John Sheehy
New member
Pixels are not adverse to DR. You can not gauge the DR of an image by the DR of its pixels. A 4MP camera with 1/2 the pixel noise of a 16MP camera has the same image noise, and lower resolution.
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
1DSMKIII Early news
- Thread starter Paul Bestwick
- Start date
Pixels are not adverse to DR. You can not gauge the DR of an image by the DR of its pixels. A 4MP camera with 1/2 the pixel noise of a 16MP camera has the same image noise, and lower resolution.
Nill Toulme
New member
Tom Henkel
New member
So...It's an issue of practical use. I would be delighted if the 1DsMkIII offered 22mp @ 7fps (assuming it doesn't dramatically increase the price). But if you regularly shoot action situations it's still too slow and burns up too much memory to be your primary camera.
If you were given the assignment of shooting a high resolution action shot for the cover of Sports Illustrated, a 1Ds MkIII (assuming 22mp/7fps turns out to be what is really announced) would certainly get the job done. For some fashion shoots it would be fantastic. Same with wildlife shooting. But you would still want to carry a 1D MkIII for regular action coverage because the limitations of this sort of camera would eventually get in your way. You would either have to shoot tethered to a big hard disk or carry a bunch of memory cards in the field.
To its credit, Canon responded to real customer needs with the 1D MkIII. I haven't seen a significant customer outcry for a high fps 1Ds. More DR? You bet. Higher ISO? yes. Better IQ? Always. More fps? -- sure if you can throw it in at no additional cost.
It seems to me the 7fps rumor is a variation of the consolidated 1D/1Ds rumor that was floating around last year at this time. While I would love to see it happen, I'm skeptical that it's real.
Tom
Aaron Strasburg
New member
Asher,
The 1DIII has to switch off AF when in live preview because the mirror's no longer there to bounce the light onto the AF sensor. I suppose you could do some sort of contrast detection as on point and shoot cameras using the main sensor, but I don't think you'd be very happy with that.
I don't know about the Olympus cameras with live preview. I vaguely remember that the E330 uses a second, lower resolution sensor for live preview so it may actually be able to maintain AF.
Aaron
The 1DIII has to switch off AF when in live preview because the mirror's no longer there to bounce the light onto the AF sensor. I suppose you could do some sort of contrast detection as on point and shoot cameras using the main sensor, but I don't think you'd be very happy with that.
I don't know about the Olympus cameras with live preview. I vaguely remember that the E330 uses a second, lower resolution sensor for live preview so it may actually be able to maintain AF.
Aaron
Neil Turner D30
Asher,
that was a fantastic flashback! well done.
I do remember the pictures, Neil did surprise myself too.
how much improvement you ask? LOL from THAT?
now we have better high ISO shots. Do we? Or we maybe think that we do.
It was not so long ago (but still several years ago) when I took this shot that made it to the news that day and one my first with a digital camera with that destination. 1Ds RAW manual ISO 500 1/100 2.8. Flash (metz 54 in AUTO) set -1 (EV) bounced with omnibounce) second reflector active.
it was a typical ISO 500 2.8 shot and by then I was amazed by the power of digital in terms of resolution and pure definition. ISO 500... 100 more than my usual shots with film. And I was so happy. The shadows there tell the story, and there is no sign of noise (in the shadows). This shot was basically "untouched" by Post Processing, not even luminosity, not even USM.
Today all I hear is how to fight the noise. and how many more pixels can be packed into the same area.
looking at the pictures Neil took with a D30 sure one starts thinking... and thinking
good you did reminding us about it!
Asher,
that was a fantastic flashback! well done.
I do remember the pictures, Neil did surprise myself too.
how much improvement you ask? LOL from THAT?
now we have better high ISO shots. Do we? Or we maybe think that we do.
It was not so long ago (but still several years ago) when I took this shot that made it to the news that day and one my first with a digital camera with that destination. 1Ds RAW manual ISO 500 1/100 2.8. Flash (metz 54 in AUTO) set -1 (EV) bounced with omnibounce) second reflector active.
it was a typical ISO 500 2.8 shot and by then I was amazed by the power of digital in terms of resolution and pure definition. ISO 500... 100 more than my usual shots with film. And I was so happy. The shadows there tell the story, and there is no sign of noise (in the shadows). This shot was basically "untouched" by Post Processing, not even luminosity, not even USM.
Today all I hear is how to fight the noise. and how many more pixels can be packed into the same area.
looking at the pictures Neil took with a D30 sure one starts thinking... and thinking
good you did reminding us about it!
