1Ds MkII image quality

[nigelblake]

Two images in the gallery, the first is a 1-1 crop

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php?photo=109212

the second is the full image resized to 750 x 500

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/109211/sort/1/cat/500/page/1

[nigelblake]

Looking at the comments on these images I'm not sure that people are realising that the tight portrait is a crop from the same image that shows the whole bird.

[Roy C]

Nigel, this is a perfect example of the more megapixels the better. Of course you have to have a good sharp shot to be able to do this amount of cropping. This really shows the amount of detail that a good camera will capture.
I have seen so many post where people argue that anything over 8mp is a waste of time - I think that having more mp's is akin to having more reach (e.g. more cropability). One of the things that I do when processing a RAW image is to view at 100% this sorts out the sharp shots from the soft one's right away. If a image is not sharp at 100% I usually bin it.
I have posted a few 100% crops of birds faces and always get remarks about how near I must have been to the bird, I am sure that a lot of members do not realise that a lot of the shots in the gallery are crops.

[Roy C]

Nigel, this leads me on to another question - do you think members should declare if a image has been heavily cropped when uploading to the gallery?. Even with the humble 350D you only need 5.2% of the whole image to produce a 800 pixels crop (think I have got my maths correct).

[nigelblake]

I have seen so many post where people argue that anything over 8mp is a waste of time - I think that having more mp's is akin to having more reach (e.g. more cropability). One of the things that I do when processing a RAW image is to view at 100% this sorts out the sharp shots from the soft one's right away. If a image is not sharp at 100% I usually bin it.


Quite honestly I think 8-10Mp will suit most peoples needs more than adequately, you can get very good A3 prints from that size, magazine reproduction also will cope up to double page spread at this size too because of the paper type used for printing.
I have to produce as high quality as possible because of the market demands that I sell work into, with images being used for large displays, such as the floor to ceiling Barn Owl image in Titchwell reception and various poster and packaging needs that are usually on higher grade glossy paper, it is important for the resolution to fulfil those requirements.

Whilst I agree with you regarding cropping into the shot and retaining image quality, I also think that when you have 16.7 Mp its a shame to throw most of that advantage away by cropping, I personally prefer to crop in the viewfinder and lay the image over all the available pixels.

I am not that bothered about whether people declare that an image is cropped in the gallery, however I think that some newcomers may benefit from knowing if an image is cropped or not, I think if I was starting out in bird photography it would make me feel a bit down-hearted seeing all the apparently full frame images if i was only shooting small in frame pix.

[nigelblake]

I deduce from that then that you don't reckon the D70 at 6 Mp is much cop then?
Cheers
JohnR

No not at all, at 300dpi the image size is not that different between 6 & 8 Mp, I still have all the 6Mp images from my D60 and 10D and they do get used and reproduce well.

[christineredgate]

Do not know what is the pixel size on a 4500,but I had some digiscoped Heron shots printed off in an A3 size and they were fine.Photobox often gives me a 6/10 for quality,but the A3 shots are all pretty good.I think if one picks one sharpest shot,then no matter how many pixels,the image should be fine.one does not usually view shots "close up",so any small deformities should not be visible when viewing an A3 poster in a frame hanging on a wall.

[macshark]

I have seen so many post where people argue that anything over 8mp is a waste of time - I think that having more mp's is akin to having more reach (e.g. more cropability). One of the things that I do when processing a RAW image is to view at 100% this sorts out the sharp shots from the soft one's right away. If a image is not sharp at 100% I usually bin it.


Anything over 8mp is a waste... :scribe:

Unless you have a full frame sensor, or a 600mm f/4 IS... :D

Or both! :-O

[Keith Reeder]

Nigel, this is a perfect example of the more megapixels the better. I really don't see it that way, Roy.

As Nigel says, some of his images end up being used as 10 foot high posters - I can see why you'd want all the pixels you can get for that.

