Eos 1d m2

[oeyvind]

Also, the support for SD card is pretty cool too.... best of all 8 megapixels.. for editorial work, no need to do so much interpolation any more.. a bit wil doo hehee

4MP is more than enough for editorial... what you meant is now one can heavily crop a photo, and yes doing that on a 8MP image you don't need to interpolate anymore.... :blah:

 

[melly]

Yah.. I was expecting a bit lower.. but then again, if I were to rent somebody else's cam for my work, would work out to be about the same price so thereabouts

sigh, the perils of early adopters

 

[melly]

oeyvind Quote:
Originally Posted by: melly

4MP is more than enough for editorial... what you meant is now one can heavily crop a photo, and yes doing that on a 8MP image you don't need to interpolate anymore....

well, cropping is one thing double page spread does benefit from that extra bit also helps in some of the commercial work too

but the 1D is more than enough for most uses yah! Images are slightly softer than those coming from the 1D, but after post processing, the results are the same though

 

[benny]

Cathay no more. Just called them. Chey!

Cheers,

 

[tomshen]

Maybe in 2 years time, 8fps full frame 1 series DSLR can be bought at 5k?

 

[2100]

Maybe in 2 years time, 8fps full frame 1 series DSLR can be bought at 5k?

Actually with excellent and decently affordable stuff like sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 EX HSM, Nikkor AF-S 12-24/4, full frame not that big a deal, at least for amateurs like me. 1.3X (1.5 for Nikon) is more than good enough. For sports shooters, it is even worse for them (SI photo did mention this).

I wish for 1.3-1.6X, 8MP, 3fps body for 2k prosumer body in 1 years time. Plastic also nevermind. Canon come out first, then Nikon gotta follow.

Problem with FF is yield. Don't think they improve much in 2 years time. It may slow down, look at CPU core speeds nowadays. Maciam hentak kaki. :sweat:

 

[jbma]

Maybe in 2 years time, 8fps full frame 1 series DSLR can be bought at 5k?

I think at the rate things are going that could be possible

 

[mpenza]

I prefer a larger cropping factor cos I shoot tele more ;p

 

[sehsuan]

melly, just curious, what kind of shoots do you use the 1D / 1D Mk II for? commericial?

 

[shutterbug]

I agree with 2100 & mpenza, I prefer the 1.5x crop factor for the extra reach. Or else I will have to lug a heavier tele lens around (cost more too), I prefer to travel light.

 

[Hilarion]

There are only very limited sets available.

 

[Zplus]

Hi guys....
Regarding crop factors... you do not really get "zoom". You just crop the center portion of what the lens see....

Actually with the higher pixel count and the lower crop factor, you are getting more out of your lens.

Anyway, to illustrate:

 

[hangyong]

Wow!! You are the first in CS to get it. Post some images for others to drool leh.

sorry... got mine 2 weeks back liao...

test shots also up for sometime in my gallery liao... http://www.filmgrain.com/gallery and then click "Camera test shots"

the very first picture you see once you get in is taken by the MKII

 

[mpenza]

Zplus, you do get a smaller field of view that would be achieved on a full-frame camera (at the same position) with a lens that has focal length = focal length of the lens on dslr x cropping factor. The images from both will be slightly different (though framed similarly), assuming the same aperture is used, with images from the full-frame camera having a shallower depth of field.

you're right of course that a large part of the glass is wasted in a DSLR with smaller senor but this also means that consumer or poorer lens performs better than they would on film cameras (due to the usage of only the centre part of the lens which is generally better than the edges).

 

[2100]

Actually with the higher pixel count and the lower crop factor, you are getting more out of your lens.

Yup, that's plausible with lower quality lenses which cannot give you enough resolution. For good stuff out there, like mpenza said, you do get better images in another aspect coz you are using only the sweet spot of the lens. This is very important especially in aspects which are traditionally affected most by sweet spots, eg CA. Look at Sigma SD9/10 on Foveon with a crop of 1.7X (!! more than Nikon and Canon), they use humble Sigma lenses (and no red ring on barrel) but look at the resolution they could wring out. Ample samples/resolution charts and comparisons with CMOS/CCDs are available for one to view. Though if you use stuff like 28-300, then yes i agree with you that there might be insufficient lens resolution even in the center.

 

[NorthernLights]

Congrats to buyers of 1D MkII. You've gotten an excellent cam!!

AJ23 - What are you doing here??

I see you are encouraging people to buy!!!

 

[devilicboy]

wOw..rich people out here arh...
guess i'll have to b content with my 10D for now...it gives me great results!! :bsmilie:

 

[sehsuan]

nice to have, but the price doesn't justify itself for my personal case. 10D just swee swee.

 

[alangoh]

Anyone know what's the average file size if one were to shoot RAW at maximum resolution?

The specs said 8+ MB, but wonder if real life applications would generate bigger files...

Thanks.

 

[agape01]

File sizes are definitely larger than those found on the 1D.

A good example would be the 1Ds. On an average the RAW files start from 8MB to about 11MB depending on what ISO you are using.

On a 10D, the average file size for RAW is around 6MB to 8MB. So this is most logical that the file size be about 8MB to 10MB depending on the ISO setting on the camera.