Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon 1Ds replacement ... shooting the Canon 20D in Alaska

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon 1Ds replacement ... shooting the Canon 20D in Alaska

 
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004
I just got back from 11 days in the backcountry, 9 days of smoke and rain, one
day of OK shooting on caribou and wolves, then yesterday was a wonderful day
with 4 hours shooting a grizzly at close range as it foraged nearby and 2 hours
shooting a wolf pack on a caribou kill at East Fork of Toklat river (Denali).
The kill was just a few yards from the bridge so we could shoot full-frame with
a 500 mm. Some days you stomp the grapes, some days you drink the wine.

One of the people with us for 5 days is a contract pro with Canon and had two
20D's with him, taking promo shots for Canon. He let us slip in a card and
shoot RAW+Jpeg (can only look at the jpegs until the RAW converters are
updated) and it was a pretty nice little camera from the images I saw,
definitely a step up from the 10D. I still prefer my 1D Mark II for faster
shooting and 1Ds for larger prints, but the 20D looks like a great camera.

He also mentioned that Canon will "soon" announce the 1Ds replacement, a 16
Megapixel model that will be pretty close to medium format in print quality.
From what he said it will be announced at the Sept photo show (Photokina?). I
wish he had one on this trip to play with

No guarantees, sometimes rumors don't pan out but this was from someone in a
position to know what's going on for real. So maybe hold off on the 1Ds
purchase for a few days to see what's announced.

Don't email me with questions, I'm back into the woods in two days to
photograph brown bears for a while. Life is good!

Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004

"Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> He also mentioned that Canon will "soon" announce the 1Ds
> replacement, a 16 Megapixel model that will be pretty close
> to medium format in print quality.


(IMHO, 16MP will be better than 645 for all practical purposes, no matter
how 645 is printed. Since 12 or 13.5MP would still be arguably not quite as
good as 645, I suppose there really is meaning to jumping to 16MP as soon as
possible.)

Hmm. I'd rather see 13.5MP (3000 x 4600) (or even 12MP (2830 x 4245)) and
lower noise than 3266 x 4900 (although 3300 x 4950 would be cute: 11x14 at
300 dpi).

I guess they're amused by the idea of 13x19s at better quality than 8x10s
from the 6MP cameras<g>.

The problem, though, is that 16MP requires 46 lp/mm at a fairly decent
contrast, and if you look at Canon's published MTF charts, they only go to
30 lp/mm, and lenses are often quite funky at the edges/corners even at 30
lp/mm. Especially wide angle lenses.

We'll probably see a lot of test shots taken with the 100/2.0 lens, one of
the very few lenses ever made that holds up out to the corners<g>.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/photo/comparo6.htm

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
S Lee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004
David J. Littleboy choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons
to spell out:

> We'll probably see a lot of test shots taken with the 100/2.0 lens,
> one of the very few lenses ever made that holds up out to the
> corners<g>.


I've got one of those, get me a 1Ds II
As far as the lenses vs. pixels situation goes--well, one is a lot
easier to improve than the other.

--
__ (-o-) <*> A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
(__ * _ _ _ _
__)|| | |(_)| \ "Mmm... unexplained bacon."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:chgj7h$vla$(E-Mail Removed)...
SNIP
> The problem, though, is that 16MP requires 46 lp/mm at a fairly

decent
> contrast, and if you look at Canon's published MTF charts, they only

go to
> 30 lp/mm, and lenses are often quite funky at the edges/corners even

at 30
> lp/mm. Especially wide angle lenses.


Not quite. The charts only show a line for 10 and 30 lp/mm. We have no
information how these lenses perform at higher spatial frequencies,
but we do know that the sensor itself poses a physical limitation with
its native sampling density, its AA-filter, its fill
factor/microlenses, and its physical size. The modulation of lenses
tapers off gradually, but usually exceeds the sensor by far.

