Canon 1Ds - 11.1 million pixels

[Ray Robertson]

[font color=\'#000000\']It's interesting how readily one can equate a doubling of pixel count with a doubling of resolution. Here's an extract from the press release.

"The EOS-1Ds capture astounding detail & colour, almost doubling the resolution ordinarily considered state of the art for a digital SLR camera in the world today."

Well! How misleading can one get? An 11.2 megapixel full frame sensor does not even nearly equate to double the resolution of a 6 megapixel 15x22mm sensor. The 24x36mm 35mm frame is over 2.6x the area of the D60 sensor. To maintain that pixel density on a full frame requires at least 15 megapixels. All else being equal (and of course we don't know yet if that will be the case) the EOS 1Ds will actually have a lower resolution at your maximum focal length than cameras such as the D60.

However, don't think I'm belittling Canon's achievement. The larger format will be much appreciated for wide angle shots and any slight loss in resolution would only be apparent at maximum zoom settings and in situations where the maximum telephoto effect is not quite great enough with the 1Ds, requiring cropping of the image.

In most situations, the increase in resolution will be in the order of 1.35 and hopefully the dynamic range will be greater than current 6 megapixel SLR's. It's regrettable I'm probably not going to be able to afford this camera, having recently splashed out on the D60. [/font]

[Dick]

[font color=\'#000000\']I anxiously await to see what Michael can do with 11.1 MPx of CMOS sensor.  Considering the beauty he produced with the 3.1 MPx on the D30 and 6.1 MPx on the D60; it is fun to think of what he will be able to produce on the 1Ds.  It is amazing the progress that is being made in digital photography. [/font]

[Steele]

[font color=\'#000000\'][/QUOTE] It never ends every time something new is announced, people in anticipation(understandeable of course) start the debating over the fact that it will never work, yes it will, no it won't , yes it will, no it won't because yada yada yada.  ...Pul-lease!! Give it a rest!

Some folks on this forum can't afford photo equipment. Others are immersed in demanding jobs and don't have the luxury of time to devote to shooting. I have some photo friends who are too old or too ill to go to the field any more. For whatever reason, they enjoy reading this forum. Me, I probably won't fulfill my new dream of a 1Ds. But I sure get a bang out of reading every morsel and tidbit that is written about it.

Reminds me of a story in our family about our grandfather who had lots of children in his early life and later developed a severe coronary malady. The Dr advised him to give up at least 1/2 of his sex life. He asked, "Which half, Doc, the reading or the thinking?"

Why would I even want to come to this forum if it didn't in some way feed my passion, whether it be reading or thinking about it.

Steele[/font]

[Marshal]

[font color=\'#000000\']Paul:

Your last sentence is certainly true. The camera companies, including Nikon don't always think everything through as far as designing the camera in a way that's in the best interest of the photographer.

Phil's tests may not apply to everyone as you mentioned, but the tests he's done of the pro D-SLRs are among, if not, the most in-depth or extensive I've seen anywhere.

Rob Galbraith's forums are excellent for the various D-SLR  camera owners to discuss whatever questions and problems they have with their cameras, lenses, memory cards, etc. I've learned a heck of a lot from that site. Any problems that arise from these cameras are discussed and often result in a solution.

This all goes back to what Michael said in his comments about the photo industry in the past month. In so many cases, before the photo magazines are even halfway close to going to press, many photo websites are posting the latest news and in-depth test reports and the forums are discussing whatever problems photogs find with the new equipment.[/font]

[jeffreybehr]

[font color=\'#000000\']Yes.[/font]

[jackmac]

[font color=\'#000000\']Isn't it interesting that Michael has said nothing here? I suspect that he has a D1s in his hands already! I suspect they gave him one for his next video #6 after he moaned about not being able to get the D60. Since he did more to sell D30 than anyone on the planet they should give him a D1s for permanent use.[/font]

[jwarthman]

[font color=\'#000000\']Mike,
Each retailer will maintain their own "watiting list". Best bet is to call one or more of these, and get your name on their list(s) - pronto!

As for price, the speculation I've read is ~$5,000 - $6,000. To my knowledge Canon hasn't leaked, er, released that info yet.

Enjoy!

