Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: jjlphoto on April 23, 2008, 11:42:06 am

Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: jjlphoto on April 23, 2008, 11:42:06 am
I've owned a 1Ds for quite some time, and passed on the MKII when it came out. I would like to have lower noise high ISO, and the live view seems cool, but I have not head any rave reviews about the MKIII. I personally saw one photographers tests against a 1Ds, and frankly, nothing was there that really blew me away. Is the MKIII a whole lotta' nuthin'?
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: witz on April 23, 2008, 12:12:02 pm
I think the 1ds3 is a fantastic piece of kit!

to get the most out of it requires very good glass. The live view is fantastic when the camera is on a stand... My clients love to art direct from the live view while sitting behind a 30" ACD.

I squeeze as much as I can out of it by shooting/processing 16bit raw, using mainly "L" primes, using mainly iso100. I also always shoot a frame with a grey card in the scene as to get a proper CT. I also have owned phaseone backs on V systems and now prefer the 1ds3. ( my personal opinion )


I think you will find that most pros who own one are quite happy with it and are out shooting with it rather than spending their time on forums praising it.

It looks like there are some folks who do have problems with their 1ds3.... please don't think that those problems are inherent of all bodies. Test before you buy or at least return and exchange if your no satisfied.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Boris_Epix on April 23, 2008, 04:42:11 pm
Quote
I've owned a 1Ds for quite some time, and passed on the MKII when it came out. I would like to have lower noise high ISO, and the live view seems cool, but I have not head any rave reviews about the MKIII. I personally saw one photographers tests against a 1Ds, and frankly, nothing was there that really blew me away. Is the MKIII a whole lotta' nuthin'?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=191411\")

I just picked up my 1Ds MK3 today. I kinda wasn't interested in it as the 1Ds MK2 was a major disappointment to me.

Well anyway... to be honest I made the decision to get one 2 days ago. And that after a friend who has probably one of the very early samples has a number of problems. He has terrible banding / posterization in darker uniform areas. More dust spots than any camera should have (let alone one with shaky shaky anti-dusty technology), blurry pictures, etc.

That would be one example of his work that suffers from the menitioned problem (right side):
[a href=\"http://img.fotocommunity.com/photos/12557919.jpg]http://img.fotocommunity.com/photos/12557919.jpg[/url]

I just snapped a hand full of shots before and I must say it still feels exactly like the 1Ds MK2. Screen is bigger. More megapixels but the shadows are still very weak and the pixels seem soft if not mushy. I'm not sure but it looks so far very comparable in resolution to the 1Ds MK2. Certainly not a major/big step. Pixel sharpness seems worse than the MK2 and certainly worse than 5D but that could be explained by the additional layers of stuff (anti dust whatever) in front of the sensor and the higher requirements for the lens I suppose.

I wouldn't say yet after 2 dozen snapshots that I have the same posterization problems like my friend but I observed it had difficulties with the reflection of the black 1Ds cardboard box. The reflection was completely reddish and had posterization/banding. I used to have problems like that with my 1Ds MK2 in the shadow skin tones already in 2004. It's disappointing to see so little progress.

I will test it over the next couple weeks before I'll shoot part of a production job with it. That's the nice thing with digital... you can shoot 3 different cameras and still use virtually the same workflow (with lightroom). Problem starts if you feel that a different convertor gives you better results.

Right now it doesn't look like a camera I will keep for long.

Cheers
Boris
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Huib on April 23, 2008, 04:57:08 pm
I really can't understand your comments. I had the 1Ds and I still have the 1DsII.
THe 1DsIII is much better camera in all aspects then 1Ds and 1DsII.
But you need very good copies of lenses. And that's where Canon fails.
Also you know how to sharpen the files.
I don't understand the posterization/banding problems. Can you post samples?
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: pete_truman on April 23, 2008, 06:21:07 pm
I have had a 1Ds3 since December and have nothing but praise for it. I used to use a 5D which is now collecting dust.

The images straight off the camera do appear a little soft and as Canon recommend a bit more sharpening than previous is required. Do that and images just pop. Exposure, AWB and focussing are all excellent - the additional focus points really help. Dynamic range feels slightly greater than the 5D, although this is purely subjective - images appear to take a little more tweaking without degradation, for instance when pulling detail out of shadows (I am personally not keen on HDR).

Dust has been much less of a problem than with previous cameras - and I do change lenses often. I have found just one spot since December that would not just shake off. A quick clean and we're back to normal - and I have forgotten just how often I had to clean the 5D sensor.

I bought the camera as I wanted the high resolution for large landscape prints. It absolutely makes a better image that is easier to print at larger sizes. It does mean the best lenses are needed - I use Canon L series and a couple of Canon non-L primes without issue. It could well be nothing to do with the camera, but I've certainly more keepers now using the 1Ds3 than any previous camera.

The downsides:

1. Cost
2. Weight. It's big and heavy but carries better than a smaller camera.
3. Image size. Fantastic resolution comes with a price - disk space is filled much more quickly.
4. High ISO. Is not as noise free compared with some other cameras. The Canon 5D, 1D Mk3 and Nikon D3 are all better at high ISO, but then this is comparing apples and oranges. The 1Ds3 has much smaller receptors than any of the others it is often compared against so simply will display higher noise. That's physics! At ISO 200 or less I am delighted with the images. I'm sure comparisons will be quick to appear when the new Sony sensor is available.
5. Different card slots. It has one CF slot and one SD slot. There are plenty of options for saving to these - to both simultaneously, one after the other, RAW to one and JPEG to the other, etc. Why two different formats? What's wrong with CF only?
6. MLU is still nested in menus - BUT the custom menu allows it to be much closer than before.

As stated, I bought the camera for landscapes which will be printed large. I do not need high ISO capability, extreme shutter rates, etc. I want very high quality, high resolution images from a camera that can be carried without requiring a sherpa or donkey. I've got just that and I think its marvellous!
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Christopher on April 23, 2008, 08:07:37 pm
I also really don't see some of you comments. I had a 1DsMk2 and 5D and got a 1DsMk3 since December and I love it. I would never want to go back to either of my old cameras. Live view is fantastic, ISO is better. Oh, and the camera can produce tack sharp images, if you know how to use it. It really is important to have a shutter speed which is fast enough. The normal formular lens=shutter speed will nearly never work, you always get a slight blur.

The second problem are the lenses, you really have to use the best of the best.

Here is one short example. 1DsMk3 + Leica R28mm@f16
Nothing done to the file.

I think that is quite sharp, and first of all I don't know to many cameras who can produce such a fantastic result.


(http://4hq.org/image/one1208995325y.jpg)


(http://4hq.org/image/cia1208995464r.jpg)

I really like my 1DsMk3 and would not want to go back.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Ken Bennett on April 23, 2008, 08:19:41 pm
I tested a 1Ds Mark III last week, using a friend's camera. A quick available-light window-lit portrait, no fill, at ISO 100, 800, and 1600, using a 24-70/2.8L at about 70mm. The files are just stunning. Even at ISO 1600, just a little bit of color noise reduction is all I needed. Wow.

Note that I am currently shooting with a 1-D Mark II (the 8-mp camera), so maybe my standards are low. But I don't think so.

Wow. I'll take 2.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Tim Gray on April 23, 2008, 08:49:53 pm
I'm certainly happy with mine, but want to echo one of the previous posters comments on sharpening - when I originally looked at the files without any processing I was surprised at the softness.  Fortunately I was equally surprised as to how well they responded to some capture sharpening.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: D White on April 23, 2008, 09:17:55 pm
My first digital was the 1DsII in 04 and I added the 1DsIII in late 07. Mine had the viewfinder alignment problem, (noted elsewhere on this forum), and Canon replaced the body with great service.

The mark II was very good indeed, but the mark III is an even better evolutionary improvement with refinements in many areas that add up.

