16.7 Megapixel!!!
21 September 2004, 11:27 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Gone for Good
Posts: 13,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16.7 Megapixel!!!
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp
Four sample pics can be seen here:
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html
Night scene is amazing
Four sample pics can be seen here:
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eos1d..._sample-e.html
Night scene is amazing
21 September 2004, 12:07 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TopBanana
I wish they told you which lenses they used in the sample shots!
File Name nightscene.jpg
Shooting Mode Manual
Tv (Shutter Speed) 15 sec
Av (Aperture Value) 11
ISO Speed 100
Lens EF17-40mm f/4L USM
White Balance 2800K
AF mode ONE SHOT AF
Shooting Mode Manual
Tv (Shutter Speed) 15 sec
Av (Aperture Value) 11
ISO Speed 100
Lens EF17-40mm f/4L USM
White Balance 2800K
AF mode ONE SHOT AF
Trending Topics
21 September 2004, 12:20 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, but my Nikon glass won't fit it 
Almost worth changing (back) to canon. I just don't think I could swallow the hit on the lenses and have to get used to the normal way of zooming again...
SB
Almost worth changing (back) to canon. I just don't think I could swallow the hit on the lenses and have to get used to the normal way of zooming again...
SB
21 September 2004, 12:23 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Lots of different places! (Thank you Mr. Lambert)
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB,
Check out the new Nikon D2X - I think it will suit your needs as long as the real world performance lives up to the spec. It's also literally thousands of dollars cheaper than the Canon and a good bit lighter too.
Remember also megapixels aren't everything in this game. I have poster sized prints from my D2H that are flawless and that's only 4 megapixels. There's a lot more to a digital camera than the number of pixels.
tiggers.
Check out the new Nikon D2X - I think it will suit your needs as long as the real world performance lives up to the spec. It's also literally thousands of dollars cheaper than the Canon and a good bit lighter too.
Remember also megapixels aren't everything in this game. I have poster sized prints from my D2H that are flawless and that's only 4 megapixels. There's a lot more to a digital camera than the number of pixels.
tiggers.
21 September 2004, 01:42 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sunny Swindon
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expected list price of $8000.....
Oh well, should knock the price of the 1Ds down to more reasonable levels.
I'll ask Santa for either, and see what turns up!
Oh well, should knock the price of the 1Ds down to more reasonable levels.
I'll ask Santa for either, and see what turns up!
21 September 2004, 03:16 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was just wondering how you are supposed to tell how good the picture is by looking at it on a monitor, that's all.
(mind you, i just clicked it onto actual size and i kind of get the idea now)
(mind you, i just clicked it onto actual size and i kind of get the idea now
)
Last edited by ProperCharlie; 21 September 2004 at 03:20 PM.
21 September 2004, 03:41 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Lots of different places! (Thank you Mr. Lambert)
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ozzy
What is it A0 picture size 
21 September 2004, 08:08 PM
#24
Originally Posted by tiggers
SB,
Check out the new Nikon D2X - I think it will suit your needs as long as the real world performance lives up to the spec. It's also literally thousands of dollars cheaper than the Canon and a good bit lighter too.
Remember also megapixels aren't everything in this game. I have poster sized prints from my D2H that are flawless and that's only 4 megapixels. There's a lot more to a digital camera than the number of pixels.
tiggers.
Check out the new Nikon D2X - I think it will suit your needs as long as the real world performance lives up to the spec. It's also literally thousands of dollars cheaper than the Canon and a good bit lighter too.
Remember also megapixels aren't everything in this game. I have poster sized prints from my D2H that are flawless and that's only 4 megapixels. There's a lot more to a digital camera than the number of pixels.
tiggers.
Megapixels aren't everything but when you photograph for a living, particularly for magazines etc you need to have the ability to crop a photograph, the more pixels the better in this case.
21 September 2004, 08:42 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by King RA
anyone know where that shot was taken?? looks like an interesting place. Zoom in the top right and you can see a big bridge!! amazing camera.
http://yokohama.panpacific.com/hotel/photo_02.html
The Ferris wheel and the curvy building is the giveaway.
