Slashdot Mirror
Canon's new 16.7MP Digital SLR, with WiFi
LoudMusic writes "Canon has recently announced the EOS 1Ds Mark II, successor to their previous excellent professional cameras. What makes this one so cool is that it can network. The early review over at dpreview.com says there is an optional part that gives it both 802.11a/g and wired networking capabilities. I can see photographers shooting sporting events with a 12" Powerbook in a backpack receiving images to its 80GB drive and automatically uploading them to SI. And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film. I wonder if it plays mp3s too ..."
This is not the first digital camera with a full 35 mm size sensor. Canon 1Ds already had that at the previous Photokina two years ago.
To be fair, Canon (for once) took a technological idea from Nikon. The D2H had wireless FTP support back in July 2003.
Also there have been 35mm sensors before, including Canon's own 1Ds.
You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film.
:)
The Canon 1Ds (11 megapixel) has a full frame sensor (in other words, does not have the 1.6:1 cropping of the 300D, 10D, and now 20D).
The original Mark II was 8 megapixels and its biggest advantage was its ability to rapid fire shots - like 8 or 9fps, out to 20 frames... something like that.
The 1Ds was the king of image quality. Now it seems like Canon is offering the best of both worlds. If you have 8 or 10 grand or whatever they are pricing it at
And it can be yours for the low, low price of $8,000! Ok, I guess its a decent price, considering that about 4 years ago a 6 mp DSLR cost upward of $20,000. Megpixels aren't everything, and Canon has really been at the forefront of other developments- like the full frame sensor. The best lowly people like me can hope for is that the advancement of both high end and mid range DSLRs continues to drive the prices down. I suspect in the next year or so we will finally see some (entry level) DSLRs at less than $500. I hope so anyway.
http://www.rupertphotography.com
[FromTheMorning]
We might mention that Nikon beat Canon to the punch with a wireless adapter for the D2H back in July. Still a cool development from Canon, but give credit where credit is due, I allus say.
This is a great camera! I want one, but one thing wrong with the story submission. This is not recent news, many people have gone over this before, but a 6MP sensor is enough to get you better then 35mm film.
The 16.7MP of this camera is getting very close to medium format (if not already there).
Again awesome camera!
see
not file
like-it-is
shootout
This guy is one of the best. If you don't believe me check out dpreview or google
I can't... I'm pretty sure all PowerBooks go to sleep when you shut the computer lid. Assuming you shut it correctly, of course.
You can just plug a USB mouse in, and move it, then the PC will 'wake up'.
-Hoobah
Link
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Nope, they are specifically referring to the size of the sensor. Almost all digital cameras besides this one and the previous 1Ds have smaller CMOS sensors. This means there's a multiplier that must be applied when computing f-stops. To compensate, Canon and Nikon have introduced new lenses that take this into account and are easier to work with. Ideally though, it would be nice if they all just had 35mm sensors.
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
The 1D and 1D Mark II have 1.3 crop factors. The 1Ds has a a full-frame, 11 megapixel sensor.
The image sensor size is not 35mm except for the high end pro DSLRs. Lesser pro DSLRs have an image sensor size closer to the smaller APS format. This affects the viewing angle of your lenses. A smaller sensor size will give you a narrower viewing angle. This has resulted in the "lens multiplier" which tends to vary between 1.3 and 1.5 on most DSLRs. (take the length of your lens, 50mm, and muliply it by 1.5, 75 mm effective.) Typically, a larger sensor is better than a smaller one, resolution kept the same, as it will produce less noise.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Ok, I'll bite. Show me an 802.11g card that *isn't* compatible with 802.11b.
10Brett-T
Oh, bother.
I don't think so!o delTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10 598
.94 inch CMOS array essentially tells you they have a cmos with a 7micron pixel pitch. This is hardly revolutionary. Assuming the optics are similar in quality to a comparable film camera, to have the same image quality that would be equivalent to saying that ordinary film has 7 micron light sensitive (silver?) particles. This is ridiculous!
/ resolution.html
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=M
From here.
4992 x 3328 pixels over a (36 x 24 mm) 1.4 x
http://science.howstuffworks.com/film3.htm
here says that "The imaging layers contain sub-micron sized grains of silver-halide crystals that act as the photon detectors". That's submicron.
So it's a nice camera. That doesn't mean it's a fantastic sensor - it still suffers from the same attributes that other CMOS/CCD sensors do. They've got phenomenal ADC's but the sensors just can't be packed as tightly as silver can be.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fyiglover/articles
says that "All three silver microfilm manufacturers (Agfa, Fuji & Kodak) certify their medium speed microfilms to have the ability to achieve 800 lines/mm of resolution."
This is Canon's flagship digital camera.. the little 's' at the end of the model number denotes "studio". This really isn't the best camera for doing sports (smaller buffer and frame rate for continuous shooting). The 1DsmkII will do 4fps up to 32 images. The 1DmkII will do something like 9fps up to 45 frames. Different tool for different work!
Ugly? I think it just needs a nice large piece of white glass on the front of it (Canon L series lenses).
but not so much useful unless you have a 16.7 megapixel monitor to enjoy it on.
They're called magazines and newspapers. You should try them sometime.
(yes, there are other outlets for these, but I'm in the publishing biz so there's my bias)
Gizmodo ran this story last week. Check out the sample images from the Japanese site Yikes. 16.7 megapixels is a lot! It has some other cool features too, like "The accelerated image processing of DIGIC II combines with high-speed data reading from the imaging sensor to achieve fast continuous shooting at approx. 4 frames per second for maximum bursts of 32 shots in JPEG Large (11 shots in RAW)."
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Having a 35mm CMOS has nothing to do with the image quality. It has to do with the "mental math" that the photographer has to do when he uses lenses. On most Digital SLR cameras, there is a conversion multiplier because the sensor is not the same size as a 35mm film frame. That conversion is unnecessary if the sensor is the same size as the 35mm frame. But then we all know that slashdot editors take exhaustive measures to research their stories before posting...
:)
What bugs me is that 35mm is considered 1, and all other sizes have to be converted. Maybe we need a better standard that could accomidate different sensor / film sizes while using standard nomenclature for lenses. I doubt it is even possible, but some genius somewhere could do it I bet...
I reviewed the web site, and it can take up to 32 shots in a row, at about 4 fps.
Not a wide screen movie, but you can get off 8 seconds of a TD play, and pick the best shot.
It has improved writing capabilities, which allows it to screem through shots. Unlike my camera, which takes close to 20 seconds to write one image!
"optional part that gives it both 802.11a/g and wired networking capabilities"
/.), but the review describes support for 802.11b and g, not a and g.
Not to nitpick (which is unheard of on
802.11b interoperability is part of the 802.11g standard.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Yes, it was badly worded. As others have mentioned, the original 1Ds was full-frame as well. The big thing about this one is the 16.7 MP resolution, which if I'm not mistaken beats medium format cameras for some applications (i.e. especially for low-light photography, and if you're not making a very large print).
Good comparison between medium format and the old 1Ds here.
Most nature photographers shoot Velvia, which give about 16mp photoquality. So a 6mp digital camera just wont cut it there. However this camera just might.
On a medium format, Velvia provides anywhere within 35 to 50 mp picture equivalent. After that the challenge is to find the right drum scanner. So these 35mm equivalent SLRs are still faraway from medium formats.
Except Powerbooks don't work when they're closed. Think Toughbook.
http://www.alxsoft.com/mac/sleepless.html
http://www.panavision.com/product_detail.php?mainc at=1&cat=36&id=338&node=c0,c202,c203Panavision
Super 35mm sized chip.
Canon's WFT-E1 Wireless Transmitter reportedly also works on Canon's three newest digital cameras, including the 1DsmkII (as mentioned), as well as the 20D ($1500, 8mp, 1.6x crop factor, high end consumer level) and 1DmkII ($4500, 8mp, 1.3x crop factor, pro body).
Rob Galbraith has a much more information here, as Canon's site appears to still need an update.
For the non-pro enthusiast, the 20D looks to be a great camera. It can handle 5 frames per second, instant on, and has ISO 3200 performance that beats most ISO 400 digicams. They are finally trickling into the market, and Calumet likely has a few in stock (they have several kits locally here in Boston). Just give them a call.
Nope. Even the high end DSRLs still have a small crop factor. I think the 1ds has a 1.3 crop factor, small, but still there.
First of all, it's not a "crop factor" - that's a misnomer. It's a focal length multiplier, or if you're Canon and want to be cute about it, a "conversion factor". There's an important difference there, which relates to the focal length of the lenses you're using.
The original 1DS had no focal multiplier - it used a full-size CMOS sensor just like the new one does. See here and here (see the focal length multiplier, which is "1").
Kodak also produces cameras with full-size CMOS sensors (see here; they make basically this same camera with both Canon and Nikon lens mounts). Keep in mind, though, that "full-size" is a relative term and is basically a misnomer just like "crop factor" is - the only reason it even matters is so that photographers can match the lenses already on the market to their new digital camera. Otherwise it doesn't matter if the CMOS is 37mm or 40mm or 32mm or whatever, as long as there's enough room for however many pixels you want to stuff into it.
I have seen a number of comaparisons of the original 1Ds with 11MPs and not in one of them did film prevail. In the luminous Landscape link below he also mentions that doing direct prints would give no benefit to film. Which is the film luddites refuge. I remember Mr Riechmann, before he went digital, figuring it would take 24MP before digital caught up. Like many old pros he changed his tune when he got a DSLR in his hands.
c ameras/ 1ds/1ds-field.shtml
s _35mm.html
. htm
Some of the comparisons(these are the 11MP comparions, not new 16MP which is better in every way):
Test with Imacon scanner 35mm vs 11mp 1ds:
But what can be clearly seen is that the 1Ds' image is significantly higher resolution than that of the the scan.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/
Test with 4800dpi scanner 35mm vs 11mp 1ds:
All the way through, we clearly see more details in the 1Ds pictures.
http://www.photographical.net/canon_1d
My opinion after doing these comparisons is that the Canon 1Ds 11mp DSLR exceeds 4000dpi 35mm film scan quality by a considerable amount. In fact, in most photographic situations 1Ds image quality is competitive with *medium format
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm
in high res, snapping a bunch of pics with this and transmitting them over 802.11g isn't going to go very fast
Well, let's do the math, shall we?
14,000,000 pixels @ 24 bits/pixel = 336,000,000 bits (raw, uncompressed)
336,000,000 bits @ 54,000,000 bits/second = 6.22 seconds (not counting overhead of 802.11g)
So I'd say that 1 full resolution, lightly compressed photo every 10 seconds is a no brainer. I'd also say that getting 1 photo per second with good compression and perhaps lower resolution would be almost trivial. Compressing a photo to 1/6 its size in storage space can be done with very little degradation.
-Adam
The camera doesn't magically convert/multiply a 100mm lens into a 160mm lens (on a 1.6 crop factor camera) -- the lens is the same, the sensor is smaller.
Across different cameras, the lens is still projecting the same image based on whatever lens size, but depending on the size of the sensor, not all of it is getting captured (i.e. some of the full image is being cropped out)..
See here --s tanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/under
Scroll a little more than half-way down and look at the pic of the bird with the blue and red boxes.
If you squeeze 50 megapixels on a 5mm CMOS, there's still gonna be a crop factor because the 5mm CMOS is a lot smaller than the film negatives these lenses were originally intended for..
It is difficult to compare the resolution of film to digital because film "resolution" varies greatly.
If we consider "resolution" to be the maximum size one can blow up an image before noticable grain (in the case of film) or pixelation (in the case of digital), low-ISO film still "wins". I still don't think this a fair comparison though because pixels are not grains.
Digital cameras, regardless of ISO used, output the same resolution across all speeds. Film on the other hand, changes. At higher ISO's, the grain becomes visible at much smaller print sizes.
