Online pics don't do ANY justice to the real quality.
If you were to actually print these out at say A2 size I would suggest -- all things being equal (which they usually aren't) I'm sure the 1Ds would rise head and shoulders above the rest -- which is not to say that any of the prints would be bad.
A 1D3 will do marvellous sport shots -- A2 size not normally needed whist a 1Ds will produce probably bthe best landscape shots.
The 5D will win on being the most convenient camera to carry around.
These 3 cameras are designed for different purposes. You can't really compare them this way.
Kyle Yates wrote:
Online pics don't do ANY justice to the real quality.
If you were to actually print these out at say A2 size I would suggest -- all things being equal (which they usually aren't) I'm sure the 1Ds would rise head and shoulders above the rest -- which is not to say that any of the prints would be bad.
A 1D3 will do marvellous sport shots -- A2 size not normally needed whist a 1Ds will produce probably bthe best landscape shots.
The 5D will win on being the most convenient camera to carry around.
These 3 cameras are designed for different purposes. You can't really compare them this way.
Kyle, you need to read more carefully, this is the original 1Ds not Mark 3 and there is a link to full size images, you can print them yourself if you'd like.
stanj wrote:
The original 1Ds will still give a better landscape than a 5D.
why? I thought the 1Ds has blocking issues in the shadows and higher noise. At least that is what my 2 friends always whined about. They bought 5D's to replace them
Higher noise, of course, but technically it's supposed to have a weaker AA filter and I believe it's got a tad more DR. I've never noticed a difference when both were at ISO100.
Well I had both, as well as the other two 1Ds cameras. For landscapes, the ISO noise is a non-issue because I can be at 100 all the time. Speed is a non-issue because 3fps is enough for all landscapes I've shot in my life. So it comes down to the AA filter, sensor characteristics and DR. The images from a 1Ds are magic from a color perspective, and it has the weakest AA filter. DR is about the same. Metering and AF is far superior.
Now, the 5D is certainly better in other categories, and thus better allround. But for landscapes I'd take the 1Ds over the 5D any day, esp. if the sensor isn't one of the banding ones
I print big a lot (24x36). I have a number of striking 1Ds shots up to 60x40, but somehow no 5D shot made it that far. It could all be coincidence, but to me the 5D (and the 1D3, which had a short tenure with me) never "clicked".
I have to say that I was leaning towards 1Ds as well before deciding to sell both. The reason was the noise...................when shooting @ ISO400 and 640 and converting to B&W noise was actually something I wanted to have in the picture. The only problem with 1Ds is the battery, at least by 5D standards. It's also slow to display an image on LCD but this didn't bother me as I don't use that often anyway. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:
Not only this, but some simple post production will yield different results. I don't like tests like this that only show straight out of camera shots, where there may not be that big of a difference. Do some heavy manipulation, and you'll see a difference. 14 bit images will take a beating better than 12.
Kyle Yates wrote:
Online pics don't do ANY justice to the real quality.
If you were to actually print these out at say A2 size I would suggest -- all things being equal (which they usually aren't) I'm sure the 1Ds would rise head and shoulders above the rest -- which is not to say that any of the prints would be bad.
A 1D3 will do marvellous sport shots -- A2 size not normally needed whist a 1Ds will produce probably bthe best landscape shots.
The 5D will win on being the most convenient camera to carry around.
These 3 cameras are designed for different purposes. You can't really compare them this way.
cineski wrote:
Not only this, but some simple post production will yield different results. I don't like tests like this that only show straight out of camera shots, where there may not be that big of a difference. Do some heavy manipulation, and you'll see a difference. 14 bit images will take a beating better than 12.
Ok, here are my test images, Ive processed them with...
-What?! Youve edited them? They are ruined now and cant be compared!
Ok, here are my test images, straight from cameras.
-Thats pointless, you need to process them to see the differences!