The 1Ds for example has a sampling density of 8.8 micron which poses
an absolute upper limit of 56.8 cycles/mm, and that is before the AA
filter reduces the modulation. A 'full frame' 16MP sensor would
presumably have a sampling density of 7.3 to 7.4 micron, with an
inherent limiting resolution of 68.5 - 67.6 cy/mm dictated by the
Nyquist frequency.

In current practice (small sample) this works out to something like
this:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/f...SFR_Graphs.png (I know
it's too crowded with lines)
It shows the measured MTFs of a few cameras with decent lenses,
adjusted for equal output size by using the same criterion as DPreview
does; Line Widths per Image Height but based on a fourier analysis
instead of on haphazard alignment of bi-tonal (square wave signal)
patterns with the sensor array. The triangles are at the Nyquist
limit. Any significant modulation (say >10%) beyond Nyquist will
result in visible aliasing (10% of a 100:1 subject contrast will be
visible to the human eye).

I'm well aware of the shortcomings of such a limited test, but it is
more useful than theory only. The test was performed with the help of
the Imatest application (www.imatest.com).

Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark M
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004

"Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

<SNIP...of the stuff that makes me GREEN with envy (Alaska)>

> He also mentioned that Canon will "soon" announce the 1Ds replacement, a

16
> Megapixel model that will be pretty close to medium format in print

quality.
> From what he said it will be announced at the Sept photo show

(Photokina?). I
> wish he had one on this trip to play with


I suspect that we have Nikon to thank for this relatively quick upgrade (if
it's really coming this month). This most likely means that Nikon is about
to release their own full-frame show-stopper to compete with the 1Ds, so
Canon is compelled to push forward once again. This is getting VERY VERY
interesting.

If it's true, I'll be waiting to see what happens to prices.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004

"Bart van der Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:chgj7h$vla$(E-Mail Removed)...
> SNIP
> > The problem, though, is that 16MP requires 46 lp/mm at a fairly

> decent
> > contrast, and if you look at Canon's published MTF charts, they only

> go to
> > 30 lp/mm, and lenses are often quite funky at the edges/corners even

> at 30
> > lp/mm. Especially wide angle lenses.

>
> Not quite. The charts only show a line for 10 and 30 lp/mm. We have no
> information how these lenses perform at higher spatial frequencies,


Yes, but it's a good guess things are a lot worse at 45 lp/mm than at 30
lp/mm. Especially for normal and wider lenses. (Medium telephoto primes will
be fine all the way out to the corners, I suspect, even at 45 lp/mm. My
jaundiced view of photographic technology is due in part to my intest in
subject-free images of large spaces. Voyeurs, birdwatchers, and insect
molesters have more fun.)

> but we do know that the sensor itself poses a physical limitation with
> its native sampling density, its AA-filter, its fill
> factor/microlenses, and its physical size. The modulation of lenses
> tapers off gradually, but usually exceeds the sensor by far.


By now we know that digital systems cough up decent contrast at 2/3 the
Nyquist frequency, and to do that, the lens has to cough up decent contrast
at 2/3 the Nyquist frequency. And Canon wide angle lenses clearly won't do
that at the corners at 45 lp/mm. That's a reasonable inference from those
graphs.

> The 1Ds for example has a sampling density of 8.8 micron which poses
> an absolute upper limit of 56.8 cycles/mm, and that is before the AA
> filter reduces the modulation. A 'full frame' 16MP sensor would
> presumably have a sampling density of 7.3 to 7.4 micron, with an
> inherent limiting resolution of 68.5 - 67.6 cy/mm dictated by the
> Nyquist frequency.


Unlike you, I'm interested in _practical_ imaging. And I've looked closely
at the charts, and you're right: if you look at 800% on the screen, you can
see that, for example, the 1Ds really does resolve the charts well above 2/3
of the Nyquist frequency. But for making images of real scenes that people
will actually look at, stuff that you can only see at 800% really isn't
relevant.

So I take 2/3 Nyquist frequency, where, at 100% on the screen one can barely
count the lines in the chart, as a point where I need decent contrast.
Agonizing about what happens above that seems seriously pointless.

It seems to me that this "practical imaging cutoff frequency" is quite a bit
lower for film. Theory should, after all, reflect practical reality. And
film images look really grody at high magnifications.

By the way, I'm finding that with my eyes, 200 dpi looks pretty good at 10
or 12 inches, but doesn't hold up at 4 inches (whereas 330 dpi from 1Ds
images do<g>). But 200 dpi is a 17x enlargement from the 300D sensor.

My experience with film is that 17x enlargements are nowhere near acceptable
at just about any distance.

Of course, 200 dpi from the 1Ds sensor is more like a 14x magnification.
Film looks pretty poor at 14x, nowhere near as good as digital at 200 dpi.

So your data (graph below) that sharpened Provia "has a better MTF" than the
1Ds doesn't jibe with subjective reality.

> In current practice (small sample) this works out to something like
> this:
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/f...SFR_Graphs.png (I know
> it's too crowded with lines)


Actualy, not enough lines. It would be interesting to see no sharpening vs.
aggressive sharpening for the 10D.

Interesting. Especially that the 20D without sharpening is the same as the
10D, but that sharpening really helps. I wonder if they're using the same AA
filter but that the extra pixels allow sharpening to rescue more detail.

But it fails to capture the perceptual experience that scans are really
really ugly. Resolution isn't worth doodly squat if you can't make pictures
with it, and the detail out at the tail of the MTF curve dies a hideous
death in the noise. And I'm not convinced NeatImage helps half as much as
you think it does.

> It shows the measured MTFs of a few cameras with decent lenses,
> adjusted for equal output size by using the same criterion as DPreview
> does; Line Widths per Image Height but based on a fourier analysis
> instead of on haphazard alignment of bi-tonal (square wave signal)
> patterns with the sensor array. The triangles are at the Nyquist
> limit. Any significant modulation (say >10%) beyond Nyquist will
> result in visible aliasing (10% of a 100:1 subject contrast will be
> visible to the human eye).
>
> I'm well aware of the shortcomings of such a limited test, but it is
> more useful than theory only. The test was performed with the help of
> the Imatest application (www.imatest.com).


Yes. A neat idea (if I understand correctly): basically a single edge
transition gives you enough information to calculated the whole MTF curve.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004

"Mark M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> > He also mentioned that Canon will "soon" announce the 1Ds replacement, a

> 16
> > Megapixel model that will be pretty close to medium format in print

> quality.
> > From what he said it will be announced at the Sept photo show

> (Photokina?). I
> > wish he had one on this trip to play with

>
> I suspect that we have Nikon to thank for this relatively quick upgrade

(if
> it's really coming this month).


I suspect it's more Kodak's fault. I was expecting either 12MP or the same
13.5 MP as Kodak, but in thinking about it, since Kodak doesn't use an AA
filter, the aliased eye candy would kill Canon in the reviews, so they had
to crank the pixel count.

To a certain extent, I don't like it when bogus technology forces honest
mfrs to make decisions they might not make otherwise, but I'm also tempted
to shout THANK YOU KODAK at the top of my lungs.

If this 16MP rumor is true, Canon is really serious about kicking butt at
the high end<g>.

I've always thought that 16MP (essentially filling the frame with 10D
pixels) was the right idea as the long term target, but it strikes me as
overkill now. 12MP images printed at A4 (325 dpi or so) on a current inkjet
are amazing: you can put your nose on the print and it looks good. And since
200dpi looks great from 10 or 12 inches away, it's fine for 13x19 (although
real hardcore landscape types will be happier with the 250 dpi from 16MP).

Hmm. Maybe Canon were right: 16MP is 200 dpi at 16x24. And 200 dpi from
digital looks a lot better than 16x magnifications from film. So 16MP is
seriously interesting at the high end.

Still, I'd sell my grandmother to the arabs for a 12MP full-frame camera,
though.