-- Jim[/font]

[jeffreybehr]

[font color=\'#000000\']Because it has a CMOS sensor, not a CCD sensor.[/font]

[erik hansen]

[font color=\'#000000\']'studio' doesn't seem like a name you'd give a waterproof camera built like a tank.  just out of curiosity, what does the 'V' in 1V stand for?[/font]

[Danny Burk]

[font color=\'#000000\']I don't think it's at all odd to choose the 1Ds as a first digital camera; I'm doing the same thing myself. These are the specs I've been waiting for; none of the previous models have interested me in the least. Basically I'll only use it to shoot birds and the other few uses where I've been using 35mm; I'll stick to medium- and large formats for landscape  :cool:[/font]

[erik hansen]

[font color=\'#000000\']i'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that this theoretical camera will have lower resolution just because the pixel density is lower.  sure, if you take this camera and the d60, shoot something with the same focal length lens, then crop down on the full frame image to match the same framing as the d60 there will be less pixels there.  but why would you do that??  it defeats the purpose of having the full frame sensor.  that's like cropping a 6x7 neg down to 24mmx36mm and saying medium format gives no resolution advantage over 35mm.  to my knowledge, having larger individual sensors on the CCD will only improve quality, greater dynmic range, less noise at higher ISO.  digital cameras are getting dramatically better at higher ISO settings and i'm really eager to see if this camera will be able to replace shooting 35mm tmax 3200 in low light settings.  i'm sure it will blow it away since the 1d was already pretty close.  at any rate, i'm very excited to find out more about this camera, and i'm sure many others are as well.[/font]

[Rainer SLP]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi,

Based on the comment of Ray I made some calculations which looks for me that the chip of the 1Ds has a bigger pixel on the chip than the D60.

D60 chip 22,7mm wide with 3072 pixel gives a pixel of 0.00738mm

1Ds chip 36mm wide with ~4147 (my assumption) gives a pixel of 0.00868

D30 chip 22,7mm wide with 2160 pixels gives a pixel of 0.0105mm

1D chip 28,7mm wide with 2496 pixels gives a pixel of 0.0115mm

According to what I have read a bigger pixel on the chip is better than a smaller one.

I think somewhere in Michaels articles this was commented too. Specially in regard to noise if I remember correctly.

About Ray´s Bird shot I calculated that he will have about 17% more pixels with the D60 than with the 1Ds. D60 has on wide 22,7mm ~3072 pixels and the assumed 1Ds has also on 22.7mm then ~2614 pixels. This could be a reason to go for the D60.

Anyhow for my taste I am beginning now to think more about buying a Digital SLR.

Just my 2cents to this.

regards Rainer[/font]

[Ray Robertson]

[font color=\'#000000\']Marshal,
If you don't find the conversation interesting, why don't you take your own advice and go out and take some photos instead of being rude?[/font]

[Paul Caldwell]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hello Marshal guess you knew this would come,

Never have been called a propeller head, and don't wear a pocket protector.

I sometimes wonder about the people who post such responses as yours, then why bother.  

If you don't think it matters, then you should don't need to be shooting digital, as it all matters.  Phil Askey's reviews are good I agree, but for my work they don't do much much good as Phil doesn't shoot what I do.  One of the most important issues when using any of the Digital SLR's is understanding exactly just what the techology inside the camera is and how it works.  All are different each has it's own tweaks.  Most of the "real world" tests come from the people who get them and use then then post the info on sites such as these.  Not so the case with the authors of most of these sites, as they most definately have to consider their sponsorship, and the ability to keep getting review material.  Also, as has been shown by Nikon's and Fuji's latest releases, many time the companies don't tend to consider the user and make design decisions that are not in the best interest of the photographer.

Sincerely,  the propeller head,
Paul Caldwell[/font]

[Mike Spinak]

[font color=\'#000000\']I think I can live with three frames per second. I do sometimes like to burn through film at high speed while shooting a wildlife action sequence, but I'll just have to continue to work on my timing.

Does the current Canon 1D have mirror lock-up?[/font]

[Mike Spinak]

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks. I'll do that.

I've read in numerous places that the Canon D30 and the D60 collected much less dust on the sensor chips than most other digital cameras. Not that this necessarily says anything about what the new 1Ds will be like, but, can anyone tell me whether the previous Canon 1D similarly was less dust prone than most other digital cameras with interchangeable lenses?[/font]

[Mike Spinak]

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks, Jeff.

I thought the 1D also had a CMOS sensor, and yet Mr. Reichmann just said that it was similar to Nikon's CCD based cameras in terms of dust attraction.

Also, I have read confusing debates as to whether the D30 & 60 cameras were less dust prone due to CMOS instead of CCD, or instead due to better designed chip housing. I don't know the answer to that one.

(Either way, it does seem like the CMOS chip offers other positive features, like lower battery consumption.)[/font]

[jeffreybehr]

[font color=\'#000000\']'Studio' (or maybe 'studio'), apparently.[/font]

[Bob R]

[font color=\'#000000\']Actually, I know of several professional  landscape/nature photographers who will likely make their first digital camera purchase the 1Ds.  They feel that this may be  the first digital camera that can give them the quality output at larger print sizes (20x30 or larger).  I haven't done the math but I think this camera should produce about a 36 megabyte 8bit file.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as the price, I hope it's only $5000-$6000; I have also heard nasty rumors that it may be priced over $8000.  I am hoping that this is not the case, but suspect that even at this price Canon could sell as many as they could make for awhile.

Bob[/font]