I had never used my 17-40 on the 1dsmk1 because it came along for me when I had the mk2 and I`d never used the Contax 35-70 on the mk2 because I bought it for the mk3.
Today I went to the coast, carrying the mk1 with 17-40 and the mk2 with Contax 35-70. All I can say is Wow!! The 17-40 is just a stellar lens on the mk1, that pixel pitch really seems to match the lens.(now I understand why my old Sigma 15-30 showed a good result on the mk1)The 35-70 shots on the 1dsmk2 have to be seen at 100% to be believed (it took me quite a while to convince my wife that she was looking at a 100% view on my 27" monitor) I still think she thinks I`m cheating her. I have never seen a 100% view of any image that is so detailed and sharp(hand held BTW at ISO 200) Thank the Lord she convinced me to hang onto the mk2.
My problem? Where does that leave my 1dsmk3 Looks like it will be used in the studio where live view is invaluable. To be able to put the mk2 chip in the superb mk3 body would be a dream come true.
Converted the mk2 file and upsized to mk3 size. Still looks superb. converted the mk1 file and upsized to mk2 size and still looks good. Didn`t upsize the mk1 file to mk3 size (whats the point of that?)
Not sure what you actually mean
All I know is that the mk2 file is roughly at the base acceptable alamy size out of the camera and looks so much better than trying to get mk3 files accepted when they are inspected at 100%.
Suppose what you are saying is that if I got asked for a street poster print size then the mk3 would be a better bet? Yeh! maybe if you could find a lens to hold up.
I`ve come to realise that for most sales a 50Mb file size is over kill let alone 60Mb. So rather than staying in the mega pixel race , I`ll just shoot 50Mb files and smile
I did see something a bit like this when I had a 5D for a short time but just could never get used to using the toy town body(as good as the file might have been)
Be interesting to see what the next FF nikon looks like at above 20 million pixels with some of their lenses like the 14-24 aye.
skid00skid00 wrote:
This post is worthless without pics!!!!
100% crops, too!
One picture worth a thousand words, aye
Done that, got the teeshirt. No point! every bodies valuation is different, monitors are different and how does another body judge what a photog was getting before.
You can only judge your own pics to what you were getting before to your skills (or none) as the case may be.
dave chilvers wrote:
One picture worth a thousand words, aye
Done that, got the teeshirt. No point! every bodies valuation is different, monitors are different and how does another body judge what a photog was getting before.
You can only judge your own pics to what you were getting before to your skills (or none) as the case may be.
Just have a little faith skidOOskid00
Where are you from BTW?
Dave
Actually, I can judge -your- skills, and whether your lens is better or worse than mine. Yeah, you can argue the details, but many 10's of thousands of pics gives a good base to judge from.
-I-, of course, assumed your taking and processing skills were good enough to not decrease the accutance of the lens...
I have faith only in what I can control, BTW!
I'm west of you a good ways, and very much enjoying shooting my new handgun.
Looks like it will be used in the studio where live view is invaluable. To be able to put the mk2 chip in the superb mk3 body would be a dream come true.
