Call me nuts but I like the 1ds2 shot better up to 3200. They seem to show much more detail and have better contrast. At 8x10 print size I have to believe they would be more impressive. Maybe too much nr in the 1D3?
twistedlim wrote:
Call me nuts but I like the 1ds2 shot better up to 3200. They seem to show much more detail and have better contrast. At 8x10 print size I have to believe they would be more impressive. Maybe too much nr in the 1D3?
No, you aren't nuts but it seems that the two cameras have very different strengths and weaknesses. The 1DMkIII has much better shadow detail but the 1DsMkII seems to have more detail in the brighter areas. Interesting.
Space Cowboy wrote:
The 1D2 is not present in this test, but the 1D Mark III(10Mp) and 1Ds MKII(16.7Mp) are.
I guess actually reading the labels instead of assuming can be good sometimes
The 1DsII may not have an NR applied by the user, but it certainly has NR in the red channel of the ISO 1600 crop. In some areas there's no red noise but has that weird NR look.
The difference in sharpness is the first thing I noticed. NR off, or not, it appears we're seeing quite a bit of default NR in the 1DIII image. I hope they reconsider in later firmware.
jray wrote:
The difference in sharpness is the first thing I noticed. NR off, or not, it appears we're seeing quite a bit of default NR in the 1DIII image. I hope they reconsider in later firmware.
You can see by looking at the 1DsII image horizontal surface that those page edges are in focus (focus is in front of the wood bookshelf). I can't tell exactly where the 1DIII is focused. I would want to judge noise and resolution on images with the lens stopped down and a proper white balance. The only thing I'm confident I see in these shots is the greater bit depth of the 1DIII.
There appears to be a change in lighting between the two sets of shots. Extra lighting in the 1D3 shots to show the power line as well as better detail on the speakers. IF Av/Tv are identical then 1D3 has an advantage.
I'm wondering, looking at pixel density from both sensors, it appears that the 1D3 has the same pixel density as the 1DsM2. This leads me to believe that the new camera is using a sensor based on the sensor in the 1DsM2. The improved noise is impressive as the 1DsM2 is no slouch with noise levels. Cutting the sensor dimensions should cut down on noise and the improved electronics (Digic III) processing and such just shows that the future is looking bright. I'm wondering if the 5D update (if and when it happens) will change the pixel density to get more on the same size chip and they use the enhanced processing power to reduce the noise levels even more. The 5D was the low noise champ until the MKIII if I'm guessing correctly. Need to see the full blown tests before we jump to conclusions. The MKIII may be losing detail in favor of noise reduction.
I have a potential issue with this test. The OP did not mention what lens and at what distance the pics were taken at. This leads me to believe that a method of "foot zooming" was used to get similar FOV. This creates a potential comparison issue.
To get a comparison of the same number of pixels, which I believe would be a better true test of noise, and especially since the photosites are nearly the same at about 7um, one would use the same lens at the same distance from the subject. In this way one would get the same number of pixels covering the same object. In this way it is possible that the noise difference may have been even more striking!
Im glad however someone is finally throwing us all a bone.
suchs wrote:
I have a potential issue with this test. The OP did not mention what lens and at what distance the pics were taken at. This leads me to believe that a method of "foot zooming" was used to get similar FOV. This creates a potential comparison issue.
I used 70-200 2.8 non-IS
no zoom with lens and/or feet in the first set of test
