1Ds Mark II, 16.7MP

[gmitchel]

[font color=\'#000000\']The flyer everyone is reacting to is a bogus, according to native Japanese speakers and people fluent in Japanese.

They claim the advert even admits it is bogus.

Just wait a few more days, folks.

Why get giddy over something you cannot do anything about? All you can do is wait and see what happens this week.

Cheers,

Mitch[/font]

[meyerweb]

[font color=\'#000000\']Darn!  I've been waiting for that bean jam ball, too.[/font]

[phila]

[font color=\'#000000\']25 page PDF available at:

www.jirvana.com/news_pdfs/IDs_MarkII-WS_2.pdf[/font]

[Jack Flesher]

[font color=\'#000000\']One warning about the 7 micron pixel pitch of the EOS-1Ds Mark II; at apertures smaller than about f/7, diffraction will start to reduce resolution noticably. Exteme high resolution and great depth of field are in conflict when pixel counts gets this high.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Care to share the math on that?[/font]

[drew]

[font color=\'#000000\']Why do we have to do any maths on anything? All that matters is, is it better than the 1Ds?
Sample images look promising. The night shot, which appears to have an exposure of somewhere less than a minute and more than a few seconds, shows no hot pixels that I can see. So that's a good start. The resolution looks pretty good too.[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Indeed, theoretical arguments like this some years ago lead to the suggestion that 16MP is about the useful limit for 24x36mm frame format

The 16 MP theoretical limit of usefulness being only theory, I'm assuming that the real world useful limit for the vast majority of available lenses is far less than 16 MP and that doesn't even address the issue of DOF and effective resolution conflicting due to diffraction being more critical for smaller pixels and it doesn't address the issue of sensor contamination being proportionately more critical as pixel count for a given size sensor goes up.

I'm sure that Canon will sell a bunch of these cameras to pixel count lusting eager beavers, but I think there will also be quite a few of us holding back to see just what sorts of real life improvements the larger resolution sensor will bring.  I doubt that there's anyone in the world that is presently in a credible position to offer reassurances.  $8000 is less than $9000, but it's not a trivial investment for a very shaky gamble.[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

I have the impression that you are grasping at straws for a reason to object to the 1DsM2

Well, it's very hard to "prove" the source of one's personal motivations and decisions, so I have no credible defense against this claim.  However, ever since the rumors of a 16MP 1DsM2 started coming out months ago, I had been planning to get one as soon as possible (once I finally found a reasonably effective sensor cleaning routine).  It's the various cautionary comments related to lens weakness and resolution loss due to diffraction that I've read here since the announcement of the camera that have made me decide to slow down a bit.  

I have the impression that you are grasping at straws for a reason to justify the expense of a 1DsM2.  In any case, none of us has any actual direct comparison results of from tests conducted in a careful, thorough, and scientific manner.  As soon as I can find someone that will let me do my standard test grid shots with a 1DsM2 so that I can compare a center crop done with a 1Ds and a 1DsM2 with a few of my best lenses and identical shots with both cameras, I'll have an answer that I know I can trust.  If there's a significant superiority with the 1DsM2, I'll start re-arranging my priorities; you better believe it.  If you want to spend that much money without any clear proof of actual significant real life superiority for your proposed lenses and shooting style, well, you must have a lot more money than I do.  I'll be patient for a while longer.  The longer I wait the lower the price will be anyway.  I'm very glad I waited as long as I did before buying my 1ds.[/font]

[61Dynamic]

[font color=\'#000000\']Wishfull thinking. The lenses are designed to be a certain distance away from the film plane otherwise focusing would be effected.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Medium format lenses are "lower res" then L series?

You obviously haven't used Zeiss or Schneider glass on a Hasselblad, Rollei or Contax MF camera.

Urban myths do live on. Did I ever tell you the one about the alligators in the N.Y. subway system?

Michael[/font]

[61Dynamic]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Did I ever tell you the one about the alligators in the N.Y. subway system?

Exactly, there are no alligators. They're crocodiles. [/font]

[Gary Ferguson]

[font color=\'#000000\']On Photonet there's what appears to be a Canon Japan product leaflet for the 1Ds Mark II. Maybe a fake, but if so I congratulate the forger on their exacting attention to detail!

About all I can make out from the Japanese wording is "16.7MP" and "Digic II". If there's any Japanese speakers on this forum maybe they could take a look and post a translation of the main points.[/font]

[Sfleming]

[font color=\'#000000\']So.  What's a used 1Ds worth.  Of course it hinges on the price  of the new Mk II model.  I bet that it will come under by a thousand dollars the price of the  original 1Ds.

I also wonder  how many new 'old' 1Ds cameras there are in the  supply chain.  What are they now worth?

How  would you like to be a person who just paid $5500 or $6000 for a used  body  if the new price is only a thousand more?

Care to speculate on  what the  price of used units will drop to.  heh heh heh[/font]

[Gary Ferguson]

[font color=\'#000000\']

So.  What's a used 1Ds worth.