There are some specialty films out there that can easily create a many meter sized print without noticible grain.
But, in the end, for general purpose film, even a 6 mp digital SLR camera will give you better performance. Especially at higher ISO's, if you shoot in RAW. The real catch so far has been competing with the likes of velvia...
-
Actually the 1Ds line, as opposed to co-existing 1D line (both are now at their Mark II), is the one that privileges pixel count over shooting frame rate. The "s" stands for "studio". A pro would make a very uninformed choice to bring a 1Ds MkII rather than a 1D MkII at a sporting event. And pros are the only one who in their right mind would pay into the 1D line.
Here's a review of the original 1Ds from luminous-landscape. To sum it up (it's rather lengthy), the author favorably compares the 1Ds to medium format film.
And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film
Wrong, wrong, wrong....
First, this isn't the first camera to have a full-frame sensor, as others have pointed out.
But let's look at resolution, which is far more important and what people are talking about. And lets convert so we can compare oranges to oranges.
Let's limit our discussion to color negative film... Color Transparency, Black and White, and high resolution (Technical Pan or Gigabit) films are even higher resolution and will cloud the issue.
Film resolution is measured in Line Pairs per Millimeter (lp/mm)... and most consumer color film resolves from 40-65 lp/mm. Doing the math, this equals 1000-1625 lp/inch. To resolve a line pair, you must have 2 lines with a space between them, and to resolve 1 line pair from another, you need to discern a space between the line pairs.... so you need 4 points to resolve a line pair, the equivelent of 4 pixels giving us an effictive film resolution of 4000-6500 pixels per inch.
Continuing the process, a 35mm film frame is approximately 1x1.5 inches, so the effective resolution of normal color film in digital terms is on average 24 to 64 megapixels. Let's take just below the middle and say that Film has an effective resolution of 40 megapixels.
Let's now look at color depth.... The camera actually resolves 8 bits per pixel, and interpolates up to 12 bits from there. Actual depth is only 8 bits or 256 colors. Each grain of film however can register a 1000/1 contrast range, across it's spectrum of sensitivity. If you just consider the single grain you get a 1000 color depth. Since multiple grains are involved in one of the effictive pixels, the reality is closer to 3000 colors per pixel.
References to data avilable upon request.
I'm not a film snob..... but we're still years away from digital resolution approaching the resolution and color depth of film.
Presumaly they paired this high a megapixel CMOS with some nice optics, so you're probably right in this case. But it's not always true that higher megapixel indicates better cropping ability.
you're forgetting something basic here - larger sensors, even at the same pixel count, collect more light. this means faster photos, or more flexibility with your lenses for things like depth of field (note here that when i say "faster" i mean in terms of film speed). capturing a large depth of field requires a small aperature, which means either a) loads of light, b) very slow shutter speeds, or c) really fast film. for things like photojournalism and sports photgraphy, "a" and "b" aren't always things you can control, so it's nice to have "c" on your side when you need it.
as mentioned in your linked article, a smaller sensor effectively increases your focal length. using a 35mm sensor means that the focal length listed on the lens is representative of the actual focal length. on the popular canon 10d, for example, the focal length will be 1.6x times that listed on the lens. this has the somewhat annoying effect of turning all your lenses into telephotos.
as you mentioned, the article you linked to does seem to have some bias. it reads like the author is more of an electronics engineer than a photographer. at $8000USD, this camera isn't really aimed at the casual photographer and certainly isn't for ma and pop to snap photos of their new baby.
I dunno about that link, my powerbook instructions say "to use your mac with the lid closed, plug in an external keyboard" .. and doesn't give any warnings.
And allowing people to change the function of closing the lid so that it *shuts down* the computer is MIGHTY STUPID, if you ask me. When I use somebody's mac I shouldn't have to wonder if it's going to shut down and lose everything when I close the lid. There isn't even an opportunity to cancel (you can't see the screen to get a warning!).
PowerBooks G4 are designed to closed lid operation. Apple says so.
in the same sense as a lens. Larger sensors will give you much less noise however, as they're calibrated to require much more light before they're considered lit pixels. You'll also get better luminance range.
Smaller sensors with small photosites receive much less light, and thus are susceptible to stray photons (particularly infrared) from the electronics and ambient air. This is why your point and shoots have a max ISO of 400 and look utterly terrible, while a DSLR can go up to ISO 1600 or higher, and have considerably less noise!
This is why a 6 megapixel DSLR has pictures vastly better than one of those new 8mp.
Or check out the nasa rovers.. large sensors, excellent optics, superb electronics, but with only 1 megapixel. Ultra sharp pictures!
-
A few questions: What does noise look like on photographs? What causes noise when you take photographs? Why are digitals better at handling noise?
Depending on whether you're talking about a digital original or a film original, noise looks different from one to the other. On a digital original, noise shows up as "blotchiness" for lack of a better description. Shoot a field of something that's generally the same color (a baseball field at night, for instance) on a digital camera at its highest ISO setting. If the noise is noticeable (which it is on most digital cameras), you'll see random patches where the color doesn't quite match.
Noise in film is different. I'm no photographic expert, but as I understand it film noise is usually caused by the grain itself obscuring some of the detail in the photograph. The shape of the grain is not 100% uniform, and neither is the orientation of the individual grain particles. So you won't get consistent detail throughout an image. I might be wrong on this, but that's my understanding. Regardless, the higher the ISO of the film, the higher the noise level.
Keep in mind that even those photographers who shoot film usually end up needing to get those film negatives scanned so that the photographs can be digitally manipulated. It's a rare photographer these days who can shoot, develop, print and enlarge exclusively with optics and chemicals. The scanning process itself introduces some noise into the photo image, further reducing the quality of the film image, and even the best optics introduce some noise into an image, so people using optical technologies stick to first-generation copies whenever possible.
In a digital camera, the sensor has a fixed amount of light-gathering capability. At higher ISO equivalency settings, the effective sensitivity of the sensor is increased by amplifying whatever signal is detected. The signals are amplified somewhat at all ISO settings on most digital cameras, but the amplification level is higher at higher ISOs. It's this amplification process that introduces noise in a digital camera.
BTW: Digitals aren't automatically better at handling noise than film cameras. It depends on the sensor in the digital and the film used in the film camera.
The larger the sensor is in a digital camera, the more native light-gathering capability it has, and the less amplification is required to get a usable signal from the sensor. This leads to lower noise in the image at any ISO. For instance, Canon's Digital Rebel (EOS 300D) digital SLR has an APS-C-sized sensor (370 sq mm) with 6.3MP, while Sony, Olympus and even Canon sell "prosumer" digital cameras that use sensors that are 2/3" in size (58 sq mm). The 2/3" sensor's got about 1/6th the total area of the 300D's APS-C sensor. Factoring in the difference in resolution, that means that the 300D's APS-sized sensor has a little more than 8 times the area per pixel for gathering light than does a "prosumer" 2/3" 8MP sensor. This adds up to dramatically lower noise for the 300D at any ISO, as I can personally attest. I bought a KonicaMinolta Dimage A2 and returned it because the noise at virtually all ISO settings was objectionable (all my pictures looked blotchy). The Canon 300D has lower noise than the A2 at all settings, and the noisiest the Canon ever gets (1600 ISO) is still lower than the noise levels I saw from the A2 at 400 ISO.
Now, imagine going from an APS-C sized sensor (370 sq mm) to a full-frame 35mm sensor (864 sq mm). That 35mm sensor is about 2.3 times bigger than the APS-C sensor. Even with 2.7 times as many pixels, the 35mm sensor still has enormous light-gathering power per pixel. In addition, I'm betting that Canon's putting its most advanced sensor technology in the 1Ds Mark II, meaning that the sensor is more sensitive than the sensors used in most other cameras, again requiring less amplification and thus generating less noise.
Compared with a comparable Canon 35mm body with the same lens, a picture sho