1Ds MK III test!

[Luis M.]

...I bought my MarkII almost 3 years ago and if I sell now, I would be "loosing" a little over $4,000.00.
...I am thinking of using my best exotic lenses and some top notch Canon lenses, like the 180 Macro, 90mm T/S, 135mm f/2.0, 200mm f/1.8, etc. to take some interesting shots. We will see what this camera can really bring on the table.

Take care,
Joshua

Hi Joshua, I bought mine same date aprox (Jan 2005). Now, someone is paying about 5600 $ for it. That makes 2400K for using that camera over almost 3 years. (I've made about 100k shoots with it, that makes 10 $ for every wedding work) Or if you prefer, 2400K to pay for upgrading to mkIII. That is not a bad deal for me.
Since I've not seen any good 100/200 ISO samples comparing to mkII and 5D, I will wait a bit, but I'm guessing they will come out in a big different way to what we've seen here. Actually, my dealer in Madrid will let me a brand new one piece of mkIII to test it by my self for a couple of hours. I fully agree you that it must be a serious test, with best top notch primes, standing on a tripod and shooting MLU to get the best of that cameras.
Years before, I used to shoot everything with Hasselblad, and I never compare it with 35 mm, nor I'm doing now. I DO know that MFDB, in particular H3D39II, is a much much better choice, but I'm trying to see the real performace difference between mkII and III. I tried a H3D39II last month for about a week, and results are really amazing. I almost was about to buy one of these. But honestly, if I had paid 35K $ (camera kit + 28 mm) for it, I don't think it is going to be a good deal, at least for the kind of work I'm doing, mostly 12"x18" prints, some at 12"x36".
Regards
Luis

 

[fotografz]

Scott, providing a RAW file from a MF digital back is difficult since the best image performance is acquired by using the proprietary RAW processor from the back maker.

A secondary lesser option is a DNG conversion that can be opened in CS3 using Adobe's latest RAW module.

Perhaps in the next few weeks I can pull a few shots off in the studio to demonstrate.
Then post an FTP link for anyone to retrieve the files. Just finding the time to do it right would have to be the goal.

 

[Jack]

Okay, as promised, here are the ISO 1600 crops. ALL images were processed at ACR defaults, "as-shot" WB, and nothing else was done to them except the crops.

5D:

1Ds2:

1Ds3:

And just for fun, a 700x583pix crop from the 5D jpeg above, uprezzed to 900x700pix to match the 1Ds3 view:

Again, I leave you to draw your own conclusions...

Cheers,

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Jack nice test first off and this is even more clear now that I see this. Let me comment here in steps first the 1dsMKII VS the 1dsMKIII. First the 1dsMKII seems to me that you can see more into the shadows which gives the impression of better DR to start off with now being that you can see better in the shadows it looks like the 1dsMKII has more noise at first glance but i really don't think that is the case though if you look to the sides in the mid tones it actually looks about equal even though it appears worse because you are seeing into the shadows more on the 1dsMKII than the 1dsMKIII it makes it a little deceiving . Besides the noise which really means a hill of beans to me because i never go past 800 and on real advertising i would be at ISO 100 anyway. But looking right here is what i am seeing that there is a very slight increase in detail right in this area this is the 1dsMKII shot of yours

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Than the 1dsmkIII shot in the same location I see ever so slight a increase and maybe just a touch more sharpening would equal it. Not that i like sharpening but just making a point that the increase is not matching the marketing

 

[Guy Mancuso]

If I had a 1sMKII i would really question the move like i have said earlier . Than looking at the 5d yes there is increase in detail but the 5d has the best noise of all three and interesting looks to have just a notch below the 1dsMKII in shadow detail which i think the 1dsMKII has the best in depth shadows, what the heck happened to there 14 bit better DR because not sure i am seeing that in this tes at all maybe different examples but not here. Than when you blow up your 5d to match the 1dsMKIII you have to wonder yes more detail but is it worth the 4500 dollar difference. I leave it up to the buyer to decide which maybe the best one for them but i would not switch camera's for the Canon 1dsMKIII right now. I just don't see enough to do it, although i am sure it is good and i wish canon the best at selling it but if i was a canon owner right now maybe i would sit tight and see what the 5d replacement looked like given if your only concerned about the image the 1dsMKIII has a lot of nice bells and whistles over the the 5d and improvements over the 1dsMKII but i go by image first and that is me , someone else may want all those extra features that come with a new model. I just keep going back to what i said at first and that is be sure this upgrade is really what your after but if you have to bolt leica and Zeiss glass to it to perform your back to that stop down stuff again and canon' line of lenses are suspect for this, they have some really good ones but there are only a handful of them. I'm picky though

 

[Jack]

I'd like to add a follow-up comment here. To be clear, I still see improvement in detail going from the 5D to the 1Ds2 to the 1Ds3, however, to my eye it is even less significant at ISO 1600 than it was at ISO 400. But it is there. As to whether the difference/improvement is significant enough for the cost delta in the cameras, I am of the opinion folks need to evaluate that for their own uses...

When the 5D was released a few years ago, I said pretty much the same thing about the 1Ds2, but back then felt the 1Ds2 was worth it for my uses; I could see the difference in fine detail in my large prints and at that time in my photographic career, optimum detail was the holy grail for me. However, it wasn't long before I noticed that if I wasn't comparing the 5D print and the 1Ds2 print side-by-side, both prints looked good to me. Sure, I could see improved fine detail in the 1Ds2 prints, but when I asked several non-photographers in my building which print they liked better, I got varied answers. (My usual print buyer is a non-photographer.) The common comment was, "They look the same to me," or "I like the colors in this one better." And it was a toss-up as to which print they pointed to when they made the color comment...

That was when I realized that other factors like image content, not just detail, is what made my photographs "purchase worthy." That was when I started focusing my energies on trying to make better images and not just more detailed ones. Thus is how my own personal approach to gear needs has evolved over the past few years, but just because that works for me, doesn't mean it will work for everybody, and I post my camera comparisons in that spirit. Hopefully I am presenting the data in a fashion that allows everybody to make a more informed decision for themselves.

Cheers,

 

[mark1958]

Jack i agree with your comments based on your posted images. I finally got back and just played around with the camera last night. I really want to do some testing but so overwhelmed at work trying to catch up. I want to try some of the non-canon wide angle lenses, leica 100mm macro, which is my mind has to be the sharpest lenses I have than can be used on the canon against the Hasselblad H2 with 120mm macro HC, which is the sharpest lens i have used with the leaf back. I also have a canon 85 1.2 II that I played with last night but nothing serious or worth reporting on. In reality, I really can say I have been impressed by what I have seen and read regarding the Hasselblad H3D-31 set up. I had a chance to handle the camera too. I forgot how heavy the canon 1D series cameras are and the hasselblad is not that much bigger. However, the canon lenses are generally smaller and lighter but the hasselblad 50-110mm zoom, while big and heavy is the best zoom lens, I have ever owned. But when it comes to super telephoto shooting the canon 1D series cameras cannot be beat. I might get a chance to break away tomorrow afternoon.... so Jack if you want I could meet you at the Stanford Church which is a good place to do some testing...

 

[Jack]

Hi Mark:

I've got a busy week too, but let me know when you head over and maybe I can break away --

Jack

 

[ChrisDauer]

Jack i agree with your comments based on your posted images. I finally got back and just played around with the camera last night. I really want to do some testing but so overwhelmed at work trying to catch up. I want to try some of the non-canon wide angle lenses, leica

SNIP

testing...

Mark,

Eagerly awaiting your thoughts on the 1DsIII; particularly with the CZ 21 and CZ 35 PC lenses.

-Chris

 

[Ralph Eisenberg]

This has been a very helpful thread. The thread, together with comments made by Jack some time ago on OPF have led me to decide not to upgrade (from a 1Ds2) for the moment to the 1Ds3 , which I declined when informed by my dealer of availability (they had received 20 on 10 Dec.). Of course one clear advantage of upgrading within the Canon system as opposed to other options is that this can be done surreptitiously with respect to disproving household members, a significant point oddly overlooked here. While there is little noteworthy in the above comments, there is one thing that bears underscoring: I believe that this is the first time ever that Guy has saved me some money. Of course, an R10 is another matter...

 

[Jack]

Hi Ralph:

Glad to hear the mini review helped! On the 1 series upgrade path, I know what you mean --- I have a friend who did decide to upgraded to the 1Ds3 from the 1Ds2, but his wife thinks he's still shooting with his 1Ds1 LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Marc:

I TOTALLY agree with this strategy in lieu of the 1Ds3. However, for $400, having the AA filter removed from a 5D doesn't seem like a bad idea either

The D200 examples are quite illuminating of what happens when the AA filter goes! If they also included trimming the mirror so my R19/2.8 (which works on the 1D but not 5D) would work, I'd be first in line. Especially given the deals that can be found on 5Ds!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

This has been a very helpful thread. The thread, together with comments made by Jack some time ago on OPF have led me to decide not to upgrade (from a 1Ds2) for the moment to the 1Ds3 , which I declined when informed by my dealer of availability (they had received 20 on 10 Dec.). Of course one clear advantage of upgrading within the Canon system as opposed to other options is that this can be done surreptitiously with respect to disproving household members, a significant point oddly overlooked here. While there is little noteworthy in the above comments, there is one thing that bears underscoring: I believe that this is the first time ever that Guy has saved me some money. Of course, an R10 is another matter...

Saving your money for the R10 Ralph:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

I just think folks really need to make a SMART buy decision on this one. I want something to jump at me before i put my money in it.

 

[mark1958]

Jack.. Do you have the latest version of DPP? I have been processing the same images in DPP vs CS3. I set the DPP sharpening to 3 or 4. I tried to sharpen the image about 10 different ways including step wise. I cannot get the same degree of sharpening with CS3 before i get lots of artifacts. The colors are much better using DPP even when i do my best to try to match in CS3. I need to play with this some more.. Starts to get the OCD going

 

[Jack]

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,

 

[mark1958]

All points well taken and i do understand. I will say that the skin tones look better using DPP even when i adjust the color temperature and tones to be the same by number and/or try to match skintones in CS3. Even the Stanford church shot, the colors and tones look much better and more accurate in DPP-- less redness. I can adjust to get rid in CS3 but more work and still does not look as good but not sure I got the optimal settings yet. Nonetheless, my only comment is that comparing images from different sensors using a single default RAW converter is less useful than I had thought.. I realize you and others probably already knew that.

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,

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Mark , very hard to do a system compare. You can get pretty close but than you still wonder. Honestly in about a month or so from now you will get it under control and know exactly what it is doing than the tests get a little easier. But it really is a nightmare to do and subject matter will count to. Frankly would not worry about comparing to much just get the Canon under your control with processing is what i would concentrate on. From memory DPP was nice but hated the interface, now things may have changed also. What you can try to do in ACR is calibrate to the output of the camera.

 

[mark1958]

I can tell you that DPP makes a huge huge difference. I am quite amazed. In hte early days i hated it and i agree the interface still sucks but the conversion of the RAW images are much better than what i had tried in the old days with the older cameras when first released

Mark , very hard to do a system compare. You can get pretty close but than you still wonder. Honestly in about a month or so from now you will get it under control and know exactly what it is doing than the tests get a little easier. But it really is a nightmare to do and subject matter will count to. Frankly would not worry about comparing to much just get the Canon under your control with processing is what i would concentrate on. From memory DPP was nice but hated the interface, now things may have changed also. What you can try to do in ACR is calibrate to the output of the camera.

 

[outlawyer]

One conclusion I've gleaned from these tests is this: The 5D is a great camera.