Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Larry Smith on September 26, 2002, 09:24:54 pm
-
[font color=\'#000000\'](Sorry for posting this twice, ...just sent it, and realized that this was the appropriate thread for it :-0
Michael writes:
"I heard today from a large Canon dealer, (in a country and city that will remain unnamed), that the Canon distributor has asked them to get deposits from anyone wishing to place an order for a 1Ds. No reason is forthcoming, but my surmise is ..."
How likely is it that Canon is using this 'deposit' requirement to guage acceptance of their too-high intro price, ...since these depositers will be doing so without knowing whether the price will come down, and to-what. Why not just give Canon a blank check?
Maybe if anyone who puts down a deposit under this current price-rumor had to actually PAY this price, when the camera comes, and KNEW that they would, ...then the deposit-list would give a truer picture of market-acceptance-at-this-price!
Larry
???[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']The moire of the 1Ds seems to be an issue not only for fashion but for advertising photography in general. Is this caused by Canon's software settings (to be corrected by a firmware update if necessary) or is it a hardware "issue" that stays with you once you buy the camera?
Thanks for any info on this.
J.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi,
I guess you already saw it but if not Michael released part 3 and 4 of his EOS 1Ds review.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Jim,
The 1Ds was far superior than the SD9. I did not even apply Unsharpen Mask.
On this 2 Images I did not see noise.
I took a look at the new images from Phil Askey in the dpreview.com forum and I would say what people saw as noie I can live with it because it looks more like film grain.
I think that since the digital came out the people have forgotten that there was someting like grain and they are now fooled with the digital images because they are so clean that sometimes they think there is more resolution in it which I think is not true.
I still think that film has more resolution than digital compared even to the ~11 MioPixel from Canon and the unseen samples of the Kodak ~14 MioPixel.
OK the software interpolation is in any case cleaner with a digital rather than on an analog filmscan, but with interpolation you do not win sharpness in my opinion. Afterwards applying sharpness just increases the contrast between lowlight borders and highlight borders.
Have taken a deep look what sharpening makes?
I always try to figure out on a landscape ¿ with how many pixels do I resolve some motif scanning it at 4000dpi and this same motif how many pixels are delivered by the DSLR?
4000dpi optical scanning resolution are ~157 pixels/mm and the highest resolution of the D60 is ~135pixels/mm, the 1Ds is ~113pixels/mm and the Kodak will have ~127pixels/mm. So there is still a long way to go to get the 157píxels/mm of the scanning.
The other thing I still do not understand is how the people calculate the resolution in Line pairs per mm for a digital camera?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']MTF curves could provide more precise info about the system. However I only care for the results I get in my photographs, not in theory or in photographed charts. How good is good enough? Does it do the job? Are the results pleasing? Is it fun to use? Those are things I care more about than scientific sensor tests.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Are they jaggies in the diagonal lines of the parabolic antenna in the Eos 1Ds review? I dont see them in the film photographs, just in the Eos 1Ds
Does anybody see them too?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
Since the 1Ds fits 11.4 million pixels in a 35.8 x 23.8 mm imager and the 14n will fit 13.89 in the same area, that suggests the 14n's pixel pitch will be 7.2 microns. Working backward (and presuming my math is correct), 16.72 million pixels, each at 6 microns, would meet the ceiling imposed by lens resolving power.
This is not to suggest that even a 16.72 megapixel camera would provide the ultimate resolution for 35mm format. I think Foveon has taught us that. I want a full-frame, 17 megapixel X3 dSLR for XMas.
Dale:
To be more precise about the MP numbers of the Canon and Kodak cameras, the actual effective megapixels are 11.1 and +/- 13.5 respectively, not 11.4 and 14MP. So how many microns they actually are, are still in question. No offense, but these speculated micron numbers are very theoretical.
They may be around 7-8 microns, but micron count doesn't mean nearly as much to me as what I actually see when I'm looking at a 13X19 print and evaluating the image quality. The clarity, sharpness to my eye, not some mathematical equation. That's where it is. How clean or grain free is the image? Does it look like a medium format image?
We can throw around numbers till you know what freezes over, but as the old saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words." What matters are actual photos taken by these cameras. A lens resolution chart is a start, but show me some real world samples like the kind we've looked at from the Canon, Kodak and Sigma/Foveon and then it becomes real world stuff.
I'm looking forward to seeing more samples from Phil, the Imaging resource guy(can't remember his name), Kumio Yamada and others. And seeing some 13X19 prints from the 1Ds on the LLVJ coming out in November. I would actually rather see those prints then hear Michael discuss his impressions about them. If Michael wants to discuss his impressions about the AF and AE ability and various other features(voice recording, durability, etc)then cool. But we already have a good idea of Michael's feelings about the image quality. To me, the proof is in the picture(s).[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Perhaps the following is useful and easy to remember:
1. Nyquist theory says that you need two pixels to resolve a line pair. Yes, I actually verified this with a D30. Not 4 pixels.
3. The "diffraction limit" is not a hard cutoff. It depends on definitions used. If you start with black & white bars and accept very low contrast in the output, lenses can deliver absurdly (and uselessly) high lp/mm. This is the primary source of those 100+ lp/mm claims that you used to see in decades past. Photodo has a lengthy expose on this on their MTF explanations. You need a definition that delivers a usefully high contrast level. Astronomers tend to use FWHM (Full Width at Half Maximum of the Airy disc) since this is what they use to match pixel sizes to telescope configurations, seeing conditions, and the Nyquist criterion (two pixels per line-pair). With this definition the theoretical diffraction limit of a lens in lp/mm = 1000/f-no for a wavelength of 4900 Angstroms (yellow light). Ie a theoretically perfect lens delivers 125 lp/mm at f-8. It would be more lousy in deep red light (< 90 lp/mm) and a lot better in deep blue (> 160 lp/mm).[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Samirkharusi,
Thanks for clarifying some of these points. I remember making an assumption a few years ago that one pixel, or scanning dot, was equivalent to one resolution line (a line being just a series of dots joined seamlessly). It seems my original assumption was correct, provided one understands that a black line on a white background has no more significance than a white line on a black background.
I'm not so sure about this Rayleigh's Law figure of 1000. I've seen figures ranging between 1800 and 1000. Again I assumed the lower figure related to red light.
However, I'm surprised at your assertion that there's no advantage in using pixels smaller than 6 microns in a 35mm digital sensor. If this is true, there is clearly a different relationship between lens and sensor, and lens and film. Can you elaborate on these differences, please?
Another of your statements which appears to be in conflict with other information (perhaps misinformation) available on the internet is in regard to 35mm lenses being optimised for best performance at F8. Are you referring to an overall compromise where corner sharpness at F8 might be much improved although centre sharpness is well beyond the diffraction limit? Do you give much credence to the theory that film performs best at large F stops such as F/22 and most 'good' lenses perform best at either one or two F/stops down from maximum aperture? I have an 400mm F/4 Sigma prime lens which is sharpest at F5.6, but at F5.6 there's noticeable light fall off at the corners (Minolta mount!). At F11, there's no noticeable light fall off at the edges or corners. Would you describe this lens as being optimised for best performance at F5.6 or F11?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
I'm not so sure about this Rayleigh's Law figure of 1000. I've seen figures ranging between 1800 and 1000.
However, I'm surprised at your assertion that there's no advantage in using pixels smaller than 6 microns in a 35mm digital sensor. If this is true, there is clearly a different relationship between lens and sensor, and lens and film. Can you elaborate on these differences, please?
Another of your statements which appears to be in conflict with other information (perhaps misinformation) available on the internet is in regard to 35mm lenses being optimised for best performance at F8.
Raymond, pardon the late response. Here goes:
Diffraction Limit has many definitions. Rayleigh's is simply the diameter (radius?) of the Airy Disc to first minimum. Using FWHM is the diameter of the same disc but at half the peak intensity. There's also something called Dawe's Limit. What matters is to note that there's no sharp cutoff as to how many line-pairs you can see. Photodo explains this at length. It's a matter as to how low a contrast you are willing to tolerate. Using the 1000/f-no relates to an MTF contrast of about 33% as plotted on photodo. Astronomers use "critical sampling" because they are all too aware that increasing sensor resolution dramatically increases noise. But when there's plenty of light (shooting planets and the Moon) they do use "over-sampling". This would be equivalent to using pixels much smaller than, say, the D60 7.5 microns with 35mm lenses. It's not that you do not resolve more, it's just that you pay in a lot more noise. The Nyquist criterion is the generally accepted point for compromise.
Lenses optimised for f8? I actually tested 5 prime lenses on a D30. A Sigma 500/7.2 APO was so lousy we need not discuss it further, max resolution 35 lp/mm. The other 4, Tamron 14/2.8, Canon 28/2.8, Canon 50/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 macro all peaked at f8. I expected variations. Coincidence? so I can only conclude that they were actually designed that way ;-)
As for 35mm lenses being the limiting factor with both the D60 and the 1Ds, I would refer any doubters to test their best lenses using Norman Koren's lens test chart:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html)
It's very educational since he brings contrast into his chart, as opposed to the USAF chart.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Then don't buy a 1Ds, Doug. All that cra...er...FILM equipment is NOT the same as a 1Ds and will not produce the same results. And I know that all that film equipment would produce better results from some perspectives, but at what price in time and processing costs and lack of conveneince?
Pick your poison, boys. There'll be lots of fotografic soul-searching done the next few months.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Amazing how not only the same week and within 2 days mind you, of the official announcement across the pond, Michael has a 1Ds to test already in Canada.
In looking over the sample pics of the Toronto skyline, I have to draw the same conclusions as he did. I look forward to seeing the comparison between the 1Ds and the D60 and in RAW format at that. Even if we have to wait a few more weeks.
And speaking of file formats, apparently the tests Michael made were with Jpegs if I understand correctly. If RAW was not available to test because of the lack of new software, then the sample pics came from Jpeg or Tif files. I apologize in advance if I misunderstood what you said about that Michael. Looking forward to new test results and also any pics shot on a nature shoot. I have a feeling the next edition of LLVJ will be a very popular one.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Dear Michael,
Please make sure to include the 1Ds's level of dust proneness/resistance in your review. It has been hypothesized that the dust proneness would be quite low, like the D30/60, because of the CMOS chip. On the other hand, the sample images that Canon released for the 1Ds looked rather dusty. What's the story?
Thank you.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Michael,
Thanks for the detailed review of the 1Ds. In my view, the ISO 50 shot had marginally more detail in the shadows, but overall does the 1Ds display an increase in dynamic range? I don't know, but I think not from the sample pics. Yet you would expect it to because of the larger pixel size. Perhaps the raw files will reveal this.
Also, according to my calculations, the D60 should display marginally better resolution than the 1Ds at equal focal lengths, the trade off being the D60 image will be cropped. Is this in fact the case? Shooting at the long end of the most powerful zoom in the camera bag could be a 'real world' situation, could it not?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']One of Michael's comments in Part 4 suggests Canon should change the .TIF file name suffix used by the 1D and 1Ds to something else. He points out the risk of unintentionally rewriting the raw file when using a tool ignorant of the true nature of the file.
Canon could substantially lower the risk of that particular error by simply writing the files with the read-only attribute set to "true." Sounds like a very simple change I'd like to see.
Bob[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Rainer,
Thanks very much for the pointers - very interesting! (Now, if only I could read Japaneese! ;-)
I may print both the SD9 and 1Ds samples, and also the 1Ds sample downsized-then-upsized to simulate this image taken with the D20, just for comparison sake.
Enjoy!
--- Jim
P.S. I forgot to ask, was it the 1Ds that you thought superior? How does the "noise" appear in your two prints?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
I was surprised to see the venue of Michael's shots change from Toronto to Florida... Do you think he likes the camera so much that he has taken it on the run??
I was hoping this was a new reality-based show. One where Michael takes off with Canon's camera, then posts pics from around the globe while Canon tries to track him down. Given his recent movements (Toronto ->Florida ->Northern Ontario ->Yellowstone) I may not be wrong. (Hint: you can hide from Nikon in Cologne ;>)
Michael, I meant to post a "thank you" for your D60 review in the spring. Thanks also for this review - for listening to and answering the concerns of posters on your site, for keeping a close focus on the pragmatic, and for patiently putting up with of the net BS.
Have a good trip! (Or better: enjoy your rest when you finally get home.)
Best,
Michael T.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']"...According to Olympus, most current lenses for 35mm SLRs resolve down to about 10 microns, and top-end lenses to around 6 microns."[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Dale,
Have you any idea what this statement really means? I think we can safely assume it refers to a 'real world' context of low contrast ratios, say 1.6:1 to 30:1. According to my maths 0.006mm is equivalent to 167 lines/mm or 83 lp/mm. Since this is roughly equal to the resolving power of good film in low contrast situations, the product of the two gives a maximum system resolving power for 35mm of about 40 lp/mm. Would that be about right? Sounds a bit low to me.
But digital sensors are not film and the same formulas do not necessarily apply. What formulas do apply?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
Hi Jim,
The 1Ds was far superior than the SD9. I did not even apply Unsharpen Mask.
On this 2 Images I did not see noise.
I took a look at the new images from Phil Askey in the dpreview.com forum and I would say what people saw as noie I can live with it because it looks more like film grain.
I think that since the digital came out the people have forgotten that there was someting like grain and they are now fooled with the digital images because they are so clean that sometimes they think there is more resolution in it which I think is not true.
I still think that film has more resolution than digital compared even to the ~11 MioPixel from Canon and the unseen samples of the Kodak ~14 MioPixel.
OK the software interpolation is in any case cleaner with a digital rather than on an analog filmscan, but with interpolation you do not win sharpness in my opinion. Afterwards applying sharpness just increases the contrast between lowlight borders and highlight borders.
Have taken a deep look what sharpening makes?
I always try to figure out on a landscape ¿ with how many pixels do I resolve some motif scanning it at 4000dpi and this same motif how many pixels are delivered by the DSLR?
4000dpi optical scanning resolution are ~157 pixels/mm and the highest resolution of the D60 is ~135pixels/mm, the 1Ds is ~113pixels/mm and the Kodak will have ~127pixels/mm. So there is still a long way to go to get the 157píxels/mm of the scanning.
The other thing I still do not understand is how the people calculate the resolution in Line pairs per mm for a digital camera?
Hmmm......when I look at both images they are VERY hard to compare. One shows a deep blue sky and the other shows a gray-green sky. And, the SD9 image appears underexposed.
Very hard to compare.
One camera seems to have the color all wrong.
I'm not so sure which it is. Does the SD9 have a blue cast or is it merely under-exposed? Does the Canon have aslight greenish cast in the sky or is it smog?
<boggle>
I honestly don't know.
I'd sure like to see a Kodachrome 25 of the same shot for reference.
Regards....Howard[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
I'm not so sure about this Rayleigh's Law figure of 1000. I've seen figures ranging between 1800 and 1000.
However, I'm surprised at your assertion that there's no advantage in using pixels smaller than 6 microns in a 35mm digital sensor. If this is true, there is clearly a different relationship between lens and sensor, and lens and film. Can you elaborate on these differences, please?
Another of your statements which appears to be in conflict with other information (perhaps misinformation) available on the internet is in regard to 35mm lenses being optimised for best performance at F8.
Raymond, pardon the late response. Here goes:
Diffraction Limit has many definitions. Rayleigh's is simply the diameter (radius?) of the Airy Disc to first minimum. Using FWHM is the diameter of the same disc but at half the peak intensity. There's also something called Dawe's Limit. What matters is to note that there's no sharp cutoff as to how many line-pairs you can see. Photodo explains this at length. It's a matter as to how low a contrast you are willing to tolerate. Using the 1000/f-no relates to an MTF contrast of about 33% as plotted on photodo. Astronomers use "critical sampling" because they are all too aware that increasing sensor resolution dramatically increases noise. But when there's plenty of light (shooting planets and the Moon) they do use "over-sampling". This would be equivalent to using pixels much smaller than, say, the D60 7.5 microns with 35mm lenses. It's not that you do not resolve more, it's just that you pay in a lot more noise. The Nyquist criterion is the generally accepted point for compromise.
Lenses optimised for f8? I actually tested 5 prime lenses on a D30. A Sigma 500/7.2 APO was so lousy we need not discuss it further, max resolution 35 lp/mm. The other 4, Tamron 14/2.8, Canon 28/2.8, Canon 50/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 macro all peaked at f8. I expected variations. Coincidence? so I can only conclude that they were actually designed that way ;-)
As for 35mm lenses being the limiting factor with both the D60 and the 1Ds, I would refer any doubters to test their best lenses using Norman Koren's lens test chart:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html)
It's very educational since he brings contrast into his chart, as opposed to the USAF chart.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Sergio,
Yes you are absolutely right. The other point is everybody sees different and has another quality sense.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']One more thing. I know you're a Canon shooter Michael, but since you have good friends at one of the Ontario camera stores, would you consider asking to test the Kodak 14n and 2-3 Nikon lenses when it becomes available?
The 1Ds and the 14n are in some ways made for very different purposes. The 14n doesn't have the fps speed or flash sync speed of the 1D cameras or the rugged build either. I suspect the 14n will see a lot of studio use with it's 13.5 effective MP resolution. But still, both have full-frame 35mm format CMOS sensors and both are very high res with the ability to shoot very high quality landscape and nature shots at large sizes.
Wildlife and sports is one area where the 1Ds will have the edge, but I think that a lot of people will still like to see some real world outdoor shooting with the 14n and how it compares to 35mm and MF.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I noticed the same thing Mike did about the Canon sample pics. I downloaded the Fruit photo and the first Portrait photo and both of them had several dust spots. The worst was the portrait. It took me over 30 minutes to clean up that shot in PS 7. I had sharpened them a little with NS Pro so that made every spot and flaw a little more noticeable.
Actually, that 30+ minutes also included the time it took to remove some of the wear and tear in the paper background and the worn out fabric covering the couch. Come on Canon!! If you're going to show off what your latest flagship camera can do, take the time to do it right. Make sure the sensor is clean and also that your studio background and props are in good condition. As our parents and teachers used to tell us, "Anything worth doing is worth doing right".[/font]
-
[font color=\'#CC9900\']Pale yellow on pale grey is not a good contrast. How do I change this, Michael? My posts are so important, I like people to be able to read them without difficulty!!![/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I was surprised to see the venue of Michael's shots change from Toronto to Florida... Do you think he likes the camera so much that he has taken it on the run?? [/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Sergio,
Me too. But I also have an academic interest in such issues. Even though sometimes such knowledge has no apparent practical relevance, it's good to know for the sake of clear thinking. It's also useful sometimes to be able to quantify some claimed improvement just so one can ignore it. When should one bother with mirror lock up for example?
Rainer,
Now I'm re-thinking this issue of dots/pixels and line pairs, I'm concerned I might be out by 100%. If a scanning pixel straddles a black and adjacent white line (which is a line pair), it's likely to be grey. If the lines are perfectly and equally spaced and at the resolution limit then every pixel will be grey, ie. no lines will be shown. This is why one needs 2 pixels per line. However, if that's true, perhaps one needs 4 pixels per line pair, and if that's the case then a 4000 dpi scanner which is approx 160 dots per mm will have a maximum resolving power of only 40 lp/mm.
Jim,
Now you've got me confused. The experiment you propose has really got nothing to do with the 1Ds. You could use any camera for such an experiment. The experiment would simply show how different file sizes affect resolution. Well, it would give you an idea of the magnitude of the differences between a 3 megapixel camera and an 11 megapixel camera. But I don't need convincing. One camera has almost twice the resolution of the other.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#CC9900\']Quentin,
Well, you're right. The dynamic range is somewhere between slide and negative film. Since most professionals seem to use slide film and have no doubt got used to its DR limitations, switching to a DSLR which probably has a slightly greater DR than they're used to, is no problem. Here in sunny Queensland, the light is bright and I got used to using negative film. I do shoot Raw with my D60 and have now got in the habit of either underexposing by 1/2 a stop when the sun's out or use AEB. A recent trip whale watching would have produced a lot of burnt highlights if I'd used just the evaluative metering.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks to everyone for your comments and support.
As you might imagine my time has been very compressed this past week and this morning was the first chance I've head to check the Board.
I'd love to reply to each and every comment and question, but I leave tomorrow morning for a one week wildlife shoot in Yellowstone and I still have to get my gear organized, pack, etc....
Cheers,
Michael[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']In part 5 Michael writes:
----
Since I'm primarily a medium format landscape and nature photographer this presents me with a quandary. When I get a 1Ds (and my order is already placed, with deposit), what do I do with my medium format gear? What do I take with me on a shoot from now on? Should I sell my MF equipment?
----
I just came back from a trip to Europe. Took D60+lenses+microdrives, Fujitsu P2000-series notebook computer (3 lbs with internal CDRW and extended battery), Mindstore, CD-Rs, plus adaptors, cables, etc. Everything worked fine.
My point? All this stuff is a boat anchor unless there is a place for me to plug in for the night. Yes, I could pack a Digital Camera battery or six, and if you have a car you can charge one thing at once (or can you? Lithium Ion chargers draw more current than many auto inverters put out...), but power is a problem. It can be done, as Rob Galbraith's article on the 2001 Eco Challenge proves, but you need to be *really* prepared.
So maybe my answer to Michael's quandry is: if you know you are going to be doing much of your shooting near a place that you can plug in every 24 hours, maybe it is time to part with the MF equipment like you did with your wet printing lab. But if you go on shoots where 120/220V AC is far and few between (how about rafting in Grand Canyon?), maybe there is still good use for that MF gear....
Thanks for listening.
Cheers,
Charles
P.S. I can't find the link to this Cathy any more, but there was this wonderful one that goes like this:
Friend: "We used to lug a bag of photo equipment on our trips...but since we got our digital camera, it all fits in the palm of one hand!"
"All we had to take was out laptop to download the memory card onto ... zip drive to download the laptop onto ..."
"Cables ... cases .. connectors ... battery chargers ... manuals ... and TA DA!"
Cathy: "What exactly fits in the palm of one hand?"
Friend: "Tip for the bell captain. Also, the chiropractor's cell number."[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Jim,
Thanks for finding the facts to support my conjecture. Can anyone find any facts or explanations to either support or refute my other assertion that pixel size would have to be considerably smaller than 6 microns in order to accurately capture a 6 micron dot that a top quality 35mm lens is supposed to be capable of resolving.
Imagine trying to photograph a single 6 micron dot with a digital sensor comprised of 6 micron pixels. In the very likely event that the dot does not correspond exactly with a single camera pixel, how is it portrayed - a 2 dot elipse - or possibly 4 dots with a diameter greater than 12 microns - or possibly it's not captured at all.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']How many of those 1Ds bodies are you actually planning on keeping?
If more than one, you're either a well heeled pro or my long lost rich uncle I've been looking for. And since we're good buddies now(right?)and you're loaded with a credit card limit that can handle the order of 4 1Ds bodies, I'm a little short on money now and since you're such a nice guy I know...lol
The lack of an AA filter in the Kodak did make me wonder when I first read about that. It'll be interesting to see if Kodak has found a way around that so the camera may not need it. Jury's still out till we can see some real world sample pics from Phil, Rob, and Dave. Or Kumio.
Did you see any problems with blurriness in the corners with W-A lenses or did you test it at all with the 16-35 for instance? How about the chromatic aberration problem Rob entioned? Did the one you tested show any of that? It's something I occasionally have to work with and remove with my D1X pics.
As for that comparison pic to 4X5(with RVP?)we saw on Rob's site, the 1Ds pic didn't appear quite as super razor sharp as the 4X5 film, but it did look a heck of a lot cleaner, much less grainy under magnification. In terms of being noise free, the 1Ds image won by a country mile over the 4X5.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
[But when there's plenty of light (shooting planets and the Moon) they do use "over-sampling". This would be equivalent to using pixels much smaller than, say, the D60 7.5 microns with 35mm lenses. It's not that you do not resolve more, it's just that you pay in a lot more noise. The Nyquist criterion is the generally accepted point for compromise.
Lenses optimised for f8? I actually tested 5 prime lenses on a D30. A Sigma 500/7.2 APO was so lousy we need not discuss it further, max resolution 35 lp/mm. The other 4, Tamron 14/2.8, Canon 28/2.8, Canon 50/1.8, Canon 100/2.8 macro all peaked at f8. I expected variations. Coincidence? so I can only conclude that they were actually designed that way ;-)
As for 35mm lenses being the limiting factor with both the D60 and the 1Ds, I would refer any doubters to test their best lenses using Norman Koren's lens test chart:
Samirkharusi,
Thanks for at least attempting to clarify some of these points. I've heard it often quoted that noise increases as pixel size decreases as though this is an immutable law like Rayleigh's law that describes the limiting factor of diffraction - nothing much you can do about it because that's the nature of light etc.
The D30 was acclaimed for its low noise. The D60 crammed more pixels into the same area and should therefore be noisier than the D30. But apparently it isn't. Both cameras are about equal in this respect despite the D60's pixel spacing of 7 microns and the D30's 10 microns. It would therefore appear that, whilst it's true there's an inverse relationship between pixel size and noise, this is not necessarily more than a technological obstacle which can be overcome through R&D.
BTW, Norman Koren makes a few predictions about future developments of 35mm sized sensors. He envisages a 24 megapixel sensor that has 1.39x the resolution of 35mm film.
On the issue of your lenses performing best at F/8, this is not really surprising. It's been folk wisdom for a long time that most 35mm lenses are best at around F/8 and no doubt for good practical reasons. I'm not challenging the results, but the reason for these results. One could argue that the reason why doesn't matter. It's only the result that matters. (But I have an enquiring mind!). You've assumed that all the lenses you tested were designed to have optimum performance at F/8 and you might be right. However, there are many test reports of 35mm lenses which indicate that certain lenses are sharpest at say F4 or F5.6. I have one such lens that springs to mind because I went to the trouble of testing it - a Sigma 400mm F5.6 prime. There's more than one report on the internet that claims this lens is sharpest at full aperture. My tests did not reveal this. The lens appeared to be sharper at F8. However, being a fairly modest sort of bloke, I did not immediately jump to the conclusion that I'd uncovered a scam and that the staff at the testing laboratories were either incompetent or in league with the advertisers and manufacturers, and that I with my simple and relatively crude testing methods had got at the truth. On the contrary, it became very apparent during the testing that focussing a 400mm lens on a 2 dimensional target at F5.6 was difficult and that there was always a degree of uncertainty. What I learned from that little experiment was that lens testing at big apertures is a hit and miss affair without a very precise system in place.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']The lack of grain and 'cleanliness' of the images from the 1Ds (and D30, D60) creates an impression that resolution is greater than it actually is. Lack of grain is one of the hallmarks of MF and LF. It's probably as significant a factor as resolution in terms of the general appeal of the larger format over 35mm.
The problem with the pricing of the 1Ds is unfortunate, but I wouldn't mind betting that this is related to the removal of the focal length multiplier effect. With the D30 and D60 there was a clear spin off for Canon. Increased lens sales. A 400mm lens which effectively becomes a 640mm lens is a bargain. Who can resist? Loss of wide angle capability is annoying, but maybe that 17-35mm zoom or 14mm prime now becomes a necessity. I know from personal experience. When I bought my D60, that was less than half the cost - although admittedly I opted for the Sigma 15-30mm instead of the much more expensive Canon 16-35mm. (Cheapskate amateur!)
I can't think of a good reason why anyone buying the 1Ds would also feel the need to buy any additional lenses - except of course for newcomers to the Canon system. There's little spin off for Canon. Profit will come mainly from the sale of the 1Ds body alone. Hence the high price.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Wow!! the comparison between 1Ds and 1Dv film really bring to end any debate about whether digital can surpass film. Game, set, match.
I'm sure there will be issues with artifacts (moire, etc) but the capability of the 1Ds is plain to see. I anxiously await the Kodak comparison.
Having said that there is no way that I will pay a huge premium to have that capability. If Canon wants my money they need to get the actual price down to the mid $5000 range.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Michael,
Thanks for the daily reviews. It's the first thing I check for these days.
One thing you didn't touch on noise was how the noise reduction system is on 1Ds. I'm not sure if you were planning to and if you were, great and am looking forward to it. I have not been able to find any info on whether the NR system on 1Ds is like the 1D or the D60. Meaning, can you take another picture while NR is processing the image like the D60 or do you have to wait till it is finished like the D30/1D? Thanks.
Godor[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Great so far, but did anyone really doubt that this camera would have amazing resolution?
For me I would really like to see a camera with dramatically improved dynamic range.
Sigma has promised this but I fear the lens line up will prove to be a real hinderence.
sas
www.photonotions.com[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Does anybody see jaggies in the parabolic antenna?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#CC9900\']Quentin,
That's a good point. The DSLR has now come of age. Some folks might think the 1Ds surpasses film based 35mm cameras in all respects. No need to bother with film any more. But I suspect this is not the case. If dynamic range is a major consideration, DSLRs are still not up to scratch. The fact that I might belong to a minority with this view does not make me wrong. The facts speak for themselves. I don't want to mess around with graduated ND filters (which are only of use anyway with a certain type of uncomplicated skyline) or spend my time cutting and pasting in Photoshop from two differently exposed D60 frames, which I find myself doing quite often.
Clearly, the benefits of the new DSLRs outweigh any disadvantages, but let's not completely ignore the weaknesses.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray,
If dynamic range is a major consideration, DSLRs are still not up to scratch. The fact that I might belong to a minority with this view does not make me wrong. The facts speak for themselves.
Please elaborate! I've tried without success to find a good, quantitative discussion of film and DSLR dynamic range. Michael has a short discussion of slide vs. negative film here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml) but I can't find a comparable comparison of, say, the dynamic range of the D60 or D1.
If you have facts, please share! Even better, if you can provide links to authoritative discussions of DSLR dynamic range as compared with film, I'm sure many of us would be pleased.
Enjoy!
-- Jim[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray,
I'm confused. (Not an altogether foreign state for me )
First you say dynamic range of DSLRs is not "up to scratch", and the facts speak for themselves.
I ask for some of those facts, but then you say "it's difficult to get the facts". And you label the subjective dynamic range comments in various reviews of DSLRs as "pretty vague".
I agree!
But I don't understand why you continue to "peg" the dynamic range between slide and negative film. It seems to me that we still don't know - objectively, any way.
I've begun to locate some interesting discussions on the web re. dynamic range. Too soon, really, to make conclusions - but from what I'm reading it's not clear that the D60 has a smaller dynamic range than color negative film.
I'll post more info when I've digested it. Meanwhile, I think it does everyone a disservice to propogate the subjective opinions that DSLRs have a smaller dynamic range than (negative) film.
Sorry for the rant - I'm just interested in getting the facts, as you say.
Enjoy!
-- Jim[/font]
-
[font color=\'#CC9900\']Jim,
Sorry about the confusion. When I wrote, "The facts speak for themselves", I was referring to the fact that the dynamic range of DSLRs appears to be a 'hush' subject. Many reviewers seem to ignore it but occasional mention of it tends to place it somewhere between slide and negative film (for the D30 and D60 at least).
I recall some time ago reading a specific reference to the DR of the D60. (Was it an article by Norman Koren or Miles Hecker? I'm not sure.) I think the figure was 6 f/stops. I was a bit surprised because I expected it to be about 7 f/stops from other comments I'd come across.
Will has now re-inforced what I already suspected to be the case. (Thanks Will!) But I'm still surprised. If Canon's claim for the 1Ds is that it can equal (and perhaps even surpass professional slide film), what was their claim for the D60?
Now, if I could drag myself away from this forum, I might find the time to do some testing of my own.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#CC9900\']Doug,
Fred seems to have quite a few really useful 'Photoshop Actions' available at a very affordable price - almost too good to be true. I see he's got two different programs that tackle the limited dynamic range of the D60 - Dynamic Range Increase (DRI) and Highlight Recovery Action. Actually, there's a third program - Shadow Recovery. I think I'll give them a try. Hope they're not too buggy. Thanks for the suggestion.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I do not agree. When you have something to throw away, it is always better rather then making up or inventing something.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']I think that was my point! :-)
For a given print size, the less interpolation necessary, the better.
What I'm wondering is if someone with access to a 1Ds might conduct a test. Print a full-frame image with no interpolation.
Compare that with another print that *simulates* a 3 MP sensor (e.g. D30) with the necessary interpolation to get the same size image.
It seems that would show how prints made with 3MP and 11 MP sensors render fine detail differently.
Enjoy!
-- Jim[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Ray,
Yes about the Line pairs per mm that is exactly the same thing I thought as you just wrote it down, but if you carefully analize some tests you will see that the experts are quite above this simple calculation as we see it.
Today in the morning it came to my mind that digital Photography reminds me to that old? system of painting by numbers.
What does the light reading element say when it sees 50% white and 50%black. I guess it converts it in a 50% grey?. It the light reading element (pixel?) gets 70% white and 30% black? will it be a light grey or will it be white? I could continue but what comes out? I think this has been somewhere fixed by software that say this pixel is black because it gets 90% of black so the 10% white is cut off or viceversa. In this case if I would have to pixels the 100% white would fall on one and the 100% black would fall on the other, etc. etc. etc.
I am speaking on that zones where there is a clear delimited border of Dark and Light.
How big are the light reading elements in a film? the silver particles ? OK they have the addiction to form groups, this is what I understand as grain and what if the film industry takes them away the addiction of forming groups (like we humans), won´t the film then be far superior than a digital at the moment?
I think they solved it quite good at the Fuji Provia 100F and 400F films. I can not speak from other film makers because I took the decision 2 years ago only to use Fuji because of the results and O do nat want to experiment anymore.
Another question is: Will the film industry be interested in developing solutions for the problem of grain building up? or not?
I think here it depends who in the film company is still interested in film or not and if they see future in the film or not. Maybe Fuji keeps doing the good job. They have the digital cameras and they still in the same time developed the Provia films 100F and 400F. Will this interest stay alive or not?
So after writing down all this I still have no answer how the line pairs per mm resolution is calculated.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Almost twice the resolution provided different lenses are used to compensate for the 1.6x factor. Since you're not comparing different images, your experiment would merely give you an idea of what 'double' the resolution looks like.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Michael,
You've certainly demonstrated what an imressive camera the 1Ds is. Despite a slight disappointment with my D60 regarding dynamic range, I'm very pleased with it in most other respects. It simply produces better looking photos than 35mm film. The lack of grain and noise is more impressive than that appealing quality of MF (reduced grain because of the larger format, I mean). But there are a couple of statements in part 4 of your review which seem contradictory. I'll copy and paste them below if that's all right.
"I have not had an opportunity to do any rigorous testing of dynamic range. But a few hundred varied frames show me that it appears to be comparable to that of the D30 and D60, which I have extensive experience with. Figure on a solid 6 stops of dynamic range.
Few photographers will find the 1Ds wanting with regard to available dynamic range. I judge it to be about one to two stops better than transparency film, and roughly comparable to colour negative film — but of course much less noisy / grainy."
I haven't found this to be the case with my D60 - that it is roughly equivalent to colour negative film. Perhaps it's my technique. Perhaps I should be underexposing more and extracting more detail from the shadows. On the other hand, I haven't done any rigorous testing either. 6 f/stops might be close to the bottom of the range of colour negative film but no where near the top of the range. The figures I have in mind are, 4-6 stops for slide film, 7-9 stops for colour negative and 9-11 stops for B&W. Maybe your figures for these ranges are different. Would you care to comment?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I think I see what you're talking about Sergio with the antenna in the test images. One thing I do notice is that overall, it has a sharper, clearer look in the 1Ds image.
But to be perfectly fair to film, I agree a little bit with a few detractors of the review who pointed out that the particular Imacon scanner Michael has is no longer among the best scanners, desktop or otherwise. While I agree that a $10,000-$12,000 drum scanner is way out of the budget for most people to afford for their own home, and drum scans from a lab can get expensive quickly also, a good pro desktop scanner like Nikon's 8000ED at $2,989(from Publishers Perfection)has 4,000 DPI and 4.2 DR and a Nikkor ED lens, which can give drum scans a hard run for the money with 35mm up to 4X5 format. A comparison between the 1Ds skyline images and scans from the 8000ED would be very telling, one way or the other.
