| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2007 07:10:47 PM · #1 |
I am in the market to buy a new camera. I was just about to buy the 1Ds Mk11 when I read the thread and information about the new 1D mk111. I don't have a specific area I need the camera for but do like action/sports shots. I am currently using a 5d and will definitely keep this camera.
The only thing stopping me buying the 16.7 megapixels is the fps rate. If I go with the 10megapixels will I notice a huge drop in the quality of images compared with the 5d? The 10fps has really got me interested.
Your opinions on this would be greatly appreciated. Will the quality of the 1ds Mk 11 outway the fps rate?
thanks in advance |
|
|
|
03/27/2007 07:13:22 PM · #2 |
| 10mp is likely plenty unless you're planning on making GIGANTIC prints. |
|
|
|
03/27/2007 07:37:48 PM · #3 |
Bottom line is that the image quality from the 1Ds mkII is only very slightly better, resolution-wise, than the 5D. It's much closer than you'd imagine, given the 1Ds mkII has 31% more pixels. The 5D also pretty much equals or betters it in noise. The advantages of the 1Ds mkII mainly lie with the features of the 1-series body, and unless you absolutely need some of those features, IMO the 1Ds is not in any way worth well over double the price of the 5D.
For sports, the 1DmkIII is *the* machine for the job. If you are shooting sports events for pay, you'll love the camera. From the samples I've seen, I think you will notice some difference in overall image quality between the mkIII and your 5D. It seems like the mkIII has a slightly stronger AA filter and therefore images are a little softer out-of-camera. The samples posted thus far, however, are not completely conclusive, since many of them were taken under uncontrolled conditions. The official Canon samples, though, do seem to indicate the 5D has a noticeable advantage in resolution, whereas the mkIII has a moderate advantage in noise (when you can best the 5D's noise performance, you've achieved something!). |
|
|
|
03/27/2007 07:43:47 PM · #4 |
A friend of mine at CPS has told me that the 1DsII and 5D are primarily looked upon within Canon as Studio/Portrait Cameras, where the 1DIII is targeted at the Sports/Action/Media market. ala...high frame rate and pix count.
my 2bob anyway
|
|
|
|
03/27/2007 08:14:35 PM · #5 |
10 megapixels is PLENTY and the fps is prolly MUCH more important to you than being able to print extremely high res LARGE posters if I understand your needs as stated ...
Mind you ... I would take either one should you wish to donate ...
|
|
|
|
03/27/2007 08:35:03 PM · #6 |
I love my 5D for its full frame. I would love to have the Mark III for its frame rate and its even-lower-than-the-5D noise and ability to go up to ISO 6400.
As for what you will lose... really, it's not that much. Look at the image sizes:
3888 x 2592 Mark III
4368 x 2912 5D
That makes the 5D just 480 pixels longer and 320 pixels taller. Translated into print terms (assuming 300dpi), we're only talking an inch and a half longways and one inch on height.
So if you're going for really large prints, maybe you'll care about the smaller sensor. But otherwise, I think 10mp is going to do just fine.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2007 08:45:18 PM · #7 |
And
a 1.3 cropfactor (1DMkIII) should be preferable to a FF camera, if you're shooting sports/action. I'd imagine you'd want to be as close to the action as you can, which means long zooms, no? |
|
|
|
03/27/2007 08:45:32 PM · #8 |
All this talk about how large you can print... unless you have VERY good glass, in perfect focus, at its aperture sweet point, you really won't have to worry about hitting the actual resolution limit of either of those cameras. With your L lenses, stopped down about two stops, with shutter speed in the thousandths of a second, you might reach pixel sharpness - otherwise, it's all a matter of HOW out of focus each point is, and if it's more than a pixel, then you'll get the same level of detail digitally upscaling images from 10mpix to 16.7.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 08:46:06 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by riot:
All this talk about how large you can print... unless you have VERY good glass, in perfect focus, at its aperture sweet point, you really won't have to worry about hitting the actual resolution limit of either of those cameras. |
Pardon me for saying so, but this is really not good information. Under the same conditions of focal length and shutter speed, it's actually easier to reach the "resolution limit" of the sensor with the 5D than with a 30D, for instance. That's leaving aside the relative strength of AA filters, which throw a wrench in these calculations. The reason it's easier is that the 5D has larger pixels. Now, when we frame the question differently and talk about "same framing" then we do need 1.6 times the focal length with the 5D, and it becomes slightly more difficult with the 5D than the 30D. But to say that unless everything is perfect you won't get there is to completely overstate the issue.
