Canon's finest imager, pixel per pixel

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Apr 9, 2006.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I overheard one of the clerks in a camera store say that in terms of
    pixel per pixel quality,
    Canon's 1D MkII N was the best imager Canon made. He said something
    about
    wildlife shooters liking it because it seemed to work best in that
    areas.
    I'm wondering if this is true?
    It's obvious in terms of resolution, the 1Ds MkII is the top camera,
    but if you were to take
    a 6 megapixel patch of it's sensor, the same for the 5D and the same
    for the 1D MkII N,
    which one would produce the best image, from all standpoints such as
    resolution, tonality,
    dynamic range handling, etc?
     
    RichA, Apr 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Since you have no photographic training, you seem to not understand
    one composes in the frame and prints the full frame.

    But it would take a camera to do that so you won't understand.

    Pixels are only incidental to creating a great image.

    Here free yourself from the curse of pixels and find the freedom of
    creativity.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/funkeycam.shtml


    --

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Apr 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The 1D Mark Ii (and N, which has same specs but larger buffer and
    a couple of other minor things), is liked by wildlife photographers
    because of its speed, not only in terms of frames per second,
    but more importantly, autofocus speed. I use a 1D Mark II, and
    of all the cameras I have used, it is the only one that when
    following an animal, like a bird in flight against a complex
    background, can I get back focus on the subject after losing it.
    For example, say I'm following a bird toward landing. I use one
    autofocus point, preferably on the bird's eye. If I slip off,
    focus will switch to the new object in the autofocus sensor:
    the background. On other cameras, like the D60, 10D, and 20D,
    one rarely can get autofocus back on the bird once you put the
    autofocus point back on the eye. But the 1D mark II gets it back
    in a fraction of a second. This is important for me, as when I'm
    tracking a fast moving subject with a 500 mm lens + 1.4 or 2x TC,
    the field of view is small and the animal's path can be erratic,
    so it is easy to lose the animal completely and easier to lose
    the autofocus point on the eye. So a camera that acts quickly
    is vital and results in more successful shots, like this:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/eagle.c09.11.2004.JZ3F4717.b-700.html

    Add that performance to large pixels. The 1D Mark II has 8.2 micron pixels
    with a full well of 80,000 electrons, more than most cameras. See:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-1d2
    That combined with extremely low read noise provides for the highest
    dynamic range in a single frame I have measured on any camera (see above page).
    The high number of photoelectrons counted results in very low noise
    images that can be enlarged very well. I make 16x24 inch prints
    that have no noise yet have had Richardson-Lucy image restoration
    applied to increase resolution and sharpness, effectively increasing
    the pixel count by 4x.

    I'm looking forward to more megapixels, higher bit depth, and equal or higher
    speed in a future camera. But until then the 1DII is producing spectacular results.

    My backup camera is a 10D. If it failed, I would have to choose between
    a 5D, a 1DsII, or a 1D IIN. I'll probably go with a 1DIIN even though it
    has fewer megapixels, but it is better in other important respects in my
    opinion.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Apr 9, 2006
    #3
  4. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Oh yes? Then why the hard on for any brand besides Canon?
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Apr 9, 2006
    #4
  5. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Nonsense. There are many subjects that are taken through the viewfinder
    with foreknowledge that they will be apropriately cropped according to
    subject and desured composition prior to printing.

    Examples (both taken with a 3:2 viewfinder).
    http://www.aliasimages.com/images/KM7D/BirchBarkSnow_II.jpg
    http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Daffodil.jpg

    The "full viewfinder" 'rule' should not be strictly heeded to anymore
    than the "rule of thirds". These are useful _exercises_ for the new
    amateur or student, but a serious photographer shoots and prints for the
    end composition.

    If you want to constrain yourself to that "rule", then by all means
    enjoy yourself, but don't go propagating silly myths on unsuspecting people.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 9, 2006
    #5
  6. RichA

    Rich Guest

    An awesome shot! That focus mechanism seems like something you might
    want for a missle tracking system. :)
    16 meg and that pixel size would mean a larger than FF sensor.
    So for all purposes it should produce shots as good as (on a per pixel
    basis) the 5D, maybe better with less noise than the 1DsMkII? Plus,
    it doesn't have as many issues with edge of FOV quality, etc. In
    fact, it's almost as if the sensor in it is performing the crop you'll
    end up making anyway with a FF camera if the edge quality doesn't hold
    up.
    -Rich
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Apr 9, 2006
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    You keep repeating this, but you know (or should) that it's very hard
    to achieve that perfect
    subject-frame match unless you ONLY do photography of subjects you are
    sure you
    can fill the frame completely with.
     
    RichA, Apr 9, 2006
    #7
  8. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Ha!

    "Some people that I've shown them to ask why I don't use my cell phone
    camera. Good question. The answer is that those images are too big and
    too sharp. I love the pastel colours, high contrast, chromatic
    aberration and all the other flaws of the FunkyCam. Phone camera makers
    try too hard to get rid of these assets."
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 10, 2006
    #8
  9. Why don't you actually buy a camera and maybe you could tell us?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 10, 2006
    #9
  10. RichA

    Paul J Gans Guest

    I heard two homeless men talking in the street here in
    New York. One thought that the Canon body cap was the
    best ever made while the other thought the best was
    the Nikon body cap.

    Rich, can you tell me which one was right?

    ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Apr 10, 2006
    #10
  11. RichA

    Dave Guest

    What a jerk!
     
    Dave, Apr 10, 2006
    #11
  12. RichA

    Dave Guest

    Opps! Didn't know Rich & RichA were a controversial subject matter here.
     
    Dave, Apr 10, 2006
    #12
  13. RichA

    Matt Clara Guest


    All the same, his question is legitimate, and if John A. Stovall doesn't
    like what Rich has to say, perhaps he should just filter his posts and be
    done with it.
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 10, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.