It would get even more interesting with Toronto pics from a Kodak 14n thrown in. The 14n with it's 13.5 effective MP resolution(2.4 more MP than the 1Ds)would make for a very fascinating contest and one I would definitely like to see.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray, RS, Marshal:
Dale, Have you any idea what this statement really means?"
- Nope. I'm more the artistic type. Thanks for the clarification. So far as I know Ed Monaghan's 50 lp/mm would be considered a very conservative estimate, and really good equipment should do correspondingly better.
Tony:
I have tested and found 12+ stops with these materials. 10 stops of this is completely usable, there is severe compression in the rest, but it is still there. This is absolutely liberating compared to tranny, and gives me the control I only had in the wet darkroom with B&W, and more.
Three cheers for being brave enough to say this in public. Problem is the blankety-blank grain-aliasing robs me of much of my ability to leverage this resource (and I have a 4000 ppi scanner). I almost wish I hadn't been spoiled by neg film, then I could look on the seven stops of a typical digicam (accepting a bit of noise) as liberating. Still, if I could afford the Kodak 14n, I'd be tempted, if just for a change of opponents.
If once the reviewer tribe got exposed to a dSLR with ten stops of D.R., they'd never again be willing to tolerate seven.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I think perhaps the following table on diffraction limits (which I've copied and pasted from Roger N. Clark's site) might explain the 6 micron limit. As you can see, at F5.6 distortion from diffraction is represented by a 6.3 micron blob. Call it 6 microns. A high quality lens is likely to be 'diffraction limited' at around F5.6. The higher quality the lens, the larger the aperture (the smaller the F stop) the diffraction limit will apply. Some really top notch lenses might be diffraction limited at F2.8. This means that other aberrations due to coma and chroma etc are at such a low level that the predominant distortion is due only to diffraction. Stopping down will not produce sharper results, except in so far as greater depth of field might minimises focussing errors.
However, there's something misleading in Roger Clark's statement. He says, practical limits have already been reached regarding pixel size. Many people might interpret this as relating directly to the diffraction spot size at a fairly useable aperture of F5.6, but I think he's referring to the manufacturing process of the sensor chips and I think he's already out of date.
Any implication that, because lens resolution is limited by a certain diffraction spot size at a particular F stop, there is no advantage in having pixels smaller than the diffraction spot size, is patently false in my view. That would be like saying, because my lens cannot resolve more than 80 lp/mm, there's no point in using a film that has a greater resolving power than 80lp/mm. Now we all know that that's a totally false statement, don't we?
DIFFRACTION
Diffraction limits the ultimate detail an imaging system can deliver. This is a fundamental limit due to the wave nature of light.
The trend in digital cameras is to increase the pixel count, and the easiest way to do this is to decrease pixel size. However, practical limits have already been reached! The diffraction spot size in the focal plane is a function of f/ratio and is independent of focal length. The diffraction spot size is:
F/ratio Diffraction spot size
2 2.2 (microns)
2.8 3.1
4 4.5
5.6 6.3
8 8.9
11 12
16 18
19 21
22 25
32 36
45 50[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi All:
Gee, this is quite a thread here. I'm no expert when it comes to the more scientific stuff, but as someone who spent a day shooting with a 1Ds and has his own images of subjects he understands, I agree wholeheartedly with Michael's (and Rob's, etc.) conclusions.
I really didn't think it was possible for a mere 11MP to best 35mm chromes, but for my sort of shooting, it certainly does. I've been shooting with Provia 100F in my EOS1v for a couple of years now, and have made countless scans with both the Polaroid SS4000 and my Howtek SM4500 drum scanner. Even my best drum scans can't hold up to the 1Ds images, in spite of being substantially larger in file size. I've got the prints to prove it.
I did all my shooting in raw mode, and used a private beta of Zoombrowser to convert them to tif. I recall the moment I first laid eyes upon the converted image. It looked a bit soft, just like the images out of the D30 do, but this is a good thing, not a bad thing. You can sharpen the #### out of the images the 1Ds produces and the results are stunning. The level of detail in the image is really unbelievable.
I did hear a rumor that the Kodak 12MP body does NOT include an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor. If true, this should sound an alarm, since you MUST prevent spatial frequencies above the limits of the sensor from being captured. Once they're in the captured image, all the post-processing in the world won't save you. I was told the anti-aliasing filter in the 1Ds cost $2000 all by itself, which is one reason the 1Ds is priced so much higher than the Kodak. Trust me, you really DO want that filter there. I was also told the rumors of an EOS-mount Kodak camera are completely unfounded.
I've got 4 1Ds bodies on order (each from a different source), so I'm hoping to get one ASAP. Once I have one, I won't be shooting any more 35mm film, I can guarantee you that.
Cheers:
Grumpy
www.grumpysworld.com[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']BTW, Norman Koren makes a few predictions about future developments of 35mm sized sensors. He envisages a 24 megapixel sensor that has 1.39x the resolution of 35mm film.[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi again, Perhaps we are not as far apart as appeared at first sight. I note that Norman Koren's prediction of 24 megapixels for a 35 full format translates into 6 micron square pixels (4000x6000), capable of critical sampling of a 80 lp/mm lens. Somewhere in Canon's vast stable, there must be such a lens, perhaps the 600/4? The D60 already has 7.5 micron pixels. So within spitting distance. Since lens development is not static, though perhaps not proceeding by leaps and bounds like sensors, that cross-over point regarding the best compromise for pixel-size, noise-sensitivity, lens resolution will shift continuously towards smaller pixels, with enough time. IMHO, the 7.5microns in a D60 remain useful today between f5.6 and f11, but are overkill outside that range with the lenses I tested. At f22 those pixels are an overkill even for a theoretically perfect lens. Again, using Nyquist and FWHM to get "critical" sampling. For me, first priority remains a full-format sensor, probably for the vast majority of us :-)[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Doug, I quote Michael's review of the 1Ds:
"What about a comparison with both 35mm film and medium format? I'm afraid that film has definitively lost the battle. The 1Ds's full-frame 11MP CMOS sensor produces a 32MB file — as big as a typical scan. But this file is sharper and more noise free than any scan I have ever seen, including drum scans. There simply isn't a contest any longer.
The 1Ds also fares very well against medium format. Is it sharper than 645? No, not quite, but really very close. When you add in the extremely low noise of the images compared to scanned film, and add in all of the cost and workflow advantages of shooting digital over shooting and scanning film, in my opinion the 1Ds is to be preferred. I'll gladly take the huge reduction in noise (grain) over slightly lower overall resolution any day of the week. Thomas and Chris basically have concurred with this finding after reviewing many sample images that we shot together."
This says that OVERALL, MR prefers the images from the 1Ds.
Shoot what you want, Doug, but don't put words in Michael's mouth.
When YOU have tested a 1Ds, comparing it to your own MF images, and have published your results, you'll be entitled to your INFORMED opinions and I'll read them. 'Till then, how can you argue INTELLIGENTLY without having done it yourself? One surely can't tell from the medium-sized JPGs anyone including Michael published.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']One feature Michael wished for was automatic horizontal and verticle orientation of the file. Wow, I've been saying that for years. My Kodak 260 (4years ago? about $400) had this feature. I've since owned Nikon 990, 995, Canon D30, D60, A30 and not one of these #### cameras has had it! :p You may think it a small problem but when you have to reorient a few hundred photo's especially at converted file sizes, you can waste a whole lot of time.
Done ranting.
Thanks. [/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Dale,
I do not know how you came to 16,72 Mio Pixel but mathematically
36mm divided by 0.006 (microns) gives exactly 6000 pixels on the long end of the 35mm film and 4000 pixels on the short end and this multiplied gives 24 Million Pixels.
Another thing is you would then have optically a resolution of ~ 4233 pixels. More than any film scanner at the momemnt speaking of the Polaroid, Canon or Nikon film scanners.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Since current sensor pixel pitch appears to be near the limit of the resolving power of our best lenses, it might make sense for the camera designers to turn to exposure latitude for the next set of improvements. Certainly, this seems to be the last factor where film holds the high card.
To increase dynamic range, you need to capture and process more data, resulting in longer processing times and bigger files - not always desireable.
Why not give this control to the photographer? If they provide us with an on-camera "contrast" adjustment we could increase bit depth when we need it.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Similarly, I received notice yesterday afternoon that the 1Ds would be available to me (I'm at the top of the waiting list) in early December, for $7400.
This is about $1400 higher than I think it should be.
Have others received similar notice?
Enjoy!
-- Jim[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I have to agree with Marshall. I'd like to see a comparison made with high detail, high frequency landscape images, expecially with--if possible--prints made at, say, 14x22 or 16x20 and higher, which is traditionally what I've bothered to use medium format for anyway. If I enjoyed smaller prints, I'd be really excited.
On an aside, has anyone here ever made any comparisons projecting digital files from a high end multi-media projector vs. a quality 35mm or medium format slide projector and lens? For my personal use, the 'weak link' in digital is the lack of information regarding the satisfaction one might or might not receive from using the current crop of digital projectors.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Awesome. :D A word not to be used lightly, but I feel justified in using it for the 1Ds.
