Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: daethon on October 28, 2007, 09:33:02 pm
-
I'm curious. Has anyone on here had experience with the two systems? They are coming near the same price range now. I'm more interested in general opinion on how they compare, not necessarily just a regurgitation of their specifications (as one can easily go online and read the two spec sheets for that).
Thanks in advance...
-
I'm curious. Has anyone on here had experience with the two systems? They are coming near the same price range now. I'm more interested in general opinion on how they compare, not necessarily just a regurgitation of their specifications (as one can easily go online and read the two spec sheets for that).
Thanks in advance...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the comparison will be much like the 200D vs the 5D debate that happened a while back. They both have their pro's and cons.
and it really comes down to personal choice... that said, the 1Ds has the 1 series build quality... though I personally don't put much more faith in it then I do the non 1 series bodies.
-
I think with digital,unfortunately later is always better.
The 5D had the 1Ds1 for breakfast in picture quality.
I know lot's of shooters that sold their 1Ds2's and got a 5D.
The files were very similar and for 3x the price not worth it.(1Ds2)
However the latter is a "pro" camera and the 5D is not.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
I think with digital,unfortunately later is always better.
The 5D had the 1Ds1 for breakfast in picture quality.
I know lot's of shooters that sold their 1Ds2's and got a 5D.
The files were very similar and for 3x the price not worth it.(1Ds2)
However the latter is a "pro" camera and the 5D is not.
Cheers,
Willem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That'll come as a surprise to al those pros out there using 5Ds.
I don't like the 1Ds/1D simply as they are so big and heavy. They are more like a MF film cameras in regard to size weight.
Nor does everyone wants/needs a camera tough enough to hammer nails in.
The 5D matches my needs fine most of the time and when it doesn't I rent something with more pixels.
I even bought the Canon 35mm f2.0 lens the other day, simply as it was so small and useful on a 5D as a carry around camera. I miss the size of my OM cameras and lens - bigger viewfinders too.
-
I don't know why the 5D popped up in this discussion, the poster asked about the 40D vs 1Ds.
The largest difference is in sensor size. the 1Ds is a full frame sensor while the 40D has a 1.6 crop factor. Packing about the same number of pixels in a smaller sensor reduces the amount of light each pixel can gather. The resulting image has increased noise. While the newer processor can probably compensate for this, the Pro model 1Ds will have a cleaner overall image.
Another comparison can be made for the Pro body vs the plastic body of the 40D.
A 45 point autofocus system vs 9 point in the 40D.
I have owned the 1Ds since 2003 and I am now considering the 40D as a backup camera that will compliment my Canon lenses by extending the telephoto reach by 1.6 multiplier.
-
Hello.
The 40D body is made of Magnesium, not plastic like the 350/400D Serie.
Best Regards,
Jonathan
-
I don't know why the 5D popped up in this discussion, the poster asked about the 40D vs 1Ds.
The largest difference is in sensor size. the 1Ds is a full frame sensor while the 40D has a 1.6 crop factor. Packing about the same number of pixels in a smaller sensor reduces the amount of light each pixel can gather. The resulting image has increased noise. While the newer processor can probably compensate for this, the Pro model 1Ds will have a cleaner overall image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you'll allow me to ask, why are you making such a claim?
Chances are that the 40D trounces the 1ds in every single department of image quality, including noise at all ISO, detail, lack of moire and DR.
The claimed advantage of FF against APS aren't very clear in many ways when comparing 2 sensors using the same technology, but it becomes totally irrelevant when comparing different sensor technologies like between the 1ds and 40D.
Anyway, only testing will tell, but if a non proven claim has to be made, I'd vote for the 40D hands down.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't know why the 5D popped up in this discussion, the poster asked about the 40D vs 1Ds.
The largest difference is in sensor size. the 1Ds is a full frame sensor while the 40D has a 1.6 crop factor. Packing about the same number of pixels in a smaller sensor reduces the amount of light each pixel can gather. The resulting image has increased noise. While the newer processor can probably compensate for this, the Pro model 1Ds will have a cleaner overall image.
Another comparison can be made for the Pro body vs the plastic body of the 40D.
A 45 point autofocus system vs 9 point in the 40D.
I have owned the 1Ds since 2003 and I am now considering the 40D as a backup camera that will compliment my Canon lenses by extending the telephoto reach by 1.6 multiplier.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 40d sensor is 3 generations and around 5-6 years newer technology than the original 1Ds sensor. With improved sensor manufacturing, including reducing the overall electronics package for each pixel (which creates most of the noise) as well as an improved micro-lens over each pixel the 40d delivers very high s/n ratios, and will exhibit less noise than the original 1Ds, especially at higher ISO.
Were I choosing to buy one today, there is no way I'd buy a used 1Ds over a new 40d, unless I knew I absolutely needed the ruggedness of the 1D series body.