Comments earlier on banding and posterization, in my opinion, may very well be related to how the file is processed. In my own learning curve, I feel that the various RAW converters can clip the shadows even when they say they are right on. This can then lead to less than ideal shadow presentation. I now convert on the flat side and optimize the shadows in PS, which seems much more accurate. Thus my opinion of the even the mark II improved substantially when I reconverted images "better". Conversion and different converters can make a very significant impact on ones opinion of the results.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on April 23, 2008, 10:05:50 pm
I always begin conversion in ACR with a linear tone curve, and shadows set to 0, and then manually tweak the curve as needed. Leaving Shadow at the default value of 5 clips shadows badly.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: jjlphoto on April 24, 2008, 09:17:10 am
Quote
Also you know how to sharpen the files.


Quote
The images straight off the camera do appear a little soft and as Canon recommend a bit more sharpening than previous is required. Do that and images just pop.


Quote
Oh, and the camera can produce tack sharp images, if you know how to use it.


I've been reading about the sharpening thing in other places as well. I currently use PhaseOne CO v3.8. For people recommending enhanced sharpening skills, are you using Canon's DPP? PhaseOne CO? Other? I did download the Canon DPP QuickTime tutorial as some have made mention that only DPP can best unlock the superior sharpness of those files. I am so well versed in PhaseOne CO, it may take a while to adapt to a new RAW processing software (if necessary).
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Boris_Epix on April 24, 2008, 02:40:25 pm
Quote
I also really don't see some of you comments. I had a 1DsMk2 and 5D and got a 1DsMk3 since December and I love it. I would never want to go back to either of my old cameras. Live view is fantastic, ISO is better. Oh, and the camera can produce tack sharp images, if you know how to use it. It really is important to have a shutter speed which is fast enough. The normal formular lens=shutter speed will nearly never work, you always get a slight blur.

The second problem are the lenses, you really have to use the best of the best.

Here is one short example. 1DsMk3 + Leica R28mm@f16
Nothing done to the file.

I think that is quite sharp, and first of all I don't know to many cameras who can produce such a fantastic result.

I really like my 1DsMk3 and would not want to go back.

Chris,
you know... I was talking about SHADOW tones. Not bright tones as snow and "flat" or gray blacks. Shadow noise, banding, posterization usually appears in the tones that are not existing in your pics :-)

Your pic looks nice resized. But the 100% view is way soft. Nothing done to the file? So you shot JPEG? Where is the crispness of the snow? The branches look blurry... sorry but even your Zeiss lens doesn't make the sensor any less soft than it is. We have now 21 Megapixels instead of 16,7 but the quality or IQ of the pixels has not improved. Even compared to a cropped P30+ that is a bit softer because of the microlenses your shot is just little league regarding sharpness.

And I will also say you have some nice pics on your webpage so no offense.

I have the 1Ds MK3 beside other cameras now and spent considerable :-) time with the Canon 1Ds MK2 and 1Ds... but maybe I'm more difficult to please :-)  Glad you love your cam.

I believe I made statements about the sharpness of the camera not about Photoshop or sharpening tools. You can oversharpen any file and make it pop or suck :-)

Cheers
Boris
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 24, 2008, 03:01:21 pm
Quote
I also really don't see some of you comments. I had a 1DsMk2 and 5D and got a 1DsMk3 since December and I love it. I would never want to go back to either of my old cameras. Live view is fantastic, ISO is better. Oh, and the camera can produce tack sharp images, if you know how to use it. It really is important to have a shutter speed which is fast enough. The normal formular lens=shutter speed will nearly never work, you always get a slight blur.

The second problem are the lenses, you really have to use the best of the best.

Here is one short example. 1DsMk3 + Leica R28mm@f16
Nothing done to the file.

I think that is quite sharp, and first of all I don't know to many cameras who can produce such a fantastic result.
(http://4hq.org/image/one1208995325y.jpg)
(http://4hq.org/image/cia1208995464r.jpg)

I really like my 1DsMk3 and would not want to go back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hate to say it but if that is supposed to be an example of something thats sharp then you don't know what sharp is.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: dennysb on April 24, 2008, 04:32:14 pm
Got my 1Ds on last week and so far I have nothing but praise for this body. Sharp and high detail on the images, much better than what I have seen from my 5D. I only use "L" lenses with this body.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: dennysb on April 24, 2008, 04:36:46 pm
Pardon my question you said you added the 1DsMIII on late 05? Wasn't the product launch in AUG -07?


Quote
My first digital was the 1DsII in 04 and I added the 1DsIII in late 05. Mine had the viewfinder alignment problem, (noted elsewhere on this forum), and Canon replaced the body with great service.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: samuel_js on April 24, 2008, 04:49:02 pm
Quote
I think that is quite sharp, and first of all I don't know to many cameras who can produce such a fantastic result.

I really like my 1DsMk3 and would not want to go back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry but you don't know what sharp means. Also look at the results from any medium format camera and you'll understand what a beautiful image is.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: SeanFS on April 24, 2008, 04:56:36 pm
Quote
Got my 1Ds on last week and so far I have nothing but praise for this body. Sharp and high detail on the images, much better than what I have seen from my 5D. I only use "L" lenses with this body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191665\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just got mine  . The handling is different from the 1ds2 so its taking me a while to get used to it.
 I have some stunning results from the 1ds2 in sometimes very difficult conditions and think its going to be a hard act to follow, but initial impressions indicate a worth while improvement in noise control and I expect to be able to pull up shadow and highlight detail a little more , which seems to be the case from initial impressions, and a couple of accidental overexposures . I have still to do work to get the best sharpness out of the  files (  haven't had it on a tripod yet!) and will be interesting to compare it to a 22mpMFDP which I find very sharp and detailed indeed .
Its almost halved the capacity of an 8gb card - so I'll need a few more of those but the huge increase in data  from the 1ds3 makes me think I may not be getting rid of the 1ds2 in such a hurry as it is  enough for 70% of my work and it would seem pointless to clog the computers even more with data . The 1ds3 wil have a role as  a more portable hi resolution solution to the MFDB which really is great for still life and food shots with that larger format.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: witz on April 24, 2008, 05:16:19 pm
here's a simple ( please don't critique... just a simple setup )  shot taken just a few hours ago... 1ds3, iso 100, 70-200 f4L @ f13 1/125 around 85mm ( get file info in photoshop to get actual meta )

http://www.1080studio.com/1ds3witz.zip (http://www.1080studio.com/1ds3witz.zip)

in the folder you will find a full rez 16 bit tiff and a screen shot of the sharpening settings I use in acr.


I don't see why anyone would have a problem with a good copy of this camera!
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Dansk on April 24, 2008, 05:59:24 pm
The III has its place no doubt and it is a great portable system BUT... tethered via USB is just not at all up to par for this size of a sensor its way tooooo slow and considering that 90% of my work is tethered and I'm a Mac user...

 Yes it was a let down for me
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Christopher on April 24, 2008, 06:27:56 pm
Quote
here's a simple ( please don't critique... just a simple setup )  shot taken just a few hours ago... 1ds3, iso 100, 70-200 f4L @ f13 1/125 around 85mm ( get file info in photoshop to get actual meta )

http://www.1080studio.com/1ds3witz.zip (http://www.1080studio.com/1ds3witz.zip)

in the folder you will find a full rez 16 bit tiff and a screen shot of the sharpening settings I use in acr.
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with a good copy of this camera!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes you will get these comments, from the people who think they no everthing better.

so first of all I won't comment you woof75, I know your standpoint and I don't see any reason why I should waste my time talking. You never showed an example in the past and I'm pretty sure we will never show a real example of the things you always say.

What is wrong with the rest ? It is nothing new that Canon files need sharpening. I presented a unsharped image, which holds up extremly well printed 20*30 inches. As long as you know how to sharpen a file.

I know that a P45 shot with out any AA Filter is sharper right out of the box, but I have worked with MFDB in a studio session and I know that you won't have more detail in the same shot done with a P25... if you really think so, than stop talking and show it.

Quote
Sorry but you don't know what sharp means. Also look at the results from any medium format camera and you'll understand what a beautiful image is.

Yes I really have to say we can only see fantastic photographs in your recent work thread over in the MFDB section ... ;-)

P.S. About the shadows, strange perhaps you should work on your Postprocessing skills :-P Looks like a lot of people don't have your problems


EDIT:

Just to clarify one thing, I love shooting with a MFDB as much as with my Canon or Leica M8, I just can't stand people saying the one thing is so much better without proofing it.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Christopher on April 24, 2008, 06:30:02 pm
deleted
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Ken R on April 24, 2008, 07:11:28 pm
U know, Ive been using the 5D for a few years with great results so with some trepidation I got the 1Ds mk3 because for some jobs I needed larger files. I wasnt expecting a huge improvement in Image Quality. But man, was I pleasantly surprised.

The Image quality out of my 1Ds mark III is just awesome. Even when used handheld, out on the street, high iso, with a zoom lens like the 17-40mm f4L , wide open, wow. Detail is just superb but the largest surprise, was the color, WOW. Whites are just so much better and color depth is just great without having to overly increase saturation. I do a lot of product (tabletop) photography with profoto lights and the first time I used the camera under those controlled conditions the results were just incredible. Not only are the files big, pixel quality was just great.

Regarding the shot posted, at f16 you are getting decreased sharpness due to difraction. f8 is optimum.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: David Anderson on April 24, 2008, 07:48:07 pm
Quote
Sorry but you don't know what sharp means. Also look at the results from any medium format camera and you'll understand what a beautiful image is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Is it good at F 1.2 ?
Low noise at ISO 1600 ?
How's the bokeh on the 400 2.8 ?  
How many frames a second ?
Does it handle some rain ?
     

I love the DSIII - though agree with the comments that to get the best you need too shoot with some care and the best lenses.

IMHO there is no better way to photograph people.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: sojournerphoto on April 24, 2008, 08:43:32 pm
I've just processed about 150 mixed fles through LR - many shot in low and difficult gym light (WB3600 +64). I used the 5D and 1Ds3 and both produced useable images, but the 1Ds3 files are noticeably better and more malleable - to an extent that I was surprised, e.g. iso 1600 +2.5 stops and fill light and curves, and still printable with a bit of NR.

At more usual isos (for me) I find the file quality to be outstanding and have become convinced that it is much better overall than the 5D, which remains excellent, but it has taken me a while to get used to capture sharpening appropriately.

I'm more pleased 2 months in than when I bought it.

Mike
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Kika Livno on April 24, 2008, 09:17:41 pm
Will Really Right Stuff L-plate for 1Ds MkII.....   f i t   1Ds MkIII ?


Cheers
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 24, 2008, 10:31:12 pm
Quote
here's a simple ( please don't critique... just a simple setup )  shot taken just a few hours ago... 1ds3, iso 100, 70-200 f4L @ f13 1/125 around 85mm ( get file info in photoshop to get actual meta )

http://www.1080studio.com/1ds3witz.zip (http://www.1080studio.com/1ds3witz.zip)

in the folder you will find a full rez 16 bit tiff and a screen shot of the sharpening settings I use in acr.
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with a good copy of this camera!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I had a look at your file and it isn't bad but it feels both oversharpened and a little unsharp at the same time. I had to rent a 5d the other day (long story, usually shoot phase one) and it was sharper than the example you posted, maybe if I had to print bigger it would be a different story. I was actually pleasantly suprised by the 5d, it was sharper than my old 1ds mark 2 and the 1ds mark 3 seems to be a slightly softer version of the mark 2.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Josh-H on April 24, 2008, 10:37:23 pm
Quote
Will Really Right Stuff L-plate for 1Ds MkII.....   f i t   1Ds MkIII ?
Cheers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191743\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Kika Livno on April 24, 2008, 11:12:57 pm
Quote
No.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


 
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: samuel_js on April 25, 2008, 02:45:50 am
Quote
Yes I really have to say we can only see fantastic photographs in your recent work thread over in the MFDB section ... ;-)


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Except the nudes of course, the 35mm forum has some wonderful nudes on page 5.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Christopher on April 25, 2008, 05:58:03 am
Quote
Except the nudes of course, the 35mm forum has some wonderful nudes on page 5.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191792\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  no comment on these  
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Craig Lamson on April 25, 2008, 06:58:36 am
Quote
U know, Ive been using the 5D for a few years with great results so with some trepidation I got the 1Ds mk3 because for some jobs I needed larger files. I wasnt expecting a huge improvement in Image Quality. But man, was I pleasantly surprised.

(snip)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a 1DsMKI, had a 1DsMKII and have a 5d.  I recently added the 1dsMKIII.

Just a few days ago I was asked by an agency for some samples of my files and in the process of making them I processed files from all of the cameras.  The MKIII is still new but man those files simply trounce the files from the other cameras...hands down.  I have loved using all of these cameras, but for my money the MKIII is by far the best of the bunch.

BUT! and its a big but...my MKIII failed in less than a month of ownership.  Its at Canon right now.  Of all of the Canon cameras I have owned this is the first failure.  

I had not planned to upgrade to the MKIII.  My MKII was still going strong, my clients were quite happy with the files and it printed double page CMYK wonderfully.  Sadly the MKII was destroyed and I replaced it with the MKIII.  I may yet buy another MKII as a backup or perhaps wait and see what the new 5d is like.  If the 5d is 14 bit that will be my choice.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: sojournerphoto on April 25, 2008, 07:18:59 am
Quote
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You need the plate for the 1D Mk 3 - the body is the same. I've got one on mine. and have no problems plugging in the remote release.

Mike
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 25, 2008, 07:47:52 am
Quote
I have a 1DsMKI, had a 1DsMKII and have a 5d.  I recently added the 1dsMKIII.

Just a few days ago I was asked by an agency for some samples of my files and in the process of making them I processed files from all of the cameras.  The MKIII is still new but man those files simply trounce the files from the other cameras...hands down.  I have loved using all of these cameras, but for my money the MKIII is by far the best of the bunch.

BUT! and its a big but...my MKIII failed in less than a month of ownership.  Its at Canon right now.  Of all of the Canon cameras I have owned this is the first failure. 

I had not planned to upgrade to the MKIII.  My MKII was still going strong, my clients were quite happy with the files and it printed double page CMYK wonderfully.  Sadly the MKII was destroyed and I replaced it with the MKIII.  I may yet buy another MKII as a backup or perhaps wait and see what the new 5d is like.  If the 5d is 14 bit that will be my choice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thats interesting, in what way do you prefer the files? What do you think to the sharpness compared to the 1ds mark 2 and the 5d (which I thought seemed sharper than the 1ds mark2)?
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: witz on April 25, 2008, 08:17:38 am
Quote
I had a look at your file and it isn't bad but it feels both oversharpened and a little unsharp at the same time. I had to rent a 5d the other day (long story, usually shoot phase one) and it was sharper than the example you posted, maybe if I had to print bigger it would be a different story. I was actually pleasantly suprised by the 5d, it was sharper than my old 1ds mark 2 and the 1ds mark 3 seems to be a slightly softer version of the mark 2.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


your kidding right?

I'd love to see a raw file from your golden 5d.

I've had a few 5d's and they don't compare to the ds3.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 25, 2008, 09:57:14 am
Quote
your kidding right?

I'd love to see a raw file from your golden 5d.

