Topic: 1DsMk3 sample (Read 6242 times)

uaiomex · « **on:** August 21, 2007, 01:25:57 am »

I found this link at spanish site caborian.com.
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/1dsmk3/sa...3_sample-j.html

It takes forever to download.
The only part in focus is her right eye.

Eduardo

[attachment=3058:attachment][attachment=3059:attachment]

phila · « **Reply #1 on:** August 21, 2007, 01:46:00 am »

Quote

I found this link at spanish site caborian.com.
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/1dsmk3/sa...3_sample-j.html

It takes forever to download.
The only part in focus is her right eye.

Eduardo

[attachment=3058:attachment][attachment=3059:attachment]
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Given it was taken at f1.8 that's not surprising!

[a href=\"http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/eos1dsm3_sample-e.html]http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/...3_sample-e.html[/url]

Christopher · « **Reply #2 on:** August 21, 2007, 05:29:57 am »

Quote

Given it was taken at f1.8 that's not surprising!

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/...3_sample-e.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Isi it just me, or are these colours absolutly amazing. Yes I know you can't tell from only one image, but what I see there is nice. Really would like to see more.

Graeme Nattress · « **Reply #3 on:** August 21, 2007, 09:58:43 am »

There are, what looks like to me, a lot of lens issues in the colour fringing I see on the pearls. I've seen this also in the 85mm L wide open.

madmanchan · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2007, 10:11:36 am »

FYI, this is a phenomenon known as lateral chromatic aberration (explained in Canon's red book on their EF lens system) and shows up in many of their lenses when used near maximum aperture. It often manifests as green and/or magenta fringing near areas of contrast. Unlike axial chromatic aberration, the issue is not limited to the corners of the image, as this sample image demonstrates.

wilburdl · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2007, 11:35:47 am »

Just like photographers to examine for fringing

Mark_Tucker · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2007, 11:37:43 am »

I use the 85 1.2 about as much as anyone, but when you bring out a 21MP new camera, and you want to show the resolution and the detail, it does make you question the marketing guy that said, "Uh, why don't we show the very first sample shot at f1.8, so that there's about an inch of depth of field that's actually in focus, and then let's just let the rest of it go to muck".

But then again, lots of things make me question Canon, related to this camera.

BJL · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2007, 04:23:17 pm »

Quote

Just like photographers to examine for fringing
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes: pity the poor pixel peepers now that they have over twenty million of them to examine one by one for perfection!

Ken R · « **Reply #8 on:** August 21, 2007, 04:39:38 pm »

Sample looks very very nice. Looking at her eye I think they used a 2 tube kino-flo flourescent light alingned vertically for this image. Those fixtures and not too bright, explains why they used f1.8 and man it looks very clean. With strobes the files must be trully stunning.

Glad I didnt buy into MF Digital... very glad...

jonstewart · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2007, 05:35:40 pm »

Quote

Glad I didnt buy into MF Digital... very glad...

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134628\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry, why? I don't follow your logic here?

djgarcia · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2007, 05:56:05 pm »

Take your pick

A - Expensive, overkill solution for his sitch
B - Too heavy, and he doesn't work out anymore
C - He's got a bunch of Leica lenses he wants to use
D - He's not planning on doing any more shooting
E - I have no idea what he's thinking

vgogolak · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2007, 06:05:38 pm »

well, i for one am glad I did buy into MF.
No special light, rainy day, only C1 raw to tiff

Ken R · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2007, 06:16:52 pm »

For the market I work in spending $30,000-$40,000 on a MFDB system is not worth it. It only would be (forcefully) if DSLRs hadnt advanced to the point they are today, well at least Canon DSLRs.

Naturally a 39mp back coupled to a H series hasselblad is the best digital camera by far for general use (the betterlight beats it but obviously is stricly a studio camera with inanimate objects and continuous lighting). But the Canon 1Ds mk3 basically makes the 20 something and less MFDBs and the Mamiya ZD camera obsolete. UNLESS those can be had for equal or less money...