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
With the current Canon AF system it has to disable AF, because the AF sensors get their light from the little rear mirror behind the main mirror (a proven system that appears to work fine). So the mirror has to be in place for auto focus. Once the mirror is flipped up and out of the way, then the projected image can be viewed when the shutter is opened. Before the actual exposure the shutter has to be physically closed in order to allow resetting the sensor array, draining all charge (sometimes multiple drains).
Point and Shoot cameras sometimes use an electronic shutter (draining while being exposed), but the better ones also use a physical shutter which improves dynamic range.
Bart
Paul Bestwick
pro member
Mark once again I am reminded (by your post ) about the amount of BS regarding, noise, IQ, etc, etc. Who cares.
I came through using blads & I thouht they were the bees knees. Now I am not the type of guy that shoots brick walls or test charts.........(for those that do that is great......saves me doing it) I just have real life customers...they love what I do. Now if you looked through my work technically there is no question you would find fault. However, you want to give me my Blads back.........shove it baby, digital rocks. My 1DSII is gold. Due to my ignorance I don't even push the files to the max potential, but even with my limited knowledge the images kill anything I was getting out of the Hasslebalds (film) If this was the end game as far as digital is concerned I would be more then happy...........however........as I have previously stated, bring on that 1DSMKIII, it is gonna seriously rock.
Ciao,
Paul
I came through using blads & I thouht they were the bees knees. Now I am not the type of guy that shoots brick walls or test charts.........(for those that do that is great......saves me doing it) I just have real life customers...they love what I do. Now if you looked through my work technically there is no question you would find fault. However, you want to give me my Blads back.........shove it baby, digital rocks. My 1DSII is gold. Due to my ignorance I don't even push the files to the max potential, but even with my limited knowledge the images kill anything I was getting out of the Hasslebalds (film) If this was the end game as far as digital is concerned I would be more then happy...........however........as I have previously stated, bring on that 1DSMKIII, it is gonna seriously rock.
Ciao,
Paul
John_Nevill
New member
This is an interesting debate, I does make wonder what the end game is, although does it really matter?, dSLRs are becoming commodities akin to computers, on day the you buy them they're obselete.
3 years ago the average Joe used a £200 digicam , now everwhere I go I see dSLRs.
I use 1DMKIINs and if had £1 for everyone that recently snubbed it for its lowly 8mp resolution, in a "look at my 10mp+ model", I'd have a 1DSMkII by now.
Surely photography is about the image and what you get out of your camera, if its film, digital or organic(?), again does it matter?
Although I must confess to shooting targets, but not brick walls!, At the time it was a learning exrecise to both familiarise myself with the product and to determine its limitations. Which at the end of the day probably turned out to be me!
3 years ago the average Joe used a £200 digicam , now everwhere I go I see dSLRs.
I use 1DMKIINs and if had £1 for everyone that recently snubbed it for its lowly 8mp resolution, in a "look at my 10mp+ model", I'd have a 1DSMkII by now.
Surely photography is about the image and what you get out of your camera, if its film, digital or organic(?), again does it matter?
Although I must confess to shooting targets, but not brick walls!, At the time it was a learning exrecise to both familiarise myself with the product and to determine its limitations. Which at the end of the day probably turned out to be me!
Will_Perlis
New member
John,
The "Mine is better than yours" thing has been going on since Grofplug compared his rock to the one Frebjor picked up, it's just that the net spreads it more rapidly and widely. The same goes for nit-picking about the not relevant. I'm convinced that if some photographer got a shot of the Buddah, Christ, Abraham, and Mohammad at a coffee house, hashing out what God really meant, some dude on the net would complain about a sensor dust spot on a robe or a blown highlight in a halo.
IMO, one must learn to ignore the rabble, and in a really indifferent way, not in a defiant way that gives their opinions weight. Fortunately, the net provides ample opportunities for that learning.
The "Mine is better than yours" thing has been going on since Grofplug compared his rock to the one Frebjor picked up, it's just that the net spreads it more rapidly and widely. The same goes for nit-picking about the not relevant. I'm convinced that if some photographer got a shot of the Buddah, Christ, Abraham, and Mohammad at a coffee house, hashing out what God really meant, some dude on the net would complain about a sensor dust spot on a robe or a blown highlight in a halo.
IMO, one must learn to ignore the rabble, and in a really indifferent way, not in a defiant way that gives their opinions weight. Fortunately, the net provides ample opportunities for that learning.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Will,
This sums up the main thrust of this community, going from what the photographer has in his/her head to an impressive print and then joy. It's not more complicated than that!
I happen to call this The Arc of Intent. It concentrates on our effort not the camera's prowess.
The camera is just something in between the photographers imagination and the thrill of those who "get it" time and again when looking at the photographer's work.
Asher