Leica's new MF system

[E_Edwards]

Not quite, James. I did some of my own testing too. The static focus wasn't as good as it should be - RG agrees with me. Skin tone issues of the 1Ds2 have been addressed but not quite fixed.

On the other hand, the 1Ds3 is spectacularly lighter than the 2, color is better, batteries last forever, and the finder is heavenly.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edmund and James,


As an owner of a 1DSMKII I am interested in the differences and whether they are worth it. At first sight, the image quality does't seem to be much better really, but image quality being pretty similar, I am interested in the tethering, weight and other things that would really warrant buying the MKIII.

What do you mean by the viewfinder being better, is the image on the viewfinder more magnified, brighter, or what? Are we taking about minute differences or substantial differences that make you want to upgrade?

I am happy with the 1DSMKII image quality, I like all, apart from the stupid and flimsy firewire port and the unreliable auto focus, that I no longer use anyway, I finder manual focus faster and practically fail proof, a better viewfinder would be a bonus, so could you explain please.

Edward

[paul_jones]

Edmund and James,
As an owner of a 1DSMKII I am interested in the differences and whether they are worth it. At first sight, the image quality does't seem to be much better really, but image quality being pretty similar, I am interested in the tethering, weight and other things that would really warrant buying the MKIII.

What do you mean by the viewfinder being better, is the image on the viewfinder more magnified, brighter, or what? Are we taking about minute differences or substantial differences that make you want to upgrade?

I am happy with the 1DSMKII image quality, I like all, apart from the stupid and flimsy firewire port and the unreliable auto focus, that I no longer use anyway, I finder manual focus faster and practically fail proof, a better viewfinder would be a bonus, so could you explain please.

Edward
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

the mk3 is way better than the mk2. the file is larger, but the biggest difference for me is that it handles highlights a lot better. i shoot a lot of shots with blown out BGs, and the mk2 was always a headache. my p25 was heaps better at pulling detail and having good graduations , the mk3 seem to do just as good of a job. its not just me, my retouchers lave been very impressed.

i have an h1 and the mk3, and the viewfinder is pretty much the same size when you look through.

paul

[eronald]

Edmund and James,

What do you mean by the viewfinder being better, is the image on the viewfinder more magnified, brighter, or what? Are we taking about minute differences or substantial differences that make you want to upgrade?

I am happy with the 1DSMKII image quality, I like all, apart from the stupid and flimsy firewire port and the unreliable auto focus, that I no longer use anyway, I finder manual focus faster and practically fail proof, a better viewfinder would be a bonus, so could you explain please.

Edward
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The viewfinder is a MAJOR upgrade, in my opinion. Enough to warrant buying this model.

Edmund

[G_Allen]

Agreed -- the viewfinder is much larger and brighter than the II, and is about the same size as the viewfinder of my H2 with the mask for the P30. Very impressive.

[E_Edwards]

Thank you guys. It looks like I'm going to have to go take a look at the MKIII.

It's sounds like it's the number of little details that have been improved that makes it an altogether nicer camera to work with.

I may wait for Photokina though, just in case...

[BJNY]

I am believing :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=28902798

Edit: corrected link

[Christopher]

I am believing :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=28902798
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

believing in ?

[Gary Ferguson]

What do you mean by the viewfinder being better, is the image on the viewfinder more magnified, brighter, or what? Are we taking about minute differences or substantial differences that make you want to upgrade?

Yes brighter, yes more magnified.

But that's not all.

It's crisper, the viewfinder image is more detailed (try it through an angle finder with x1.25 and you'll see the difference immediately), and there's virtually no distortion. I used to regard the viewfinder image of a Hasselblad V system with an Acu-matte screen as the gold standard for SLR viewfinders, but the 1Ds MkIII gives it a run for its money.

So is it perfect?

Not quite. The eye relief for spectacle wearers is good but not great, you still have to spend a moment precisely positioning your eye to see all four corners, the viewfinder data IMO isn't quite as clearly displayed as by Nikon, and the dioptre control isn't as good as it could be in terms of range of dioptres and ease of adjustment.

[gwhitf]

, and the dioptre control isn't as good as it could be in terms of range of dioptres and ease of adjustment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with this. I have my 1ds3 diopter set all the way to one side, to the extreme. I shoot with glasses on. I always wonder, "could it even get sharper/better if it had a greater range of settings?"

I just finished a long five-day job with two 1ds3 bodies, and they were bulletproof. Tethered; untethered; sunlight; long exposures; ASA 100-1600; it just keeps rocking along with pretty much anything you ask of it.

The slickest thing is the "My Settings" menu, where you can register up to five or six of your most-used settings, like FORMAT, and WB, and where/how it writes to card, or whatever you use, and you can just go to that menu to find and use your most-used items, insteading of searching searching searching thru the millions of menu to find the FORMAT command for each and every card. It's a very well thought out camera.

Would I love an external viewing device, or a larger LCD? Absolutely, I'd pay a lot of money for that.

One other irritating thing is the way it does the LCD and the tagging when you have a custom 4x5 focusing screen installed. You install the screen, and then you go into the Menu and tell it that you have the 4x5 screen installed. After that, on the LCD it shows you a tiny blue keyline that indicates the 4x5 crop, instead of just blacking out the image area outside the 4x5 area. If I've got 4x5 installed, I don't even want to SEE what I'm cropping out -- all that does is add doubt and confusion to the equation. As a result, I took black duct tape and covered the ends of the horizontal frame that were getting cropped, but then, the duct tape now covers the text in the Menus, which make the menus unreadable. This should be addressed in the new camera hopefully.

[James R Russell]

I agree with this. I have my 1ds3 diopter set all the way to one side, to the extreme. I shoot with glasses on. I always wonder, "could it even get sharper/better if it had a greater range of settings?"

I just finished a long five-day job with two 1ds3 bodies, and they were bulletproof. Tethered; untethered; sunlight; long exposures; ASA 100-1600; it just keeps rocking along with pretty much anything you ask of it.

The slickest thing is the "My Settings" menu, where you can register up to five or six of your most-used settings, like FORMAT, and WB, and where/how it writes to card, or whatever you use, and you can just go to that menu to find and use your most-used items, insteading of searching searching searching thru the millions of menu to find the FORMAT command for each and every card. It's a very well thought out camera.

Would I love an external viewing device, or a larger LCD? Absolutely, I'd pay a lot of money for that.

One other irritating thing is the way it does the LCD and the tagging when you have a custom 4x5 focusing screen installed. You install the screen, and then you go into the Menu and tell it that you have the 4x5 screen installed. After that, on the LCD it shows you a tiny blue keyline that indicates the 4x5 crop, instead of just blacking out the image area outside the 4x5 area. If I've got 4x5 installed, I don't even want to SEE what I'm cropping out -- all that does is add doubt and confusion to the equation. As a result, I took black duct tape and covered the ends of the horizontal frame that were getting cropped, but then, the duct tape now covers the text in the Menus, which make the menus unreadable. This should be addressed in the new camera hopefully.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with most of this.  I also have the 4x5 screen and the viewfinder is large enough to still make the viewing area useable, even generous, which it wasn't in the mark II.

Actually it's somewhat amazing considering how small the ground glass is (or is that ground plastic?).

The blue line thing doesn't bother me to much, though I also would love it to black out the image on the lcd.

If there is one semi annoying thing about the Canons, compared to my contax is the way the image looks in the viewfinder doesn't match how it looks in the final capture.

If your shooting fairly wide open, the viewfinder image will give the impression that your pulling much more focus depth than you will see on the file.  You get use to it and start working by the numbers, though it's not exact.  

I'll open up to like 1.8 and think well that's kind of pretty because it has a medium amount of depth of field, but then when you look at the lcd there is a lot of falloff  and depending on what your after it can be even nicer or a problem.

Where as with the Contax what you see in regards to focus falloff is pretty much what you get, though the prism on the Contax gives a much smaller view than the 3.

The 3 does seem like a better built camera than the 2, almost like it's carved from on piece of metal, though that could also be just because it's newer than my 2's.

This week I start on an intense project so I'll see how well everything works,.

On the external viewing device, I'm surprised Canon doesn't offer one.  They do have an Epson like viewer where you download cards, but if they just took that one step further and made it wi-fi or even tethered usb it would really be worth the price, almost any price.


JR

[James R Russell]

believing in ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

At this point everyone has heard the rumors of the bigger than 35mm Leica.  I hope it happens but it seems making a digital camera is quite an undertaking and it's rare that one comes out of the box without issue.

Actually, it's even more rare if a digital specialty camera comes out on time.

If Leica does come out with this camera and it's intent is a professional tool, rather than a rich person's toy, it must come out ready to roll, with a complete lens line and it must be available in professional rental houses.

