1Ds versus 1DmkIII

[bart alexander]

Having read a while ago how good the 1Ds was picturewise, when it was the only full frame around and seen some full size pictures then, I'm curious to hear how good the current 1DIII is compared to the old 1Ds. I mean, old 11mp versus new 10mp, shouldn't make that kind of a difference resolutionwise and picturewise. But from what I have seen, the cropped sensor 1DIII still looks like a cropped sensor image factory. Shooting Nikon currently, I'm debating with myself if I should go for a 5d or for a 1DIII. I don't need speed, but I'm seriously impressed with the live view of the 1DIII, I mean a well focussed 10mp is always better than a badly focussed 5D pic, isn't it? From my former Kodak 14n I remember that 3D look, but I haven't seen it yet in the samples of the 5D and 1DIII, is it the aa fliter maybe?
Thanks in advance,
Bart

[nemophoto]

I've owned every 1D model since the original and currently have a Mark III as well as a Mark IIn and a 1Ds2. The 1Ds was a great camera for the time. Though I have not yet shot extensively with the Mark III, based on past experience with the 1Ds and projected experienced (based on the specs of the Mark III), the newer camera should be superior in most respects. The 1Ds started being grainy (noise) at 400. The Mark III is probably the equal at 1600. (I rarely shoot much above 200, and then it's usually only at 400.) The best aspect is that the hi-bit images are based on 14-bit, rather than 12-bit imaging, so you should have better, smoother images less likely to blow out highlights.

Your real question to answer is: Can you live with less that "full-frame"? I suppose you've answered that in a way since you've been using Nikons. I wholly agree with you, regarding the 5D. I just finished a shoot where I had to rent a 5D for a week because the shutter in my 1Ds2 crapped out. I've just finished doing the digital imaging for the shoot, of which a number of images were going up to 8' tall. The 5D images were no better, or only marginally better, than my 1D2n. Though I shot with quality glass (mostly L series), I could not see a increase in quality of the 5D over the 1D, and it was WAY below the images I get from my 1Ds2. Plus I HATED the 5D handling, compared to the 1D. I know some people loved the camera, but after handling the 1D for years, it felt like a cheap toy. (As it is I prefer the old menuing system of the 1D over the new Mark III.)

So, my suggestion, if you don't want to spring for a 1Ds2, go for a Mark III over the 5D, especially if superwide angle is not a factor.

Nemo

[bart alexander]

Thanks Nemo,
You seem to be just the right person to talk to   .
To rephrase my question: where the 1Ds was to be the one and only choice after it was introduced, is it still a better camera than the 1DIII at iso 100/200?
About the 5D, I don't really care how a camera looks like, but I like ergonomics, but most of all image quality is what I'm after. I remember talks where attending photographers were saying the 5D is as good if not better than the 1DsII picturewise. Hard to believe for me where I have only seen pics until now that had a bit of a plastic look to me.
I won't mind the cropped sensor of the 1DIII, since I have heard the viewfinder has been enlarged to the feel of full size finders and live view is something hard to ignore, if only the image quality would hold well against that of the 1Ds.
(Your portfolio looks very good by the way.)
Thanks,
Bart

I've owned every 1D model since the original and currently have a Mark III as well as a Mark IIn and a 1Ds2. The 1Ds was a great camera for the time. Though I have not yet shot extensively with the Mark III, based on past experience with the 1Ds and projected experienced (based on the specs of the Mark III), the newer camera should be superior in most respects. The 1Ds started being grainy (noise) at 400. The Mark III is probably the equal at 1600. (I rarely shoot much above 200, and then it's usually only at 400.) The best aspect is that the hi-bit images are based on 14-bit, rather than 12-bit imaging, so you should have better, smoother images less likely to blow out highlights.

Your real question to answer is: Can you live with less that "full-frame"? I suppose you've answered that in a way since you've been using Nikons. I wholly agree with you, regarding the 5D. I just finished a shoot where I had to rent a 5D for a week because the shutter in my 1Ds2 crapped out. I've just finished doing the digital imaging for the shoot, of which a number of images were going up to 8' tall. The 5D images were no better, or only marginally better, than my 1D2n. Though I shot with quality glass (mostly L series), I could not see a increase in quality of the 5D over the 1D, and it was WAY below the images I get from my 1Ds2. Plus I HATED the 5D handling, compared to the 1D. I know some people loved the camera, but after handling the 1D for years, it felt like a cheap toy. (As it is I prefer the old menuing system of the 1D over the new Mark III.)

So, my suggestion, if you don't want to spring for a 1Ds2, go for a Mark III over the 5D, especially if superwide angle is not a factor.

