Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

Impossible indeed, the camera lens+film and scanner together will max
out at something like 85 cy/mm. The Nyquist of the 1Ds MkII however
limits resolution to 61 cy/mm, but at a higher modulation. Mind you,
that's good enough for a 'perfect' visual acuity limited 8x10in
enlargement with plenty of potential to go further (16x20in is hardly
a compromise).

Easilly:

potential print o/p (inches)

dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72

pix
4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 69.3
3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

Impossible indeed, the camera lens+film and scanner together will max
out at something like 85 cy/mm. The Nyquist of the 1Ds MkII however
limits resolution to 61 cy/mm, but at a higher modulation. Mind you,
that's good enough for a 'perfect' visual acuity limited 8x10in
enlargement with plenty of potential to go further (16x20in is hardly
a compromise).

Easilly:

potential print o/p (inches)

dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72

pix
4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 69.3
3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

In article , ternet
says...
Have you even looked at the sample images?

Yup. Boring as hell.

The pictures, sure - they're promos! But the pixel-level detail is
amazing.

Couple hundred extra horizontal/vertical pixels doesn't help that in the
slightest.

You obviously have very, very poor vision. Possibly a bad monitor to
boot. You also don't understand print size versus DPI, because trust
me, you can never have too many good pixels in an image.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article , ternet
says...
Have you even looked at the sample images?

Yup. Boring as hell.

The pictures, sure - they're promos! But the pixel-level detail is
amazing.

Couple hundred extra horizontal/vertical pixels doesn't help that in the
slightest.

You obviously have very, very poor vision. Possibly a bad monitor to
boot. You also don't understand print size versus DPI, because trust
me, you can never have too many good pixels in an image.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
Easilly:

potential print o/p (inches)

dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72

pix
4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 69.3
3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2

And that's before any sneeky upsizing and sharpening to fool the eye at
larger print sizes.

And could you imagine the digital panoramas you could get with a decent
pano head and Panotools? Yoinks!

I seriously need $8,000. Anyone know how easy it is to get into this
lucrative "crack" business?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
Easilly:

potential print o/p (inches)

dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72

pix
4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 69.3
3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2

And that's before any sneeky upsizing and sharpening to fool the eye at
larger print sizes.

And could you imagine the digital panoramas you could get with a decent
pano head and Panotools? Yoinks!

I seriously need $8,000. Anyone know how easy it is to get into this
lucrative "crack" business?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

firstly for $8000 you're better off comparing the camera to a large or med
format.

k

"TP" wrote in message
...
Deryck Lant wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dsmkii/

Obviously the excitement created by Nikon had to be diverted a little
before
Photokina.


At last, a DSLR to rival 35mm film for most applications - and I say
that having carefully studied all four of Canon's sample images.

No,it doesn't come anywhere near blowing away a 6000 dpi drum scan of
a Fuji Provia 100F slide or NPS negative. Nowhere remotely near.

From: (brian)

I have seen a direct comparison of drum scanned Provia 100F with
the 11 megapixel 1Ds, and the 1Ds is a clear winner.

I've been using a 1Ds since March and Brian is right, prints from the 1Ds are
much better than anything you can get with 35 mm film, either Velvia or Provia
100F. This is shooting the same scene with the same Canon L lenses and
comparing actual prints. It's not even close.

I've rezzed up 1Ds files and printed 20x30" and the prints look better than
anything possible with 35 mm and are actually pretty close to 645 medium format
quality. Because there is almost no noise you can blow them up and they still
look excellent.

I'm still shooting 645 and 6x7 cm medium format film for landscape but at 16
Mpixels you're getting into 6x6 cm territory.

Bill

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
Bart van der Wolf wrote:

Impossible indeed, the camera lens+film and scanner together will
max
out at something like 85 cy/mm. The Nyquist of the 1Ds MkII
however
limits resolution to 61 cy/mm, but at a higher modulation. Mind
you,
that's good enough for a 'perfect' visual acuity limited 8x10in
enlargement with plenty of potential to go further (16x20in is
hardly
a compromise).

Easilly:

potential print o/p (inches)

dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72

pix
4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 69.3
3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2
Cy/mm 5.2 4.3 3.5 2.6 2.3 1.2

5-8 cycles/mm equals visual acuity limit at reading distance.

Bart

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
Bart van der Wolf wrote:

Impossible indeed, the camera lens+film and scanner together will
max
out at something like 85 cy/mm. The Nyquist of the 1Ds MkII
however
limits resolution to 61 cy/mm, but at a higher modulation. Mind
you,
that's good enough for a 'perfect' visual acuity limited 8x10in
enlargement with plenty of potential to go further (16x20in is
hardly
a compromise).

Easilly:

potential print o/p (inches)

dpi: 300 250 200 150 133 72

pix
4992 16.6 20.0 25.0 33.3 37.5 69.3
3328 11.1 13.3 16.6 22.2 25.0 46.2
Cy/mm 5.2 4.3 3.5 2.6 2.3 1.2

5-8 cycles/mm equals visual acuity limit at reading distance.

Bart