Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: futura on September 18, 2010, 06:04:08 am
-
Hi guys, I'm looking for some upgrade advise. I currently shoot with a 1dsmk2 and my primary subjects are landscape and portraiture work. The camera has served me well but now I'm looking to move on and the primary features I am looking for from my next camera is a slight bump in resolution and better ISO handling.
I've been looking at the 1ds3 but I've not come across many articles that suggest I will get a cleaner image at similar ISOs to my 1dsmk2. Could someone who has anyone who has owned both cameras shed any light on noise handling between the two.
If there is negligible difference, I might pickup a 5dmk2 and sacrifice the ergonomics of the 1d series that I'm used to.
All help appreciated.
-
I would pick-up the 5D mk2 for sure.
IMO it is even cleaner in higher isos and the price is just terrific.
Comparing both cameras, I would say that I'm more pleased by the 5Dmk2 images in all isos. (I don't find the differences drastic thought)
But I agree with you about the handling, personally, I can't stand the 5Dmk2 handling compared to the Mark 1 series. Just a personal taste but the 5Dmk2 does not fit right in my hands and that is a little problem when you have to spend many hours with a gear. But others find the 5D perfect in hands, so...)
But anyway, for the price-performance this is worth sacrifising this point IMO.
Now...if video and cost is not an issue, I'd go for the MK1 without hesitation.
-
I have never used a 1Ds2, but I tested the 1Ds3 and the 5D2 last year. I was surprised at how good the 1Ds3 was at 1600 ISO. The 5D2 was also very good, but as I have gotten very used to the form factor and AF of the 1D series, I just didn't like shooting with the 5D2. It's a fine camera, great image quality, etc., but the user interface isn't the same.
I ended up buying the 1D Mark IV, btw. Same 16 megapixels as the 1Ds Mark II, but I think you'd find the high ISO to be significantly improved. Of course it's not full frame.
-
I upgraded from the 1Ds II to the 1Ds III and found that the high ISO on the 1Ds III was significantly better. I was never happy with the 1Ds II at ISO 1600 (coming from the 5D) but I find the 1Ds III files at ISO 1600 to be excellent. Noise is much lower, but even more improved is how well detail is retained at the high ISO settings. The upgrade to the 1Ds III from the II felt like a huge jump to me.
I also found the handling/useability of the 1Ds III to be a big improvement over the II. No more two button presses for every operation, much better LCD screen, faster buffer and the image displays on the back of the camera much more quickly, I love the joystick for focus point selection.
I'd whole heartedly recommend making the upgrade to the 1Ds III. With bodies selling used for close to $3500 it's a great time to buy.
-
I upgraded from the 1Ds II to the 1Ds III and found that the high ISO on the 1Ds III was significantly better. I was never happy with the 1Ds II at ISO 1600 (coming from the 5D) but I find the 1Ds III files at ISO 1600 to be excellent. Noise is much lower, but even more improved is how well detail is retained at the high ISO settings. The upgrade to the 1Ds III from the II felt like a huge jump to me.
I also found the handling/useability of the 1Ds III to be a big improvement over the II. No more two button presses for every operation, much better LCD screen, faster buffer and the image displays on the back of the camera much more quickly, I love the joystick for focus point selection.
I'd whole heartedly recommend making the upgrade to the 1Ds III. With bodies selling used for close to $3500 it's a great time to buy.
I agree, second hand there are some great bargains here too, about the price you mentionned for a good unit.
The 5Dmk2 is sold here at 2000euros brand new, so the difference is not that big, and compare to the MK1, the 5D feels like a toy really.
But...the 5Dmk2 works just incredibly well !
-
If you don't need to shoot beyond ISO 800 (800 cleans up nice in CS5), I'd look into a Sony a850. Full frame, great view finder, 24 MP sensor, terrific dynamic range, excellent but limited new glass, including Zeiss, and tons of legacy KM glass. I think this camera is the best kept secret in the industry. I know several landscape shooters that have migrated over to this platform from Canon. Oh, and did I mention the body is $2,000.
-
Firstly - thanks everyone for taking the time to reply.
I think its looking like the 1ds3 since two of the main selling points of the 5dmk2 - video and higher res screen are more niceties than deal breakers for me at the moment. My main reason for needing better ISO handing is I'm shooting more locational portraiture work and not being able to work comfortably at a higher ISO (problems with skin tones) is holding me back a little. I doubt I'll be shooting above ISO 1200 so as long as the skin tones and detail holds up, I'll be a very happy man.
The Sony is an interesting option, but it means investing in a whole set of new glass or investing in two systems. I've also considered waiting and putting the money towards the next 1ds or going for the Pentax 645D when its released outside of Japan but I'd rather buy a tried and tested camera that is well into its cycle.
