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!

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I agree that an open and honest assessment with multiple perspectives being represented like this is invaluable.

I think that this new camera may well be a living example of the boundaries traditional 35mm places on digital capture ... at least where the current state of sensor technology is concerned. It is also a demonstration of why MF is where to go to make that quantum leap forward in image quality .... and history repeats itself, again.
This is the most concise and eloquent summary of the situation I have seen, very well said!

That crop from the H3D you posted is incredible, and really shows just how big the gap between DSLR and MF capture quality is... There were rumors early on that the 1Ds3 was going to be a MF DB killer --- clearly it is not even playing in the same league. I personally still see the 1Ds3 as an improvement to the 1Ds2, and it did get a host of nice features, but I doubt most pros would consider them mandatory; convenient but not necessary... It will be interesting to see how popular this camera actually is after the honeymoon is over.

;),
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
We have so many options... how come none can be perfect.. or at least close..
I hear you... If only.

But should you decide to open it up and play with it, PLEASE post your impressions here as I'm sure folks are interested in hearing your thoughts!

:eek:
 

woodyspedden

New member
Not sure this comment will go over very well but here goes and let me repeat myself once again i do like Canon but they hit the saturation point with CMOS sensor and not sure there is any real improvement here with DR and image quality after this 22mpx beast because if they stick with AA filters as we are seeing there is very little added in the way of detail. Leica has some headroom to go with the existing technology all they really have to do is take a Kodak sensor that exists in the P45 or P30 and cut to size per say the technology already exists, yes they will have to fine tune it and micro lenses and such but the MF sensors are in place already without waiting for new technology to come along . This is one of the benefits for Leica because the CCD sensor is really in place right now , Canon will have to make something new in CMOS because that is what they build and there limited by themseleves because the are the leader in CMOS. You have to kick back for a second and think why Nikon stopped at 13mpx I think for the D3 and did not go any further. Not being the engineer i don't know all the details of all this but it does make you wonder how far they can stretch what really is not the next generation technology but more of the same
Guy

Being a semiconductor guy I am not sure the CMOS vs CCD is where the differences lie.

There has been a great deal of discussion on some other threads as to whether the optimum pixel pitch for 35mm sensors is at 10x10. Even comparing the D300 to the D3 Nikons the image quality of the D3 is clearly superior to the D300 and both are 12.1 Mpx so the primary difference is pixel pitch. Our M8s at the size of the sensor and 10 Mpx also is in that ballpark.

The other big issue of course is the use of AA filtration. Nikon and Canon are both shooting for High ISO performance and also use strong AA (I believe the Canon AA are stronger than the Nikons though). The M8 (and previous DMR) are not aiming to be the best of the high ISO performers and don't use strong AA filters so end up with better files although some would argue are less flexible because of the lower ISO capabilities.

From a semiconductor point of view CMOS is the clear winner when it comes to noise vs CCD. This is inherent in the technology. Again since N & C are shooting for lowest noise i.e. highest ISO CMOS is a natural.

I personally think that all of these things contribute to image quality and it is hard to know in what proportion.

For me I guess the issue boils down to what I see and what I like. I loved the DMR files and I love the M8 files and I have used both Canon in the past and currently have the D300. I will use both M8s and the D series as I have differing needs and don't find one system fits all.

Woody
 

KurtKamka

Subscriber Member
Many systems (35mm and MFDB) are being introduced or upgraded over the next 9 months or so (including the potential Leica R10 release). It's great to watch them unfold, but difficult to fully comprehend the total experience of so many options. It's easier when you can hold the various system and lens options in your hands and view the results on your own.

That's why the next greatest alternative is to live vicariously through the starts, stops, disappointments, and eureka moments of such an experienced group of shooters here on the GetDPI.com forum.

If that sounds like a testimonial ad coming from a marketing guy, it is. Guy and Jack, good job in setting this forum up. It's real world brand, format and gear agnostic discussions like these that are certain to attract and interest a growing base of participants.

Kurt
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Thanks Kurt , I called Jack this morning and we talked about the same thing , my comment to him was we have been on these forums for so long we know exactly what people want and this forum is it. Not a ad or a pat on the back we just know what works and these type of honest discussions from everyones point of view without threats , insults and crap like that work.

Once again here is the mission statement of this site and what we are going to live and die by as owners of the site

GetDpi Mission Statement

"A place to exchange ideas, techniques, experiences AND images,
where the discussions are fun, respectful and geared toward the goal of
helping each other improve all aspects of our photography."

I want everyone to come on this site with a smile everyday , that is my goal.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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.
Hi Marc:

For some reason, I had missed a whole series of posts on that page including this one of yours. You are welcome for sure! Anyway, again you sum it up very well: it really doesn't matter what the technical reasons are if the files don't satisfy...
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Not that this is a fair comparison either, but it may add some insight to the differences between imaging systems...

Here is a shot by Michael Reichman of Luminous Landscape in his review with the 1Ds3 in Madagascar. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/mada-iiis.shtml) It is an ISO 1600 shot with a 50/1.4 lens at 1.4. It is near the center, but at that ISO and aperture, far from the top technical capabilities of the camera I suspect. But given the talk about a watercolor pattern in my processing, I could't resist! First the full image, then his crop (linked directly from his site for convenient view):





It is obviously a similar percentage crop off the sensor to the one Marc posted of the bride and groom above, but significantly different result. Again, I don't want to infer too much from this given the lens and ISO used for the 1Ds3, but still...

The irony is, I think the image itself is very compelling -- but it works as a piece of interpretive graphic art, not a photograph ;)
 
S

Scott F

Guest
My first post here, and I just wanted to say I have found this discussion immensely interesting as I have been considering the 1Dsm3. The detail in the wedding image is stunning I must say. I am primarily a wildlife photographer, but that image really makes me think about MF.
I , like many, have been waiting on this camera for some time. I currently use a 5D and 40D, having sold a mark2 earlier in this year expecting to buy the 1dM3 until the AF issue came up. I was hoping to upgrade the 5D simply because I find the AF to be poor for birds and wildlife, however, $8K seems like an awful lot of money to get that plus more resolution.
For someone interested in getting in to digital MF, which system and setup would you recommend? I know very little about MF digital.
 
S

Scott F

Guest
I had seen that image on LL site, I noticed he has a lot of images taken with the 100-400 and the 1Dsm3. I would think that to be a very poor combination as that lens is not very sharp to begin with?
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I had seen that image on LL site, I noticed he has a lot of images taken with the 100-400 and the 1Dsm3. I would think that to be a very poor combination as that lens is not very sharp to begin with?
Hi Scott:

Indeed I agree with you, and as I said earlier in this thread, if one wants to get the most out of this camera they'll need to use the best glass, best shooting techniqes and probably a tripod...

Now, in fairness to MR, he shoots his test cameras in real-life shooting situations and posts those resuts --- and I compliment him for that. Does it provide readers with examples of the best the camera can do? Probably not. But is it representative of what it will do when used the way he intends on using it? Sure.

So if enough reviewers post actual images, then folks can scan the forums and hopefully assemble enough data to draw their own conclusions about how the camera may perform for them in their intended use.

Cheers,
 

AGeoJO

New member
Somehow, a copy of a 1Ds MarkIII made it over to me two days ago :D. In my brief experience, I agree with Jack that the AA filter on this new camera is stronger than that of its predecessor. However, whether it is due to its 14-bit file, who knows, the files lend themselves really well for sharpening with incredible details, I'd say. That, the better noise level, the same battery system as my 1D MarkIII, plus all the "nice" features of hte 1D MarkIII (sans the AF issues) makes this an excellent camera, IMHO. Whether it is worth it or not, it is always debatable.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Somehow, a copy of a 1Ds MarkIII made it over to me two days ago :D. In my brief experience, I agree with Jack that the AA filter on this new camera is stronger than that of its predecessor. However, whether it is due to its 14-bit file, who knows, the files lend themselves really well for sharpening with incredible details, I'd say. That, the better noise level, the same battery system as my 1D MarkIII, plus all the "nice" features of hte 1D MarkIII (sans the AF issues) makes this an excellent camera, IMHO. Whether it is worth it or not, it is always debatable.
Great to have you post this Joshua!

As I said earier, this camera definitely shows more detail and is very good with noise, but each individual needed to decide for themselves if it's worth the price of admission --- and obviously you felt it was for you! Would be great to have you post example images whenever (you've got lots of gallery space in our gallery, so feel free to use it!) and if possible even post some comparisons to other cameras when you find examples highlighting any differences you want to share.

Mark Kay has one too, and I'm hoping he will do the same!

Enjoy and keep us informed!

PS: I'm going to post some ISO 1600 examples here tomorrow, all files processed at ACR defaults.
 
L

Luis M.

Guest
Hello everybody, greetings from Spain, I hope you'll excuse my english.
I've read all this thread with a lot of attention, as well as any others in some other forums, read several reviews as well, and cann't understand why so that few differences in IQ between 1DsIII and 5D.
I've seen no 100 ISO samples here, so I cann't see the most this camera can achieve. The samples i've seen in other reviews are so far away in IQ from you're showing here, and I cann't find enough samples here to make a serious assesment about the real performace of this camera and if it is worth the money. Was the 1DsII worth the money every buyer paid for it in the past? Please answer to the very same question regarding to 1DsIII with the same arguments. And I don't agree either that upgrading from 1Ds will cost me 8K. The real price is 8000 minus the money I can get for my 1DsII, so when we talk about paying 8k, we must say it is not for an upgrade, but for buying a new camera.
Best regards.
Luis
 

AGeoJO

New member
Jack, the drawback about getting a new camera shortly before Christmas: you don't have enough time to do any real photography other than some test shots :). Well, you know what I mean. Plus I have to go out-of-town tomorrow for several days, but before too long, I will though and thanks for the offer.

Luis, you made a good point about the cost of upgrading. I bought my MarkII almost 3 years ago and if I sell now, I would be "loosing" a little over $4,000.00. Oh, well, so be it. I would consider that as a long term rental fee. Yes, the difference between the new camera and the other FF cameras, like the 1Ds MarkII and 5D, doesn't seem to be that much. I am sure, it has to do with the resolving power of the lens used, at least partly. We are pushing the limits of the existing line of Canon lenses with the 5D and 1Ds MarkII. The new camera is more demanding in that respect. Jack, feel free to chime in, please. 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
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
One of the problems that does happen when a new model hits the streets is it devalues what you want to sell. Also Canon has such a big line of camera's it does make it even worse. So yes new is 8 k but how much did the 1dsMKII devalue at this point. Let's say you bought it 6 months ago and all of a sudden you are taking a 3k to 4k loss on it. Numbers vary of course and time of ownership so from a Pro point of view and dealing with ROI and even the hobbyist point of view of seeing a big loss in your investment . You simply have to way the costs plus the benefits to upgrade. i think most of us are NOT saying you should not upgrade or buy new but given the increase on bottom line image quality which let's face it folks that is all that really matters at the end of the day is the image is the cost of admission far out way the increase in image quality. Putting the features aside like bigger LCD and such you have to look at the image quality first and for most this is what counts. As a Pro that is ALL i care about but others like features and bells and whistles. From my seat from what i have seen so far a question mark comes with it and that makes me nervous when i don't see a clear 22mpx what i think it should be looking like file.

Honestly i think the MF 22mpx backs can relax and not worry about Canon right now because if you saw a MF image with a good 22mpx back your heart will stop for a second. Just not seeing what the marketing is saying on this Canon model. Not saying it is bad but maybe not living up to what folks were really expecting. So investigate and do your research and homework before shelling out the money or worse yet selling your existing gear and relizing you made a mistake. I clearly did this myself from going from the 1ds to the 1dsMKII. Besides the noise of the 1ds there was a major let down on the file of the 1dsMKII and the 1ds file IMHO was much better. Just my thoughts and i been around a long time and like people to really think things through.
 
S

Scott F

Guest
Guy, do you know of any sites with a full resolution raw file from one of these MF backs that I could have a look at?
 
Top