Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?  (Read 21009 times)
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #60 on: April 28, 2008, 06:22:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry for the slight delay - it took some time to persuade 'onion' that he should pose for these shots. Indeed, it was only after drinking the glass of wine to which he clings that he was able to sit still and be compliant...

OK, first the overall scene to give an idea of scale. This is the full frame view shot with a 100mm f2,8 macro lens at f4. 100iso, 1/125th shutter and illuminated by ttl flash bounced from the ceiling.

[attachment=6296:attachment]

Now some 100% crops. Processed through Lightroom 1.4.1 with NR and Sharpening turned off (not sure what residual actions it may take). No other adjustments made, so LR standard render except for preset colour calibration for the 5D.

5D 100mm f4
[attachment=6297:attachment]


1Ds3 100mm f4
[attachment=6299:attachment]

And as the 1Ds3 produces bigger files, here is a 1Ds3 shot with the 85 1.8 at f4.

1Ds3 85mm f4
[attachment=6300:attachment]


All shot on a tripod.

One other point that may matter to you. I shot several of each version and the 1Ds3 images were effectively interchangeable. From the 5D I threw away a couple where the focus was slightly off (interestingly the later images in each case as it got it right first time.

Hope this helps and sorry I didn't have time to match luminosity and colour etc, but at least you can have a play with putting some usm on the files.

Mike
« Last Edit: April 29, 2008, 06:11:58 AM by sojournerphoto » Logged
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 709


WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 29, 2008, 06:50:58 AM »
ReplyReply

To reply to the original poster.  I have had a 1DS for about five years and it was great.  I have used a 5D for a couple of years as well and that was good too, better in some ways as it seemed a bit more 'user friendly'. In December I bought a 1DS 111 and it is fantastic!

The Mk111 is just a little lighter than the original, and with prime lenses on feels a little more comfortable.  The new battery is streets ahead in weight and runtime.  The custom menu is very useful.  The images are superb - though as others have said - only the best lenses are demanded, especially at wide apertures.

I shoot mostly weddings and people.  Do I need 21MP?  Not often, but even if the Mk 111 only had 12MP it would still be a better camera to use than the original 1Ds or the 5D, in my opinion.
Of course it is rather expensive.

I do not understand all the bickering that goes on here about the pros and cons of various cameras.
They are all good cameras.  If you think the 5d is best, stick with it, spend the money saved on a nice holiday.  The original 1ds takes great pictures, it is just not as good to use as the new Mk 111.

My customers would not be able to tell mostly whether I shot their pictures on a 10D or a 1Ds Mk 111.  I just use what I enjoy using.

Jim
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #62 on: April 29, 2008, 07:40:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To reply to the original poster. I have had a 1DS for about five years and it was great. I have used a 5D for a couple of years as well and that was good too, better in some ways as it seemed a bit more 'user friendly'. In December I bought a 1DS 111 and it is fantastic!

The Mk111 is just a little lighter than the original, and with prime lenses on feels a little more comfortable. The new battery is streets ahead in weight and runtime. The custom menu is very useful. The images are superb - though as others have said - only the best lenses are demanded, especially at wide apertures.

I shoot mostly weddings and people. Do I need 21MP? Not often, but even if the Mk 111 only had 12MP it would still be a better camera to use than the original 1Ds or the 5D, in my opinion.
Of course it is rather expensive.

I do not understand all the bickering that goes on here about the pros and cons of various cameras.
They are all good cameras. If you think the 5d is best, stick with it, spend the money saved on a nice holiday. The original 1ds takes great pictures, it is just not as good to use as the new Mk 111.


My customers would not be able to tell mostly whether I shot their pictures on a 10D or a 1Ds Mk 111. I just use what I enjoy using.

Jim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not bickering it's just each individual trying to ascertain which camera is the right tool for his or her application, this is a forum for technical discussion. What were you expecting, cake decoration tips?
Mike- thanks so much for posting those images, I know what a pain it can be doing such tests. In your test there doesn't seem to be much in it at all with regard to sharpness.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2008, 07:42:59 AM by woof75 » Logged
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #63 on: April 29, 2008, 09:16:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mike- thanks so much for posting those images, I know what a pain it can be doing such tests. In your test there doesn't seem to be much in it at all with regard to sharpness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, that was where I got to - out of the box the files are similarly sharp at a pixel level. You can play with usm and other capture sharpening to see how they respond, and at least these are comparable files as they were shot with the same lens with the bodies mounted on the same tripod.

The other thing is that my macro lens doesn't need any focus adjustment on the 1Ds3, so I presume it's focussing correctly on the 5D also. The 85 is adjusted and so potentially wouldn't have presented a fair result on the 5D.

The other factors I would bear in mind are that the 1Ds3 is actually nicer to use than the 5D for me - it fits my hands well and I'm delighted with sensor clean and (unexpectedly) live view. Against is the cost...

Mike.

Mike.
Logged
John_Black
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 262


WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 29, 2008, 09:26:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I've owned the 1Ds, 5D, 1Ds2 and now 1Ds3.  Probably 50,000+ clicks on those bodies across a 4 year period.  A couple comments -

The 1Ds2 resolve more detail than the 5D; the 1Ds2 also has significantly more detail dynamic range than a 5D.  If a smaller camera is important to you, then 5D makes sense, but if the goal is the best sensor / image quality - the 1Ds2 easily wins this comparison.

The 1Ds3 compared to the 1Ds2 is disappointing IMO.  The 1Ds3 has slightly less dynamic range and is more likely to clip clouds and skies.  The ISO 100 shadow noise is about the same as the 1Ds2.  The 1Ds2 raw files appear sharper.  When a 1Ds3 raw is downsized to the same size as a 1Ds2 raw, the files are very similar.  So the good news is - the 1Ds3 isn't capturing less, but I don't think the 5 extra MP or capturing anything more either.

The 1Ds3 benefits are mostly the features - larger viewfinder which is huge, larger LCD, good high ISO (compared to the 1Ds2 and 5D), live view (very handy with manual focus lenses), a bit lighter, simpler user interface (though the AF point selection is utterly lame).  

If I had to do it again, I may have stayed with the 1Ds2.  I also had a Phase One P25 back and its files are categorically better in terms sharpness and dynamic range.  Had Canon used a weaker a AA filter on the 1Ds3, then I feel it could have really challenged medium format.  Instead the AA filter (or whatever is softening the raw files) zapped alot of the 1Ds3's potential.

All of this is very relative - it depends on what camera you had before, what you expect a good raw file to look like, etc.  Coming from the P25 back, I'm not impressed.  I love the ergonomics and handling, but sensor / image quality comes up short.
Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #65 on: April 29, 2008, 09:42:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've owned the 1Ds, 5D, 1Ds2 and now 1Ds3.  Probably 50,000+ clicks on those bodies across a 4 year period.  A couple comments -

The 1Ds2 resolve more detail than the 5D; the 1Ds2 also has significantly more detail dynamic range than a 5D.  If a smaller camera is important to you, then 5D makes sense, but if the goal is the best sensor / image quality - the 1Ds2 easily wins this comparison.

The 1Ds3 compared to the 1Ds2 is disappointing IMO.  The 1Ds3 has slightly less dynamic range and is more likely to clip clouds and skies.  The ISO 100 shadow noise is about the same as the 1Ds2.  The 1Ds2 raw files appear sharper.  When a 1Ds3 raw is downsized to the same size as a 1Ds2 raw, the files are very similar.  So the good news is - the 1Ds3 isn't capturing less, but I don't think the 5 extra MP or capturing anything more either.

The 1Ds3 benefits are mostly the features - larger viewfinder which is huge, larger LCD, good high ISO (compared to the 1Ds2 and 5D), live view (very handy with manual focus lenses), a bit lighter, simpler user interface (though the AF point selection is utterly lame). 

If I had to do it again, I may have stayed with the 1Ds2.  I also had a Phase One P25 back and its files are categorically better in terms sharpness and dynamic range.  Had Canon used a weaker a AA filter on the 1Ds3, then I feel it could have really challenged medium format.  Instead the AA filter (or whatever is softening the raw files) zapped alot of the 1Ds3's potential.

All of this is very relative - it depends on what camera you had before, what you expect a good raw file to look like, etc.  Coming from the P25 back, I'm not impressed.  I love the ergonomics and handling, but sensor / image quality comes up short.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've had 1ds mark 2 and I now have the Phase P21 which I love. I could do with something thats a little more hand holdable though for times that I dont use a tripod. I rented a 5d recently and actually prefered it to my old 1ds mark 2. I didn't notice any difference in DR and it seemed sharper. I like that it's so light too. Extra MP means very little to me. My work is usually editorial so anything over 12 MP ish is fine.
Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #66 on: April 29, 2008, 05:27:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've owned the 1Ds, 5D, 1Ds2 and now 1Ds3.  Probably 50,000+ clicks on those bodies across a 4 year period.  A couple comments -

The 1Ds2 resolve more detail than the 5D; the 1Ds2 also has significantly more detail dynamic range than a 5D.  If a smaller camera is important to you, then 5D makes sense, but if the goal is the best sensor / image quality - the 1Ds2 easily wins this comparison.

The 1Ds3 compared to the 1Ds2 is disappointing IMO.  The 1Ds3 has slightly less dynamic range and is more likely to clip clouds and skies.  The ISO 100 shadow noise is about the same as the 1Ds2.  The 1Ds2 raw files appear sharper.  When a 1Ds3 raw is downsized to the same size as a 1Ds2 raw, the files are very similar.  So the good news is - the 1Ds3 isn't capturing less, but I don't think the 5 extra MP or capturing anything more either.

The 1Ds3 benefits are mostly the features - larger viewfinder which is huge, larger LCD, good high ISO (compared to the 1Ds2 and 5D), live view (very handy with manual focus lenses), a bit lighter, simpler user interface (though the AF point selection is utterly lame). 

If I had to do it again, I may have stayed with the 1Ds2.  I also had a Phase One P25 back and its files are categorically better in terms sharpness and dynamic range.  Had Canon used a weaker a AA filter on the 1Ds3, then I feel it could have really challenged medium format.  Instead the AA filter (or whatever is softening the raw files) zapped alot of the 1Ds3's potential.

All of this is very relative - it depends on what camera you had before, what you expect a good raw file to look like, etc.  Coming from the P25 back, I'm not impressed.  I love the ergonomics and handling, but sensor / image quality comes up short.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting. I would say there is quite a difference between 1DsMk2 and Mk3 files. I think it really depends on the lens and f-stop you use. I could imagine that you get these results when using a crappy lens like the 24-105, 24-70 or anything wide from canon. I can only speak from my experience and there the Mk3 shows certainly more detail with lenses like a Zeiss 21, Leica 28, Leica 35-70, 70-200L f4IS, 500L f4
Logged

Dennishh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #67 on: April 29, 2008, 07:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

"Crappy lens like the  24-70" might be a little exaggerated seeing most professional  photographers I know use the lens a great deal of the time. I have found the 24-70 to be very sharp. Your correct that it can't stand up to the Zeiss 21 and Leica lenses, but I bet it will when shooting models on the move. $ for $ it's hard to beat. Have you tried more than one 24-70 on your MK3?
Dennis
Logged
Aboud
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


WWW
« Reply #68 on: April 29, 2008, 08:52:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've owned a 1Ds for quite some time, and passed on the MKII when it came out. I would like to have lower noise high ISO, and the live view seems cool, but I have not head any rave reviews about the MKIII. I personally saw one photographers tests against a 1Ds, and frankly, nothing was there that really blew me away. Is the MKIII a whole lotta' nuthin'?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've had mine since November. I love this camera. Before this I was using a Canon 5D and a Contax 645 with a Phase One P25 back. This camera holds up in tone and resolution quite well in my opinion. The only thing it gives away is the large sensor on the P25. I rarely use more than 320 ISO, and I shoot only with primes, but I find the camera to be everything I could hope for so far. If Canon could find a way to eliminate the heat issue with extended use of live (which increases noise by the way), I would have absolutely no concerns.

Photo shot with 1Ds Mk III, 85MM 1.2. ISO 250, 1/250 @ F10.
Logged
ruraltrekker
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #69 on: April 30, 2008, 04:12:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can you tell me where exactly I compared MFDB to dslr?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure, you stated that you wanted the image to be sharp from the get go, which pretty much made me conclude you are talking MF. The dSLR system using an AA filter pretty much requires the "sharpening" of the file at some point in the process. There is nothing evil or misleading about this required step.

Does a dSLR file being "unsharp" out the camera make it less worthy for your requirements? I say no, that is, if you know what to do in the processing of the image.

I just don't understand the pooh poohing on the III. It is the best so far of the 3 "s" models. I sure would not go back to a II or step sideways and backwards to a 5D.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 11:44:27 AM by ruraltrekker » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #70 on: May 01, 2008, 06:46:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lets not make it personal, it's only a camera. I do actually own a Phase back but I want something to complement it and to me inherent (i.e. not put in after the fact by USM) sharpness is important. Why is this so unpalatable? its a simple question.

Because it's a silly basis for defining the merit of a file. It doesn't matter if the default out-of-the-camera sharpness from one camera is greater than another, if the difference can be greatly reduced or eliminated after giving each camera's files the appropriate amount of capture sharpening. Using deconvolution-based capture sharpening (such as Focus Magic) does a much better job of undoing the effect of the AA filter than standard USM, allowing you to push image sharpness and pixel-level detail to much greater levels before artifacting starts setting in. If you limit capture sharpening amounts to the needs of the file, the pixel-level sharpness difference between MFDB and DSLR is mostly academic.
Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #71 on: May 01, 2008, 07:19:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Because it's a silly basis for defining the merit of a file. It doesn't matter if the default out-of-the-camera sharpness from one camera is greater than another, if the difference can be greatly reduced or eliminated after giving each camera's files the appropriate amount of capture sharpening. Using deconvolution-based capture sharpening (such as Focus Magic) does a much better job of undoing the effect of the AA filter than standard USM, allowing you to push image sharpness and pixel-level detail to much greater levels before artifacting starts setting in. If you limit capture sharpening amounts to the needs of the file, the pixel-level sharpness difference between MFDB and DSLR is mostly academic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Then why do you bother getting sharp lenses, why not get a cheapo lens (much lighter) and sharpen it up in post?
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 01, 2008, 07:37:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Then why do you bother getting sharp lenses, why not get a cheapo lens (much lighter) and sharpen it up in post?

Cheap glass has a more complex mix of blurs and aberrations than an AA filter, which cannot be effectively removed with software. You have several types of aberrations which are not symmetrical, and they increase in intensity as you approach the corners. You also have increased amounts of flare and other similar effects that cannot be removed with software.

The simple blurring caused by an AA filter is within deconvolution sharpening's ability to eliminate. The complex blurring and multiple mixed aberrations from cheap glass is not.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 07:39:26 AM by Jonathan Wienke » Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #73 on: May 01, 2008, 09:03:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Cheap glass has a more complex mix of blurs and aberrations than an AA filter, which cannot be effectively removed with software. You have several types of aberrations which are not symmetrical, and they increase in intensity as you approach the corners. You also have increased amounts of flare and other similar effects that cannot be removed with software.

The simple blurring caused by an AA filter is within deconvolution sharpening's ability to eliminate. The complex blurring and multiple mixed aberrations from cheap glass is not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, good point. Personally I do find that sharpening in post does have a slightly different look to actual sharpness and it's not just about getting detail back, it's more the feel of the file, an artificially sharpened file doesn't have the "shimmer" for want of a different word as an inherently sharp file. Remember the shimmer you get from film grains? It's kind of like that, it's like an effervescence thats very hard to quantify that I find is lacking in files that have been excessively softened with a filter. To some this isn't important but to me it is. It's funny, it's a concept that I've never heard spoken about, maybe because theres no way of testing it really, it's very subjective.
Logged
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #74 on: May 01, 2008, 01:06:23 PM »
ReplyReply

If you haven't tried Raw Developer on the 1DsIII files you'll be in for quite a surprise. In fact that combination was the leading reason I went for the 1DsIII.

Doyle
Logged
sojournerphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


« Reply #75 on: May 01, 2008, 06:14:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you haven't tried Raw Developer on the 1DsIII files you'll be in for quite a surprise. In fact that combination was the leading reason I went for the 1DsIII.

Doyle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


aach, mac only!
Logged
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #76 on: May 01, 2008, 08:08:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
aach, mac only!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wouldn't limit my tools like that.

Doyle
Logged
jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #77 on: May 03, 2008, 03:11:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you haven't tried Raw Developer on the 1DsIII files you'll be in for quite a surprise. In fact that combination was the leading reason I went for the 1DsIII.

Doyle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Doyle-  what sharpening settings are you using in Raw Developer?
Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad