dpi optical scanning resolution are ~157 pixels/mm and the highest resolution of the D60 is ~135pixels/mm, the 1Ds is ~113pixels/mm and the Kodak will have ~127pixels/mm. So there is still a long way to go to get the 157píxels/mm of the scanning.
The other thing I still do not understand is how the people calculate the resolution in Line pairs per mm for a digital camera?
The 1Ds was far superior than the SD9. I did not even apply Unsharpen Mask.
On this 2 Images I did not see noise.
I took a look at the new images from Phil Askey in the dpreview.com forum and I would say what people saw as noie I can live with it because it looks more like film grain.
I think that since the digital came out the people have forgotten that there was someting like grain and they are now fooled with the digital images because they are so clean that sometimes they think there is more resolution in it which I think is not true.
I still think that film has more resolution than digital compared even to the ~11 MioPixel from Canon and the unseen samples of the Kodak ~14 MioPixel.
OK the software interpolation is in any case cleaner with a digital rather than on an analog filmscan, but with interpolation you do not win sharpness in my opinion. Afterwards applying sharpness just increases the contrast between lowlight borders and highlight borders.
Have taken a deep look what sharpening makes?
I always try to figure out on a landscape ¿ with how many pixels do I resolve some motif scanning it at 4000dpi and this same motif how many pixels are delivered by the DSLR?
4000dpi optical scanning resolution are ~157 pixels/mm and the highest resolution of the D60 is ~135pixels/mm, the 1Ds is ~113pixels/mm and the Kodak will have ~127pixels/mm. So there is still a long way to go to get the 157píxels/mm of the scanning.
The other thing I still do not understand is how the people calculate the resolution in Line pairs per mm for a digital camera?
Hmmm......when I look at both images they are VERY hard to compare. One shows a deep blue sky and the other shows a gray-green sky. And, the SD9 image appears underexposed.
Very hard to compare.
One camera seems to have the color all wrong.
I'm not so sure which it is. Does the SD9 have a blue cast or is it merely under-exposed? Does the Canon have aslight greenish cast in the sky or is it smog?
<boggle>
I honestly don't know.
I'd sure like to see a Kodachrome 25 of the same shot for reference.
Regards....Howard
QUOTE (Raymond @ Oct. 21 2002,09:42)
I'm not so sure about this Rayleigh's Law figure of 1000. I've seen figures ranging between 1800 and 1000.
However, I'm surprised at your assertion that there's no advantage in using pixels smaller than 6 microns in a 35mm digital sensor. If this is true, there is clearly a different relationship between lens and sensor, and lens and film. Can you elaborate on these differences, please?
Another of your statements which appears to be in conflict with other information (perhaps misinformation) available on the internet is in regard to 35mm lenses being optimised for best performance at F8.
However, I'm surprised at your assertion that there's no advantage in using pixels smaller than 6 microns in a 35mm digital sensor. If this is true, there is clearly a different relationship between lens and sensor, and lens and film. Can you elaborate on these differences, please?
Another of your statements which appears to be in conflict with other information (perhaps misinformation) available on the internet is in regard to 35mm lenses being optimised for best performance at F8.
Raymond, pardon the late response. Here goes:
Diffraction Limit has many definitions. Rayleigh's is simply the diameter (radius?) of the Airy Disc to first minimum. Using FWHM is the diameter of the same disc but at half the peak intensity. There's also something called Dawe's Limit. What matters is to note that there's no sharp cutoff as to how many line-pairs you can see. Photodo explains this at length. It's a matter as to how low a contrast you are willing to tolerate. Using the 1000/f-no relates to an MTF contrast of about 33% as plotted on photodo. Astronomers use "critical sampling" because they are all too aware that increasing sensor resolution dramatically increases noise. But when there's plenty of light (shooting planets and the Moon) they do use "over-sampling". This would be equivalent to using pixels much smaller than, say, the D60 7.5 microns with 35mm lenses. It's not that you do not resolve more, it's just that you pay in a lot more noise. The Nyquist criterion is the generally accepted point for compromise.
Lenses optimised for f8? I actually tested 5 prime lenses on a D30. A Sigma 500/7.2 APO was so lousy we need not discuss it further, max resolution 35 lp/mm. The other 4, Tamron 14/2.8, Canon 28/2.8, Canon 50/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 macro all peaked at f8. I expected variations. Coincidence? so I can only conclude that they were actually designed that way ;-)
As for 35mm lenses being the limiting factor with both the D60 and the 1Ds, I would refer any doubters to test their best lenses using Norman Koren's lens test chart:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html
It's very educational since he brings contrast into his chart, as opposed to the USAF chart.
Hi Sergio,
Yes you are absolutely right. The other point is everybody sees different and has another quality sense.
Yes you are absolutely right. The other point is everybody sees different and has another quality sense.
One more thing. I know you're a Canon shooter Michael, but since you have good friends at one of the Ontario camera stores, would you consider asking to test the Kodak 14n and 2-3 Nikon lenses when it becomes available?
The 1Ds and the 14n are in some ways made for very different purposes. The 14n doesn't have the fps speed or flash sync speed of the 1D cameras or the rugged build either. I suspect the 14n will see a lot of studio use with it's 13.5 effective MP resolution. But still, both have full-frame 35mm format CMOS sensors and both are very high res with the ability to shoot very high quality landscape and nature shots at large sizes.
Wildlife and sports is one area where the 1Ds will have the edge, but I think that a lot of people will still like to see some real world outdoor shooting with the 14n and how it compares to 35mm and MF.
The 1Ds and the 14n are in some ways made for very different purposes. The 14n doesn't have the fps speed or flash sync speed of the 1D cameras or the rugged build either. I suspect the 14n will see a lot of studio use with it's 13.5 effective MP resolution. But still, both have full-frame 35mm format CMOS sensors and both are very high res with the ability to shoot very high quality landscape and nature shots at large sizes.
Wildlife and sports is one area where the 1Ds will have the edge, but I think that a lot of people will still like to see some real world outdoor shooting with the 14n and how it compares to 35mm and MF.
I noticed the same thing Mike did about the Canon sample pics. I downloaded the Fruit photo and the first Portrait photo and both of them had several dust spots. The worst was the portrait. It took me over 30 minutes to clean up that shot in PS 7. I had sharpened them a little with NS Pro so that made every spot and flaw a little more noticeable.