> This most likely means that Nikon is about
> to release their own full-frame show-stopper to compete with the 1Ds, so
> Canon is compelled to push forward once again. This is getting VERY VERY
> interesting.
>
> If it's true, I'll be waiting to see what happens to prices.


Pro cameras will never be affordable or liftable by amateurs. I really hope
Canon comes out with a full-frame midrange in the $3,000 price range. Oh,
well, back to scanning 645 for now.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Clyde Torres
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004
"Mark M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:vxY_c.266020$Oi.251246@fed1read04...
>
> "Bill Hilton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> <SNIP...of the stuff that makes me GREEN with envy (Alaska)>
>
> > He also mentioned that Canon will "soon" announce the 1Ds replacement, a

> 16
> > Megapixel model that will be pretty close to medium format in print

> quality.
> > From what he said it will be announced at the Sept photo show

> (Photokina?). I
> > wish he had one on this trip to play with

>
> I suspect that we have Nikon to thank for this relatively quick upgrade

(if
> it's really coming this month). This most likely means that Nikon is

about
> to release their own full-frame show-stopper to compete with the 1Ds, so
> Canon is compelled to push forward once again. This is getting VERY VERY
> interesting.
>
> If it's true, I'll be waiting to see what happens to prices.


Since following this newsgroup, I've noticed that there are some rather
biased Canon and Nikon users, probably rightly so based on each persons'
experiences. All I know is that I am very glad that Canon and Nikon push
each other toward better cameras. I just happened to come along at a time
when the D70 came out and judged it the best camera for the money two months
ago. I am very happy with it, and it has produced professional quality
pictures of my granddaughters. If I were shopping for a dSLR camera this
month, I would wait and look at the 20D. I like the competition between
Canon and Nikon. It helps make sure that we have consistently better
cameras to play with. Some of the other vendors have some pretty decent
cameras, too, but it is these two vendors that drive the dSLR/dPaS camera
industry. Thank you both!

The only thing I can criticize about my D70/AF-S 18-70mm combo is the time
based SW it came with. Nikon Capture 4 is a POS. How does the Canon SW
compare to the Nikon SW? Any cross dressers out there know?

Clyde Torres


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004

"Clyde Torres" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> The only thing I can criticize about my D70/AF-S 18-70mm combo is the time
> based SW it came with. Nikon Capture 4 is a POS. How does the Canon SW
> compare to the Nikon SW? Any cross dressers out there know?


I'm not a cross dresser, but Canon's software isn't all that great. I like
BreezeBrowser a lot better. Unfortunately, it only offers "basic" raw
conversion for Nikon, not the "high quality" conversion it offers for Canon.

You could consider Photoshop CS.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
Clyde Torres
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-06-2004
"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:chi9na$epl$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Clyde Torres" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > The only thing I can criticize about my D70/AF-S 18-70mm combo is the

time
> > based SW it came with. Nikon Capture 4 is a POS. How does the Canon SW
> > compare to the Nikon SW? Any cross dressers out there know?

>
> I'm not a cross dresser, but Canon's software isn't all that great. I like
> BreezeBrowser a lot better. Unfortunately, it only offers "basic" raw
> conversion for Nikon, not the "high quality" conversion it offers for

Canon.
>
> You could consider Photoshop CS.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan


David, a friend of mine let me borrow Photoshop CS for one month to try it
out. At the end of the "trial period," he couldn't wait to do the
switcharoo. Now I'm seriously considering buying Photoshop CS, but it costs
about half of what the camera cost! Kind of like bin Laden, it's just a
matter of biting the bullet.

Clyde Torres


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will a tamron sp 2x pro teleconverter work with a canon 75-300 IS lens? Going to Alaska Digital Photography 16 03-12-2006 12:04 AM
Canon 1Ds Mark-II + Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 21 02-05-2005 11:43 PM
Cano?n 20D Portrait Mode Continuous Shooting Henador Titzoff Digital Photography 4 10-12-2004 12:36 AM
1Ds mkII? No more 1Ds in UK Keith Cooper Digital Photography 7 06-17-2004 06:23 PM



Advertisments