Actually, no, I can understand why someone like Nigel would want that - his reputation is all about being as good as it gets - but with the interpolation software available these days, and given the fact that the general public wouldn't know a great picture if it stood up in their soup, even I could probably provide a pic which would make an acceptable (in non photographer terms) big poster.

I digress...

Other than for that sort of "mission critical" requirement, 6-8 mp (up to 10 once the sensor technology sorts itself out) is more than enough for anything we ("we" being the vast body of enthusiasts and hobbyists out there, as well as quite a few professionals) are likely ever to want.

The actual amount of extra detail in 16mp isn't that much more than is available in 8mp anyway - it takes four times as many magapixels to prduce a doubling in resolution as I recall, so to get significantly higher detail (all other factors being equal), we'd have to be using 32mp+ cameras.

And we'd waste it all if most of our output was to the web or to relatively small prints. I rarely print, except as a favour to friends. But when I do, A4s from my D70 are glorious. I'd expect the 30D to be every bit as good. And the one time I've organised an A3 (D70 again - a version of this shot: http://kazemisu.me.uk/birdimages/splash.jpg) honest to God, it turned out so good that I nearly cried..!

It was a life-affirming experience, man!
:D

As you know, I've fallen foul of the "more megapixels the better" line... I'm happy to discuss at length by PM, but not here, because I'm not in the mood to fend off the fanboy tantrums that my observations here will doubtless provoke - but we both know just what I mean..!

;)

The point I'm making is that more megapixels are not, of themselves, a guarantee of improved IQ, and more often than not they can mean the exact opposite, given the current state of the art.

More megapixels and full frame might make more sense though..!

;)

[Adey Baker]

More megapixels and full frame might make more sense though..!

;)

I presume that this is what Nigel means when he talks of using the advantage of 16.7Mp. If you crop an image it doesn't matter how many pixels you start with, the pixel-pitch is more important.

Using good glass and shooting RAW should also help in getting the best from 100% crops. Presumably saving those RAW files to 16-bit tifs rather than 8-bit ought to give better gradation of detail, though I've never done any experiments to see if this is noticeable or not

[nigelblake]

Absolutely agree that more Mp is not neccessarily a guarantee of better image quality, especially when crammed onto the same size sensor, but at 4992 X 3328 the 1Ds MkII is 142% bigger in width and height over the 8.2 Mp 20/30D's sensor size of 3504 X 2336.
Significantly though if the same image is shot from the same position with a particular focal length the subject will be the same size on both sensors, the full frame of course having more surroundings around the subject, but this is when the difference is really noticable, cropping the 1Ds2 image to the same pixel dimensions as the 20/30D , which gives essentially the same image, the MkII image always has considerably better detail, colour, dynamic range and an ability to be sharpened with lower artifact issues and noise problems.
Obviously to get a pro-rata size in frame means having to work closer to the subject with the 1Ds MkII, this brings with it shallower DOF at a given aperture, however this I feel gives me greater control of DOF from a creative point of view, plus the benefits of less atmospheric degradation to the image from dust/heat haze in the air between lens and subject.
Convertion to higher bit depth really does show major differences in image quality, tonal range and colour fidelity in particular, while this is true of 8.2 Mp RAW images also, again the MkII sensor wins hands down in this area... If it did'nt I'd feel pretty cheated after spending such a huge sum on this camera.

[Roy C]

The main point I was trying to make (obviously not very well) was that more pixels can give more cropability. The comparasion between a full frame sensor and a 1.6 crop sensor is not a good one for the point I was trying to make.
as an example if we had two cameras, one with a 4mp sensor and one with a 8mp sensor and they were both 1.6 crop cameras. Could I not take a 75% crop from the 8mp camera and end up with an image of the same pixel dimensions as the 4mp camera's full frame? - the only difference being that the cropped photo would in effect be zoomed-in. Maybe I am missing something and if so I stand to be corrected.