I rarely rent cameras, actually almost never, but there is a level of comfort knowing you can either buy or rent a backup or added camera almost anywhere, vs. having to wait.

Lecia also needs to improve their quality control.  On my M-8 I've returned 3 lenses for focus issues, some so crazy off that even the dealer couldn't argue and this specific Leica dealer on Broadway will argue about anything.   Going in with an issue is  like that Monty Python scene of the dead parrot.

"He's not dead he's sleeping."

JR

[Gary Ferguson]

While we're on the subject of "things we'd like to see", some kind of split screen arrangement in live view would be very useful for use with the T&S lenses.

The normal procedure when using tilt is to focus in the centre and then adjust tilt to pull the top and bottom of the image into focus. But if the magnified screen on live view could be adjusted to show a magnified section from both the top and bottom of the frame at the same time, then that would allow much more precise use of the tilt setting.

[E_Edwards]

While we're on the subject of "things we'd like to see", some kind of split screen arrangement in live view would be very useful for use with the T&S lenses.

The normal procedure when using tilt is to focus in the centre and then adjust tilt to pull the top and bottom of the image into focus. But if the magnified screen on live view could be adjusted to show a magnified section from both the top and bottom of the frame at the same time, then that would allow much more precise use of the tilt setting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree, Gary.  For those of us using 5x4 view cameras, it is a pain to shift from one end of the zoomed in Live View to the other to achieve the desired plane of focus. Two windows or similar would help. However, I think there are other more pressing priorities really.

[zlatko-b]

If there is one semi annoying thing about the Canons, compared to my contax is the way the image looks in the viewfinder doesn't match how it looks in the final capture.

If your shooting fairly wide open, the viewfinder image will give the impression that your pulling much more focus depth than you will see on the file.  You get use to it and start working by the numbers, though it's not exact. 

I don't have the 1DsIII, but that's very true with other Canon models.  The viewfinder shows depth of field that constantly approximates f/2.5 or f/2.8, even when you're using an f/1.2 lens.  You can test this by using the manual depth of field preview button and gradually stopping down from f/1.2.  There's no change in the apparent depth of field in the viewfinder until you stop down to about f/2.8 or smaller.

Canon offers an optional focusing screen that will show the depth of field at f/1.2, 1.4, etc. (what you see is what you get), but it's so much darker than the standard focusing screen that it's not worth using, in my opinion (unless you always shoot in bright conditions).  The standard focusing screen represents a trade-off:  you gain more brightness in the viewfinder but lose viewing of wide-open-aperture depth of field.

[Nemo]

I agree with most of this.  I also have the 4x5 screen and the viewfinder is large enough to still make the viewing area useable, even generous, which it wasn't in the mark II.

Actually it's somewhat amazing considering how small the ground glass is (or is that ground plastic?).

The blue line thing doesn't bother me to much, though I also would love it to black out the image on the lcd.

If there is one semi annoying thing about the Canons, compared to my contax is the way the image looks in the viewfinder doesn't match how it looks in the final capture.

If your shooting fairly wide open, the viewfinder image will give the impression that your pulling much more focus depth than you will see on the file.  You get use to it and start working by the numbers, though it's not exact. 

I'll open up to like 1.8 and think well that's kind of pretty because it has a medium amount of depth of field, but then when you look at the lcd there is a lot of falloff  and depending on what your after it can be even nicer or a problem.

Where as with the Contax what you see in regards to focus falloff is pretty much what you get, though the prism on the Contax gives a much smaller view than the 3.

The 3 does seem like a better built camera than the 2, almost like it's carved from on piece of metal, though that could also be just because it's newer than my 2's.

This week I start on an intense project so I'll see how well everything works,.

On the external viewing device, I'm surprised Canon doesn't offer one.  They do have an Epson like viewer where you download cards, but if they just took that one step further and made it wi-fi or even tethered usb it would really be worth the price, almost any price.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I fully agree with you... Lets see what is presented in september...

[gwhitf]

You can test this by using the manual depth of field preview button and gradually stopping down from f/1.2.  There's no change in the apparent depth of field in the viewfinder until you stop down to about f/2.8 or smaller.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have seen this effect all the way back to the 1ds1. You can test it easily by doing the old Ruler Test. Put camera on tripod, shoot a frame, and compare then what you see in the viewfinder versus what you see in the file. There is a vast difference, especially more toward wide open.

This is yet another reason to have a huge, tight, trustable LCD; otherwise you're forced to shoot tethered to see what you're really getting in the final file.

I'm not complaining; I'm just acknowledging that this depth of field difference can really bite you in the behind if you're not careful. It can happen in either direction -- either you're wanting to carry focus, or you're trying to throw something OUT of focus.

[geesbert]

If you need a viewfinder mask, go the cheap traditional way: buy a standard screen and paint a mirrorimage on it with a thin pencil. used to do that with my mamiya, works like a charm with any camera that has a removable focus screen like the 1dsmk3.
i even let my AD draw a sketch of his very complicated layout, printed it out miror imaged in 24x36mm size and traced it onto a screen. the C1pro overlay function is of course nicer, but one can't always be tethered.


i don't really get why the canon crop screens are so expensive.


stefan

[gwhitf]

http://gizmodo.com/5027706/rumor-macbook-t...ming-in-october

Imagine the 1ds3 being able to WIFI a JPG to this thing, and just slip it in the camera bag for the AD to hold.

And to the poster above, CaptureOne does not allow the 1ds3 to tether. (Wonder why? Feeling the heat?)

[httivals]

Canon offers an optional focusing screen that will show the depth of field at f/1.2, 1.4, etc. (what you see is what you get), but it's so much darker than the standard focusing screen that it's not worth using, in my opinion (unless you always shoot in bright conditions).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I took the Canon ee-s screen for my 5D and had it brightened by Bill Maxwell; Maxwell Precision Optics; P.O. Box 33146; Decatur, GA 30033-0146; ph (404) 244-0095.  It shows focus fall off much more accurately than the standard 5D screen, and it is as birght as the standard 5D screen.  Exposure is also identical to the original screen; it doesn't throw it off.

Maxwell has been making focusing screens for cameras for a LONG time.  I learned of him when I had him make custom focusing fresnels for my view camera.

[James R Russell]

Thank you guys. It looks like I'm going to have to go take a look at the MKIII.

It's sounds like it's the number of little details that have been improved that makes it an altogether nicer camera to work with.

I may wait for Photokina though, just in case...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214126\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just spent two intense days with two more to come shooting the 1ds3.

Normally I would shoot it with my Phase backs and the Contax.  

For this job I really needed 640 to 800 clean iso and it was the only way to get there.

Upside;  The Canon is nicely built the viewfinder is much better with manual focus easier, the file is good and as Paul said holds the highlights well.  The batteries last a billion frames.  Skin tones are perfect.

Medium upside;  The Canon software tethers ok, (all of today was tethered), the lcd lights up when you work tethered, you can name and rename in the Canon software and the preview initially comes up quick sending small jpeg and raw about 2 seconds before it's full screen.

Downside;  The Canon software tethered in this way gets bogged down and firing about 10 shoots semi quickly I hit the buffer and the previews load slow.  Compared to tethering with my Phase backs and C-1, this is almost glacier like slow.

The lcd, though miles more detailed than medium format is still contrasty and gets nowhere close to the color in the computer.  The file is nice but the lcd (at least mine is off color going to the very cool).  Shadows load up darker than on the computer and highlights are readable but somewhat difficult to judge.  

The software is just goofy.  We've learned it front to back but it's still a two piece system that makes even c-1 3.78 look like a genuis tethering system.

The files are sharp but at first startle me because it's not medium format crisp sharp, it's Canon somewhat milky sharp.  (They do sharpen in post, but not like the medium format files).

The 4:3 crop works but it is somewhat disjointed.  It shows in DPP and in the camera and on the lcd with those blue lines, but in any other program it becomes a 2:3 cameras.

Honestly, it's a very nice camera, but I would love to have shot this with my backs and the Contax.

I love working with the Contax and love the sharpness of the files, the easy tethering, the way to set sessions.  It is so logical compared to the windows like Canon software that you always have to go back and forth on.

At this point i don't care if medium format ever fixes their lcd because I doubt if that's going to happen.  The medium format preview is small, so even if the lcd is twice size or twice improved the preview will still be rough.

Since I shoot 95% of most commercial work tethered, the lcd is just a reference anway.

The ONE thing I need is higher, clean iso.   The difference between a Canon at 640 iso, F 4.5 and 125th of a second and the Phase at 400 iso, F4.5 (or 5.6 if I want to hold the same depth of field) is about two stops in the Canons favor.

The iso thing really needs some attention and if/when/how that's possible I don't know, but today if the Phase had gone to 800 iso clean, the Canons would have stayed in the bags.

JR