Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Marc Schultz on August 20, 2007, 10:21:45 am
-
As far as I understand, the resolving power of current L series lenses are not enough to cope with the increased resolution of the new 1DS Mark III. There has been talk for a long time that the resolving power of current L lenses already struggles to keep up with the 1DS Mark II sensor and I myself have felt that way at times.
At one time there was speculation that the next generation 1DS after the Mark II, when Canon makes the jump to 20+ MP, would be a hybrid of something between a 35mm camera and a medium format body with a whole new lens system designed specially to provide more resolving power for a super higher resolution sensor.
Since Canon has not gone that route, I am wondering if they plan to offer another solution to address the issue of current lenses which won’t be able to keep up with a sensor which produces images at over 20MP.
Thoughts?
-
Thoughts?
I think the problem is blown out of proportion.
The resolution difference between the 1Ds MkII and MkIII is:
4992x3328 vs. 5616x3744
That's a paper increase in angular resolution of ... hold on to your knickers! ... 12.5%.
My prediction is that the buyers/testers will see a slight increase in perceived resolution (though not 12.5%), and perhaps a very slight degradation in perceived per-pixel quality for some lenses, but there will be no disasters.
There are other and better reasons to purchase the 1Ds MkIII than resolution, and worrying about the camera "out-resolving" the lenses seems comparatively unimportant to the very tempting improvements between the models.
Disclaimer: I don't own a 1Ds (I or II), nor have I used any for a significant period of time.
-
Thanks for your thoughts Jani. I myself do happen to own a 1DS Mark II and for me I don't see the benefit in my case to move up to the 1DS Mark III. If I was still shooting with a crop factor camera I might feel differently, but in my case it probably makes more sense for me to buy a Phase One P25, which can now be had second hand for close to the same money as a 1DS Mark III. Although the Mark III will offer nearly the same resolution, with the Mark III being much more condusive to a photographic workflow, the Phase One back delivers a 22MP image from a sensor that employs a 9 micron pixel pitch which also allows me to use a Hasselblad with Zeiss glass. This to me seems more optimum than shooting a 21MP image on a much smaller sized sensor with Canon glass.
The other problem for the first 2 years that the 1DS Mark III will face will be convincing the commercial market, meaning ad agencies, art directors, hotel clients, etc. that a 35mm camera at any resolution will be able to produce an image as high quality as a medium format digital back on a Hasselblad.
So if the clients are not going to buy it, at least right away until they become more educated on the technology, then why should I is really the big question for me I guess.
Cheers…
-
Even on a 5D at 12.7MP the quality of some L series lenses are often the limiting factor.
-
I use to think it was an issue but now, not so much. I too shoot with the 1DsII and when I stop down to F8, My images are as sharp as I'll ever need and I'm usually shooting at much shallower aperatures.
For architectural applications, it makes since to go with DB and a LF camera. But only for high end clients--and I'm assuming they'd prefer the 30+ backs anyway. It's obvious why the DB manufacturers went so high. The Canon will look good compared to a P25. I honestly believe if you shot the same setup with both cameras the images would contain the same amount of quality.
But in the end it comes down to what are you using it for. The Canon is very robust so it's going to be faster shutterspeeds, have better AF choices, and higher ISO capabilities (cleaner).
-
Remember that the pixel size of a 1Ds III is 6.4 microns whereas the pixel size of an XTi/400D is 5.7 microns. What does this mean? The XTi/400D is actually more demanding of lens quality than 1Ds III, at least in the center of the imaging circle. So the real concern will be at the edge of the imaging circle -- in other words, the edges and corners of the full-frame 1Ds III.
-
Although I have no doubt that the new body with cause outresolvingissues for more lenses, It was my undertanding (based on paper comments and no real world experience) that this was one of the reasons for the release of newer L series lenses (e.g. the new 14mm L mark II).
Moving to the MF digital backs is an outstanding option when possible. Remember, even in the film days MF had an edge on 35mm. Bigger is usually better all things being equal (including the ability to deal with the data in all parts of the dataflow).
--dilip
-
The other problem for the first 2 years that the 1DS Mark III will face will be convincing the commercial market, meaning ad agencies, art directors, hotel clients, etc. that a 35mm camera at any resolution will be able to produce an image as high quality as a medium format digital back on a Hasselblad.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hog wash. I have been shooting large regional and even national campaigns with the II since it came out in December 2004. I have never been questioned by a client/art director/etc. about the camera. The proof is in the delivered image and that is just fine; the clients are more than happy with the end file. But then I do pretty serious post process to gain the look that I do. That is what my clients are coming for. Not pixels.
Ken Gehle
-
The other problem for the first 2 years that the 1DS Mark III will face will be convincing the commercial market, meaning ad agencies, art directors, hotel clients, etc. that a 35mm camera at any resolution will be able to produce an image as high quality as a medium format digital back on a Hasselblad.
So if the clients are not going to buy it, at least right away until they become more educated on the technology, then why should I is really the big question for me I guess.
Cheers…
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also don't agree with this.
All my ad/corprate clients don't ask about cameras, theyre focused on images and getting what's on the brief.
I've been offering them medium format digital for shoots at the cost of hiring a back for my blads vs using my 1DSII's and all have gone with the 35's
I think features like Live View will win more business than resolution alone.
Time will tell.
-
Add me to the list of those more excited by the 14-bits than the 21MP. Sure, I'm happy to get the extra MP, but the extended tonal range will have more impact over the current 1Ds2 images, IMHO. And I won't complain about all the other improvements over my current 1Ds2, for sure, all of them are most welcome.
I really hope they finally get the mirror lock-up thing right this time - any word on that?
-
One question appear to me.
If "the resolving power of current L series lenses are not enough to cope with the increased resolution of the new 1DS Mark III. There has been talk for a long time that the resolving power of current L lenses already struggles to keep up with the 1DS Mark II sensor" is ture then, how do we expect medium format lens to keep up with 22MP-39MP digital back?
As we know 135 lens should have higher lens resolution than medium format lens.
Jeff
-
I don't believe that it's a case of all Canon lenses not having the resolving power. For me, I found that it was one particular lens, the 24-70/2.8 L, that was never consistently sharp. This may be the case with other specific Canon lenses, too. The buzz seems to be that Canon's wide angle lenses in general aren't too hot. But my experience is limited to this one, plus some longer lenses that were always razor sharp.
I tried 3 different 24-70s and none were consistently sharp. This general focal length zoom is my workhorse lens, and its lack of sharpness was the main factor that made me switch back to the D2x when it came out.
Some of the promotional pitch about the MkIII mentions some supposed focus improvements. I'd be curious to see if they addressed this issue in a real way.
David
www.brennanphotography.com
-
I tried 3 different 24-70s and none were consistently sharp. This general focal length zoom is my workhorse lens, and its lack of sharpness was the main factor that made me switch back to the D2x when it came out.
Some of the promotional pitch about the MkIII mentions some supposed focus improvements. I'd be curious to see if they addressed this issue in a real way.
No, the focus improvements in the MkIII models cannot fix a lack of sharpness in your lenses.
The 24-70mm f/2.8L is known to be fairly soft at f/2.8. For me, the really usable apertures start at f/3.5, though I've used f/3.2 and f/2.8 when I've had to. It's not critically sharp at those apertures, either, but good enough with a 20D.
No amount of focus correction will make that better.
That being said, wide apertures are also difficult to work with if the focus isn't right, but that's a different problem.
-
Does the 1Ds MkIII make it easier to turn on Mirror Lock Up than having to dig through menus on the MkII?
Bud James
-
Does the 1Ds MkIII make it easier to turn on Mirror Lock Up than having to dig through menus on the MkII?
Bud James
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=136876\")
Bud,
Read Michael's 1D Mk III first impression ([a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1D-MKIII-Field.shtml]here, scroll down to Live View paragrah[/url]). There's no mirror lockup button but if you use Live View then the mirror is raised as soon as you enter Live View mode.
-
I disagree on the 24-70mm being soft. I find it to be one of the sharpest L zoom lenses Canon makes. That and the 70-200mm L are the two sharpest zooms. I also have the 24-105mm L lens which cannot compare in sharpness to the 24-70mm. The 24-105 vignettes terribly too on any open sky shot at anything under F/11. Sometimes people think lenses are soft at F/2.8 because they focus lock and then move the focus point of the camera. Need to be careful of that on any lens when shooting wide open.
