For Canon users only
Discussion
Further to Ed's post below here are more detailed previews of the 1ds mk II:
www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092104canoneos1dsmkii.asp
and here:
www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp
Unlike Nikon, whose clear lead in higher res 35mm sized digital capture lasted not even a week, Canon have posted some samples.
www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092104canoneos1dsmkii.asp
and here:
www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp
Unlike Nikon, whose clear lead in higher res 35mm sized digital capture lasted not even a week, Canon have posted some samples.
Hmm - very impressive specs 
It will be interesting to see if it really does have the quality of MF as Canon claim, and I'd love to see the look on the faces of Nikon's top brass! It's also good to see that Canon have "borrowed" Nikon's WiFi idea 
So have you got your name down for one yet then??
It will be interesting to see if it really does have the quality of MF as Canon claim, and I'd love to see the look on the faces of Nikon's top brass! It's also good to see that Canon have "borrowed" Nikon's WiFi idea So have you got your name down for one yet then??
ehasler said:
Hmm - very impressive specs
MF film, no problem. MF digital ........er.......... no. Had a look at the samples which, I guess, come straight from Canon's own software with little or no sharpening and, as I would have expected, they look a little soft. But, with a small amount of sharpening 'snap' and look very good indeed. I'm sure they would take on another leap in quality if processed through Capture One. However, 16 bit capture is on another level. Every time I look at 12 bit capture, even with a camera of this resolution, there is still something missing, you just don't get the 'wow' factor.
ehasler said:
So have you got your name down for one yet then??
Thought about it for a second, but no, not at the moment. I'll most probably upgrade to the Nikon................. neck strap
I only use the 1ds about 5-10% of the time as it is, and it's fine for what I need. I'll reserve judgement on the new one and read what the full reviews say. I would like less noise at Higher ISO, but, for the amount of time that it's an issue for me, it's difficult to justify the extra dosh on it. I'm more likely to upgrade my back and if I don't stay with Phase One, might have a look at one of these these Bacardi said:I guess that's the same with scanning film then? From what I've seen, even so-called 16 bit scanners don't actually capture 16 bits of information per channel.
However, 16 bit capture is on another level. Every time I look at 12 bit capture, even with a camera of this resolution, there is still something missing, you just don't get the 'wow' factor.
Bacardi said:Nice bits of kit! Serious question though - what is the main benefit of MF digital? Is it the extra number of pixels, quality of the image or a combination?
I'm more likely to upgrade my back and if I don't stay with Phase One, might have a look at one of these these
Are there any situations where even a 1Ds wouldn't be up to the job?
No, I don't think this camera will make the big impact people think it will.
It is primarily a tool for studio photographers and people who suffer from penis envy and want one that is bigger than everyone elses.
Sports or news shooters, travel guys etc will shoot either Canon 1d mk2 or Nikon D2x.
The 1Ds is too large and unwieldy for serious travel work - in much the same the way the original 1Ds was largely a fashion and studio tool.
Terrific camera though, for what it is.
Now all we need to see is the new Fuji S3 and the latest stuff will have shown its cards.
I am interested to see if the Fuji really will have the wider dynamic range that they say it will. Who cares about 16mp if you can't get shadow and highlights in the same shot!!?? Maybe the Fuji will solve this.
It is primarily a tool for studio photographers and people who suffer from penis envy and want one that is bigger than everyone elses.
Sports or news shooters, travel guys etc will shoot either Canon 1d mk2 or Nikon D2x.
The 1Ds is too large and unwieldy for serious travel work - in much the same the way the original 1Ds was largely a fashion and studio tool.
Terrific camera though, for what it is.
Now all we need to see is the new Fuji S3 and the latest stuff will have shown its cards.
I am interested to see if the Fuji really will have the wider dynamic range that they say it will. Who cares about 16mp if you can't get shadow and highlights in the same shot!!?? Maybe the Fuji will solve this.
toppstuff said:But the 1D II and 1Ds II are the same size and weight though, and certainly smaller and lighter than a medium format body.
Sports or news shooters, travel guys etc will shoot either Canon 1d mk2 or Nikon D2x.
The 1Ds is too large and unwieldy for serious travel work - in much the same the way the original 1Ds was largely a fashion and studio tool.
1D II and 1Ds II are very similar cameras, but if having the extra resolution and a full frame sensor is more important to you than speed, then the 1Ds is the one to go for.
how did you get on with your phase one back... I was just considering one of the new packages.. but had someone trying to get me to buy the new jenoptik motion thingy....all day today!... seems more of a minefield than DSLR's !! very keen to get involved... but desperatly want/need untethered... and something that attatches to my dinosaur of a 503, infact thats not a huge consideration.. just sentimental.. would love to know how you got on with P1 heard lots of rumors/feedback but mainly from people trying to flog me something else!! ... either that or a 1DS2 but that doesn't look in the same league
sorry for jumping on this thread... but I was interested in barcardi's experience with MF backs...
The main difference between DSLR'S and MF is the size of the pixals and type of sensor, its not how many... but how big!!, an old 6 mp MF back with a CCD and pixels of 12microns( these days they are 22mp and 9x9) would eat a modern cmos at 16mp and 7microns for brekfast!!, the modern DSLR's ( I have a 1d2) are great, fast, clean and as you would expect from a 35mm replacement and in many ways much better, The backs for MF are still a quantum leap ahead as 6x6 or 645 was against 35mm, much more resolution, more info etc.. but suffer from huge filesize, portability etc... but for studio work.. theres no doubt.
the new 1DS2 looks great, and a cheap way of getting good res... and will yet again be the top DSLR. but if you work in a studio... probably not for you. I would be suprised if it challenges MF, if it does I will get one as its about a 3rd of the price!!
>> Edited by bacchus180 on Wednesday 22 September 19:24
The main difference between DSLR'S and MF is the size of the pixals and type of sensor, its not how many... but how big!!, an old 6 mp MF back with a CCD and pixels of 12microns( these days they are 22mp and 9x9) would eat a modern cmos at 16mp and 7microns for brekfast!!, the modern DSLR's ( I have a 1d2) are great, fast, clean and as you would expect from a 35mm replacement and in many ways much better, The backs for MF are still a quantum leap ahead as 6x6 or 645 was against 35mm, much more resolution, more info etc.. but suffer from huge filesize, portability etc... but for studio work.. theres no doubt.
the new 1DS2 looks great, and a cheap way of getting good res... and will yet again be the top DSLR. but if you work in a studio... probably not for you. I would be suprised if it challenges MF, if it does I will get one as its about a 3rd of the price!!
>> Edited by bacchus180 on Wednesday 22 September 19:24
ehasler said:
Nice bits of kit! Serious question though - what is the main benefit of MF digital? Is it the extra number of pixels, quality of the image or a combination?
The main benefits of MF are many. I think higher bit rate is more important than pixel count but if you have both, that's a bonus
ehasler said:
Are there any situations where even a 1Ds wouldn't be up to the job?
Most high end advertising photographers I know use backs, not just in the studio (were they are best suited) but also on location. Benefits include less dust, fast tethered capture, large preview on a good monitor, rather than squinting at little screens on backs of cameras. Being able to, very accurately, check focus. Less dust problems. Some backs also have live video (although, looks like the 1ds II has added video out?). The better backs also have multi shot and micro stepping capabilities which lead to much larger un-interpolated files, something like 245mb coupled with 16 bit quality and you really get a 'wow' factor. Did I mention less dust? (Sorry, in-between processing files and typing this I'm spotting.... bloody PITA Argh...
) It's not just a quality issue, it's also workflow. I have been shooting tethered in the studio all day with 1ds and, compared to shooting with a back, on a Hassleblad, it's a right royal, slow, cumbersome PITA. It's actually the physical characteristics of the camera (this would apply to any 35mm based camera), which make it a pain. Too many examples to go through here. Conversely, shooting with digibacks at a golf match is a no, no. It's horses for courses.
Car photography still uses a lot of 10x8 film. A mate of mine has just art directed a load of brochures for Ford and some of the work was done digitally, on these expensive backs, and they were, just about, OK. printing A4 brochures is one thing but car manufacturers print large, very high quality, posters and the 1ds II just wouldn't cut it.
That's not to say the 1ds is no good. It, of course, has it's own advantages, it's just another tool in the box.
toppstuff said:
No, I don't think this camera will make the big impact people think it will.
I don't believe so either, it's just an improved upgrade.
toppstuff said:
It is primarily a tool for studio photographers...
DS stands for 'Digital Studio' but see above.
toppstuff said:
Sports or news shooters, travel guys etc will shoot either Canon 1d mk2 or Nikon D2x.
Yes, sports or news will use those, much faster.
toppstuff said:
The 1Ds is too large and unwieldy for serious travel work - in much the same the way the original 1Ds was largely a fashion and studio tool.
Size is not a consideration.... if you are serious. In fact, for a lot of travel work, especially stock/library work the 1ds (unless you stick with film) has been a must. A lot of agencies, like Getty Images, wouldn't accept file sizes less than 32 mb RGB (as produced from the 1ds). One reason a good, stock shooting mate of mine switched from Nikon to Canon. The 2DX will be much needed for the Nikon shooters. I sincerely hope it's as good as it sounds, hell, it may even be better, then I might even buy one myself
toppstuff said:
Now all we need to see is the new Fuji S3 and the latest stuff will have shown its cards.
Yep. I believe it's 14bit so it's a step in the right direction, Shame if it feels like the last one though, a bit of Hyundai dashboard.
ehasler said:
But the 1D II and 1Ds II are the same size and weight though, and certainly smaller and lighter than a medium format body.
Wouldn't be to sure Ed. The 1ds with a large L lump of glass on the front weighs loads more than a 'blad with a digital back. OK, I know you need to be tethered to at least a laptop but the camera is far nicer to hand hold, IMHO.
bacchus180 said:
how did you get on with your phase one back...
Been using one for 4 years and love it. The software is great too and the fact that I can process Canon RAW through it is a bonus. Which Jenoptic Eyelike were you looking at. Who is the dealer? Just curious.
A lot of the MF digital companies are introducing loss-less compressed RAW formats to save disk space, still end up with a big .tif mind
A photographer in Finland has just mailed onto a discussion forum I take part in and he says about the 1ds II:
"I have played a little with a pre-prod 1Ds MkII. A couple of good tweaks in image quality (compared to 1Ds), some functions more precise, a blazingly fast write speed to SD cards, improvement in Firewire speed, a leap in hi ISO noise performance... And yes, more pixels."
Sounds good
Ta for the reply! Very interesting
Interesting though - I just assumed that from the MF gear I've seen, it just looked more unwieldy and heavier than an SLR, although I guess as SLRs go, the 1Ds is on the large and heavy side.
Just had a quick look at the Hasselblad website and weights and size don't appear to be that far out from SLR territory (at least if you don't go for a monster tele or big L zoom). From the prices, I'm assuming that MF lenses are generally of a higher optical quality too?
I've never really looked at MF before, but it looks like they are actually more practical and easy to use than I first thought, although the price tags are still very
So if someone was looking to spend 1Ds amounts of money on a camera, would you say they'd be better off going for a 1Ds (to fit existing lenses), or a 6x4.5 MF body with film back and a few lenses plus a reasonably priced scanner (or a small budget to pay for pro scans)?
That is assuming that speed/work flow isn't a huge priority but still quite important due to limited time, numbers of photos wouldn't be huge, and intended output would be anything from A4 to A1, plus stock libraries.
Digital MF would be out the question (until prices drop lots!), so I guess the question is really how would 1Ds quality compare to MF film at those sorts of output sizes?
Bacardi said:As far as I know, the latest Phase One backs don't need to be tethered, so that takes the laptop out the equation.
Wouldn't be to sure Ed. The 1ds with a large L lump of glass on the front weighs loads more than a 'blad with a digital back. OK, I know you need to be tethered to at least a laptop but the camera is far nicer to hand hold, IMHO.
Interesting though - I just assumed that from the MF gear I've seen, it just looked more unwieldy and heavier than an SLR, although I guess as SLRs go, the 1Ds is on the large and heavy side.
Just had a quick look at the Hasselblad website
and weights and size don't appear to be that far out from SLR territory (at least if you don't go for a monster tele or big L zoom). From the prices, I'm assuming that MF lenses are generally of a higher optical quality too? I've never really looked at MF before, but it looks like they are actually more practical and easy to use than I first thought, although the price tags are still very
So if someone was looking to spend 1Ds amounts of money on a camera, would you say they'd be better off going for a 1Ds (to fit existing lenses), or a 6x4.5 MF body with film back and a few lenses plus a reasonably priced scanner (or a small budget to pay for pro scans)?
That is assuming that speed/work flow isn't a huge priority but still quite important due to limited time, numbers of photos wouldn't be huge, and intended output would be anything from A4 to A1, plus stock libraries.
Digital MF would be out the question (until prices drop lots!), so I guess the question is really how would 1Ds quality compare to MF film at those sorts of output sizes?
ehasler said:
Digital MF would be out the question (until prices drop lots!), so I guess the question is really how would 1Ds quality compare to MF film at those sorts of output sizes?
I used to use the Pentax 645 system and we offer enlargements up to 60"x40". When we went over to the EOS-1DS at the start of the year we compared the same site shot with digital and medium format. Without exception, people preferred the 1Ds images through the full range of enlargements we do, easy choice for us really!
wolves_wanderer said:Interesting
Digital MF would be out the question (until prices drop lots!), so I guess the question is really how would 1Ds quality compare to MF film at those sorts of output sizes?
I used to use the Pentax 645 system and we offer enlargements up to 60"x40". When we went over to the EOS-1DS at the start of the year we compared the same site shot with digital and medium format. Without exception, people preferred the 1Ds images through the full range of enlargements we do, easy choice for us really!
What did you use to scan the MF slides?
ehasler said:
ehasler said:
Digital MF would be out the question (until prices drop lots!), so I guess the question is really how would 1Ds quality compare to MF film at those sorts of output sizes?
I used to use the Pentax 645 system and we offer enlargements up to 60"x40". When we went over to the EOS-1DS at the start of the year we compared the same site shot with digital and medium format. Without exception, people preferred the 1Ds images through the full range of enlargements we do, easy choice for us really!
Interesting
What did you use to scan the MF slides?
The prints were made at quite a big repro lab, I can't remember exactly what equipment they used but I would imagine it would be out of the range of a "non specialist" company. I would imagine that using the kind of scanners a "normal" company would get the difference would be more pronounced.
The main advantage to us is a more streamlined workflow and more freedom to carry out our own cropping, digital enhancement etc. (Obviously the cost savings are useful)
Yep - I'd guess a consumer quality scanner would lose even more quality, and if you're talking about spending £8k+ on something like an Imacon scanner, then MF digital backs start to make a lot more sense.
Do you still get your printing done at an external lab, or is this easier to manage yourselves now that you're working digitally?
Do you still get your printing done at an external lab, or is this easier to manage yourselves now that you're working digitally?
ehasler said:
Yep - I'd guess a consumer quality scanner would lose even more quality, and if you're talking about spending £8k+ on something like an Imacon scanner, then MF digital backs start to make a lot more sense.
Do you still get your printing done at an external lab, or is this easier to manage yourselves now that you're working digitally?
The volume we put through (around 20-30k images per year) means that it is easier to get the lab to do it. The large number also means that it is cheaper unless we invest about 200k in a digital lab
The improvements for us are not having to seperate orders from negatives manually and producing our own CD's so not having to pay for a scan on each image.
Basically digital has improved our quality and profit margins as well as meaning customers get their pictures more quickly. You may have gathered I'm fairly chuffed with the way it's worked out!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff