21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Aug 20, 2007.

  1. Wayne J. Cosshall, Aug 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mick Brown Guest

    Mick Brown, Aug 20, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wayne J. Cosshall, Aug 20, 2007
    #3
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    frederick Guest

    frederick, Aug 20, 2007
    #4
  5. Mamiya says US$9,999. Where are you seeing it for US$7,000???

    http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2281

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 20, 2007
    #5
  6. Wayne J. Cosshall

    acl Guest

    acl, Aug 20, 2007
    #6
  7. Nope. Haven't computed it yet. Sheesh. I must be getting old. (Or fried by
    the heat.)

    Let's see. 21.1 MP implies that'd be 8.2MP in a 1.6x camera or 9.4MP in a
    1.5x camera.

    5616 x 3744 => 3744/24 = 156 pixels per mm, or 6.4 microns.

    That's a Nyquist frequency of 78 lp/mm, and you'd like 50% MTF at around 75%
    of that, so that's 58 lp/mm. 800/58 = 13.8, so the beast will probably be,
    like the D2x, a tad soft at f/16.

    (Has the heat fried my math???)

    So for max sharpness, you're going to be shooting at f/8 and f/11 a lot with
    lenses under 100mm.

    Of course, my reading of figure 5 on this page indicates that there's no
    point to bothering with a 14-bit A/D converter on either this or the 40D.
    (Note that the 10MP D200 is a straight line down from its ISO 100
    performance, which means that the ADC + electronics are adequate to pull out
    all the sensor is giving at ISO 100.) It sure looks to me that 14 bits only
    will be making sense on the 1DIII and 5DII (if such a creature appears at
    16MP).

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 20, 2007
    #7
  8. Wayne J. Cosshall

    acl Guest

    No calculator, no idea :) 6 microns seems right. Right about as big as
    the d200's pixels :)
    lateral CA can be a serious problem on the d200. I think it'll be a
    nightmare to find lenses to use on the 1dsmkiii (if you look at
    pixels).
    Yes, that's what one would conclude from that page. Probaly the case.
    Let's see what the advantage of 14 bit ADCs are for the 10mp camera
    (the 1dmkiii or whatever the right name is), I am curious. Do you know
    of any test or practical demonstration?

    A few days ago, I attempted to go to dpreview to check if anybody had
    done it; instead, I ended up having an argument in the nikon forum
    with some pompous idiot who claimed that the size of the diffraction
    spot depends on the focal length (he also claimed that photons have a
    length equal to their wavelength, and other things of this sort...).
    So if there's a test somewhere there about the 14-bit ADCs, I missed
    it :) Any links?
     
    acl, Aug 20, 2007
    #8
  9. Not Disclosed, Aug 20, 2007
    #9
  10. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Annika1980 Guest

    I thought Wayne was a Nikon shill?
     
    Annika1980, Aug 20, 2007
    #10
  11. Don't be rude, both of you!

    Let me see if I can explain how the technical press work. We receive
    press releases. Some rewrite the press release in their own words and
    publish it. I prefer to just publish the press release until I have
    something meaningful to say from actually using the camera (if that is
    what we are talking about). Each magazine, whether online or in print
    does this, in their own way.

    CHeers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Photography and Art Forums http://www.dimagemaker.com/forums/index.php
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Aug 20, 2007
    #11
  12. Wayne J. Cosshall

    frederick Guest

    Ooops - it's the ZD back for $7k.
    You get a "kit" lens with the $10k ZD package.
    But if it's the same 80mm f2.8 lens as listed at B&H, then it's a $600 lens.

    Darn - I was going to try that to get my wife to allow me to buy one -
    "but see - it's less expensive than that one".

    Back to reality, as nice as it is, I think that the 40d for $1299 is
    more of a shake up to the DSLR market than the "long expected" IDsIII.
     
    frederick, Aug 20, 2007
    #12
  13. Wayne J. Cosshall

    acl Guest

    Well, what's so surprising about it? Take the specs of the 30D,
    increase everything a bit, and there you go. The same as every time.
    Just like the 1d mkiii was, and so on.
     
    acl, Aug 20, 2007
    #13
  14. Wayne J. Cosshall

    frederick Guest

    IMO, the surprise is that, as you say, they increased *everything* a bit.
     
    frederick, Aug 20, 2007
    #14
  15. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Alan Browne Guest

    Nothing says you have to upgrade *every* time. You can keep camera 'a'
    for a few years, then jump to camera 'd' a few years later. Otherwise
    the $/benefit ratio is rather low.
     
    Alan Browne, Aug 21, 2007
    #15
  16. Wayne J. Cosshall

    acl Guest

    Yes of course I agree. I was making a remark on frederick's comment
    thatie the 40D isn't that surprising (I thought, at least).
     
    acl, Aug 21, 2007
    #16
  17. Wayne J. Cosshall

    John Sheehy Guest

    http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/76001165

    This is levels 0-255 (in the green channel) out of the 14256 levels of a
    1Dmk3 ISO 100 file, with 14-bit, 12-bit, 11-bit, and 10-bit precision from
    the original RAW. The mathematical conversions to RGB are all performed
    with the same precision, though, as they were padded with zeros to replace
    the truncated bits.

    My padding of the zeros is probably key in getting almost exactly the same
    results between 14-bit and 12-bit, and unfortunately, the masses are going
    to draw the wrong conclusions about why they seem to get better results
    with the 14-bit files; it may very well be that most or all of the benefit
    comes from forcing conversion software to use two more bits of precision;
    something they should have been doing anyway.

    --
     
    John Sheehy, Aug 21, 2007
    #17
  18. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Pete D Guest

    I thought he was shill for dimagemaker?
     
    Pete D, Aug 21, 2007
    #18
  19. Wayne J. Cosshall

    acl Guest

    I didn't understand. How did you truncate, did you simply replace the
    2 lowest bits by zeros or what?
     
    acl, Aug 21, 2007
    #19
  20. Wayne J. Cosshall

    SmartGuy Guest

    I read the specs at dpreview. I still wouldn't buy it. While the (finally!) 2x
    resolution increase would be nice over a 5mpx camera, I get the very same
    features in my S3 IS with CHDK and can take the very same resolution as the 1Ds
    with a 4-panel stitched frame, plus so many more features that the 1Ds can never
    have. Minus all the hundred or so drawbacks that any DSLR has over any P&S
    camera.

    They can keep it.

    Only fools out to impress an uneducated client would buy it. They'll make a
    fortune selling to that vast audience. If someone gave one to me I would find it
    an interesting novelty to leave on the shelf. What else would I do with it? Did
    you check out that gargantuan size and weight?

    They can keep it.
     
    SmartGuy, Aug 21, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.