Well, my 1Ds has delivered sterling service for the best part of two years. It's taken about 20,000 shots, which at the D&P rates I pay means it's just about paid for itself versus film costs. If I measured it against medium format film costs, which would be the more accurate comparison, then it's been a significant money saver.

But most accurate of all would be to weigh it's depreciation against the quality of results and the satisfaction I've derived from those shots. On that basis the 1Ds is just about the best photographic investments I've ever made.

If the 1Ds Mark II delivers a significant enough advantage to warrant an upgrade then any trade-in allowance I might get for the 1Ds is just a bonus farewell gift from a tremendous camera. There's no regrets here.[/font]

[61Dynamic]

[font color=\'#000000\']The Bablefish page translation makes for an interesting read:

Sense it tried copying EOS-1Ds MarkII

Always, it is the curator who predicts the next term product occasionally as a fragmentary dream, but this time we succeeded in the sense copying of image. Favor of power of the people this supporting the ? sight in the single we appreciate. Always we release as gratitude to everyone giving beneficial information.

The ? ? the sourceor the soy sauce or the misoconcerning question being not to be able to answer altogether, please say, or acknowledge. In addition deletion (with you say there is no bean jam ball information value several days, or later) being, please comprehend.


Anyway...[/font]

[Sfleming]

[font color=\'#000000\']The Bablefish page translation makes for an interesting read:

Sense it tried copying EOS-1Ds MarkII

Always, it is the curator who predicts the next term product occasionally as a fragmentary dream, but this time we succeeded in the sense copying of image. Favor of power of the people this supporting the ? sight in the single we appreciate. Always we release as gratitude to everyone giving beneficial information.

The ? ? the sourceor the soy sauce or the misoconcerning question being not to be able to answer altogether, please say, or acknowledge. In addition deletion (with you say there is no bean jam ball information value several days, or later) being, please comprehend.


Anyway...[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I think that means they put a dedicated mirror lockup button on it.[/font]

[61Dynamic]

[font color=\'#000000\']Darn!  I've been waiting for that bean jam ball, too.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']I dunno.. I'm more interested in the sourceor soy sauce. [/font]

[Madness]

[font color=\'#000000\']Michael....samples HAVE been released (4 to be precise)

http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1dsm2/eo...2_sample-e.html[/font]

[karelg]

[font color=\'#000000\']Not that I own a 1Ds nor will order a MkII  ... but one pixel peeping question: as far as I have read, the 1Ds already seems to out-resolve most lenses. Therefore, will a 16.7 MPixel sensor not simply outresolve ANY available lens and is the 1DsMKII simply the end of the evolution in 35mm sensor format? (therefore, a 22MP 2D speculation is rediculous?).[/font]

[BJL]

[font color=\'#000000\']

... will a 16.7 MPixel sensor not simply outresolve ANY available lens and is the 1DsMKII simply the end of the evolution in 35mm sensor format?

Even when a sensor can resolve down to about the same length scale as a lens, the combined resolution can be improved by improving the sensor resolution: the smallest length scale that can be resolved by the combination is very roughly the sum of the smallest length scales of sensor and lens, not the maximum of the two length scales.

Anyway, what I have read so far is that good Canon prime lenses at least are keeping up with the highest resolution 24x36mm sensor currently available for them, the Kodak SLR/c's 13.5MP, 8 micron pixel pitch.

One warning about the 7 micron pixel pitch of the EOS-1Ds Mark II; at apertures smaller than about f/7, diffraction will start to reduce resolution noticably. Exteme high resolution and great depth of field are in conflict when pixel counts gets this high.[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']The bottom line for me is how the Mark II will compare with identical test grid shots using the same lens.  How much REAL resolution improvement will we get?  With Canon ultrawide lenses there can't possibly be much effective improvement, since these lenses are already too weak for even the 11 Mpixel resolution of the original 1ds.  The comparison tests would have to be done with absolutely world class lenses since for anything less the lens is the bottleneck and any increase in sensor resolution won't be much help.  At this point it's an uncertain issue whether even the very best 35mm lenses in the world can take full advantage of a 16.7 Mpixel sensor, especially without losing some of the gains at smaller apertures (due to diffraction).

It looks like there's already lots of people committed to jumping on board with the new model.  However, even if the money were no strain I would not be so impatient.  The following issues need to be clarified:
1)  With 16 Mpixels the sensor comtamination issue becomes more critical.  Is the new sensor any easier to clean?  Any sort of help from Canon at all?
2)  How real world important is the issue of some loss of effective resolution due to diffraction with smaller pixels?
3)  What lenses are available that can really take advantage of the extra pixels?

Until these issues are clarified with definitive tests, there's a strong possibility that the big investment of the new model may merely give most people larger files that actually provide little real improvement over existing 1ds files shot with the same lenses.  Bigger files don't necessarily mean better pictures; only longer processing times and more storage requirement are guaranteed.  I'll need clear proof of superiority of image quality before I even start to scrimp and save for the upgrade (if it really is a quality upgrade, not just a larger number of pixels that don't really show more under most circumstances).

All you eager folks ready to hand over big sums of money to beta test this thing; go for it and then please do let us slowpokes know just what the realities are. [/font]