1Ds versus 1DmkIII

[bart alexander]

I think the issue here, Jani, is that the closer the test target the greater will be the significance of any degree of misfocussing. Focussing at infinity using autofocus is probably going to allow greater accuracy with less hassle.

On the other hand, distant objects are not necessarily good targets for comparing resolution, due to often lower contrast.

Another issue which might complicate matters is the fact, apparently, that all lenses do not necessarily exhibit equal performance at all focussed distances. Lens 'A' might be betterthan lens 'B' at infinity whereas lens 'B' might be better than lens 'A' at a close distance of 2-3 metres, at the same f stop.

Having tested a few of my own lenses, I'm acutely aware that the slightest degree of misfocussing can ruin the results, particularly at wide apertures. For this reason I prefer to use test charts with progressively narrower lines and manually focus if necessary. On some part of the chart, and at an appropriate distance from the chart, the lines will be spaced so that they will cause aliasing and color aberrations which are clearly visible through the viewfinder.

When these artifact are at their most obvious, this represents the most accurate focussing I know of. Turn the focussing ring by the slightest degree and you can see such colorful aberrations diminish and/or disappear entirely.

It's also interesting that sometimes when using autofocus on such a chart (Norman Koren's is ideal) the autofocus will appear to be 'spot on' the first time the shutter is half depressed, slightly off-focus the second time and back on focus the third time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed, shooting at a fixed focuspoint on the lens gives greater accuracy and less hassle. If one doesn't wait for several hours (?) to mount the lens on both of the two camera bodies, chances that the focus will be exactly the same, are at least very high. The second reason to use infinity is because most lenses are made to work best at infinity. But even mounting a cheap close-up lens upon the used lens wouldn't ruin the test, since the test isn't about testing the lens, but the bodies/ sensors. Such a test could show which one of the sensors shows the most crisp pixel/picture without sharpening, and if the 10mp sensor will yield as much resolution and crispness if uprezzed to 12mp. Personally I think not, but who knows. Until now I haven't seen this happen yet. At least, with the same brand. I know of many D200 users stating it yields the same detail as a D2X, but if you read through the tests and look at what you are actually seeing, 12mp will give you a visible advantage over 10mp. Obviously this won't be seen in print at double truck size, but it will if enlarged for advertising purposes.
From what I have seen, a 5D 12mp does show some more resolution than a D2X 12mp both with the right lenses. But it's little, about as little as the difference between 1DIII and 5D. This means that unhappy D2X users could easily choose for the 1DIII and keep their current resolution, that is, if the camera focusses equally well  

[jani]

Indeed, shooting at a fixed focuspoint on the lens gives greater accuracy and less hassle. If one doesn't wait for several hours (?) to mount the lens on both of the two camera bodies, chances that the focus will be exactly the same, are at least very high.

That is unless you need to perform microadjustments to the focus of the camera, because of sample variation ...

And how can you know that without checking the focus manually, anyway?

[Conner999]

These debates, while informative to a degree, are akin to arguing over whether one woman, painting,photo or exotic car is more of less beautiful than the other. Beauty, the 'ideal' skin tone ( 'ideal' or photo-realistic?), etc are all in the eye of the artist/client.

The best bet is, ideally, is to see/take side-x-side ISO Y shots from each body, same lens, etc etc (good luck) and then make up your own mind which one you like best -- or best suits the desires of  your client(s).

That being said, the 'strength' of an AA filter will have an effect on the degree of skin detail and subtle shade differences recorded.

Personally I think AA filters have been made far, far too robust of late. I mean, just how big an issue is moire going to be for 9/10ths of us? I feel like having a bumper sticker made up that reads "USM sucks".

Also, don't kid yourself.  The greater a camera's noise-free ISO capability, the greater the in-camera signal manipulation that is done to produce those images -- manipulation you have NO control over aside from the ISO selection.  Sometimes that manipulation makes an image, sometimes it breaks it, sometimes you just need to live with it.  

In short, until they come up with a low-cost (telephoto-capable) camera system that ideally replicates the human eye and our in-brain image processing capabilties, photography will remain an art of compromises. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

[jani]

In short, until they come up with a low-cost (telephoto-capable) camera system that ideally replicates the human eye and our in-brain image processing capabilties, photography will remain an art of compromises.

I think you have over-estimated the qualities and capabilities of the human perceptive system.

The following quip applies equally well to that:

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

[Ray]

That being said, the 'strength' of an AA filter will have an effect on the degree of skin detail and subtle shade differences recorded.

Personally I think AA filters have been made far, far too robust of late. I mean, just how big an issue is moire going to be for 9/10ths of us? I feel like having a bumper sticker made up that reads "USM sucks".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124343\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can find no rational explanation for the perception that skin tones look more plasticky with the 1Ds2. It's been established that the 1Ds2 provides marginally more detail than the 5D. That marginally greater detail should also apply to human skin or any texture whether animate or inanimate.

Perhaps there's some reaction between certain brands of female make-up lotions and the 1Ds2 AA filter   .

Moire is more of an issue for those who use high quality primes at their sharpest apertures. Landscape shots at f11 and f16 are less of a problem.

[nemophoto]

Wow! A lot of discussion since I've been away. But I have to say, I am so totally and thoroughly speechless by the comment that "The 1Ds2 and 1D2 are not good for people". I guess I'll have to throw away three years worth of images for clients.

That is truly the craziest thing I've ever heard Plastic people? Edmund, perhaps you are responding to the smoothness of tone and lack of grain. The only Canon I've owned that was a bit of a challenge rendering good skin tones was the original 1D. Even the 1Ds could be tough, because, in many ways, it has a lot less latitude for error that the Mark II and Mark III series. To me, it's all in the quality of the RAW pocessor and the "operator" of the software. If anything, the 1Ds2 often has "too much" detail on someone's skin. I find I usually have to retouch most of the pores, lines etc. It's almost like shooting someone with Velvia versus Provia. Less detail is often more flattering on people.

As for the 1Ds2 "providing marginally more detail" than a 5D. . . try A LOT more detail. I just finished doing work on images that were enlarged to 30" on the longest side, 400dpi, cropped, from the 5D. I've had to do similar things with 1Ds2 images. I found the 5D images wanting and falling apart long before my 1Ds2 images have under similar circumstances. If you check out the DPReview on the 5D, you'll find a healthy increase in resolution of the 1Ds2 over the 5D. Moire is a huge issue when you shoot fashion. It's one reason many fashion clients held out with film for so long. I think Canon answered with the stronger AA filter. If you look at the resolution charts, an older 1Ds actually almost out-resolves the 5D, but with moire at the extinction.

Basically, the cameras are designed for different markets. Give me any 1Dxxx over anything else, any day.

Nemo

[Ray]

As for the 1Ds2 "providing marginally more detail" than a 5D. . . try A LOT more detail. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since I don't own a 1Ds2, all my comments on the differences between the 5D and the 1Ds2 result from images posted on the net and comments from people who own both cameras.

I got the impression from highly enlarged images on my monitor from Michael's "Measuring Megabytes' DVD and other images from the net, which represent really huge prints, greater than 30", that the differences were marginal.

If you disagree, show me some 100% (or even 200%) comparison crops that are easily downloadable.

[SDC]

For anyone who is interested, I downloaded Jack and Uwe's 5D and 1DMK3 raw files, processed them in DPP, then upressed each to 24 by 36 and printed a similar crop from the files.  Peering at the prints from inside a foot, the 5D print clearly shows more detail to my eye, also reflecting the difference I saw onscreen.  From normal viewing distance, the detail difference between the two prints is neglible or non existent.  The colour looked quite close, but to my eyes, the 1DMK3 is slightly richer with greater depth, probably a result of the 14 bit vs 12 bit.

[MarkKay]

I owned both cameras, the 5D and 1Dsmk2 (just sold the later).  In my opinon at low isos (e.g. 100)  the 1Dsmk2 gives slightly  more detail when the comparisons are done with a decent lens and careful shooting on a tripod  but honestly there was not a huge difference.  The 5D starts to shine at higher ISOs. So for 35mm sized sensors, i still think the 1Dsmk2 is king for resolution potential when shooting at the low isos.  How much real world difference this makes is subjective.

Since I don't own a 1Ds2, all my comments on the differences between the 5D and the 1Ds2 result from images posted on the net and comments from people who own both cameras.

I got the impression from highly enlarged images on my monitor from Michael's "Measuring Megabytes' DVD and other images from the net, which represent really huge prints, greater than 30", that the differences were marginal.

If you disagree, show me some 100% (or even 200%) comparison crops that are easily downloadable.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=124619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[daniel voges]

Looks like there are significant  focusing problems on the 1DMIII:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-8740-9006

[bart alexander]

Okay,  so we agree and can let this one go...
Agreed.  And I'll add that "relevance" is in the eye of the beholder...
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,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This thread has been very helpful to me. The 1DIII is a sensation, no doubt about that, but since speed is not important to me, a 5D would be the way to go. But I do like the live view and enlarged viewfinder and AF adjustments of the 1DIII. So now I'm going to wait and see if a 5DII will show it's face soon, but if it takes too long, a 5D is still a sensation on it's own.

Kind regards,
Bart