Canon 1DsMKIII let down?

[lovell]

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. ;-)

[SeanFS]

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!

[lovell]

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.

[woof75]

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.

[woof75]

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?

[SeanFS]

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.

[sojournerphoto]

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

[woof75]

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.

[SeanFS]

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 .

[witz]

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.

[woof75]

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?

[sojournerphoto]

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."

[woof75]

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.

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]

[Christopher]

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.

[woof75]

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.

[ruraltrekker]

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).

[ruraltrekker]

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.

[woof75]

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.

[sojournerphoto]

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

[woof75]

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.