Actually, that 30+ minutes also included the time it took to remove some of the wear and tear in the paper background and the worn out fabric covering the couch. Come on Canon!! If you're going to show off what your latest flagship camera can do, take the time to do it right. Make sure the sensor is clean and also that your studio background and props are in good condition. As our parents and teachers used to tell us, "Anything worth doing is worth doing right".
Actually, that 30+ minutes also included the time it took to remove some of the wear and tear in the paper background and the worn out fabric covering the couch. Come on Canon!! If you're going to show off what your latest flagship camera can do, take the time to do it right. Make sure the sensor is clean and also that your studio background and props are in good condition. As our parents and teachers used to tell us, "Anything worth doing is worth doing right".
Pale yellow on pale grey is not a good contrast. How do I change this, Michael? My posts are so important, I like people to be able to read them without difficulty!!!
I was surprised to see the venue of Michael's shots change from Toronto to Florida... Do you think he likes the camera so much that he has taken it on the run??
Sergio,
Me too. But I also have an academic interest in such issues. Even though sometimes such knowledge has no apparent practical relevance, it's good to know for the sake of clear thinking. It's also useful sometimes to be able to quantify some claimed improvement just so one can ignore it. When should one bother with mirror lock up for example?
Rainer,
Now I'm re-thinking this issue of dots/pixels and line pairs, I'm concerned I might be out by 100%. If a scanning pixel straddles a black and adjacent white line (which is a line pair), it's likely to be grey. If the lines are perfectly and equally spaced and at the resolution limit then every pixel will be grey, ie. no lines will be shown. This is why one needs 2 pixels per line. However, if that's true, perhaps one needs 4 pixels per line pair, and if that's the case then a 4000 dpi scanner which is approx 160 dots per mm will have a maximum resolving power of only 40 lp/mm.
Jim,
Now you've got me confused. The experiment you propose has really got nothing to do with the 1Ds. You could use any camera for such an experiment. The experiment would simply show how different file sizes affect resolution. Well, it would give you an idea of the magnitude of the differences between a 3 megapixel camera and an 11 megapixel camera. But I don't need convincing. One camera has almost twice the resolution of the other.
Me too. But I also have an academic interest in such issues. Even though sometimes such knowledge has no apparent practical relevance, it's good to know for the sake of clear thinking. It's also useful sometimes to be able to quantify some claimed improvement just so one can ignore it. When should one bother with mirror lock up for example?
Rainer,
Now I'm re-thinking this issue of dots/pixels and line pairs, I'm concerned I might be out by 100%. If a scanning pixel straddles a black and adjacent white line (which is a line pair), it's likely to be grey. If the lines are perfectly and equally spaced and at the resolution limit then every pixel will be grey, ie. no lines will be shown. This is why one needs 2 pixels per line. However, if that's true, perhaps one needs 4 pixels per line pair, and if that's the case then a 4000 dpi scanner which is approx 160 dots per mm will have a maximum resolving power of only 40 lp/mm.
Jim,
Now you've got me confused. The experiment you propose has really got nothing to do with the 1Ds. You could use any camera for such an experiment. The experiment would simply show how different file sizes affect resolution. Well, it would give you an idea of the magnitude of the differences between a 3 megapixel camera and an 11 megapixel camera. But I don't need convincing. One camera has almost twice the resolution of the other.
Quentin,
Well, you're right. The dynamic range is somewhere between slide and negative film. Since most professionals seem to use slide film and have no doubt got used to its DR limitations, switching to a DSLR which probably has a slightly greater DR than they're used to, is no problem. Here in sunny Queensland, the light is bright and I got used to using negative film. I do shoot Raw with my D60 and have now got in the habit of either underexposing by 1/2 a stop when the sun's out or use AEB. A recent trip whale watching would have produced a lot of burnt highlights if I'd used just the evaluative metering.
Well, you're right. The dynamic range is somewhere between slide and negative film. Since most professionals seem to use slide film and have no doubt got used to its DR limitations, switching to a DSLR which probably has a slightly greater DR than they're used to, is no problem. Here in sunny Queensland, the light is bright and I got used to using negative film. I do shoot Raw with my D60 and have now got in the habit of either underexposing by 1/2 a stop when the sun's out or use AEB. A recent trip whale watching would have produced a lot of burnt highlights if I'd used just the evaluative metering.
Thanks to everyone for your comments and support.
As you might imagine my time has been very compressed this past week and this morning was the first chance I've head to check the Board.
I'd love to reply to each and every comment and question, but I leave tomorrow morning for a one week wildlife shoot in Yellowstone and I still have to get my gear organized, pack, etc....
Cheers,
Michael
As you might imagine my time has been very compressed this past week and this morning was the first chance I've head to check the Board.
I'd love to reply to each and every comment and question, but I leave tomorrow morning for a one week wildlife shoot in Yellowstone and I still have to get my gear organized, pack, etc....
Cheers,
Michael
In part 5 Michael writes:
----
Since I'm primarily a medium format landscape and nature photographer this presents me with a quandary. When I get a 1Ds (and my order is already placed, with deposit), what do I do with my medium format gear? What do I take with me on a shoot from now on? Should I sell my MF equipment?
----
I just came back from a trip to Europe. Took D60+lenses+microdrives, Fujitsu P2000-series notebook computer (3 lbs with internal CDRW and extended battery), Mindstore, CD-Rs, plus adaptors, cables, etc. Everything worked fine.
My point? All this stuff is a boat anchor unless there is a place for me to plug in for the night. Yes, I could pack a Digital Camera battery or six, and if you have a car you can charge one thing at once (or can you? Lithium Ion chargers draw more current than many auto inverters put out...), but power is a problem. It can be done, as Rob Galbraith's article on the 2001 Eco Challenge proves, but you need to be *really* prepared.
So maybe my answer to Michael's quandry is: if you know you are going to be doing much of your shooting near a place that you can plug in every 24 hours, maybe it is time to part with the MF equipment like you did with your wet printing lab. But if you go on shoots where 120/220V AC is far and few between (how about rafting in Grand Canyon?), maybe there is still good use for that MF gear....