-
I've also considered waiting and putting the money towards the next 1ds or going for the Pentax 645D when its released outside of Japan but I'd rather buy a tried and tested camera that is well into its cycle.
Rumors claim that there will be no 1ds3 replacement in 2010. The rumor has it that Canon would be working on a real evolution of their flagship camera, the first breakthrough since the 1ds.
This is supported by simple market metrics. Indeed, its street price has been increasing in Japan and it is now 15% more expensive than a D3x.
Relative to the 645D, there is now less than 1.000 US$ price difference between the 2.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why is this happenning? At this particular moment the D3X is more atractive to Nikonians than 1DsIII is to Canonians or so I believe.
Furthermore, for Photokina's eve my impression was that world sales of 1DSIII came to a complete stop.
Cheers
Eduardo
Rumors claim that there will be no 1ds3 replacement in 2010. The rumor has it that Canon would be working on a real evolution of their flagship camera, the first breakthrough since the 1ds.
This is supported by simple market metrics. Indeed, its street price has been increasing in Japan and it is now 15% more expensive than a D3x.
Relative to the 645D, there is now less than 1.000 US$ price difference between the 2.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why is this happenning? At this particular moment the D3X is more atractive to Nikonians than 1DsIII is to Canonians or so I believe.
Furthermore, for Photokina's eve my impression was that world sales of 1DSIII came to a complete stop.
Yep, I am not sure to understand why this is happening. One possible, but pretty unlikely explanation, would be that Canon is getting low on some parts for the 1ds3 and doesn't want to start a new batch.
It could also be that they had planned for a replacement of the 1ds3 around this Kina but were unable to proceed because of some unexpected issue or a lack of performance relative to the competition?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
About the 5Dmk2, I also forgot to mentionned that the dust removal system works perfect...wich has been a real shame in Canon's pro gear for decades (like Michael's MLU ?!...).
The screen res is much better as mentionned so as menu, but I don't find the controls so logical on the 5D, or maybe I resist myself to this camera because of the handling.
At higher isos the 5D for me would be totally usable.
In this Higher isos lands, I must say that Nikon is a step ahead and put Canon to shame, but the Canon has a great video, and video is a good thing (not to say a must nowdays) to have.
About the Sony, I don't think this camera can compeat at higher isos to CaNikon and the range of accessories and glasses available for Canon is simply unmatchable.
-
Hi,
Regarding the 1DssIII and the 5DII I'd presume that they are very similar in sensor characteristics and signal processing. The main difference is that the 1DsIII is a professional level camera. Regarding ISO they are probably similar if you shoot "RAW".
Best regards
Erik
-
Rumors claim that there will be no 1ds3 replacement in 2010. The rumor has it that Canon would be working on a real evolution of their flagship camera, the first breakthrough since the 1ds.
it will have heated front seats.
-
it will have heated front seats.
We probably have the same sources.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A big issue for me is that the end focus points feel almost useless on the 5D bodies compared to the 1dIII. Working on portraits, I find that important. I have the 10mpix version of the 1D and both versions of the 5D. The metering also does a better job on the 1D, especially with back light. With the 1D, I can work really fast.
Noise with the 1DIII is really good in the in focus areas, less so in out of focus areas. I have used noise ninja on critical files. ACR CS3 does NOT do a good job on noise reduction with these files. The MkII with CS2 worked better. Haven't had a chance to try Lightroom 3 CS5 yet, but it looks promising.
The 5D? I think both versions are wonderful cameras and use them when I can work slower. They feel really nice in your hand without the battery pack, especially the first version.
Most of the photos in the below link are with the 1DmkIII.
http://johnkishiv.com/2010_AcademicPortraits/
John
-
Hi,
Regarding the 1DssIII and the 5DII I'd presume that they are very similar in sensor characteristics and signal processing. The main difference is that the 1DsIII is a professional level camera. Regarding ISO they are probably similar if you shoot "RAW".
Best regards
Erik
The 1Ds3 has two Digics for processing the sensor output, more read channels, so pattern noise is a good bit less. 5D2 line noise is pretty bad.
-
Emil,
Thanks for mentioning this issue! I was not aware of this. Could you explain why two Digics are advantageous in this situation?
In DxO-mark the sensors are quite similar, with the 5DII having advantage at high ISO.
Best regards
Erik
The 1Ds3 has two Digics for processing the sensor output, more read channels, so pattern noise is a good bit less. 5D2 line noise is pretty bad.
-
Emil,
Thanks for mentioning this issue! I was not aware of this. Could you explain why two Digics are advantageous in this situation?
In DxO-mark the sensors are quite similar, with the 5DII having advantage at high IS.
Erik,
I believe that DxO doesn't take into account the way the noise looks, and patterns in particular.
-
Yes, both of you are of course right!
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I believe that DxO doesn't take into account the way the noise looks, and patterns in particular.
-
I have had both cameras - the 1ds2 is still a fine camera up to 800asa and I still use it for a lot of work as the file sizes are that much more convenient for storage, 14 bits made the file sizes jump considerably. The Mk 3 pulls away at 800asa and is very usable at 3200asa - it isnt a huge difference but its there ( and I can lose track of which camera is which looking at high iso files so the difference isn't that big at 100 percent , but the mk three has that extra resolution ), the mk 3 retains colour and dynamic range better at High iso where perversely the mk 2 does better for dynamic range at low iso. I find using capture one software I can make the two cameras almost indistinguishable and detail is very similar - both cameras need to be securely bolted to a tripod with excellent lenses to show any meaningful difference in detail.Sometimes I think the mk 2 is more "ektachrome " and the Mk 3 "kodachrome" as straight from the camera the mk 3 files have that richer , deeper look to them, especially at high iso.
Where the 1ds3 excels is speed and buffer write,handling is easier , but then I never had the problems many mk2 owners seem to have had with handling. I have used it as a sport camera and it worked well despite not being the obvious choice for that type of work. The screen looks nice , but frequently I find it makes files look good when they need work later and I think the Mk 2 screen is a little more honest in that regard. It does help if you are showing the clients files on the camera - you just have to match them later! Jpeg out put is supposed to be better on the Mk 3 but I just think they are both awful, but i have never been able to use jpeg s from the camera anyway.
When compared to medium format the mk 3 is very, very close to a six year old 22mp back I use , but not quite as crisp. I doubt you would see much difference in print. The 22mp back's tones are smoother/deeper too.
The Mk 2 shutter was supposed to be a bit dodgy , but mine has done 70,000 cycles with no problem, my Mk3 shutter started to fail at 25,000 cycles, which is ridiculous for a pro camera at that price. Its probably not typical though .
the self cleaning shutter is good , but I have had to clean it a couple of times with visible dust products to get rid off stubborn bits of dust so I wouldn't rely on it completely.
-
I have used the mkIII for some aerial night photography and it coped well even at 3200 iso. What has surprised me is the 550D I bought to mount on a UAV, I use it all the time next to the mkIII and I cannot tell the difference. In fact earlier this week I was doing some sunrise aerial work, the mkIII was struggling to focus the 70 - 200 mm, I swapped it onto the 550D and no problem. I started with both at 800 iso and noise it not a problem with either. I am staggered and surprised that the little 550D matches the mkIII everytime I shoot them side by side. The mkIV will have to have something seriously good about it to get me to part with more money on the new flagship model, more pixels will not be enough.
Kevin.
-
I am staggered and surprised that the little 550D matches the mkIII everytime I shoot them side by side. The mkIV will have to have something seriously good about it to get me to part with more money on the new flagship model, more pixels will not be enough.
Indeed I think we have come full circle back to how it was with film where the camera did not matter anymore. Features, yes, image quality no.
-
Guys, if I follow you, do you suggest that there is no more IQ differences between a pro full frame sensor and a low cost camera aps? And that those differences just lay in the features and component resistence?
So, if I still understand well, having a bigger sensor do not make any difference in low light situations and resolution (resolution in terms of details accuracy perceived by the eyes)?
mmmm...
-
Guys, if I follow you, do you suggest that there is no more IQ differences between a pro full frame sensor and a low cost camera aps? And that those differences just lay in the features and component resistence? So, if I still understand well, having a bigger sensor do not make any difference in low light situations and resolution (resolution in terms of details accuracy perceived by the eyes)?
mmmm...
Speaking for myself I find the larger sensors better, but for commercial reasons it is fastly not mattering anymore. I would have moved to MFD if it had made business sense, but cost and workflow are a joke. If they can improve on this I would buy it for just myself. Make no mistake, at most reasonable outputs a tiny APS-C sensor pleases most clients.
-
The difference is small enough not to make me go looking for it. I shot a sunrise aerial job last Wednesday mostly at 800 iso, I used both 1DsmkIII and 550D on the job, Saturday again more flying work I used both side by side. The differences for the most part is not worth bothering about. I would not go spending money going from a 550D to a 1DsmkIII just for an expected increase in picture quality.
Where it does gain is the fullframe when using L prime wide angle, if you want wide and top quality then 5D's and 1Ds 's make sense, more because of lens quality than sensor quality.
Kevin.
-
Speaking for myself I find the larger sensors better, but for commercial reasons it is fastly not mattering anymore. I would have moved to MFD if it had made business sense, but cost and workflow are a joke. If they can improve on this I would buy it for just myself. Make no mistake, at most reasonable outputs a tiny APS-C sensor pleases most clients.
Agreed, just when I think MFD starts to make sense Canon come out with something that closes the gap enough to make price performance ratio of MFD impractical from a business point of view.
Kevin.