Now this is a camera

[Billan]

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II, wireless
16.7 Megapixel
802.11b/g (WiFi) as well as tethered LAN for transmission of images directly back to a server



Link to full review:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...eos1dsmkii.asp

[Steve (NY)]

16.7 MP If I only I had the money....

[///BimmerPower]

My next camera.

We're getting closer and closer to film megapixils...

[HighTachPres]

spend $$ make $$ (if you know how to use that sob!)

[Easton]

Laid my deposit yesterday

[L3it3r]

$$??

[Billan]

Originally Posted by l3it3r

$$??

$7,999 (US)

[Mecal]

holy shit, 16.7 mp? what the hell happend to 9-15 mp??

last camera i heard of, having alot of megapixels was 8.

[Easton]

Well the original 1Ds had 11.1 megapixels.

Medium Format digital always had the vicinity of 16-22mp+

[bust]

there is no point in having that camera unless you are printing like full size billboards with one image and not just strips like most are done with. you would never have to have anything that resolution and each picture has to be like 100mb or more.. then you are just limited to printer quality and DPI capability.. i really dont see the point for personal use, and even so you could edit a 6mb picture in photoshop and have a better image for average size print.

[jpsimon]

im pretty sure the calculation was done showing that 22megapixels would equal 35mm film.


either way, ill stick to my large format camera with 4x5" negatives

[Easton]

Originally Posted by bust

there is no point in having that camera unless you are printing like full size billboards with one image and not just strips like most are done with. you would never have to have anything that resolution and each picture has to be like 100mb or more.. then you are just limited to printer quality and DPI capability.. i really dont see the point for personal use, and even so you could edit a 6mb picture in photoshop and have a better image for average size print.

You are right in a big sense, but I would'nt go as far as saying that only those who wish to print their images on billboards would have a need for this camera.

Amatuers most certainly don't need this camera, neither do most professionals.

Amatuers, hobbyists, wedding photographers, formal and prom photographers, baby and santa photographers, all of these don't need the resolution AT ALL. The 20D is already enough.

For editorial/motorsport photographers, the 1DMKII is their weapon of choice, they require the speed, but most editorial photographers don't need the big resolution.

Landscape photographers would REALLY benefit from having this extra resolution, but hardly any of them could justify spending this much on it. Unless they make fortunes out of selling their own prints. Most of them probably use slide transparencies or medium format slides.

So the only ones who genuinely need this, are certain types of professional editorial and advertising photographers.

It's not necessarily the better photographers who need it, it just depends on your requirements and application.

For example, catalogue photographers don't need that resolution. Those shooting pamplets and so forth.

But the photographers who shoot advertising for large corporate companies, are most certainly expected to produce this kind of resolution.

If you were to shoot an advertisement for...say.. British Airways, or Singapore Airlines, or McDonalds... and of course, Car Manufacturers such as Toyota and Kia. Then you've gotta have this sort of resolution.

These photography positions are hardly EVER done in medium format film nowadays, the leading agencies have been using digital for almost the past half decade, medium format digital (i.e PhaseOne, FujiFilm, Mamiya) producing 16 to 22megapixel images. They're often 12 to 16bit files so they can go up to like 512mb per image.

There are more lesser "human" car editorial/low-end advertisement photographers in the market. (i'm one of them) who can't possibly afford to buy medium format digital equipment. Nor could my skills/abilities/job ever justify spending so much on this gear. But to someone like me the 1DsMKII is quite possibly heaven sent.

This Canon 1Ds MKII certainly isn't as expensive as Digital MF, nor is it anywhere near as good in quality.. but the 16.7 megapixels DOES open the doorway for some of us to get higher end advertising work. With 6.3 or 8.3 megapixels, such clients would'nt even bother looking at you. But with 16.7 (thats medium format territory now) it opens the doorway and brings opportunity to those who otherwise can't have it before.

Of course you're not going to notice the difference from 16.7 megapixels, not on A4 prints and most certainly not on the web. But it dosn't matter whether it's magazines, tv or a massive off-road billboard... large corporate companies depand that kind of resolution. Because it allows them to use the image whenever and however they want. It's like a prerequisite.

Additionally... it's really common in the magazine business for the art director to severely crop and enlarge your photographs. 8.3 megapixels (hell I get by with 6.3!) is definately enough for a double A4 spread, but when he starts chopping up your pictures there comes a problem!

This camera is really for those whos work usually requires Medium Format slides, but is now required to shoot exclusively in digital to maintain their clients.

Heres the best ad i've ever been lucky enough to have shot . Unfortuately it's probably the highest-end advertising I can go in my current situation. Even if my photography improves, I won't have a chance to work for the likes of GM or Toyota.

But 16.7 megapixels opens the doorway, not in terms of quality... but in terms of "Clients".

Even if you were the best car photographer in the world, I doubt any of them (the big guns) would consider you if you were submitting 8.3 megapixel images.

Bottomline is, amatuers should'nt even consider this camera (unless you're filthy rich and like printing 20"x30" prints all day long). And professionals should only consider this camera if they require this amount of resolution to sell their images. Otherwise (like you said..) theres really no point!

Wedding/editorial photographers don't need it, but alot of advertising/corporate photographers do.

Basically, for editorial photography you need good photography and 6megapixels+

But for large corporate advertising photography, you need not only exceptional photography skills and knowledge, but you need 16-22 megapixels as well.

When I get this camera... i'll have the gear covered. Now the next thing that I need to work on is the thing thats behind the camera!

[///Motor]

Originally Posted by Easton

You are right in a big sense, but I would'nt go as far as saying that only those who wish to print their images on billboards would have a need for this camera.

Amatuers most certainly don't need this camera, neither do most professionals.

Amatuers, hobbyists, wedding photographers, formal and prom photographers, baby and santa photographers, all of these don't need the resolution AT ALL. The 20D is already enough.:

I just boughgt the 20D, it is a sick ass camera, 8.2MP, 5 shots per second, 9 pt auto focus, and a 18-55mm Lens
SICK CAMERA, just wait till I post some pics