1Ds3 focus issues

[Jonathan Wienke]

Jonathon,

Have you ever actually made an 8000 spi scan on a hi-end drum scanner? Your comparisons are reallly just comparing your digital cameras to whatever scanner you had available and really just showing what a low or medium end scanner is.

I don't have a drum scanner, and I have no plans to buy one. But Michael did a comparison between the 1Ds and drum scanned 6x7, and the differences were pretty minimal. So unless you have a head-to-head comparison between 35mm film and digital to back up your assertion, I'm calling BS.

[203]

I don't have a drum scanner, and I have no plans to buy one. But Michael did a comparison between the 1Ds and drum scanned 6x7, and the differences were pretty minimal. So unless you have a head-to-head comparison between 35mm film and digital to back up your assertion, I'm calling BS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let's give it a rest Jonathan. If you want to discuss film vs. digital, please start another thread, or read some of the other 4 million threads on the web about that topic, OK?

In the mean time, I think it would be great if ONLY those who have some experience shooting with the 1Ds3 would give their opinion/experience here...thanks.

[John S C]

As a result of this thread went out and tested my 24-105 and the 100-400 zoom to see how they faired on my new 1Dslll.

No problem with either, however the ability to trim the focus point, if needed, is useful.

[Gary Yeowell]

Let's give it a rest Jonathan. If you want to discuss film vs. digital, please start another thread, or read some of the other 4 million threads on the web about that topic, OK?

In the mean time, I think it would be great if ONLY those who have some experience shooting with the 1Ds3 would give their opinion/experience here...thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Here here!! Jonathon is very good at stating facts as reported by other photographers without actually having any first hand experience, then reporting like some kind of a guru about how he's shot 200,000 images on whatever camera like that gives him authority status. Let's wait to see what he has to say when/if he buys a 1DS3, and if he gets a properly functioning one. As for the film/ digital debate, don't get me started, i would toss all this digital shit in the bin and go back to shooting 6x7 and 4x5 colour neg if economics would allow, simple as that.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Here here!! Jonathon is very good at stating facts as reported by other photographers without actually having any first hand experience, then reporting like some kind of a guru about how he's shot 200,000 images on whatever camera like that gives him authority status.

Bullshit. I did do my own comparisons between my 1Ds and scanned 35mm film using the same lens and subject, and the 1Ds was clearly superior. I do have some first-hand experience in this area. And Michael is hardly a neophyte when it comes to photography. If you dispute his conclusions in Michael's comparison I linked to, what are the grounds? What were the flaws in his methodology?

If film is so obviously superior, it should be a simple matter to post your own comparisons similar to the one Michael did and demonstrate the validity of your claims. I haven't ever seen a head-to-head comparison between 35mm film and 35mm digital with real-world subject matter that demonstrated any sort of superiority for for film. If there is one out there, I'd like to see it. Put up or shut up.

[Gary Yeowell]

Bullshit. I did do my own comparisons between my 1Ds and scanned 35mm film using the same lens and subject, and the 1Ds was clearly superior. I do have some first-hand experience in this area. And Michael is hardly a neophyte when it comes to photography. If you dispute his conclusions in Michael's comparison I linked to, what are the grounds? What were the flaws in his methodology?

If film is so obviously superior, it should be a simple matter to post your own comparisons similar to the one Michael did and demonstrate the validity of your claims. I haven't ever seen a head-to-head comparison between 35mm film and 35mm digital with real-world subject matter that demonstrated any sort of superiority for for film. If there is one out there, I'd like to see it. Put up or shut up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=179627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Keep your helmet on!

I was talking about your Zero first hand experience of the 1DS3, nothing to do with film so shut up yourself.

[pfigen]

"Bullshit. I did do my own comparisons between my 1Ds and scanned 35mm film using the same lens and subject, and the 1Ds was clearly superior. I do have some first-hand experience in this area. And Michael is hardly a neophyte when it comes to photography. If you dispute his conclusions in Michael's comparison I linked to, what are the grounds? What were the flaws in his methodology?"

Yeah, we know you did your own comparisons, but you were using a crappy scanner, so your conclusions were only as good as your hardware. Also don't know what your were using in the way of lenses either. As far as the test you refer to, it was not done on a drum scanner, it was on an Imacon - a scanner that simply does not meet its published specs either in density range or resolution. If it's hitting a real 2400 whiile scanning at 3200, I'd be surprised, plus the focus issues they have to boot. Again, what is your actual first hand experience here. I own two of my own Howtekl drum scanners, one of which can hit real world numbers in the 7000+ resoluition and still can't record everything I can see on a Velvia slide with a lo-power scope.

"If film is so obviously superior, it should be a simple matter to post your own comparisons similar to the one Michael did and demonstrate the validity of your claims. I haven't ever seen a head-to-head comparison between 35mm film and 35mm digital with real-world subject matter that demonstrated any sort of superiority for for film. If there is one out there, I'd like to see it. Put up or shut up."

Oh Jonathon, quit your whining. You've missed the point entirely here. No one ever said film was superior in real world resolution to a 1DsMK3. In fact more than one of us pretty much said the same thing if you care to re-read the posts. You're the one who claimed that film was no better than, what did you say - a 3-5 mp capture.  So please, until you get yourself a 1DsMK3 with some known premium lenses and have access to a true high end scanner for whatever comparsons you might want, you might want to sit on the sidelines and listen. If you want to live in your ignorant bliss, fine, but keep it to yourself.

[Jonathan Wienke]

As far as the test you refer to, it was not done on a drum scanner, it was on an Imacon - a scanner that simply does not meet its published specs either in density range or resolution. If it's hitting a real 2400 whiile scanning at 3200, I'd be surprised, plus the focus issues they have to boot. Again, what is your actual first hand experience here. I own two of my own Howtekl drum scanners, one of which can hit real world numbers in the 7000+ resoluition and still can't record everything I can see on a Velvia slide with a lo-power scope.

