abam wrote:
for the professionals that undoubtedly have to have the cutting edge tools, and hobbyists who are thinking "harley or camera for christmas," the 1DsMkIII is (almost) a no-brainer; but for the rest of the unwashed enthusiast-masses, one might want to consider the following numbers (from phil askey's DPR reviews of the 40D and 1DsMkIII):
the 1dsmkiii is certainly not a value buy, that said, i think they rate more within catergory I certianly would not put the 1dsmkiii IQ only .5 ahead of the 40D!
yeah, i noticed that a bit too late. not that i expected the 40D to be on par with the 1DsMkIII, just found it interesting that one of the best-known reviewers had 'apparently' rated them fairly similarly. (...and as it ends up, apparently he did not.)
clearly so but something is very wrong. A previous 5D/1Ds2 comparison by Phil using the same postage stamp had the 1Ds2 doing much better than it does in this test. see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page21.asp
Also, if you look not at a sideways comparison between cameras but at a vertical comparison between ISOs for each camera then you'll see that the 5D loses more of its low-ISO detail as the ISO increases to 800 and beyond. To me a lot of its high-ISO clean image status seems to come at the expense of fine image detail.
I think too that the Standard picture style in the 1Ds3 and 5D is a bit punchier (more contrasty) than the default 1Ds2 non-picture-style settings or even the Neutral picture style. I'd prefer to see the comparisons done at comparable settings rather than default settings.
Later on when shooting RAW the 1Ds II looks to being as well as the 1Ds III.
which would indicate that the 1Ds2 jpeg softness is not a hardware issue because the raw images hold the details that the jpegs lost. They would not get the details if the AA filter was overly strong. It also implies that much of the apparent 1Ds3 (and 1D3) improvement is in the in-camera processing rather than the fundamental sensor technology, and that in turn leads to reasonable deduction that a 12Mpx 1Ds3 (or full frame 1D4) would be very clean at higher ISOs like the Nikon.
Alan321 wrote:
>and that in turn leads to reasonable deduction that a 12Mpx 1Ds3 (or full frame 1D4) would be very clean at higher ISOs like the Nikon.
The 1Ds3 is very clean at 12Mpx, like the Nikon. Just shoot at 21Mpx and downrez to taste. Be sure to do any chroma noise reduction before downrezzing.
I have to wonder who is buying a 1DsMk3 and shooting jpeg? It would never occur to me to use an $8k camera and not shoot RAW. Sports and PJs, who mostly use jpegs, are not buying this camera anyway...they want a higher frame rate.
MSC wrote:
I have to wonder who is buying a 1DsMk3 and shooting jpeg? It would never occur to me to use an $8k camera and not shoot RAW. Sports and PJs, who mostly use jpegs, are not buying this camera anyway...they want a higher frame rate.
I shoot events, not sport. 5 fps is fast enough. Low light performance is crucial, and the 1Ds3 at least matches both the D3 and 1D3 at iso 12800 (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/663088). The extra resolution also allows me to crop liberally, and helps with shots which contain groups of ten people or more. I think it's an ideal choice for a serious wedding or event photographer. I shoot JPEG about half the time, i.e. when I know the colour-balance and exposure are right, and the file needs little or no processing. Switching to JPEG when conditions allow saves a lot of time in processing.
Many photographers have to take a wide range of picture styles, not just one. For a non-sports photographer, the 1Ds3 is the most versatile pro DSLR available, and JPEG is a crucial feature.
Well I guess...I do events too, and newspaper work all the time for 4 newspapers and for a wire now and again, and the Mk3 is just not the camera of choice--in fact, no one I know of uses one. As for weddings, I have no idea...not interested.
MSC wrote:
I have to wonder who is buying a 1DsMk3 and shooting jpeg? It would never occur to me to use an $8k camera and not shoot RAW. Sports and PJs, who mostly use jpegs, are not buying this camera anyway...they want a higher frame rate.
What has the price of a cam to do with if one shoots JPEG or RAW? It is just a cam that does a great job with both formats
Reasons for me to use JPEG:
1) Occasionally I need a larger buffer
2) JPEG saves time and space
3) Quality of JPEG engine is very good
Daan B wrote:
What has the price of a cam to do with if one shoots JPEG or RAW? It is just a cam that does a great job with both formats
Reasons for me to use JPEG:
1) Occasionally I need a larger buffer
2) JPEG saves time and space
3) Quality of JPEG engine is very good
However, most of the time I shoot RAW
The price of a camera means a LOT to a newspaper...and they would rather have a high frame rate Mk2 or Mk3 than the S model. I'm a freelancer and in a position to choose what I want to cover...so I'm not a good representation, but I know those guys. Also there is a newspaper in my family, albeit a small one, so I grew up around the newspaper business, middle and small market. And many event shooters (at least in the DC market) are very bottom line oriented...they are not spending $8k on a camera. Grip and grins are not generally populated by high priced cameras. But then again, maybe the embassy event shooters are using them...can't say.
Like I said, I have no idea about weddings tho...maybe lots of weddng shooters use an $8k camera. I only know a few in that market, one very high end, and they all use 5Ds and none shoot jpeg, but that is not a big sample at all. Richard, I see you are in the UK, it may be different there.
MSC wrote:
The price of a camera means a LOT to a newspaper...and they would rather have a high frame rate Mk2 or Mk3 than the S model. I'm a freelancer and in a position to choose what I want to cover...so I'm not a good representation, but I know those guys. Also there is a newspaper in my family, albeit a small one, so I grew up around the newspaper business, middle and small market. And many event shooters (at least in the DC market) are very bottom line oriented...they are not spending $8k on a camera. Grip and grins are not populated by high priced cameras.
Like I said, I have no idea about weddings tho...maybe lots of weddng shooters use an $8k camera. I only know a few in that market, one very high end, and they all use 5Ds and none shoot jpeg, but that is not a big sample at all. Richard, I see you are in the UK, it may be different there....Show more →
I don't care about newspapers
It would be a very stupid business decision to use a 1Ds3 exclusively for low-res output (like newspapers). If you don't need the 21MP resolution, stay away from this cam. Because it is the 21MP resolution why it is so darn expensive in the first place. But because it is so expensive, should its usage be limited to RAW only? That part of your initial statement made no sense to me (but maybe I misunderstood you). I guess it all depends on the line of work and personal preferences
Frankly all of the Canon and Nikon pro models and the 5D are good enough for most tasks, so really it comes down to personal preference. I was definitely spoiling myself when I forked out the small fortune for the 1Ds3, but I take enough pictures in a year to feel that I deserve to use the tool with which I am most comfortable.
The 1Ds3 can give you a bit of extra headroom for detail and cropping, with the right lenses, and it makes good jpegs too. It saves you buying and carrying two different cameras for different applications. Compared to a medium format kit, it's cheap and light, and it's very nearly as good in many ways. Bargain!
Yeah, re-read it...maybe it should have said "who is buying a 1DsMk3 to shoot jpeg." Which is what I was thinking. If one primarily shoots jpeg, there are better options...that was the idea. But if you are a portait shooter, or perhaps a wedding shooter, and do events and PJ also...and want to have a versitile camera...and can afford it, then yes, an S model would be the ideal choice.
brainiac wrote:
The 1Ds3 can give you a bit of extra headroom for detail and cropping, with the right lenses, and it makes good jpegs too. It saves you buying and carrying two different cameras for different applications. Compared to a medium format kit, it's cheap and light, and it's very nearly as good in many ways. Bargain!
This is VERY true and a primary reason I got it...and use as a second cam for sports too...the ability to heavily crop and still get printable shots is great, as you show here!
brainiac wrote:
Wow - the great Phil hasn't worked out that he needs a sharper lens to see a resolution difference between the 1Ds3 and 1Ds2:
"switching to raw and using the same processing (and crucially the same sharpening) shows that the resolution gap between the Mark III and the Mark II is minimal, and (aside from differences in depth of field) the output from the new camera is pretty similar, just bigger..."
Many of his 1Ds3 crops show the lens limiting sharpness.
To be honest, these days I treat DPReview with extreme suspicion. It contains so many technical errors.
Phil provides the most trustworthy information to me. Because he does every testing exactly the same way CONSISTENTLY.
Lens limiting sharpness ? Oh, give me a break. He uses primes and L zooms. If those lenses are not good enough, what good is the Camera for ? Is it a Lab equipment ?
As he precisely pointed out, the pixel pitch in H and V dimension is just 13% more over the Mk-2. The expectation should be set correctly.
In fact, his sample images at the end of the review show that the 1Ds MIII is not very fond of zooms. Even L zooms. At least the ones he used (or his particular copies of such lenses). Most of the sample images from the 24-70L and the 70-200L 2.8IS are somewhat on the soft side.
The ones taken with primes are definitely better, specially the small girl's portrait(5th pic from the right), and the beautiful black woman (7th pic from the left), where he used a 85mm 1.8.
While that is to be expected and considered normal, I think that this particular body does broaden the gap between primes and zooms in terms of IQ (sharpness wise, at least), more so than previous bodies.
As may have stated before, the 1DsMIII appears to demand the best optics for the best results.
I don't buy this. As far as I know (which isn't all that much :-) the 1Ds3 has less pixel density than the 40D and XSi. By that measure the 40D and XSi should be harder on lenses than the 1Ds3. I just haven't seen any plausible data that suggests the 1Ds3 is limited in this area.
Pondria wrote:
Phil provides the most trustworthy information to me. Because he does every testing exactly the same way CONSISTENTLY.
Consistently wrong. For example, comparison crops at varying magnifications.
> Lens limiting sharpness ? Oh, give me a break. He uses primes and L zooms. If those lenses are not good enough, what good is the Camera for? Is it a Lab equipment ?
Like I said, the extra sharpness it is capable of can only be had with a more limited range of lenses. Many L's aren't good enough.
> As he precisely pointed out, the pixel pitch in H and V dimension is just 13% more over the Mk-2. The expectation should be set correctly.
He fails to show the extra 13% in many of his crops. If I offered a 13% sharper lens, who wouldn't want one?
regarding sharpening, very often on my 1Ds 3 with one of my big guns lenses - i.e. 35/1.4, 200/2.8, 85/1.2 - the file is so sharp to begin with that I'll often not sharpen them.
especially the 200!
incredibly good bit of gear the 1Ds 3, I'll be using my 2 for years to come. I'd only add a 3rd body if the 5D mk2 could do silly high iso's at good quality (i.e. 6400/12800)
brainiac wrote:
The XSi is harder on lenses. The 40D is about the same. But don't forget that they only use the lens' central sweetspot.
Sure but that's true of any crop camera vs. a full frame camera. I still have yet to see any evidence that suggests the 1Ds3 is harder on lenses than cameras with higher pixel densities.
