Canon 1DsMKIII let down?

[jjlphoto]

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'?

[witz]

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.

[Boris_Epix]

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]

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

[Huib]

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?

[pete_truman]

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!

[Christopher]

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.

[Ken Bennett]

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.

[Tim Gray]

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.

[D White]

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.

[Jonathan Wienke]

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.

[jjlphoto]

Also you know how to sharpen the files.

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.

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).

[Boris_Epix]

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

[woof75]

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.
[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.

[dennysb]

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.

[dennysb]

Pardon my question you said you added the 1DsMIII on late 05? Wasn't the product launch in AUG -07?

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]

[samuel_js]

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.

[SeanFS]

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.

[witz]

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

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!

[Dansk]

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

[Christopher]

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

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.

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.