Beni wrote:
From my experience at native resolution (5D) you may not see any resolution differences though the 14bit of the 1Ds mkIII may give better tonality theoretically.
That's not quite how the extra bits work, or perhaps I misunderstand you.
The extra bits are devoted to more finely "describing" light levels within more or less a similar dynamic range. A place where this could be significant would be if you were making some fairly radical adjustments to curves, etc., in which case banding might not become apparent quite so quickly.
BTW, the whole "native resolution" thing is an interesting concept but not a necessary standard for photo quality. Essentially, the resolution required for an effective print varies depending on a number of factors, but the print size is certainly one of them. There is a very well reasoned point of view that says that very high resolutions (e.g. 300 "dpi" or higher) are more important in small prints than in large prints since they are generally inspected much more closely. Some respected photographic experts who hold this view are also convinced that lower resolutions (e.g. 180 "dpi") can be quite good in a larger print.
A useful experience for many would be to go and closely inspect some gallery prints of well-known photographs by some of the best photographers. Many (I'd say most) of these beautiful and high quality images are very definitely not "sharp" according to the standard that some are proposing here.
danmitchell wrote:
That's not quite how the extra bits work, or perhaps I misunderstand you.
The extra bits are devoted to more finely "describing" light levels within more or less a similar dynamic range. A place where this could be significant would be if you were making some fairly radical adjustments to curves, etc., in which case banding might not become apparent quite so quickly.
Dan
In practice, the 14 bit does lend itself to better dynamic range. This is because you can tweak the recovery and fill sliders in CS3 without losing quality to the same degree that you would with the 12 bit 1Ds2. On the 1Ds2, if I tweak the recovery more than maybe 20 or so, the highlight areas start to go gray and have weird banding. You can tweak it all the way to 100 on the 1DsIII and have no loss of quality. You can tweak the shadow areas a lot better than the 1Ds2 as well, but if you crank it all the way, you will get some more noise. It's a lot better than the 1Ds2 with the 12 bit processing though. Again, this is the type of thing where you need to work with the files from this camera to get a feeling for. You can read all the specs you want, but it is no substitute.
I've been reading a lot of commentary about the 1DsIII vs. 5D, but it seems like those who say that the 5D is almost every bit the equal have never laid hand on a 1DsIII.
BTW, the whole "native resolution" thing is an interesting concept but not a necessary standard for photo quality. Essentially, the resolution required for an effective print varies depending on a number of factors, but the print size is certainly one of them. There is a very well reasoned point of view that says that very high resolutions (e.g. 300 "dpi" or higher) are more important in small prints than in large prints since they are generally inspected much more closely. Some respected photographic experts who hold this view are also convinced that lower resolutions (e.g. 180 "dpi") can be quite good in a larger print....Show more →
I have a very nice 12X18 picture hanging in my hallway done with a mere 6MP Contax N FF camera (ok the guy who did it is an incredible photographer far better than I will ever be), incredible is all I have to say. Anything above 6MP in the right hands is overkill but that's my opinion, as others have different view as noted above. What more pixels give you is the ability to crop and fix mistakes which we all make.
I however don't need more than 12.8 MP in the new 5DmkII however a F8 AF system will be nice, along with weather sealing, 5FPS, and a bigger buffer.
Disclosure I don't make my living from my photographs.
Assuming you need 5 megapixels for particular print size, the IIIDs gives much more cropping latitude to arrive at those 5 megapixels. This is very important for sports action photography when composition gets compromised.
If you already have any DSLR I'd wait till Canon finally dumps the cropped frame pro body and fixes the focus point spread of the Ds. Currently Canon is using the same focus point arrangement in both pro bodies. The perimeter points come close to far enough from the center on the crippled crop body, but are no where near the classic 1/3 composition points in the Ds.
Join the club, same problem with the focus points in the 5D, same size unit as in the 20D just far more 'edge' that they don't reach due to the larger sensor.
Dan, I'm not a techy so there is little doubt that I'm wrong, I was just repeating what I'm hearing from fellow wedding photographers, I had assumed that if you have more transitions or better descriptions between light values then that translates to smoother tones, a less 'jagged' jump between each tonal value.
I don't have a 1Ds mkIII but I do have a large format camera with a multi layer stitching back for my 5D. I know what a 40X20" image at 350 DPI gives you in direct comparison for resolved detail and more importantly incredible tonality. Yes it's SUPREME overkill as far as pure megapixels are concerned but I get a lot of room to crop, including important persective corrections (for architecture, the adaptor only allows about 1cm of movement each way with the LF camera), I personally believe that for large print sizes 250DPI is the maximum that you will be able to see, although, again, it's very much overkill to get that resolution, even with cropping, I don't know of any better way to achieve significantly higher resolution and tonality than my 5D for architecture short of stupidly expensive MFDB's that cannot be justified by this side of my business (hobby really though I want a portfolio to make me pocket money when I retire from my wedding business). I can get 208DPI from the 1Ds mkIII using the t/s method of flat stitching, important for architecture, at the print size I'm using, 36X18", it's one hell of an investment though, what is incredible is that you can get that kind of resolution from a 35mm DSLR!
I have printed quite large numbers of pictures at 24x36 (and even bigger) from the 1Ds, 1Ds2, 1Ds3, 1D2N and 5D. I would place the 1D2N worst closely followed by the 5D for this purpose.
There is a significant, hard to describe difference between the 5D and the 1Ds2, not to mention 1Ds3, when it comes to printing, and the difference can be seen already at 10x15", my most common print size. It's not a simple, quantifiable measure like pixels or bit depth; but the difference between the 5D and the 1Ds2 / 1Ds3 is huge. Even a properly exposed ISO 100 landscape shot from the 1Ds will print better than the same from a 5D, but that difference is less obvious, and pretty much limited to ISO 100/200 applications.
It always saddens me to see gearheads debating endlessly the relative merits of different lenses or bodies. How many of you can say that you are truly getting the best results out of the equipment you have? How many of you could benefit more from better composition, better imagination, better vision and more creativity than from more megapixels? Will the next lens or camera body really make you a better photographer? The quality of what you produce has much more to do with your mind than with your camera.
I don't really see myself as a gearhead. I actually use my equipment, a lot. I am perfectly happy to admit my deficiencies, shortcomings and even fears. But I will equally happily take anything that will make these shortcomings less apparent, because that _will_ make my pictures better. For instance, indoor photos with the 1Ds3 vs. 1Ds are without dispute better, regardless whether it's Some God-Like Pro at the wheel or me. It was my decision to bury 3x $8k on a camera body, who are you to judge. I always happily credit the equipment used, not for bragging but rather to put it in perspective: my 1Ds3 pictures suck in comparison to someone's photos with the D30, and I am fine with that. I strive to improve, and I think I have over the years, but I am simply not as talented as others, so what. I shoot maybe 50k frames per year, have done so for decades (well a bit less with film but still), and for me it's fun. These are my money, my pictures, my memories - if you don't like them, skip to the next poster.
Sean Reidy wrote:
It always saddens me to see gearheads debating endlessly the relative merits of different lenses or bodies. How many of you can say that you are truly getting the best results out of the equipment you have? How many of you could benefit more from better composition, better imagination, better vision and more creativity than from more megapixels? Will the next lens or camera body really make you a better photographer?
I guess the imagination thread is found on one of the other FM forums? But this forum is dedicated to technical stuff-so read on at your own risk.
brainiac has described what I will call "Pixel Product" (the entropy found in relating pixel size, pixel count and ISO/noise). So it seems that the only hi-ISO drawbacks for a 1Ds Mk III (verses a D3 or 1D MK III) is the slower frame rate and buffer capacity-Encouraging!
So now I am lusting for a 20+ MP camera. The question is should it be a Nikon or Canon? If it's to be a new D3x then the LCD and VF will be much better that the 1Ds MKIII. Also a few more MP. Not sure just how far Canon can/will go to upscale the 5D Mk II and if that will be in the mix.
Well, it's a gear forum, so folks will want to talk about gear. And its a lot easier to endlessly debate technical things then aesthetic aspects of images.
It's funny reading these people have a go at pro's who are actually printing commercial work at those sizes, work that is subject to paying CLIENTS with expectations! Sean's comment is appropriate if he was talking to a class in photography, to pro's I would see it as both insulting and demeaning. Most pro's taking a 1Ds mkIII to the max have tens of years of experience shooting at a pro level and believe me are using an equipment investment that would make most readers here blanch. They know what they need, they are maximising the potential of their gear and know at what level it meets commercial clients high requirements. To call them gearheads because they need the best of the best to replace their 6X7 and 4X5 film cameras shows more the status of the poster relative to the pro and not the other way round.