I've purposely compared two cameras that differ greatly in sensor size and pixel pitch. Comparing the 5D, 1DsII and 1D mkIII is fruitless. Their pixel pitch is so nearly the same (within about 10%) that differences are mainly due to other factors like the AA filter. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:28:39 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Under the same conditions of focal length and shutter speed, it's actually easier to reach the "resolution limit" of the sensor with the 5D than with a 30D, for instance ... Now, when we frame the question differently and talk about "same framing" then we do need 1.6 times the focal length with the 5D, and it becomes slightly more difficult with the 5D than the 30D. But to say that unless everything is perfect you won't get there is to completely overstate the issue. |
I think we may be on different wavelengths - i wasn't talking about pixel pitch and so forth, although that does of course make a difference. I was suggesting that for most lenses at most apertures in real-life situations with natural light etc, even on the 5D you will not often get single-pixel sharpness in your images - in fact, perhaps less so on the 5D, because the full frame sensor covers the outer areas of the image which are often less sharp than the central area (depending on the lens, of course). All i'm saying is, i've yet to see a straight-from-the-camera image, of a natural scene under natural light (rather than a test-chart) from a 5D (or anything since the 1D classic) in which there are 100% clean edges or clear highlights or light or dark points that span ONLY a single pixel - those areas where higher sensor resolution would genuinely yield more detail, rather than more clearly defined edges on slightly-out-of-focus blobs.
Sure the AA filter is involved to some degree, but i'm suggesting that the limitations of NORMAL glass used in NORMAL (i.e. non-ideal) conditions prevent you from reaching the resolution barrier long before you reach test chart level results.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:48:05 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
And
a 1.3 cropfactor (1DMkIII) should be preferable to a FF camera, if you're shooting sports/action. I'd imagine you'd want to be as close to the action as you can, which means long zooms, no? |
No, I don't think so. You're not getting any closer, you're just seeing less of the frame, so the same size subject appears to be bigger.
Put a picture up on your screen. Now use your hands to make a smaller frame. Is the part of the picture within your hands really bigger? No. It just occupies a larger percentage of the frame your hands make.
On a full frame camera, the subject will appear smaller within the frame, but you can just crop away the outside pixels if you want to, the same way I can crop pixels off my shots to make the subject appear bigger in the final image.
Message edited by author 2007-03-28 12:48:39.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 12:51:21 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by riot:
I think we may be on different wavelengths - i wasn't talking about pixel pitch and so forth, although that does of course make a difference. I was suggesting that for most lenses at most apertures in real-life situations with natural light etc, even on the 5D you will not often get single-pixel sharpness in your images - in fact, perhaps less so on the 5D, because the full frame sensor covers the outer areas of the image which are often less sharp than the central area (depending on the lens, of course). All i'm saying is, i've yet to see a straight-from-the-camera image, of a natural scene under natural light (rather than a test-chart) from a 5D (or anything since the 1D classic) in which there are 100% clean edges or clear highlights or light or dark points that span ONLY a single pixel - those areas where higher sensor resolution would genuinely yield more detail, rather than more clearly defined edges on slightly-out-of-focus blobs. |
The fact that you can't see these mythical razor edges or single pixel details doesn't mean a higher resolution sensor wouldn't be able to see more detail. Say you take a picture of a tree against the sky, when you look at the fine twigs they end up fading into the sky. You don't get a perfect 1 pixel wide twig which is tree coloured with sky either side, you end up with sky and twig in the same pixel - so as it gets thinner the pixel colours change from brown to the blue of the sky. Sure this might be a lens blurring artifact, but it could also be that the lens is perfectly sharp enough and a higher resolution sensor would yield more detail.