It's not just the resolution, although that is impressive. Its the lack of serious artifacts. Its Foveon like (arrgh, the dreaded F word). I asume this is because of the light touch anti-aliasing filter.
Assuming this to be the case, I would hope (as a Nikon man) that the new Kodak will be similarly free of nasties.
An important threshold has been crossed. A DSLR with resolution surpassing that of 35mm film. We are in unchartered territory. Someone better start redesigning 35mm lenses to keep up.
Quentin[/font]
-
[font color=\'#CC9900\']Jim,
This is the whole point of my argument. It's difficult to get the facts. It's a weakness that tends to be ignored. You must know from general experience that you don't promote products by mentioning weaknesses. If a manufacturer produces an audio CD player with a dynamic range of, say, 70db, he's not going to boast about it. The listed specifications at the back of the manual are probably going to ignore this bit of information. It's not impressive. Let's be quiet about it. So is the case with digicams in general. Dynamic Range is an ignored specification. There's nothing to boast about.
When Michael first reviewed the D30, he said he thought there was slightly more shadow detail than the compared Provia F slide. There were later subjective comments, from other sources as well, that the dynamic range of the D30 was somewhere between that of slide film and that of negative (color) film. Pretty vague really. My own experience with the D60 is that the DR is very roughly inbetween that of slide film and that of color film, but probably closer to that of slide film. I would guess it's about 6 f stops as opposed to the 5 or 5 1/2 f stops of the average slide film. This compares with 8-9 f stops for some color negative films and 11 f stops for the best of the B&W films and the best of the MF $20,000 digital backs. There's a long way to go.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Jim,
I do not agree. When you have something to throw away, it is always better rather then making up or inventing something.
When I do prints whatever size, I always scan at highest possible resolution and then either resize up or down.
Just because of this huge discussion in dpreview, on weekend I made some tests to see if the digital really has more detail and for my use I would say digital can still wait.
I took a landscape shot with my Canon 15mm f2.8 Fisheye on Provia 100F (I think not the best example, but i wanted to see what comes out on details) and scanned it at 8000dpi on my Polaroid SprintScan4000 with Silverfast Ai 6.0. Yes 8000 dpi the software interpolates, because the optical resolution of the scanner is 4000dpi.
I do print from 20x30cm up to 60x90cm or 8"x12" to 24"x36".
The bigger you print, the lesser the resolution of the outgoing file can be because the looking distance increases.
Take the huge advertising signs on the Mega-Signposts. Each pixel maybe has the size of 1x1inch square but you see a perfect image because you are 100meters away.
I even do this for my photos in the web. Scan big and then downsize to max. 600 pixels longest side.
So I decided long ago that a ~20' MioPixel DSLR would be the point where I step into Digital Photography until then I begin to save the money for it.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I downloaded a couple of the SD9 pics as I did with the 1Ds last week. I haven't had the time yet to work with the SD9 samples, but I will say upon first look, that the color is very good in all of them. The blue sky in the SD9 sample looks more saturated than in any of the others. But again, the color in all the SD9 shots is good.
I haven't applied any sharpening to the SD9 pics yet, but the in-camera sharpness, even before USM is very good. The images look clean and clear and pretty sharp already. As good as most I've seen before USM or NS Pro.
I'm not saying any of this because I'm getting excited about the Sigma/Foveon; the 1.7X magnification is completely unacceptable to me and therefore I won't be buying it. But I will give credit where credit is due.
As for day to day use of the camera, that will have to wait until test reports. How good or accurate is the metering, AE, AF, Ergonomics, Reliability? All those are unknowns so far. Doesn't matter, I'm a Nikon man. But based on the image quality of the samples I've seen from Phil and Kumio from the SD9, I do think the X3 is a very good chip. If Foveon could just make a much bigger version of it and provide it to Nikon.
One thing I noticed about the Foveon, like the 1Ds CMOS and Nikon CCDs, you can still easily see dust spots. At least when they're stopped down to f11 or further.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I wonder if these new DSLRs as the new Canon and Kodak will enter into the medium format quality, at least for medium sized prints. If thats true, why bother carrying around a heavy film based 6x7?
What do you think?
Sergio ::[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Michael:
I don't know if you'll see this, but your time exposure photo of the Milky Way over the lake at dusk with the 1Ds was fabulous!! Gorgeous picture had it been taken with any camera. There are probably some astronomy clubs near you that would enjoy that picture and it may also have stock potential.
It would be interesting to print a 13X19 of it not only for the enjoyment of it, but also to see how much if any noise it shows from the long exposure. Thank God and Canon for CMOS![/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']What's more, it is almost certainly an engineered inhibition. CCD sensors can now achieve 14 stops range, and do so completely linearly. I don't know any reason why CMOS should be worse, so it sounds like Canon have knobbled the range.
Tony Sleep Photography (http://www.halftone.co.uk) () ::[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Tony,
It never occurred to me that the limited dynamic range of the D60 and 1Ds (and other DSLRs) might be a deliberate engineering limitation to make the image look more 'punchy'. I tended to assume that the limitation was raw computing power. If you want high dynamic range, you not only need the sensors to be capable of it, but perhaps more computing power than can be fitted into a 35mm size body without slowing down the whole process. Typical MF backs which, until recently, needed to be tethered to a laptop at least, were capable of 11 f/stops. The 35mm format has to be more flexible.
Dale,
I gathered you are an 'arty type' from your excellent introduction to composition. Nevertheless, you seem to have a good understanding of the technical issues as well. The notion that, because 35mm lenses cannot resolve finer than 6 microns (whatever circumstances of f/stop and contrast ratio etc apply!!), therefore any digital sensor with pixels of a similar dimension has reached the limit of 35mm lens technology, is clearly false. It's a fallacy.
If a lens is capable of resolving a particle 6 microns in diameter, you need a digital sensor containing pixels considerably smaller than 6 microns in order to 'extract' the most out of the lens.
There's a 'law of diminishing returns' that applies, as with scanners. 2700 dpi gets you most of the detail available on 35mm. 4000 dpi gets you a bit more. 6000 dpi gets you an even smaller bit more, as does 8000 and 12000.
To get the relativities in perspective, if the 3MP D30 had been designed as a full frame digicam with no multiplier effect, it would have been a 7.8MP camera (assuming the pixel density was not diluted). The 1Ds at 11.2MP does not have a significantly greater pixel density than the D30, and has less than the D60. I think we can safely assume that there's still a fair amount of improvement to be achieved before we reach the limit of 35mm lenses.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Why do we assume that the resolving power of the lenses is limited to XYZ microns?
How have we measured this?[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Rainer,
Good question. And I certainly don't have the answer. I've been running with this 6 micron limit because it came from an Olypus representative who was promoting another format. I figured it would be a very conservative figure and close to real world results as opposed to laboratory tests with high contrast ratios which, I believe, would show resolution limits far smaller than 6 microns.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I would surmise (as you've gathered, I'm no expert - just fishing in the dark for the few facts available) that Kodak have omitted the anti-aliasing filter because aliasing and other artifacts are reduced as the resolution of the sensor reaches and exceeds the resolution of the lens. I would predict that the 14n will be relatively free of artifacts at F/8 and greater, but not with a good lens at large apertures. This is one advantage of using sensors that exceed the resolution of the lens, and AA filters as you know reduce ultimate resolution somewhat and therefore are best avoided if possible.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Michael,
Thanks for the first really independent test of this camera. Also for the shots.
While I have read with much interest everything the comparison of the 1Ds with the provia 100F film what I did not like is that you presented a 10% bigger sized scan of the provia film. For the 645 you reduced it to a similar size of the 1Ds but the scanned crop of the 100F 35mm you left it on 553pixels wide.
I allowed myself for comparison purposes to set all 3 images in one row for comparison puposes.
http://rainerehlert.com/fotos/1Ds.jpg (http://rainerehlert.com/fotos/1Ds.jpg)
After seeing the 3 shots together my decision to buy a 1Ds has never been nearer than now.
I will keep attention to you further test and if it is possible it would be nice if you could later on provide some RAW files to experiment with them. Will it be possible to open those RAW files with Photoshop 7.0.1?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Michael:
I came to this site late Friday evening, actually early Saturday to read the next installment of your 1Ds diary and didn't see any updates. I was disappointed. But I figured you were probably tired after a full day of shooting with the new camera and maybe printing some 13X19s. Right? I'll look forward to the next update later today.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray,
Digital cameras respond differently with regard to dynamic range. My subjective impression is that their dynamic range is somewhere between negs and good transparency film *but* with one caveat: easily burnt out highlights. You have to err on the side of underexposure. That means shooting Raw. Seeing a burnt highlight, it would be easy to conclude, I think wrongly, there was a problem with dynamic range.
There is another factor here. The scanners a lot of people use to scan their transparencies have very limited dynamic range. Forget the marketing nonesense that would have you believe xyz brand of $200 flatbed has a dynamic range of 4.2, or whatever. I read some tests recently that showed even some quite expensive and well regarded scanners had limited dynamic range. So, in comparison, a DSLR can really win out. Film is, if you like, being held back.
Finally, most DSLRs are 12 bit. That's pretty good, but 14 or 16 bit would be better.
Quentin[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']There have been recent discussions about the usefulness of 11 MPs if one doesn't care about making large prints.
I contend that more pixels are only better if an image must be "ressed-up" to print at the desired PPI. For instance, if printing a 4 x 6 inch print at 360 PPI, a 3 MP D30 image has sufficient pixels to avoid interpolation altogether.
But printing that same image at 12 x 18 inches requires significant up-ressing using Genuine Fractals, bicubic interpolation, or some other process.
If one were to compare an 8 x 12 inch print using a 3 MP image and an 11 MP image, I would expect visible differences - assuming the image contained fine details like the texture of distant foliage.
I wonder if Michael could conduct a test - or make a full-size 1Ds image available for others to do the test.
One could print a full-size 1Ds image at 360 PPI. Then down-sample the image to D30 size (~3 MP). Then use Genuine Fractals to up-res the image to its original size, and print again at 360 PPI. I'd like to compare the fine details between the two prints.
Has anyone done such a test?
Enjoy!
-- Jim[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']There's one thing that worries me about these comparisons. Most of the images are taken with different lenses, are they not? Now I know if one is comparing a Canon DSLR with a Nikon or SD9, there's basically no alternative. The lens mounts are different. But what about comparisons between, say, the D60 and 1Ds. We still use different lenses to compensate for the D60's 1.6x factor. The Canon 100-400 IS Zoom set at 400mm or 160mm does not have the same performance (necessarily) as it does at 250mm or 100mm. Jim mentioned downsampling a 33MB 1Ds file to 9MB to put it on the same footing as the D30 and then upsampling both files to search for differences. I'm not sure if such an experiment is going to be at all useful. One would expect any differences, if any, to be very subtle. But if you did see any differences, with a magnifying glass, how would you know they were not differences in the lenses used?
On the issue of converting digicam pixels to line pairs/mm, I've assumed that a camera pixel is roughly equivalent to a scanning dot and that it takes a little more than 2 dots to depict the narrowest line pair.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Sergio, Michael too is wondering the very same thing.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']In Part 5 of the 1Ds review, Michael writes, "the 1Ds is a much more sophisticated camera than the Nikon-based 14n." Is there a fuller discussion of this comparison somewhere? I wanted to know more. Thanks.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
The 1Ds at 11.2MP does not have a significantly greater pixel density than the D30, and has less than the D60.
Ray,
According to dpreview, the pixel "pitch" (in µm) of the 1Ds is 8.8 x 8.8 which is roughly halfway between the D30 (9.9 x 9.9) and the D60 (7.4 x 7.4).
Hence, the 1Ds pixels are more densely packed (smaller) than those of the D30, by about the same amount as the 1Ds pixels are less densely packed (larger) than those of the D60.
You can see the comparison table here (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1ds/default.asp).
Enjoy!
-- Jim[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi,
I have been following this thread.
Why do we assume that the resolving power of the lenses is limited to XYZ microns?
How have we measured this?
Could it not be that our measuring devices are not up to date?
That we have had no necessity to improve our measuring devices?
Just putting down what came to my mind about this theme.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']When Michael goes to the Photo Expo, or any of you for that matter, I hope he'll(you'll) go to the Kodak booth and see what he(or you) can learn about the 14n and any sample prints or display posters they might have. And also ask about the AA filter issue.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']
In fact his projected Normalized Image Quality published on this website shows the Canon 1Ds at only 1.03 which seems a bit low based on Michael's real world tests.
Yes! Koren's IQ figure for the 1Ds does seem a bit conservative. I'm reminded of some good advice I heard recently. We should strive to be emotionally optimistic but intellectually pessimistic.
Reading Norman Koren's tutorial on scanners recently, I came across the following statement.
"Given the difficulty that optical systems have in reconstructing the original analog signal, the rule of thumb that the number of line pairs per mm a scanner can resolve is less than half its pixel (or dots) per mm resolution is essentially correct. If the Nyquist theorem could be applied precisely (using sinc(x*dscan) reconstruction), it would be very close to half. But in reality you need more than two pixels to resolve one line pair of actual image detail (for example, a window screen). I've seen the number four used as a rough estimate, but that seems overly pessimistic in light of the results below. Three seems to be a pretty good number, especially when sharpening is applied."
The above paragraph caught my attention because I had previously arrived at a position where it seemed to me there could be a 'worst case' scenario where 4 pixels were required to depict one line pair. Samirkharusi pointed out that only 2 pixels are required. It now seems that 4 pixels is the pessimistic extreme and 2 pixels is the optimistic extreme. 3 pixels is just about right.
Now I might be making an erroneous assumption if I equate scanner resolution with digital sensor resolution, but on the basis that the same principles apply and that it takes 3 camera pixels (on average) to depict one line pair, we get the following results. Maximum resolution for the 1Ds (at MTF 50% ?) is 38 lp/mm and for the D60, 46 lp/mm.
Now, if you think I don't know what I'm talking about, do me a favour and let me know, won't you?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']While I understand folks feelings about the large price of the 1Ds, a quick calculation shows me that film, processing and drum scans are costing me about US$2,500/year, not counting the driving involved in all of those. Even mitigating this a bit for batteries and memory sticks, the 1Ds might just pay for itself for me.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Michael,
You mentioned that some people have criticised you for your method of doing reviews and tests, for using postprocessed images, or not being scientific enough, etc. Well too bad for them! I wanted to let you know that I very much appreciate your style of reviewing and testing. We already have two excellent sites (dpreview and imaging-resources) which try to go into exhausive objective detail about new technology. What I appreciate and learn from your website is YOUR take on a camera (or technique) based on YOUR subjective opinion. It's refreshing and helpful to see how things relate to your professional experience. Please, keep doing what you are doing![/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Jim Warthman writes:
I think it does everyone a disservice to propogate the subjective opinions that DSLRs have a smaller dynamic range than (negative) film.
Canon has proudly proclaimed that the 1Ds will at least equal—and in some cases perhaps even surpass—professional slide film. It stands to reason, then, that if Canon believed the camera were capable of the broad latitude provided by print film, it would have stated as much. It didn't. And as far as I know neither has any other digital camera manufacturer. Yet.
All of the speculation aside, however, it's an easy thing to test with one roll of slide film, one roll of print film, and one digital camera. My own tests show that CCD digicams and DSLRs provide less latitude than slide film, with almost no tolerance for overexposure. I have not had the opportunity to test a CMOS camera but plan on doing so soon. Nevertheless, I doubt that that test will conflict with Canon’s announcement proclaiming the 1Ds equal to professional slide film—not print film. And at the end of the day, that’s an improvement.
Will Tompkins[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Hi Jim,
In the page www.digitalcamera.jp
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/report/EOS-1Ds-020924/index.htm (http://www.digitalcamera.jp/report/EOS-1Ds-020924/index.htm)
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/report/SD9-020927/index.htm (http://www.digitalcamera.jp/report/SD9-020927/index.htm)
On this 2 pages you find the same motif taken with the 1Ds ~11' MioPixel as well as with the SD9 ~3' MioPixel.
I downloaded the 2 files ISO 100 from the page and made a print test 12x18 inches and you really see a difference. I resized both to have 300dpi for printing on an Epson Stylus Pro 7500 with 1440dpi on the printer.
The difference in sharpness is clearly visible.
My wife due to the fact that she does not do any photography is always called to check the prints.
Try this 2 files. It is very interesting and eye opening.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Jim mentioned downsampling a 33MB 1Ds file to 9MB to put it on the same footing as the D30 and then upsampling both files to search for differences. I'm not sure if such an experiment is going to be at all useful. One would expect any differences, if any, to be very subtle. But if you did see any differences, with a magnifying glass, how would you know they were not differences in the lenses used?[/font]
[font color=\'#000000\']Ray,
In the steps I described, the same image would be printed twice - once using full resolution of the 1Ds, and once after downsampling (to emulate a D30) then interpolated to make the second print the same size as the first print. The differences cannot result from the effects of different lenses because it starts with a single image!
Like you, I expect the differences to be subtle. Recently I printed two copies of a 12 x 18 print on my Epson 1270. One was printed by setting the Epson driver to 720 PPI, the other using 1440 PPI. Both prints were quite good. But placing them next to each other, and viewing from a few feet distance, the one printed at 1440 was somehow deeper and richer. Upon close examination (without a loupe), the differences were hard to pinpoint.
Perhaps printing an 8 x 10 from the D30 and from the 1Ds will produce a similar difference - we'll see!
Enjoy!
-- Jim[/font]
-
[font color=\'#CC9900\']Michael
Thanks for the early and thorough info on the 1Ds.
In you first report,on the subject of moire,you mentioned that since
a large proportion of your work is wildlife and scenic in nature you
didn't expect moire to be an issue for you.
As a former 1d owner (I had one for 2 weeks before getting an
inside tip that the 1Ds was to be announced and fortunately deal
with an understanding supplier) I ran into moire quite a few times in
my short stint with the camera-specifically in birds feathers,some
animal fur,sand dunes,and the occasional brick wall.