[nigelblake]

You are correct in this Roy, however the smaller more densely packed pixels of the 8Mp sensor would probably have more noise due to signal amplification, this would show in the cropped image when placed alongside the 4Mp image.
Smaller pixels require more light, effectively it is the same as smaller apertures needing longer exposure times, this is generally compensated for by higher signal boosting by the in camera processor, hence the increase in noise.

[Adey Baker]

but this is when the difference is really noticable, cropping the 1Ds2 image to the same pixel dimensions as the 20/30D , which gives essentially the same image, the MkII image always has considerably better detail, colour, dynamic range and an ability to be sharpened with lower artifact issues and noise problems.


That's interesting, Nigel. Do you think the 1Ds2 has a better quality sensor, better processing or both?

[nigelblake]

That's interesting, Nigel. Do you think the 1Ds2 has a better quality sensor, better processing or both?

Probably both.

[Adey Baker]

Thanks. I'll start saving..!

[gordon g]

Absolutely agree that more Mp is not neccessarily a guarantee of better image quality, especially when crammed onto the same size sensor, but at 4992 X 3328 the 1Ds MkII is 142% bigger in width and height over the 8.2 Mp 20/30D's sensor size of 3504 X 2336.
Significantly though if the same image is shot from the same position with a particular focal length the subject will be the same size on both sensors, the full frame of course having more surroundings around the subject, but this is when the difference is really noticable, cropping the 1Ds2 image to the same pixel dimensions as the 20/30D , which gives essentially the same image, the MkII image always has considerably better detail, colour, dynamic range and an ability to be sharpened with lower artifact issues and noise problems.
Obviously to get a pro-rata size in frame means having to work closer to the subject with the 1Ds MkII, this brings with it shallower DOF at a given aperture, however this I feel gives me greater control of DOF from a creative point of view, plus the benefits of less atmospheric degradation to the image from dust/heat haze in the air between lens and subject.
Convertion to higher bit depth really does show major differences in image quality, tonal range and colour fidelity in particular, while this is true of 8.2 Mp RAW images also, again the MkII sensor wins hands down in this area... If it did'nt I'd feel pretty cheated after spending such a huge sum on this camera.

All that is good to know - especially as I have just ordered a 1DsmkII to replace my 1V! I must admit to being a bit nervous though - my digital experience so far has been strictly post-capture!
It's going to be a steep learning curve.

Just to answer a point made earlier in the thread - yes, for most people most of the time, 8mp is ample. I thought for long time about it before going for this camera. (1DnII was the alternative) .What decided it for me was the file size requirements that a lot of agencies are wanting - 50mb TIFF. Obviously you can extrapolate, but not all agencies accept this.
I am hoping that this camera will make it easier to prepare submissions of sufficient technical quality (after that it's up to the editors!)

[Keith Reeder]

That makes perfect sense, Gordon - again it's a "horses for courses" approach to camera selection.

[MikeB.]

I've had a 1DS2 since the model first came out and use it most days. It continues to be utterly reliable and needs only the occasional sensor clean which takes Canon CPS up to 3 weeks to do sometimes. I'm out in the tundra in Canada with it at the moment, it's only -7C. Anyway, digressing.

The model has been out now for two years, does anyone know when (not if) an upgrade is planned? If I remember correctly, the life cycle of the Canon 1Ds was about 2.5 years.

Mike

[gordon g]

I've had a 1DS2 since the model first came out and use it most days. It continues to be utterly reliable and needs only the occasional sensor clean which takes Canon CPS up to 3 weeks to do sometimes. I'm out in the tundra in Canada with it at the moment, it's only -7C. Anyway, digressing.

The model has been out now for two years, does anyone know when (not if) an upgrade is planned? If I remember correctly, the life cycle of the Canon 1Ds was about 2.5 years.

Mike

The rumours on various other forums would suggest some time next year - canon's 70th anniversary.
I've had my 1DsII for just over a week now - still learning it's responses to different situations, but I'm totally blown away with the detail of capture.
Now I just need to upgrade my glass... ;)