Talking about the edges being less sharp is a bit of a red herring IMO. I'm sure that as you say on the 5D there are many cases where higher resolution at the edges would not improve quality at the edges, but that doesn't mean there isn't extra detail available in the centre of the image that a higher resolution sensor would be able to capture.
splidge
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 01:06:29 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
And
a 1.3 cropfactor (1DMkIII) should be preferable to a FF camera, if you're shooting sports/action. I'd imagine you'd want to be as close to the action as you can, which means long zooms, no? |
No, I don't think so. You're not getting any closer, you're just seeing less of the frame, so the same size subject appears to be bigger.
Put a picture up on your screen. Now use your hands to make a smaller frame. Is the part of the picture within your hands really bigger? No. It just occupies a larger percentage of the frame your hands make.
On a full frame camera, the subject will appear smaller within the frame, but you can just crop away the outside pixels if you want to, the same way I can crop pixels off my shots to make the subject appear bigger in the final image. |
In this sort of situation your main concern is how detailed your subject appears, which for a given lens largely boils down to pixel pitch. So say on a 1D mark 3 the subject fills the frame. With the same lens and the same subject on a 5D it won't. Of course you can crop the picture that came out of the 5D, but then it will only have around 7-8MP so it will be lower resolution than the 1D image.
This is even more obvious on the 1.6x cameras; if a subject fills the frame on a 30D (8MP) you would need a >20MP full frame camera to capture the same amount of detail with the same lens.
Now, of course there are downsides to small pixel pitch so the crop factor isn't a free lunch. And cropping FF images is considerably easier than "uncropping" images from APS cameras :-).
splidge
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 01:09:38 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by riot:
Sure the AA filter is involved to some degree, but i'm suggesting that the limitations of NORMAL glass used in NORMAL (i.e. non-ideal) conditions prevent you from reaching the resolution barrier long before you reach test chart level results. |
All I can say is, "you're incorrect." In real-life, day-to-day use, you can and will get "pixel-level" sharpness, to the extent that is possible. The green channel will always have greatest acuity, since there are twice as many green pixel locations. When you reach a point in acuity where there is a visible difference in detail resolved between the green channel and the red or blue channels, you're very near the resolution limit of the sensor. I see this all the time. As a matter of fact the 5D continually amazes me with just how often it produces images that are about as sharp as is possible within the limits of the sensor and Bayer interpolation.
Regarding glass, even "normal" glass, stopped down, will allow the 5D to reach its limits over a great proportion of the frame, if not all of it. Only with mediocre WA glass shot near wide open does the "corner disadvantage" really weigh in heavily. You don't buy a 5D (or 1 series for that matter) to put mediocre WA glass on it. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 01:16:37 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
And
a 1.3 cropfactor (1DMkIII) should be preferable to a FF camera, if you're shooting sports/action. I'd imagine you'd want to be as close to the action as you can, which means long zooms, no? |
No, I don't think so. You're not getting any closer, you're just seeing less of the frame, so the same size subject appears to be bigger.
Put a picture up on your screen. Now use your hands to make a smaller frame. Is the part of the picture within your hands really bigger? No. It just occupies a larger percentage of the frame your hands make.
On a full frame camera, the subject will appear smaller within the frame, but you can just crop away the outside pixels if you want to, the same way I can crop pixels off my shots to make the subject appear bigger in the final image. |
Well, yes, obviously.