-
Bud,
Read Michael's 1D Mk III first impression (here, scroll down to Live View paragrah (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1D-MKIII-Field.shtml)). There's no mirror lockup button but if you use Live View then the mirror is raised as soon as you enter Live View mode.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136877\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In addition, you can set Live View to the Set button (the big button in the middle of the thumb wheel). So it effectively becomes a one-button MLU. You press Set, mirror goes up. Trip shutter to take the picture. Take as many pictures as you want. Press Set again, mirror goes back down.
-
As a future 1DsIII owner, I have mixed feelings about Live View for me personally. I need glasses to see close, but when shooting do not use them because of the diopter adjustment in the viewfinder. For Live View, however, I would need glasses to see it properly and be able to focus with it. I wonder how it's going to play with photographers who like me need glasses to see up close but don't normally use them while shooting.
-
My prediction is that the buyers/testers will see a slight increase in perceived resolution (though not 12.5%), and perhaps a very slight degradation in perceived per-pixel quality for some lenses, but there will be no disasters.
So the real question is 'will an uprezzed file from an existing camera be as good as a file straight from the DSMkIII?'
Speaking as a 1DSMkI owner who certainly can see optical problems on many 'L' series lenses using a MkI, I think that this is one of the most pertinent questions that needs answering. Whilst I agree that there are other, potentially excellent features of the MkIII I am far from convinced that increased pixel count is or possibly ever will be one of them. I never bothered with a MkII for the same reason.
-
I disagree on the 24-70mm being soft. I find it to be one of the sharpest L zoom lenses Canon makes. That and the 70-200mm L are the two sharpest zooms. I also have the 24-105mm L lens which cannot compare in sharpness to the 24-70mm. The 24-105 vignettes terribly too on any open sky shot at anything under F/11. Sometimes people think lenses are soft at F/2.8 because they focus lock and then move the focus point of the camera. Need to be careful of that on any lens when shooting wide open.
This is not a matter of bad focusing.
You should know better than to accuse other photographers of not knowing when something is in focus or not.
Apparently, then, there are at least some samples of the lens where it has no degradation at f/2.8, and where stopping down doesn't have any noticeable effect on sharpness. That is quite remarkable, and I wish I owned your lens.
-
Speaking as a 1DSMkI owner who certainly can see optical problems on many 'L' series lenses using a MkI, I think that this is one of the most pertinent questions that needs answering. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137082\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also use the 11.1 MP 1Ds, and I also know that on a 1Ds there is visible sample variability within L lens models. This means the lens is already the limiting factor of image sharpness, in terms of the resolving power the optics can deliver. Hence if the lens is the binding constraint, whether the sensor has 11 MP or 22 MP won't change the optical sharpness of the image at any given resolution (defined as pixels per inch). What will change dramatically however between a 1Ds and a 1Ds MkIII is the resolution itself - by about 38%. This makes for a tremendous improvement in high-resolution cropping capability.
-
One question appear to me.
If "the resolving power of current L series lenses are not enough to cope with the increased resolution of the new 1DS Mark III. There has been talk for a long time that the resolving power of current L lenses already struggles to keep up with the 1DS Mark II sensor" is ture then, how do we expect medium format lens to keep up with 22MP-39MP digital back?
As we know 135 lens should have higher lens resolution than medium format lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeff,
The new Digitar lenses with reduced image circle suitable for the cropped format MFDBs seem to be better than most 35mm lenses. In fact, some of them appear to be on a par with the Zuiko lenses for the 4/3rds format, if you can believe the MTF charts.
If you are using a lens which is at least as good as any 35mm lens, with a sensor which is larger than 35mm format but which has a similar pixel count, then the larger sensor will produce the sharper image. Ie. the larger sensor is less demanding on the lens and requires a slightly lower lp/mm figure, which in turn translates to a higher MTF of captured detail.
For a 22mp 35mm DSLR to match the quality of a 22mp MFDB with a sensor double the size, the 35mm lens needs to be better than the MF lens. Some 35mm lenses are better. However, the best of the new digital lenses for MFDBs are very expensive and do appear to be better than most 35mm lenses.
If you also take into consideration the smaller apertures required for same DoF, then these Digitar lenses probably have an additional advantage. For example, if you want a shallow Dof then you might be using f4 with a 75mm lens, with a 48x36" sensor, as opposed to f2.8 with a 50mm lens on FF 35mm.