Beni wrote:
It's funny reading these people have a go at pro's who are actually printing commercial work at those sizes, work that is subject to paying CLIENTS with expectations! Sean's comment is appropriate if he was talking to a class in photography, to pro's I would see it as both insulting and demeaning. Most pro's taking a 1Ds mkIII to the max have tens of years of experience shooting at a pro level and believe me are using an equipment investment that would make most readers here blanch. They know what they need, they are maximising the potential of their gear and know at what level it meets commercial clients high requirements. To call them gearheads because they need the best of the best to replace their 6X7 and 4X5 film cameras shows more the status of the poster relative to the pro and not the other way round....Show more →
Sean Reidy wrote:
It always saddens me to see gearheads debating endlessly the relative merits of different lenses or bodies. How many of you can say that you are truly getting the best results out of the equipment you have? How many of you could benefit more from better composition, better imagination, better vision and more creativity than from more megapixels? Will the next lens or camera body really make you a better photographer? The quality of what you produce has much more to do with your mind than with your camera.
What I like about this Sean Reidy's opinion is that it's free.
Advantageous gear is just one of the weapons in a photographer's arsenal, and unlike imagination, it can be bought using the profit from the previous job.
There are many threads about technique, imagination, and art. This isn't one of them.
Sorry Pixel, didn't mean that to be the flipside at all, just trying to counteract the notion that quality doesn't count if the subject matter is good enough, for a pro it's their livelihood to make it count and more to the point, anyone being comissioned to shoot for huge prints is not the kind of person who one would have the chutzpa to suggest that if they concentrated on the composition better then they wouldn't have to bother with all the technical bumf.
Problem here is that it's hard to find a clear demarcation between people for whom the technical aspects are extremely important but for whom the photographic aspect is already a given - and gear techies who can't see past the megapixels. This isn't a digital thing either, on the LF forum I read it is obvious that many who shoot a huge format, and many ULF as well, can't produce imagary inspiring enough to bother with 35mm nevermind their huge cameras. Ditto on a recent 'lets see your work' post on the digital medium format forum of LL. On that one the commercial photographers were posting excellent work but the wannabees shooting landscape with 39 megapixel backs, well they would have been better not bothering at all, bland, unimaginative, unemotional waste of tens of thousands of dollars.
I think my point is that pros (for the sake of a word to imply people producing pro level work) already have the photographic aspect well under their belt. All they want is equipment which will be able to express their art, their images, in the way which will either be suitible for a client, or which on a personal level provides a satisfactory representation of their intention.
In the old days it was pretty simple, shoot LF or 6X7, have loads of image quality, overkill in most cases and concentrate on the image knowing that the image quality is plenty by default. Now we are forcing the 'tiny' format to do the work of many others and suddenly there is no overkill any more, no breathing room, every megapixel and 'bit' counts, the lenses are crucial, etc, because we're uprezzing, not downsizing any more.
Sean Reidy wrote:
It always saddens me to see gearheads debating endlessly the relative merits of different lenses or bodies. How many of you can say that you are truly getting the best results out of the equipment you have? How many of you could benefit more from better composition, better imagination, better vision and more creativity than from more megapixels? Will the next lens or camera body really make you a better photographer? The quality of what you produce has much more to do with your mind than with your camera.
Next time you're feeling blue, feel free to keep it to yourself. This is a Canon Gear forum for pete's sake?!
I like to shoot landscapes with my 5D and 1DS3, BUT I don't even try to kid myself that the quality comes anywhere close to a P45 MF. Its just more affordable and does a respectable job. Years ago I shot 4X5 & 8X10 LF film which was more affordable and much higher quality than 35mm at any price, but what a pain it was. Not only the cameras with the dark slides and huge tripods but also the processing which was very expensive. I still shoot a small amount of 2-1/4 X 2-1/4 film and the 1DS3 still has a hard time reaching the MF film quality, but its sure nice not having to reload film that has been stoired in the refridgerator every 12 shots and then send it out to the lab, than scan to digital before sending to the printer. Don't even talk to me about my packed up and stored dark room. Phew, I don't miss it at all. Just put your gear in perspective and enjoy.