I've had a few 5d's and they don't compare to the ds3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No I'm not kidding. The 1ds mark 3 reminds me of my old 1ds mark 2. Here's a quick couple of crops, one from the mark 3 file that was posted and one is a quick crop of the 5d, neither are resized. The 5d file seems to have more clarity. The bigger eye is of course the 1ds mark 3 eye. (the full image is about the same size in both files).
Based on what I've seen so far I really think canon made the AA filter too strong on this new camera.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: witz on April 25, 2008, 01:57:07 pm
Quote
No I'm not kidding. The 1ds mark 3 reminds me of my old 1ds mark 2. Here's a quick couple of crops, one from the mark 3 file that was posted and one is a quick crop of the 5d, neither are resized. The 5d file seems to have more clarity. The bigger eye is of course the 1ds mark 3 eye. (the full image is about the same size in both files).
Based on what I've seen so far I really think canon made the AA filter too strong on this new camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191854\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Am I supposed to compare those without seeing the actual amount cropped from?

also.... your sample is just to small to compare! please post a raw file or at least a tiff at full size please.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: lovell on April 25, 2008, 04:46:48 pm
I've had the 1D mark II, IIn, 1DS, 1DS Mark II, and 5D bodies.

The ONLY body that betters the 5D in image quality is the 1DS Mark III.  

The 5D provides better IQ then the Mark I and Mark II bodies of DS series, both of which were too noisy at ISO 800.   Only body build and ergonomics of those better the 5D, but these attributes do nothing for IQ.

I really do not understand why anyone would buy a used 1DS, or 1DS Mark II....great bodies sure, and straight out of camera jpgs very good as well, but that is it.

I think a better body at the expense of image quality, especially if a lessor costing body provides higher IQ shows priorities I personally do not understand.

To be fair, I'm not especially happy with the ergo's of the 5D, nor it's lack of sealing, however the prime directive of a DSLR is IQ, and everything else is 2nd.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 25, 2008, 05:07:32 pm
Quote
Am I supposed to compare those without seeing the actual amount cropped from?

also.... your sample is just to small to compare! please post a raw file or at least a tiff at full size please.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey, the full image is about the same crop as the one in the 1ds mark 3 file which is why it's about half the size due to the lower resolution. I can't upload full files as my clients and models etc would be a little miffed.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 25, 2008, 05:10:30 pm
Quote
I've had the 1D mark II, IIn, 1DS, 1DS Mark II, and 5D bodies.

The ONLY body that betters the 5D in image quality is the 1DS Mark III. 

The 5D provides better IQ then the Mark I and Mark II bodies of DS series, both of which were too noisy at ISO 800.   Only body build and ergonomics of those better the 5D, but these attributes do nothing for IQ.

I really do not understand why anyone would buy a used 1DS, or 1DS Mark II....great bodies sure, and straight out of camera jpgs very good as well, but that is it.

I think a better body at the expense of image quality, especially if a lessor costing body provides higher IQ shows priorities I personally do not understand.

To be fair, I'm not especially happy with the ergo's of the 5D, nor it's lack of sealing, however the prime directive of a DSLR is IQ, and everything else is 2nd.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191918\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thats interesting, I thought the 5d was sharper than my 1ds mark 2. So do you think the 1ds mark 3 is sharper than the 5d? Looking at the 1ds mark 3 files, they seem a little"thicker" for want of a better word maybe than the 1ds mark 2 or 5d files. Do you find this to be the case?
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Christopher on April 25, 2008, 06:28:52 pm
Quote
Thats interesting, I thought the 5d was sharper than my 1ds mark 2. So do you think the 1ds mark 3 is sharper than the 5d? Looking at the 1ds mark 3 files, they seem a little"thicker" for want of a better word maybe than the 1ds mark 2 or 5d files. Do you find this to be the case?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Love your to crops. have to say your 5D rocks  
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: lovell on April 25, 2008, 07:09:54 pm
Quote
Thats interesting, I thought the 5d was sharper than my 1ds mark 2. So do you think the 1ds mark 3 is sharper than the 5d? Looking at the 1ds mark 3 files, they seem a little"thicker" for want of a better word maybe than the 1ds mark 2 or 5d files. Do you find this to be the case?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The AA filter on the 5D is less aggressive I think then those used in the 1D Mark I/II/IIn, and all the 1DS series bodies, and for this reason, the 5D raws seem a tad sharper.

However none of these bodies produce too soft images that cannot be mitigated  with proper USM application.

I would be a bit more concerned with the lenses used then the body in regard to sharpness.

The 1D/1DS pro bodies are less aggressive with in-camera sharpening I think, allow the photographer more room for his decision making, which I think is the best way to go generally.  The less aggressive AA filter on the 5D means a bit more moire, and other digital artifacts, but this is not really a problem.  I have found the 5D showing some banding in skys and walls however.  Often cordoray and tight knits/patterns can show some moire, but applying AA in post can often mitigate this issue, the few times it happens.

My experience with the 1DS Mark III is not much, as I have rented one and made about 1,000 or so exposures, and what I found was that it made superb awesome images showing noticably more detail in for example wedding dresses and fibers in tuxes then the 5D provided.  The highlight management with the Mark III proved wonderful, and yest "thicker" too. ;-)
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: SeanFS on April 25, 2008, 07:11:10 pm
Quote
Thats interesting, I thought the 5d was sharper than my 1ds mark 2. So do you think the 1ds mark 3 is sharper than the 5d? Looking at the 1ds mark 3 files, they seem a little"thicker" for want of a better word maybe than the 1ds mark 2 or 5d files. Do you find this to be the case?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I have just had a chance to test my mk 3 against the mk2 and I can't say the increase in resolution is huge It does however render some of the very finest detail out that the mk2 can't quite get . Both cameras need the very best glass - I tried a 50mm macro and 85mm 1.2 , both at f8 and the macro is one scary sharp lens in the detail it can record in just normal use , right into the corners.

It is  more colour is the difference and I can only put that down to the 14bit files. I can't say one is better than the other either - just different. The mk 3 is smoother and more "full" . Curiously it reminds me of the Kodak 14nx I was using only a couple of years ago.

I have never used the 5d but have a number of friends who have - the colour always seemed a little richer and there was always a small but significant loss in difference in resolution to the mk 2, but for the price I think the 5D is and will be a bargain for some time to come.

Of course there really isn't much in the way of noise - but then I have many prints from the mk2 that show no visible noise in A3 prints at 1600asa, and even at 3200asa the noise is not too bad if exposed correctly. Out of desperation I have used the mk 2 at 3200 asa in some difficult Industrial locations and its always been more than acceptable.
The mk 3 is truly amazing in its ability to recover overexposures , or blown out areas of sky and that seems to be a major difference.

The other is file size - it seems to reduce the number of images on a card by almost half!
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: lovell on April 25, 2008, 07:21:45 pm
Quote
I have just had a chance to test my mk 3 against the mk2 and I can't say the increase in resolution is huge It does however render some of the very finest detail out that the mk2 can't quite get . Both cameras need the very best glass - I tried a 50mm macro and 85mm 1.2 , both at f8 and the macro is one scary sharp lens in the detail it can record in just normal use , right into the corners.

It is  more colour is the difference and I can only put that down to the 14bit files. I can't say one is better than the other either - just different. The mk 3 is smoother and more "full" . Curiously it reminds me of the Kodak 14nx I was using only a couple of years ago.

I have never used the 5d but have a number of friends who have - the colour always seemed a little richer and there was always a small but significant loss in difference in resolution to the mk 2, but for the price I think the 5D is and will be a bargain for some time to come.

Of course there really isn't much in the way of noise - but then I have many prints from the mk2 that show no visible noise in A3 prints at 1600asa, and even at 3200asa the noise is not too bad if exposed correctly. Out of desperation I have used the mk 2 at 3200 asa in some difficult Industrial locations and its always been more than acceptable.
The mk 3 is truly amazing in its ability to recover overexposures , or blown out areas of sky and that seems to be a major difference.

The other is file size - it seems to reduce the number of images on a card by almost half!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191949\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I generall agree with you.  What I found in my own ownership of the 1DS Mark II and 5D is that the 5D was at least one full stop less noise then the 1DS Mark II, and for weddings this was important to me.  With both I shot only RAW and always exposed to the right to lift the shadows and thereby minimizing noise the there.

I found that the 5D as also 1 stop less noise in comparison to the 1D Mark II and IIn as well.

Now the 1DS Mark III seems to be one full stop lessor in noise then the 5D, based on my own findings.  And I expect to order my copy sometime in Q3 or Q4 this year...cannot wait.  I really am looking forward to the 14 bit depth as well, oh and the highlight priority proved wonderful the weekend I rented the Mark III...I just wished I had the body more days to really explore it's potential more.

Given the entry of more and more full frame competition, I suspect the Mark III's street will slip down to the $6,000 range in 12-18 months, but I'm just guessing of course.  Rumors of Nikon's coming 20+ MP pro body, and Sony's 20+ mp later this year is really a great thing for all us EOS full frame shooters.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 26, 2008, 08:37:22 am
Quote
Love your to crops. have to say your 5D rocks 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 I have no idea what you mean. Would you care to explain? Just so you know it isn't my 5d, I just rented it. I don't own any canon equipment any more.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 26, 2008, 08:42:22 am
Quote
The AA filter on the 5D is less aggressive I think then those used in the 1D Mark I/II/IIn, and all the 1DS series bodies, and for this reason, the 5D raws seem a tad sharper.

However none of these bodies produce too soft images that cannot be mitigated  with proper USM application.

I would be a bit more concerned with the lenses used then the body in regard to sharpness.

The 1D/1DS pro bodies are less aggressive with in-camera sharpening I think, allow the photographer more room for his decision making, which I think is the best way to go generally.  The less aggressive AA filter on the 5D means a bit more moire, and other digital artifacts, but this is not really a problem.  I have found the 5D showing some banding in skys and walls however.  Often cordoray and tight knits/patterns can show some moire, but applying AA in post can often mitigate this issue, the few times it happens.

My experience with the 1DS Mark III is not much, as I have rented one and made about 1,000 or so exposures, and what I found was that it made superb awesome images showing noticably more detail in for example wedding dresses and fibers in tuxes then the 5D provided.  The highlight management with the Mark III proved wonderful, and yest "thicker" too. ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Do you think that the files straight out of the 1ds mark 3 (raw) are more or less sharp than the 1ds mark 2?
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: SeanFS on April 26, 2008, 07:27:09 pm
Quote
Do you think that the files straight out of the 1ds mark 3 (raw) are more or less sharp than the 1ds mark 2?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

They are more detailed but not necessarily sharper . I have never been a jpeg shooter so I'm going by looking at RAW here, with no sharpening applied. Looking again at some of the sharpened files I can see the mk2 sometimes looks sharper and it seems to be down to the difference in file size - so I guess that means  the Mk3 is pushing the quality of lenses just that much more. I haven't done  a wide range of aperture testing ( only  f11 ) so it might be the mk3 produces better results at wider apertures where diffraction distortion is less of an issue.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: sojournerphoto on April 27, 2008, 07:34:34 am
Quote
They are more detailed but not necessarily sharper . I have never been a jpeg shooter so I'm going by looking at RAW here, with no sharpening applied. Looking again at some of the sharpened files I can see the mk2 sometimes looks sharper and it seems to be down to the difference in file size - so I guess that means  the Mk3 is pushing the quality of lenses just that much more. I haven't done  a wide range of aperture testing ( only  f11 ) so it might be the mk3 produces better results at wider apertures where diffraction distortion is less of an issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Diffraction seems to become visible on the 1Ds3 by about f8 (at 100%) if everything else is perfect. It makes the tradeoff between resolution and dof very obvious

Mike
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 27, 2008, 02:41:21 pm
Quote
They are more detailed but not necessarily sharper . I have never been a jpeg shooter so I'm going by looking at RAW here, with no sharpening applied. Looking again at some of the sharpened files I can see the mk2 sometimes looks sharper and it seems to be down to the difference in file size - so I guess that means  the Mk3 is pushing the quality of lenses just that much more. I haven't done  a wide range of aperture testing ( only  f11 ) so it might be the mk3 produces better results at wider apertures where diffraction distortion is less of an issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thats not good to hear, the mark 2 wasn't quite what I wanted in terms of sharpness so if it's not at least as sharp as that I'll give it a miss. It'll save me some money though I guess. I'm getting a couple of 5d's, I was really impressed by the one I rented.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: SeanFS on April 27, 2008, 08:00:04 pm
Quote
Thats not good to hear, the mark 2 wasn't quite what I wanted in terms of sharpness so if it's not at least as sharp as that I'll give it a miss. It'll save me some money though I guess. I'm getting a couple of 5d's, I was really impressed by the one I rented.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think any camera with an AA filter is giving something away in terms of potential sharpness - its extracting the detail with sharpening technique which makes the difference and of course lens quality.  MFDB's still have quite an edge - even my "old " Imacon 22mp back with V system Hasselblad will do better in fine detail rendering  than the 1ds3. There also is the jpeg factor to take into account in that MFDB 's don't do jpegs, so don't have to be designed to accommodate the jpeg shooter so no AA filter. Somewhere in these forums someone talks about getting the AA filter removed by a third party company  and the increase in sharpness it brings , I can well believe it. They don't talk about Moire and noise though , a couple of things the AA filter hides although I have had moire with my 1ds2 a few times with fabric shoots.
I didn't see a huge jump from my 14nx ( no AA filter!) to the 1ds2, and unless using good lenses at optimum aperture attached firmly to a tripod on a calm day there probably wasn't much, its more or less the same from the 1ds2 to the 1ds3 .
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: witz on April 28, 2008, 10:41:46 am
to anyone reading/lurking through this thread who are considering the purchase of a 1ds3... please be aware that this thread contains a lot of speculation from those who do not own a 1ds3.

Those photographers who do own a 1ds3 and know how to tool it up with good glass and a proper workflow agree that it is indeed a step up from a 1ds2 as well as being a fantastic camera and at the top of it's class.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 28, 2008, 10:52:36 am
Quote
to anyone reading/lurking through this thread who are considering the purchase of a 1ds3... please be aware that this thread contains a lot of speculation from those who do not own a 1ds3.

Those photographers who do own a 1ds3 and know how to tool it up with good glass and a proper workflow agree that it is indeed a step up from a 1ds2 as well as being a fantastic camera and at the top of it's class.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In what way is it a step up, do you think it is as sharp as the 1ds mark2?
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: sojournerphoto on April 28, 2008, 11:19:04 am
Quote
In what way is it a step up, do you think it is as sharp as the 1ds mark2?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This thread is no longer progressing. I think every actual owner of the 1Ds3 has suggested that the files are preferable to their previous camera, whether 5D or 1Ds2. How they come out of camera and how much and how they respond to capture sharpening are not really the issues here for most users. If you need sharp at pixel level out of camera then you probably want a MFDB or a foveon sensor without AA filter. In the world of prints the 1Ds3 files contain more detail and print better than 5D files in every situation I've yet been able to compare. At the 100% on screen view there are differences in some areas of the file and some of these (e.g. noise structure) are visible in print.

Arguing for sharper files out of the box and suggesting the 5D is better because the files are sharper is similar to suggesting that it's better having the lower resolution camera because you sometimes shoot at f11 and the 1Ds3 can't resolve any more than the 5D at that aperture due to diffraction - and at f11 5D files will appear sharper because there is less impact from diffraction at f11 on a 5D image than on a 1Ds3 image. The 1Ds3 resolves the diffraction blur and bokeh better though:)

I've still got my 5D and still use it sometimes. It's still a fantastic tool, but the 1Ds3 produces better prints and I find it better to work with.

As Witz said earlier

"Those photographers who do own a 1ds3 and know how to tool it up with good glass and a proper workflow agree that it is indeed a step up from a 1ds2 as well as being a fantastic camera and at the top of it's class."
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 28, 2008, 11:58:10 am
Lets not make it personal, it's only a camera. I do actually own a Phase back but I want something to complement it and to me inherent (i.e. not put in after the fact by USM) sharpness is important. Why is this so unpalatable? its a simple question.

Quote
This thread is no longer progressing. I think every actual owner of the 1Ds3 has suggested that the files are preferable to their previous camera, whether 5D or 1Ds2. How they come out of camera and how much and how they respond to capture sharpening are not really the issues here for most users. If you need sharp at pixel level out of camera then you probably want a MFDB or a foveon sensor without AA filter. In the world of prints the 1Ds3 files contain more detail and print better than 5D files in every situation I've yet been able to compare. At the 100% on screen view there are differences in some areas of the file and some of these (e.g. noise structure) are visible in print.

Arguing for sharper files out of the box and suggesting the 5D is better because the files are sharper is similar to suggesting that it's better having the lower resolution camera because you sometimes shoot at f11 and the 1Ds3 can't resolve any more than the 5D at that aperture due to diffraction - and at f11 5D files will appear sharper because there is less impact from diffraction at f11 on a 5D image than on a 1Ds3 image. The 1Ds3 resolves the diffraction blur and bokeh better though:)

I've still got my 5D and still use it sometimes. It's still a fantastic tool, but the 1Ds3 produces better prints and I find it better to work with.

As Witz said earlier

"Those photographers who do own a 1ds3 and know how to tool it up with good glass and a proper workflow agree that it is indeed a step up from a 1ds2 as well as being a fantastic camera and at the top of it's class."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192306\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Christopher on April 28, 2008, 01:19:08 pm
Quote
Lets not make it personal, it's only a camera. I do actually own a Phase back but I want something to complement it and to me inherent (i.e. not put in after the fact by USM) sharpness is important. Why is this so unpalatable? its a simple question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And as I said before the difference between a 5D and 1Dsmk3 is big. I owned a 5D, 1DsMk2 and now a 1DsMk3. The 5D is just not good enough anymore. YES the 5D is sharper when viewed at 100% on screen and before sharpning, BUT WHY DOES that matter to you ? I don't know about you, but I produce prints from my images and there the difference is huge. Print a 12*18, a 16*24 or a 20*30 inch print and the 1DsMk3 image will look better in all ways. It keeps more detail and is sharper than anything the 5D can produce. It blows the 5D away.

So for me, because I'm selling prints the difference is there. Oh, and why upgrade from a 1DsMk2 ? First of all you see the difference in print but also because of so many nice features. Live View, the new handling just to name two.

I loved my 5D and 1DsMk2 but would not want to change from my 1DsMk3. I just love the camera.

Oh and before somebody asks, yes I would and probably will add a MFDB like a P45 to my equipment as soon as I can justify the costs.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 28, 2008, 01:31:21 pm
Quote
And as I said before the difference between a 5D and 1Dsmk3 is big. I owned a 5D, 1DsMk2 and now a 1DsMk3. The 5D is just not good enough anymore. YES the 5D is sharper when viewed at 100% on screen and before sharpning, BUT WHY DOES that matter to you ? I don't know about you, but I produce prints from my images and there the difference is huge. Print a 12*18, a 16*24 or a 20*30 inch print and the 1DsMk3 image will look better in all ways. It keeps more detail and is sharper than anything the 5D can produce. It blows the 5D away.

So for me, because I'm selling prints the difference is there. Oh, and why upgrade from a 1DsMk2 ? First of all you see the difference in print but also because of so many nice features. Live View, the new handling just to name two.

I loved my 5D and 1DsMk2 but would not want to change from my 1DsMk3. I just love the camera.

Oh and before somebody asks, yes I would and probably will add a MFDB like a P45 to my equipment as soon as I can justify the costs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192322\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The reason I care about out of camera sharpness is that I can see a difference between actual sharpness and that induced by USM and I prefer the look of inherent sharpness.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: ruraltrekker on April 28, 2008, 02:00:50 pm
Quote
to anyone reading/lurking through this thread who are considering the purchase of a 1ds3... please be aware that this thread contains a lot of speculation from those who do not own a 1ds3.

Those photographers who do own a 1ds3 and know how to tool it up with good glass and a proper workflow agree that it is indeed a step up from a 1ds2 as well as being a fantastic camera and at the top of it's class.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

THANK YOU Witz for this statement!

I was beginning to wonder if I got a IV based on this thread 'cause the III's that repalced my II's is an awsome upgrade. (And I shot with the II since 12/04 after making the Canon switch).
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: ruraltrekker on April 28, 2008, 02:05:40 pm
Quote
The reason I care about out of camera sharpness is that I can see a difference between actual sharpness and that induced by USM and I prefer the look of inherent sharpness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192323\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well there lies the problem. The dSLR workflow & the DBMF back workflow are not equal and you are making a judgement that is just not apples to apples. Now, please this is not a MF vs. dSLR challenge, etc., etc. They are both tools to be used as the situation requires. But to judge a dSLR file "right out of the box" for sharpness is just plain wrong.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 28, 2008, 02:34:11 pm
Quote
Well there lies the problem. The dSLR workflow & the DBMF back workflow are not equal and you are making a judgement that is just not apples to apples. Now, please this is not a MF vs. dSLR challenge, etc., etc. They are both tools to be used as the situation requires. But to judge a dSLR file "right out of the box" for sharpness is just plain wrong.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192330\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you tell me where exactly I compared MFDB to dslr?
What I actually said is that I like a sharp file. Doesn't everyone? USM is not the same as sharpness. All I want to know is whether the new 1ds mark 3 is as sharp as the 5d. I'm not saying is it as good as the 5d, I'm saying is it as sharp. For me, maybe not for you, but for me, I prefer the 5d to the 1ds mark 2 because of the extra sharpness. If the 1ds mark 3 isn't as sharp as the mark 2 then maybe it isn't the camera for me and my aesthetic taste.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: sojournerphoto on April 28, 2008, 04:08:19 pm
Quote
Can you tell me where exactly I compared MFDB to dslr?
What I actually said is that I like a sharp file. Doesn't everyone? USM is not the same as sharpness. All I want to know is whether the new 1ds mark 3 is as sharp as the 5d. I'm not saying is it as good as the 5d, I'm saying is it as sharp. For me, maybe not for you, but for me, I prefer the 5d to the 1ds mark 2 because of the extra sharpness. If the 1ds mark 3 isn't as sharp as the mark 2 then maybe it isn't the camera for me and my aesthetic taste.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


woof, sorry not meaing to make it personal - please don't take any offence. Look back in an hour and I'll post 100% crops without any addional sharpening from both bodies...

Mike
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 28, 2008, 04:13:03 pm
Quote
woof, sorry not meaing to make it personal - please don't take any offence. Look back in an hour and I'll post 100% crops without any addional sharpening from both bodies...

Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192343\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

that would be great, thanks.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: sojournerphoto on April 28, 2008, 07:22:40 pm
Sorry for the slight delay - it took some time to persuade 'onion' that he should pose for these shots. Indeed, it was only after drinking the glass of wine to which he clings that he was able to sit still and be compliant...

OK, first the overall scene to give an idea of scale. This is the full frame view shot with a 100mm f2,8 macro lens at f4. 100iso, 1/125th shutter and illuminated by ttl flash bounced from the ceiling.

[attachment=6296:attachment]

Now some 100% crops. Processed through Lightroom 1.4.1 with NR and Sharpening turned off (not sure what residual actions it may take). No other adjustments made, so LR standard render except for preset colour calibration for the 5D.

5D 100mm f4
[attachment=6297:attachment]


1Ds3 100mm f4
[attachment=6299:attachment]

And as the 1Ds3 produces bigger files, here is a 1Ds3 shot with the 85 1.8 at f4.

1Ds3 85mm f4
[attachment=6300:attachment]


All shot on a tripod.

One other point that may matter to you. I shot several of each version and the 1Ds3 images were effectively interchangeable. From the 5D I threw away a couple where the focus was slightly off (interestingly the later images in each case as it got it right first time.

Hope this helps and sorry I didn't have time to match luminosity and colour etc, but at least you can have a play with putting some usm on the files.

Mike
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Jim Pascoe on April 29, 2008, 07:50:58 am
To reply to the original poster.  I have had a 1DS for about five years and it was great.  I have used a 5D for a couple of years as well and that was good too, better in some ways as it seemed a bit more 'user friendly'. In December I bought a 1DS 111 and it is fantastic!

The Mk111 is just a little lighter than the original, and with prime lenses on feels a little more comfortable.  The new battery is streets ahead in weight and runtime.  The custom menu is very useful.  The images are superb - though as others have said - only the best lenses are demanded, especially at wide apertures.

I shoot mostly weddings and people.  Do I need 21MP?  Not often, but even if the Mk 111 only had 12MP it would still be a better camera to use than the original 1Ds or the 5D, in my opinion.
Of course it is rather expensive.

I do not understand all the bickering that goes on here about the pros and cons of various cameras.
They are all good cameras.  If you think the 5d is best, stick with it, spend the money saved on a nice holiday.  The original 1ds takes great pictures, it is just not as good to use as the new Mk 111.

My customers would not be able to tell mostly whether I shot their pictures on a 10D or a 1Ds Mk 111.  I just use what I enjoy using.

Jim
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 29, 2008, 08:40:59 am
Quote
To reply to the original poster.  I have had a 1DS for about five years and it was great.  I have used a 5D for a couple of years as well and that was good too, better in some ways as it seemed a bit more 'user friendly'. In December I bought a 1DS 111 and it is fantastic!

The Mk111 is just a little lighter than the original, and with prime lenses on feels a little more comfortable.  The new battery is streets ahead in weight and runtime.  The custom menu is very useful.  The images are superb - though as others have said - only the best lenses are demanded, especially at wide apertures.

I shoot mostly weddings and people.  Do I need 21MP?  Not often, but even if the Mk 111 only had 12MP it would still be a better camera to use than the original 1Ds or the 5D, in my opinion.
Of course it is rather expensive.

I do not understand all the bickering that goes on here about the pros and cons of various cameras.
They are all good cameras.  If you think the 5d is best, stick with it, spend the money saved on a nice holiday.  The original 1ds takes great pictures, it is just not as good to use as the new Mk 111.


My customers would not be able to tell mostly whether I shot their pictures on a 10D or a 1Ds Mk 111.  I just use what I enjoy using.

Jim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192462\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not bickering it's just each individual trying to ascertain which camera is the right tool for his or her application, this is a forum for technical discussion. What were you expecting, cake decoration tips?
Mike- thanks so much for posting those images, I know what a pain it can be doing such tests. In your test there doesn't seem to be much in it at all with regard to sharpness.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: sojournerphoto on April 29, 2008, 10:16:06 am
Quote
Mike- thanks so much for posting those images, I know what a pain it can be doing such tests. In your test there doesn't seem to be much in it at all with regard to sharpness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, that was where I got to - out of the box the files are similarly sharp at a pixel level. You can play with usm and other capture sharpening to see how they respond, and at least these are comparable files as they were shot with the same lens with the bodies mounted on the same tripod.

The other thing is that my macro lens doesn't need any focus adjustment on the 1Ds3, so I presume it's focussing correctly on the 5D also. The 85 is adjusted and so potentially wouldn't have presented a fair result on the 5D.

The other factors I would bear in mind are that the 1Ds3 is actually nicer to use than the 5D for me - it fits my hands well and I'm delighted with sensor clean and (unexpectedly) live view. Against is the cost...

Mike.

Mike.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: John_Black on April 29, 2008, 10:26:58 am
I've owned the 1Ds, 5D, 1Ds2 and now 1Ds3.  Probably 50,000+ clicks on those bodies across a 4 year period.  A couple comments -

The 1Ds2 resolve more detail than the 5D; the 1Ds2 also has significantly more detail dynamic range than a 5D.  If a smaller camera is important to you, then 5D makes sense, but if the goal is the best sensor / image quality - the 1Ds2 easily wins this comparison.

The 1Ds3 compared to the 1Ds2 is disappointing IMO.  The 1Ds3 has slightly less dynamic range and is more likely to clip clouds and skies.  The ISO 100 shadow noise is about the same as the 1Ds2.  The 1Ds2 raw files appear sharper.  When a 1Ds3 raw is downsized to the same size as a 1Ds2 raw, the files are very similar.  So the good news is - the 1Ds3 isn't capturing less, but I don't think the 5 extra MP or capturing anything more either.

The 1Ds3 benefits are mostly the features - larger viewfinder which is huge, larger LCD, good high ISO (compared to the 1Ds2 and 5D), live view (very handy with manual focus lenses), a bit lighter, simpler user interface (though the AF point selection is utterly lame).  

If I had to do it again, I may have stayed with the 1Ds2.  I also had a Phase One P25 back and its files are categorically better in terms sharpness and dynamic range.  Had Canon used a weaker a AA filter on the 1Ds3, then I feel it could have really challenged medium format.  Instead the AA filter (or whatever is softening the raw files) zapped alot of the 1Ds3's potential.

All of this is very relative - it depends on what camera you had before, what you expect a good raw file to look like, etc.  Coming from the P25 back, I'm not impressed.  I love the ergonomics and handling, but sensor / image quality comes up short.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on April 29, 2008, 10:42:59 am
Quote
I've owned the 1Ds, 5D, 1Ds2 and now 1Ds3.  Probably 50,000+ clicks on those bodies across a 4 year period.  A couple comments -

The 1Ds2 resolve more detail than the 5D; the 1Ds2 also has significantly more detail dynamic range than a 5D.  If a smaller camera is important to you, then 5D makes sense, but if the goal is the best sensor / image quality - the 1Ds2 easily wins this comparison.

The 1Ds3 compared to the 1Ds2 is disappointing IMO.  The 1Ds3 has slightly less dynamic range and is more likely to clip clouds and skies.  The ISO 100 shadow noise is about the same as the 1Ds2.  The 1Ds2 raw files appear sharper.  When a 1Ds3 raw is downsized to the same size as a 1Ds2 raw, the files are very similar.  So the good news is - the 1Ds3 isn't capturing less, but I don't think the 5 extra MP or capturing anything more either.

The 1Ds3 benefits are mostly the features - larger viewfinder which is huge, larger LCD, good high ISO (compared to the 1Ds2 and 5D), live view (very handy with manual focus lenses), a bit lighter, simpler user interface (though the AF point selection is utterly lame). 

If I had to do it again, I may have stayed with the 1Ds2.  I also had a Phase One P25 back and its files are categorically better in terms sharpness and dynamic range.  Had Canon used a weaker a AA filter on the 1Ds3, then I feel it could have really challenged medium format.  Instead the AA filter (or whatever is softening the raw files) zapped alot of the 1Ds3's potential.

All of this is very relative - it depends on what camera you had before, what you expect a good raw file to look like, etc.  Coming from the P25 back, I'm not impressed.  I love the ergonomics and handling, but sensor / image quality comes up short.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've had 1ds mark 2 and I now have the Phase P21 which I love. I could do with something thats a little more hand holdable though for times that I dont use a tripod. I rented a 5d recently and actually prefered it to my old 1ds mark 2. I didn't notice any difference in DR and it seemed sharper. I like that it's so light too. Extra MP means very little to me. My work is usually editorial so anything over 12 MP ish is fine.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Christopher on April 29, 2008, 06:27:49 pm
Quote
I've owned the 1Ds, 5D, 1Ds2 and now 1Ds3.  Probably 50,000+ clicks on those bodies across a 4 year period.  A couple comments -

The 1Ds2 resolve more detail than the 5D; the 1Ds2 also has significantly more detail dynamic range than a 5D.  If a smaller camera is important to you, then 5D makes sense, but if the goal is the best sensor / image quality - the 1Ds2 easily wins this comparison.

The 1Ds3 compared to the 1Ds2 is disappointing IMO.  The 1Ds3 has slightly less dynamic range and is more likely to clip clouds and skies.  The ISO 100 shadow noise is about the same as the 1Ds2.  The 1Ds2 raw files appear sharper.  When a 1Ds3 raw is downsized to the same size as a 1Ds2 raw, the files are very similar.  So the good news is - the 1Ds3 isn't capturing less, but I don't think the 5 extra MP or capturing anything more either.

The 1Ds3 benefits are mostly the features - larger viewfinder which is huge, larger LCD, good high ISO (compared to the 1Ds2 and 5D), live view (very handy with manual focus lenses), a bit lighter, simpler user interface (though the AF point selection is utterly lame). 

If I had to do it again, I may have stayed with the 1Ds2.  I also had a Phase One P25 back and its files are categorically better in terms sharpness and dynamic range.  Had Canon used a weaker a AA filter on the 1Ds3, then I feel it could have really challenged medium format.  Instead the AA filter (or whatever is softening the raw files) zapped alot of the 1Ds3's potential.

All of this is very relative - it depends on what camera you had before, what you expect a good raw file to look like, etc.  Coming from the P25 back, I'm not impressed.  I love the ergonomics and handling, but sensor / image quality comes up short.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting. I would say there is quite a difference between 1DsMk2 and Mk3 files. I think it really depends on the lens and f-stop you use. I could imagine that you get these results when using a crappy lens like the 24-105, 24-70 or anything wide from canon. I can only speak from my experience and there the Mk3 shows certainly more detail with lenses like a Zeiss 21, Leica 28, Leica 35-70, 70-200L f4IS, 500L f4
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Dennishh on April 29, 2008, 08:34:51 pm
"Crappy lens like the  24-70" might be a little exaggerated seeing most professional  photographers I know use the lens a great deal of the time. I have found the 24-70 to be very sharp. Your correct that it can't stand up to the Zeiss 21 and Leica lenses, but I bet it will when shooting models on the move. $ for $ it's hard to beat. Have you tried more than one 24-70 on your MK3?
Dennis
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Aboud on April 29, 2008, 09:52:17 pm
Quote
I've owned a 1Ds for quite some time, and passed on the MKII when it came out. I would like to have lower noise high ISO, and the live view seems cool, but I have not head any rave reviews about the MKIII. I personally saw one photographers tests against a 1Ds, and frankly, nothing was there that really blew me away. Is the MKIII a whole lotta' nuthin'?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=191411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've had mine since November. I love this camera. Before this I was using a Canon 5D and a Contax 645 with a Phase One P25 back. This camera holds up in tone and resolution quite well in my opinion. The only thing it gives away is the large sensor on the P25. I rarely use more than 320 ISO, and I shoot only with primes, but I find the camera to be everything I could hope for so far. If Canon could find a way to eliminate the heat issue with extended use of live (which increases noise by the way), I would have absolutely no concerns.

Photo shot with 1Ds Mk III, 85MM 1.2. ISO 250, 1/250 @ F10.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: ruraltrekker on April 30, 2008, 05:12:48 pm
Quote
Can you tell me where exactly I compared MFDB to dslr?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure, you stated that you wanted the image to be sharp from the get go, which pretty much made me conclude you are talking MF. The dSLR system using an AA filter pretty much requires the "sharpening" of the file at some point in the process. There is nothing evil or misleading about this required step.

Does a dSLR file being "unsharp" out the camera make it less worthy for your requirements? I say no, that is, if you know what to do in the processing of the image.

I just don't understand the pooh poohing on the III. It is the best so far of the 3 "s" models. I sure would not go back to a II or step sideways and backwards to a 5D.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on May 01, 2008, 07:46:07 am
Quote
Lets not make it personal, it's only a camera. I do actually own a Phase back but I want something to complement it and to me inherent (i.e. not put in after the fact by USM) sharpness is important. Why is this so unpalatable? its a simple question.

Because it's a silly basis for defining the merit of a file. It doesn't matter if the default out-of-the-camera sharpness from one camera is greater than another, if the difference can be greatly reduced or eliminated after giving each camera's files the appropriate amount of capture sharpening. Using deconvolution-based capture sharpening (such as Focus Magic) does a much better job of undoing the effect of the AA filter than standard USM, allowing you to push image sharpness and pixel-level detail to much greater levels before artifacting starts setting in. If you limit capture sharpening amounts to the needs of the file, the pixel-level sharpness difference between MFDB and DSLR is mostly academic.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on May 01, 2008, 08:19:46 am
Quote
Because it's a silly basis for defining the merit of a file. It doesn't matter if the default out-of-the-camera sharpness from one camera is greater than another, if the difference can be greatly reduced or eliminated after giving each camera's files the appropriate amount of capture sharpening. Using deconvolution-based capture sharpening (such as Focus Magic) does a much better job of undoing the effect of the AA filter than standard USM, allowing you to push image sharpness and pixel-level detail to much greater levels before artifacting starts setting in. If you limit capture sharpening amounts to the needs of the file, the pixel-level sharpness difference between MFDB and DSLR is mostly academic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192850\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Then why do you bother getting sharp lenses, why not get a cheapo lens (much lighter) and sharpen it up in post?
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on May 01, 2008, 08:37:22 am
Quote
Then why do you bother getting sharp lenses, why not get a cheapo lens (much lighter) and sharpen it up in post?

Cheap glass has a more complex mix of blurs and aberrations than an AA filter, which cannot be effectively removed with software. You have several types of aberrations which are not symmetrical, and they increase in intensity as you approach the corners. You also have increased amounts of flare and other similar effects that cannot be removed with software.

The simple blurring caused by an AA filter is within deconvolution sharpening's ability to eliminate. The complex blurring and multiple mixed aberrations from cheap glass is not.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: woof75 on May 01, 2008, 10:03:35 am
Quote
Cheap glass has a more complex mix of blurs and aberrations than an AA filter, which cannot be effectively removed with software. You have several types of aberrations which are not symmetrical, and they increase in intensity as you approach the corners. You also have increased amounts of flare and other similar effects that cannot be removed with software.

The simple blurring caused by an AA filter is within deconvolution sharpening's ability to eliminate. The complex blurring and multiple mixed aberrations from cheap glass is not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, good point. Personally I do find that sharpening in post does have a slightly different look to actual sharpness and it's not just about getting detail back, it's more the feel of the file, an artificially sharpened file doesn't have the "shimmer" for want of a different word as an inherently sharp file. Remember the shimmer you get from film grains? It's kind of like that, it's like an effervescence thats very hard to quantify that I find is lacking in files that have been excessively softened with a filter. To some this isn't important but to me it is. It's funny, it's a concept that I've never heard spoken about, maybe because theres no way of testing it really, it's very subjective.
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Doyle Yoder on May 01, 2008, 02:06:23 pm
If you haven't tried Raw Developer on the 1DsIII files you'll be in for quite a surprise. In fact that combination was the leading reason I went for the 1DsIII.

Doyle
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: sojournerphoto on May 01, 2008, 07:14:20 pm
Quote
If you haven't tried Raw Developer on the 1DsIII files you'll be in for quite a surprise. In fact that combination was the leading reason I went for the 1DsIII.

Doyle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


aach, mac only!
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: Doyle Yoder on May 01, 2008, 09:08:43 pm
Quote
aach, mac only!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wouldn't limit my tools like that.

Doyle
Title: Canon 1DsMKIII let down?
Post by: jjlphoto on May 03, 2008, 04:11:12 pm
Quote
If you haven't tried Raw Developer on the 1DsIII files you'll be in for quite a surprise. In fact that combination was the leading reason I went for the 1DsIII.

Doyle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=192953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Doyle-  what sharpening settings are you using in Raw Developer?