With most 35mm lenses, sharpness diminishes at wide apertures. There are a few exceptions but it's generally true. My Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 are not particularly sharp at f2.8 and probably significantly less sharp than a 75mm Digitar lens at f4 (if there is a 75mm Digitar prime, if not then the nearest option).
-
I think the problem is blown out of proportion.
The resolution difference between the 1Ds MkII and MkIII is:
4992x3328 vs. 5616x3744
That's a paper increase in angular resolution of ... hold on to your knickers! ... 12.5%.
My prediction is that the buyers/testers will see a slight increase in perceived resolution (though not 12.5%), and perhaps a very slight degradation in perceived per-pixel quality for some lenses, but there will be no disasters.
There are other and better reasons to purchase the 1Ds MkIII than resolution, and worrying about the camera "out-resolving" the lenses seems comparatively unimportant to the very tempting improvements between the models.
Disclaimer: I don't own a 1Ds (I or II), nor have I used any for a significant period of time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly, some people get confused, they say "12mp is double 6mp" but thats not the case exactly, since 6MP is 3000x2000 pixels and 12MP isnt 6000x4000, that would be 24mp obviously but all pixels arent equal and the new 1Ds mk3 should have very high quality pixels at that so the increase in pixels is nice but if the pixel quality improves on top of that then you start to see significant improvements in IQ.
IMHO for every 800 pixels or so added in both directions of a sensor you start seeing increased detail easily. 600, yes maybe a little no question, 400 humm not much...
-
One question appear to me.
If "the resolving power of current L series lenses are not enough to cope with the increased resolution of the new 1DS Mark III. There has been talk for a long time that the resolving power of current L lenses already struggles to keep up with the 1DS Mark II sensor" is ture then, how do we expect medium format lens to keep up with 22MP-39MP digital back?
As we know 135 lens should have higher lens resolution than medium format lens.
Jeff
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not so sure; I have Leica glass, R and M and Lots of Contax 645 and hasselblad.
In general I find the MF kenses do as well or better than the 135 set up
Here is an expl from a recent euro shoot. I am quite pleased with the ctr and edge performance of this 'discontinued' glass (one that MR seemed to think was not up to the P45! :-))
it is a random 80mm 2.0 lens (I used 35, 45, 140 and 210 and they all performed well). Lots of even better examples. Here the focus is maybe a bit different ctr to edge as well.
anyway, this could filla billbd (with GF of course)
Victor
-
I think the comparison on the difference between the 1DS MKII and MKIII in terms of resolution being only 12.5% at 4992x3328 for the MKII vs. 5616x3744 for the MKIII is an interesting point for consideration.
It seems like there will be a bit of noticeable added detail if one were to upgrade from 16MP to 21MP, but the bigger reason for one to jump from a MKII to a MKIII in my opinion would be if it adds another 30% cropping capability, which it won't since the jump in resolution is not that great. And as it is now, people rarely have to push the print size capability limits of a MKII for 90% of all print applications either so more net pixels are not really in much demand at this point.
So again, the 2 main reasons to step up from a MKII to a MKIII in terms of added resolution are: 1 - Added cropping capabilities. 2 - Added visible detail.
In both cases though I believe neither will be a significant enough increase to warrant an upgrade. If though you are sitting there with an 11MP 1DS then the upgrade to a MKIII seems much more warranted.
-
Add me to the list of those more excited by the 14-bits than the 21MP. Sure, I'm happy to get the extra MP, but the extended tonal range will have more impact over the current 1Ds2 images, IMHO.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134422\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is no extended tonal range in either of the two 14-bit cameras Canon has already released. What makes you think the 1Dsmk3 will be any different?
-
What is the definition of "extended tonal range"? If you mean blacker blacks and whiter whites I would also be surprised to see any difference. But bit depth is not so much about that - it is more about the number of tonal levels between black and white. The difference between 12 bit and 14 bit is exponential - specifically 2^14 rather than 2^12, or 16,384 levels instead of 4,096. IN PRINCIPLE, this difference should provide a higher quality raw file (less filling to do by the raw converter graduating from 14 bit to 15+1 compared with graduating from 12 bit to 15+1). Before passing judgment on it, one would need controlled experiments to see on paper the extent of any visible image quality improvement.
-
If one is expecting Hasselblad "V" series with Zeiss lenses to please them more than a Canon DsII, they will likely be disappointed. Having a DsII with 12, (mostly L-series), lenses and a Blad with 7 lenses from 40 to 500 APO, (including the superachromat), it is disappointingly evident how significant the aberrations are in the Zeiss optics. Vastly more chromatic problems are seen on film with the Zeiss than Canon lenses on a more demanding digital sensor. It would not be worth me acquiring a digital back for my Blad with the limitations of the optics. I wish I was wrong.
As far as whether it is worth upgrading to a mark III, with people expressing concerns over the ability of the current Canon optics to do justice to the new sensor, the sum of the parts is greater than any one advancement. The complete package of more photo sites, improved AD conversion, dust removal, etc, is sure to take image quality to new levels regardless of the exact lens. The improvements in the AD converter alone are likely why some feel the 5D is better than the DsII.
I would just go for the dust removal alone if it actually works.
More photo sites have an exponential benefit in less up-ressing needed for large output.
So I ordered a DsIII the very day it was announced.
-
I'm looking forward to the 1Ds MkIII for a lot of reasons already mentioned here, but after using my new Canon 40D for the past week, the larger LCD screen is on the top of my list.
I had a hard time viewing images and menus on the smaller screen of my 1Ds MkII and 20D bodies.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
I've ordered as well, can't wait to see what the II can do with lenses like the 85 1.2 and 135 f2.
-
If one is expecting Hasselblad "V" series with Zeiss lenses to please them more than a Canon DsII, they will likely be disappointed. Having a DsII with 12, (mostly L-series), lenses and a Blad with 7 lenses from 40 to 500 APO, (including the superachromat), it is disappointingly evident how significant the aberrations are in the Zeiss optics. Vastly more chromatic problems are seen on film with the Zeiss than Canon lenses on a more demanding digital sensor. It would not be worth me acquiring a digital back for my Blad with the limitations of the optics. I wish I was wrong.
As far as whether it is worth upgrading to a mark III, with people expressing concerns over the ability of the current Canon optics to do justice to the new sensor, the sum of the parts is greater than any one advancement. The complete package of more photo sites, improved AD conversion, dust removal, etc, is sure to take image quality to new levels regardless of the exact lens. The improvements in the AD converter alone are likely why some feel the 5D is better than the DsII.
I would just go for the dust removal alone if it actually works.
More photo sites have an exponential benefit in less up-ressing needed for large output.
So I ordered a DsIII the very day it was announced.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You should mount your Hassy on a Canon and compare. They Zeiss glass falls down when compared to some of the Canon glass. I tried my older CF 50mm, 100mm and 150 and compared them to the Canon 24-70, the 90-tse, 70-200 f4 and an old Nikon (via adapter) 55mm micro. The best Ziess of the bunch compared to the 35mm glass was the 150. I was suprised, given that the Hassy glass was only using the sweet spot in the center of he image circle.
-
What is the definition of "extended tonal range"?
I can't remember how to thread these messages, so I don't know who you are replying to without a quote, but if you are asking me, I meant just about anything that the other person could have possibly meant. The noise in the RAW files is too high for 14 bits to be of any real use. The best ISO 100s (Canon 1D* series, 40D, Fuji S* cameras) are only worthy of about 12 bits. 12 bits is even overkill for ISO 100 on noisier cameras, and higher ISOs on all of them. The D2X at ISO 1600 is only worthy of about 7 bits.
If you mean blacker blacks and whiter whites I would also be surprised to see any difference. But bit depth is not so much about that - it is more about the number of tonal levels between black and white. The difference between 12 bit and 14 bit is exponential - specifically 2^14 rather than 2^12, or 16,384 levels instead of 4,096. IN PRINCIPLE, this difference should provide a higher quality raw file (less filling to do by the raw converter graduating from 14 bit to 15+1 compared with graduating from 12 bit to 15+1). Before passing judgment on it, one would need controlled experiments to see on paper the extent of any visible image quality improvement.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your control has to compare 14-bit data truncated to 12-bit, to 14-bit, because the real issue is not "is it worth using a 14-bit ADC", but rather, "is it worth storing the two extra bits", and the answer to that is no, unless you are doing astrophotography or something similar and are stacking multiple images, in which case adding all those images together will clear up a bit or two from mostly noise to mostly signal.
Now, the extra two bits may force some converters to use more bit depth in the conversion process, but this does not prove that the two bits are meaningful, and they could have just as well been 00 (or 10 to keep the mean from changing).
-
Where Hasselblad lenses work well on a Canon is for portraits. Canon lenses are way too sharp and show too many imperfections in the skin normally. Hasselblad lenses will be more favorable to skin on a Canon body in general. The 120mm Hasselblad macro lens is a good choice for portrait on a Canon body. The CF lenses will be of course better as well than the older C and other older series Hasselblad lenses. The issue is now you are down to manual focus. You will also see a big drop in viewfinder brightness, especially if you are stopped down to anything smaller than F/5.6
Personally I found it very difficult to work with, but many have talked about favorable results with this configuration.
-
I can't remember how to thread these messages, so I don't know who you are replying to without a quote, but if you are asking me, I meant just about anything that the other person could have possibly meant. The noise in the RAW files is too high for 14 bits to be of any real use. The best ISO 100s (Canon 1D* series, 40D, Fuji S* cameras) are only worthy of about 12 bits. 12 bits is even overkill for ISO 100 on noisier cameras, and higher ISOs on all of them. The D2X at ISO 1600 is only worthy of about 7 bits.
Your control has to compare 14-bit data truncated to 12-bit, to 14-bit, because the real issue is not "is it worth using a 14-bit ADC", but rather, "is it worth storing the two extra bits", and the answer to that is no, unless you are doing astrophotography or something similar and are stacking multiple images, in which case adding all those images together will clear up a bit or two from mostly noise to mostly signal.
Now, the extra two bits may force some converters to use more bit depth in the conversion process, but this does not prove that the two bits are meaningful, and they could have just as well been 00 (or 10 to keep the mean from changing).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John, yes I was asking you what you meant by "extended tonal range". LAB 0 is black and LAB 255 in 8 bit mode is white. To my way of thinking that is the full extent of the tonal range. Were you trying to say that neither the previous nor current generation of high end digital cameras are capabale of capturing this extent of the tonal range, but only something less? I'm asking because I simply don't understand what you were trying to say. To me, if we're talking bit depth, it is mainly a story about what happens to the quality of the tonal range between the end points - this isn't so much "extension" as "quality of gradation" between the end points. I've never heard that the bit depth affects the extent of the range, but I have seen demonstrations that it does affect the quality of the tonal gradation within the range.
Now if you are saying that the additional theoretical quality of smoother tonal gradation gets lost in practice because of noise, that is another story and one that is certainly worth contemplating - in the first instance by seeing the results of some controlled tests. We are constantly being told that successive generations of sensors going from the 1Ds to the 1Ds MKii to the 5D are showing improved performance with respect to noise. Is this development now being arrested in the interest of adding more pixels to the same sensor dimensions, or is the noise reduction technology proceeding apace? I suppose we won't realy know the answer to that question for the 1DsMKiii until we see rigorous test results.
-
According to Bob Atkin's tests of the 40D, the 40D exhibits very slightly more noise than the 20D at all ISO's with noise reduction off, but very slightly less noise than the 20D with noise reductions on.
To my eyes, there's not much in it either way so any improvement is really only of pixel-peeping proportions, in my view. However, the noise reduction employed by the 40D does not appear to reduce resolution in any way.
Perhaps Canon have been able to implement such noise reduction as a result of the higher bit depth.
-
To me, if we're talking bit depth, it is mainly a story about what happens to the quality of the tonal range between the end points - this isn't so much "extension" as "quality of gradation" between the end points. I've never heard that the bit depth affects the extent of the range, but I have seen demonstrations that it does affect the quality of the tonal gradation within the range.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=138181\")
Mark,
After your masterly essay on curves, I hesitate to challenge any of your statements, but bit depth definitely affects dynamic range when linear integer encoding is used, as it is in raw files. This is clearly explained on [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/]Roger Clark's web site.[/url]--see figure 4. Roger is using the engineering definition of dynamic range: full well electrons/read noise in electrons. He states that each additional bit on the ADC adds one f/stop of potential dynamic range. However, in practice, this potential may not be realized because of noise.
