Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: didger on November 21, 2004, 12:12:13 pm

Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 21, 2004, 12:12:13 pm
I should probably never have spent so much time looking at Michael Fatali and David Muench prints from large format.  More sensor elements and larger sensors and spending ever so much research and testing time and money for sharp enough lenses are the only ways that we can gradually get closer to large format quality with DSLR's.  Call it pixel peeping, call it pointless lusting for new toys, call it anything, but a room full of very sharp large size prints always takes my breath away and that's where I want to go with backpackable digital to whatever extent technology and my circumstances allow.  Maybe just another picky bastard.  To each his own.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 22, 2004, 06:37:41 am
Quote
I think that there are vastly cheaper ways of getting BIG high quality landscape prints other than spending so much money in the likes of full-frame DSLRs.
Um, wanna list those vastly cheaper ways??  LF is not cheap if you consider film and processing and scanning costs.  In any case, the advantages of digital over film have been discussed so exhaustively and frequently, there's no need to do it again here.  Additionally, for me it all has to be backpackable.  Panorama stitching is cheap, but rather limited and a huge hassle; not cheap if your time is worth anything.  When the morning or evening light is just right, you might have time for a dozen single shots or if you're lucky, one panorama stitching session.
Quote
Of course you will have more resolution with the 1Ds than with the 1D MKII, but will you use it?
Huh?  What kind of question is that?  Any time you're printing larger than 8x10 you're "using" the extra resolution.  At 16x20 you're really "using" it.  At larger than 16x20 it becomes essential.  If you want substantial freedom to crop it becomes essential.

I've observed an almost universal phenomenon on this and other forums, namely that people tend to argue that whatever they happen to have is good enough and that anyone that has or wants more than that doesn't quite have their act together somehow.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: jliechty on November 23, 2004, 05:19:19 pm
Quote
There's surely no need to try to argue anyone into doing anything different than what they enjoy doing (for whatever reasons).
However, trying to argue digital people into the "advantages" of film is a particularly tough go.
I know a few people that keep horses and I enjoy their enthusiasm for this and I agree that horses are beautiful creatures and that all the "horse stuff" (learning to shoe a horse, learning about tack and horse health issues, etc.) is fascinating, but these folks don't get on internet forums and argue that horses are superior transportation.   :D
Maybe I didn't say clearly enough that I thought that digital has plenty of advantages. I just don't think it has the universally and vastly superior advantages over film at this point in time that cars have over horses. That day will come, and it is probably not far off... My only complaint is with people who place greater emphasis on the cost "advantages" of digital by selecting the set of numbers that most greatly reinforce their decision.

Perhaps it's because I'm a fan of "editing through the viewfinder," but I probably spend between $300 and $400 per year on film and processing. Hence, given the almost disposable nature of low-end DSLRs that are in my price range, and the constant desire to upgrade (it's like a computer), it seems that a DSLR doesn't make any sense based on cost, because it would be several models out of date, and possibly non-functional (what's the life of a D70 or 10D anyway?) by the time it paid for itself.

I don't deny, however, that for some styles of photography, more prolific shooting is required (amateurs shoot sports, too), and for that a DSLR makes more sense.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: RobertJ on November 23, 2004, 08:28:58 pm
Quote
Hence, given the almost disposable nature of low-end DSLRs that are in my price range, and the constant desire to upgrade (it's like a computer), it seems that a DSLR doesn't make any sense based on cost, because it would be several models out of date, and possibly non-functional (what's the life of a D70 or 10D anyway?) by the time it paid for itself.
Wow.  First off, I'm surprised by how many posts I've received in this thread.  I thought I would be bashed in this thread for asking you guys to foresee the future, which is impossible, of course - Thanks for all the replies so far.

To jliechty:
You are correct, because I am one of those people who kept shooting film, even when the D70 came out, as well as the 10D, and also, a few of my friends bought D70s as well.  I used their DSLRs and my conclusion was simple - it was so darn fun shooting digital, but at the time, I didn't think it was good enough to totally switch from film.  So I continued to shoot film, and not even purchase a 6mp DSLR for fun.  Having said all that, I now have some extra money to spend, and I know, not everyone does, but right now, I do.  

Reading all of Michael's experience, (and others), with the 1Ds has lead me to believe that buying the Canon will not be a mistake.  I can get it new for $5999.99.  I'm confident that it will last a long while, and then the upgrade to the 1Ds2 will be that much easier.  By then, who knows what other digital tools will be available?  Just something to think about.

There's nothing wrong with playing it safe and waiting for digital to explode, although to some people it already has.  Just 3 months ago I told myself I would wait for digital to evolve for another 3 years, but I changed my mind pretty quickly.  I don't think about film costs very much.  To me, digital seems more enjoyable, while shooting and while processing and editing, but there's TONS of people who still love looking at transparencies on a light table.

T-1000
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 24, 2004, 04:28:50 pm
Well, this thread has totally mutated from the original intent several times, but at last some real practical value is emerging.  I'm inclined not to bother buying a DVDR drive now.  CDR is good enough for occasional use to send somebody something and why bother archiving on a very questionable medium?  Besides, hard disk storage is now about $1 per GB, so it's feasible to just keep buying hard drives for archiving.  Even if you store everything in duplicate, you'd have to do a serious lot of shooting before this would be prohibitive.  You'd only need to put the drives on line now and then, since you wouldn't be using your archives for routine day to day use, so the issue of bearings wearing out is not critical.  It's also nice to have an archive medium that you can edit if you want.  I figure I'll be able to hold onto my work for the rest of my life easily enough (63 now).  I don't care what happens to it when I'm gone.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Graham Welland on November 25, 2004, 02:16:41 am
Quote
I'll have much more to say on this, but just to give you a hint – the game isn't about megapixels any more!
My guess:

4. It's the colour, dynamic range and highlight & shadow detail ....

(which is what a lot of people have been saying for a long, long time).
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: RobertJ on November 20, 2004, 12:01:41 am
Hey guys, I'm about to pick up a 1D Mark II and was wondering how long it would be before I get to trade it in for the next release in the 1D series?  Do any of you believe there will be a 1D Mark 3 that's just as fast, but has more than 8mp, or at least 11mp, and maybe even more?

Where do you think Canon will go with this series of camera?  

The 1Ds series seems a little too expensive for me, especially the 1Ds Mark II, but who knows, maybe I'll give in, and end up buying the 1Ds anyway.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on November 21, 2004, 04:30:22 am
In what ways would the 1D MKII limit your photographic vision?

If you just want a new toy, go ahead, buy one, and then dump it into my lap when the replacement comes along.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Jack Flesher on November 21, 2004, 12:52:37 pm
Quote
I should probably never have spent so much time looking at Michael Fatali and David Muench prints from large format.  
 
That's why I still have a LF camera LOLOLOLOL!

But seriously, I agree the 1Ds is still a better camera detail-wise than the 1DMKII.  

While the 1DsII is undoubtedly even better than the 1Ds, it remains to be seen by how much...  

At least IMO,
Jack
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on November 22, 2004, 05:59:02 am
I think that there are vastly cheaper ways of getting BIG high quality landscape prints other than spending so much money in the likes of full-frame DSLRs. I have nothing against them, mind you, as soon as they become affordable for me, I will buy one.

135mm format has its limitations, and spending USD 8000 just to push the envelope a bit further, seems odd. Of course you will have more resolution with the 1Ds than with the 1D MKII, but will you use it? And in the end, when you look at the results from LF (e.g. Muench), the BIG and detailed prints, was it worth it?

What I was challenging was the original poster's mentality/approach regarding "I am buying a camera now, how soon before I trade it in for the next one with more megapixels". If he needs the largest possible quality prints from 135mm format, then the answer is the 1Ds (I or II). It's that simple. That is why I asked him in what ways would the 1D MKII limit his photographic vision, or photographic business, for that matter (if he plans to sell big prints).
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: RobertJ on November 22, 2004, 07:26:54 pm
Yeah, I think I was dreaming, rather than thinking.

T-1000
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: jliechty on November 23, 2004, 02:53:27 pm
Film is not cheaper if you're a pro who has a job and needs to shoot x number of images regardless of what medium is being used. On the other hand, I know many amateurs in real life (not implicating anyone on this forum) who shoot much more prolifically in digital than they formerly did with film, and then brag to me (trying to make me feel bad about my ancient and totally inferior, now unusable and obsolete film technology, I suppose) about how much money they're saving by shooting digital. However, because digital is "free" to shoot, they tend to disconnect the mind from the eye and shutter finger, and hence they end up with no more (or even fewer) "keepers" than before.

While I recognize that high end DSLRs have many other advantages over film (the 1Ds beating 35mm film in resolution, for example), proposing the cost argument to most amateurs as in such extreme form as is often done, is IMHO not entirely correct.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: howard smith on November 23, 2004, 05:58:14 pm
Being an "edite through the view finder" fan, all I can say is "Go jliechty."
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 23, 2004, 08:23:45 pm
I shoot about 40000-50000 frames per year. For me and others who shoot a lot, film makes zero sense. For someone who shoots 500 frames a year at most, costs work out a bit differently. YMMV
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 24, 2004, 08:48:24 am
Quote
I am trying to argue that for lots of folks, film is still a valid medium to do photography
I've never contested this; not even once in the many times this issue has arisen.  I do contest claims that film is superior and implications that folks that want to go digital ought to reconsider and that folks who want high resolution DSLR's are wasting their money unless they meet some stringent requirements of yours (IF this and IF that and IF the other).
Quote
As is digital, IF you can afford it, IF it makes sound business sense. If you are a pro, making a living, you are out taking pictures, not wasting time in forums like this.
How about IF you enjoy working with digital better, IF you've found you (personally) get better results and more satisfaction, IF you find that field review of images is a huge benefit, IF you find that being able to take a lot of shots without counting the cost is a huge benefit, IF you want the best possible resolution in a relatively compact camera?
As for "pro" or "wasting time on forums".  I'm only sporadically "pro" and I also spend a hugely great deal more time shooting than I do on forums.  However, I've learned a lot of extremely useful things on this forum, so I don't need to justify the time I spend here.  If you think it's a waste of time, what's YOUR justification for being here?  You like wasting time?
"Meditative" photography?  That's the only kind I do.  I've never done any machine gun style shooting, but I do like to be able to try lots of exposure variations and other subtle variations and then choose what I like best later when I can really see what I have.

Digital storage?  I have plenty of CD's at least 10 years old and I've never yet experienced a single CD failure or any OS or platform incompatibilities so far.  Sure, it's a possibility, but a small one, and a very small one if you're diligent with backup.  As for migration of millions of images eventually (after a really long time), sure that's a hassle and expense, but at least it's a way of preserving your work for a really long time.  What do you do with a bunch of deteriorated slides after a really long time?  Long term digital storage is not "perfect" (what in this world is?), but at least it's possible.

Pbizarro, here's a direct quote from you:
Quote
full-frame DSLRs. I have nothing against them, mind you, as soon as they become affordable for me, I will buy one.
So, maybe some of us have found them already affordable.  Any problem with that?  Are you afraid that some of us are letting our children starve or robbing banks to buy our cameras?  Sheeesh.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: 61Dynamic on November 24, 2004, 04:16:52 pm
Quote
There are cases (as Didger has pointed out) where CDs are perfectly readable after 10 years - though if these are music CDs then they include a lot of error detection/correction algorithms to protect against fault data bits...

CD/DVD storage live has nothing to do with the way the info is written to the disc. It's all about the materials it's made of. Current writtable discs are made of the cheapest crap out there and the material rots natturally. The older CDs Diger talks about probably are made with different materials than current discs are (ultra-low price is not a huge concern when tech is brand-new). I would not trust any disc I write today to be readable two years from now. It has been proven even that some discs even begin to rot two months after they're written.

Writting faults with CD-R/CD-RW drives have more to do with buffer issues than anything else. If the buffer does not fill quick enough to keep up with the writting speed of the disc, a gap can occure in the data corrupting the disc. DVDs are written in a different mannor and buffer issues are not an issue like they are with CDs.

Now, CDs (software discs, music CDs, etc) you buy in a store will certainly last you longer. They have the data stamped onto a very thin sheet of aluminum or tin. CD-R and CD-RW discs have data written by means of burning knotches into a soft material by the laser (CD-R) or by altering the color of a dye on the disc (CD-RW).

Quote
Hard Disks are like any other magnetic media and degrade over time. Many  large companies used to (and still do to a lesser extent) store back up data on magnetic tape in offsite storage, however, more often than not, when an old tape was retrieved the data was found to be corrupted.

Lets not forget that tape backup drives quite physically differently than Hard-drives. A hard drive stores information magnetically on metal platters (some old ones used glass). These platters are not touching each other and so there is no risk of one magnetically charged platter effecting the one above or below it. This is the main problem with tape backups. The magnetically charged tape is resting upon itself and data can "bleed" into other portions of the tape over time.

The magnetically charged discs on a hard-drive can last up to 4,000 years before the charge is lost naturally. The thing that really is a problem with hard-drive life are the electronic components and the bearings on the drive. Those will fall appart or not be compatable by future computers long before the magnetic charge on the drive is lost.

Quote
All media will fail - archiving is not about which media the images are stored on, but the ongoing process of checking and replacing faulty media.

File formats and the ability to read data over a 10 year period is less likely to be an issue as there is so much equipment/data out in the world that needs to be supported from a legacy point of view. If you are following an archiving process that swaps out faulty media on a regular basis, then converting from one file format to another can be done at the same time. It is a case of getting away from a mentality of store and forget, towards one of constant maintenance.

Exactly. As with all things, maintenance is required.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 24, 2004, 10:37:20 pm
I really will have to get out with my camera next time I spend a few months in Bombay.  There's potentially charming people shots all day long in every direction everywhere and there's the extra zip of the exotic nature of India too.  Even in Bombay (financial/industrial capital of India) you still see lots of people in traditional India clothing, and occasional elephants in the streets; certain other cities more elephants, lots of camels, lots of bullock carts.  You can't really imagine India if you've never been there.  You'd love it, Jonathan, for the photography opportunities, in spite of what the streets smell like.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 27, 2004, 05:35:57 am
Quote
he good news is that I have the original slide safely stored away.
I'm sorry to note that you've had such trouble with digital storage, but glad to note that slides suit your needs so well.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: raghu_mani on November 25, 2004, 02:19:39 am
Quote
I didn't want to start a new thread, so I'll ask this question in here:

MR says:
"I was working with my new Canon 1Ds Mark II, and also the Phase One P25 back on a Contax 645. These are both wonderful tools, though very different in their character and capabilities. I'll have much more to say on this, but just to give you a hint – the game isn't about megapixels any more!"

What do you guys think this means?  Three things come to my mind:
I think Michael just answered that question. Take a look at his comment about dynamic range in the Dalsa thread.

  - RM
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 20, 2004, 06:16:15 am
The 1D-MkII and 1Ds-MkII are fairly newly arrived to market, so the next model update isn't likely for about 2 years, if past Canon history is any guide to future product introduction. Canon has indicated theat the 1D/1Ds will be combined in the future into one model having both high megapixel count and frame rate, basically an 8FPS or faster 1Ds-MkIII or Mk-IV. If you want a camera, just buy it.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 21, 2004, 04:47:43 am
Quote
In what ways would the 1D MKII limit your photographic vision?
Huh?? You mean compared to a 1dsMKII?  Are you serious?  Vastly better quality large prints.  In what way would a 3 Mpixel point and shoot limit your photographic vision?  No way at all, if you don't want to ever print larger than 5x7.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 21, 2004, 09:04:30 pm
Quote
How soon you figure MKII for you, Jonathan?
It's going to be a while, unfortunately, due to some financial setbacks. But if I could buy one and pay my mortgage too, I'd be all over it.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 22, 2004, 06:42:43 pm
Quote
fast, sports shooting cameras that can produce greater than large format quality
Hmmm, that would take a few pretty big leaps in lens and sensor technology and may or may not be possible ever at all.  It's hard to predict fundamental technology breakthroughs.  However, I'll settle for a marginally backpackable MF DSLR outfit with 4x5 film level resolution.  I'm very confident that we'll have that within a few years, and for no more than the cost of a 1dsMKII.  No big breakthroughs or miracles required, just a bunch of engineering detail work.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on November 23, 2004, 05:51:11 am
Quote
Um, wanna list those vastly cheaper ways??  LF is not cheap if you consider film and processing and scanning costs.  In any case, the advantages of digital over film have been discussed so exhaustively and frequently, there's no need to do it again here.

Huh?  What kind of question is that?  Any time you're printing larger than 8x10 you're "using" the extra resolution.  At 16x20 you're really "using" it.  At larger than 16x20 it becomes essential.  If you want substantial freedom to crop it becomes essential.

I've observed an almost universal phenomenon on this and other forums, namely that people tend to argue that whatever they happen to have is good enough and that anyone that has or wants more than that doesn't quite have their act together somehow.
Film was cheap before digital, it is still cheap these days. And you don't need to scan for printing, you can print straight from the neg or slide. I understand the advantages of digital over film, but they are not strong enough for ME at THIS point in time. I see no reason to spend 3-4 times the price of one EOS 1V, when I can get excellent results from Velvia 100F, and still have money left to buy top quality glass. Also, it is funny that Fuji reports that their sales of pro-slide film have increased. And some people are converting their important digital images into slides, to be sure that they will have something in the future. The point is, each one should use what fits him/her best.

When I asked if he was going to use the extra resolution, the point was "is he going to print that big anyway?". Or was that just "lust" for more Mpixels? He already answered the question above.

You have very sharp powers of observation.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: RobertJ on November 23, 2004, 07:44:13 am
Well, I like film a lot.  I still shoot 35mm Velvia once in a while with my Zeiss lenses on an old manual focus Contax body, (actually, that's the only camera I can use at the moment, until I buy my digital body) but, much like Michael Reichmann, I now prefer the workflow of digital, and so, I'm switching.  

I also have an old 1939 foldable Kodak Vigilant Six-20 in mint condition which I use for fun sometimes.  I take 120 Fujichrome Velvia and roll it onto a 620 spool so I can actually use it in the camera.  After I go digital, I don't see using either of these systems, unless film is required by whomever, for whatever reason.  But then again, I think I will buy a Mamiya 645AFD a little later, and shoot 645 if it's required by some old school agency, and get ready for the digital backs, just like Michael did.

I'm a Michael Reichmann copy-cat

T-1000
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 23, 2004, 04:11:45 pm
Quote
proposing the cost argument to most amateurs as in such extreme form as is often done, is IMHO not entirely correct.
There's surely no need to try to argue anyone into doing anything different than what they enjoy doing (for whatever reasons).
However, trying to argue digital people into the "advantages" of film is a particularly tough go.
I know a few people that keep horses and I enjoy their enthusiasm for this and I agree that horses are beautiful creatures and that all the "horse stuff" (learning to shoe a horse, learning about tack and horse health issues, etc.) is fascinating, but these folks don't get on internet forums and argue that horses are superior transportation.   :D
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Sabercat04 on November 23, 2004, 06:23:04 pm
I am currently a film user and waiting until the digital is a bit more affordable before switching. Meanwhile, I think there is still one important advantage of film over digital and that is for slide shows. The current digital projectors are not able to do justice to a good digital image and are still far inferior to a standard light projector for 35 mm slides. I am hoping that soon the digital projectors will be significantly improved in their resolution.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: 61Dynamic on November 24, 2004, 02:31:57 am
Quote
But please, digital storage is "bomb proof"? Give me a break... Are you sure you will be able to read your CDs/DVDs/Hard drives in 5 years time? In 10 years time?

CDs/DVDs, No. They will certainly rot after two years or less as the tech stands today. It would not suprise me one bit however to pull out a hard drive 20 years from now that I store today and find it still accessable with all my data.

The bigger question would be if the data is accessable due to changes in the file structure support of future machines, interface connections, and support for the files on the drive.

With digital storage, as Diger pointed out, regular maintanance will net you unlimited archiveability.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 24, 2004, 12:20:07 pm
Quote
though if these are music CDs
Of course I know that music CD's won't readily show slight deterioration and that pressed CD's are probably more stable than burned and I'm sure there's first generation music CD's that have been abused considerably but will still play.  I'm talking about CD ROM's that I burned back in the early history of that whole technology when a burner cost around $2000.  These antique CD ROM's that go back to my old Mac G3 days still work.

Jonathan:  I'm not much into "people" photography (maybe India some day, though), but that picture of yours would just have to charm and delight anyone who still has a heart that's beating.  This picture also very much vindicates the notion that shooting a lot of frames does NOT dilute quality; rather it enhances the odds of quality in many circumstances.  Maybe for a very expert landscape shooter few frames works OK, but as a way to learn if you're not so very expert, even landscape work benefits greatly from being able to shoot lots of frames.  I work all the light hours (and then some) when I'm out shooting and I'm out a LOT and I work "meditatively" all the time, but I still very much like to shoot a lot of frames.  I have for years expounded the view that my creative efforts, certainly including photography, depend more on getting into a sort of calm and inspired meditative state than on any formulas or expertise.  Of course technical expertise (especially Photoshop) is also very necessary, but the inspiration is the most important thing.  For me top quality equipment and a digital work flow support this inspiration the best and get in the way the least.

Anyway, Jonathan, thanks for posting that picture; my smile for the day.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 25, 2004, 12:51:52 am
I wouldn't doubt it. I'd like to do some traveling, but haven't had the budget lately.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 25, 2004, 08:45:12 am
Ho, ho, best dynamic range of any photographic device Michael has ever used.  I assume that Michael considers shooting negative film as "using a photographic device", so the Dalsa technology is obviously some sort of huge tech breakthrough.  HOW ARE THEY DOING THAT?  Fuji took a small step forward with two sensor elements per sensor location.  Foveon took a leap forward with three sensor elements per sensor location, but at the cost of rather large size elements and for some reason this technology has not moved forward into the high resolution pro realm.  This Dalsa achievement apparently goes far beyond what many folks have thought was theoretically impossible with anything like the available technologies.  So how is this done?  Can we expect this to migrate to levels that people other than the most extremely wealthy can afford?
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: RobertJ on November 20, 2004, 02:49:09 pm
Quote
If you want a camera, just buy it.
Now that's what I needed to hear.  I think I'll pick up a 1Ds instead.