The only area the 1Ds may be an advantage is if you just can't live without the full frame viewfinder (but the bright 40d viewfinder is very good)
You may find the 1Ds becomes your backup ... I do not believe it will deliver a cleaner image.
-
If you'll allow me to ask, why are you making such a claim?
Chances are that the 40D trounces the 1ds in every single department of image quality, including noise at all ISO, detail, lack of moire and DR.
The claimed advantage of FF against APS aren't very clear in many ways when comparing 2 sensors using the same technology, but it becomes totally irrelevant when comparing different sensor technologies like between the 1ds and 40D.
Anyway, only testing will tell, but if a non proven claim has to be made, I'd vote for the 40D hands down.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is a matter of physics! Smaller sensors have smaller pixels and less resolving power. It is like comparing the lens of a point and shoot with the lens of a SLR. Larger glass gets better, less distorted resolution. The same is true of sensors.
Take a look at the article in the Nov 07 issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine titles "Not all pixels are created equal".
It's like comparing Apples with Oranges.
-
The 40d sensor is 3 generations and around 5-6 years newer technology than the original 1Ds sensor. With improved sensor manufacturing, including reducing the overall electronics package for each pixel (which creates most of the noise) as well as an improved micro-lens over each pixel the 40d delivers very high s/n ratios, and will exhibit less noise than the original 1Ds, especially at higher ISO.
Were I choosing to buy one today, there is no way I'd buy a used 1Ds over a new 40d, unless I knew I absolutely needed the ruggedness of the 1D series body.
The only area the 1Ds may be an advantage is if you just can't live without the full frame viewfinder (but the bright 40d viewfinder is very good)
You may find the 1Ds becomes your backup ... I do not believe it will deliver a cleaner image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is not about the viewfinder. It is about the full frame sensor compared to a cropped frame sensor. The ability to shoot wide angle utilizing all of the lenses reach. (see my previous post)
-
It is a matter of physics! Smaller sensors have smaller pixels and less resolving power.
It's a matter of 5 years sensor development which has overcome the problems which smaller sensors had 5 yers ago. If you're comparing the 40D to the (2 year old) 5D then you might have a point but technology moves on.
-
It is a matter of physics! Smaller sensors have smaller pixels and less resolving power. It is like comparing the lens of a point and shoot with the lens of a SLR. Larger glass gets better, less distorted resolution. The same is true of sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Physics is based on experiments driving the definition of theoretical laws.
Your reasoning is completely ignoring experiental results (the obvious supriority of the 40D compared to the 1ds) and trying to use a partial fundamental theory to explain the behaviour of a complex system...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Physics is based on experiments driving the definition of theoretical laws.
Your reasoning is completely ignoring experiental results (the obvious supriority of the 40D compared to the 1ds) and trying to use a partial fundamental theory to explain the behaviour of a complex system...
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
....and your reasoning is based on what?
exactly my point!
Take some time, do the research and then formulate your opinion.
Jerry
-
It's a matter of 5 years sensor development which has overcome the problems which smaller sensors had 5 yers ago. If you're comparing the 40D to the (2 year old) 5D then you might have a point but technology moves on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you had an article, some research to quote or anything besides "technology moves on", your reply would have some merit.
Jerry
-
....and your reasoning is based on what?
exactly my point!
Take some time, do the research and then formulate your opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149882\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jerry,
Euh... not sure where you are going here.
- There have been numerous reports stating that the 5D was clearly superior to the 1ds over the years (more than a few people claim that it is even superior to the 1ds2),
- Michael Reichman claimed on this very site a few weeks back that the 40D was a bit superior to the 5D in terms of image quality.
Simple logic tells us that the 40D is therefore probably superior to the 1ds by a comfortable margin.
Regardless, my main point is that a direct comparison is needed to draw conclusions.
Enough time spent on this.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 1ds is fine at low ISO but at 400 and up I am not impressed. I also do not some of the functionality of it or the LCD on the back. That is the camera that kept me shooting film until the Mark II series.
The 5d is much better and I even think the 30d is much better. So I would certainly consider that the 40d would be a good choice between the two.
With that said, a good 1ds at the right price would be an option depending on your needs. It is built like a tank and considering that it is full frame there are some good points to it.
One other downside is that the 1ds battery life is minimal compared to the newer bodies.
-
There is an unbelievable amount of format comparison going on on various sites. I'm baffled! You quite simply cannot compare two different formats - for the simple reason that to do a valid comparison of an identical 'real world' (not test) subject. And obviously this isn't possible because you can't use the same lens so..... etc., etc., etc..
So why not point out the strengths and weaknesses of each format/camera. Yes, technology has moved on from the introduction of the 1DS (my own camera) and the 40D, and yes the 5D has some attributes which may mean that it is a far more appropriate camera in many circumstances to a 1DS, BUT....
All will take good images!
I would not personally change from my 1DS to a 40D (or 5D come to that) for innumerable reasons - not least because I like many of its (old) attributes and have learned to deal with many of its weaknesses (and yes it does have a lot). But this vague notion of better Image Quality bugs me. This really depends on what you are trying to achieve. To explain what I mean in an analogy, buying a supercar to drive half a mile to the shops won't make you a better driver and is unlikely to have substantial benefits over using a supermini - in fact it might have drawbacks. Photo equipment choice should be about using the appropriate tool for the job and has many more facets to it than simply newer technology and the vague notion of Image Quality. As another example, I could buy a new Nikon D3 when it is available - its spec would be fine for me and as an ex-Nikon user I would probably like its ergonomics and handling, but unless Nikon bring out a lens similar to my beloved 24/1.4 then there would be no point in me changing because this is my wide-angle of choice and I use it heavily in a variety of shooting situations each for very good reason.
Choosing between a 1DS and 40D should encompass the lens choice, specification and availability as well as a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each camera, and not least, what it is to be used for, but to simply get hung up on one detail is, IMHO, missing the point.
As stated in the last post, batteries are not brilliant on the 1DS - I have a load of them in varying states of power loss!
-
There is an unbelievable amount of format comparison going on on various sites. I'm baffled! You quite simply cannot compare two different formats - for the simple reason that to do a valid comparison of an identical 'real world' (not test) subject. And obviously this isn't possible because you can't use the same lens so..... etc., etc., etc..
So why not point out the strengths and weaknesses of each format/camera. Yes, technology has moved on from the introduction of the 1DS (my own camera) and the 40D, and yes the 5D has some attributes which may mean that it is a far more appropriate camera in many circumstances to a 1DS, BUT....
All will take good images!
I would not personally change from my 1DS to a 40D (or 5D come to that) for innumerable reasons - not least because I like many of its (old) attributes and have learned to deal with many of its weaknesses (and yes it does have a lot). But this vague notion of better Image Quality bugs me. This really depends on what you are trying to achieve. To explain what I mean in an analogy, buying a supercar to drive half a mile to the shops won't make you a better driver and is unlikely to have substantial benefits over using a supermini - in fact it might have drawbacks. Photo equipment choice should be about using the appropriate tool for the job and has many more facets to it than simply newer technology and the vague notion of Image Quality. As another example, I could buy a new Nikon D3 when it is available - its spec would be fine for me and as an ex-Nikon user I would probably like its ergonomics and handling, but unless Nikon bring out a lens similar to my beloved 24/1.4 then there would be no point in me changing because this is my wide-angle of choice and I use it heavily in a variety of shooting situations each for very good reason.
Choosing between a 1DS and 40D should encompass the lens choice, specification and availability as well as a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each camera, and not least, what it is to be used for, but to simply get hung up on one detail is, IMHO, missing the point.
As stated in the last post, batteries are not brilliant on the 1DS - I have a load of them in varying states of power loss!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You dont understand why people are so concerned about comparing image quality on a technical forumn? If they will all take good images why do you even bother to look at a forumn which deals in the tech aspect of photography. It's a fairly simple question with a simple answer. It requires no engineering degree to understand. 1ds was good (image quality wise), 5D was much better, 40D is as good as 5D therefore yes 5D is better than 1ds. (image quality wise). It isn't rocket science.
-
If you had an article, some research to quote or anything besides "technology moves on", your reply would have some merit.
Jerry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Let me put this into a simple analogy for you. A 30 year old 1.6l engine produces less power than a current 1.3l. Technology has moved on. Physics says that a larger capacity should yield more power.
-
You dont understand why people are so concerned about comparing image quality on a technical forumn? If they will all take good images why do you even bother to look at a forumn which deals in the tech aspect of photography. It's a fairly simple question with a simple answer. It requires no engineering degree to understand. 1ds was good (image quality wise), 5D was much better, 40D is as good as 5D therefore yes 5D is better than 1ds. (image quality wise). It isn't rocket science.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Precisely my point. Image Quality is much talked about but rarely defined. If you want to compare like with like then I would agree that you can assess two similar systems with a degree of ease, but start comparing two dis-similar systems and you run into trouble. If you compare a 5D and a 1DS, then yes there are differences which would suggest that the 5D is better for many applications (but there are still specialist applications when a waterproofed pro body might well be a better bet). Its when two differing formats are compared without the acceptance that they have differing characteristics - not necessarily that one is 'better' or 'superior' - that they are difficult to compare. So simply saying that a 40D is 'better' than a 1DS because its newer isn't a viable option in my opinion. Whilst they may be somewhat comparable for many none-critical purposes (A4 landscapes?), there are times when they simply are not and one (or the other) may be a better option depending on the type of photography to be undertaken. As for a technical forum, well fine, but there is a lot more to photography than simply comparing the characteristics of two differently sized sensors! How can a 40D be as good as a 5D when the 5D has many more faster lens options that have a wider field of view than those available for a 40D - not comparable, unless of course this is an irrelevance 'cos you don't want to use such lenses. As I previously stated I use my 24/1.4 heavily, often wide open, so for me a 40D isn't a camera I'd consider, whether or not it has a 'better' newer sensor, because I could not shoot similar images on it.
-
Precisely my point. Image Quality is much talked about but rarely defined. If you So simply saying that a 40D is 'better' than a 1DS because its newer isn't a viable option in my opinion. Whilst they may be somewhat comparable for many none-critical purposes (A4 landscapes?), there are times when they simply are not and one (or the other) may be a better option depending on the type of photography to be undertaken.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are maybe mixing up with things a little on this one Paul.
I agree with you that the 5D might offer more options, but when you hint that the 40D might only be better for A4 landscape, you imply that its image quality is inferior than that of the 5D even within the overlap of applications that both format have the suitable Canon lenses to handle.
There simply is not data to back up this belief. The only comparison I know off, that made by Michael, says that - based on real world images - there is no visible gap in image quality between the 2.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, it's about time to put an end to this back-and-forth. There is a simple solution: Someone needs to send me their 5D and their 1Ds, and I'll test them against my 40D.
I'll also need whatever lenses you'll want to compare. And since we don't want to let the lenses be limiting factor, they'd better be your very best L lenses at that.
Of course, it might take me a good long time to fully test every camera/lens combination under a variety of shooting conditions. Better hurry up and send me that gear soon, so we can put a stake through the heart of this debate.
-
Hi!
1Ds and 40D are different cameras but both are able to produce good results. Many differences have already been mentioned but here are some considerations:
-Image quality at ISOs higher than 320; the 40D is much better (less noise). Thus it's better suited to available light shooting indoors when using same lens speed
-Battery life; 1Ds is complete crap compared to 40D, important on journeys for example.
-FF vs 1.6 crop; both are good or bad depending on the application and the lens used. Crop gives advantages when shooting wildlife or when using less than perfect WA lens. FF gives usually better viewfinder and more WA-choices.
-Weight and size; 1-series body gives automatically an excellent vertical grip and in my experiences I can use slower shutter speeds handheld because of the added mass (even though the crop-sensor cameras have smaller mirrors). 40D is infinitely more discreet in size and does not attract attention, also lighter in handling and when hiking for example
-1Ds has better weather sealing
-40D has sensor cleaning function
-1Ds has more AF-points (I have not compared the AF in real life, 40D has been reported to be improved over older crop models)
-40D has much larger LCD, better histogram, easier image viewing
-1Ds likes to be exposed to the right as much as possible.
-40D menus and control buttons are easier to use
-40D has live view
Btw, the sensor size difference between these cameras has nothing to do with noise and overal IQ. Although 1Ds has about double the sensor area, the pixels themselves are small and noisy because of old technology (1Ds was launched late 2002).
If I had to choose between these cameras I would choose 1Ds if using it primarily in well lit situations (studio etc) and on tripod or if photographing often in very wet environments. I would pick 40D for available light work (low light hand held), for wild life (if the AF is good enough) and for travel photography and for street shooting.
Check the shutter count if buying a 2nd hand 1Ds.
In the end, everything depends on your shooting style, lens selection and personal preferences. Try them both.
Cheers,
J
-
Btw, the sensor size difference between these cameras has nothing to do with noise and overal IQ. Although 1Ds has about double the sensor area, the pixels themselves are small and noisy because of old technology (1Ds was launched late 2002)
That is an idiotic statement. It has nothing to do with new and old technology. You have the 40D with an APS sensor and a 1Ds with a full frame CMOS sensor that is 1.6X larger with approximately the same number of pixels. The pixels on the 1Ds sensor are LARGER. This is just common sense.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...sensor-size.htm (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm)
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/doe...el.size.matter/ (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/)
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.html (http://homepages.tig.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.html)
-
Thanks for all the information. I think I've decided my course of action.
I'm going to wait for whatever replaces the 5D comes out. I may buy a 40D in the interim.
Here is why:
Sensor Cleaning is rather important for me
I loved Live View for the moments that I was using it (especially for macro shots with the 180L Macro lens)
What am I missing from the 1Ds? The ability to attach audio to photographs. The weather sealing.
I only shoot with Prime Lenses (with the exception of the 17-40).
Hopefully the 7?D will come out in February. If not, we should assuredly see it in September. If it doesn't come out in February, I'll probably go with the 40D now, as my 20D is almost fully dead (Flash doesn't open, sensor has many issues, it has found its way into ocean water twice).
-
That is an idiotic statement. It has nothing to do with new and old technology. You have the 40D with an APS sensor and a 1Ds with a full frame CMOS sensor that is 1.6X larger with approximately the same number of pixels. The pixels on the 1Ds sensor are LARGER. This is just common sense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jerry,
Sensors are complex devices whose light efficiency depends on various factors, including the usage of micro-lenses, their type, etc...
