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
P
pss
Guest
my personal opinion is that in general the 5D is the best digital camera ever built...the ease of use combined with image/file quality/speed all at that price is just amazing....
but: if i only compare the quality of files (not taking into consideration other factors....i mean i would never recommend the m8 to anyone who just wants a camera, it is too much of a niche product) so only comparing raw files, the 1dsIII does not cut it IMO....if someone needs to print 20x30, a DMF back is the only real way to go....on everything up to 11x14 i doubt there is a big difference between the 5D, 1dsII or dsIII...IMO the m8 provides a better 11x14 then all three...this is totally personal....it provides more of what i look for in a print....does not in any way make the canons bad cameras....
there is a comparison between the dsII, the zd and the P21 in LL and the P21 wins easily....and relly does not cost much more then the dsIII...
anyway..i guess if i was heavily invested in canon, i would get the dsIII because of the extra little everything..but it will look really old realy fast compared to the 6D/5DII which will come out soon....
all the files i have seen from the D3 seem mostly targeted towards superhigh iso...so if that is what one needs, that is the way to go....
has nothing to do with hating canon....just because the m8 works surprisingly well for me does not mean it would for others...
Jack,
I was wondering why Canon would increase the strength of the AA filter in the new 1Ds MarkIII that you noticed in your review relative to its predecessor? What is the motivation behind that as I have not heard any claims that people complain of moire or any other artefacts using the 1Ds MarkII or am I mistaken here? Any thought on that?
Thanks,
Joshua
I was wondering why Canon would increase the strength of the AA filter in the new 1Ds MarkIII that you noticed in your review relative to its predecessor? What is the motivation behind that as I have not heard any claims that people complain of moire or any other artefacts using the 1Ds MarkII or am I mistaken here? Any thought on that?
Thanks,
Joshua
I think it is generally accepted that the higher resolution a sensor is, the more likely it is to show moire in high-frequency detail. My only theory is their group of beta testers did complain about moire and Canon had to do something to fix it. The 1Ds2 and now the 3 made huge strides into the fashion catalog industry where I suspect Canon placed more than a few of their beta cameras... As we know, fabric rules the day in fashion (and weddings and any other event with people in it), and fabric is also a common generator of moire in digital sensors since its weave pattern often falls into the high-frequency detail category... And we can't have that stuff showing up on the models in the weekly issues of the Victoria's Secret or JC Penny catalogs!
Everybody else is relegated to the back row and has to make do with the tools available... So in a nutshell, if you want the 1Ds3 for your landscape work, you're gonna have to learn to sharpen both heavily and well to make the most of its files.
Cheers,
I guess anyting is possible... But frankly, I think it's academic anyway --- the 1Ds3 needs a *LOT* more sharpening applied to get to a sharp-looking file than the other cameras, whatever the reason.
Jack,
Thanks for your input. Now, the information itself is not lost, correct? With the proper sharpening you can get most, if not all of the hidden data with other words, I believe. A lot of people snear at sharpened images on the web. As far as I am concerned as long as the image looks good with a lot of details, I don't care how much sharpening was applied.
Joshua
Thanks for your input. Now, the information itself is not lost, correct? With the proper sharpening you can get most, if not all of the hidden data with other words, I believe. A lot of people snear at sharpened images on the web. As far as I am concerned as long as the image looks good with a lot of details, I don't care how much sharpening was applied.
Joshua
Debatable... Many think the higer frequency detail gets smeared during the debayering because of the AA filter; IOW depending on the AA strength, it trims the total effective resolution by some corresponding percentage. (And in fact you do find areas of "mushiness" in AA filtered files right where you'd expect to see moire in files from filterless cameras...)
The other AA adage is, if it wasn't resolved on the sensor to begin with, it can't be re-created by sharpening...
The real issue for camera manufacturers is picking their poison: Option A, offer the cleanest, sharpest file possibe and have moire show uncontrolably in areas of high-frequency patterns that will require additional post-processing to correct; or option B, give a little lower effective resolution file by blurring the data so that it rarely to never shows, yet the sharpened file still looks 'good' --- (At least to the marketing department
) If I'm a camera manufacturer appealing to masses of high-volume shooters, I'm going to pick option B so my users don't have to work any harder than necessary to get their images deliverable. Personally though, I just wish Canon would have given us BOTH options and let us choose...
ChrisDauer
Workshop Member
Anyone want to send off a 1Ds3 to MaxMax and have them remove the AA filter?
We could then have a shoot-off between the modified 1Ds3 and a normal 1Ds3.
The only time I recall Canon giving it's users the choice was with the 20D-a; for the astrophotography crowd.
We could then have a shoot-off between the modified 1Ds3 and a normal 1Ds3.
The only time I recall Canon giving it's users the choice was with the 20D-a; for the astrophotography crowd.
(Note: I have edited the first post to include the sharpening radius value used in ACR as I failed to include it originally --- ALL files used 0.5 radius with the sharpening values stated --- sorry for failing to mention that! Also, I am using ACR 4.3.)
Based on all the AA filter discussion, I have decided to upload the ISO 200 files, processed in ACR at the DEFAULT values, including "as shot" WB, but with all sharpening, detail and noise settings at 0 (zero)...
I'm not sure what this really means, if anything. I cannot imagine anyone would process files this way in actual practice, but at the worst case, it is at least a comparison of the files with each having recieved *identical* conversion processing. Again, I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions as to what these results mean:
1Ds3:
1Ds2:
5D:
And just for grins, here is the 700x583 5D crop uprezzed to 900x750 to "match" the capture area and size of the 1Ds3:
Cheers,
Based on all the AA filter discussion, I have decided to upload the ISO 200 files, processed in ACR at the DEFAULT values, including "as shot" WB, but with all sharpening, detail and noise settings at 0 (zero)...
I'm not sure what this really means, if anything. I cannot imagine anyone would process files this way in actual practice, but at the worst case, it is at least a comparison of the files with each having recieved *identical* conversion processing. Again, I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions as to what these results mean:
1Ds3:
1Ds2:
5D:
And just for grins, here is the 700x583 5D crop uprezzed to 900x750 to "match" the capture area and size of the 1Ds3:
Cheers,
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Not sure I would buy this camera. 1dsMKIII looking at that now Jack it is worse than the 5d and 1dsMKII . That only tells me what you have said orginally the 1dsMKIII needs a ton of sharpening.
Anybody is free to copy these jpegs and do it themselves --- I uprezzed the 5D jpeg for the 1Ds3 comparison. I chose the 5D file because it should show the most difference compared to the 1Ds3 file --- plus, there are a lot more 5D owners than 1Ds2 owners
Cheers,
Jack I have downloaded these images as well as some of the RAW files posted by Uwe on his site. I have been playing with all of them. When i look at the jpg files, I think the 1DsmkII and mkIII show more detail than the upsized 5D file. The difference between the shots taken with the two series one cameras are very close in detail but i give a slight edge to the DsmkIII. But with the same degree of sharpening applied to these two images show that the difference in detai becomes more apparent but still subtle.
Jack, bless your heart. You just saved me 8 grand.
I simply do not like the look of the files, and I trust your basic skills and instincts as well as those of Guy when it comes to this stuff. All of which was further confirmed by the provided links which show exactly the same characteristics. Don't care what the technical reasons are. Don't like the look. At ISO 400 I like the DMR better.
Frankly, I wasn't shot in the ass with the 1DMKIII files either, and actually cringed when I first started working with them. This "s" camera seems to exhibit the same characteristics, just more resolution.
I could give a crap about bells & whistles and bigger LCDs ... I need image qualities that I like. More and more I see these DSLRs as necessary evils for lower light work with quick AF ... but they pale in comparison to anything coming from my MF DSLRs ... and that's being kind. A threat to MF digital? ... a fairy tale at best.
This is 8 grand I'll just stuff into the Piggy Bank and calmly await the R-10.
I simply do not like the look of the files, and I trust your basic skills and instincts as well as those of Guy when it comes to this stuff. All of which was further confirmed by the provided links which show exactly the same characteristics. Don't care what the technical reasons are. Don't like the look. At ISO 400 I like the DMR better.
Frankly, I wasn't shot in the ass with the 1DMKIII files either, and actually cringed when I first started working with them. This "s" camera seems to exhibit the same characteristics, just more resolution.
I could give a crap about bells & whistles and bigger LCDs ... I need image qualities that I like. More and more I see these DSLRs as necessary evils for lower light work with quick AF ... but they pale in comparison to anything coming from my MF DSLRs ... and that's being kind. A threat to MF digital? ... a fairy tale at best.
This is 8 grand I'll just stuff into the Piggy Bank and calmly await the R-10.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
:ROTFL: Wanna buy me a nice Christmas present than:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
Seriously though from what we are just basically seeing in the files it is just not adding up to upgrade sure there maybe some detail gain from the current model. But when i here the word 22mpx my antenna goes up pretty high and frankly a 22mpx back is far superior to what i am seeing here so this does not compute very well for me. Now i believe this maybe the final production version of firmware and if they increased the AA filter to stop moire than I simply am not interested. let's face it I love Leica's but that does not mean i would not switch to a better system if there was one. I have already done this several times, you simply as a Pro have to go what is best for you and your business. This Canon is not falling in that category than if i have to play with bolting R lenses on it like i did before than it makes it even worse a call. I'll wait and if the need comes I will buy a MF 22mpx back and a Body to go with it or for 10k Buy a Mamiya 645 ZD with back and lens. i tried it in Florida and it was pretty nice
Seriously though from what we are just basically seeing in the files it is just not adding up to upgrade sure there maybe some detail gain from the current model. But when i here the word 22mpx my antenna goes up pretty high and frankly a 22mpx back is far superior to what i am seeing here so this does not compute very well for me. Now i believe this maybe the final production version of firmware and if they increased the AA filter to stop moire than I simply am not interested. let's face it I love Leica's but that does not mean i would not switch to a better system if there was one. I have already done this several times, you simply as a Pro have to go what is best for you and your business. This Canon is not falling in that category than if i have to play with bolting R lenses on it like i did before than it makes it even worse a call. I'll wait and if the need comes I will buy a MF 22mpx back and a Body to go with it or for 10k Buy a Mamiya 645 ZD with back and lens. i tried it in Florida and it was pretty nice
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Mark what are you going to do. I know you want to upgrade so what are your feelings after seeing some of this. We know you have a nice MF system now does this Canon buy you anything.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
OOp's did not know you already had it , maybe see what is brewing during the week with more reports before making that call.