Rob Galbraith 1D Mark III First Look

[Christopher]

Thanks, had forgotten about that test. To my eyes the difference between the 11 and 16MP Canons is largely academic and only obvious when pixel-peeping. This is especially so in the field - this shoot is obviously the absolute best-case scenario. It certainly doesn't come even close to the environment I shoot in (available light and/or handheld).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know how you shoot or what, but I know that I see a difference between my 5D and 1DsMk2. It always depend on what you want to do with the files, certainly when printing A4 or A3s the difference isn't that big, but go to 24" by 30" or 30" by 40" and you will see a difference. Always as starting point you do it right and use the right stuff.

I really wish for a 24MP camera, with low loise, shooting speed is not important. And more DM is also very welcomend.

[wilburdl]

I wonder if 20MP brings any real detail advantage over 8-12MP with 35mm format lenses. Last time I was seriously concerned about megapixels (5 years ago) I did quite a bit of reading on the subject and came to the layman's conclusion that 8MP is enough to bring out all useful detail in the vast majority of real-life situations - ie. real subjects, available light, no tripod, non-controlled environment. Therefore I waited until an 8MP dSLR became reasonably priced, and 30D was just that.

I'm sure studio or tripodded landscape photographers can get more than that out of the finest SLR glass, but just how much? 12MP? 20MP? 30MP?

I would much prefer to get more shadow detail out of my 30D. I shoot a lot of long exposures (30+ seconds) in low light, and bracketing and digital blending is a must if I want to get good results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114061\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You don't need a tripod or a studio to see real world differences between a 8MP and 16MP file. I have the 1DsII and 20D and there is a world of detail in the former that's not present in the latter. Shooting editorial--I always can pick out the lower resolution image--and we're talking full page (a4).

[djgarcia]

Thanks, had forgotten about that test. To my eyes the difference between the 11 and 16MP Canons is largely academic and only obvious when pixel-peeping.

If you shoot with little light, handheld and at ISO 6200, sure. If you shoot landscapes with Leica or Zeiss glass, on a tripod, ISO 100 and print a 17x24 image, I'll take the "academic" 22MP over 11MP any day. I'll even pay $Ks for it. OK, call me a fool .

[macgyver]

I don't think a discussion over this sort of thing will go anywhere.  This is a landscape site and the majority of users feel a certain way.  Now go over to sportsshooter...

I shoot editorial and while I enjoy the resulotion of a 5D or something larger than your average dslr I would rather see DR, shadow resolution/noise, etc first.  But, that's because I shoot a certain way, as does everyone.

[Ben Rubinstein]

On the other hand, for shooters who stitch landscape, the difference in megapixels may be less important, an extra few frames won't be too much trouble and stitching time won't be effected due to the smaller files.

That said the same argument would apply to the current 1D mkIIN, at iso 100 and for landscape work the advantages of this camera are not that many unless the 14 bit shows a big difference in RAW.

[MarkKay]

There are more differences than pixels when comparing the 20D and 1Dsmk2

You don't need a tripod or a studio to see real world differences between a 8MP and 16MP file. I have the 1DsII and 20D and there is a world of detail in the former that's not present in the latter. Shooting editorial--I always can pick out the lower resolution image--and we're talking full page (a4).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[djgarcia]

I don't think a discussion over this sort of thing will go anywhere.  This is a landscape site and the majority of users feel a certain way.  Now go over to sportsshooter...

I think these discussions never mean to go anywhere, but they do provide some entertainment value, and occasionally even some bit of information .

But what you said is absolutely true, select the right tool for the particular job and approach used.

[wilburdl]

There are more differences than pixels when comparing the 20D and 1Dsmk2
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not really. The images  shot in the exact same lighting scheme produce similar images. It's how much detail that resolved that really shows the difference.

[ARCASWISS]

Soon this amazing new camera will be as forgotten about as the highly touted Leice M8 which has all but vanished from these discussions.  Unless of course it turns out better than the Leice...maybe it wont have that dreaded purple cast which so many people paid $5,000 for.

[djgarcia]

Hey, I've forgotten about Arca Swiss cameras, but that doesn't prevent you from capturing great images  ...

The Canon 1D series can be considered mainstream top-of-the-line, while the M is more of a nitch camera, so I'd say it should have more staying power. But who knows?

[Ray]

There's a law of diminishing returns at work as you increase pixel count. It's quite clear to me that the 12.7mp of the 5D produce a noticeably more detailed image than the 8.2mp of the 20D, assuming same FoV.

It's also clear that the 20D with same lens, same f stop and same shooting position produces a more detailed image than the 5D when the image is cropped to the same FoV as the 20D.

The conclusion is that a 20-22mp upgrade to the 5D would be worthwhile. I would be very doubtful about an upgrade from 12.7mp to 16.7mp simply because so much argument has resulted from camparisons between the 5D and 1Ds2. Ultimately, those who claim that the 1Ds2 produces more detail are correct, if you make a print large enough, but the very fact that there has been so much disputation about it is a clear indication that the differences are subtle.

Generally, I would say the greater the pixel count, the greater the increase needed to get a worthwhile improvement in detail.

[Ken R]

In a studio environment (low iso) with prime lenses at optimum appertures and good strobe lights  the 1Ds mk2 produces more detail than the 5D, Ive seen it and have zero doubts about this, it isnt a huge diff but its there.

The problem is, even with the 5D you start requiring the use of the best Canon glass at optimum appertures to see the full potential of the camera. Naturally with the 1Ds mk2 is an absolute must. With 22mp 1Ds mk3 you start being close to the limit of the best canon glass at optimum apertures.

Naturally there are other factors like the body itself (features), and other IQ characteristics like noise, dynamic range, smoothness etc

[Ray]

The problem is, even with the 5D you start requiring the use of the best Canon glass at optimum appertures to see the full potential of the camera. Naturally with the 1Ds mk2 is an absolute must. With 22mp 1Ds mk3 you start being close to the limit of the best canon glass at optimum apertures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Where's the evidence for this? If you are talking about performance near the edges of the frame or performance at full aperture, then I agree. Most lenses are not good enough for any FF sensor whatever the pixel count. However, within an image circle of around 30 to 36mm diameter, not even a 22mp FF sensor will do justice to even a moderately good lens.

The following 200% crops compare resolution at f8 of 4 different lenses, moving clockwise from top left, the Canon 24-105 IS zoom at 50mm, the TS-E 24mm, the supposedly very fine Canon 50/1.4 and the el cheapo Canon 50/1.8.

The camera used was the Canon 8.2mp 20D, which is effectively a 22mp full frame sensor cropped.

There are qualitive differences in the structure of some of the lines. To my eyes the cheapest lens in this test produces perhaps the cleanest result. At least the more expensive 50/1.4 doesn't appear to have any advantage at f8, compared with the 50/1.8.

However, as regards sheer resolving power, they seem all about equal to me.

[attachment=2400:attachment]

[Ken R]

Yes I was talkig across the frame of a full frame, not the reduced area of the image circle the smaller sensor uses. But its still close to the limit. To prove this you need a trully extensive and expensive test. There are many factors including sample lens variations between even "identical" lenses.

[Ray]

Yes I was talkig across the frame of a full frame, not the reduced area of the image circle the smaller sensor uses. But its still close to the limit. To prove this you need a trully extensive and expensive test. There are many factors including sample lens variations between even "identical" lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114975\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But I haven't used identical lenses. They are all different, with Photodo test results ranging from just 3.3 for the TS- 24 to 4.4 for the 50/1.4, yet they all show remarkably similar absolute resolution, though it's quite clear the 50mm primes are displaying better quality lines, straighter and neater etc.

What's perhaps even more remarkable is that the situation doesn't change much at f16, except it's now clear the 50mm primes resolve just a few more lines than the other two lenses, perhaps half a dozen or so, and the quality of the lines from the other two lenses hasn't improved by stopping down. Who said all lenses are equal at f16?  

These relatively small differences between f8 and f16 seem to imply to me that a 22mp FF sensor is not nearly sufficient to get the best out of current high quality prime lenses at their sharpest aperture. Even though no 35mm lens is quite diffraction limited at f8, the better lenses should be able to resolve considerably more than an extra 6 lines at f8 than at f16.

The black spot is approx 10mm from the centre. The 50/1.4 that Photodo tested has a fairly flat MTF response at 40 lp/mm out to 18mm from the centre.

[attachment=2403:attachment]