Norman Koren (http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html) also has a table showing the bit depth necessary for a given dynamic range, but approaches the problem somewhat differently from a photographer's viewpoint, requiring a certain number of levels in the darkest f/stop to avoid banding. His criterion is that this darkest zone must contain 8 levels to avoid banding. By these criteria, a 12 bit linear ADC could give 9 f/stops and a 14 bit device would give 14 f/stops, presuming that the sensor is capable of such performance.
If logarithmic encoding were used, coding efficiency would improve and fewer bits would be required to avoid shadow banding and allow expanded DR. Even with 16 bit integer linear encoding, dynamic range falls short of HDR, and HDR encoding efficiency is greatly improved by Log and floating point formats as Gregory Ward (http://www.anyhere.com/gward/hdrenc/hdr_encodings.html) discusses on his stie. Gamma encoding (as opposed to linear) also needs fewer bits to record acceptable shadow levels, and this is shown in Norman's chart.
In some of Bruce Fraser's writings, he took your viewpoint and used an analogy comparing dynamic range to a stair case. The height of the stairs relates to dynamic range and the size of the steps to the bit depth. Adding more steps decreases the size of the steps but does not change the height of the stairs. However, If one adds more steps and does not change their size, the height of the stair case (dynamic range) would be increased.
Bill
-
According to Bob Atkin's tests of the 40D, the 40D exhibits very slightly more noise than the 20D at all ISO's with noise reduction off, but very slightly less noise than the 20D with noise reductions on.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138275\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps the camera was under-exposing? And, nore noise where? Read noise (shadows) and shot noise (mainly visible in midtones) are independent of each other.
-
Mark,
After your masterly essay on curves, I hesitate to challenge any of your statements, but bit depth definitely affects dynamic range when linear integer encoding is used, as it is in raw files. This is clearly explained on Roger Clark's web site. (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/)--see figure 4. Roger is using the engineering definition of dynamic range: full well electrons/read noise in electrons. He states that each additional bit on the ADC adds one f/stop of potential dynamic range. However, in practice, this potential may not be realized because of noise.
Norman Koren (http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html) also has a table showing the bit depth necessary for a given dynamic range, but approaches the problem somewhat differently from a photographer's viewpoint, requiring a certain number of levels in the darkest f/stop to avoid banding. His criterion is that this darkest zone must contain 8 levels to avoid banding. By these criteria, a 12 bit linear ADC could give 9 f/stops and a 14 bit device would give 14 f/stops, presuming that the sensor is capable of such performance.
If logarithmic encoding were used, coding efficiency would improve and fewer bits would be required to avoid shadow banding and allow expanded DR. Even with 16 bit integer linear encoding, dynamic range falls short of HDR, and HDR encoding efficiency is greatly improved by Log and floating point formats as Gregory Ward (http://www.anyhere.com/gward/hdrenc/hdr_encodings.html) discusses on his stie. Gamma encoding (as opposed to linear) also needs fewer bits to record acceptable shadow levels, and this is shown in Norman's chart.
In some of Bruce Fraser's writings, he took your viewpoint and used an analogy comparing dynamic range to a stair case. The height of the stairs relates to dynamic range and the size of the steps to the bit depth. Adding more steps decreases the size of the steps but does not change the height of the stairs. However, If one adds more steps and does not change their size, the height of the stair case (dynamic range) would be increased.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138294\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Bill,
Glad you enjoyed the Curves essays, and by all means - there is no end to what there is to learn, so I am very pleased you have brought these factors and references to my/our attention. I did indeed have the Bruce Fraser analogy in mind. Now, from what you relate, it would appear that depending on sensor performance, the added bit depth should contribute to more DR, which is what we want, isn't it? And I guess that again means we will just have to wait for the 1DsMKIII to see how that particular package of hardware and firmware behaves in these respects.
-
If one is expecting Hasselblad "V" series with Zeiss lenses to please them more than a Canon DsII, they will likely be disappointed. Having a DsII with 12, (mostly L-series), lenses and a Blad with 7 lenses from 40 to 500 APO, (including the superachromat), it is disappointingly evident how significant the aberrations are in the Zeiss optics. Vastly more chromatic problems are seen on film with the Zeiss than Canon lenses on a more demanding digital sensor. It would not be worth me acquiring a digital back for my Blad with the limitations of the optics. I wish I was wrong.
More photo sites have an exponential benefit in less up-ressing needed for large output.
So I ordered a DsIII the very day it was announced.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And a lot of pwople buy audio based on low harminic distortion.
Yet the top end, glorious sounding stuff can have just average spectcs
same with glass. I cant say why Leica and Zeiss produce better more exciting images, for some people, but they do. If you cant see the difference, then stick with Canon
if you DO see the difference, boy it is hard to go back!
Victor
PS Knocking Hassey glass also seems a losing proposition. This is no 'emperor has no clothes situation' not after 150 years it aint
-
Does the 1Ds MkIII make it easier to turn on Mirror Lock Up than having to dig through menus on the MkII?
Bud James
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From what I understand from the recent previews, there isn't any mirror lock up button. Funnily the 40D seems to be better in this regard, as you can access 3 custom configurations from the main dial.
I've configured a custom configuration with mirror lock up plus 2s self timer, so that I can set mirror lock up as quick as with a dedicated button (even more effective as more than one adjustment can be done with one single step).
See my other post today.
Kind regards
Thomas
Munich, Germany
-
PS Knocking Hassey glass also seems a losing proposition. This is no 'emperor has no clothes situation' not after 150 years it aint
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The proof is in the pudding. Why not test the Hassy glass on a Canon and then get back to us.
-
The proof is in the pudding. Why not test the Hassy glass on a Canon and then get back to us.
Thanks to our esteemed Mark Welsh at 16-9.net, we'll probably see tests of this soon (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/index.html) (see the bottom of the page).
-
Thanks to our esteemed Mark Welsh at 16-9.net, we'll probably see tests of this soon (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/index.html) (see the bottom of the page).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry I missed the mention of Hassey lenses on a Canon, could you please point it out? I was under the impression that Mark has divested himself of his Canon gear in favor of the Mamiya and back. If so I would be suprised to see more Canon testing.
-
I had that problem wiht my 24-70L lens. I never really noticed it until I shot teh same subject (A tree trunk with bushy background) with both lenses at maximum length. The other lens was teh 70-200L and it was unbelievably sharper, so much in fact that I sent the 24-70L back to canon for calibration. It's sharp now. Very sharp. I would recommend sending all new lenses back for calibration by the factory since the lens is not on teh assembly line but adjusted by a Canon tech on the bench. However, my 17-34L and 70-200L seem sharp enough without doing that. I am still tempted. It wouldn't hurt. If it's calibrated then they simply don't do anything to it.
I don't believe that it's a case of all Canon lenses not having the resolving power. For me, I found that it was one particular lens, the 24-70/2.8 L, that was never consistently sharp. This may be the case with other specific Canon lenses, too. The buzz seems to be that Canon's wide angle lenses in general aren't too hot. But my experience is limited to this one, plus some longer lenses that were always razor sharp.
I tried 3 different 24-70s and none were consistently sharp. This general focal length zoom is my workhorse lens, and its lack of sharpness was the main factor that made me switch back to the D2x when it came out.
Some of the promotional pitch about the MkIII mentions some supposed focus improvements. I'd be curious to see if they addressed this issue in a real way.
David
www.brennanphotography.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=135161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Sorry I missed the mention of Hassey lenses on a Canon, could you please point it out?
Try using the "find" function in your browser.
If you have a user friendly browser, the following keyboard shortcuts work:
Firefox: /
Opera: .
Then enter "hassel", and you'll see e.g. "Hasselblad 50mm v Canon 50mm macro".
I was under the impression that Mark has divested himself of his Canon gear in favor of the Mamiya and back. If so I would be suprised to see more Canon testing.
Mark's been clearing out a lot of gear, but I haven't seen anything on 16-9.net to indicate that he's selling/has sold it all yet. But perhaps I've missed something.
-
I'm looking forward to the 1Ds MkIII for a lot of reasons already mentioned here, but after using my new Canon 40D for the past week, the larger LCD screen is on the top of my list.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138137\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know, I just had to shoot with my D2x again for a images yesterday coming from months of shooting with the Mamiya ZD only (I hadn't touched the D2x for 3 months), and I re-discovered the value of a good screen.
No doubt that next gen cams like the 1ds3/d3 will offer yet another level of convenience and that really does affect one's shooting experience more than I remembered!
Cheers,
Bernard