Fred Miranda'a 1Ds Review

[Quentin]

[font color=\'#000000\']I like both the Camera *and* Fred stunning site design  ::

For a reality check, though, there is an interesting thread on the www.dpreview.com site comparing the 1Ds with output from 4x5 large format film, a Betterlight scan back and a D100

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?fo...message=3799457

Quentin[/font]

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']Now just WHY would they compare a 4X5 to the 1DS? That is really bizarre![/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Howard,
Exactly! It's all part of the hype. The reality is, the 1Ds has the resolving power of little more than the best that 35mm film can offer, but its 'lack of grain' matches or even exceeds the apparent lack of grain of larger formats including 4x5. Lack of grain might be considered as significant as resolution and this perception is being exploited to the maximum.

Ray[/font]

[Howard]

[font color=\'#000000\']Insightful comments Ray. Thank you.

I, personally, am not so 'troubled' by grain.

 Some of the most moving and powerful images (for me) are by photographers like Cartier-Bresson, Eugene Smith and Sebastio Salgado.
Thesey often have significant grain.

 Interesting anecdote: Back in the early 70's, during my Fellowship training in ID at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, Eugene came to me for medical help and we became friends.   Being young and curious I  asked him about the FILM he used, the CAMERA he used and the DEVELOPER and grain etc.
 Gene smiled kindly.
 He told me, in essence, to stop worrying so much about those issues. He advised me to find a combination of film and developer I felt comfortable with and TO GO OUT AND SHOOT! SHOOT...SHOOT!
   He said he had met  so many 'photographers' who were more worried about their equipment and the film/paper etc. than actually taking pictures! They were forever 'testing' every new product looking for 'photo nirvana'. Gene was never concerned with the equipment young photographers were using...he just would say, "Let me see some prints."

 For where I was at at that time, the advice was perfect!

Best.....Howard[/font]

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']Well, of course. Isn't this understood? It would be a great shame if anyone who was really keen on photography was discouraged from taking photos because they felt their equipment was inadequate. Everyone should make the most of what they've got and that doesn't just apply to photography. But someone has to express enthusiasm for the technical aspects of the equipment otherwise we simply wouldn't have cameras.

I guess I'm not really impressed with people who own expensive hi fi sets but don't know or are not interested in what a decibel is, or people who enjoy driving their luxury cars or even racing cars yet know nothing about the internal combustion engine, or people who own expensive cameras of different formats but aren't interested in how their cameras might perform at equivalent DOF's (for example).

But don't let it worry you. It takes all types, as the saying goes.[/font]

[Doug_Dolde]

[font color=\'#000000\']Re: Fred's review:

Isn't it weird that an $8K digital camera still has problems like chromatic abberation.  I'd expect perfection for that price.

Too rushed to market no doubt to capture the lead dog spot.[/font]

[David Mantripp]

[font color=\'#000000\']I don't think that it is strictly accurate that the aberrations aren't there - simply that they're below the resolving threshold of the sensor.  The aberrations revealed by the D1s I guess were lost in the noise when the lenses were mounted on a film body. At least that's my understanding.

As for Ray's point, how often do you see a housebuilder present his portfolio categorised by which drill he used ?

I'm not saying that the tools shouldn't be used, simply that they are by and large irrelevant to the quality of the photograph.  No camera yet produced does auto composition bracketing...  I'm a sucker for new toys, but part of me knows full well that if I can't cut it with a Canon FT, a D1s ain't gonna make a world of difference.  On the other hand, if I was really great with an FT, maybe a D1s might improve my throughput...[/font]

[Doug_Dolde]

[font color=\'#000000\']Fred has just posted his outstanding Canon 1Ds review today.

It's here.[/font]

[Howard]

[font color=\'#000000\']Interesting Quentin. As anyone would expect, the 4X5 is far better.

Now just WHY would they compare a 4X5 to the 1DS? That is really bizarre!

 It would have made FAR more sense to bring along a 6X7 camera.....Pentax...Mamiya.....whatever.

  Regards,
   Howard[/font]

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']On the other hand, is it not fair when comparing different formats to use equivalent DOF's? The 1Ds at F4 is unlikely to produce the same detail as 4x5 at F16, but what about the 1Ds at F16 compared with 4x5 at F45 or F64 (equivalent DOF)?

