1DS Mark III - Lens Resolving Concerns

[Marc Schultz]

As far as I understand, the resolving power of current L series lenses are not enough to cope with the increased resolution of the new 1DS Mark III. There has been talk for a long time that the resolving power of current L lenses already struggles to keep up with the 1DS Mark II sensor and I myself have felt that way at times.

At one time there was speculation that the next generation 1DS after the Mark II, when Canon makes the jump to 20+ MP, would be a hybrid of something between a 35mm camera and a medium format body with a whole new lens system designed specially to provide more resolving power for a super higher resolution sensor.

Since Canon has not gone that route, I am wondering if they plan to offer another solution to address the issue of current lenses which won’t be able to keep up with a sensor which produces images at over 20MP.

Thoughts?

[jani]

Thoughts?

I think the problem is blown out of proportion.

The resolution difference between the 1Ds MkII and MkIII is:

4992x3328 vs. 5616x3744

That's a paper increase in angular resolution of ... hold on to your knickers! ... 12.5%.

My prediction is that the buyers/testers will see a slight increase in perceived resolution (though not 12.5%), and perhaps a very slight degradation in perceived per-pixel quality for some lenses, but there will be no disasters.

There are other and better reasons to purchase the 1Ds MkIII than resolution, and worrying about the camera "out-resolving" the lenses seems comparatively unimportant to the very tempting improvements between the models.

Disclaimer: I don't own a 1Ds (I or II), nor have I used any for a significant period of time.

[Marc Schultz]

Thanks for your thoughts Jani. I myself do happen to own a 1DS Mark II and for me I don't see the benefit in my case to move up to the 1DS Mark III. If I was still shooting with a crop factor camera I might feel differently, but in my case it probably makes more sense for me to buy a Phase One P25, which can now be had second hand for close to the same money as a 1DS Mark III. Although the Mark III will offer nearly the same resolution, with the Mark III being much more condusive to a photographic workflow, the Phase One back delivers a 22MP image from a sensor that employs a 9 micron pixel pitch which also allows me to use a Hasselblad with Zeiss glass. This to me seems more optimum than shooting a 21MP image on a much smaller sized sensor with Canon glass.

The other problem for the first 2 years that the 1DS Mark III will face will be convincing the commercial market, meaning ad agencies, art directors, hotel clients, etc. that a 35mm camera at any resolution will be able to produce an image as high quality as a medium format digital back on a Hasselblad.

So if the clients are not going to buy it, at least right away until they become more educated on the technology, then why should I is really the big question for me I guess.

Cheers…

[Kirk Gittings]

Even on a 5D at 12.7MP the quality of some L series lenses are often the limiting factor.

[wilburdl]

I use to think it was an issue but now, not so much. I too shoot with the 1DsII and when I stop down to F8, My images are as sharp as I'll ever need and I'm usually shooting at much shallower aperatures.
For architectural applications, it makes since to go with DB and a LF camera. But only for high end clients--and I'm assuming they'd prefer the 30+ backs anyway. It's obvious why the DB manufacturers went so high. The Canon will look good compared to a P25. I honestly believe if you shot the same setup with both cameras the images would contain the same amount of quality.
But in the end it comes down to what are you using it for. The Canon is very robust so it's going to be faster shutterspeeds, have better AF choices, and higher ISO capabilities (cleaner).

[madmanchan]

Remember that the pixel size of a 1Ds III is 6.4 microns whereas the pixel size of an XTi/400D is 5.7 microns. What does this mean? The XTi/400D is actually more demanding of lens quality than 1Ds III, at least in the center of the imaging circle. So the real concern will be at the edge of the imaging circle -- in other words, the edges and corners of the full-frame 1Ds III.

[dilip]

Although I have no doubt that the new body with cause outresolvingissues for more lenses, It was my undertanding (based on paper comments and no real world experience) that this was one of the reasons for the release of newer L series lenses (e.g. the new 14mm L mark II).

Moving to the MF digital backs is an outstanding option when possible.  Remember, even in the film days MF had an edge on 35mm.  Bigger is usually better all things being equal (including the ability to deal with the data in all parts of the dataflow).

--dilip

[gehle]

The other problem for the first 2 years that the 1DS Mark III will face will be convincing the commercial market, meaning ad agencies, art directors, hotel clients, etc. that a 35mm camera at any resolution will be able to produce an image as high quality as a medium format digital back on a Hasselblad.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hog wash. I have been shooting large regional and even national campaigns with the II since it came out in December 2004. I have never been questioned by a client/art director/etc. about the camera. The proof is in the delivered image and that is just fine; the clients are more than happy with the end file. But then I do pretty serious post process to gain the look that I do. That is what my clients are coming for. Not pixels.

Ken Gehle

[David Anderson]

The other problem for the first 2 years that the 1DS Mark III will face will be convincing the commercial market, meaning ad agencies, art directors, hotel clients, etc. that a 35mm camera at any resolution will be able to produce an image as high quality as a medium format digital back on a Hasselblad.

So if the clients are not going to buy it, at least right away until they become more educated on the technology, then why should I is really the big question for me I guess.

Cheers…
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=134340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I also don't agree with this.

All my ad/corprate clients don't ask about cameras, theyre focused on images and getting what's on the brief.
I've been offering them medium format digital for shoots at the cost of hiring a back for my blads vs using my 1DSII's and all have gone with the 35's

I think features like Live View will win more business than resolution alone.

Time will tell.