As a result, the size of the sensor is really only one of the factors impacting its ability to collect light.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That is an idiotic statement. It has nothing to do with new and old technology. You have the 40D with an APS sensor and a 1Ds with a full frame CMOS sensor that is 1.6X larger with approximately the same number of pixels. The pixels on the 1Ds sensor are LARGER. This is just common sense.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=150172\")
[a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor]Maybe Juicy was referring the comparative fill factor of the pixels?[/url]
A pixel can take up more area on silicon but have smaller sensing area. Juicy's post was comprehensive and accurate. Worth reading again. Carefully.
Wollom
-
So much speculation and not a single image comparison. But I'll put in my 2 cents worth anyway.
Of course new technology is always going to provide some benefit in some respect, whether it's a matter of better quality images at high ISO, better ergonomics, more bells and whistles or completely new features such as Live View.
Assessing the relative importance of such new features compared with older but standard features of a more professional camera, such as better waterproofing, greater robustness, autofocussing at f8 and greater wide-angle capacity is going to be subjective.
As regards fundamental image quality, at base ISO I imagine it would be lens dependent. At high ISO I think there's little doubt the 40D would be better.
If it came to a shoot-out between the 2 cameras using any lenses that would fit the cameras or could be adapted, I would expect the 1Ds to provide noticeably better image quality with a good non-Canon wide angle lens, simply because there are no high quality wide angle equivalents for cropped formats like the 40D.
I think you'd be kidding yourself if you thought a 40D with Canon 10-22mm zoom could equal the quality of a Zeiss 16mm prime on the 1Ds or even the Canon 16-35mm zoom, if you had a good copy.
-
Going back a few years, how would you compare a Hasselblad 6x6 running a 50mm Zeiss Lens and 400ISO transparency film against a Nikon F5 running a 28mm Nikon Lens and Velvia 50ISO? (Or even a Contax 645 which might be a more ergonomic comparison with its 45mm Zeiss designed lens).
Both are good cameras and lenses but can you truly compare them? No. So why try to compare 1.6x and FF formats? Simply because they have the same lens mount? The fact that they use the same lens mount does not make them comparable. Lens design to cover larger formats differs, we have simply seen residul conversion in that lenses originally designed for 35mm film are usable on smaller formats. You can of course shoot 35mm frames on a Hasselblad but why on earth would you?
I also have a 20D camera body (little used and for sale) which I've tried to like the results from but I don't. Its good, but I simply prefer the larger FF format's images. Its not about pixel peeping but about the differing imagery produced by differing formats.
-
Hi!
Thanx Wollom, I meant exactly that (fill factor) and more efficient micro lenses, more efficient signal processing, 14bit A/D conversion and also the fact that 5D has more and thus "smaller" pixels than 1Ds but no-one is gonna say 1Ds has better IQ than 5D (I don't mean overal color impression or whether the colors are pleasing or not, that is probably more of an RAW-converter profile issue). Images from newer cameras seem to stand up to more serious beating in post processing before showing problems.
I don't pretend to be any kind of an authority in this matter, my claims are based mostly on my own experiences (I still use 1Ds and like it, I have used 10D, 20D, 5D and tried several others) and equally importantly on others' findings (like Michael's review of 40D, Managing megabytes -shootout etc).
The "scientific fact" that earth is flat as a pancake does not change the "idiotic claim" that in real world situations you don't fall from the earth's edge when new technology allows you to sail over the edge.
Cheers,
J
-
That is an idiotic statement. It has nothing to do with new and old technology. You have the 40D with an APS sensor and a 1Ds with a full frame CMOS sensor that is 1.6X larger with approximately the same number of pixels. The pixels on the 1Ds sensor are LARGER. This is just common sense.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...sensor-size.htm (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm)
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/doe...el.size.matter/ (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/)
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.html (http://homepages.tig.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.html)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=150172\")
Are you sure the "pixels" on the 1Ds are larger? One would assume so, but the term pixel pitch has nothing to do with the size of the pixels on the chip, but the spacing of the pixels. I have never been able to find any reference by any camera maker on how large the sensor sites themselves are.
One of the main improvements in chip technology has been to decrease the "empty" space between pixels, making the pixels themselves larger. While the 40d has a smaller pixel pitch than the 30d, the reduction in size wasn't proportionate to the spacing because more space was eliminated between sites. In addition, improvements in micro lens technology means the each pixel of the 40d gathers the same amount of light (signal) as those on the 30d (according to Canon).
Of course the other part of the equation is the noise, and this is where most of the improvements have come in sensor technology. Each sensor site of the 40d features a much smaller and improved A/D converter, resulting in far less noise. As the gain is turned up on the sensor to achieve higher ISO, the noise does not scale as rapidly as that of the 1Ds.
So while each pixel of the 40d may not be able to gather as much physical light as a pixel on the 1Ds sensor (kind of the "bucket" thing from your links), the ratio of signal to noise is better, especially as you increase ISO.
I have owned and used extensively a 1Ds, a 1Ds MarkII, and a 5D. I have had a 40d from Canon since the middle of August, and I believe the 40d is nearly the equal of the 5d when it comes to noise performance - a camera which out performs the 1Ds in noise by a significant amount. The 1Ds relative to today's standards doesn't perform that well when it comes to noise.
DPreview data shows Luminance noise of the 40d at ISO 3200 is actually slightly better than than the 1Ds at ISO 1250. (graphs located here
(1Ds) [a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/page14.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/page14.asp[/url]
(40d) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page18.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page18.asp)
Perhaps the original poster doesn't need ISO above 200, so it doesn't matter. Don't know.
-
So much speculation and not a single image comparison. But I'll put in my 2 cents worth anyway.
Of course new technology is always going to provide some benefit in some respect, whether it's a matter of better quality images at high ISO, better ergonomics, more bells and whistles or completely new features such as Live View.
Assessing the relative importance of such new features compared with older but standard features of a more professional camera, such as better waterproofing, greater robustness, autofocussing at f8 and greater wide-angle capacity is going to be subjective.
As regards fundamental image quality, at base ISO I imagine it would be lens dependent. At high ISO I think there's little doubt the 40D would be better.
If it came to a shoot-out between the 2 cameras using any lenses that would fit the cameras or could be adapted, I would expect the 1Ds to provide noticeably better image quality with a good non-Canon wide angle lens, simply because there are no high quality wide angle equivalents for cropped formats like the 40D.
I think you'd be kidding yourself if you thought a 40D with Canon 10-22mm zoom could equal the quality of a Zeiss 16mm prime on the 1Ds or even the Canon 16-35mm zoom, if you had a good copy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've spent the last few days culling images from my archives and making prints for a presentation next week. These images include shots from a 1Ds, a 1DsMKII and a 5d (sorry not 40d:). In good light I find the original 1Ds to make superb images, with a look that can't be matched by the MKII or the 5d...in fact I was amazed at the quality as I peeped. Don't get me wrong, the MKII is better in many ways and the 5D is superior in low light (but not in good light imo) but that 1Ds is still an amazing camera all these years later. I'm going to have to dust that puppy off and make some images with it!
-
In good light I find the original 1Ds to make superb images, with a look that can't be matched by the MKII or the 5d...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also think there is a different quality to the 1Ds image.
I set the camera at ISO 100 when I got it and have never changed it. I'm shooting with Profoto Pro 7 lights in an Octabank, a Mola Euro or a Chimera Octaplus as my key. With this quality of light it gives me a very film-like image and my clients are very happy with the results. I have 2 original batteries that work fine and the AC adapter for long fashion shoots with rapid firing.
I'm replacing my snap shot camera, a 20D, with a 40D. I'll see if I can't provide some side by side comparisons in the next couple of weeks.
-
The 1Ds has a filmlike look, sharp images, superb focus and is built like a tank.
I believe it is clearly outclassed by the 5D nowadays, except for AF speed and "look".
Forum users on LL do not care much about look, except in the MF section
BTW, I have an Octabank as well
Edmund
I also think there is a different quality to the 1Ds image.
I set the camera at ISO 100 when I got it and have never changed it. I'm shooting with Profoto Pro 7 lights in an Octabank, a Mola Euro or a Chimera Octaplus as my key. With this quality of light it gives me a very film-like image and my clients are very happy with the results. I have 2 original batteries that work fine and the AC adapter for long fashion shoots with rapid firing.
I'm replacing my snap shot camera, a 20D, with a 40D. I'll see if I can't provide some side by side comparisons in the next couple of weeks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
LOL - I'm having a hard time believing all the debate over this. If you want a comparison just let me know which type image and at which focal length and I'll shoot a comparison for you.
Bottom line - the IQ at low ISO from the 1DS is better than the IQ from the 40D with the exception of color accuracy which is very good on the 40D. The 1Ds has a very weak AA filter and exceptional image quality plus a million more pixels. Like any full 35mm frame versus 1.6x FOV comparison, the 1.6 will make a better camera for most wildlife use and the 40D is heads and shoulders better for high ISO. The 1DS is limited to ISO 1250 but can do ISO 50 with "expand". Anyone using it over ISO 400 is nuts because it gets noisy in a hurry.
If your use is studio, in my opinion the 1DS is the better camera. Otherwise the 40D may be right for you. If you don't like cleaning sensors, forget the 1DS.
Best regards,
Lin
I'm curious. Has anyone on here had experience with the two systems? They are coming near the same price range now. I'm more interested in general opinion on how they compare, not necessarily just a regurgitation of their specifications (as one can easily go online and read the two spec sheets for that).
Thanks in advance...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
This page answers a lot of questions about different sensors.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dig...mary/index.html (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html)
-
Anyone using it over ISO 400 is nuts because it gets noisy in a hurry.
Ah yes I must be nuts, that or be fortunate to have particularly myopic clients ;-)
Yes, the noise -does- get more noticeable, but like all things it depends on the type of pictures you take, and why you are taking them.... :-)
My main personal reason for resisting the temptation of getting a 40D is simply that 1.6x FL multiplication, which would be a serious hindrance to a lot of work I do. Taking my TS-E 24 to ~38mm would be one example of making things needlessly difficult.
That for me is the deal breaker - IQ (whatever that -actually- means) could be worse, but if I can't take the pictures I need...
bye for now
Keith Cooper
PS I'm looking forward to checking the low ISO difference between the 1Ds and 1Ds Mk3 when it comes, to see just how much that hefty dent to the company bank account next month shows up in real life images ;-) ... I believe the 40D sensor equates to about 25MP at FF?
-
I don't know why the 5D popped up in this discussion, the poster asked about the 40D vs 1Ds.
The largest difference is in sensor size. the 1Ds is a full frame sensor while the 40D has a 1.6 crop factor. Packing about the same number of pixels in a smaller sensor reduces the amount of light each pixel can gather. The resulting image has increased noise. While the newer processor can probably compensate for this, the Pro model 1Ds will have a cleaner overall image.
Another comparison can be made for the Pro body vs the plastic body of the 40D.
A 45 point autofocus system vs 9 point in the 40D.
I have owned the 1Ds since 2003 and I am now considering the 40D as a backup camera that will compliment my Canon lenses by extending the telephoto reach by 1.6 multiplier.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Uhhh...
The 40d has smaller pixels than the 1Ds, true. HOWEVER, it also has better performance w.r.t. noise when you get to ISO 400 or above. Technology goes a long way ;-)
The 1D mark III has much smaller pixels than the original 1D. But it KILLS it in every single way :-)
-
http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html (http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html)
Lets all go read Ctein's "Photo Fetish Leage" post and calm down some.
-
http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html (http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html)
Lets all go read Ctein's "Photo Fetish Leage" post and calm down some.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm calmly shooting with my original 1Ds and patiently waiting for my 40D to arrive. Both have their place and I'm sure I'll enjoy them for years to come.
I'm not going to read the blog, don't really care who the guy is or what his opinion is. I'd rather spend the time shooting and looking at the images.
-
To jerryrock:
By decreasing both pixel size and circuit area, photodiode area was kept constant. Therefore, the same amount of light can be gathered as on previous sensors.
(http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technolog..._gathering.html (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technology-e/light_gathering.html))
The same advances were used in creating the sensor for the 40D and the 1Ds MkIII, and should illuminate the part of the physics that you ignored/didn't know about.
-
To jerryrock:
By decreasing both pixel size and circuit area, photodiode area was kept constant. Therefore, the same amount of light can be gathered as on previous sensors.
(http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technolog..._gathering.html (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technology-e/light_gathering.html))
The same advances were used in creating the sensor for the 40D and the 1Ds MkIII, and should illuminate the part of the physics that you ignored/didn't know about.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
(http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=161461\")
To Jani: Here is the other part of the same article that you chose to ignore:
A large CMOS sensor offers better image quality than a smaller because the larger may contain bigger-sized pixels. The relationship between image quality and pixel size can be readily understood if you imagine the pixel as a kind of bucket used to collect not water but light. This micron-sized bucket not only gathers light but also has a photodiode that stores an electrical charge.
[a href=\"http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technology-e/size.html]http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technology-e/size.html[/url]
Jerry
-
(http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technolog..._gathering.html (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technology-e/light_gathering.html))
The same advances were used in creating the sensor for the 40D and the 1Ds MkIII, and should illuminate the part of the physics that you ignored/didn't know about.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
(http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=161461\")
To Jani: Here is the other part of the same article that you chose to ignore:
A large CMOS sensor offers better image quality than a smaller because the larger may contain bigger-sized pixels. The relationship between image quality and pixel size can be readily understood if you imagine the pixel as a kind of bucket used to collect not water but light. This micron-sized bucket not only gathers light but also has a photodiode that stores an electrical charge.
[a href=\"http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technology-e/size.html]http://web.canon.jp/imaging/cmos/technology-e/size.html[/url]
Jerry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
The analogy may be incomplete. What if the buckets were the same size in both cases, but with the larger sensor, they were merely sitting on a larger piece of floor? This is exactly what some of the posters are getting at. You can't assume that dividing sensor area by number of pixels will give you a reliable estimation of the size of the "buckets." It has been stated that the older sensors didn't squeeze as much detecting space out of their comparitively larger pixel areas as you might expect. Add to that the improvements in microlens technology, and it may be possible that a newer sensor with a higher pixel pitch is actually gathering more photons per pixel than an older, larger sensor.
Look at another analogy. The 8.1 litre engine in my pickup doesn't make anywhere as much horsepower as a 2.5 ltre formula one car engine. But the same laws of physics apply in both cases. It's just that combustion chamber volume is only one variable in the equation. Same thing with these sensors. All other factors being equal, a larger photo site will collect cleaner data. But it would be foolish to assume that all other factors are actually equal with every camera sensor, especially given the rapid development curve we're in with digital cameras.