Go back and re-read the page, paying close attention to the last comparison at the bottom of the page. There is a 3-way comparison between the 1Ds, the Imacon scan, and a drum scan made by an Isomet 405 HR drum scanner at 5334 PPI. The 6x7 drum scan matches, but is not significantly better than, the 1Ds capture.

As to my real-world experience, I have looked at hundreds of prints from many photographers who shoot 35mm film, ranging from full-time professional to rank amateur, printed both digitally (scanned with a variety of equipment) and optically in a variety of sizes up to 24x36 inches. And over the last 10 years or so, I have never seen a print from 35mm film that can match or beat the output from the 1Ds with regard to resolution. In every case it has been immediately obvious which print came from film and which was digital, and the digital was superior.

If you have any comparisons of your own to support your claims, I'll be happy to look at them and offer a retraction if warranted, but so far I have never seen one shred of credible evidence that film can match the image quality of digital of the same format.

[Mark D Segal]

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/93551021/original

The rest of the post is here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...thread=26985923

Looks like the 1Ds3 has some focus issues of its own. Must the new cameras be manually calibrated for every lens used?!?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"203", just because a couple of reviews indicate a specific owner has a specific problem, it doesn't necessary point to a generic defect of the camera model. If you are looking for a canvas of experience from 1Ds3 owners, I have made about 2000 captures with mine since I received it at the end of November and I am fully satisfied with its focus accuracy using all three high quality Canon zooms I own. It can focus almost in the dark; it is accurate at both short and long distance focusing tasks.

Given the very high resolution of this sensor it will be very unforgiving of inferior quality lenses. One also needs to be mindful of the conditions in which people observe "defects". For example, from things I read, it could be that there is an Airy disk issue affecting the resolution of images made at excessively small apertures relative to the sensor resolution (the Cambridgeincolour website has considerable material on this subject).

[203]

We'll see I guess. Hopefully the one I just ordered ($6,884.99!) will work better than the first one I tried.

[pfigen]

"Go back and re-read the page, paying close attention to the last comparison at the bottom of the page. There is a 3-way comparison between the 1Ds, the Imacon scan, and a drum scan made by an Isomet 405 HR drum scanner at 5334 PPI. The 6x7 drum scan matches, but is not significantly better than, the 1Ds capture."

Yeah, you're right, there was a drum scan involved and it was better than the Imacon, but there are drum scanner and then there are drum scanners. There's more to drum scanning resolution than just a claimed dpi. You need to know the aperture used in the scan. You know, for instance, that the much revered Heidelberg Primescan has a minimum aperture of 10 microns, giving a hardware max of 2540, no matter what is claimed. The Isomet is not a scanner I've ever seen or used and have no idea what it's true specs are. There are only two scanners I know of that use a true 3 micron scanning aperture - the ICG and the Howtek/Aztek. As with most of Michael's tests, there are too many areas to criticize, and this is no different. There are much sharper lenses for 6X7 than the Pentax 200. Take any Mamiya 7 Sekors and you'll see what sharp really is - and having compared directly a 1DsMK2, which is significantly sharper than the MK1 to an 80mm M7 lens, the Mamiya still is quite a bit better especially in very fine detail.

"As to my real-world experience, I have looked at hundreds of prints from many photographers who shoot 35mm film, ranging from full-time professional to rank amateur, printed both digitally (scanned with a variety of equipment) and optically in a variety of sizes up to 24x36 inches. And over the last 10 years or so, I have never seen a print from 35mm film that can match or beat the output from the 1Ds with regard to resolution. In every case it has been immediately obvious which print came from film and which was digital, and the digital was superior."

Now there's a controlled study Jonathon. Up medium size prints like the ones you mention, the 1Ds prints certainly look good, but I still prefer the look of a drum scanned Velvia or Kodachrome at 24 X 36 or larger. Go to 32 X 48 or larger and the film looks even better and never looks digital, but let's get back to your original premise - that it only takes 3-5 mp to equal scanned film. You keep avoiding dealing with that, but maybe that's your experience, and if it is, that's fine. It's just not mine or so many others.

"If you have any comparisons of your own to support your claims, I'll be happy to look at them and offer a retraction if warranted, but so far I have never seen one shred of credible evidence that film can match the image quality of digital of the same format."

It's funny how you change the rules for your comparison part way through your argument. I'll repeat myself one more time and then I'm out of here, as I'm completely slammed with real work. Let's see your 3-5 mp digipix that equal scanned film. That's what you claimed, but it only proves how little experience you have with really high end scanners and cameras.

This thread has somehow gotten so far off topic. It's time to move it back.

[Mark D Segal]

......................I still prefer the look of a drum scanned Velvia or Kodachrome at 24 X 36 or larger. Go to 32 X 48 or larger and the film looks even better and never looks digital, ................................

This thread has somehow gotten so far off topic. It's time to move it back.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

pfigen, I guess this is a fundamental part of the whole issue isn't it: what you "prefer" and what "is" are not the same thing. And Iwonder about fluid concepts such as looking "film" vs looking "digital"? I would have thought that prints have objective qualities which are not defined in terms of their respective technologies but are enabled by them.

Roger Clark has published a considerable amount of rigorous analytics comparing resolution between various kinds of sensors and films [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/]Clarkvision[/url]; but quite apart from those findings, the maketplace has spoken - most notably the professional studios which converted from their Hasselblads to the Canon 1Ds-1 starting back in 2002 - because in their judgment they could at the very least maintain the quality of their output much more efficiently that way.

But I won't add anything more to this debate because your final observation above is correct.