Print resolution differences 1DMk2-1DSMK2

[tannoy]

I am hoping that someone that has been fortunate enough to own both of these can answer this question;

How noticeable is the printed resolution difference between the 1Dmk2 and the new 1DSMK2 at say 13 by 19? I can see from the samples on the web that there is a distinct difference on screen and when zooming in, but does this translate at 13 by 19 or are larger prints are needed to see the differnce.

Thanks,

Darrin

[Belmondo]

The 1Ds MkII resolution is roughly double that of the ID MkII. That means that you can print roughly 40% larger at the same resolution.

So, if a 13 X 19 print from a 1D MkII gives acceptable resolution, you should be able to get similar quality from an approximately 18 X 27 print from a 1Ds MkII.

[tannoy]

Thanks Belmondo,

I understood that but am wondering how different they look at 13 x 19 or if one must print larger than this to really appreciate the difference.

Darrin

[HKFEVER]

Thanks Belmondo,

I understood that but am wondering how different they look at 13 x 19 or if one must print larger than this to really appreciate the difference.

Darrin

Not much,

[Tom W]

Roughly 180 ppi for the 1D Mk II, vs roughly 256 ppi for the 1Ds Mk II. This is taking the most stringent dimension, with the expectation of a small crop on the longer dimension to match the aspect ratio.

[Belmondo]

Thanks Belmondo,

I understood that but am wondering how different they look at 13 x 19 or if one must print larger than this to really appreciate the difference.

Darrin

I don't think you'll see much difference at 13 X 19. The 16mp image will give you the luxury of being able to do a bit more cropping, though.

[MDJAK]

While I'm sure Belmondo has more photographic knowledge in his little pinky than I have in my whole body, I'd like to add my two cents to state that a major difference would be seen when cropping a shot.

In addition, Michael Reichmann, the author of the luminouslandscape.com states that there is a very big difference in picture quality.

I bought "American Photo" magazine today, and in it there is a facial shot of Bo Derek. Remember her, the perfect 10? It is captioned: Bo Derek at 16. It is obvious that it is not her at such a young age. When you open the ad, it says actually at 16.7 mp. It's an ad for the 1ds Mark II, a camera I may yet buy.

[Belmondo]

While I'm sure Belmondo has more photographic knowledge in his little pinky than I have in my whole body, I'd like to add my two cents to state that a major difference would be seen when cropping a shot.

As to the first statement, I feel obliged to disagree. (truth in advertising, you know).

Regarding the second, I believe I addressed that to a small degree in my previous statement. If you crop a 16.7 megapixel image by 20%, for example, you'll still have a higher resolution image than comes from the 1D MkII.

I also saw the Bo Derek photo, and actually had quite a discussion with my wife over lunch about it. She looks great....sorta' makes you wonder what happend to Farah Fawcett and how bad she looks these days.

Anyway, both cameras will give great pictures, but beyond a point, they are at the mercy of the printer. My i9900 already produces prints that to me are indistinguishable from film and conventional prints.

[MDJAK]

If you knew me and how I fly by the seat of my pants when it comes to taking pictures, you wouldn't disagree with my first statement. I love learning from you guys.

I have the Canon S9000, which is now sitting collecting dust, as I recently purchased the Epson Stylus Pro 4000. I've been printing 16x20 from my 20d and have been quite pleased with the results. I still want the 1ds mark II, though.
I guess it goes back to my Nikon days when I lusted after the F5 with the built in motor drive.

(BTW, I did not see your response about cropping. It must have cropped up while I was typing my first response.)

[Hellashot]

I hear often on home shopping channels people show how they print 20x30 size from 3 or 4 megapixel cameras. So you could probably print huge from an 8 or 16MP camera.

[HKFEVER]

Correct me if I am wrong.

In the good old MF day, as long as the prit size is the same, the MF always produce prints with richer colour than 35mm because one of the thousand reasons the film size. Does it means in optical, light pass through large film and hit the photo paper with more information than smaller film.

I guess this apply to 1.6MB to 8MB, provided the sensor has the same capability of colour range. But, I don't really see much difference with my 1DMKII & 1DSMKII. Does this mean, once the inkjet reach certain density than no matter how detail, it just no difference. Because gaps between photons are way smaller than inkjet's droplets.

I have HP 9680 and Epson 2100 (same as US model 2200). Even thought I use matt paper. I can't really tell the difference.

Again, correct me if I am wrong.

[CyberDyneSystems]

8mp and 6MP files look pretty freaking good at 13X19"... indeed you can go a lot farther with the 16MP files.

[chris.bailey]

I have two 4' x 6' pictures in my Boardroom at work, one I took with a 10D and the other taken with a 1DSMkII. Both were upscaled in 10% increments to the same size. I defy anyone to say which was taken with which though when I tell people they always say "yes I thought so". Both of the new 1D's are remarkable pieces of kit but unless you really do need 50mb tiffs (for whatever reason) I would save a bit and go for the 1DMkII.

[MDJAK]

Putting aside print quality for a moment, what about when you view the pictures on the computer screen. When I blow up a pic taken with my 20d to 200 percent, I begin to see the pixels. Would or does this happen with 1ds Mark II pics? Is it just my monitor?

I seem to remember when the Kodak 14 mp came out, they had a picture posted on their website which I downloaded. It was a very large photo (in megabytes) and I was able to continually zoom and it never showed pixelation.

[tannoy]

So in effect unless one is printing larger than 13 by 19 the advantages of the 1DsMK2 are only on screen, is this the consensus?

Makes sense but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something more esoteric and spending money in vain.

Cheers,

Darrin

[Nic]

Mdjak,

To view 20D's photo at 72 dpi at 200% on screen means that you are blowing the picture up to 247.22cm (8.11 ft) * 164.82cm (5.41ft)!
That is totaly unrealistic - what do you expect??

[pierrot]

Mdjak,
To view 20D's photo at 72 dpi at 200% on screen means that you are blowing the picture up to 247.22cm (8.11 ft) * 164.82cm (5.41ft)!
That is totaly unrealistic - what do you expect??
Totally agree :mrgreen:

[MDJAK]

Mdjak,

To view 20D's photo at 72 dpi at 200% on screen means that you are blowing the picture up to 247.22cm (8.11 ft) * 164.82cm (5.41ft)!
That is totaly unrealistic - what do you expect??


Nic, I have never claimed to be knowledgeable about photography. As you can see from my post count, I am a beginner trying to learn. Your math is completely above my head. I'm sorry to say that, but it is a fact.

If I up the resolution in the raw converter to 360, let's say, would that make a difference? And I don't know if you know the answer to my question, but I would like an answer from someone.

Would the 1ds Mark II pixelate on zoom as my 20d does, or would it take quite a bit more zooming to see that?