In the end, MPs determine how much you want to crop and still have a sharp shot. If the number of MPs are the same a 1.6x crop camera mounted with a 400mm effectively yields 640mm, same lens with a 1.3x camera yields 520mm. On a FF a 400mm lens is 400mm.
A rose is a rose is a rose.
If I want to shoot birds, I take my 30D with the longest lens I have.
If I want to shoot a chess game in the park, I'd likely use the 1DsMk2 with a wide lens. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 01:27:00 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Hifi:
I don't have a specific area I need the camera for |
What, you just have this compulsion to drop several thousand dollars?
Why are you considering a new body?
No offense but it doesn't appear that you have reached all that the 5D, or your 20D for that matter, offers you.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 01:39:06 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by Hifi:
I don't have a specific area I need the camera for |
What, you just have this compulsion to drop several thousand dollars?
Why are you considering a new body?
No offense but it doesn't appear that you have reached all that the 5D, or your 20D for that matter, offers you. |
I think that statement is entirely innapropriate. Irregardless of what the OP has on DPC that may very well not be they have to offer, just what they have on DPC. Unless you know them personally I think comments like this are best left unsaid. I can assure you my best stuff isnt on DPC, I usually only put on here what is appropriate for the site or fitting for challenges.
MattO
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 01:44:59 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by Hifi:
I don't have a specific area I need the camera for |
What, you just have this compulsion to drop several thousand dollars?
Why are you considering a new body?
No offense but it doesn't appear that you have reached all that the 5D, or your 20D for that matter, offers you. |
I think that statement is entirely innapropriate. Irregardless of what the OP has on DPC that may very well not be they have to offer, just what they have on DPC. Unless you know them personally I think comments like this are best left unsaid. I can assure you my best stuff isnt on DPC, I usually only put on here what is appropriate for the site or fitting for challenges.
MattO |
Lighten up a bit will ya?
It is totally appropriate.
Knowing a little bit of why the OP feels a need to buy a pro grade camera and what they think they will get out of it vs. what they already have would help recommendations.
Buying neither and spending the money on a photography instructional trip may yield much better results than just spending the money on the latest and greatest for the sake of having the latest and greatest.
Message edited by author 2007-03-28 13:46:33.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 01:51:03 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Buying neither and spending the money on a photography instructional trip may yield much better results than just spending the money on the latest and greatest for the sake of having the latest and greatest. |
Agreed. I just saved a work colleague $1500 or more. He was looking at a D200 to take pictures of his kids. He's not into fine photography and he doesn't know how to use manual controls.
I suggested a Canon S3 IS instead.
Suggesting someone stop and think about what they need is a very helpful approach.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 02:49:49 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Knowing a little bit of why the OP feels a need to buy a pro grade camera and what they think they will get out of it vs. what they already have would help recommendations.
Buying neither and spending the money on a photography instructional trip may yield much better results than just spending the money on the latest and greatest for the sake of having the latest and greatest. |
This may be true, but the OP is not asking how she should spend her money, but what camera to choose. We have expertise in cameras, so are in a position to discuss the features of each. We are not in a position to tell the OP what she wants and how she should spend.
Originally posted by rswank:
No offense but it doesn't appear that you have reached all that the 5D, or your 20D for that matter, offers you. |
Asking the OP what she intends to do with the camera is one thing that may enable us to answer her question better. Telling her she is not yet ready to upgrade is something else entirely. Your statement carries an undertone of "you don't yet know how to use your current camera so the upgrade would be wasted on you" - something that you are certainly are in no position to judge.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 03:31:50 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Hifi:
I am in the market to buy a new camera. I was just about to buy the 1Ds Mk11 when I read the thread and information about the new 1D mk111. I don't have a specific area I need the camera for but do like action/sports shots. I am currently using a 5d and will definitely keep this camera.
The only thing stopping me buying the 16.7 megapixels is the fps rate. If I go with the 10megapixels will I notice a huge drop in the quality of images compared with the 5d? The 10fps has really got me interested.
Your opinions on this would be greatly appreciated. Will the quality of the 1ds Mk 11 outway the fps rate?
thanks in advance |
Holy crap!! Can I have some of your money? You just bought a 5D 8 months ago. Maybe you should've just bought the 1DsMk2 instead of the 5D back in July and you wouldn't have this issue LOL.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 03:33:46 PM · #22 |
My friend has the 1Ds mk2 and I've used it a few times.
I got to use the 1D mk3 a couple of weeks ago - I was attending a week long school and my instructor is one of teh Canon Explorers of Light and had one of the 6 1D mk3's in the US at the time and I got to use.
I wasn't interested in a 1D camera - till the Mark3 was in my hands! WOW!
Lighter and smaller, but still robust feeling. The interface on 1D cameras is very different from the 10/20/30/5D models, but canon's made it more similar wiht the new one.
Some folks say it's not much of an upgrade, like the 20D to 30D. Having both the 20 and 30 there is a marked difference in the two cameras - perhaps not image quality, but in just plain user friendliness.
The same is try of the 1D mk3 only more so - yeah, everyone sees the better speed, but 5 custom WB settings, more CFn than you can probably use, and that 3" LCD - it's a frickin' polaroid! ISO 6400! LIve preview might be nice for some, but I didn't try this feature. 2200 shots on a batter charge! And better build, better sealing, 2 RAW settings (size wise) and lots more.
I had wanted a 5D, but not anymore. The Mark3 is incredible.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2007 03:51:38 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by rswank:
Buying neither and spending the money on a photography instructional trip may yield much better results than just spending the money on the latest and greatest for the sake of having the latest and greatest. |
Agreed. I just saved a work colleague $1500 or more. He was looking at a D200 to take pictures of his kids. He's not into fine photography and he doesn't know how to use manual controls.
I suggested a Canon S3 IS instead.
Suggesting someone stop and think about what they need is a very helpful approach. |
I think you may have cost him an additional $400 or whatever the S3IS costs.
I have a 30D and several L lenses "just" to take pics of my kids. I know from experience that using a P&S no matter how good it may be is an exercise in frustraion when trying to get good shots of your kids.
Slow to focus, slow to zoom (electronic on S3), slow to start up, slow shot to shot, no provision for an external flash, useless above ISO 100 so equally useless indoors, unusable RAW buffering/writing if it even has RAW, etc....
I think you steered your friend in the wrong direction.
The D200, maybe D80 would've been a better choice as it has scene modes, is a FAR, FAR better P&S than any P&S.
One need not be an expert to use a DSLR. D80 with 18-200vr would've been the much better choice.
Gene |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 04:06:53 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by riot:
This may be true, but the OP is not asking how she should spend her money, but what camera to choose. We have expertise in cameras, so are in a position to discuss the features of each. We are not in a position to tell the OP what she wants and how she should spend.
Asking the OP what she intends to do with the camera is one thing that may enable us to answer her question better. Telling her she is not yet ready to upgrade is something else entirely. Your statement carries an undertone of "you don't yet know how to use your current camera so the upgrade would be wasted on you" - something that you are certainly are in no position to judge. |
Thanks for your opinion, I really appreciate it.
What do you say that next time you have a problem with the way someone replied to a post that you PM them with your opinion and not waste the space not answering the OP's question?
I invite you to enlighten him (all of us really) as to the pros and cons since you say you know the features so well. |
|
|
|
03/28/2007 07:21:42 PM · #25 |
i wish i had your problem: 1ds mark II or 1d mark III. lol, but i think i would go with the 1ds MarkII: one for the full frame, and another for the 16.7 megapixels, ive shot with it before, one of my friends has one, and you can crop down to any size you could possibly want, or you can print 20 x 30 with incredible resolution. although im sure you would be happy with either, you cant really go wrong,
ryand |
|