Nemo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[eronald]

I have 1Ds and 1DsII . The 1DsII is simply not good for people. I had a 1DII, it was worse.

If people here can post images of PERSONS comparing a 1Ds @ ISO 100 and a 1DIII at its native ISO we would know what the state of play is - otherwise I would say that the only thing which will image better inthe studio than a 1Ds is a digital back.

Edmund

[Nill Toulme]

.... The 1DsII is simply not good for people. I had a 1DII, it was worse.
...[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What an extraordinary statement.  Why do you say this?

Nill
~~
[a href=\"http://www.toulme.net]www.toulme.net[/url]

[eronald]

What an extraordinary statement.  Why do you say this?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It was discussed a lot in days gone by; James Russell will confirm. The 1DsII is plasticky on skin, but extraordinary for objects. The 1Ds is a bit noisy over ISO 200 but has a beautiful skin rendering. Clients always chose the 1Ds shots over the 1DsII pix when they saw them side by side, until I stopped using the 1DsII completely for people. As for my 1DII, it was a train wreck and had to be sold. Of course all these cameras were first in their batch - the 1Ds too was not so good initially (noisy) but I had the sensor changed, and it became a beauty.

So, I use the 1DSII for objects and the 1Ds for people, and they are a good combo. I just have to use ultra-fast lenses on the 1Ds for the fashion shows, but the pictures get published.

The 5D units I tested seemd to combine the best of both the 1Ds and 1DsII - good skin tone and low noise. Frankly, I would recommend a 5D to anyone wanting a pro camera. This is with my own custom profiles - without them it doesn't look suite as good in C1.

Edmund

[Ray]

It was discussed a lot in days gone by; James Russell will confirm. The 1DsII is plasticky on skin, but extraordinary for objects. The 1Ds is a bit noisy over ISO 200 but has a beautiful skin rendering. Clients always chose the 1Ds shots over the 1DsII pix when they saw them side by side, until I stopped using the 1DsII completely for people. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This sounds extraordinary to me too. Is there any rational explanation for this, Edmund? I mean, the idea of editing with programs like photoshop and plug-ins, is you can create virtually any effect you want. If you want a really  platicky effect and a skin texture as smooth as a baby's bottom, then aggressive noise reduction in Neat Image will do the trick. If you want more noise or a film grain appearance, or a Velvia appearance with saturated colors, then there's an appropriate filter or plug-in for the job.

Are you by any chance referring only to jpeg shots with in-camera noise reduction and/or removal of compression artifacts?

[jjj]

I use a 5D, the 1D variation are too big for my needs, but something I've noticed from digital imagery is the plasticy skin referred to above and with high end cameras too. Looks a bit video to me - unsurprising as a digital image is just a video still in effect. Horrible.
Though I did see a nifty trick in a C1 the other day that stops skin looking so plasticy. I don't use C1 yet [waitng for v4] so cannnot remember how to do it. But it can be done, so ask around.

[MarkKay]

I would be interested in seeing a comparison of the 1DIII and 1DsII and getting some RAW files using the same lens for some comparisons.  I do not expect the 1DIII to be better at the lower ISOs but would be interested to see.

Having read a while ago how good the 1Ds was picturewise, when it was the only full frame around and seen some full size pictures then, I'm curious to hear how good the current 1DIII is compared to the old 1Ds. I mean, old 11mp versus new 10mp, shouldn't make that kind of a difference resolutionwise and picturewise. But from what I have seen, the cropped sensor 1DIII still looks like a cropped sensor image factory. Shooting Nikon currently, I'm debating with myself if I should go for a 5d or for a 1DIII. I don't need speed, but I'm seriously impressed with the live view of the 1DIII, I mean a well focussed 10mp is always better than a badly focussed 5D pic, isn't it? From my former Kodak 14n I remember that 3D look, but I haven't seen it yet in the samples of the 5D and 1DIII, is it the aa fliter maybe?
Thanks in advance,
Bart
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122788\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

I use a 5D, the 1D variation are too big for my needs, but something I've noticed from digital imagery is the plasticy skin referred to above and with high end cameras too. Looks a bit video to me - unsurprising as a digital image is just a video still in effect. Horrible.
.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Plasticky skin? Have you guys ever thought of getting back to reality?

This is grainy; a recent scan I did of a B&W shot taken 43 years ago with a Pentax Spotmatic.

[attachment=2647:attachment]  [attachment=2648:attachment]

And this is plasticky.

