A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old August 24th 07, 03:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,aus.photo
Matt Clara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 626
Default 21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1187852244.906171@ftpsrv1...
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"frederick" wrote:

snip

The D3 is out of my price range, but the D300 looks like the camera I've
been waiting for. I'm glad I skipped the D200, stuck with my D70 and
spent what I would have done on lenses instead.


Don't chuck the D70 just yet: you may find yourself better off using D70
images straight than noise reducing and downsampling D300 images in low
light.

If Nikon made the D300 with worse noise than the D200, then IMO that's a
mistake if the option was to stay at 10mp and improve noise performance.
But my guess is that it's going to be good (but no - not a 5d). Take a
D2xs sensor and add a few years of development, and it darned well ought
to be improved.
And no - the D70 has been excellent, but it's time to move on. At about
30,000 clicks, Even if I trashed it now, I've saved more than 5x what it
would have cost me in film and processing, and the results have generally
been better, sometimes much better than I ever got from 35mm. I shoot raw,
and use an R1800 for printing. Viewing my old Cibachrome collection shows
me very clearly how much things have moved on in a relatively short space
of time.


The D70's great for IR photography, whereas the D200 and, I assume, the D300
are not. Keep it if you can afford to.
People worry that adding the extra pixels to the sensor will make the D300
noisier, but if DPReview is right, the D300 uses a CMOS instead of CCD, and
thus may alleviate that problem to some degree.

--
www.mattclara.com


  #92  
Old August 25th 07, 02:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,aus.photo
John Sheehy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 878
Default 21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

acl wrote in
oups.com:

On Aug 23, 8:03 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:


The D2x remains a joke, with D2x owners being the ones who have the
most to be unhappy about.


Actually it's still a nice camera.


It's unique in that it has/had 12 MP at a fine pixel pitch. It is one of
the noisiest DSLRs made in recent years, though, as far as read noise is
concerned. It has more read noise at ISO 100 than the 1Dmk3 has at ISO
1600. It's a camera that works best in controlled lighting; not for action
in dark places.



--


John P Sheehy

  #93  
Old August 25th 07, 02:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,aus.photo
John Sheehy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 878
Default 21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

"Matt Clara" wrote in
:

ROFL, then every camera used for sports before digital must be a joke,
too! And yet they got good photos anyway!


Did they, really? Most of the action sports and wildlife photos in low
light from the age of film look pretty poor (IQ-wise), IMO.

--


John P Sheehy

  #94  
Old August 25th 07, 10:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,aus.photo
Matt Clara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default 21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

On Aug 24, 9:32 pm, John Sheehy wrote:
"Matt Clara" wrote m:

ROFL, then every camera used for sports before digital must be a joke,
too! And yet they got good photos anyway!


Did they, really? Most of the action sports and wildlife photos in low
light from the age of film look pretty poor (IQ-wise), IMO.


I don't remember those shots, John, I remember the 20 x 30 poster of
Dr. J. slam dunking it from the free throw line, etc. All excellent
shots. What sports were you interested in that they happened in low
light? I think you're making **** up, is what I think. Helps your
argument, I guess.

--
www.mattclara.com

  #95  
Old August 26th 07, 09:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,aus.photo
John Sheehy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 878
Default 21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

Ilya Zakharevich wrote in
:

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
David J. Littleboy
], who wrote in article
:
Of course, my reading of figure 5 on this page indicates that there's
no point to bothering with a 14-bit A/D converter on either this or
the 40D.


My hunch is that N-bit converter would deliver at most N-1 or N-1.5
usable bits. If so, then using 14-bit converter makes sense even if
only 12bit is needed FOR STORAGE.


That's my thinking as well; if there is some benefit in the 14-bit ADC,
you might not need 14 bits in the output.

Comparing the deep shadows of a 14-bit ISO 100 RAW from the 1Dmk3, and a
12-bit version of it (the 2 LSBs zeroed), with exactly the same RGB
interpolation and WB, there is no significant difference, even pushed to
ISO 2800. So, even *if* the 14-bit data had less analog noise underlying
it, having the 2 LSBs in the RAW is of questionable value, in terms of
what you get vs what it costs you. Personally, I think that only the
cleanest of DSLRs warrant even 12 bits at ISO 100 (Pentax K10D, Fuji S5,
Canon 1D(s)mk*, etc), and that 10 or even less bits are needed at ISO
1600. The D2X could probably get away with 8 or even 7 bits at ISO 1600
- read noise is about 60 ADU at 12 bits, and that would still be almost 4
ADU at 8 bits.

I just tried it - zooming in to 640 RAW levels from the shadows of the
blue channel of a D2X ISO 1600 file (IOW, pushed to about ISO 5100),
mapped to 0 to 255 on the screen, I can see almost no difference
whatsoever in the quality of the original 12 bits, and after integer-
dividing and -multiplying by 32, for an effective 7 bits of RAW data.

At 6 effective bits (read noise is now about 1 ADU), I start to see a
slight unevenness in tonalities. At 5 bits, it is obvious, and at 4
bits, the greyscale image becomes severely posterized.

--


John P Sheehy

  #96  
Old August 26th 07, 09:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,aus.photo
John Sheehy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 878
Default 21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in
:

Don't chuck the D70 just yet: you may find yourself better off using
D70 images straight than noise reducing and downsampling D300 images
in low light.


The D40 is a much better imager for low light at 6MP. Still might not be
as good as the D300 downsampled to 6MP, though (not that I recommend
downsampling images just to reduce pixel-level noise). Have to wait and
see what the new Nikons really do.


--


John P Sheehy

  #97  
Old August 27th 07, 02:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,aus.photo
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default 21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

On Aug 25, 5:28 am, Matt Clara wrote:

Did they, really? Most of the action sports and wildlife photos in low
light from the age of film look pretty poor (IQ-wise), IMO.


I don't remember those shots, John, I remember the 20 x 30 poster of
Dr. J. slam dunking it from the free throw line, etc. All excellent
shots. What sports were you interested in that they happened in low
light? I think you're making **** up, is what I think. Helps your
argument, I guess.


http://img.nytstore.com/IMAGES/NSAPNL12L_EXTR.JPG

Here is a famous sports photograph from the old days. Looks like crap
compared to modern day photos. And the color is way off.




  #98  
Old August 27th 07, 03:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,aus.photo
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default 21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:19:52 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

I don't remember those shots, John, I remember the 20 x 30 poster of
Dr. J. slam dunking it from the free throw line, etc. All excellent
shots. What sports were you interested in that they happened in low
light? I think you're making **** up, is what I think. Helps your
argument, I guess.


http://img.nytstore.com/IMAGES/NSAPNL12L_EXTR.JPG

Here is a famous sports photograph from the old days. Looks like crap
compared to modern day photos. And the color is way off.


What do you expect from daylight film under all of those lights?
And Ameche had been taking steroids so he should have been
disqualified. In spite of it all, a good evening for the Bronx.

  #99  
Old August 27th 07, 04:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,aus.photo
Cynicor[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 517
Default 21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

ASAAR wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:19:52 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

I don't remember those shots, John, I remember the 20 x 30 poster of
Dr. J. slam dunking it from the free throw line, etc. All excellent
shots. What sports were you interested in that they happened in low
light? I think you're making **** up, is what I think. Helps your
argument, I guess.

http://img.nytstore.com/IMAGES/NSAPNL12L_EXTR.JPG

Here is a famous sports photograph from the old days. Looks like crap
compared to modern day photos. And the color is way off.


What do you expect from daylight film under all of those lights?
And Ameche had been taking steroids so he should have been
disqualified. In spite of it all, a good evening for the Bronx.


Wow, jpegging was really lousy back then.
  #100  
Old August 27th 07, 06:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,aus.photo
Tony Polson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,194
Default 21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

Allen wrote:

Time marches on, but some people just sit down and mope.



Some people are so taken in by new technology that they automatically
assume it must be an improvement on older technologies. And once
having invested expensively in the new technology, they flat deny that
old technologies had anything to offer, for fear of buyer's remorse.

Fortunately for the rest of us, these people are totally transparent.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 164 August 30th 07 07:59 AM
Canon Just announced the EOS-1D Mark III Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 132 March 2nd 07 07:22 PM
Canon Just announced the EOS-1D Mark III Wayne J. Cosshall Digital SLR Cameras 121 March 2nd 07 07:22 PM
A $1200 21MP Digital Camera kz8rt3 Digital SLR Cameras 21 September 4th 05 01:17 AM
Mark Morgan (MarkČ) [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 13 February 4th 05 10:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.