Agreed! I would even say it is becoming readily apparent the 5D was a LANDMARK camera for Canon...
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
1Ds MK III test!
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
Jack,
Not having owned a 5D, but having seen lots of files from it, I would also tend to agree that as an imager, it really is outstanding. I still like my 1DsMkII, and at this point am glad that I did not upgrade to a MkIII for it or for the two 1DMkII bodies I still shoot with. I do wish they had some of the newer features, but the images they deliver for me are still quite good, and in focus more often than folks are still reporting for the MkIII bodies.
LJ
Having owned and shot ALL the cameras being discussed, I've found they are all good for the tasks I've used them for... with the 5D being quite a value for it's time ... and still a relative bargain given the images it's capable of producing. IMO, it is proof that the size and quality of the pixels in a given space combined with the available optics can produce images beyond expectations of the specs.
However, it's like a race engine just plopped into a family sedan without any other modifications. It's AF is ponderous and questionable for certain applications, poor ergonomics, and it sounds and feels like a toy. I personally hated the camera. Plus, when it was first launched, it initially was thought to deliver soft images until owners figured out how to work with the files.
That image issue is a similar experience I am working through with the MKIII bodies and am gaining on. I've figured out the 1DMKIII and most of the 1DsMKIII. I do not have any focus issues with either camera and find them more responsive than any previous Canon I've owned. I'm sure there are nuance AF issues still lingering with the 1DMKIII as reported, but they are so specific that they have never effected me given my shooting style. I can say with certainty, it is much more AF capable than the 5D ... and the mirror hasn't fallen out : -)
Your comments about the handling of the 5D match my brief handling of it when they first came out. I was looking to get one as a supplement/back-up for the 1DsMkII for assignments where I wanted/needed FF imaging, but even though the files were great, I could not overcome the ergonomics and lack of responsiveness of the 5D for my needs. So, I just backed things up with the 1DMkIIs, as needed, and never had an issue.
I have been tempted to upgrade to the 1DsMkIII for its greater resolution, slightly better ISO, and other camera features, but I will really need to swap out all the MkIIs for MkIIIs to avoid handling, battery and accessory issues, for the way I like to work. That is another reason why I did not get a 5D....just did not want to support another set of accessories and batteries for doing work if I did not need to.
LJ
I have been tempted to upgrade to the 1DsMkIII for its greater resolution, slightly better ISO, and other camera features, but I will really need to swap out all the MkIIs for MkIIIs to avoid handling, battery and accessory issues, for the way I like to work. That is another reason why I did not get a 5D....just did not want to support another set of accessories and batteries for doing work if I did not need to.
LJ
S
sirvine
Guest
I'm in the process of learning how to optimize the 1DMKIII. Having learned Lightroom and Aperture with an R-D1s and M8, I find post-production especially challenging/disappointing. I suspect this is largely because I am not accustomed to applying sharpening and/or shooting toward the right side of the histogram. Any chance you could share some of your lessons learned with the 1DMKIII?
Absolutely agree Jack ... so that makes .04 worth : -)Mark:
I suspect the processing of the 1Ds3 files will improve and progress as folks gain familiarity with the files --- they have mostly done so in the past. But given your comment, I think I need to reiterate my concern: My issue isn't over the detail the 1Ds3 can produce, it is about the overall "look" of the file. Smoothness of tone and sparkle. For whatever reason, Canon files since after the 1D have always looked somewhat flat or "plastic" as some others have said. I don't see that changing much with raw processing technique. I developed strategies to alleviate that look in my Canon files, but it takes a lot of post work in CS to do it; I have three actions I run on every file, then have to add a fully manual step in. By contrast, I don't need to do that with my AA-filterLESS CCD cameras, yet if I do, it can sometimes even make those look better
Now to be clear, I think that plastic look can be a huge benefit for shooting fashion, where you may want to have skin and fabric look smoother and more consistent, like the models were always shot under a bank of huge soft-boxes. With the Canon, you get there right out of the raw converter and the detail is there to boot, so that may in fact be an advantage for some. However, for MY uses, mostly landscape and travel images I like to print large, I want more sparkle and punch.
Again, my .02 only,
I use the two Canons for nothing but wedding photography and have not used a Canon for anything else for years. Commercial, portrait & Travel = MF digital. Street, personal travel and documentary (including a lot of wedding) = Leica.
A
asabet
Guest
Thanks for posting these excellent tests. This has been a great thread. I think that with all issues relating to AA filters and the tradeoffs inherent to them, it really depends on the needs of the particular photographer. For example, I would guess that a wedding photographer might be willing to accept a stronger AA filter to avoid aliasing effects on fabrics, particularly if enough detail could be maintained through sharpening to resolve significantly more detail than the next best 35mm digital system (here I mean "best" in terms of detail resolved only). With proper sharpening, the 1Ds III is clearly resolving the most detail of the three, as pointed out by Jack.
The H3D/31-II on page 4 of this thread is amazing.
The H3D/31-II on page 4 of this thread is amazing.
Even at the lower detail settings posted later in the thread, one can still make these out, though just barely. Those patterns are far more evident at high ISO (or any ISO with a small sensor camera) and are one reason I don't use ACR/LR anymore since ACR 4.1/LR1.1. I use C1 for the 5D, and Raw Developer for everything else.
Amen Marc, we are in agreement, except I use the Leica for travel and still have a view for some of the commercial and landscape work
Cheers,
Ralph Eisenberg
New member
Any further thoughts about the comparisons made above, now that there is greater familiarity with the 1Ds3 and the processing of its files? I'm interested particularly in the comparison to the 1Ds2 and whether there might be any tangible gains (and/or losses) in image quality with the change of bodies. Thanks
Ralph - Another spot to do some reading is John Black's site, www.pebbleplace.com. Start with the home page and go thru the blog - including the MF part. Lots of comments relative to the 1ds3 in there.
Ralph Eisenberg
New member
Thanks for your reply. I'll have a look at it, but I am keenly interested in views from posters on this site who in the past have saved me from myself, or, made my economic situation worse but my photography better.
Here are my experiences in a nut shell Ralph (experiences using all of this stuff for a huge range of different work from in-studio and location commercial assignments to 8 hr hectic stints shooting weddings):
Nothing in the 35mm DSLR world equals the image quality of just about any MF digital back ... nor do I believe it ever will.
IMO, many of the experiences concerning MF operational functionality is based on old tech. My Mamiya AFD-II and Aptus back was a bit slower than a Hasselblad H3D/31 or Hy6 ... the latter 2 being more integrated and operationally 35mm DSLR like (remains to be seen how the new Phase One/Mamiya AFD-III does in this area.) I can say that for some functions my Hasselblad H3D/31 is easier to control than my 1DMKII or 1DsMKIII. The ergonomics are simply better thought out once you familiarize yourself with them. The H flash control is miles ahead of the Canon.
If John at Pebble Place seeks more integration and operational functionality to mimic a 35mm DSLR, the idea of a old tech Contax 645 and Phase back is counter to that. For one thing, my previous Contax 645s were like a sedated turtle carried by blind snails compared to the AF speed of the Hasselblad H3D (which I now own), and Hy6 cameras (which I've tested.)
Using the base ISO as the point of measure is misleading. One of the main drives of all the MF digital back makers has been to better maximize the abilities of their systems with continual integrated hardware, firmware and software advances.
The result has been quantum leaps forward in IQ at higher ISOs and mind boggling automatic CA and distortion corrections based on integrated data communications from the specific "mapped" lens, body and digital back. While modern DSLRs are touted as epitome of integration, it escapes me why Canon has not implemented these concepts to correct their less than stellar wide-angle optics. This concept is standard on my Hasselblads and is like a miracle solution. The Aptus 75s I just sold produced phenomenal images @ ISO 800 ... once Leaf updated the firmware and software, and one learned how to use it (this is one of my pet peeves, since it requires really in-depth emersion into a new software to grasp how to squeeze everything possible out of a big file.)
I do agree that it is a mistake to confuse a 35mm DSLR like the Canon 1DsMKIII with an integrated MF digital camera ... depending on what you tend to shoot and how you shoot. The AF is faster (depending on the lens) with a modern 1 Series camera ... and acceptable files can be produced at ISO 1600 or even 3200 in the right light. However, in all the stuff I shoot there is very little I cannot shoot with the H3D/31 and the 100/2.2 which focuses faster than the 85/1.2-IIL on the Canon 1DsMKIII. I would not necessarily shoot a Soccer game or Grand Prix with a H3D, where the Canon would better suited ... but I shoot neither, so it's a moot point in my case.
My experiences with the 1DsMKII is that it's worth the money IF the functional additions are something you would use. It is much improved in the area of control/speed, and the new LCD is great ... the live view is a God sent for many things I shoot ... like shooting wedding formals on a tripod where I can compose on screen, then zoom in on the live view to check focus and immediately shoot without zooming back out.
The overall look of the files is as Jack said "a touch plastic" ... but that's also true for the 5D and 1DsMKII IMO. What has mitigated that to some degree has been the use of higher contrast Contax and Zeiss lenses. I now use a fully automated AF 24-85/3.5 Contax N zoom which has provided snapper looking files. That, and working with the Canon sMKIII files longer now, has resulted in better stuff than with my previous sMKII ... none of which hold a candle to my MF digital backs ... and never will.
Ralph Eisenberg
New member
Thanks very much for your considered, highly informative and detailed reply. It is very helpful and certainly places a lid on expectations in regard to what an upgrade might bring. There is much to ponder in it.
gogopix
Subscriber
I'm a little confused by this shot; how can the figures be in focus and both in front and back NOT be. It looks frankly like a cut in. It looks too good to be true, maybe it is.
Itherwise these are the most steady models in history, while all around them is quaking in the wind.
Anyway, can someone explain? Did you have stobes on the figures and drag? Very clever whatever it was! "Hats off"
Victor
Last edited:
Excellent eye Victor. 2 quick exposures in sequence ... one because the lighting was directly on them in the opening, so the forest went quite dark, then another to open up the forest which produced wind movement ... then merged in PS using layers and history brush.
gogopix
Subscriber
Very nice!!figured there was some neat action going on.
I must watch for similar oppotunities. So you were able to blend from ambient, without strobes. The overall effect comes out quite natural looking, a great improvement on just using studio cut ins.
Now, about that H3D. Why did you go that route rather than staying H2 and leaving open other backs? A big question will be whether the new H2F has an open system (in which case I may consider switching my P45+ to an H2 mount if that exists, and using Contax for film, or even getting a P30+ which I have been lloking at.
The more these other people raise issue the more I see some of the restrictions in even a mount that takes all the hassey Contax AND some Leica lenses.
Also, the Fuji versions of the hasselblad seem every bit as good as the Kyocera versions of the Zeiss. And I assume that ALL V lenses would work on both the H2 and H3 lines.
The alterantive is to add a Sinar and the Hy6 with Rollei AF.
I need to take some time to test this stuff. NY is so great, Wsahington DC is like the boonies by comparison.
regards
Victor
I must watch for similar oppotunities. So you were able to blend from ambient, without strobes. The overall effect comes out quite natural looking, a great improvement on just using studio cut ins.
Now, about that H3D. Why did you go that route rather than staying H2 and leaving open other backs? A big question will be whether the new H2F has an open system (in which case I may consider switching my P45+ to an H2 mount if that exists, and using Contax for film, or even getting a P30+ which I have been lloking at.
The more these other people raise issue the more I see some of the restrictions in even a mount that takes all the hassey Contax AND some Leica lenses.
Also, the Fuji versions of the hasselblad seem every bit as good as the Kyocera versions of the Zeiss. And I assume that ALL V lenses would work on both the H2 and H3 lines.
The alterantive is to add a Sinar and the Hy6 with Rollei AF.
I need to take some time to test this stuff. NY is so great, Wsahington DC is like the boonies by comparison.
regards
Victor
Victor, it is rumored that the H2F will accept other backs, but that hasn't been confirmed yet. It will accept the CF line. The V lenses work on any H camera with the CF adapter.
woodyspedden
New member
Marc
Is there a CF adapter for V lenses to the H1?
Thanks
Woody
Is there a CF adapter for V lenses to the H1?
Thanks
Woody
I am pretty sure you can use the CF adapter on any H camera, film or digital. But I'd check with Hasselblad Tech on that just to be safe.
It's a pretty ingenious device. Because the CF lenses are mechanical, there is a lever on the left side that you use to cock the lens after each shot. Hasselblad designed it so you push it up with your left thumb which is actually faster than winding a 500. If you don't cock it, the H camera won't fire, and "Cock The Lens" shows up on the grip LCD.
If you mount any CFE lens the camera automatically knows what lens it is for metering and TTL flash control. With other lenses you use the grip menu to tell the camera which lens is mounted ... the list includes all the lenses and extenders. You do NOT have to stop down meter.
What's really cool is that there is focus confirmation in the viewfinder ... really helpful with those wide angle optics in lower light. You also have full TTL flash control in the camera with any Metz flash and the proper H module. In those ways, it's actually better than the 500 camera.