Thanks for listening.
Cheers,
Charles
P.S. I can't find the link to this Cathy any more, but there was this wonderful one that goes like this:
Friend: "We used to lug a bag of photo equipment on our trips...but since we got our digital camera, it all fits in the palm of one hand!"
"All we had to take was out laptop to download the memory card onto ... zip drive to download the laptop onto ..."
"Cables ... cases .. connectors ... battery chargers ... manuals ... and TA DA!"
Cathy: "What exactly fits in the palm of one hand?"
Friend: "Tip for the bell captain. Also, the chiropractor's cell number."[quote][QUOTE][/quote]
----
Since I'm primarily a medium format landscape and nature photographer this presents me with a quandary. When I get a 1Ds (and my order is already placed, with deposit), what do I do with my medium format gear? What do I take with me on a shoot from now on? Should I sell my MF equipment?
----
I just came back from a trip to Europe. Took D60+lenses+microdrives, Fujitsu P2000-series notebook computer (3 lbs with internal CDRW and extended battery), Mindstore, CD-Rs, plus adaptors, cables, etc. Everything worked fine.
My point? All this stuff is a boat anchor unless there is a place for me to plug in for the night. Yes, I could pack a Digital Camera battery or six, and if you have a car you can charge one thing at once (or can you? Lithium Ion chargers draw more current than many auto inverters put out...), but power is a problem. It can be done, as Rob Galbraith's article on the 2001 Eco Challenge proves, but you need to be *really* prepared.
So maybe my answer to Michael's quandry is: if you know you are going to be doing much of your shooting near a place that you can plug in every 24 hours, maybe it is time to part with the MF equipment like you did with your wet printing lab. But if you go on shoots where 120/220V AC is far and few between (how about rafting in Grand Canyon?), maybe there is still good use for that MF gear....
Thanks for listening.
Cheers,
Charles
P.S. I can't find the link to this Cathy any more, but there was this wonderful one that goes like this:
Friend: "We used to lug a bag of photo equipment on our trips...but since we got our digital camera, it all fits in the palm of one hand!"
"All we had to take was out laptop to download the memory card onto ... zip drive to download the laptop onto ..."
"Cables ... cases .. connectors ... battery chargers ... manuals ... and TA DA!"
Cathy: "What exactly fits in the palm of one hand?"
Friend: "Tip for the bell captain. Also, the chiropractor's cell number."[quote][QUOTE][/quote]
Jim,
Thanks for finding the facts to support my conjecture. Can anyone find any facts or explanations to either support or refute my other assertion that pixel size would have to be considerably smaller than 6 microns in order to accurately capture a 6 micron dot that a top quality 35mm lens is supposed to be capable of resolving.
Imagine trying to photograph a single 6 micron dot with a digital sensor comprised of 6 micron pixels. In the very likely event that the dot does not correspond exactly with a single camera pixel, how is it portrayed - a 2 dot elipse - or possibly 4 dots with a diameter greater than 12 microns - or possibly it's not captured at all.
Thanks for finding the facts to support my conjecture. Can anyone find any facts or explanations to either support or refute my other assertion that pixel size would have to be considerably smaller than 6 microns in order to accurately capture a 6 micron dot that a top quality 35mm lens is supposed to be capable of resolving.
Imagine trying to photograph a single 6 micron dot with a digital sensor comprised of 6 micron pixels. In the very likely event that the dot does not correspond exactly with a single camera pixel, how is it portrayed - a 2 dot elipse - or possibly 4 dots with a diameter greater than 12 microns - or possibly it's not captured at all.
How many of those 1Ds bodies are you actually planning on keeping? 
If more than one, you're either a well heeled pro or my long lost rich uncle I've been looking for. And since we're good buddies now(right?)and you're loaded with a credit card limit that can handle the order of 4 1Ds bodies, I'm a little short on money now and since you're such a nice guy I know...lol
The lack of an AA filter in the Kodak did make me wonder when I first read about that. It'll be interesting to see if Kodak has found a way around that so the camera may not need it. Jury's still out till we can see some real world sample pics from Phil, Rob, and Dave. Or Kumio.
Did you see any problems with blurriness in the corners with W-A lenses or did you test it at all with the 16-35 for instance? How about the chromatic aberration problem Rob entioned? Did the one you tested show any of that? It's something I occasionally have to work with and remove with my D1X pics.
As for that comparison pic to 4X5(with RVP?)we saw on Rob's site, the 1Ds pic didn't appear quite as super razor sharp as the 4X5 film, but it did look a heck of a lot cleaner, much less grainy under magnification. In terms of being noise free, the 1Ds image won by a country mile over the 4X5.
If more than one, you're either a well heeled pro or my long lost rich uncle I've been looking for. And since we're good buddies now(right?)and you're loaded with a credit card limit that can handle the order of 4 1Ds bodies, I'm a little short on money now and since you're such a nice guy I know...lol
The lack of an AA filter in the Kodak did make me wonder when I first read about that. It'll be interesting to see if Kodak has found a way around that so the camera may not need it. Jury's still out till we can see some real world sample pics from Phil, Rob, and Dave. Or Kumio.
Did you see any problems with blurriness in the corners with W-A lenses or did you test it at all with the 16-35 for instance? How about the chromatic aberration problem Rob entioned? Did the one you tested show any of that? It's something I occasionally have to work with and remove with my D1X pics.
As for that comparison pic to 4X5(with RVP?)we saw on Rob's site, the 1Ds pic didn't appear quite as super razor sharp as the 4X5 film, but it did look a heck of a lot cleaner, much less grainy under magnification. In terms of being noise free, the 1Ds image won by a country mile over the 4X5.
QUOTE (samirkharusi @ Oct. 26 2002,12:04)
[But when there's plenty of light (shooting planets and the Moon) they do use "over-sampling". This would be equivalent to using pixels much smaller than, say, the D60 7.5 microns with 35mm lenses. It's not that you do not resolve more, it's just that you pay in a lot more noise. The Nyquist criterion is the generally accepted point for compromise.
