Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1Dx vs. 1Ds Mark III - enlargement IQ comparison  (Read 14281 times)
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



WWW
« on: September 17, 2012, 01:12:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I haven't had a chance to try the "new" (if you can call a nearly one year old - from announcement though only recently available - camera "new") the 1Dx. I recently borrowed a 5D3 from Canon CPS, and though the files produced were nice, I didn't see any qualitative edge over my 4-1/2 year old 1Ds3, especially in the 100-200 iso range. I also found the 5D3 lacked a a few features I've really come to appreciate and use in the 1D series. For a number of my clients, I shoot instore posters that are about 8' tall. Even though production on the images lowers the final output res, I still end up enlarging the original, retouched images from 150-220%.

I've practically given up on Canon ever coming out with anything that resembles the 36MP Nikon (witness the slew of 20+ MP FF cameras from Canon in the past year. Also I posted earlier that I think Canon has largely given up on pro photogs, focusing instead on the amateur and enthusiast, and the pro cine market). In many ways, I see the 1Dx as more of a replacement for my 1D4. I've never really liked the IQ of the 1D4; I always felt the images looked a bit "crunchy", no matter what program I used for conversions. As a result, I've had thoughts of replacing that camera with the 1Dx, if the price becomes a little more realistic. What the 1Dx has going for it is faster write times (therefore no waiting for the buffer as I often do with my 1Ds3) and faster frame rate. The video is a total waste to have to pay for, even though I started my career as a cinematographer. For that reason, I've thought maybe the 1Dx might be able to replace the 1Ds3 on occasion. But I'm curious. Has anyone seen or done a qualitative enlargement test with the 1Dx? Theoretically, there shouldn't be that much difference compared to the 1Ds3 since it's only 3MP difference in res. I've also seriously thought of going with a Mamiya 645 or Pentax 645 to get the res I need for retouching, but hate to lose the performance of a 35mm based camera.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

Nemo
Logged

Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1644



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2012, 03:27:48 PM »
ReplyReply

You see no difference? Try shooting at an ISO setting over 400. Try Shooting at longer exposures. Try tracking an object moving fast and erratically. Try using Live view.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2012, 04:33:58 PM »
ReplyReply

You should contact JoshH. He wrote here that the image quality of the 1DX is superior to any other camera he has used, including that of the D800E he had experience with also.

Being a former 1Ds3 user, he should be able to help you with your purchasing decision.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2012, 06:56:15 PM »
ReplyReply

You should contact JoshH. He wrote here that the image quality of the 1DX is superior to any other camera he has used, including that of the D800E he had experience with also.

Being a former 1Ds3 user, he should be able to help you with your purchasing decision.

Cheers,
Bernard


Slight correction there - the 1DX produces the best file I have seen from a 35mm DSLR. Taking into account high ISO capabilities, colour, etc. and based on my own subjective evaluation. The D800 File is also excellent - but I just prefer the look of the Canon 1DX file.

In terms of 1DS MK3 v 1DX - even at ISO100 I prefer the look of the 1DX file. I took a 1DX and a 1DSMK3 to Europe for a months photography and never even got the 1DS MK3 out of the bag. Its subjective though and YMMV. I would recommend you borrow or rent a 1DX and try it for yourself.

BTW: 1DX files do up rez very nicely.
Logged

phila
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 248



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2012, 05:38:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I've just bought a 1Dx (as a replacement for my 1D MkII and backup to my 1Ds MkIII - or maybe visa versa) and will be doing some side by side comparisons in New Zealand next week, if you can wait a couple of weeks to see the results.  Smiley
Logged

Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2012, 10:08:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe you have to read the review Diglloyd wrote about the 1Dx. He was very dissapointed  about the pattern noise apparent at ISO 100 with a well-exposed image.
I cancelled mine order for the 1Dx and hoping that Canon will comes soon with a good replacement for the 1Ds MarkIII. I am not very interesting in the high iso performes of the 1Dx
Logged

shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 600


« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2012, 11:08:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe you have to read the review Diglloyd wrote about the 1Dx. He was very dissapointed  about the pattern noise apparent at ISO 100 with a well-exposed image.
I cancelled mine order for the 1Dx and hoping that Canon will comes soon with a good replacement for the 1Ds MarkIII. I am not very interesting in the high iso performes of the 1Dx

Unfortunately, that seems to be Canon's modus operandi these days. Always chasing the sports and action shooters, with faster frame rates, higher ISOs, etc., while forgetting that the vast majority of photography is done in the ISO 100-1600 range. Perhaps it's because Canon simply cannot match the Sony Exmor's performance at low ISOs, in terms of dynamic range and pattern noise, but these problems are all drowned out at high ISO by other forms of noise, allowing Canon sensors to compete on an even field there.
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2012, 12:04:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for all the replies. Sounds, though, like I'll need to rent (or if CPS ever gets one, borrow) a 1Dx to do my own qualitative enlargement tests. I have to agree with Shadowblade, though. Canon seems as though it's not as interested in the commercial shooters who don't need noiseless results at 3200. Personally, I need the buffer and resolution. Maybe the siren of the A99 calls (not a big fan of Nikon), or dive into medium format. Too bad I'm so heavily invested in L series lenses. Just doesn't make sense to jump ship.
Logged

allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 350


« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2012, 12:09:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I would respectfully suggest that the majority of shooting till now occurs at low ISO because that's what the cameras have been capable of doing. As sensor technology is improving, and will improve that "limitation" will fade. Even lens technology and portability will be enhanced by the advances.

To the OP... the a99 had better be FAR better than my old a77 was or you will be disappointed. Further, the Sony glass is nowhere near as varied and abundant than C or N.

As always YMMV...
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2012, 12:29:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The majority of my shooting IS 400 iso and below. I recently shot an editorial at 800 with my "old" 1Ds3. I found nothing wanting in the files. They were beautiful and I just saw the magazine, and reproduction was, in short, nearly perfect. So, what I want is higher res, larger buffer. I was shooting last week in the studio, and because of my shooting style, kept running into full buffers with the 1Ds3, even with higher speed CF cards.
Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 783


« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2012, 12:35:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I've got both the 1Ds III and 1D X right now, and have done some comparison tests for both low ISO noise, resolution, and dynamic range. I also did the same comparisons with the 1D X and a friends D800E.

I'd say the resolution difference between the Canon's is very, very close. The 1Ds III might pull a slight amount of detail more than the 1D X, but only 3 megapixels is a very small difference. On a huge print you might notice it if they were side by side, but honestly the 1D X could make most any print that the 1Ds III could. A fair way to look at is the 7% linear difference. If you can make a 48 inch wide print with the 1Ds III, then you could make a 45 inch wide print with the 1D X.  The D800E obviously eats them both for lunch with 36 megapixels.

On low ISO dynamic range, I'd give a slight edge to the 1D X over the 1Ds III. Both have a fair bit of leeway to push the shadows, but the 1D X holds off pattern noise just a tiny bit better than the 1Ds III, maybe 1/2 stop? The pattern noise in the 1Ds III is horizontal and the 1D X is vertical. The 1D X noise is just a little less objectionable (finer) before a pattern becomes evident as the shadows get pushed. Both do better when you are pushing shadows that are not totally black. The 1Ds III seemed to hold highlight detail just a tiny bit better at equivalent exposures, a little less than 1/3 stop if I had to guess.  D800E again eats them both for lunch in terms of low ISO shadow noise. Just cleaner overall, and far deeper into underexposed blacks.  I agree with Josh about preferring the default look of a pushed 1D X file over the D800E though. The tone curve of the D800E gets flat and funky looking when pushed, while the Canon keeps a more natural look to it. Nothing that couldn't be fixed in post for the Nikon, but getting a nice image is simpler with the 1D X.

Rendition between the 1Ds III and 1D X is slightly different, but both look great IMHO. Really nice look straight out of camera, great white balance and exposures. I might give the "look" edge to the 1D X. No real dramatic differences here.

Generally my take is that I don't really feel like I've given up anything by going from the 1Ds III to the 1D X, even at base ISO. And taking into consideration the speed, AF, frame rate and high ISO (oh man the high ISO!), the 1D X is just much better as an image capturing device.

Logged

nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2012, 03:08:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Sheldon for the info. That's the sort of assessment I've been looking for. Inuitively, one would think there isn't much difference between 18MP and 21MP, but the difference between 16MP and 21MP (1D4 versus 1Ds3) has been significant in my eyes. I have to say, I actually liked the files from the 1D3 better than the 1D4. The latter seems to have a lot of artifacts, even in RAW (which is all I really use). I keep hoping Canon will see the error in their ways and intro a camera aimed more at commercial shooters than sports, but I suppose that's not to be. Though the 5D3 is a vast improvement over the 5D2, I just don't care for the handling. I suppose I could just bite my tongue and go for the res of the 5D3, but I just KNOW when I do that, they'll finally come out with a 1Dxs or something. (Happened recently when I sold my older 24-70, waited for six months, and finally replaced it, only to have them bring out the 24-70 mark II three weeks later!)

Nemo
Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 783


« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2012, 08:03:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Inuitively, one would think there isn't much difference between 18MP and 21MP, but the difference between 16MP and 21MP (1D4 versus 1Ds3) has been significant in my eyes.

I'd bet that a big part of that is the difference between 1.3 crop and full frame. The 1D X has an advantage there, being full frame and less demanding of lens resolution than the 1D IV (which leads to better MTF/microcontrast).
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2012, 03:48:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I suppose I could just bite my tongue and go for the res of the 5D3, but I just KNOW when I do that, they'll finally come out with a 1Dxs or something.

Then com'on, don't be selfish and buy a 5DIII, that is going to help many people out there!  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2012, 05:05:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Then com'on, don't be selfish and buy a 5DIII, that is going to help many people out there!  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard


OMG - We agree  Grin
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6455


« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2012, 05:55:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Then com'on, don't be selfish and buy a 5DIII, that is going to help many people out there!  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard


That's a brilliant idea!
Logged

Francois
LA30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2012, 10:18:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Slightly off topic here...

What are your thoughts (Josh and Bernard and the rest of you) about the 5dmIII?  I know that the body isn't the same as the 1d series but higher ISO will be much better than what I own now.

I ask because I love my 1DsmIII and I am looking to "upgrade".  I don't shoot in the rain and I am not really rugged with the body but I do like shooting in available light (400-800-1600 iso).  I LOVE the super precision matte screen for my Zeiss manual lenses and I see you CAN'T change the screen in the 5dmIII. 

I am not sure I want to spend that money on a 1DX.

Thanks in advance!!

Ken
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2012, 11:25:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I own the 5D3 and 1DS3 and shoot mostly with Zeiss primes but also Canon 24-105, 70-200 f2.8 IS and 400mm DO.

Image Quality up 800ISO -  I see very little between the cameras. At 3200 the 5D3 has a good edge, perhaps a stop better noise wise. However fine detail takes on a slightly smeared look compared to the 1DS3.

Autofocus, the 5D3 wins hands down. Focus confirmation with my Zeiss primes is better too especially in low light.

The LCD on the 5D3 is great. In a different league to the 1Ds3.

The 5D3 has some nice features compared to the 1DS3 - video, quiet shutter mode, User modes C1,C2,C3 and auto ISO.

Ergonomics - I prefer the pro body of 1DS3.

My 1DS3 is now up for sale.

My biggest disapointment with the 5D3 is the lack of improvement in DR.



Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2012, 05:08:00 AM »
ReplyReply

What are your thoughts (Josh and Bernard and the rest of you) about the 5dmIII?  I know that the body isn't the same as the 1d series but higher ISO will be much better than what I own now.

Sorry, I have not had the chance to shoot with one besides a casual test in a camera store. I cannot provide first hand comments on the image quality aspects.

Overall, the 5DIII seems to me to be an excellent camera and the user reports I have read are very positive, especially those of users coming from the 5DII that seem to appreciate the better AF.

It seems to be a good platform to tap into the potential of the excellent Canon lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2012, 07:02:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Jusr as an FYI for those who may not know, the review at Diglloyd requires a subscrion to the site to read.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad