D1s V's D10

[Richard Corbett]

Looking at the two spec's, the 10D would appear to have a higher sensor packing density which in turn would suggest a better sampling rate and therefore more detail per unit image area.

has anyone on this forum compared these tow devices on a like for like basis i.e same shot, same lens, same composition and framing and same print size.

[ifurlong]

I was just reading a post on this fourm about that. Actually the 1ds lower density, they say, makes for better images, they said that since each pixle is larger it has more capacity to sense light hence a broader range for exposure. This was coming from the actual canon enginers.

[ifurlong]

here is the link to the article I was quoting

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=15824

[martcol]

You might find this interesting.

http://www.jjsviewbox.com/Articles/6451ds.htm

and this

http://www.geocities.com/andyandmichele/

Martin

[daveh]

Richard Corbett wrote:
Looking at the two spec's, the 10D would appear to have a higher sensor packing density which in turn would suggest a better sampling rate and therefore more detail per unit image area.

I don't understand your assumptions here. The S400 (and any recent P&S) has a higher sensor packing density than the 10D.

However, I'll throw something else into the mix. The 10D's higher density means it will become diffraction-limited earlier.

[Longwatcher]

Richard Corbett wrote:
Looking at the two spec's, the 10D would appear to have a higher sensor packing density which in turn would suggest a better sampling rate and therefore more detail per unit image area.

The 10D detector is slightly smaller then the 1Ds, which means it could be packed closer together. The quality issue though has to do with signal to noise ratios. The smaller the sensor the worse the SNR becomes. I have been told by some image scientists that the optimum zone for SNR for the Visible through Near IR is around 8um in size, which both the 10D and 1Ds are near; so they would be pretty close to each other in over all quality per square millimeter of sensor. The consumer P&S cameras are now down to 2.5um size and this results in a much worse SNR and thus lower overall image quality. Not really noticable if only printing up to 8x10, but comes up fast if printing larger.

This fact is why high end high-quality digital cameras with 35mm bodies will probably not go beyond 22-25MP in sensor size as between the noise caused by smaller detectors versus size of sensor and number of pixels, you start hitting a physics limit. I am figuring with advanced processing they can probably reduce the SNR to allow 4um sensors on a high-end camera, but not much smaller then that. The 1Ds sensor already takes up most of the available space in the camera body.

Just my experience and research,

[Richard Corbett]

Very good answers gentlemen and far and away the best I've had since attempting to get this issue discussed on other forums.

I would now like to continue on and ask your collective opinions on the likelyhood that mid range digital backs always produce better images than the SLR variety and then ask why should this be so when much the same technology is being used and the sensor size would apper to be only slightly larger than that on the 1Ds.

Mu ultimate aim, I might add, is to conside the purchase of a quality digital camera and as things are at present the 1Ds holds out the best possibility BUT I really do not wish to be caught with my trousers down by the Japanese who have a serious penchant for replacement strategy, which could leave a lad right in the crap and without access to a de-fumigator.

[KennyG]

Richard, It isn't the technology that keeps the 1Ds at the top of the pro pack, it is the build standard. The 1Ds (and the 1D for that matter) have sealed bodies, and that's what the pros need. Professional photographers are not fair-weather snappers.

I am upgrading one of my 10D bodies to a 1Ds in just over a month's time and I am looking forward to a proper home for my L glass, where my 500mm L will actually be what is says on the tin.

The 1D sells more today than it did when it was first launched and if it were judged on pixel count (as some P&S boys do) it would be regarded as a digital antique.

Get a 1Ds, you won't regret it.

[Longwatcher]

the reason medium format film cameras beat 35mm film cameras was simply film size. same size grains on larger area results in ability to print larger. In some respects same applies to Digital, however, the limiting factor becomes lens diameter at shutter verus sensor size. Again the medium format bodies will have an ability to host a larger sensor with the same size pixels as 35mm. If you purpose built a digital, the medium format bodies have only a small advantage in room for the sensor, but as redesigned film cameras, today's DSLR the Medium format will maintain a significant advantage because of the actual area the lenses will project on is larger in the medium format.

The same cameras that exist today as in 35mm size, medium and large format cameras will end up being the same basic trends when digital starts reaching physics limits (or at least so I believe). This is why I don't think the 3/4's standard will hold past a few years, unless it takes off due to compatability with a large variety of lenses/cameras/accessories. Otherwise it will pan out due to physics making 35mm format a more desired format. then again, the cost may make it more popular.

Just my opinions,

[Andy_T]

You could always get a Kodak digital back for your Mamya 645 or Hasselblad ...

... or go for the 1ds r DC14n, as they are considerably cheaper :)

Regards,
Andy