[attachment=2649:attachment]

[eronald]

I mean Raw processed to my abilities. As a color consultant I make judgment calls on renderings. I consulted with expert photographers (I'm more of a tech guy than a photographer) and none of us could find a solution to the 1DsII problem, so I just gave up and regressed to the 1Ds, James Russell sold his 1DsII cameras and moved to a back etc.

For the handful of fashion images I publish every year the 1Ds is more than adequate, although it is now on its third shutter and looks like the mailman's car

So far, what I've seen of the 5D I have liked.

Edmund

This sounds extraordinary to me too. Is there any rational explanation for this, Edmund? I mean, the idea of editing with programs like photoshop and plug-ins, is you can create virtually any effect you want. If you want a really  platicky effect and a skin texture as smooth as a baby's bottom, then aggressive noise reduction in Neat Image will do the trick. If you want more noise or a film grain appearance, or a Velvia appearance with saturated colors, then there's an appropriate filter or plug-in for the job.

Are you by any chance referring only to jpeg shots with in-camera noise reduction and/or removal of compression artifacts?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[macgyver]

I would be interested in seeing a comparison of the 1DIII and 1DsII and getting some RAW files using the same lens for some comparisons.  I do not expect the 1DIII to be better at the lower ISOs but would be interested to see.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Every review I've yet read of the III states that it has the best image quality of any canon DSLR yet, even at low ISOs.  The low ISO part is said to be due to minimal shadow noise and retained detailing.

Hopefully I'll be getting to see some shots with it soon, a friend's should be here within the week.

[MarkKay]

what reviews?

Every review I've yet read of the III states that it has the best image quality of any canon DSLR yet, even at low ISOs.  The low ISO part is said to be due to minimal shadow noise and retained detailing.

Hopefully I'll be getting to see some shots with it soon, a friend's should be here within the week.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[macgyver]

what reviews?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"A final word on image quality Even with the image quality impairments we've identified here, the files from the EOS-1D Mark III are as we described them earlier in the article: the best we've seen from a digital SLR."

[a href=\"http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8738-8908]http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...cid=7-8738-8908[/url]


 "One can also quibble as to whether the Canon 5D has been the best yet (my opinion), but there will be no argument that with the MKIII Canon has now exceeded what has come before, and has set a new benchmark for low noise."

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...III-Field.shtml

As to the second quote I know that noise alone isn't everything, but take the comment in broader context.

I'll post others if I can, but those were the two that first came to mind.

[MarkKay]

There have been some discussions in some of the European magazines that the image quality is not as good as the 1Ds mkII. or 1Ds for that matter.  While there is no doubt the 1DmkIII looks like a decent camera, the reviews you have linked to do not give a side by side test and would really like to see such a comparison before making judgement.

"A final word on image quality Even with the image quality impairments we've identified here, the files from the EOS-1D Mark III are as we described them earlier in the article: the best we've seen from a digital SLR."

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...cid=7-8738-8908
 "One can also quibble as to whether the Canon 5D has been the best yet (my opinion), but there will be no argument that with the MKIII Canon has now exceeded what has come before, and has set a new benchmark for low noise."

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...III-Field.shtml

As to the second quote I know that noise alone isn't everything, but take the comment in broader context.

I'll post others if I can, but those were the two that first came to mind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[macgyver]

True (Where art thou DPReview!?!) but I, personally, tend to take more from reviews by people who have used the gear out in the field on real assignments. I would like to see a structured comparison between the III and the 5D though.

[Ray]

There's no substitute for real comparisons of real images taken with flawless methodology and technique.

When one considers the susrprisingly large variation of lens performance amongst the same lens models and even variation between sensors in the same camera model, then it's absolutely essential to have comparison shots of the same scene taken with impeccable technique, which not only means comparisons using the same lens and exactly the same FoV, but the same lighting, the same focussing, the same exposure and f stop and, of course, tripod, mirror lock-up and remote release.

Before the Rob Galbraith forum closed, I was involved in a lengthy discussion comparing the image quality and resolution of the 5D with that of the 1Ds2. The discussion was heated and polarised with some photographers claiming the 5D actually produced better images. Others claimed there was no significantly relevant difference and Jack Flesher who owned a 1Ds2 but had only borrowed a 5D for a few shots, claimed there were subtletlies in the 1Ds2 images which could only be revealed through expert printing and that such differences could not be revealed on the internet.

As far as I was concerned, the thread was a complete debacle. There were few camparisons of images demonstrated and possibly none that were rigorous. Most arguments seemed to revolve around personal prejudice and bias. The matter was unresolved in my view, and then the thread was subsequently closed for no good reason.

Michael's 'Measuring Megabytes' DVD provided some comparisons between the 5D and 1Ds2 that appeared to indicate that the 1Ds2 was capable of recording slightly finer detail (as one would expect), but those comparisons were also flawed because the focussing was not exactly the same with each camera. (Sorry! Michael    ).

This is the first time that I've come across the claim that the 1Ds2 produces less satisfying skin tones than the 5D. It might well be the case. If it is, then someone please demonstrate it. Put your mouth where your money is.

I want to know if this characeristic, if it exists, is a peculiarity of an uninformed public familiar with grainy film that it is still (subconsciously) using as a reference point, or whether there is a 'real' plasticky effect that this relatively unbiased and particularly objective photographer can discern.

[Jack Flesher]

Funny how memories are so different about recent history...

Ray, if I am recalling the thread over on RG correctly, another poster proved with image crops that the 1Ds2 revealed more detail than the 5D.  I claimed the detail difference shown -- mostly detail in distant trees as I recall -- would be revealed in a GOOD print. I don't recall using the word professional, though I did offer to have anybody stop by my studio and we would do the comparison and make prints on my system. FWIW, nobody took me up on that.  As I recall, you were one of the lone voices that claimed it was an insignificant difference IN YOUR OPINION.  Micheal, Bill and Charlie showed it again in their mega-comparison, but again in your opinion they failed.  In my opinion they did a stellar job with as near to ideal capture conditions as possible. So I do agree with you when you claim "most arguments seemed to revolve around personal prejudice and bias" ...
~~~

Now that that's out of the way, back to the topics at hand.  First, I've never heard of the skin-tone issue either and never had them with my 1Ds2 -- sounds like processing issues Edmund.  Color was not as good out of the box for skin unless you had a good profile or calibration, but that is a separate factor.  As for direct comparisons, Uwe and I did an INFORMAL shoot with the 5D, 1D3 and new Fuji.  You can DL the raw files and process to your heart's content here: http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipm.../1d3_5D_S5.html.  The image on the 5D is slightly larger as is the sensor, so this required us to use a different zoom setting on the 24-105 with each camera, a choice of lens and usage factor that will eliminate the comparison as flawed from the purists in the group, so if this is you, read no further...  

My short conclusion regarding the 1D3 and 5D is that they are essentially equal as respects image detail. With my current processing which is refined and includes a custom calibration for the 5D, and not at all practiced with the 1D3, the 5D showed more shadow detail.  IMO with perfected processing, each is essentially going to be the same on detail, color and DR.  Live view is a very cool feature -- with the magnification, you can live focus on the LCD just like a view camera.  The added benefit is the mirror is already up for taking the image -- so yes, we finally have one-button mirror up, though indirectly.  Speed is stunning, and practically a joke for my limited needs, but sports shooters are sure to relish it -- it is essentially 10MP-per-frame movie capture.  The 5D is lighter and smaller than the 1D3, though the 1D3 is notably lighter than previous 1 cameras. Ergos are great with either if you are used to and already like Canon ergos.  The 1D3 has added some bracketing refinements, so now it's easier to shoot a series for HDR blending with a single shutter press, another nifty feature.  Individual lens autofocus calibration is a huge new feature, and the promise of no more sensor dust could be huge if it really works.  Personally, I don't need the speed, don't have to have live preview and am not bothered by having to manually execute a series of exposures when I need an HDR set, AND my 5D's are already paid for, so for now I see little reason for me to upgrade.  If I were buying new, the 1D3 would probably get the nod for its added features and 1-series durability.  

Cheers,

[Ray]

Funny how memories are so different about recent history...

Ray, if I am recalling the thread over on RG correctly, another poster proved with image crops that the 1Ds2 revealed more detail than the 5D.  I claimed the detail difference shown -- mostly detail in distant trees as I recall -- would be revealed in a GOOD print. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack,
The extra detail in the distant trees appeared in some other sample images on LL in the very thread where I pointed out the focussing discrepancies in relation to the 'measuring megabytes' tests.

I have no argument that the 1Ds2 can provide more detail than the 5D. The issue revolves around the relevance of that difference and the apparent reluctance or incapacity of seasoned photographers to demonstrate such differences.

[Jack Flesher]

I have no argument that the 1Ds2 can provide more detail than the 5D.

Okay,  so we agree and can let this one go...

The issue revolves around the relevance of that difference...

Agreed.  And I'll add that "relevance" is in the eye of the beholder...

...and the apparent reluctance or incapacity of seasoned photographers to demonstrate such differences.

If you are referring to me, I offered a direct print comparison and nobody took me up on it, so any "reluctance or incapacity" was not on my end...  

Cheers,