21MP 1Ds Mark III Announced

"SmartGuy" wrote in message
...
Yet for all the immature and retarded comments that you have made none of
you
can deny that what I stated is true.

Or no-one is silly enough to waste their time arguing with a statement like
that. Morons who believe it is so cannot be reasoned with.
It's a bit like trying to disprove God exists, when Christians simply claim
Faith to "prove" his existence.
(actually it's a lot easier in this case, but I still can't be bothered)
In both cases I simply say, you are welcome to your beliefs no matter how
ridiculous.

MrT.

"SmartGuy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:14:06 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"Annika1980" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Aug 21, 12:10 pm, SmartGuy wrote:
Only fools out to impress an uneducated client would buy it.

I think it's time to change your screen name.

It's Australian inverse slang surely. Like tall guys are called "shorty",
an
idiot is called "SmartGuy" :-)

MrT.


Yet for all the immature and retarded comments that you have made none of
you
can deny that what I stated is true.


Oh and I deny what you said is true. So that would make you completely wrong
as well Bunnykins!

On Aug 22, 7:43 am, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
acl
], who wrote in article .com:

What someone who knows how to parse DNG files can do, is write a program
that does this within DNG files, for any camera with DNG.

For me, C is 2 lines a day, so I won't do it .

No C needed - if dcraw can MERGE a header from one DNG file with a
TIFF of "very raw" data.

a) Convert DNG to TIFF;
b1) use -fx of ImageMagick to do the transformation; or
b2) convert to .txt via ImageMagick, use any scripted tool to edit
.txt, convert back to TIFF;
c) Merge the modified TIFF into the DNG file.

(I have no idea whether 'c' is available).



Hey this imagemagick fx looks very interesting! Maybe I'll download it
tonight if I have some time. Thanks!

SmartGuy wrote:

I read the specs at dpreview. I still wouldn't buy it. While the
(finally!) 2x
resolution increase would be nice over a 5mpx camera, I get the very same
features in my S3 IS with CHDK and can take the very same resolution
as the 1Ds
with a 4-panel stitched frame, plus so many more features that the
1Ds can never
have. Minus all the hundred or so drawbacks that any DSLR has over
any P&S
camera.

Those damned DSLR's superior lenses, resolution, better dynamic range,
exposure control, system accessories ... yeah, crap on that and give me
a P&S.

They can keep it.

Well, no they can't. They're being bought faster than they can be stocked.

Only fools out to impress an uneducated client would buy it. They'll
make a
fortune selling to that vast audience. If someone gave one to me I
would find it
an interesting novelty to leave on the shelf. What else would I do
with it? Did
you check out that gargantuan size and weight?

This camera was clearly not meant for people with your paltry attitude.
This camera challenges beasts like the H3D-22 at a much lower price.
So a pro with this can carry lower capital costs and get the same results.

Lower fees for clients will certainly impress the clients.

(In fact since high end 35mm lenses typically out resolve MF lenses,
this is a fine path to follow at least for f/11 and wider).

Further, it is a much better "field" camera than a Hasselblad can be so
the photog gets a much broader use, possibly better results and at a
much lower price. The price of the H3D body alone will buy the Mk III
and many high end Canon lenses that offer FL possibilities well outside
the Hasselblad range.

Stiching is fine, but kinda hard to do with moving subjects.

This camera is designed for pros with the budget to capitalize it and
whip it to death working it. Not for "Smartguy" who obviously does not
really understand professional photography.

--
-- 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 Aug 21, 12:10 pm, SmartGuy wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:59:13 +1000, "Wayne J. Cosshall"
wrote:

Hi All,

The 1Ds Mark III officially announced:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1071

Cheers,

Wayne

I read the specs at dpreview. I still wouldn't buy it. While the (finally!) 2x
resolution increase would be nice over a 5mpx camera, I get the very same
features in my S3 IS with CHDK and can take the very same resolution as the 1Ds
with a 4-panel stitched frame, plus so many more features that the 1Ds can never
have. Minus all the hundred or so drawbacks that any DSLR has over any P&S
camera.

They can keep it.

Only fools out to impress an uneducated client would buy it. They'll make a
fortune selling to that vast audience. If someone gave one to me I would find it
an interesting novelty to leave on the shelf. What else would I do with it? Did
you check out that gargantuan size and weight?

They can keep it.

By introducing modest changes (lets face it, increasing pixel count
while keeping sensor size static is no big deal) is clever of Canon.
It helps shore up dropping prices, even allows for increases. That is
the aim of most "improvements" we see in new models. The 40D though
seems to be different as I believe it is $300 less than the price the
30D was when it was introduced.

David,


I've always enjoyed your posts here. Can you help me understand the
mathematics of:

Let's see. 21.1 MP implies that'd be 8.2MP in a 1.6x camera or 9.4MP in a
1.5x camera.

5616 x 3744 = 3744/24 = 156 pixels per mm, or 6.4 microns.


This is NOT a criticism of your post. On the contrary, it's a sincere
attempt on my part to understand the mathematics of sensor size, pixel size,
and overall image quality.

In particular, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the 1Ds Mark III would
compare to my D2Xs. I've thought of swapping systems when the 1Ds Mark III
was released, but I'm not so sure now.

Thanks in advance,
John




"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"acl" wrote:

Hey David, did you notice the 1ds mkiii's pixel pitch?

Nope. Haven't computed it yet. Sheesh. I must be getting old. (Or fried by
the heat.)

Let's see. 21.1 MP implies that'd be 8.2MP in a 1.6x camera or 9.4MP in a
1.5x camera.

5616 x 3744 = 3744/24 = 156 pixels per mm, or 6.4 microns.

That's a Nyquist frequency of 78 lp/mm, and you'd like 50% MTF at around
75% of that, so that's 58 lp/mm. 800/58 = 13.8, so the beast will probably
be, like the D2x, a tad soft at f/16.

(Has the heat fried my math???)

So for max sharpness, you're going to be shooting at f/8 and f/11 a lot
with lenses under 100mm.

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.
(Note that the 10MP D200 is a straight line down from its ISO 100
performance, which means that the ADC + electronics are adequate to pull
out all the sensor is giving at ISO 100.) It sure looks to me that 14 bits
only will be making sense on the 1DIII and 5DII (if such a creature
appears at 16MP).

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ary/index.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"RichA" a écrit dans le message de
oups.com...
On Aug 21, 12:10 pm, SmartGuy wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:59:13 +1000, "Wayne J. Cosshall"

wrote:

Hi All,

The 1Ds Mark III officially announced:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1071

Cheers,

Wayne

I read the specs at dpreview. I still wouldn't buy it. While the
(finally!) 2x
resolution increase would be nice over a 5mpx camera, I get the very
same
features in my S3 IS with CHDK and can take the very same resolution as
the 1Ds
with a 4-panel stitched frame, plus so many more features that the 1Ds
can never
have. Minus all the hundred or so drawbacks that any DSLR has over any
P&S
camera.

They can keep it.

Only fools out to impress an uneducated client would buy it. They'll
make a
fortune selling to that vast audience. If someone gave one to me I would
find it
an interesting novelty to leave on the shelf. What else would I do with
it? Did
you check out that gargantuan size and weight?

They can keep it.

By introducing modest changes (lets face it, increasing pixel count
while keeping sensor size static is no big deal) is clever of Canon.
It helps shore up dropping prices, even allows for increases. That is
the aim of most "improvements" we see in new models. The 40D though
seems to be different as I believe it is $300 less than the price the
30D was when it was introduced.


They must use cheaper plastics ;-)

Jean

On Aug 22, 4:54 pm, "John Smith" wrote:


This is NOT a criticism of your post. On the contrary, it's a sincere
attempt on my part to understand the mathematics of sensor size, pixel size,
and overall image quality.

In particular, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the 1Ds Mark III would
compare to my D2Xs. I've thought of swapping systems when the 1Ds Mark III
was released, but I'm not so sure now.


I'll simplify the math for ya:

Canon Nikon.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Aug 22, 4:54 pm, "John Smith" wrote:

This is NOT a criticism of your post. On the contrary, it's a sincere
attempt on my part to understand the mathematics of sensor size, pixel size,
and overall image quality.

In particular, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how the 1Ds Mark III would
compare to my D2Xs. I've thought of swapping systems when the 1Ds Mark III
was released, but I'm not so sure now.


I'll simplify the math for ya:

Canon Nikon.


Rumour has it, that situation changes in 3 hours.

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
frederick wrote:

Canon Nikon.


Rumour has it, that situation changes in 3 hours.

He's currently correct when it comes to the dSLR body. I'll give Nikon
a year to totally trash the Mk III. As for lenses, Canon is about
35-years behind Nikon when it comes to WA lenses.

It'll be very interesting to see what comes in a few hours - actually
the press conference starts at 1pm JST, so about 5 hours from now.
For sure Bjørn Rørslett and many other photogs have been flown to Tokyo
- Bjørn has even posted on DPReview since arriving.
"Trash" the 1dIII?
I suspect that the D3 will do so in some aspects if ultimate high iso
performance and frame rate is the issue, but my guess is that the price
will be closer to the 1DsIII - nearly double the 1D. As such, it won't
be in my Xmas stocking.
The D300 will almost certainly trump the 40d, but it's not likely to be
$1299 either.