Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 24, 2005, 1:44 AM   #1
Member
 
irivlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 42
Default

Is there anyone who has Steve's e-mail address? - The high definition sample picture of Nicholson Street is either blurred or itisn't focused correctly. Either way, it's not sharp and it's a pity that a camera of this super-high standing isn't able to demonstrate its picture quality.

Ian

Australia
irivlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 24, 2005, 2:26 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Default

Could you provide a link to the picture in question, its important to know that cameras like the full frame 1Ds Mk2 especially considering the megapixels, are going to be a tad 'softer' than you'd expect at 100% versus say a lower megapixel camera, this is pretty known. Of course what do you think will print out sharper on a 16x20 or so? The 20D or the 1Ds Mk2 both using identical lens that would max out the sharpness on either camera.
kb244 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 8:07 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

The sample pictures are part of the review and can be found here:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...s_samples.html

From the description above the photos, there is no mention of any sharpening done in post processing. If that is the case, the Nicholson Street photo is incredibly sharp.

One thing though, if the picture is sized to fit on a computer monitor it may appear to have jaggies or be of poor quality. That isn't a fault of the picture. Resize it (larger) and the detail is incredible.



Bob
BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 11:59 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Default

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_...w/507S0199.jpg

Something like that at 100% is incredibly sharp around the eyes and such.

And yea Boba didnt think he mighta been looking at an automatic resize which a generally poorly done.
kb244 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 11:43 PM   #5
Member
 
irivlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 42
Default

I don't want to appear righteously indignant or arrogant but I can tell the difference between a non-sharpened and blurred image. The picture in question is definitely not correctly focused or possibly has some sideways motion blur. Please have a look at the image - enlarged - and view the number on the dumpster - then compare it to the same image made by the Canon 1Ds Mk1. This (older) image is far clearer. -There is no comparison. It's inconcievable that the new (16 MP) image would be worse than the old (11 MP) image.

Ian
irivlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2005, 7:47 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Steve didn't explicitly say if sharpening (or any other processing) was added. So it seems to me that the only assumption I can make is that none was done. Now, my eyes tell me that it has been sharpened as I see a sharpening halo on the edge of the building that runs right down "into/behind" the dumpster.

I know that the 1D MkII produced softer images than the originall 1D. So you're claim that it's "inconcievable" that a higher resolution sensor would produce softer images than a lower resolution sensor is not correct. Heck, the same thing happened with the 20D (it's images are softer than the 10D's.)

Now, maybe you are right and there could be motion blur. The first image with a dumpster looks good and sharp to me. The second picture does look a bit softer. It's clearly taken at a different focal length... but I'm not sure that would account for the softness.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2005, 3:32 PM   #7
-jb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 189
Default

Maybe Steve forgot to focus on the dumpster in the second photograph (over two years later). :roll:


-jb
-jb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 4:07 AM   #8
Member
 
irivlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 42
Default

Check out the sample pictures (see below). I wasn't impressed at all with the EOS 1Ds Mk2. If you compare it to the Mk1, you'll see that the pictures are actually better on the older camera. Also, compare these pics with the Kodak offerings. - It's quite interesting.

Do use a photo manipulation program like ACDC/Photoshop etc and zoom in on the dumpster. The serial numbers are very, very clear with the Kodak digital back. (Shame it's not made any more).

If any of you out there are wondering whether I'm obsessed with resolution - you may be right. Ever since digital cameras came out, they haven't been quite able to match film cameras. They are nearly there now and - no doubt - will be substantially better than film in the none too distant future - but to be able to make these (fair) comparisons, resolution is one aspect of the cameras that can be objectively measured. The Canon 1Ds Mk2 should be better than its predecessor but appears not to be. This is not progress! People should be aware of a camera's abilities in absolute terms, not just because of a pre-eminent brand name.

Ian Rivlin

Australia

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/eos1ds/samples_new/507S0352.JPG (EOS 1Ds Mk1)

]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/1dsm2/samples/VJ9J8132_CR2_s0.JPG');]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/1dsm2/samples/VJ9J8132_CR2_s0.JPG[/url] (EOS 1Ds Mk2) - blurred

]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/kodak_slrn/samples/g5fx0334.jpg');]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/kodak_slrn/samples/g5fx0334.jpg[/url] (Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n)


]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/proback645/samples/44FP1826ps.jpg');]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/proback645/samples/44FP1826ps.jpg[/url] (Kodak Pro back)
irivlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2005, 2:31 PM   #9
-jb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 189
Default

irivlin wrote:
Quote:
Check out the sample pictures (see below). I wasn't impressed at all with the EOS 1Ds Mk2. If you compare it to the Mk1, you'll see that the pictures are actually better on the older camera. Also, compare these pics with the Kodak offerings. - It's quite interesting.

Do use a photo manipulation program like ACDC/Photoshop etc and zoom in on the dumpster. The serial numbers are very, very clear with the Kodak digital back. (Shame it's not made any more).

If any of you out there are wondering whether I'm obsessed with resolution - you may be right. Ever since digital cameras came out, they haven't been quite able to match film cameras. They are nearly there now and - no doubt - will be substantially better than film in the none too distant future - but to be able to make these (fair) comparisons, resolution is one aspect of the cameras that can be objectively measured. The Canon 1Ds Mk2 should be better than its predecessor but appears not to be. This is not progress! People should be aware of a camera's abilities in absolute terms, not just because of a pre-eminent brand name.

Ian Rivlin

Australia

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/eos1ds/samples_new/507S0352.JPG (EOS 1Ds Mk1)

]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/1dsm2/samples/VJ9J8132_CR2_s0.JPG');]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/1dsm2/samples/VJ9J8132_CR2_s0.JPG[/url] (EOS 1Ds Mk2) - blurred

]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/kodak_slrn/samples/g5fx0334.jpg');]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/kodak_slrn/samples/g5fx0334.jpg[/url] (Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n)


]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/proback645/samples/44FP1826ps.jpg');]http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/proback645/samples/44FP1826ps.jpg[/url] (Kodak Pro back)
You're not comparing apples to apples.

The Mk1 photo you selected is a JPEG image directly from the EOS 1Ds with sharpness set to three (3).

The Mk2 photo you selected is a RAW image that has been demosaiced into a JPEG image with sharpness set to zero (0).

The Mk2 image should be less sharp.


-jb
-jb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2005, 12:26 AM   #10
Member
 
TDM_Canon_User's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 90
Default



I'm sold on the DS Mark II based on those images. No sharpening artifacts at all.

Look closely and it's obvious the MkII image was taken almost twice as far away from the 25MPH sign.Yet the 1DS2 has nearly the sameresolution as the 1DS. Add that the Mk2 has zero sharpening artifacts...

Check this comparison (signs resized to match pixles).

1DSmk2 versus 1DS

Attached Images
 
TDM_Canon_User is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:39 AM.