[djgarcia]

Add me to the list of those more excited by the 14-bits than the 21MP. Sure, I'm happy to get the extra MP, but the extended tonal range will have more impact over the current 1Ds2 images, IMHO. And I won't complain about all the other improvements over my current 1Ds2, for sure, all of them are most welcome.

I really hope they finally get the mirror lock-up thing right this time - any word on that?

[jeff Liao]

One question appear to me.

If "the resolving power of current L series lenses are not enough to cope with the increased resolution of the new 1DS Mark III. There has been talk for a long time that the resolving power of current L lenses already struggles to keep up with the 1DS Mark II sensor" is ture then, how do we expect medium format lens to keep up with 22MP-39MP digital back?  
As we know 135 lens should have higher lens resolution than medium format lens.  

Jeff

[DHB]

I don't believe that it's a case of all Canon lenses not having the resolving power. For me, I found that it was one particular lens, the 24-70/2.8 L, that was never consistently sharp. This may be the case with other specific Canon lenses, too. The buzz seems to be that Canon's wide angle lenses in general aren't too hot. But my experience is limited to this one, plus some longer lenses that were always razor sharp.

I tried 3 different 24-70s and none were consistently sharp. This general focal length zoom is my workhorse lens, and its lack of sharpness was the main factor that made me switch back to the D2x when it came out.

Some of the promotional pitch about the MkIII mentions some supposed focus improvements. I'd be curious to see if they addressed this issue in a real way.

David

www.brennanphotography.com

[jani]

I tried 3 different 24-70s and none were consistently sharp. This general focal length zoom is my workhorse lens, and its lack of sharpness was the main factor that made me switch back to the D2x when it came out.

Some of the promotional pitch about the MkIII mentions some supposed focus improvements. I'd be curious to see if they addressed this issue in a real way.

No, the focus improvements in the MkIII models cannot fix a lack of sharpness in your lenses.

The 24-70mm f/2.8L is known to be fairly soft at f/2.8. For me, the really usable apertures start at f/3.5, though I've used f/3.2 and f/2.8 when I've had to. It's not critically sharp at those apertures, either, but good enough with a 20D.

No amount of focus correction will make that better.

That being said, wide apertures are also difficult to work with if the focus isn't right, but that's a different problem.

[budjames]

Does the 1Ds MkIII make it easier to turn on Mirror Lock Up than having to dig through menus on the MkII?

Bud James

[francois]

Does the 1Ds MkIII make it easier to turn on Mirror Lock Up than having to dig through menus on the MkII?

Bud James
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bud,
Read Michael's 1D Mk III first impression ([a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1D-MKIII-Field.shtml]here, scroll down to Live View paragrah[/url]). There's no mirror lockup button but if you use Live View then the mirror is raised as soon as you enter Live View mode.

[Marc Schultz]

I disagree on the 24-70mm being soft. I find it to be one of the sharpest L zoom lenses Canon makes. That and the 70-200mm L are the two sharpest zooms. I also have the 24-105mm L lens which cannot compare in sharpness to the 24-70mm. The 24-105 vignettes terribly too on any open sky shot at anything under F/11. Sometimes people think lenses are soft at F/2.8 because they focus lock and then move the focus point of the camera. Need to be careful of that on any lens when shooting wide open.

[madmanchan]

Bud,
Read Michael's 1D Mk III first impression (here, scroll down to Live View paragrah). There's no mirror lockup button but if you use Live View then the mirror is raised as soon as you enter Live View mode.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136877\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In addition, you can set Live View to the Set button (the big button in the middle of the thumb wheel). So it effectively becomes a one-button MLU. You press Set, mirror goes up. Trip shutter to take the picture. Take as many pictures as you want. Press Set again, mirror goes back down.

[djgarcia]

As a future 1DsIII owner, I have mixed feelings about Live View for me personally. I need glasses to see close, but when shooting do not use them because of the diopter adjustment in the viewfinder. For Live View, however, I would need glasses to see it properly and be able to focus with it. I wonder how it's going to play with photographers who like me need glasses to see up close but don't normally use them while shooting.

[Paul Kay]

My prediction is that the buyers/testers will see a slight increase in perceived resolution (though not 12.5%), and perhaps a very slight degradation in perceived per-pixel quality for some lenses, but there will be no disasters.

So the real question is 'will an uprezzed file from an existing camera be as good as a file straight from the DSMkIII?'

Speaking as a 1DSMkI owner who certainly can see optical problems on many 'L' series lenses using a MkI, I think that this is one of the most pertinent questions that needs answering. Whilst I agree that there are other, potentially excellent features of the MkIII I am far from convinced that increased pixel count is or possibly ever will be one of them. I never bothered with a MkII for the same reason.

[jani]

I disagree on the 24-70mm being soft. I find it to be one of the sharpest L zoom lenses Canon makes. That and the 70-200mm L are the two sharpest zooms. I also have the 24-105mm L lens which cannot compare in sharpness to the 24-70mm. The 24-105 vignettes terribly too on any open sky shot at anything under F/11. Sometimes people think lenses are soft at F/2.8 because they focus lock and then move the focus point of the camera. Need to be careful of that on any lens when shooting wide open.

This is not a matter of bad focusing.

You should know better than to accuse other photographers of not knowing when something is in focus or not.

Apparently, then, there are at least some samples of the lens where it has no degradation at f/2.8, and where stopping down doesn't have any noticeable effect on sharpness. That is quite remarkable, and I wish I owned your lens.