Canon's finest imager, pixel per pixel

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 wrote:

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?


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...717.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

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:20:51 GMT, John A. Stovall
wrote:

On 9 Apr 2006 09:04:04 -0700, "RichA" wrote:

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.

Oh yes? Then why the hard on for any brand besides Canon?
-Rich

John A. Stovall wrote:
On 9 Apr 2006 09:04:04 -0700, "RichA" wrote:

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

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/KM...arkSnow_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.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:01:48 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:

RichA wrote:

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?


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...717.b-700.html

An awesome shot! That focus mechanism seems like something you might
want for a missle tracking system.

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.

16 meg and that pixel size would mean a larger than FF sensor.

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

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

John A. Stovall wrote:

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

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...unkeycam.shtml

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."

In article .com,
RichA wrote:

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?

Why don't you actually buy a camera and maybe you could tell us?

"John A. Stovall" wrote in
Since you have no photographic training, you seem to not understand
But it would take a camera to do that so you won't understand.

What a jerk!

Opps! Didn't know Rich & RichA were a controversial subject matter here.


"Dave" wrote in message
om...

"John A. Stovall" wrote in
Since you have no photographic training, you seem to not understand
But it would take a camera to do that so you won't understand.

What a jerk!

"Dave" wrote in message
. com...
Opps! Didn't know Rich & RichA were a controversial subject matter here.


"Dave" wrote in message
om...

"John A. Stovall" wrote in
Since you have no photographic training, you seem to not understand
But it would take a camera to do that so you won't understand.

What a jerk!



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.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com