-
"Look at another analogy. The 8.1 litre engine in my pickup doesn't make anywhere as much horsepower as a 2.5 ltre formula one car engine. But the same laws of physics apply in both cases. It's just that combustion chamber volume is only one variable in the equation. Same thing with these sensors. All other factors being equal, a larger photo site will collect cleaner data. But it would be foolish to assume that all other factors are actually equal with every camera sensor, especially given the rapid development curve we're in with digital cameras."
I was just regurgitating the same Canon marketing hype that was presented to me.
But your comparisons of camera sensors to car engines is just over the top!
-
"Look at another analogy. The 8.1 litre engine in my pickup doesn't make anywhere as much horsepower as a 2.5 ltre formula one car engine. But the same laws of physics apply in both cases. It's just that combustion chamber volume is only one variable in the equation. Same thing with these sensors. All other factors being equal, a larger photo site will collect cleaner data. But it would be foolish to assume that all other factors are actually equal with every camera sensor, especially given the rapid development curve we're in with digital cameras."
I was just regurgitating the same Canon marketing hype that was presented to me.
But your comparisons of camera sensors to car engines is just over the top!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161657\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're missing the point. Did I say car engines were the same as camera sensors? No.
My point was that you can only carry an analogy so far. Some here are arguing that bigger pixels always produce lower noise. All I'm saying is that rules of thumb, such as that one, have their limits. In the automotive world, the old maxim used to be that "nothing beats cubic inches." My example demonstrated that you can't apply any such crude rule without equalizing all the other variables. I'm merely suggesting that maybe the pixel size argument has its limits as well. You're certainly welcome to disagree, but if you're going to argue about matters of sensor physics, you ought to have more evidence to back up your claims than a few simplistic general rules.
My own opinion is that anyone chosing between these cameras based solely on sensor-centered image quality should probably broaden their considerations. These cameras are different in many other ways. For example, it's easier to limit depth of field with a full frame sensor, especially if you're going to use the same lenses. Might be a very big deal for a portrait photographer. Maybe no impact at all for a landscape guy.
A lot of people end up realizing those other factors are really more important to photography than absolute resolution. There's a cranky guy I've heard of that's always going on about whether or not camera controls work well when you're wearing gloves. Maybe you've heard of him?
-
To Jani: Here is the other part of the same article that you chose to ignore:
The reason I pointed out that exact quote from the article, is not because I choose to ignore your mantra, or that part of the article, but because you ignore the following facts:
1) Pixel pitch <> pixel well size/photodiode area
2) Pixel pitch <> microlens size
So the smaller sensor (CMOS or whatever) can have BETTER "pixels" than the larger sensor.
I should think that Canon's illustration makes that clear.
If you reread the excerpt from Canon's technology pages, you might see what we're getting at here:
I can have a pixel pitch of 5 meters, yet it helps nothing at all if the microlens is only 5 µm² and the sensor well is 4. Sure, my 12 megapixel sensor would cover an area of 300 km², but the image quality might not be so great compared to a 10 megapixel sensor with microlenses covering 25 µm² and sensor wells of 16 µm².
I suggest that you stop presuming that everyone else on this forum knows less than you about what's going on and perhaps assume a slightly humbler attitude. The issues you raise are hardly new, and have been discussed at length in this and other technically-minded fora before, with contributions from people who do know how sensors are made and how technology progresses.
-
"I suggest that you stop presuming that everyone else on this forum knows less than you about what's going on and perhaps assume a slightly humbler attitude."
Look Jani,
I expressed my opinion in this tread quite sometime ago and stand by it. You chose to resurrect this discussion by directing your comment to me. I do not presume to know any more or less than the other posters in this thread. What I do know is based on five years of experience with the Canon EOS 1Ds (the original, full frame, 11.1 megapixel) professional camera and a degree in Visual Communication.
Your suggestion is both rude and out of line.
Jerry
-
Look Jani,
I expressed my opinion in this tread quite sometime ago and stand by it. You chose to resurrect this discussion by directing your comment to me.
Yes, I did, because there was a rather significant point that wasn't addressed by other posters.
This is quite normal in a web forum discussion, on netnews, and even in more traditional media.
I do not presume to know any more or less than the other posters in this thread. What I do know is based on five years of experience with the Canon EOS 1Ds (the original, full frame, 11.1 megapixel) professional camera and a degree in Visual Communication.
Does this mean that you admit that your claims have certain technical weaknesses, or are you now claiming that this one-camera experience and degree makes you more qualified?
Perhaps you do not see it that way, but what you're suggesting goes against what Canon claims, as well as what other, experienced posters to this forum seem to understand as how the physics might work.
You have not put forward convincing evidence, yet you keep on claiming that you're right and others who put forward rather well-documented, contradicting evidence are wrong.
And do forgive me if I'm wrong, but Visual Communication does not appear to be an engineering or science degree, and is as such largely irrelevant to the technical issues at hand.