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 ..."
Don't most of the pro-level DSLRs already have 35mm sensors? Maybe they're trying to say it's the resolution that gets it to 35mm film, but it sounds like they're implying it's the sensor size...
"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."
Really? I can see uploading straight from the camera to SI. The computer is an intermediary today because it's a necessity. When every device has is on the internet, the intermediary function of computers will disolve.
"And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film."
It had been generally accepted that this camera's predecessor, the 1Ds, was close to the quality of medium-format film. We've been beyond the quality of 35mm film for quite some time now...
I'm not a professional photographer, so I'm sure they have their reasons for needing an $8,000 digital camera. For someone who doesn't make a living taking pictures, though, is there any way to justify a camera that costs more than a used Toyota?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
It may not be useful on the monitor, but when blown up to a 10 foot wall poster - the high megapixel count is very important... ;)
If you're not using the WiFi, take CF card out, place in card reader, insert 2nd card in camera. Carry on shooting while images are being copied to laptop/Portable Digital Storage device.
Otherwise your camera is out of service while you're copying several GigaBytes to another medium.
Pro photographers won't leave the house with only one card.
Besides, it's got FireWire.
Here are some of the full-size samples available on the site:
Sample 1
Sample 2
The rest of samples can be found here. I don't want to slashdot poor dpreview. I'm sure as progress marches on, their bandwidth prices skyrocket.
I have an HP laser printer that can "do" 1200 dpi, which looks smooth to my eye, where 600 dpi doesn't. So, to print a 16 MB image at 1200 dpi, the result would be on the order of 3 inches by four.
Any "enlargement" above this would mean either using "interpolation" (which reduces resolution, or texture), or adding noise and/or distortion/pixelation.
This is not professional or commercial 35-mm quality yet.
For someone with such extensive photographical expertise, you're making a very amateur mistake. You're comparing the method of photo production (laser printer vs. projection), not the method of photo aquisition.
In other words, just because your laser printer doesn't compare to film doesn't mean that the digital image doesn't compare to film. I've only used a few color lasers, but I've never seen one that did a very decent job of photos.
Even though your 1200-DPI laser doesn't cut it, I've seen photos from a 400-DPI dye-sub which take extremely close examination to tell if they're film or not. By "extremely close", I mean that you have to either (a) have significantly better than 20/20 vision and be able to focus very closely, or (b) have a magnifying glass. And at a 400-DPI resolution, this camera would be producing prints larger than 8"x12" without any interpolation whatsoever.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Real film is also a sampled image, with the sample size depending on the film's grain size.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I mean, a 16 megapixel image is nice and everything, but not so much useful unless you have a 16.7 megapixel monitor to enjoy it on.
Other folks have mentioned the value of high-resolution images when doing large format printing. The other significant benefit is in cropping. If you take a high-res photo, you can crop and zoom in without noticing a drop in image quality.
I agree with you and have made similar explanations for camera-shopping friends, but I've started being swayed by the cropping crowd.
Basically yes, nearly all hobbyist photographers will print 8x10 or smaller, and 3 or more megapixels will give you a great 8x10. But what if you want to blow up just a quadrant of your frame to that size? Then you want enough sensor resolution to give you at least 3 megapixels in that quadrant.
With consumer lenses, optical resolution will start to lag sensor resolution, but pro SLR glass will almost certainly beat sensor resolutions up to 20 or 30 megapixels. Being able to print sharp 8x10's of a sixth of your entire image is kind of appealing.
Of course if you're a former slide photographer and believe that what you frame and shoot is the photo, then cropping is distasteful to you. But the option is there.
You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
computer screen/TV pictures: 2 megapixels
8"x10" prints: 3 megapixels and up
12"x18" prints: 6 megapixels and up
bigger prints: the more pixels the better
You have low standards. To make quality 11x14 prints and bigger, I use 4x5" large format film. Although 6x7cm medium-format film would work just as well up to 16x20". In my opinion, a 6 megapixel camera does not make a good 11x14" print...especially some B&W fine art prints.
Of course it is all subjective.