D3X Observations

[douglasf13]

When the 1DsMkII has been "defined", there was neither an A900 nor a 5DMkII on the horizon. Thus it was certainly not defined in those terms. The 5DMkII is *defined* to have better image quality than the 1DsMkIII. The A900 is far from it, not only in price.

  I think many would agree that the 5Dii does not have better image quality than the 1DsIII.  Or do you strictly mean noise when you refer to image quality?

[Mark D Segal]

The LCD issue is really a disgrace for a high end camera. Although you have no basis for talking for "most people", you are right in the sense, that most people don't use it for verifying the focusing, because it is not good enough.

This too shows, how much Canon was spoiled before serious competition appeared. I guess Canon have learned a lot in this aspect.

The reason why you can't use the LCD screen for verifying anything is that no matter how big and bright the screen is it will still be too small for reliable validation of any result which really matters. Furthermore, the image you see on the screen is a low-res JPEG rendition of the file - quite a divorce from the raw data. So no, I don't care which camera we're talking about, the display image is close to worthless and the histogram is the main thing that matters at time of capture. The histogram too depends on JPEG settings in the camera, so as long as I know how to set those, and how to interpret what the histogram is telling me about the raw file, I'm in good shape.

[Panopeeper]

I think many would agree that the 5Dii does not have better image quality than the 1DsIII

IIRC, Canon declared it (perhaps in a white paper?), that the 5D2's sensor's IQ is higher - and this would not be a surprize, given that it is much younger.

Or do you strictly mean noise when you refer to image quality?

I can't say anything re the AA filter. The color separation is a difficult issue, as Canon do not publish the spectral responses. They seem to have different color filters; tha 1DM3's red and blue transmissivity at white light is higher than that of the 5D2's. However, it is difficult to say if that is an advantage or disadvantages for either, but I have not read any complaints. The noise of the 5D2 is allegedly lower, although the sensor pattern (the vertical and mostly the horizontal lines) is more readily observable with the 5D2, that is a disadvantage.

The rest is software.

[Panopeeper]

the image you see on the screen is a low-res JPEG rendition of the file

I meant it in live view, *before* shooting - but the 1D3 does not allow AF in Live View, which is another disadvantage.

The histogram too depends on JPEG settings in the camera, so as long as I know how to set those, and how to interpret what the histogram is telling me about the raw file, I'm in good shape.

It is in your power to coax the camera in displaying a raw-like histogram, if you accept the downside (embedded preview useless except for cursory view).

[BernardLanguillier]

Where do you get this idea that the dual CF cards, weather proofing, viewfinder, lag, etc are demonstrably better than on the 1Ds3??

Does the 1ds3 enable raid 0 like dual write to CFs cards in parallel? I consider this to be one of the most important features of the d3 series if you shoot real "once in a life time" subjects.

The peace of mind I get from knowing that a total CF failure will not impact me the least bit even when I shoot a nice sunrise at 15.000 feet after a week of walking is... priceless.

As far as the screen goes, my contention is that life view is often the only suitable approach to focus accurately on some subjects. I have not used the 1ds3 screen and cannot comment on the relative value, but I for sure find the D3 series screen to be of great help when trying to achieve critical focus in live view.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Josh-H]

Does the 1ds3 enable raid 0 like dual write to CFs cards in parallel? I consider this to be one of the most important features of the d3 series if you shoot real "once in a life time" subjects.

The peace of mind I get from knowing that a total CF failure will not impact me the least bit even when I shoot a nice sunrise at 15.000 feet after a week of walking is... priceless.

As far as the screen goes, my contention is that life view is often the only suitable approach to focus accurately on some subjects. I have not used the 1ds3 screen and cannot comment on the relative value, but I for sure find the D3 series screen to be of great help when trying to achieve critical focus in live view.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes - in actual fact the 1DSMK3 does allow for the writing of files to both CF and its secondary mini slot. Canon decided on 1 x CF and 1 x mini rather than 2 x CF. But it can write to both simultaneously.

I use the 1DSMK3 live view for landscapes regularly and get critically sharp focus.

Personally.. I am getting more than a little tired of D3X owners constantly feeling the need to purport their supposed camera superiority over everything else - it rings throughout the D3X threads and its getting very old...

I did an experiment with a colleague of mine who shoots a d3X a few days ago for my own [and his interest]. I wasnt going to post about it as it really was to satisfy our own curiosity - but I think its worth pointing out now.

We set up a shot tripod mounted with my 1DSMK3 and then D3x - both with standard 50mm lens shot at F8 ISO 100, 400 and 800. We did not shoot any other ISO as neither of us shoot much over 800.

Both files were viewed on screen on a spectraview 2 calibrated monitor - despite rendering differences neither of us could pick one as any better than another at 100%.

In the A3+ prints we made neither of us could pick which camera was which - and neither could one of my clients.

For all I know the Sony A900 may be exactly the same - all of these cameras will produce stunning images.

I think I need coffee now  

[JeffKohn]

The reason why you can't use the LCD screen for verifying anything is that no matter how big and bright the screen is it will still be too small for reliable validation of any result which really matters. Furthermore, the image you see on the screen is a low-res JPEG rendition of the file - quite a divorce from the raw data. So no, I don't care which camera we're talking about, the display image is close to worthless and the histogram is the main thing that matters at time of capture. The histogram too depends on JPEG settings in the camera, so as long as I know how to set those, and how to interpret what the histogram is telling me about the raw file, I'm in good shape.

You really should try focusing in LiveView with 100% zoom on a camera like the D3/D300/D700. If you did, maybe you would understand what all the fuss is about.  As far as focusing accuracy goes, it's superior to anything else (except maybe using a loupe on the ground-glass of a large format camera).

[Mark D Segal]

You really should try focusing in LiveView with 100% zoom on a camera like the D3/D300/D700. If you did, maybe you would understand what all the fuss is about.  As far as focusing accuracy goes, it's superior to anything else (except maybe using a loupe on the ground-glass of a large format camera).

Well the post one-up from yours' says he gets critically sharp focus with Canon 1Ds3 live-view - as he should. In fact I much appreciated the breath of fresh air from a real comparative field test - though I know no more about the detail of what was photographed and how the prints were evaluated, the procedure and the commentary ring true and the stated results are no surprise to me.

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes - in actual fact the 1DSMK3 does allow for the writing of files to both CF and its secondary mini slot. Canon decided on 1 x CF and 1 x mini rather than 2 x CF. But it can write to both simultaneously.

I use the 1DSMK3 live view for landscapes regularly and get critically sharp focus.

Excellent then. I do personnally prefer to standardize on a single type of media for various reasons, but I am sure that others have different preferences.

Personally.. I am getting more than a little tired of D3X owners constantly feeling the need to purport their supposed camera superiority over everything else - it rings throughout the D3X threads and its getting very old...

all of these cameras will produce stunning images.

Just ignore those, it is simply a replica (in the earthquake sense of the word) of years of presecution during which the "Canon uber alles" unique line of thought has gotten on the nerves of many photographers getting excellent images from their non Canon cameras.  

Objectivty is the only credible route really and the kind of tests you have performed with your friend are the way to go if you are concerned about such matters. I personnally prefer to use the little time I have shooting real images though.

The famed "it's the photographer..." has never been more true, has it?

Cheers,
Bernard

[JeffKohn]

Well the post one-up from yours' says he gets critically sharp focus with Canon 1Ds3 live-view - as he should. In fact I much appreciated the breath of fresh air from a real comparative field test - though I know no more about the detail of what was photographed and how the prints were evaluated, the procedure and the commentary ring true and the stated results are no surprise to me.

Maybe he does, and maybe he would find it even easier to do so with a better LCD. Your post seemed to be downplaying the importance of LCD quality, but for those using LiveView it is a very relevant consideration.

[Josh-H]

Excellent then. I do personnally prefer to standardize on a single type of media for various reasons, but I am sure that others have different preferences.

Don't get me wrong - I would have preferred 2 x CF for standardization as well. But flip side of the coin.. mini is smaller and its always good to be able to use either card if overseas or traveling etc.

I did drop a mini card in some snow last winter though and it promptly vanished on me - damm things are so small!

[douglasf13]

  It's shameful that the A900 doesn't have any dual card writing capabilities.  Surprisingly, I'm not too annoyed that the second memory slot is Memory Stick, since I don't use SD in anything anyways, but not having some basic two card functions in the camera is silly.  That being said, it is nice to have the second slot just in case the CF slot fails or pins bend.

[douglasf13]

IIRC, Canon declared it (perhaps in a white paper?), that the 5D2's sensor's IQ is higher - and this would not be a surprize, given that it is much younger.


I can't say anything re the AA filter. The color separation is a difficult issue, as Canon do not publish the spectral responses. They seem to have different color filters; tha 1DM3's red and blue transmissivity at white light is higher than that of the 5D2's. However, it is difficult to say if that is an advantage or disadvantages for either, but I have not read any complaints. The noise of the 5D2 is allegedly lower, although the sensor pattern (the vertical and mostly the horizontal lines) is more readily observable with the 5D2, that is a disadvantage.

The rest is software.

  Yeah, spectral response is a tough one.  I've read about some 5Dii complaints, and it seems there is something to the different CFAs in the cameras, but I don't have direct experience with it myself.

[Mark D Segal]

Maybe he does, and maybe he would find it even easier to do so with a better LCD. Your post seemed to be downplaying the importance of LCD quality, but for those using LiveView it is a very relevant consideration.

Yes, I was downplaying its importance in a context of how I and many other people use it. For people doing a lot of work with live view, obviously the bigger and more brilliant the better.

[BernardLanguillier]

Don't get me wrong - I would have preferred 2 x CF for standardization as well. But flip side of the coin.. mini is smaller and its always good to be able to use either card if overseas or traveling etc.

Good point indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard