I plan to purchase a 1D tomorrow!

[Pete_Budraitis]

One thing seems to hold true about camera equipment: There's not a lot that money and asprin can't cure.
I bought one of the first D30s available (Nov'00) and likewise the 1D (Jan'02). The 1d has been incredible. As far as it being overkill for some shooting situations, this may be true. But as far as the extra features and capabilities go I always believe, if you can afford it, it's better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.
During the time I had my D30, before the 1d came out, I missed a number of great shots because of camera performance. I can't begin to tell you what some of those shots would have been worth to me. Now with my 1d I miss far less shots due to camera performance. At least now when I due miss one, I'm not thinking to myself, "Gee, if I only had a better performing camera!"

[Bill_Foote]

Right on, Peter!!! As Henry Ford once said: "If you need some piece of equipment, you will pay for it whether you purchase it or not!" SOB [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[Richard_Lewisohn]

I've used the 1D for many pro job since I received it in March and it is true that the results have been great.

HOWEVER, I absolutely do not agree that the quality is as good as my Mamiya RZ. I shot some kitchen sets with the RZ, as the shots may be used as posters, and properly scanned and printed, the results look beautiful. I shot some of the smaller images in the brochure with the 1D, and they look fine, but they look different, mayb more akin to 35mm film.

Equally I shot a portrait of a classical string trio, the sort of thing I would have done before with the RZ. With each of the 3 musicians sitting in separate chairs, looking at the faces at 'actual pixels' there is a real lack of detail that an RZ would have plenty of. And that with the 70-200 2.8L IS.

Next weekend I'm shooting some studio portraits of some friends' kids, which previously I would have shot with the RZ and plenty of expensive film and processing. It's cheaper for them and easier for me to shoot with the 1D. I just hope that the images, that they will presumably be looking at for years to come, have the detail and quality that I used to get with the RZ.

Finally, I never use 8fps, but I think the speed of focussing of the 1D is just as critical in portrait work as in sports.

Regards

Richard Lewisohn

[Bill_Foote]

Now I've done it! When I was gushing about the 1D I didn't mean to imply that it was EXACTLY like the Mamiyz RZ, just the "near-equivalent." I have been told that a digital file (1D) is "cleaner" than a scanned file (e.g. from the RZ) so that in increasing the resolution it seems to be very similar in quality to Medium Format.

My technique for increasing the file size for example to 24 X 36 is as follows: Go to Image > Image Size, change the Width and Height to 24 X 36, Resolution to 300 ppi, Resample Image: Bicubic. Click OK

Now you have a 24 X 36 Image that is a little soft. Go to Image > Mode > Lab Color. Now go to the Channels palette and select Lightness Channel and you get a B&W image. Go to Filters > Unsharp Mask and adjust the sharpening a little more than you think you should. In the Channels palette, select Lab color to check your sharpening for the complete color spectrum. Go back to the Lightness channel again if you want to change the USM. Now you can back to RGB for printing or whatever you want to do with this FINAL image. This should be your final step in manipulation, since an image once sharpened can become easily corrupted by any further adjustments. The reason for USM in this manner is to avoid "Color Haloing" which can be a real problem (at least for me) if USM is done in the RGB mode.

The image produced this way has always been very satisfactory for me. I have only been doing this for three months, so my experience is limited to that time period. I admit that I don't "res-up" an image this much very often (from 12 MB up to 222 MB) but I have done it with wildlife, architechture, and portraits, and I am very satisfied. BTW, I print with an Epson 7500: Canvas, Luster, Glossy, Matte, and Smooth Fine Art.

It is my impression that in some ways this technique with the 1D produces a final result that is comparable to Medium Format. Inasmuch as I have lost my ability to focus the RZ as accurately and quickly as I once did (and for other reasons that are obvious) the 1D certainly has become my primary weapon of choice! SOB [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Richard_Lewisohn]

I have no doubt that you get a satisfactory image, but I'm not so sure you get the DETAIL produced by a well scanned medium format file.

When I'm back in London, I'll take a look at your technique.

Regards

Richard Lewisohn

[Bill_Foote]

Nemo--have you compared the GF to simple Bicubic in PS? A fellow Photog here in Tucson and computer whiz challenged me to a side-by-side of the two. In a very large res-up we couldn't tell the difference, except the Bicubic looked a tiny bit higher in contrast. When you consider that the bicubic took about 20 seconds for a ~250MB file, and about 10 Minutes for the GF, we were surprised to say the least. SOB [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img]

[NemoNiemann]

Bill (if I may call you that) -- I've used the Bicubic (including the stairstep variation) as well as GF. I even recently bought another program called VFZoom. I've found both GF and VFZoom to produce smoother gradations, and in some ways, sharper images. Genuine Fractals (because of the way it handles the images) is a little sharper (think of higher acutance in film developing, like Acufine), but VFZoom is a little smoother with fewer artifacts. I think Bicubic is fine for smaller enlargements, but for my own part, I haven't been as happy with larger increments. Of course, it's all a matter of taste. I'm always looking for the the "next great thing". I did a 24x36 blowup from a D30 image comparison a while back, and at least for that, the GF version was superior -- better clarity and resolution of fine details.