T-1000
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: RobertJ on November 21, 2004, 11:50:32 am
They're both great cameras, but I have found from several tests that the 1Ds definitely produces more detail in it's images with little noise, compared to the 1D Mark II, which produces great images that are extremely clean, but not as sharp in detail.  I think the 1Ds would be more flexible for me and stock agencies, as well.  Not everyone wants or needs 11mp, however, I am one, picky bastard.

T-1000
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 21, 2004, 01:12:24 pm
Quote
That's why I still have a LF camera LOLOLOLOL!
Yeah?  But how much do you use it?  How often do you schlepp the whole kit up to 12,000 feet cross country and across mean talus and scree slopes?  I still have my old Crown Graphic, but.....
Quote
better than the 1Ds, it remains to be seen by how much...  
Yeah, especially with those troublesome ultrawide lenses.  I might just skip 1dsMKII and wait and see what happens with MF DSLR's in the next couple of years.  35mm is probably maxed out and then some at this point and MF digital hasn't even gotten properly "ignited" yet.  I expect MF DSLR's that will exceed 4x5 film quality before I'm too old to do more than reminisce about "the good old days" in a nursing home.  For now it's skip the camera or skip the freedom to get out and shoot a lot.  No brainer; 1ds it is for a while longer.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: RobertJ on November 22, 2004, 04:53:36 pm
Quote
What I was challenging was the original poster's mentality/approach regarding "I am buying a camera now, how soon before I trade it in for the next one with more megapixels". If he needs the largest possible quality prints from 135mm format, then the answer is the 1Ds (I or II). It's that simple. That is why I asked him in what ways would the 1D MKII limit his photographic vision, or photographic business, for that matter (if he plans to sell big prints).
Pbizzaro,
You're exactly right.  I now realize that I should not have considered the 1D Mark II if I was searching for a high resolution camera that would last me a good, long amount of time.  

I could easily buy a Large Format camera for under $1500, (or less if it's used) and produce amazing prints -- but that's not how I shoot.  Shooting large format is slow.  Even the Medium Format cameras with the 22 megapixel backs are just that - they're SLOW, and don't offer the versatility that Canon does, along with their fast autofocus, and large selection of lenses.  

I think a 16megapixel 35mm DSLR is an amazingly versatile machine.  One day you can shoot fast moving wildlife, or nature, the next day, you can shoot landscapes, and still retain Medium Format quality, and approach Large Format (although that's still debatable, of course).  Obviously, sports shooters won't want to use the 1Ds Mark II, but 4fps is #### good, along with the autofocus.

My dream arsenal of cameras include a fast, high resolution 35mm DSLR, and then in the future, a Medium Format with a monster digital back for slow shooting, or maybe large format film for the present day.

I have a funny feeling that in the future, we'll have fast, sports shooting cameras that can produce greater than large format quality.  We're lucky to be living in these photographic times, and I guess we should really take advantage of the technology.

T-1000
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: 61Dynamic on November 23, 2004, 01:07:08 am
Quote
They're both great cameras, but I have found from several tests that the 1Ds definitely produces more detail in it's images with little noise, compared to the 1D Mark II, which produces great images that are extremely clean, but not as sharp in detail.  I think the 1Ds would be more flexible for me and stock agencies, as well.  Not everyone wants or needs 11mp, however, I am one, picky bastard.

T-1000
The 1Ds certainly does gather more detail than the 1D MkII but that's a given due the the higher MP count. The 1D Mk II is nothing to shake a stick at. It has a stronger AA filter than Canon's other cameras and simply requires stronger sharpening in post in order compensate.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 23, 2004, 12:25:17 pm
Quote
Film was cheap before digital, it is still cheap these days. And you don't need to scan for printing, you can print straight from the neg or slide. I understand the advantages of digital over film, but they are not strong enough for ME at THIS point in time. I see no reason to spend 3-4 times the price of one EOS 1V, when I can get excellent results from Velvia 100F, and still have money left to buy top quality glass. Also, it is funny that Fuji reports that their sales of pro-slide film have increased. And some people are converting their important digital images into slides, to be sure that they will have something in the future. The point is, each one should use what fits him/her best.
Film is NOT cheaper if you're an active shooter. Between my 1Ds and 1D-MkII, I have exposed over 70000 frames in the last 18 months. What's film & processing for 70000 frames of 645? It's more than the cost of the 1Ds and the 1D-MkII put together, with plenty left over for glass and accessories and computers and printers and monitors and other digital crap.

BTW, there's a reason why most film shooters scan rather than print optically; the quality of the results. This is especially true when printing large. And nobody is seriously using slides as a backup for digital images.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: howard smith on November 23, 2004, 05:01:08 pm
I have no idea what it will be called, but I doubt Canon is done.  There will be another new camera.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: howard smith on November 23, 2004, 06:39:50 pm
Eight grand or so will buy a lot of film/processing for my old film camera.  And buy the time I have spent $8K, a 1ds will be about $1.39 on eBay.  And the latest Canon will be at $8K.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on November 24, 2004, 01:06:29 am
Jonathan, obviously for someone that shoots as much as you do, it makes perfect business sense. No argument from me there. My question would be, have your photographic skills and vision improved proportionaly? Out of 36 shots (1 film roll), do you have more keepers now then before? Blasting away at high speed motordrives is easy, but I prefer to photograph in a more "meditative" way.

Didger, I am not trying to push that "film is better than digital", I am trying to argue that for lots of folks, film is still a valid medium to do photography. Something you seem to have a problem with. As is digital, IF you can afford it, IF it makes sound business sense. If you are a pro, making a living, you are out taking pictures, not wasting time in forums like this. But please, digital storage is "bomb proof"? Give me a break... Are you sure you will be able to read your CDs/DVDs/Hard drives in 5 years time? In 10 years time? And then when the digital storage support media changes, do you think it will be fun to migrate your thousands/millions of images? If you change PCs, are you sure that it will read your CDs/DVDs? Right...

Take care.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 24, 2004, 11:59:50 am
Quote
Jonathan, obviously for someone that shoots as much as you do, it makes perfect business sense. No argument from me there. My question would be, have your photographic skills and vision improved proportionaly? Out of 36 shots (1 film roll), do you have more keepers now then before? Blasting away at high speed motordrives is easy, but I prefer to photograph in a more "meditative" way.
Absolutely. One learns by shooting, looking at what you shot, analyzing what worked and what went wrong, and applying that to future shooting. I don't use motor drive that much, I compose and shoot each frame individually 99% of the time. I do shoot a lot though, and the experience has definitely improved the "keeper" rate. I shoot a lot of concerts and events, where a slow contemplative approach means you'd miss a lot of stuff if you had to set up a tripod and take 11 meter readings and fuss with the focus for 2 minutes before firing the shot. What makes the difference between a keeper and a clunker for me now has more to do with things like the subject blinking as the shutter was pressed, or someone walking in front of me, a band member moving unexpectedly, etc. The experience I've gained from shooting that many frames means I can go in and shoot and be confident in my technical abilities, and select shots based on best facial expression, composition and the emotion of the moment rather than on whether I manged to get the exposure and/or focus within reasonable limits. That means I can catch grab shots that a contemplative approach would totally miss. Here's an example:

(http://visual-vacations.com/ProfessionalServices/Portraits/187U2906.jpg)

I shot this at a wedding; as the bride was getting ready, one of the bride's friends came in with her daughter and the daughter sat down for a moment. The only reason I got this was because I was technically prepared and all I had to do was briefly AF and hit the shutter.

If I'm shooting pruducts in a studio type setting, I won't shoot very many frames; I don't need to for that. If I'm doing a series of similar items with the same lighting, I may only shoot one frame per item once I've got focus, exposure, and lighting dialed in. It's a different approach for a different situation.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: RobertJ on November 25, 2004, 01:14:08 am
I didn't want to start a new thread, so I'll ask this question in here:

MR says:
"I was working with my new Canon 1Ds Mark II, and also the Phase One P25 back on a Contax 645. These are both wonderful tools, though very different in their character and capabilities. I'll have much more to say on this, but just to give you a hint – the game isn't about megapixels any more!"

What do you guys think this means?  Three things come to my mind:

1. He's talking about the importance of quality of the lenses as we increase in megapixels, or...

2. Somehow, the Canon beat the crap out of the Phase One 22 megapixel back (I doubt it), or...

3. The Canon did VERY well against the Phase One 22 megapixel back, and/or he enjoys using the Canon more than the Phase One back.

I'm pretty sure by the time everyone starts answering this question, Michael will have already updated this site with his field reports and comparisons.  But for now, what do you all think he means?

T-1000
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: RobertJ on November 25, 2004, 11:48:44 am
Wow, I totally forgot about Dynamic Range.  Too bad I can't afford the Phase One beast

T-1000
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 20, 2004, 03:51:39 pm
Yeah, maybe that's what I needed to hear too; think I'll go pick up a 1dsMKII.  Uh, well, maybe after I figure out where to "pick up" the money for it.

How soon you figure MKII for you, Jonathan?
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: DiaAzul on November 22, 2004, 07:38:07 pm
The only problem that I have at the moment is that the cameras have now outstripped the supporting technology in terms of capability. The 1DsII is nice, though the 1DII fits my needs perfectly (I'm a snap and run sort of person), however, I would like to see a printer with greater tonal range to give more detail in shadows and highlights rather than more pixels (it would be nice to get output like a traditional B&W print - if anyone knows how to do this then let me know). However, if I was a landscape artist I can see that more spatial resolution would be a real benefit.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: didger on November 23, 2004, 12:39:07 pm
Quote
digital images into slides, to be sure that they will have something in the future
I've had enough grain, low resolution, scratched emulsion, and all around physical deterioration of slides in my past.  I don't reckon this is a "something" that I want in my future.
Kinda like making a plastic copy of a diamond as a "backup" and "something for the future" in case the diamond gets lost or damaged.  Digital storage is extremely compact and economical and pretty bomb proof if you're diligent about backup and maybe refreshing every 5 years or so.  Beyond that, just how much "future" are we talking about here, that a slide would survive for?  I've worked on a scanning and archiving project for a huge collection of old slides (1970-1980 or so); yeeccchhh!!  No more old slides (or new) for me.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: DiaAzul on November 24, 2004, 11:34:57 am
Quote
CDs/DVDs, No. They will certainly rot after two years or less as the tech stands today. It would not suprise me one bit however to pull out a hard drive 20 years from now that I store today and find it still accessable with all my data.
The only thing we can say with certainty is that there is no certainty. Which having written it is a bit of a contradiction, however, ho hum.

I think you will find that both of your statements are extremes, though I am sure you realise this. There are cases (as Didger has pointed out) where CDs are perfectly readable after 10 years - though if these are music CDs then they include a lot of error detection/correction algorithms to protect against fault data bits, data CDs do not and as such will not be so fault tolerant. Hard Disks are like any other magnetic media and degrade over time. Many  large companies used to (and still do to a lesser extent) store back up data on magnetic tape in offsite storage, however, more often than not, when an old tape was retrieved the data was found to be corrupted.

The only way to overcome this problem is to continuously and regularly test your back ups. Keep two copies of the data backed up and if one of the backup media should show signs of failure then copy all the files onto a new media and throw away the old. As the only way to detect errors is not being able to read the archived file then a duplicate is required for recovery. This process is difficult to conduct with CD-ROM/DVD, hence the reason that more organisations are moving towards disc based systems - even if the archiving systems discs are unpowered (cold) most of the time.

All media will fail - archiving is not about which media the images are stored on, but the ongoing process of checking and replacing faulty media.

File formats and the ability to read data over a 10 year period is less likely to be an issue as there is so much equipment/data out in the world that needs to be supported from a legacy point of view. If you are following an archiving process that swaps out faulty media on a regular basis, then converting from one file format to another can be done at the same time. It is a case of getting away from a mentality of store and forget, towards one of constant maintenance.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on November 24, 2004, 09:50:37 pm
Quote
Anyway, Jonathan, thanks for posting that picture; my smile for the day.
You're welcome. Here's another little grab-shot gem:

(http://visual-vacations.com/ProfessionalServices/Portraits/187U6242.jpg)

This was from a portrait sitting I was doing at a park. It isn't exactly what the parents had in mind at the beginning of the shoot, but when I saw that in the viewfinder, I couldn't not hit the shutter release.
Title: 1D Mark 3?
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on November 27, 2004, 02:47:53 am
Didger, if you never had any digital storage failure, you must be lucky. I am in the process of copying my June 2003 CDRs into DVDRs. You know what? On average, one file per CD gives me an error message.

And these are Sony high quality CDRs I am talking about. The good news is that I have the original slide safely stored away.