21 September 2004, 08:54 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Lots of different places! (Thank you Mr. Lambert)
Posts: 3,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiGTI
No point in comparing, the Canon is aimed at completely different photographers. There is no crop factor on the Canon, the sensor is full frame and the image quality is better than medium format film cameras (The only digital camera that is) Technically studio photographers could replace very expensive medium format equipment with this camera so in this sense it isn't really that expensive.
Megapixels aren't everything but when you photograph for a living, particularly for magazines etc you need to have the ability to crop a photograph, the more pixels the better in this case.
Megapixels aren't everything but when you photograph for a living, particularly for magazines etc you need to have the ability to crop a photograph, the more pixels the better in this case.
I wasn't dissing the Canon in any way as it's probably a fine camera, but if you have a lot of Nikon glass and aren't looking for cropping to the nth degree the Nikon's 12 plus megapixels will probably suffice. Of course this is all hypothetical as we're yet to see any real results from the D2X.
Cheers,
tiggers.
22 September 2004, 09:59 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
I was told (pub conversation comment) that film cameras are equivalent to 16MP. I suppose that needs some qualification - I presume it means 35mm print (not slide) film cameras, and I don't know if the speed of the film makes a difference - but can anyone comment on that? The conversation was along the lines of "digicams are getting there, but are really no substitute for pic quality just yet".
22 September 2004, 10:07 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard it was 21MP but no idea if that's true or not. All depends on what you are using it for. If you're a professional then this new device could be great. However for most people a 4mb etc. camera will be fine. Bascially, look at the quality of your current 35mm camera. Is a £50 or £500 jobbie? That'll give you an idea as to how good you need your digicamera to be.
22 September 2004, 10:15 AM
#30
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A full sized censor isn't necessarily a good thing to have. You get proper focal lengths on your lenses of course, but that isn't the whole story.
Because of the curved nature of the glass in a lense, the image that is projected onto the exposure plate (or CCD/CMOS in a DSLR) is not flat, and the clarity of the image and the colours are not as good as at the centre.
This does not cause too much of a problem for film, which has greater dynamic range, and can handle light hitting it at angle admirably.
However, sensors do not like anyhting but straight on light hitting them, and as such, the outer edges of the image start to suffer all sorts undesriable things.
The 1.6/1.5 sized APS sensors employed in most DSLRs therefore give you 2 benefits, (although one is argualbky a disadvantge depending on what type of photograpy you are doing) the first being a free 'increase' in the focal length of your lenses, the other being that you only get the nice clear central inage as the distorted out portion is 'lost' in the mirror chamber.
Nikon, Canon, Sigma etc. have already invested a lot of money in glass to suit APS sensors, and are unlikely to move wholesale to full sized sensors which cannot utilise theses lenses. I would have thought it more likely that full sized sensors will soon (relatively) become a thing of the past.
If you look at the new Olympus, it uses a new format which is hope will become a standard amongst DSLR. I think this is the way it will go, SLRs based on 80 year old 35mm techology do not necessarily fit what's best for the digital world. We are in a transitional period.
Geezer
Because of the curved nature of the glass in a lense, the image that is projected onto the exposure plate (or CCD/CMOS in a DSLR) is not flat, and the clarity of the image and the colours are not as good as at the centre.
This does not cause too much of a problem for film, which has greater dynamic range, and can handle light hitting it at angle admirably.
However, sensors do not like anyhting but straight on light hitting them, and as such, the outer edges of the image start to suffer all sorts undesriable things.
The 1.6/1.5 sized APS sensors employed in most DSLRs therefore give you 2 benefits, (although one is argualbky a disadvantge depending on what type of photograpy you are doing) the first being a free 'increase' in the focal length of your lenses, the other being that you only get the nice clear central inage as the distorted out portion is 'lost' in the mirror chamber.
Nikon, Canon, Sigma etc. have already invested a lot of money in glass to suit APS sensors, and are unlikely to move wholesale to full sized sensors which cannot utilise theses lenses. I would have thought it more likely that full sized sensors will soon (relatively) become a thing of the past.
If you look at the new Olympus, it uses a new format which is hope will become a standard amongst DSLR. I think this is the way it will go, SLRs based on 80 year old 35mm techology do not necessarily fit what's best for the digital world. We are in a transitional period.
Geezer