Wait for the D3x or stay with the 1DsMkIII?

[vantomas]

A few weeks back I bought the DsMkIII and I am fairly happy with the results. Good camera no doubt, but disappointingly the flaws of the canon lenses have now become more than visible. having used a 5d everything was sort of fine for the last two years, but on the Mk III most lenses really suck. My 35/1.4 horror!!!, my 24-70/2.8 @ 24 horror!!! The only lenses that seem to match the resolution are my 50/1.2 and my 85/1.2-II. I am not looking for speed or wheater sealed bodies, all i really need is maximum image quality (and not MF!). Having been a nikon shooter for quite some time, i switched to canon with the 1DS, like so many others, but wouldn't mind going back to nikon, since the nikon lenses apparently are so much better. is that so? what to do? I am really a bit lost right now. Has anybody seen pictures taken with the miraculous 24-70/2.8 nikon zoom? is it really so much better than canon 24-70? and is it worth changing the entire equipment, if minor sharpness gain can be achieved in lightroom or aperture?

Don't get me wrong: i really like canon, the simplicity of its menues, but e.g. the screen on the MKIII is a bad joke and i just payed 7000 euro for a camera with the same image quality than the 5d.

I am sure I am not alone!

[bill t.]

My old 12mp D2X sensor is good enough to reveal the difference in sharpness and general optical quality between the center and edges of my best prime lenses.  Only the 50mm f2 Nikkor around f8.0 and the 55mm Micro Nikkor around f8 to f11 are equally good across the field (maybe also the 105 f2.5).  It would appear that 12mp is about the match for good primes.  I applaud Nikon for staying with a 12mp sensor on the D3 and D300, finally a good engineering choice trumped the numbers game.

[Geoff Wittig]

A few weeks back I bought the DsMkIII and I am fairly happy with the results. Good camera no doubt, but disappointingly the flaws of the canon lenses have now become more than visible. having used a 5d everything was sort of fine for the last two years, but on the Mk III most lenses really suck. My 35/1.4 horror!!!, my 24-70/2.8 @ 24 horror!!! The only lenses that seem to match the resolution are my 50/1.2 and my 85/1.2-II. I am not looking for speed or wheater sealed bodies, all i really need is maximum image quality (and not MF!). Having been a nikon shooter for quite some time, i switched to canon with the 1DS, like so many others, but wouldn't mind going back to nikon, since the nikon lenses apparently are so much better. is that so? what to do? I am really a bit lost right now. Has anybody seen pictures taken with the miraculous 24-70/2.8 nikon zoom? is it really so much better than canon 24-70? and is it worth changing the entire equipment, if minor sharpness gain can be achieved in lightroom or aperture?

Don't get me wrong: i really like canon, the simplicity of its menues, but e.g. the screen on the MKIII is a bad joke and i just payed 7000 euro for a camera with the same image quality than the 5d.

I am sure I am not alone!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don't worry, be happy. Your Eos-1Ds III is a fine camera, and you're not likely to get any significant improvement in image quality from the coming D3X. The excellent article on this very site (http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml) explains why. Optical and physical reality constrains the ultimate resolution obtainable from a 35 mm full frame sensor, such that anything beyond 16 megapixels or so is probably wasted. An optically perfect ('diffraction limited') lens starts to hit diffraction effects that limit sharpness when stopped down any further than about f:8 on the 1Ds III. We're already at the point where immaculate technique will improve your image quality more than further miniscule increments in hardware.

Each camera system currently has a few stellar lenses, some less impressive, and some dogs. Canon's big telephoto primes are fabulous. The Canon 70-200 f:2.8 IS substantially outperforms the Nikon equivalent on a full frame sensor, which is great for me because it's my most-used lens for landscapes. Nikon's 24-70 f:2.8 zoom is reputed to be great, but I have Canon's equivalent and I've been delighted with it. Yes, the edges show a little chromatic aberration (usually correctable in ACR) and softness, but it's still pretty darned good. Nikon's may be better, but it's not enough to make me jump brands (at vast expense) chasing rainbows. Right now Nikon has an edge in wide angle lens corner sharpness. Canon's long zoom is better than Nikon's.
Potato, potah-to.

[BernardLanguillier]

The Canon 70-200 f:2.8 IS substantially outperforms the Nikon equivalent on a full frame sensor, which is great for me because it's my most-used lens for landscapes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 70-200 is still very good on FX at medium apertures, it is only around f2.8/f4 that it lacks. You would have no problem using it for landscape applications.

But after many years carrying around, I have recently been using the Nikkor 70-300 VR for landscape with great results.

At f8-f10 it is very sharp with only very limited light fall off on my D3.

If my 70-200 f2.8 were not so beaten up I would sell it. I don't see any difference in image quality at f9.

Cheers,
Bernard

[henrikfoto]

I use a 1Ds mark 3 with manual contax (zeiss) lenses.
Many of them are a lot better than what Canon has made.

Try the 100mm Macro Planar 2.8! It makes most Canon-lenses look like a joke.
Also the 21 mm contax is extremely good. I am afraid they will never make lenses
like that anymore, with all the limitations they have now with glassproduction.

If you want the extreme, try the Hasselblad 250mm cfe superachromat with adapter
to contax and then to eos, or even better: 105mm s-orthoplanar from Zeiss!!!

Henrik

[BFoto]

If low light is not your thing, have you tried the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS USM......Sensational.

[JeffKohn]

Each camera system currently has a few stellar lenses, some less impressive, and some dogs. Canon's big telephoto primes are fabulous. The Canon 70-200 f:2.8 IS substantially outperforms the Nikon equivalent on a full frame sensor, which is great for me because it's my most-used lens for landscapes. Nikon's 24-70 f:2.8 zoom is reputed to be great, but I have Canon's equivalent and I've been delighted with it. Yes, the edges show a little chromatic aberration (usually correctable in ACR) and softness, but it's still pretty darned good. Nikon's may be better, but it's not enough to make me jump brands (at vast expense) chasing rainbows. Right now Nikon has an edge in wide angle lens corner sharpness. Canon's long zoom is better than Nikon's.
Potato, potah-to.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204867\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which long zoom of Canon's is better than Nikon's 200-400vr?  Now that Nikon has released the VR super-teles (well 600vr isn't shipping yet but it will) I don't see that Canon has any advantage there except price.

The only major advantages I see to the Canon lineup right now, are fast primes with ultrasonic focus motors, and mid-priced f/4 glass. But Nikon has come on strong lately with pro zooms and specialty lenses, and I think it's probably just a matter of time until they update the primes.

[The View]

The solution is in the question.

"Wait for the D3x or stay with the 1DsMkIII" ...

...is the same thing.

Because as long as you wait for the D3x you are staying with the 1DsMkIII...

... and as long as you are staying with the 1DsMkIII it is up to you to define this as "waiting for the D3x" or as "Using my great 1DsMkIII".

So, actually you have no problem, because whatever you do, you're fine.


I'm adding a   to be sure.


PS: You have a great camera and there are great lenses for it. Don't get the "Geareatrics" disease. it spoils.

[Geoff Wittig]

Which long zoom of Canon's is better than Nikon's 200-400vr?  Now that Nikon has released the VR super-teles (well 600vr isn't shipping yet but it will) I don't see that Canon has any advantage there except price.

The only major advantages I see to the Canon lineup right now, are fast primes with ultrasonic focus motors, and mid-priced f/4 glass. But Nikon has come on strong lately with pro zooms and specialty lenses, and I think it's probably just a matter of time until they update the primes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great Nikon stuff, no doubt about it. I would love to see Canon match the excellent 200-400 f:4 zoom; their 100-400 f:5.6 is getting pretty stale, and it's none too sharp at the long end. Competition is a wonderful thing; Canon's been able to pretty much skate since releasing the original Eos-1Ds. Now they have to wake up and get back to work.

[Geoff Wittig]

If low light is not your thing, have you tried the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS USM......Sensational.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204912\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmmm, yes and no. It's a wonderful 'walking around' lens due to the extremely useful focal length range and IS function. I use it when I want to travel light with a single lens. But corner sharpness is just okay, and it vignettes severely on a full frame sensor at anything wider than f:8, which makes it 'slower' than its nominal f:4 speed. The vignetting makes it difficult to use for stitching panoramics because the sky will show banding without a lot of processing effort; a significant PITA.

[dwdallam]

Hmmm, yes and no. It's a wonderful 'walking around' lens due to the extremely useful focal length range and IS function. I use it when I want to travel light with a single lens. But corner sharpness is just okay, and it vignettes severely on a full frame sensor at anything wider than f:8, which makes it 'slower' than its nominal f:4 speed. The vignetting makes it difficult to use for stitching panoramics because the sky will show banding without a lot of processing effort; a significant PITA.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That sucks.

Well, here's my idea on this subject. The 1DSMKIII is not the problem. It's a fantastic camera. It will only get better as lens updates become available. You can also look at it by analogy using computers. I bought the first true dual core 64bit processor back in 2005, and it was the flagship AMD 64 x2 4800 running at 2.4Ghz. I bought it because I knew that in time software would take full advantage of its ability to process in 64bits and full multithreaded capability. As of today, we still haven't seen this technology taken advantage of, with the exception of some games now being developed, but when PSCS4 comes out in full 64 bit mode, my speed is going to ramp up exponentially when rendering. In other words, the 1DS3 and the AMD 64 dual core at it's inception both give tons of head room for improvement, without having to update the CPU or the camera.

The disanalogy is that by the time software takes complete advantage of what the AMD 64 X2 CPUs offer, they'll be dinosaurs.  Even so, PS speed may increase so drastically that I don't need to buy anotehr CPU for several more years, which extends my upgrade for my main computer from 3 years to 5 or even 6.

The point is that the 1DS3 is far ahead of glass.

On the other hand, if you can afford it, by both. Canon in the right hand, Nikon in the left, and your money speeds the development of new lenses from both companies, thank you very much

[KevinA]

A few weeks back I bought the DsMkIII and I am fairly happy with the results. Good camera no doubt, but disappointingly the flaws of the canon lenses have now become more than visible. having used a 5d everything was sort of fine for the last two years, but on the Mk III most lenses really suck. My 35/1.4 horror!!!, my 24-70/2.8 @ 24 horror!!! The only lenses that seem to match the resolution are my 50/1.2 and my 85/1.2-II. I am not looking for speed or wheater sealed bodies, all i really need is maximum image quality (and not MF!). Having been a nikon shooter for quite some time, i switched to canon with the 1DS, like so many others, but wouldn't mind going back to nikon, since the nikon lenses apparently are so much better. is that so? what to do? I am really a bit lost right now. Has anybody seen pictures taken with the miraculous 24-70/2.8 nikon zoom? is it really so much better than canon 24-70? and is it worth changing the entire equipment, if minor sharpness gain can be achieved in lightroom or aperture?

Don't get me wrong: i really like canon, the simplicity of its menues, but e.g. the screen on the MKIII is a bad joke and i just payed 7000 euro for a camera with the same image quality than the 5d.

I am sure I am not alone!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204847\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I have a Nikon 70-200 I used on a FF Kodak, it's not close to the Canon 70-200mm.
Apart from that I honestly don't think adding more pixels makes a lens look any worse, it sounds like it should but when it comes to print I don't any difference, more pixels give bigger prints before "digital" gets in the way, the lens stays the same.
I was worried about doing a 4ft wide print with an image taken on my 17-40mm, the edges did not look any worse at that size than they did at 10x8, it was all relative. That's not to say a better lens would not of shown an improvement, I just don't see this "since I've upgraded the camera my lenses don't work" theme that gets banded about. To me they are the same a bad lens stays bad and a good one stays good. You get less artifacts on bigger or cropped results with more pixels.
I know I'm probably alone thinking this but it's how I see it.

Kevin.

[vantomas]

yes i see there are many answers... and there wont be a real solution. having bought the mkIII and all the primes i could just carry on working, wait and see. long lenses are not really the issue for me. i am more concerned about the midrange to wideangle lenses. and as i said before the 35/1.4 and the 24-70 (often used wide open) just don't do it for me. but then again nikon hasn't even got a 35/1.4. but it is a good sign that nikon is back in the game.

[flashfredrikson]

vt, let's better spend those bucks to change system on beer in the sun.  
or maybe a trip to shoot somewhere. or profotos. or blackjack.

or bite the apple and finally get a mfdb.


cheers mate!
martin

[vantomas]

vt, let's better spend those bucks to change system on beer in the sun.   
or maybe a trip to shoot somewhere. or profotos. or blackjack.

or bite the apple and finally get a mfdb.
cheers mate!
martin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

right you are!
bis die tage!

[Jonathan Wienke]

Another option to consider is using Nikon lenses on your 1Ds-III, which can be done easily with an adapter.

[sojournerphoto]

Well I have a Nikon 70-200 I used on a FF Kodak, it's not close to the Canon 70-200mm.
Apart from that I honestly don't think adding more pixels makes a lens look any worse, it sounds like it should but when it comes to print I don't any difference, more pixels give bigger prints before "digital" gets in the way, the lens stays the same.
I was worried about doing a 4ft wide print with an image taken on my 17-40mm, the edges did not look any worse at that size than they did at 10x8, it was all relative. That's not to say a better lens would not of shown an improvement, I just don't see this "since I've upgraded the camera my lenses don't work" theme that gets banded about. To me they are the same a bad lens stays bad and a good one stays good. You get less artifacts on bigger or cropped results with more pixels.
I know I'm probably alone thinking this but it's how I see it.

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=204950\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No your not alone - my lenses don't look any worse on a 1Ds3 than a 5D - it just samples the failings in more detail:) However, if you look at 100% they look worse because the abberations are bigger. There is possible issue, a bit like depth of field, that a lwoer resolution sensor tends to show 'sharper detail' at the resolution limit and this may be softened by the increased sampling frequency of a higher resolution sensor.

I read somewhere that someone had tested a Zeiss 25mm lens and at f4 on an Ikon it resolved 400 lines per mm (presumably centre of field on some very high resolution film) - that's a lot more than a 1Ds3 could resolve I think...

My prints from the 1Ds3 are visibly better than from the 5D from a fairly small size (say about 15 by 10, but most people won't notice unless they're looking for quite a while after that. (I tested this with my wife, who is a very honest critic!)

Mike

[Dennishh]

Have you tried calibrating these two lenses? I have a 50 1.4 that I almost tossed until I calibrated it using the  micro adjustment.  http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article...microadjustment. Also take a look at this http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FC...tings_Final.pdf

Dennis

[Panopeeper]

the 35/1.4 and the 24-70 (often used wide open) just don't do it for me

Both are quite dated lenses, not for high resolution digital. I guess Canon will come out soon with the new 24-70, of course IS, and higher resolution.

Unfortunately, the new 16-35mm is not a stellar lens either, and the 50mm f/1.2 got bad reviews.

[vantomas]

yes i hope for the 24-70 mkII !!! have been browsing through the jobs i did in 2007 and there actually is a lot of very low light stuff. like ISO 1600, open aperture and such. so i am hoping for a new 35/1.4 and a sharper 24-70 zoom. might also give the d700 with nikons new 24-70 a try.

and i have tried microadjustment and USM all the way. but it just makes a bad lens a little less worse.

Both are quite dated lenses, not for high resolution digital. I guess Canon will come out soon with the new 24-70, of course IS, and higher resolution.

Unfortunately, the new 16-35mm is not a stellar lens either, and the 50mm f/1.2 got bad reviews.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]