I think we've nailed down the reason I was thinking this. The files I have were not shot as an experiment, but were in various sun/shade positions, and would not be a very good comparison. All the posts to this thread convinced me, for now, that it was me and not the camera.
But now you have me thinking about it. If I get time tomorrow, I'll do a test just to see if MY camera may be out of adjustment or something like that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=199852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you tried other Raw converters? I could never get results I liked from my 1ds2 in ACR and ended up using Capture 1 . I can't see much difference with the 1ds3 files
One thing I consistently found was ACR would clip subtle upper end tones ( quite frequent on skin and also lighter areas of sky and sea) which could be very annoying as thought I had overexposed despite the histogram telling me otherwise.
Capture one is pretty clunky and Capture 4 isn't a whole lot better ( but the sharpening has been much improved so it doesn't mean having to go to Photoshop to do it) but both do colour very well.
I have had shots done at 3200 asa done on both cameras which I am very pleased with - naturally the 1ds3 is better,better colour at high asa , and more recoverable highlights , but both produce really excellent results in Capture software.
By the way - nothing against ACR, it does a splendid job of my old Kodak files , think they really nailed the profiles for those cameras, and its far faseter and easier to work with, but I can't help feeling the standard Canon profiles are always a work in progress and I can never seem to realise the files' full potential there.