It would be nice if hasselblad offered a H3D-22 for around $10k, now that wouldbe nice...

mcfoto · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2007, 07:33:18 pm »

Quote

For the market I work in spending $30,000-$40,000 on a MFDB system is not worth it. It only would be (forcefully) if DSLRs hadnt advanced to the point they are today, well at least Canon DSLRs.

Naturally a 39mp back coupled to a H series hasselblad is the best digital camera by far for general use (the betterlight beats it but obviously is stricly a studio camera with inanimate objects and continuous lighting). But the Canon 1Ds mk3 basically makes the 20 something and less MFDBs and the Mamiya ZD camera obsolete. UNLESS those can be had for equal or less money...

It would be nice if hasselblad offered a H3D-22 for around $10k, now that wouldbe nice...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134654\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
I looked at the sample image has a smooth quality, very nice. When I get my 1Ds MKIII camera in a few months I will compare it to my ZD. I feel that at iso 50-100 the ZD will produce a better file. My reason is the chip is 37x48 in size. So I don't think the 22mp backs will be obsolete. And from what I could tell from this sample a MFD 22 mp file would have more detail. But I can't wait to get this new camera!!!
Denis

KenRexach · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2007, 08:22:09 pm »

Quote

Hi
I looked at the sample image has a smooth quality, very nice. When I get my 1Ds MKIII camera in a few months I will compare it to my ZD. I feel that at iso 50-100 the ZD will produce a better file. My reason is the chip is 37x48 in size. So I don't think the 22mp backs will be obsolete. And from what I could tell from this sample a MFD 22 mp file would have more detail. But I can't wait to get this new camera!!!
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Generally that would be true BUT Canon is the exception since they design / produce their own sensors along with their cameras and lenses and per pixel quality is superb even if the pixels are sub 7 microns. Everyone else ,specially MFDB mfgs, depends on basically 3 sensor manufacturers (Sony for DSLRs, Dalsa and Kodak for MFDBs primarily) and incorporate the chips into their platform and all that entails. The newer Canons have outstanding dynamic range which translates to clean shadows and superb highlight recovery + great per pixel detail. Couple that to a custom camera profile for consistent and more accurate color and its a very reliable system.

Ive handled RAW files from the ZD and they are nice so im looking forward to a comparison with the 1dsmk3, I saw a comparo with a 5D and the 5D didnt fare too bad even though it has just a tad more than half the MP...and is a 12bit device not 14bit.

RobertJ · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2007, 12:18:20 am »

Canon's sample files shouldn't really be judged. This one is shot at f/1.8, and although when I opened the file, I said, "Hmm...pretty nice!", I feel the real test will be taking a portrait RAW file into C1 from a 100mm macro at optimum apertures, or a closeup from the 50mm compact macro.
Mmm, tasty.

nicolaasdb · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2007, 02:26:53 am »

talk what you want about file quality....in the end after post production it all depends on how good your light setup was and how good your makeup/hair artist was......and....how your retoucher did his job!!

Color/sharpness/depth of field.... unless you are a product photographer or something else very technical....we are splitting hairs!! If your image sucks it will suck with a 1million dollar camera.

I have a ds1markII ...love it! great camera...but ofcourse i had to have an medium format digital back...did it make my life any better or easier?? NOT AT ALL!! medium format backs are slow and the focussing sucks!! files sizes are tooo big and you almost never use all that info anyways and instead of shooting 35GB per day now I am shooting 95GB per day!!

I shot leaf and phase and ofcourse my canon ds1 and the files are VERY VERY close in quality....yes there are differences but are they worth 20K to 40K??? I think NOT!! and still I bought a Leaf back ....so I can show the clients how successful I am, but they really do not know nor understand the difference (even when they pretend they do!) and after editing retouching and getting the images ready for print (magazine/billboard etc) nobody can tell the difference!!

It is all smoke and mirrors...and yes I will buy the new canon ds1 mkIII....not because I need it, but because I can and love new gadgets!!! Long live the the marketeers and there amazing talent of creating needs for things you don't really need!!

Can't wait for the new canon to come out......and reduce my taxable income!!LOL

Author Topic: 1DsMk3 sample (Read 6242 times)

Mark_Tucker