Lenses optimised for f8? I actually tested 5 prime lenses on a D30. A Sigma 500/7.2 APO was so lousy we need not discuss it further, max resolution 35 lp/mm. The other 4, Tamron 14/2.8, Canon 28/2.8, Canon 50/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 macro all peaked at f8. I expected variations. Coincidence? so I can only conclude that they were actually designed that way ;-)
As for 35mm lenses being the limiting factor with both the D60 and the 1Ds, I would refer any doubters to test their best lenses using Norman Koren's lens test chart:
Lenses optimised for f8? I actually tested 5 prime lenses on a D30. A Sigma 500/7.2 APO was so lousy we need not discuss it further, max resolution 35 lp/mm. The other 4, Tamron 14/2.8, Canon 28/2.8, Canon 50/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 macro all peaked at f8. I expected variations. Coincidence? so I can only conclude that they were actually designed that way ;-)
As for 35mm lenses being the limiting factor with both the D60 and the 1Ds, I would refer any doubters to test their best lenses using Norman Koren's lens test chart:
Samirkharusi,
Thanks for at least attempting to clarify some of these points. I've heard it often quoted that noise increases as pixel size decreases as though this is an immutable law like Rayleigh's law that describes the limiting factor of diffraction - nothing much you can do about it because that's the nature of light etc.
The D30 was acclaimed for its low noise. The D60 crammed more pixels into the same area and should therefore be noisier than the D30. But apparently it isn't. Both cameras are about equal in this respect despite the D60's pixel spacing of 7 microns and the D30's 10 microns. It would therefore appear that, whilst it's true there's an inverse relationship between pixel size and noise, this is not necessarily more than a technological obstacle which can be overcome through R&D.
BTW, Norman Koren makes a few predictions about future developments of 35mm sized sensors. He envisages a 24 megapixel sensor that has 1.39x the resolution of 35mm film.
On the issue of your lenses performing best at F/8, this is not really surprising. It's been folk wisdom for a long time that most 35mm lenses are best at around F/8 and no doubt for good practical reasons. I'm not challenging the results, but the reason for these results. One could argue that the reason why doesn't matter. It's only the result that matters. (But I have an enquiring mind!). You've assumed that all the lenses you tested were designed to have optimum performance at F/8 and you might be right. However, there are many test reports of 35mm lenses which indicate that certain lenses are sharpest at say F4 or F5.6. I have one such lens that springs to mind because I went to the trouble of testing it - a Sigma 400mm F5.6 prime. There's more than one report on the internet that claims this lens is sharpest at full aperture. My tests did not reveal this. The lens appeared to be sharper at F8. However, being a fairly modest sort of bloke, I did not immediately jump to the conclusion that I'd uncovered a scam and that the staff at the testing laboratories were either incompetent or in league with the advertisers and manufacturers, and that I with my simple and relatively crude testing methods had got at the truth. On the contrary, it became very apparent during the testing that focussing a 400mm lens on a 2 dimensional target at F5.6 was difficult and that there was always a degree of uncertainty. What I learned from that little experiment was that lens testing at big apertures is a hit and miss affair without a very precise system in place.
The lack of grain and 'cleanliness' of the images from the 1Ds (and D30, D60) creates an impression that resolution is greater than it actually is. Lack of grain is one of the hallmarks of MF and LF. It's probably as significant a factor as resolution in terms of the general appeal of the larger format over 35mm.
The problem with the pricing of the 1Ds is unfortunate, but I wouldn't mind betting that this is related to the removal of the focal length multiplier effect. With the D30 and D60 there was a clear spin off for Canon. Increased lens sales. A 400mm lens which effectively becomes a 640mm lens is a bargain. Who can resist? Loss of wide angle capability is annoying, but maybe that 17-35mm zoom or 14mm prime now becomes a necessity. I know from personal experience. When I bought my D60, that was less than half the cost - although admittedly I opted for the Sigma 15-30mm instead of the much more expensive Canon 16-35mm. (Cheapskate amateur!)
I can't think of a good reason why anyone buying the 1Ds would also feel the need to buy any additional lenses - except of course for newcomers to the Canon system. There's little spin off for Canon. Profit will come mainly from the sale of the 1Ds body alone. Hence the high price.
The problem with the pricing of the 1Ds is unfortunate, but I wouldn't mind betting that this is related to the removal of the focal length multiplier effect. With the D30 and D60 there was a clear spin off for Canon. Increased lens sales. A 400mm lens which effectively becomes a 640mm lens is a bargain. Who can resist? Loss of wide angle capability is annoying, but maybe that 17-35mm zoom or 14mm prime now becomes a necessity. I know from personal experience. When I bought my D60, that was less than half the cost - although admittedly I opted for the Sigma 15-30mm instead of the much more expensive Canon 16-35mm. (Cheapskate amateur!)
I can't think of a good reason why anyone buying the 1Ds would also feel the need to buy any additional lenses - except of course for newcomers to the Canon system. There's little spin off for Canon. Profit will come mainly from the sale of the 1Ds body alone. Hence the high price.
Wow!! the comparison between 1Ds and 1Dv film really bring to end any debate about whether digital can surpass film. Game, set, match.
I'm sure there will be issues with artifacts (moire, etc) but the capability of the 1Ds is plain to see. I anxiously await the Kodak comparison.
Having said that there is no way that I will pay a huge premium to have that capability. If Canon wants my money they need to get the actual price down to the mid $5000 range.
I'm sure there will be issues with artifacts (moire, etc) but the capability of the 1Ds is plain to see. I anxiously await the Kodak comparison.
Having said that there is no way that I will pay a huge premium to have that capability. If Canon wants my money they need to get the actual price down to the mid $5000 range.
Michael,
Thanks for the daily reviews. It's the first thing I check for these days.
One thing you didn't touch on noise was how the noise reduction system is on 1Ds. I'm not sure if you were planning to and if you were, great and am looking forward to it. I have not been able to find any info on whether the NR system on 1Ds is like the 1D or the D60. Meaning, can you take another picture while NR is processing the image like the D60 or do you have to wait till it is finished like the D30/1D? Thanks.
Godor
Thanks for the daily reviews. It's the first thing I check for these days.
One thing you didn't touch on noise was how the noise reduction system is on 1Ds. I'm not sure if you were planning to and if you were, great and am looking forward to it. I have not been able to find any info on whether the NR system on 1Ds is like the 1D or the D60. Meaning, can you take another picture while NR is processing the image like the D60 or do you have to wait till it is finished like the D30/1D? Thanks.
Godor
Great so far, but did anyone really doubt that this camera would have amazing resolution?
For me I would really like to see a camera with dramatically improved dynamic range.
Sigma has promised this but I fear the lens line up will prove to be a real hinderence.
sas
www.photonotions.com
For me I would really like to see a camera with dramatically improved dynamic range.
Sigma has promised this but I fear the lens line up will prove to be a real hinderence.
sas
www.photonotions.com
Does anybody see jaggies in the parabolic antenna?
Quentin,
That's a good point. The DSLR has now come of age. Some folks might think the 1Ds surpasses film based 35mm cameras in all respects. No need to bother with film any more. But I suspect this is not the case. If dynamic range is a major consideration, DSLRs are still not up to scratch. The fact that I might belong to a minority with this view does not make me wrong. The facts speak for themselves. I don't want to mess around with graduated ND filters (which are only of use anyway with a certain type of uncomplicated skyline) or spend my time cutting and pasting in Photoshop from two differently exposed D60 frames, which I find myself doing quite often.
Clearly, the benefits of the new DSLRs outweigh any disadvantages, but let's not completely ignore the weaknesses.
That's a good point. The DSLR has now come of age. Some folks might think the 1Ds surpasses film based 35mm cameras in all respects. No need to bother with film any more. But I suspect this is not the case. If dynamic range is a major consideration, DSLRs are still not up to scratch. The fact that I might belong to a minority with this view does not make me wrong. The facts speak for themselves. I don't want to mess around with graduated ND filters (which are only of use anyway with a certain type of uncomplicated skyline) or spend my time cutting and pasting in Photoshop from two differently exposed D60 frames, which I find myself doing quite often.
Clearly, the benefits of the new DSLRs outweigh any disadvantages, but let's not completely ignore the weaknesses.
Ray,
Please elaborate! I've tried without success to find a good, quantitative discussion of film and DSLR dynamic range. Michael has a short discussion of slide vs. negative film here but I can't find a comparable comparison of, say, the dynamic range of the D60 or D1.
If you have facts, please share! Even better, if you can provide links to authoritative discussions of DSLR dynamic range as compared with film, I'm sure many of us would be pleased.
Enjoy!
-- Jim
QUOTE (Ray @ Sep. 28 2002,19:14)
If dynamic range is a major consideration, DSLRs are still not up to scratch. The fact that I might belong to a minority with this view does not make me wrong. The facts speak for themselves.
Please elaborate! I've tried without success to find a good, quantitative discussion of film and DSLR dynamic range. Michael has a short discussion of slide vs. negative film here but I can't find a comparable comparison of, say, the dynamic range of the D60 or D1.
If you have facts, please share! Even better, if you can provide links to authoritative discussions of DSLR dynamic range as compared with film, I'm sure many of us would be pleased.
Enjoy!
-- Jim
Ray,
I'm confused. (Not an altogether foreign state for me
)
First you say dynamic range of DSLRs is not "up to scratch", and the facts speak for themselves.
I ask for some of those facts, but then you say "it's difficult to get the facts". And you label the subjective dynamic range comments in various reviews of DSLRs as "pretty vague".
I agree!
But I don't understand why you continue to "peg" the dynamic range between slide and negative film. It seems to me that we still don't know - objectively, any way.
I've begun to locate some interesting discussions on the web re. dynamic range. Too soon, really, to make conclusions - but from what I'm reading it's not clear that the D60 has a smaller dynamic range than color negative film.
I'll post more info when I've digested it. Meanwhile, I think it does everyone a disservice to propogate the subjective opinions that DSLRs have a smaller dynamic range than (negative) film.
Sorry for the rant - I'm just interested in getting the facts, as you say.
Enjoy!
-- Jim
I'm confused. (Not an altogether foreign state for me
)First you say dynamic range of DSLRs is not "up to scratch", and the facts speak for themselves.
I ask for some of those facts, but then you say "it's difficult to get the facts". And you label the subjective dynamic range comments in various reviews of DSLRs as "pretty vague".
I agree!
But I don't understand why you continue to "peg" the dynamic range between slide and negative film. It seems to me that we still don't know - objectively, any way.
I've begun to locate some interesting discussions on the web re. dynamic range. Too soon, really, to make conclusions - but from what I'm reading it's not clear that the D60 has a smaller dynamic range than color negative film.
I'll post more info when I've digested it. Meanwhile, I think it does everyone a disservice to propogate the subjective opinions that DSLRs have a smaller dynamic range than (negative) film.
Sorry for the rant - I'm just interested in getting the facts, as you say.
Enjoy!
-- Jim
Jim,
Sorry about the confusion. When I wrote, "The facts speak for themselves", I was referring to the fact that the dynamic range of DSLRs appears to be a 'hush' subject. Many reviewers seem to ignore it but occasional mention of it tends to place it somewhere between slide and negative film (for the D30 and D60 at least).
I recall some time ago reading a specific reference to the DR of the D60. (Was it an article by Norman Koren or Miles Hecker? I'm not sure.) I think the figure was 6 f/stops. I was a bit surprised because I expected it to be about 7 f/stops from other comments I'd come across.
Will has now re-inforced what I already suspected to be the case. (Thanks Will!) But I'm still surprised. If Canon's claim for the 1Ds is that it can equal (and perhaps even surpass professional slide film), what was their claim for the D60?
Now, if I could drag myself away from this forum, I might find the time to do some testing of my own.
Sorry about the confusion. When I wrote, "The facts speak for themselves", I was referring to the fact that the dynamic range of DSLRs appears to be a 'hush' subject. Many reviewers seem to ignore it but occasional mention of it tends to place it somewhere between slide and negative film (for the D30 and D60 at least).
I recall some time ago reading a specific reference to the DR of the D60. (Was it an article by Norman Koren or Miles Hecker? I'm not sure.) I think the figure was 6 f/stops. I was a bit surprised because I expected it to be about 7 f/stops from other comments I'd come across.
Will has now re-inforced what I already suspected to be the case. (Thanks Will!) But I'm still surprised. If Canon's claim for the 1Ds is that it can equal (and perhaps even surpass professional slide film), what was their claim for the D60?
Now, if I could drag myself away from this forum, I might find the time to do some testing of my own.
Doug,
Fred seems to have quite a few really useful 'Photoshop Actions' available at a very affordable price - almost too good to be true. I see he's got two different programs that tackle the limited dynamic range of the D60 - Dynamic Range Increase (DRI) and Highlight Recovery Action. Actually, there's a third program - Shadow Recovery. I think I'll give them a try. Hope they're not too buggy. Thanks for the suggestion.
Fred seems to have quite a few really useful 'Photoshop Actions' available at a very affordable price - almost too good to be true. I see he's got two different programs that tackle the limited dynamic range of the D60 - Dynamic Range Increase (DRI) and Highlight Recovery Action. Actually, there's a third program - Shadow Recovery. I think I'll give them a try. Hope they're not too buggy. Thanks for the suggestion.
QUOTE (RS Foto @ Oct. 01 2002,15:18)
I do not agree. When you have something to throw away, it is always better rather then making up or inventing something.
I think that was my point! :-)
For a given print size, the less interpolation necessary, the better.
What I'm wondering is if someone with access to a 1Ds might conduct a test. Print a full-frame image with no interpolation.
Compare that with another print that *simulates* a 3 MP sensor (e.g. D30) with the necessary interpolation to get the same size image.
It seems that would show how prints made with 3MP and 11 MP sensors render fine detail differently.
Enjoy!
-- Jim
Hi Ray,
Yes about the Line pairs per mm that is exactly the same thing I thought as you just wrote it down, but if you carefully analize some tests you will see that the experts are quite above this simple calculation as we see it.
Today in the morning it came to my mind that digital Photography reminds me to that old? system of painting by numbers.
What does the light reading element say when it sees 50% white and 50%black. I guess it converts it in a 50% grey?. It the light reading element (pixel?) gets 70% white and 30% black? will it be a light grey or will it be white? I could continue but what comes out? I think this has been somewhere fixed by software that say this pixel is black because it gets 90% of black so the 10% white is cut off or viceversa. In this case if I would have to pixels the 100% white would fall on one and the 100% black would fall on the other, etc. etc. etc.
I am speaking on that zones where there is a clear delimited border of Dark and Light.
How big are the light reading elements in a film? the silver particles ? OK they have the addiction to form groups, this is what I understand as grain and what if the film industry takes them away the addiction of forming groups (like we humans), won´t the film then be far superior than a digital at the moment?
I think they solved it quite good at the Fuji Provia 100F and 400F films. I can not speak from other film makers because I took the decision 2 years ago only to use Fuji because of the results and O do nat want to experiment anymore.
Another question is: Will the film industry be interested in developing solutions for the problem of grain building up? or not?
I think here it depends who in the film company is still interested in film or not and if they see future in the film or not. Maybe Fuji keeps doing the good job. They have the digital cameras and they still in the same time developed the Provia films 100F and 400F. Will this interest stay alive or not?
So after writing down all this I still have no answer how the line pairs per mm resolution is calculated.
Yes about the Line pairs per mm that is exactly the same thing I thought as you just wrote it down, but if you carefully analize some tests you will see that the experts are quite above this simple calculation as we see it.
Today in the morning it came to my mind that digital Photography reminds me to that old? system of painting by numbers.
What does the light reading element say when it sees 50% white and 50%black. I guess it converts it in a 50% grey?. It the light reading element (pixel?) gets 70% white and 30% black? will it be a light grey or will it be white? I could continue but what comes out? I think this has been somewhere fixed by software that say this pixel is black because it gets 90% of black so the 10% white is cut off or viceversa. In this case if I would have to pixels the 100% white would fall on one and the 100% black would fall on the other, etc. etc. etc.
I am speaking on that zones where there is a clear delimited border of Dark and Light.
How big are the light reading elements in a film? the silver particles ? OK they have the addiction to form groups, this is what I understand as grain and what if the film industry takes them away the addiction of forming groups (like we humans), won´t the film then be far superior than a digital at the moment?
I think they solved it quite good at the Fuji Provia 100F and 400F films. I can not speak from other film makers because I took the decision 2 years ago only to use Fuji because of the results and O do nat want to experiment anymore.
Another question is: Will the film industry be interested in developing solutions for the problem of grain building up? or not?
I think here it depends who in the film company is still interested in film or not and if they see future in the film or not. Maybe Fuji keeps doing the good job. They have the digital cameras and they still in the same time developed the Provia films 100F and 400F. Will this interest stay alive or not?
So after writing down all this I still have no answer how the line pairs per mm resolution is calculated.
Almost twice the resolution provided different lenses are used to compensate for the 1.6x factor. Since you're not comparing different images, your experiment would merely give you an idea of what 'double' the resolution looks like.
Michael,
You've certainly demonstrated what an imressive camera the 1Ds is. Despite a slight disappointment with my D60 regarding dynamic range, I'm very pleased with it in most other respects. It simply produces better looking photos than 35mm film. The lack of grain and noise is more impressive than that appealing quality of MF (reduced grain because of the larger format, I mean). But there are a couple of statements in part 4 of your review which seem contradictory. I'll copy and paste them below if that's all right.
"I have not had an opportunity to do any rigorous testing of dynamic range. But a few hundred varied frames show me that it appears to be comparable to that of the D30 and D60, which I have extensive experience with. Figure on a solid 6 stops of dynamic range.
Few photographers will find the 1Ds wanting with regard to available dynamic range. I judge it to be about one to two stops better than transparency film, and roughly comparable to colour negative film — but of course much less noisy / grainy."
I haven't found this to be the case with my D60 - that it is roughly equivalent to colour negative film. Perhaps it's my technique. Perhaps I should be underexposing more and extracting more detail from the shadows. On the other hand, I haven't done any rigorous testing either. 6 f/stops might be close to the bottom of the range of colour negative film but no where near the top of the range. The figures I have in mind are, 4-6 stops for slide film, 7-9 stops for colour negative and 9-11 stops for B&W. Maybe your figures for these ranges are different. Would you care to comment?
You've certainly demonstrated what an imressive camera the 1Ds is. Despite a slight disappointment with my D60 regarding dynamic range, I'm very pleased with it in most other respects. It simply produces better looking photos than 35mm film. The lack of grain and noise is more impressive than that appealing quality of MF (reduced grain because of the larger format, I mean). But there are a couple of statements in part 4 of your review which seem contradictory. I'll copy and paste them below if that's all right.
"I have not had an opportunity to do any rigorous testing of dynamic range. But a few hundred varied frames show me that it appears to be comparable to that of the D30 and D60, which I have extensive experience with. Figure on a solid 6 stops of dynamic range.
Few photographers will find the 1Ds wanting with regard to available dynamic range. I judge it to be about one to two stops better than transparency film, and roughly comparable to colour negative film — but of course much less noisy / grainy."
I haven't found this to be the case with my D60 - that it is roughly equivalent to colour negative film. Perhaps it's my technique. Perhaps I should be underexposing more and extracting more detail from the shadows. On the other hand, I haven't done any rigorous testing either. 6 f/stops might be close to the bottom of the range of colour negative film but no where near the top of the range. The figures I have in mind are, 4-6 stops for slide film, 7-9 stops for colour negative and 9-11 stops for B&W. Maybe your figures for these ranges are different. Would you care to comment?
I think I see what you're talking about Sergio with the antenna in the test images. One thing I do notice is that overall, it has a sharper, clearer look in the 1Ds image.
But to be perfectly fair to film, I agree a little bit with a few detractors of the review who pointed out that the particular Imacon scanner Michael has is no longer among the best scanners, desktop or otherwise. While I agree that a $10,000-$12,000 drum scanner is way out of the budget for most people to afford for their own home, and drum scans from a lab can get expensive quickly also, a good pro desktop scanner like Nikon's 8000ED at $2,989(from Publishers Perfection)has 4,000 DPI and 4.2 DR and a Nikkor ED lens, which can give drum scans a hard run for the money with 35mm up to 4X5 format. A comparison between the 1Ds skyline images and scans from the 8000ED would be very telling, one way or the other.
It would get even more interesting with Toronto pics from a Kodak 14n thrown in. The 14n with it's 13.5 effective MP resolution(2.4 more MP than the 1Ds)would make for a very fascinating contest and one I would definitely like to see.
But to be perfectly fair to film, I agree a little bit with a few detractors of the review who pointed out that the particular Imacon scanner Michael has is no longer among the best scanners, desktop or otherwise. While I agree that a $10,000-$12,000 drum scanner is way out of the budget for most people to afford for their own home, and drum scans from a lab can get expensive quickly also, a good pro desktop scanner like Nikon's 8000ED at $2,989(from Publishers Perfection)has 4,000 DPI and 4.2 DR and a Nikkor ED lens, which can give drum scans a hard run for the money with 35mm up to 4X5 format. A comparison between the 1Ds skyline images and scans from the 8000ED would be very telling, one way or the other.
It would get even more interesting with Toronto pics from a Kodak 14n thrown in. The 14n with it's 13.5 effective MP resolution(2.4 more MP than the 1Ds)would make for a very fascinating contest and one I would definitely like to see.
Ray, RS, Marshal:
- Nope. I'm more the artistic type. Thanks for the clarification. So far as I know Ed Monaghan's 50 lp/mm would be considered a very conservative estimate, and really good equipment should do correspondingly better.
Tony:
Three cheers for being brave enough to say this in public. Problem is the blankety-blank grain-aliasing robs me of much of my ability to leverage this resource (and I have a 4000 ppi scanner). I almost wish I hadn't been spoiled by neg film, then I could look on the seven stops of a typical digicam (accepting a bit of noise) as liberating. Still, if I could afford the Kodak 14n, I'd be tempted, if just for a change of opponents.
If once the reviewer tribe got exposed to a dSLR with ten stops of D.R., they'd never again be willing to tolerate seven.
QUOTE
Dale, Have you any idea what this statement really means?"
- Nope. I'm more the artistic type. Thanks for the clarification. So far as I know Ed Monaghan's 50 lp/mm would be considered a very conservative estimate, and really good equipment should do correspondingly better.
Tony:
QUOTE
I have tested and found 12+ stops with these materials. 10 stops of this is completely usable, there is severe compression in the rest, but it is still there. This is absolutely liberating compared to tranny, and gives me the control I only had in the wet darkroom with B&W, and more.
Three cheers for being brave enough to say this in public. Problem is the blankety-blank grain-aliasing robs me of much of my ability to leverage this resource (and I have a 4000 ppi scanner). I almost wish I hadn't been spoiled by neg film, then I could look on the seven stops of a typical digicam (accepting a bit of noise) as liberating. Still, if I could afford the Kodak 14n, I'd be tempted, if just for a change of opponents.
If once the reviewer tribe got exposed to a dSLR with ten stops of D.R., they'd never again be willing to tolerate seven.
I think perhaps the following table on diffraction limits (which I've copied and pasted from Roger N. Clark's site) might explain the 6 micron limit. As you can see, at F5.6 distortion from diffraction is represented by a 6.3 micron blob. Call it 6 microns. A high quality lens is likely to be 'diffraction limited' at around F5.6. The higher quality the lens, the larger the aperture (the smaller the F stop) the diffraction limit will apply. Some really top notch lenses might be diffraction limited at F2.8. This means that other aberrations due to coma and chroma etc are at such a low level that the predominant distortion is due only to diffraction. Stopping down will not produce sharper results, except in so far as greater depth of field might minimises focussing errors.
However, there's something misleading in Roger Clark's statement. He says, practical limits have already been reached regarding pixel size. Many people might interpret this as relating directly to the diffraction spot size at a fairly useable aperture of F5.6, but I think he's referring to the manufacturing process of the sensor chips and I think he's already out of date.
Any implication that, because lens resolution is limited by a certain diffraction spot size at a particular F stop, there is no advantage in having pixels smaller than the diffraction spot size, is patently false in my view. That would be like saying, because my lens cannot resolve more than 80 lp/mm, there's no point in using a film that has a greater resolving power than 80lp/mm. Now we all know that that's a totally false statement, don't we?
DIFFRACTION
Diffraction limits the ultimate detail an imaging system can deliver. This is a fundamental limit due to the wave nature of light.
The trend in digital cameras is to increase the pixel count, and the easiest way to do this is to decrease pixel size. However, practical limits have already been reached! The diffraction spot size in the focal plane is a function of f/ratio and is independent of focal length. The diffraction spot size is:
F/ratio Diffraction spot size
2 2.2 (microns)
2.8 3.1
4 4.5
5.6 6.3
8 8.9
11 12
16 18
19 21
22 25
32 36
45 50
However, there's something misleading in Roger Clark's statement. He says, practical limits have already been reached regarding pixel size. Many people might interpret this as relating directly to the diffraction spot size at a fairly useable aperture of F5.6, but I think he's referring to the manufacturing process of the sensor chips and I think he's already out of date.
Any implication that, because lens resolution is limited by a certain diffraction spot size at a particular F stop, there is no advantage in having pixels smaller than the diffraction spot size, is patently false in my view. That would be like saying, because my lens cannot resolve more than 80 lp/mm, there's no point in using a film that has a greater resolving power than 80lp/mm. Now we all know that that's a totally false statement, don't we?
DIFFRACTION
Diffraction limits the ultimate detail an imaging system can deliver. This is a fundamental limit due to the wave nature of light.
The trend in digital cameras is to increase the pixel count, and the easiest way to do this is to decrease pixel size. However, practical limits have already been reached! The diffraction spot size in the focal plane is a function of f/ratio and is independent of focal length. The diffraction spot size is:
F/ratio Diffraction spot size
2 2.2 (microns)
2.8 3.1
4 4.5
5.6 6.3
8 8.9
11 12
16 18
19 21
22 25
32 36
45 50
Hi All:
Gee, this is quite a thread here. I'm no expert when it comes to the more scientific stuff, but as someone who spent a day shooting with a 1Ds and has his own images of subjects he understands, I agree wholeheartedly with Michael's (and Rob's, etc.) conclusions.
I really didn't think it was possible for a mere 11MP to best 35mm chromes, but for my sort of shooting, it certainly does. I've been shooting with Provia 100F in my EOS1v for a couple of years now, and have made countless scans with both the Polaroid SS4000 and my Howtek SM4500 drum scanner. Even my best drum scans can't hold up to the 1Ds images, in spite of being substantially larger in file size. I've got the prints to prove it.
I did all my shooting in raw mode, and used a private beta of Zoombrowser to convert them to tif. I recall the moment I first laid eyes upon the converted image. It looked a bit soft, just like the images out of the D30 do, but this is a good thing, not a bad thing. You can sharpen the #### out of the images the 1Ds produces and the results are stunning. The level of detail in the image is really unbelievable.
I did hear a rumor that the Kodak 12MP body does NOT include an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor. If true, this should sound an alarm, since you MUST prevent spatial frequencies above the limits of the sensor from being captured. Once they're in the captured image, all the post-processing in the world won't save you. I was told the anti-aliasing filter in the 1Ds cost $2000 all by itself, which is one reason the 1Ds is priced so much higher than the Kodak. Trust me, you really DO want that filter there. I was also told the rumors of an EOS-mount Kodak camera are completely unfounded.
I've got 4 1Ds bodies on order (each from a different source), so I'm hoping to get one ASAP. Once I have one, I won't be shooting any more 35mm film, I can guarantee you that.
Cheers:
Grumpy
www.grumpysworld.com
Gee, this is quite a thread here. I'm no expert when it comes to the more scientific stuff, but as someone who spent a day shooting with a 1Ds and has his own images of subjects he understands, I agree wholeheartedly with Michael's (and Rob's, etc.) conclusions.
I really didn't think it was possible for a mere 11MP to best 35mm chromes, but for my sort of shooting, it certainly does. I've been shooting with Provia 100F in my EOS1v for a couple of years now, and have made countless scans with both the Polaroid SS4000 and my Howtek SM4500 drum scanner. Even my best drum scans can't hold up to the 1Ds images, in spite of being substantially larger in file size. I've got the prints to prove it.
I did all my shooting in raw mode, and used a private beta of Zoombrowser to convert them to tif. I recall the moment I first laid eyes upon the converted image. It looked a bit soft, just like the images out of the D30 do, but this is a good thing, not a bad thing. You can sharpen the #### out of the images the 1Ds produces and the results are stunning. The level of detail in the image is really unbelievable.
I did hear a rumor that the Kodak 12MP body does NOT include an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor. If true, this should sound an alarm, since you MUST prevent spatial frequencies above the limits of the sensor from being captured. Once they're in the captured image, all the post-processing in the world won't save you. I was told the anti-aliasing filter in the 1Ds cost $2000 all by itself, which is one reason the 1Ds is priced so much higher than the Kodak. Trust me, you really DO want that filter there. I was also told the rumors of an EOS-mount Kodak camera are completely unfounded.
I've got 4 1Ds bodies on order (each from a different source), so I'm hoping to get one ASAP. Once I have one, I won't be shooting any more 35mm film, I can guarantee you that.
Cheers:
Grumpy
www.grumpysworld.com
QUOTE (Ray @ Oct. 27 2002,20:23)
BTW, Norman Koren makes a few predictions about future developments of 35mm sized sensors. He envisages a 24 megapixel sensor that has 1.39x the resolution of 35mm film.
Hi again, Perhaps we are not as far apart as appeared at first sight. I note that Norman Koren's prediction of 24 megapixels for a 35 full format translates into 6 micron square pixels (4000x6000), capable of critical sampling of a 80 lp/mm lens. Somewhere in Canon's vast stable, there must be such a lens, perhaps the 600/4? The D60 already has 7.5 micron pixels. So within spitting distance. Since lens development is not static, though perhaps not proceeding by leaps and bounds like sensors, that cross-over point regarding the best compromise for pixel-size, noise-sensitivity, lens resolution will shift continuously towards smaller pixels, with enough time. IMHO, the 7.5microns in a D60 remain useful today between f5.6 and f11, but are overkill outside that range with the lenses I tested. At f22 those pixels are an overkill even for a theoretically perfect lens. Again, using Nyquist and FWHM to get "critical" sampling. For me, first priority remains a full-format sensor, probably for the vast majority of us :-)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.