I'm reminded of an article at photodo addressing this issue. Comparisons were made between 35mm with a Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm F1.4 lens and 9x12cm format using a Rodenstock Sironar 150mm F5.6. With T-Max 100 film, 35mm came very close to 9x12 (except for grain). Substituting Tri-X for T-Max in the 9x12 camera, 35mm was actually slightly sharper. Does that sound unbelievable?

Apparently the main reason for this bizarre outcome was due to choice of equivalent DOF's. The Zeiss Planar was set at F5.6 and the Sironar at F22. The resolution of both lenses would have been limited by diffraction, but diffraction is of course much greater at F22 than at F5.6.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']He told me, in essence, to stop worrying so much about those issues. He advised me to find a combination of film and developer I felt comfortable with and TO GO OUT AND SHOOT! SHOOT...SHOOT!

  He said he had met  so many 'photographers' who were more worried about their equipment and the film/paper etc. than actually taking pictures! They were forever 'testing' every new product looking for 'photo nirvana'. Gene was never concerned with the equipment young photographers were using...he just would say, "Let me see some prints."

For where I was at at that time, the advice was perfect!

So very well said, Howard. A lot of what you read on these forums are people wringing their hands over this lens or that lens. Over full frame or the 'crop-factor'. 'L' lenses or the dreaded consumer lens. And over all the intensely technical comparisons, tests and other very dry and boring facts and figures. And little photography.

There is no perfect camera or perfect lens out there. Where the perfection comes into play is how the photographer applies those tools. How he/she learns the limitations of those tools and works with them to produce a photograph that grabs you and won't let go.

So yes, get out and SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT! Fill those CF cards and then have fun in the digital darkroom. That's what I did all day yesterday and man that felt great!!!

-Jim[/font]

[David Mantripp]

[font color=\'#000000\']Yes, Fred Miranda has some great shots to illustrate his review - but I'm sure he'd manage just as well with a basic film SLR loaded with a good slide film.  

I'm sure it is quite possible to create some total dross with a D1s. I daresay I'll prove it in about 5 year's time...[/font]

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']I wonder what would happen if we extended these analogies to other activities that require TOOLS. Would you tell the guy who's building your house, "I'm sure you could manage quite well without that electric plane, electric drill, rotary saw, nail gun etc. etc etc."

"A workman should never blame his tools". "It's the man behind the camera that counts."  These are cliches. There's an element of truth behind them, but don't take them too literally.[/font]

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']I got the impression the chromatic aberration in the corners was from the lenses. If Canon had squeezed those 11 megapixels into a D60 sized sensor, we probably wouldn't see this problem. It may be fun to use a 14mm lens with full frame 35mm, but it's also fun to use a 640mm lens when all you paid for was a 400mm lens.

One advantage of using a smaller sensor, which is often overlooked, is the fact that it effectively upgrades most of your lenses by cropping off those aberrations, light fall off and loss of resolution which so often appear at larger apertures.

For example, I recently bought the Sigma 15-30mm zoom. With the D60 this effectively becomes a 24-48mm zoom. It cost less than half the price of the Canon 16-35mm zoom. I have no reason to suppose the Sigma lens is any less sharp than the Canon. Reviews I've read describe it as a 'very' sharp lens, but it is deficient in corner resolution, often requiring stopping down to F16 to make corner resolution acceptable. I imagine the Canon is better in this respect, and I guess that's what you pay for.

However, with the D60 the Sigma's deficiencies don't exist. I've got one sharp lens from corner to corner at any aperture and no chromatic aberration.

I guess I'm a sucker for a bargain.[/font]

[Ray]

[font color=\'#000000\']That's the whole point. The aberrations are definitely not there. All those aberrations that exist in the corners and edges of the image with the 1Ds, whatever they may be, have been totally and completely removed by the D60 through the inevitable cropping process. There may be other aberrations closer to the centre which will exist with both cameras, and some such as moire which will be only notoceable on the 1DS.

So you're not saying that the tools shouldn't be used, David. Well, thank God for that, otherwise you wouldn't be taking any photos at all. The camera is a tool.

Of course a great tool is not going to turn you into a great photographer. However, even though I may be a lousy carpenter, I'm going to want to use that electric plane. I'll get the job done faster and I'll probably get a smoother finish.

Of course a $100,000 Bosendorfer is not going to turn you into a concert pianist, but I sure know which I'd rather practise on.[/font]