Before you have to return the camera to Canon and if the opportunity
presents itself could you shoot some bird images.
I'd be curious to see if the higher pixel count will help alleviate this
problem.
Thanks
Mark Tomalty[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Thank Michael for his work by buying his Video Mag.
Michael, I reupped in anticipation of you getting Canon to get you the 1Ds in record time. After you sold me on the D-30 in a timely way, I figure I have saved $4,000 in film. So another extension of my subscription for $99 seems a more than fair exchange.
Ressing Up. I could get some 13x19 prints off some subjects with the D30. I am assuming that posters 20x30 are now in reach. But with what printer?
By the way, regarding the question someone had of going to 20meg chips seems useless for 35 size since this site has discussed that at 11 we are maxing out the resolving power of Canon lenses, true? From here on out the increase in dynamic range to negative film levels would be more useful.
Additionally, Michael's suggestion that we talk to the camera to make it change control is interesting, I'm already talking to my camera, but it isn't responding.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']JacMac asks:
"By the way, regarding the question someone had of going to 20meg chips seems useless for 35 size since this site has discussed that at 11 we are maxing out the resolving power of Canon lenses, true?"
Reading the www.imaging-resource.com 4/3rds project report (http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1033665660.html) I came across the following:
"...According to Olympus, most current lenses for 35mm SLRs resolve down to about 10 microns, and top-end lenses to around 6 microns."
From dpreview's 1Ds report (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1ds/) we can see that the 1Ds' pixel size will be 8.8 microns. Looks like the answer is "getting darned close".
Since the 1Ds fits 11.4 million pixels in a 35.8 x 23.8 mm imager and the 14n will fit 13.89 in the same area, that suggests the 14n's pixel pitch will be 7.2 microns. Working backward (and presuming my math is correct), 16.72 million pixels, each at 6 microns, would meet the ceiling imposed by lens resolving power.
This is not to suggest that even a 16.72 megapixel camera would provide the ultimate resolution for 35mm format. I think Foveon has taught us that. I want a full-frame, 17 megapixel X3 dSLR for XMas.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']A couple of points which hopefully add a little on aliasing/tonal smoothness, and dynamic range. My biggest concern with the review and conclusions is how the #### I am ever going to afford a 1DS...
Of course there will now be a chorus of those who say, "Ya, but a drum scan would have really shown a bigger difference in favour of film." Humm. Maybe. But here are my thoughts on this recurring topic. I have had drum scans made from my 35mm and medium format film on several occasions. Yes, an 8000 ppi scan is impressive, and can make bigger prints. But, I'm also convinced that while they give me more pixels, I don't get a whole lot more real data. There simply isn't that much more information on film than about 4,000 PPI. Above that we get bigger files, but not much more information. Maybe, 20% more than the 3200 PPI scans that my Imacon Flextight Photo scanner is capable of, but not 2 or 3 times as some inexperienced people presume from the numbers.
I agree with Michael's 4,000ppi 'diminishing returns' assessment as far as image detail is concerned, but it isn't enough to reach conclusions regarding tonal smoothness.
Film grain is irregular both in size, distribution and topology, and all of these attributes interact with the fixed geometry of pixel size and distribution. What many people believe is grain in their scanned images is often aliasing, which produces an exaggerated grain-like structure comprising false colour/false luminance pixels.
Avoiding this in low-pixel-count scanners is only possible by using a low-pass optical system (soft lens or antialiasing filter) which hurts image detail as well.
Grain aliasing can be so extreme as to render a scan unusable, especially with grainy, fast B&W silver-based films, but generally it is acceptable with scanners >=4,000ppi.
When it happens, the result is far more 'texture' than the film image exhibits when viewed or printed by analogue techniques.
Having seen comparative drum scans of an ISO100 tranny done at 4,000, 8,000, and 12,000 ppi, there isn't much gain in resolution of image detail above 4,000ppi, which accords with what Michael says in his review. By 8,000 ppi the scan has virtually all of it. Yet 12,000ppi shows a significant increase in grain detail over 8,000ppi, with better rendition of individual grain shapes. A lot of people say this doesn't matter, grain detail is not image information we want...
However, if we don't capture precise grain information, what we get through the conversion to pixels is aliasing, and a characteristically false and 'noisy' rendition of the film image. An Imacon scan at 3,200ppi necessarily adds an unknown extra dimension of aliasing noise.
How much, and how destructive depends on the anti-aliasing filter and CCD properties, even the lightsource, but it is important to recognise that any comparison with scanned film is not a comparison with film itself.
Pedantically, I think it would be worth doing a comparison involving a 12,000ppi drum scan, to get a more absolute measure of the differences between the film images and the EOS1DS. Not for the sake of resolution per sebut to judge relative tonal smoothness more accurately.
Having said all that, I am sure digital will still win, but the existing methodology probably makes film look rather worse than it is in this respect (and JPEG'ing of an image full of aliasing products compounds the issue, to film's disadvantage).
Michael's observation of moire and the artefacting of the red-shed boarding are more of the same. Aliasing is inherent with pixel-based systems, though the Foveon sensor will avoid colour aliasing and only alias luminance.
For me, the only obvious remaining advantage of film (apart from avoiding divorce and bankruptcy) is dynamic range.
My main interest and use of scanning is so I can use colour negative and B&W chromagenic films, exactly because they have a mad dynamic range : what you can see with adaptive eyes, you can photograph, pretty much.
I have tested and found 12+ stops with these materials. 10 stops of this is completely usable, there is severe compression in the rest, but it is still there. This is absolutely liberating compared to tranny, and gives me the control I only had in the wet darkroom with B&W, and more.
Alongside this, the D1S is, as reported, distinctly poor at 6 stops.
What's more, it is almost certainly an engineered inhibition. CCD sensors can now achieve 14 stops range, and do so completely linearly. I don't know any reason why CMOS should be worse, so it sounds like Canon have knobbled the range.
I hope this will prove to be something that applies only to JPEGS, and the RAW files will contain far more range.
There is a very good reason why Canon may have done so : wide range images look absolutely awful on-screen, impossibly flat, low contrast. You have to work with them, as raw material, and you wouldn't want to have to cope with the consequences of JPEG, it has to be clean, raw, high-bit data.
So the JPEG format is probably assumed to be for rapid onward transmission as a production file, with levels set, and only 8bit/ch available. To do anything else would frighten the desk editor who receives the file, and involve them in making judgements which are best left to photographers...
Fingers crossed, anyhow.
Regards
Tony Sleep (sometime filmscanner reviewer - suddenly retired
Tony Sleep Photography (http://www.halftone.co.uk) () ::[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Perhaps the following is useful and easy to remember:
1. Nyquist theory says that you need two pixels to resolve a line pair. Yes, I actually verified this with a D30. Not 4 pixels.
2. Despite Foveon's claims, the Bayer array does NOT destroy the resolving power of a sensor all that much. In my tests with a D30, you lose 15% on the horizontal and vertical axes and almost nothing on the diagonal. Yes, I also verified this.
3. The "diffraction limit" is not a hard cutoff. It depends on definitions used. If you start with black & white bars and accept very low contrast in the output, lenses can deliver absurdly (and uselessly) high lp/mm. This is the primary source of those 100+ lp/mm claims that you used to see in decades past. Photodo has a lengthy expose on this on their MTF explanations. You need a definition that delivers a usefully high contrast level. Astronomers tend to use FWHM (Full Width at Half Maximum of the Airy disc) since this is what they use to match pixel sizes to telescope configurations, seeing conditions, and the Nyquist criterion (two pixels per line-pair). With this definition the theoretical diffraction limit of a lens in lp/mm = 1000/f-no for a wavelength of 4900 Angstroms (yellow light). Ie a theoretically perfect lens delivers 125 lp/mm at f-8. It would be more lousy in deep red light (< 90 lp/mm) and a lot better in deep blue (> 160 lp/mm). Ie real world lenses are unlikely to do better than, say, 80 lp/mm in white light at f-8 using the FWHM criterion. This also means that it is not particularly useful to use pixels that are smaller than around 6.5 microns if your lenses are optimised for f8 (like most 35mm lenses). Using all the above, a D30 is certainly good enough for lenses that deliver 45 lp/mm, a D60 around 60 lp/mm and a 1Ds between the two. I tested 3 Canon primes and NONE deliver, at a usefully high contrast level, anywhere near 45 lp/mm outside f5.6 to f11. Mass produced lenses are indeed that bad. Again, from my own testing with a D30, I would extrapolate that with a good Canon prime at f8 you can expect 2300 lines per picture height from a 1Ds (Lines per Picture Height is used in the digicam testcharts, just to confuse matters!). Depending on the printing resolution you desire (240dpi (9.6" high), 180dpi (12.8"), or whatever) you can determine what your own cutoff print size will be when compared to larger formats. Normal, unaided human vision considers 240dpi as pretty razor-sharp and should not be able to distinguish (resolution-wise) as to whether the source was a 1Ds sensor or an 8x12" negative. 180dpi satisfies many people too, especially when printer-related imperfections also come into play. Remember, a lot of people were and still are satisfied with D30 prints at 8x12". But this gets into subject matter/context arguments...[/font]