Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1Ds3 mini review  (Read 13769 times)
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« on: December 03, 2007, 10:07:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I have uploaded a mini review of the 1Ds3 with on my workshop site, complete with comparative crops from the 1Ds3, 1Ds2 and 5D for those interested.

Click the thumb to view:



Cheers,
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2007, 10:38:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jack,

Very interesting results - that building looks fine for doing these kind of tests. I agree with your visual conclusions from what I could see on my display (LaCie 321). However, there is one aspect I must ask you about that may influence the results: it looks to me, so I'm asking you - do you notice that the subject is very slightly darker in the 1Ds3 sample than in the other two? Did you have them set on Aperture Priority, and is it possible that the shutter speeds varied slightly between the three cameras? The reason I ask is that I'm wondering whether part of the apparent resolution advantage of the 1DsIII may be due to slightly more definition arising from a slightly darker exposure?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7443



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2007, 10:47:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Very informative, Jack.

I've been delighted with my 5D -- until now.    I guess I'll have to post the current prices of the 1Ds3 and 5D above my monitor as a constant reminder that my 5D is adequate for my purposes.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2007, 11:39:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, there is one aspect I must ask you about that may influence the results: it looks to me, so I'm asking you - do you notice that the subject is very slightly darker in the 1Ds3 sample than in the other two? Did you have them set on Aperture Priority, and is it possible that the shutter speeds varied slightly between the three cameras? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158073\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Mark:

I actually adressed that in the article.  ALL images were shot at the exact same shutter speeds at each ISO and the histo confirms they are essentially identical.  If you look at the brighter areas you can confirm this.  They were all also converted with identical settings save for detail and sharpening.  However, bumping the fill slider to 30 in each image had a stronger (but nearly identical) effect on the 5D and 1Ds2 image than it did on the 1Ds3.  For some reason the 1Ds3 did not respond to the fill slider at the same rate and I don't have an explanation for that.

I point you to next to the gray unpainted vertical strip of wood in the center and the white paint at the right --- these are very similar in all images, yet the 1Ds3 clearly resolves more grain in the gray wood.  Red seems to render differently in the 1Ds3, a bit darker, and this could explain the slightly darker tiles and different coloration of the brown vertical piece of wood and tan roof shingles.  I think the sand in the roof shingles has enough contrast to render even if they are a bit brighter in the 5D, so I really feel the granularity is probably beyond the capabilities of that sensor to resolve it.

Again, I think more complete testing would need to be done to make a conclusive determination.  

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 11:42:35 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2007, 01:22:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Removing the AA filter is  $450, to improve a $8000 camera it might make $ense
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2007, 05:40:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Removing the AA filter is  $450, to improve a $8000 camera it might make $ense
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158094\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not sure why anyone would want to do that.

The whole system is built around a sensor with AA filter, including third party raw converters, and I do not believe that any of those treat a file independantly from the expectations they have in terms of the sensor behaviour. This needs to be confirmed through testing obviously.

I am not even talking about the vignetting you are likely to encounter with an AA filter less body when shooting with wides.

If you find 1ds3 images to be too soft when viewed at 100%, my advice would be to look at another system altogether.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2007, 06:51:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Removing the AA filter is  $450, to improve a $8000 camera it might make $ense
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158094\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Marc: I have a challenge for you: buy the camera, find someone expert enough to remove the filter properly (I understand from an article I read somewhere - I forget - one layer of it is glued to the sensor itself), test it for all the conditions in which the filter is either meant to assist or can be an interference, and let us know the results. You will have either blown 8500 bucks or opened a significant curtain for the digital imaging community!  
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2007, 06:57:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi Mark:

I actually adressed that in the article.  ................
I point you to next to the gray unpainted vertical strip of wood in the center and the white paint at the right --- these are very similar in all images, yet the 1Ds3 clearly resolves more grain in the gray wood.  Red seems to render differently in the 1Ds3, a bit darker, and this could explain the slightly darker tiles and different coloration of the brown vertical piece of wood and tan roof shingles.  I think the sand in the roof shingles has enough contrast to render even if they are a bit brighter in the 5D, so I really feel the granularity is probably beyond the capabilities of that sensor to resolve it.

Again, I think more complete testing would need to be done to make a conclusive determination.   

Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack - it was late at night and I probably missed that sentence. But OK - I see you confirm parts of the 1DsIII image render a bit darker, so it wasn't my imagination - good. You have clarified the probable cause. I agree completely with your observations about the superior resolving of grain in the wood and sand in the roof shingles - I looked long and hard at those very places last night. My only concern was to understand why - whether it is due to superior resolution or better edge contrast due to the slightly different rendering of the luminosity. Perhaps it is both.

Cheers,

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2007, 07:54:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Can't remember where, maybe Northlight? he showed some 1DS3 images that, notwithstanding the AA showed traces of moire.  His comment was - Why would anyone want to take the filter off?  I think with appropriate capture sharpening I'm seeing an image that's acceptably sharp.  The risk of image degradation without the AA is something that I have no motivation to assume.  As an aside, I'm not sure what effect the anti dust mechanism might have on a retrofit, a la the Maxmax mod to the 5d.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2007, 12:45:06 PM »
ReplyReply

There appears to be a slight conundrum here. It is claimed the resolution differences between the 5D and 1Ds2 are smaller than expected because the 1Ds2 has a stronger AA filter.

When I look at Jack's crops, I get a sense that the increased detail in the 1Ds3 image, compared to the 1Ds2 crop, is greater than the increase in detail of the 1Ds2 image compared with the 5D crop.

The obvious explanation is that the 1Ds3, like the 5D, does not have a strong AA filter. Yet Jack makes the observation that it does have a strong AA filter, stronger than that of the 1Ds2. Has the 1Ds3 image received more sharpening?

On the subject of AA filters, why should a higher megapixel camera have a greater need for a strong AA filter than a lower megapixel camera? I thought the idea was, greater pixel density reduced the need for an AA filter. At some point, given sufficient pixel density, there should be no need at all for an AA filter.
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2007, 03:36:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When I look at Jack's crops, I get a sense that the increased detail in the 1Ds3 image, compared to the 1Ds2 crop, is greater than the increase in detail of the 1Ds2 image compared with the 5D crop.
I see the same thing.

Quote
The obvious explanation is that the 1Ds3, like the 5D, does not have a strong AA filter. Yet Jack makes the observation that it does have a strong AA filter, stronger than that of the 1Ds2. Has the 1Ds3 image received more sharpening?
Normally I'd agree with this conclusion as well...  

However, as I indicated in the article, I did apply a *lot* more sharpening to the 1Ds3 file in the raw converter than either the 5D or 1Ds2: ACR amount 50/Detail 50 as opposed to 30/25 for the 5D and 35/30 for the 1Ds2.  That is the reason I infer the 1Ds3 has a stronger AA filter.  Note however, I am only theorizing it has a stronger AA filter due to the additional capture sharpening required and I don't know that for a fact...
« Last Edit: December 04, 2007, 03:39:20 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2007, 07:45:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack,

Have you experimented with the Highlight Tone Priority (Custom Function II-3) setting yet? I know there is another thread discussing it, but I raise it here for your attention. I had it enabled and took some shots of dark buildings this afternoon. I found them a bit noisier than I was expecting from this camera. So I disabled it and tomorrow I shall try to get out and re-shoot the same scenes, see if it improves. Meanwhile I would really appreciate any real-world comparative experience reports (your's or anyone else reading this) of shots with and without this feature enabled.

Mark
« Last Edit: December 04, 2007, 07:46:18 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2007, 09:17:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack,

Have you experimented with the Highlight Tone Priority (Custom Function II-3) setting yet? I know there is another thread discussing it, but I raise it here for your attention. I had it enabled and took some shots of dark buildings this afternoon. I found them a bit noisier than I was expecting from this camera. So I disabled it and tomorrow I shall try to get out and re-shoot the same scenes, see if it improves. Meanwhile I would really appreciate any real-world comparative experience reports (your's or anyone else reading this) of shots with and without this feature enabled.

Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Mark:

I had it OFF for my tests, and did not have enough time to specifically experiment with it.  I am interested in your results.

One thing I did notice one thing that was interesting:  I took an image at ISO 1600 -1 ev and pushed it +1 in the raw converter for an effective ISO 3200 shot.  The interesting part was no additional detail or depth was gained in the shadows; I ended up with a slightly higher contrast and noisier image was all.  Comparing 1600 to 800, I gained a bit more depth using 1600, but probably only 1/3 to 1/2 stop total, which is why I mentioned I feel ISO 800 is about the maximum practical for this camera.  

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 04, 2007, 09:18:57 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

ashdavid
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2007, 09:43:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Great test, thanks for posting.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2007, 10:39:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, as I indicated in the article, I did apply a *lot* more sharpening to the 1Ds3 file in the raw converter than either the 5D or 1Ds2: ACR amount 50/Detail 50 as opposed to 30/25 for the 5D and 35/30 for the 1Ds2.  That is the reason I infer the 1Ds3 has a stronger AA filter.  Note however, I am only theorizing it has a stronger AA filter due to the additional capture sharpening required and I don't know that for a fact...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I see! I'm no expert on sharpening routines and those lengthy tomes on the subject, by Bruce Frazer and others, are not high on my list of reading priorities. However, is it not a fact that larger files generally either require more sharpening or can take more sharpening before they begin to look unnatural and over-sharpened?

I recall one of your own sharpening routines is to interpolate a file to a larger size, apply a greater degree of sharpening than you would normally at the smaller size and then downsample the image to its original size using 'bicubic sharper'.

That the 1Ds3 image should require greater sharpening to bring out the additional fine detail it is able to capture does not seem odd to me, or indicative of a stronger AA filter, but what one would expect when using the same lens that was used on the other cameras.

It has to be the case that every time we get an increase in pixel count, the additional pixels are capturing softer detail, less contrasty detail, if we are using the same lenses.

If, for example, the cut-off point for resolution with the 1Ds2 is 50 lp/mm and the cut-off point for the 1Ds3 is 60 lp/mm (let's not quibble about the precise numbers), we can't expect detail at 60 lp/mm (on the 1Ds3) to have the same contrast as detail at 50 lp/mm on the 1Ds2. This point should be obvious to anyone who understands MTF charts.

The reason I mention this is because already, as a result of your suggestion that maybe the AA filter on the 1Ds3 is even stronger than that on the 1Ds2, we have comments from readers on this forum that they have suddenly lost interest in the 1Ds3 and will cancel their order, or not place an order.

You've put the wind up some folks, Jack   .
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2007, 11:28:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Sure Ray...  Let's use your figures of 50 and 60 LPMM respectively --- that's a net resolution difference of approximately 20% which would imply the need to apply approximately 20% stronger sharpening to gain the same result.  However in the case of the 1Ds3, I needed to apply closer to 70% more sharpening than the 1Ds2 to get to the same result.  A bit of a gap to be sure, so clearly some other factor is in play; feel free to offer your own theory as to what it might be...

As to your wind up the skirts comment, I simply reported what I did to process the files that generated the crops I posted from each camera... Folks are free to draw their own conclusions.  

Cheers,
« Last Edit: December 04, 2007, 11:31:25 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2007, 11:47:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Did you try any other lenses to be sure that might not be some kind of factor? I know the 135/2L has a good rep (I have one too) but if that copy had a very minor issue, it could account for the results you've gotten, and why they differ from Michael's...
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2007, 02:20:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sure Ray...  Let's use your figures of 50 and 60 LPMM respectively --- that's a net resolution difference of approximately 20% which would imply the need to apply approximately 20% stronger sharpening to gain the same result.  However in the case of the 1Ds3, I needed to apply closer to 70% more sharpening than the 1Ds2 to get to the same result.  A bit of a gap to be sure, so clearly some other factor is in play; feel free to offer your own theory as to what it might be...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, to be more precise, Jack, 43% more sharpening and 67% more detail enhancement. But perhaps the relationship between percentage increase in resolution and required percentage increase in sharpening is not so direct.

I think ACR has always had a default sharpening of 25%. By your reasoning, if that 25% default sharpening is adequate for a 3mp D30 image, then a 10mp 40D would require a default sharpening of something like 45%. Is this how it works? As I said, I'm no expert on sharpening routines. I just use my eyeballs (and the sliders of course  ).

My figures of 50 and 60lp/mm for the 1Ds2&3 respectively were just to illustrate the concept of diminishing returns when one increases sensor pixel count without increasing lens resolution.

Having rechecked the figures at dpreview, I see that Phil Askey has made the common mistake of equating percentage increase in pixel count with percentage increase in resolution, where he states that the increased pixel count of the 1Ds3 represents a 26% increase in resolution over the 1Ds2.

In fact, of course, the increase in resolution is a mere 12.5%. We should not forget this otherwise we are likely to have unrealistic expectations of what to expect with the 1Ds3. The fact that you've been able to demonstrate that this 12.5% increase should be noticeable in a large print, using the same lens, makes me think the AA filter on the 1Ds3 is actually no stronger than that on the 1Ds2.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2007, 05:01:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Marc: I have a challenge for you: buy the camera, find someone expert enough to remove the filter properly (I understand from an article I read somewhere - I forget - one layer of it is glued to the sensor itself), test it for all the conditions in which the filter is either meant to assist or can be an interference, and let us know the results. You will have either blown 8500 bucks or opened a significant curtain for the digital imaging community! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158130\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A year ago I had my 5D modified by MaxMax and have never regretted having the AA filter removed (for landscapes/nature) No problem with the sharpening plugins you just use a lower setting with better results. My point is every one complains about Canons strong AA filters but if it is an issue you can easily have it removed and a visible light bandpass filter installed. Not a big deal, BTW all the raw converters/plugins handle the files fine. If you like the MFDB look (no AA filter) you can have that look in the Canon for $450. So with a years positive experience with a modified 5D I don’t see it as a major issue. You want a sharper raw file, modify your camera, you want a soft raw file don’t modify your camera, simple. After sharpening the difference is small but noticeable, a small improvement. I now have 1 week of experience with a P30 and still prefer the look of a sensor without a AA filter. The modification is reversible I have the original AA filter/bandpass filter in the canon box if needed. As far as testing it for moiré yes some times it is apparent and with a little Gaussian blur (around a pixel) you corrected the occasional problem. If you were always shooting fashion of course you wouldn't consider the mod.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
ashdavid
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2007, 06:07:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A year ago I had my 5D modified by MaxMax and have never regretted having the AA filter removed (for landscapes/nature) No problem with the sharpening plugins you just use a lower setting with better results. My point is every one complains about Canons strong AA filters but if it is an issue you can easily have it removed and a visible light bandpass filter installed. Not a big deal, BTW all the raw converters/plugins handle the files fine. If you like the MFDB look (no AA filter) you can have that look in the Canon for $450. So with a years positive experience with a modified 5D I don’t see it as a major issue. You want a sharper raw file, modify your camera, you want a soft raw file don’t modify your camera, simple. After sharpening the difference is small but noticeable, a small improvement. I now have 1 week of experience with a P30 and still prefer the look of a sensor without a AA filter. The modification is reversible I have the original AA filter/bandpass filter in the canon box if needed. As far as testing it for moiré yes some times it is apparent and with a little Gaussian blur (around a pixel) you corrected the occasional problem. If you were always shooting fashion of course you wouldn't consider the mod.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158356\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry to post offtopic, but do you have a link to some of your pics without the AA filter?  Especially ones that produced moiré. I am seriously considering doing this to my 1Ds MKIII.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 06:08:02 AM by ashdavid » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad