John Power wrote:
And why are you up so early. Its 5 am there for God's sake...

Jet lag.

Just echoing themes I have seen posted here since the cameras release...

Doesn't seem like an echo to me. More like first shout. Feel free to cite examples that support what you are saying.

John Power wrote:
My 30D/70-300IS combo can produce a photo every bit as good as my 1DSMK2/70-200 and every bit as good as the 1DSMK3 and any lens you want to hang on it for at least 80% (probably closer to 95%) of the shots most of us take on a regular basis. Nevertheless, the core 1DSMK3 group absolutely refuses to admit this.

John Power wrote:
Of course the soon to be released 5D2 will have better high ISO performance that the current "king" at about 1/2 or less the price...

Which is it John? Which John are you?

brainiac wrote:
sjms wrote:
so far in the noise area i catagorically disagree with you.

Have you compared the D3 and 1Ds3 fairly at ISO 12800 according to the methods I have suggested? I certainly agree with you that the Nikons will produce high iso JPEGs with much less hassle. I've said that from the beginning. But if you are prepared to underexpose raw files, process them fairly, and resize to compare at the same magnification, I think the 1Ds3 is surprisingly competitive with the D3. That's the point of this thread. It would be great if someone could post a correctly made comparison, but I suppose few people have access to both cameras.

D700/Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DG Macro
iso 25600 no noise reduction at all. no sharpening. just stomped enought to make a jpg out of it
http://www.pbase.com/crusader/image/102370240
200% crop to show the lack of popcorn chroma noise that all the guitarist images show
http://www.pbase.com/crusader/image/102370239

brainiac wrote:
John Power wrote:
My 30D/70-300IS combo can produce a photo every bit as good as my 1DSMK2/70-200 and every bit as good as the 1DSMK3 and any lens you want to hang on it for at least 80% (probably closer to 95%) of the shots most of us take on a regular basis. Nevertheless, the core 1DSMK3 group absolutely refuses to admit this.

John Power wrote:
Of course the soon to be released 5D2 will have better high ISO performance that the current "king" at about 1/2 or less the price...

Which is it John? Which John are you?

I didn't say the better ISO performance would make a tangible IQ difference. "Better'" does not always result in a tangible and in your case salable difference. The newer cameras have more megapixels but I see no tangible or salable difference in IQ in the vast vast majority of applications.

As to the other themes, I am not going to painstakingly search thru every 1DSMK3 thread for examples. You and I both know there have been many references to this supposed "additional detail" and other such claims of easily recognizable distinguishing features. I ain't sayin' the camera isn't better. I am just sayin' that it ain't as much "better" as some owners try to make it out to be. If it was really that much better, you, as a photographer who makes his living selling photos, would NOT sell it. You would want another one. If I am a car racer and I had the fastest car to date, I would not want to trade it in for an untested and most likely slower one.

Unless of course you are prepared to admit, right now, that the soon to be released prosumer model is going to be better than your current top of the line canon professional model [And I know you would not do that because that position would invoke the unremitting wrath of your fellow 1DSM3 owners].

I am not so much arguing with you here as I am getting a chuckle out of the fact that the whole theme of the thread is "this camera is so great" ..."King of high ISO!" you declare and then boom, there it is on Buy and Sell.

Edited by John Power on Aug 30, 2008 at 06:33 AM GMT

iso 25600 no noise reduction at all. no sharpening. just stomped enought to make a jpg out of it
http://www.pbase.com/crusader/image/102370240
200% crop to show the lack of popcorn chroma noise that all the guitarist images show
http://www.pbase.com/crusader/image/102370239

Very nice, but like I said, have you actually compared the two cameras? The reason it's important to compare images taken through the same lens at the same time is that noise is highly dependent on illumination, and what's in the picture. With evenly lit subjects, like yours, noise problems are mitigated. It's easy to produce noiseless images with a 1Ds3 file at ISO 12800 - you just use noise reduction software. You lose lots of detail and dynamic range, and end up with something very like a D3 image.


Edited by brainiac on Aug 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM GMT

Richard, you are a well and highly respected member here. You can get a great shot out of any camera. I am just trying to once again make my point that we are really in the incremental improvement stage now and most of those improvements are feature related, not IQ related.

The 40D photos are going to look every bit as good as the 50D photos but we are soon to be deluged with threads lauding the tremendous strides in IQ with this new model.

John Power wrote:
brainiac wrote:
John Power wrote:
My 30D/70-300IS combo can produce a photo every bit as good as my 1DSMK2/70-200 and every bit as good as the 1DSMK3 and any lens you want to hang on it for at least 80% (probably closer to 95%) of the shots most of us take on a regular basis. Nevertheless, the core 1DSMK3 group absolutely refuses to admit this.

John Power wrote:
Of course the soon to be released 5D2 will have better high ISO performance that the current "king" at about 1/2 or less the price...

Which is it John? Which John are you?

I didn't say the better ISO performance would make a tangible IQ difference. "Better'" does not always result in a tangible and in your case salable difference. The newer cameras have more megapixels but I see no tangible or salable difference in IQ in the vast vast majority of applications.

As to the other themes, I am not going to painstakingly search thru every 1DSMK3 thread for examples. You and I both know there have been many references to this supposed "additional detail" and other such claims of easily recognizable distinguishing features. I ain't sayin' the camera isn't better. I am just sayin' that it ain't as much "better" as some owners try to make it out to be. If it was really that much better, you, as a photographer who makes his living selling photos, would NOT sell it. You would want another one. If I am a car racer and I had the fastest car to date, I would not want to trade it in for an untested and most likely slower one.

Unless of course you are prepared to admit, right now, that the soon to be released prosumer model is going to be better than your current top of the line canon professional model [And I know you would not do that because that position would invoke the unremitting wrath of your fellow 1DSM3 owners].

I am not so much arguing with you here as I am getting a chuckle out of the fact that the whole theme of the thread is "this camera is so great" ..."King of high ISO!" you declare and then boom, there it is on Buy and Sell.

Edited by John Power on Aug 30, 2008 at 06:33 AM GMT

Your arguments make little sense to me. 1Ds3 image quality is better than 5D image quality. I don't use a camera because it's 'the fastest car on the road', I use it because it's the best tool for me to do my work. Currently that means the 1Ds3. In two months that will almost certainly be a 5D2 (7D).

I expect the 5D successor to take the high ISO crown from the 1Ds3, BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE A 12800 ISO SETTING AND WILL BE ABLE TO PRODUCE NOISE REDUCED JPEGS.

It also happens to be the kind of camera that I normally use, unlike the 1Ds3 which is too big and heavy for me to carry two or three around my neck, and has lots of features I don't need.

So yes - my 1Ds3 might be the king of high iso, and it has done sterling service, but I am selling it for something that I have every confidence will suit my particular needs better, as I had always planned to. As a working photographer I don't mind changing my camera body every year. I don't understand why you have an axe to grind with this.

Edited by brainiac on Aug 30, 2008 at 11:48 AM GMT

John Power wrote:
The 40D photos are going to look every bit as good as the 50D photos

Not at ISO 12800. That matters a lot to some of us. If you look at the picture that started this thread, I hope you can understand why.

I have no axe to grind with anyone. I just think that on gear forums the increased IQ of newer models is grossly over-exaggerated (and pretty much indistinguishable in properly exposed photographs) . That photo at 12,800, to the target viewer, (a non-pixel peeping non-gearhead who is focused on the SUBJECT MATTER) won't look a damn bit different than the one you would take at 1600 with your current camera.

And I expect to get nothing but criticism for expressing this opinion. The improvements now are in features, not IQ

brainiac wrote:
iso 25600 no noise reduction at all. no sharpening. just stomped enought to make a jpg out of it
http://www.pbase.com/crusader/image/102370240
200% crop to show the lack of popcorn chroma noise that all the guitarist images show
http://www.pbase.com/crusader/image/102370239

Very nice, but like I said, have you actually compared the two cameras? The reason it's important to compare images taken through the same lens at the same time is that noise is highly dependent on illumination, and what's in the picture. With evenly lit subjects, like yours, noise problems are mitigated. It's easy to produce noiseless images with a 1Ds3 file at ISO 12800 - you just use noise reduction software. You lose lots of detail and dynamic range, and end up with something very like a D3 image.



Edited by brainiac on Aug 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM GMT

no i think not. but i have a feeling that there is no point in continuing this because you are one in life sees only what is in your minds eye. keep on trying.

remember on your amp the volume control goes to 11.

Edited by sjms on Aug 30, 2008 at 07:39 AM GMT

Interesting thread. Without taking too much time on the specifics, I'll simply add that I agree with ChrisDM on all counts. Chris, thanks for the useful comparison between the 1D III and 1Ds III!

Regards,
Amin

John Power wrote:
I have no axe to grind with anyone. I just think that on gear forums the increased IQ of newer models is grossly over-exaggerated (and pretty much indistinguishable in properly exposed photographs) . That photo at 12,800, to the target viewer, (a non-pixel peeping non-gearhead who is focused on the SUBJECT MATTER) won't look a damn bit different than the one you would take at 1600 with your current camera.

I don't understand what you are saying. The picture at the beginning of the thread needed ISO 12800 to be sharp. A Canon 30D shot at ISO 12800, I can assure you, would not look the same. Even a 5D shot would not look that good. How does comparing a 12800 and 1600 ISO file, as you suggest, tell us anything? If you need to shoot ISO 12800, then you can't shoot at 1600. A 1Ds3 will produce a significantly better result at ISO 12800 than a 30D, to the extent that I can hand the 1Ds3 file to the client, and she can make nice prints, whereas the 30D file will not get me booked again.

sjms wrote:
and now its up for sale. as we say in america first the wind up and then the pitch.

Check the date of the first post: July 3rd. Any news between July 3rd and today? I'll give you a clue: 50D. I resell every DSLR I buy once something more suitable is released. On July the 3rd I had no more idea than anyone else about when Canon would release a new DSLR, although, like everyone else I expected a 5D2 at some point, and I expected higher iso settings due to the pressure from Nikon. None of that is relevant to the fact that the 1Ds3 performs very well at ISO 12800 as long as you can apply noise reduction in post. This thread isn't a sales pitch, as you suggest, but a discussion of an excellent camera that I use for my work, and which has surprisingly good high ISO performance, contrary to popular belief. Insinuate what you like.

have a nice day.

addiction is a terrible thing so is rationalizing it

maybe someday you will learn its the photographer not the camera that gets the shot in the long run. chasing the tech ghost will only make you tired and reach that diminishing returns point. but if it makes you feel better have at it of course.


Edited by sjms on Aug 30, 2008 at 11:24 AM GMT

Whatever. Hey, we all love each other here in any event

sjms wrote:
addiction is a terrible thing so is rationalizing it

maybe somday you will learn its the photographer not the camera that gets the shot in the long run. chasing the tech ghost will only make you tired and reach diminishing returns point. but if it makes you feel better have at it of course.

You list your gear on your website. Why?

This is the digital part of the list: > "Digital: Nikon 950, 990, D3 and D700. Olympus C5050z, Minolta D7, D7i, D7Hi, A1.. Canon 1Ds, 1D2, 1Ds2, 1D3, 40D, XTi and G9. Note: The viewing quality of the images on this site will vary with your monitor calibration. Current cameras in use: Nikon D3 Canon 1D3 Canon"

I can see why you feel so strongly about addiction.

this is why i'm logging off permanently from this forum. there are way too many useful forums (e.g., macro, city & still) where useful information is exchanged, and things don't descend almost invariably into personal affronts. sorry that happened to your thread, brainiac.

i'll get my industry rss feeds from galbraith, et al.

I don't blame you Abam. It's not what it used to be.

brainiac wrote:
sjms wrote:
addiction is a terrible thing so is rationalizing it

maybe somday you will learn its the photographer not the camera that gets the shot in the long run. chasing the tech ghost will only make you tired and reach diminishing returns point. but if it makes you feel better have at it of course.

You list your gear on your website. Why?

This is the digital part of the list: > "Digital: Nikon 950, 990, D3 and D700. Olympus C5050z, Minolta D7, D7i, D7Hi, A1.. Canon 1Ds, 1D2, 1Ds2, 1D3, 40D, XTi and G9. Note: The viewing quality of the images on this site will vary with your monitor calibration. Current cameras in use: Nikon D3 Canon 1D3 Canon"

I can see why you feel so strongly about addiction.

you are absolutly right. luckily the 1Ds 1Ds2 were complementary units the the 1D2 and 1D3 were my errors.

why? who do look at my images ask me what i used at the time.
for me it was also watching that addiction of chasing tech. previous to digital i used the olympus OM system. i had machined and modded a few of those for aircraft use and for extreme cold operations. that was from 1976 to 1988. loved the OM1,3, and 4T hated the OM2 series. olympus gave up the OM system in the late '80s leaving me in a lurch for components and repairs. went to Nikon for the next 10 years with the F4s, N90s and F5. of course i started then to play with digital. a progression of P/S models. because of the limitations most didn't hold my interest. of all of them i still have one the minolta A1 i still like its design and concept. guess what it was 14bit too. hated the concept of crop frame sensors still do. coersed into canon which i never got used to it reliability has been mediocre to say the least. 3 of those bodies were replaced by canon with new ones within the first 3 months of use. overall the 1Ds2 and the 40D were my favorites in the canon group. finally back to my preferred ergonomics and optics. the switch back was the least painfull thing i have done in photography.

all in all it takes an addict to spot one. remember this is a span of 32+ years

this is my gear as of today
D3
D700 as backup
N 14-24/2.8
N 17-35/2.8
N 24-70/2.8
N 70-200/2.8 VR
Sigma 150/2.8 macro
N 300/2.8 VR (on order)
(2) N SB900 flash units
N 1.4x ext
Feisol 3371 tripod
Gitzo GT2540EX
Feisol 1471 monopod
assorted junk to support this junk

trying to find the apprpriate P/S and Housing for snorkeling. at this point the G9 fell short due to my lack of forethought. i forgot to take into account the mag factor of the water which literally turns a 35 into a 50 down under.

To me it seemed that many reviewers pointed to image quality to correct the misperception that twice as many pixels is twice as good. Pointing at 100% crops explained that a lower per-pixel image quality, at a certain point of technical evolution, would keep a camera with twice as many pixels from being simply twice as good.

It does seem that brainiac has a point when saying that this created, even among experts, the new misperception that overall image quality (which is the one that matters) for a high resolution camera would be worse, just if it isn't twice as good. Which is the impression one gets if one compares only 100% crops (or even if only comparing something in between).

how about we all just go out and take pictures with our respective tools and have a good time instead of creating a "oh this is better that is better or this is the king" atmosphere.

brainiac wrote:
Here's a 1Ds3 set at iso 3200 and pushed 2 stops, so an effective speed of 12800. It has had a slight dust and scratches applied in photoshop: