Comments on: 1D Mark IV in the Field.

By: Rocktog

Rocktog — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:56:49 +0000

Actually, some of us really do need, and can easily see an advantage of high iso performance. Being a music tog who does a great deal of live concert work, I’m shooting in the dark, with very dire lighting at times, with fast moving subjects. When I’m shooting at iso3200, f/1.2, 1/125, and still underexposed, having another stop or more with clean(er) files makes a huge difference, and can lead to many more publications/sales. I’m hoping to add the markIV to my markIII kits soon. I would the D3 files but bring so invested in canon glass & markIII’s, it’s not feasible to move to nikon.

By: ppdix

ppdix — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:24:27 +0000

The problem is that everybody’s looking
for the perfect picture from a camera and that will never happen. It is just not possible for a camera with just one exposure to see what the
human eye can see.
That’s why u have Photoshop. If u know what u are
doing, u can really have that perfect shot. No
matter if it came from a canon or nikon or a taken with a cheap lens or having bad white balance or overexposure…
U can fix almost anything in PS.

By: Ben Watts

Ben Watts — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:22:44 +0000

24-70? one´s got to be very lucky to get a good copy to be used at the wide end – wide open,at f4 it gets better but still not a match for the other f4 L zooms, what´s the point then lugging around the extra weight?

i´ll take a 17-40 or the 24-105 anytime rather than the heavy softie 24-70. let the press people use it to whom image quality comes second:-).

By: exit_level

exit_level — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:56:52 +0000

Only this part of your opinion is untrue:
“The 7D has a 20% increase in pixel count, but roughly the same size pixel site as the 50D, by reducing the amount of circuitry between pixels.”
Both 50D and 7D sensors are of gapless technology so the pixels on 7D’s sensor are smaller (4.3µm). Also DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) for 7D is smaller (f/6.8 vs. f/7.6 for 50D).
Except this I agree with your point of view. No matter what are the technical reasons, too big pixel density kills the DR and it sucks.

By: Carey Photography

Carey Photography — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:27:02 +0000

I don’t see how I am wrong. So they did that with the 50D, and in honesty, the 40D still held out. But perfecting an idea such as this requires implementation. The science behind the idea has had a chance to evolve, and so it works better in the 7D, where images are very comparable, if not better than the 50D. As the science ages, it will evolve will lend to better products, like a 30MP full frame with the same pixel size as a 21MP full frame sensor, or an 18MP APS-C sized sensor with the same pixel size as a 21MP full frame. I know I may be exaggerating, but that’s how it goes. But that doesn’t matter to me, the amount of pixels really doesn’t matter to me. I want a higher dynamic range, better color, more innovation in terms of sensor technology besides cramming more pixels on a sensor. And I know I could move to other manufacturers, but I like Canon’s camera ergonomics, and I like their glass, but I do want sharper lenses, especially in terms of zooms. Better and more innovative menu systems. I want built in wireless, truly wireless flash control of my speed lites without the need for line-of-site or special transmitter. Maybe a slot to stick a pocket wizard card into my speed lites, because sometimes, when doing a location shoot, I would rather bring those than lug around a couple of studio flashes and power rigs, but then I would need to buy the pocket wizard transceiver. I want a 7D, and then I want a FF 7D. That’s all, is that to much to ask. I really care not about resolution, a 5D MkI sensor with 7D auto focus, frame rate, dual processors, weather sealing, view finder and iFCL metering; that would be tits!

By: exit_level

exit_level — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:24:52 +0000

In one point you are wrong. From 50D White Paper, p.23:
” Several optical and electronic technology advancements debut in the EOS 50D’s CMOS sensor. For starters, a new micro manufacturing process was used in the CMOS semiconductor production phase to increase the light-sensitive photodiode area. Above the photodiode, gapless microlenses improve the light-gathering efficiency of the smaller 4.7μm pixels and help achieve high ISO speeds (standard range from ISO 100 to 3200, with expanded 6400 or 12,800 ISO settings possible) plus lower noise images than on the EOS 40D.”

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:40:42 +0000

Hi,
In your example, the bigger sensor has less noise for the same print size (same per pixel noise, more pixels).
And with less noise you get more dynamic range (if you need it in the lights, you can easier underexpose thanks to the lower noise).

By: Carey Photography

Carey Photography — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:15:09 +0000

Why did I do that?

By: Carey Photography

Carey Photography — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:14:41 +0000

In checking out samples of both the D3s and the MkIV, I see no severe difference in IQ. So small that it really doesn’t matter. The depth of field on an APS-C sized sensor, an APS-H sized sensor and that of a FF is near insignificant, about one f-stop worth. Mike, if Nikon feels and works better for you, sell your equipment, and switch. You’ll be a happier shooter, and I’ll be happier from not listening to this all day. I do not agree about Canon’s battery, and I like Canon ergonomics more. But those are personal, subjective opinions, not something to objectively judge a camera system. And know who has better IQ than either the Canon or the Nikon? From what I’ve seen, the SD14 and the S5 Pro tend to edge out a little further in certain categories. Why don’t you use either of those if top notch, better-than-anything-else image quality is such a severe issue? I don’t get this fight over who’s got the better IQ, especially when it comes to Canon Vs. Nikon. Did it matter so much when it came to film? No. You bought the camera that made sense to you, that offered you the options and amount of control you wanted, that felt comfortable in your hands and had great glass. It’s no different now. Can’t we just stop bickering about IQ and look at other objective criteria to judge a camera system by?

And Micheal is right. People really need to separate pixel size and sensor size. It’s a semantic difference, but a large one. And there is a lot that goes into allowing for higher density sensors with the same surface area, but without drastically reducing pixel size, or without noticeable degradation to IQ by allowing smaller pixels to be as efficient. The 7D has a 20% increase in pixel count, but roughly the same size pixel site as the 50D, by reducing the amount of circuitry between pixels. And the 5D MkII has a more than 50% increase is pixel count, but does just as well as the 5D MkI at high ISO’s, because of a better processor and gapless microlens in front of the sensor, it even out shines the 1Ds MkIII very slightly, even though they roughly have the same sensor. Pixel size isn’t everything. But with denser sensors, especially the smaller, high density sensors, lens power, more often than not, becomes the deciding factor in terms of the image quality the camera is truly capable of, and Canon is better than Nikon in this arena. There are only a few Nikon/Nikkor lenses that can come close to the Canon equivalents. And Canon has lenses that Nikon doesn’t. The only other lens manufacturer that comes close is Tokina.

By: Cancam

Cancam — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:07:59 +0000

even the 2500 iso shot does not looks any better than my 5D2 ,
exposed (for the shadows)like those pics, even 7D can deliver a shot with that much shadow noise.no big deal i must say.

http://jeffascough.typepad.com/.a/6a01156f7d083a970c0120a6ced32c970b-popup

By: Joe J

Joe J — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:36:59 +0000

Now doesn’t that sound pretty silly. Why not just have one camera that does it all? Nikon seems to have no problem making this….

By: Bob Howland

Bob Howland — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:47:54 +0000

I have to agree with Denni. I have a Nikon film scanner from that era that gives me 11MP files from 35mm negatives and slides.

By: Michal

Michal — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:22:42 +0000

“Also, dynamic range is the same issue as noise at base iso. So yes, larger sensors have better dynamic range (all other tricks being equal :-)”

Simply not true. A quick gedankenexperiment – if you have two sensors of different size but with the same pixel size (so the only difference is pixel count) and everything else being equal – do you think that noise/dynamic range will be different? Quick answer – no. Sensor size (area) is relevant only in respect to crop factor (if any) not to IQ.

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:17:28 +0000

Hum, OK pixel size is not directly the issue but :

A bigger sensor receives more light for the same aperture/shutter speed.
This is physics (actually just geometry), and causes bigger sensors to be better at high iso, all other technological tricks being equal.
Now, cameras are bags of technical tricks…

Also, dynamic range is the same issue as noise at base iso. So yes, larger sensors have better dynamic range (all other tricks being equal :-)