Not sure how to explain what I mean but here goes.

I just got hold of a 1ds, my Canon L lenses (17-40, 24-105 and lowly Sigma 20mm 1.8) work a treat on that camera. However like a lot of other people I had to invest in Contax MF lenses to get the benefit from my 1dsmk3.

Now I don`t think that many people would dissagree that the 1ds does have superb image quality( if most other things seem to be old hat as opposed to the later 1 series) The files have the ability to be enlarged to a fair amount. So to my mind, the larger pixels are doing a fine job. They are doing a fine job with lenses that give a fairly mediocre result on the mk3. Now when you pixel peep the 1ds images they hold up very well on the other hand if you pixel peep mk3 images from the same lenses they are not so stellar( I had images turned down for stock)
OK, the mk3 images are big because they are 21 million pixels but I just can`t get it straight in my head why those same L lenses shouldn`t perform(in general) as well on the mk3 as they do on the 1ds.
We all know that the mk3 needs more unsharp mask to bring out the detail(even Canons white paper states that) so is it a stronger AA filter that causes that? and if so then surely it wouldn`t matter how good a lens is because that wouldn`t actually have any affect on the AA filter (you can`t see any better in fog when you look throught binoculars)
I`ve done some quick dirty tests today in good light and because the L lenses work so well on the 1ds I`m not seeing as big a jump up in IQ when I fit the CY lenses on the 1ds as I did when putting the same CY lenses on the mk3.
OK, you might say? so why worry? just use what gives you the results" but I`m afraid I have a very enquiring mind and it just won`t lay down and die

If pixels are good why do they need extra help? is it noise reduction blurring that is taking the edge off of high pixel count sensors? and they then need top resolution lenses to bring back/invent more IQ. What we gonna do when sensors get over 30 million pixels?
We might get sales pitch like this " Yes sir, if we only had better lenses I could demonstrate just how good this camera is but alas

Dave

Dave, The answer is simple. It's the pixel pitch. The pixels of the 1Ds are much more spread apart compared to the crammed pixels of the 1Ds3. The 1Ds becomes some sort of lens equalizer because it does not require high resolution lenses to produce its optimum results. So yes, you won't see much difference in terms of sharpness between a medium and an excellent lens. But you will still see other characteristics such as micro-contrast, color, 3D, bokeh... etc.

Also the 1Ds had a weak AA filter, so less blurring. The 1Ds files are sharp(er), but there's less dynamic range and if exposure isn't spot on, then there are consequences in post. With the 1Ds you might gain in the IQ department, but there are trade offs. Another interesting comparison would be to downsize the 1Ds3 file to the same size as the 1Ds file and then compare IQ.

The weak(er) AA filter of the 1Ds is something I sorely miss. There's talk these days about how the 5D has a weak(er) AA filter compared to the D3, but one of the first things I noticed when moving from a 1Ds to a 5D was how flat the 5D files looked. Maybe you're seeing something similar with the 1Ds3? I needed to sharpen 5D RAW files almost twice as heavily as 1Ds RAW (TIF) files to get the same level of sharpness for web and print size files; 1Ds RAW files were just so beautifully crisp right out of the box.

Edward
Yes, I understand the larger more spaced out pixels that allow more light in and need less amping up to produce the correct exposure. If you take a media that can equalize the playing field like film, then you`ll find that the better Canon lenses hold up well against anything( I`ve used Canon, nikon and contax cameras in the film days) I think there is something else going on other than resolving power. I would suggest that manual focussing is better than AF and thats what is making such a big difference (probably is at times) but could the larger pixels and the design of them in some way be creating a slightly increase in DOF at the focal plain?

John
The 1ds having a wealer AA filter and less blurring (to my mind) means that it should actually be harder to bring back the very fine detail that the Contax lenses do on the mk3. When we say stronger, what do we mean? slight frosting, two layers inter-acting(like a polariser ?) when I imagine a stronger AA filter I imagine a slightly dappled surface(like the lcd protectors) but surely it can`t be that or nothing could ever pull back the lost fine detail.
I read yesterday that larger pixels more spread out gives an increase in DR ( certainly seemed to see that yesterday with white fuffy clouds on a blue sky ) or maybe I was willing it?

Steve
Yes, I agree and it`s been the same affect when moving from 1ds to 1dsmk2 and then 1dsmk3. I remember , fixed in my mind is my first outing with the 1dsmk2, so good had the fine detail been out of the camera from the 1ds that when I got home from the first 1dsmk2 shoot I actually felt tears well up in my eyes from disappointment( I speedily returned on the same day to the scene, studio tripod, remote, sandbag and MF which slightly improved things) and something similar from the mk3. OK, we got used to the work flow and everything taken into consideration the later models had a lot more to offer over the previous model but for photographers on this forum (who obviously care heeps about IQ) it is a contradiction in terms.
Similar thing with the D30 to D60, yes, a lovely bigger file with all the other benefits but without that out and out IQ from the camera.

Anyway, as you can see from my post I`m quite passionate about IQ (or the lack of it) and thats why after stumbling across an old hard drive last week with forgotten 1ds images i decided to spend the cost of a decent lens to get back a 1ds. I might regret the move with regards the ergonomics and I am lucky enough to be able to fall back on later models which should help me persevere.

Any more thoughts welcome

Dave

Dave, I think you misunderstood me, probably because of my poor english.

The pixel pitch determines the sensor resolution per millimeter. The lens resolution is also measured the same way.

If a high resolution lens and a crappy lens are both outresolving the sensor, you won't see any difference in IQ. The 1Ds sensor is very easy to be outresolved by lenses, especially in the center where they perform the best.

Stronger AA filters contribute to reducing the lens resolution, as mentioned by John, which affects the better lens more.

More robust low-pass or AA filter and greater pixel density aside, another contributing factor is that at 100% (pixel 1:1 ratio) you are viewing the the 1Ds3 image at a higher magnification ratio and ANY mis-focus, effect of AA filter or even the most modest lens shortcoming will be become readily apparent.

Image examining Velvia 100 speed film (fine grain) with a 10x loupe and then examining 50 speed film (even finer grain) with a 20x loupe. Simplistic example, but you get the idea.

Also, AA filters in acting as a cut-off for high-frequency signals beyond the ability of a given sensor/firmware to properly interpolate color information from, blur perceived fine detail.

Fine detail equates to (e.g. as measured via MTF charts) fine contrast changes within a scene. This decrease in micro-contrast say within the bricks and mortar of the proverbial testers brick wall, likely contributes to the feeling of flatter images from cameras with stronger filters that are not paired with the very best of lenses.

As pixel density moves up and we continue to view at 1:1 ratios (and C&N keep sticking AA filters on their DSLRs), we'll need to feed our cameras lenses with greater and greater resolving power (e.g. the ability to record very fine contrast edges) to maintain the perception of fine detail and hopefully 'depth'. The CZ lens(es) you tried may not have had the resolving power in question to deliver a perceived difference.

With the VAST majority of lenses on the market having been design to behave (hopefully) well with film, it's a problem we are going to see more and more of. The ability of a high-MP (DSLR) camera to rock someone's world will increasingly depend on how big the photogs lens budget is, how good they are at sniffing out hidden gem lenses - or how fast their camera maker clued in that they needed to re-design their lenses for the DSLR world.

A fine exhibit of this last point is Nikon with the 14-24 and 24-70Gs, etc - lenses that deliver resolution of exotic prime quality in a $1500 zoom package. In short, they got the message. Canon not so much (with shorter glass) as yet.

Folks like Zeiss (via Contax, Cosina, Hasselblad, etc) , Leica, and other non-mainstream lens manufacturers have a greater frequency (but far from across the line) of fine resolving lenses out of the simple fact that more of their lenses happen to have been designed and manufactured in low volume to deliver the best possible performance period (and you paid accordingly). In many cases, that performance better carries over - for now. As MP counts rise, that selection of lenses that make a notable difference will get smaller and smaller.

Capture Integration (a Phase One and Canon dealer) has, on their web site, a sample test between a 3 MFD Backs (18, 32 and 39 MP) and a 1Ds3 that CLEARLY illustrates the advantage in fine detail/texture rendition of no AA filter, fine lenses and lots of FAT light buckets:

http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/comparisons/ (near bottom of page)

So, it`s the lenses ability to resolve the pixels and when there aren`t so many pixels it`s easy for a mediocre lens to resolve them( and the Aa filter plays a part in that as well) So a lens like my 35-70 contax lens can resolve more lines as opposed to something like my 24-105 and everything is fine till the the design and pixel pitch of the sensor needs a lens with more resolving power than the 24-105.
Of course we are not talking about out and out crap lenses but decent lenses.

I did notice on my mk2 that the lenses were not performing as well as on the 1ds so lets say that the last two (certainly the last one mk3) flag ship Canon cameras have not had Canon lenses good enough to actually get the benefit of the 21 million pixels (generally)
So if you purchased a high speed Porche and the sales person tells you not to drive the car to it`s maximum potential because the tyres haven`t been developed to cope with it then that`s OK? Maybe Nikon got it right with the D3!!!
To a certain extent this is going to be a problem for all makers( although Nikon do have a few new lenses that work fine on the 21million pixels and they do have modern Cz lenses as well.)
Right then, that`s all understood, so what I am seeing is not a super sonic chip in the 1ds but more a porche with poor tyres in the 1dsmk3
Actually, what this actually says more to me is that a FF chip with large pixels(of the right kind) with a sensible pixel pitch(like the 1ds and 5D) that are capable of producing great looking images on a large size lcd monitor and printing (with the right exposure and PP) to sizes far in excess of what most people actually need has got to be a better choice than following the manufacturers money making trend of keeping on producing higher mega pixel cameras that can`t be fully supported by lens design. One day, chips(or whatever they turn out to be) might be developed to make use of the resolution although it appears that lens resolving power will always be the limiting factor.

Conner
I agree with you with regards viewing 1dsmk3 images at 100% and when I challenged my stock library about it and suggested that the checkers need to be educated when inspecting mk3 files I was poo pooed and told that the checkers know what they are doing. When I scrutinise the images that were turned down for lack of fine detail at 100% (remember you are not allowed to sharpen in any way) I would say that some were suffering from being taken on a 24-105 where the lens can`t resolve the pixels on the mk3 but some were absolutely fine and just suffered from a massive file being viewed at 100%.

Finally! I reckon that the 1dsmk2 is probably the best balance with res and function if a photog doesn`t want to go down the MF lens route. I have 3`x 2` prints from the 1dsmk2 + 17-40 that are not on the limit by a long way (these have been printed by Loxley Photo Labs through the wet process) and I reckon in general that the 1ds could easily be printed to that size day after day.
One other aspect I haven`t touched on yet is A. the software for converting raw files has come along in leaps and bounds since the 1ds was launched which has made a big difference to these later files. B. there does seem to be a slightly more 3D effect from the 1ds over the later 1 series cameras and that might well be what is attracting me to them.
Of course a lot of this is neither here or there because we all know that a well composed image taken by a compedent photographer who is lucky enough to be somewhere at the right moment or when the light is just right to give impact will always win over the norm no matter what equipment is used.

Dave

Dave...re the sharpening for your photolbrairies.
There are some very high end libraries that do accept a certain amount of sharpening is necessary and in fact give you a photoshop actions to do such.
If you take say the weak AA 1ds unsharpened file as the starting point then you should be able to sharpen any other dslr's file to match that level of sharpness...if that makes sense!...without any problems from your library. As well as the library above I submit work to another few, one of which says no sharpening, but I have always sharpened 5d and 1dsmkII files to that basic level with no problems from them.

Marc

I fully understand the position of the stock library. Super high resolution images of the 1Ds3 are sold at a much higher price than say those of "only" 16 or 12 mp. The clients who buy these extra large files and not a lower resolution version of the same file do so because they need the extra resolution, probably for printing purposes. The clients will certainly inspect the files at 100% magnification, and any possible weaknesses in the image will reflect on the agency standard. In film days, printing a 50x70cm poster from a 35mm slide or negative was certainly expected to produce poor results. Digital is pushing the boundaries, and the 21mp of the 1Ds3 are certainly capable of delivering a poster of the above size, but most lenses were never designed to do this, knowing that traditionally 35mm was no good above 20x25cm prints if good quality is required. So as you say, the Porsche is there, the tyres do exist, but you have to buy them elsewhere.

dave chilvers wrote:I agree with you with regards viewing 1dsmk3 images at 100% and when I challenged my stock library about it and suggested that the checkers need to be educated when inspecting mk3 files I was poo pooed and told that the checkers know what they are doing. When I scrutinise the images that were turned down for lack of fine detail at 100% (remember you are not allowed to sharpen in any way) I would say that some were suffering from being taken on a 24-105 where the lens can`t resolve the pixels on the mk3 but some were absolutely fine and just suffered from a massive file being viewed at 100%.Dave

Very well put Dave. On the 35-70/3.4 - as great as it is, it is, like most existing lenses, an old film-design. As you say, depending on the camera, miles better than the Canon _____ doesn't mean good enough to get the very best out of a 20+ MP 24x36mm sensor.

Given that increasing sensor size as MP counts climb would be a financial disaster for C & N given the installed base of 35mm lenses, I think you'll see more players go the Hassy H3D route - a closed feed back integrated lens+camera+sensor system to milk the Nth degree of performance using firmware.

Of course the preceding assumes very tight QC at the factory and lots of pre-shipping testing, so it could be awhile for folks like Canon. It also won't be cheap.

I agree on the 1Ds2 being the best balance of the FF 1 series. I've loved the files from the 1DsMk1 and would own one again - as a second body. Just something about the files it lays out. The 1Ds3 has no interest pour moi - if I wanted that much res, I'd cough up the (literally) couple extra grand needed and buy an entry-level MFDB kit to forgo the increased noise issues that the extra pixel density drives, etc. An entry 503CWD or Mamiya+Phase kit say 16-22ish MP, nice sensor real estate (Hassy 503CWD - 36x36mm) with fat light buckets and no shortage of lenses to pick from.

I think a lot of new high-res DSLR owners over the next year or so are going to: a) start taking pity on their bank accounts as they realize the lenses they need to buy to make their D3_ or 1DS_ deliver like they expect and b) get angry at their camera maker when they realize these lenses are typically very costly 3rd party products - at least as of now.

Having spent some time in my small studio today and using a Canon 50mm 1.8 Mk2 on both the 1dsmk1 and 1dsmk3 and resizing the mk3 files down to mk1 size I find that there really isn`t a huge difference in the converted files. Slightly different colour balance out of the camera but still very close( I included a good white and clicking on WB in ACR brought the files close enough that only viewing them together on the monitor can separate them.
The 50mm lens is probably a good balance, maybe not good enough to bring out the very best of the mk3 but good enough to stretch the mk1 to it`s limit.
I`m still seeing from as close as I can get the exposures a very slight DR advantage with the mk1 (more so in shadow detail) but nothing what so ever that the very slightest change in exposure wouldn`t put right.
So! what are my conclusions?
If you want a 1series FF Canon, are on a budget and have a decent array of reasonable lenses with some L`s and can put up with the older functions of the mk1, like slow write speed, small dim lcd, much delving into the menu system to make changes ect. you will how ever get basically a bullet proof camera that will give years of reliable performance and give excellent results with the average Canon lens (even the humble 28-135 looks pretty good when shot on the mk1) I, myself have a sigma 20 1.8 that really comes to life on the mk1 (maybe not quite up to the Contax 21mm but very satisfying none the less.) My 24-105 and 17-40 do a stellar job on the mk1. My Contax 35-70 is good (as you would expect) but doesn`t shine much above those previously mentioned Canon zooms. I watched as a mint 1dsmk1 went for around £800 on E bay last week and that is quite a bargain when you consider they were £6,300 when first launched.

The 1dsmk3 is an absolutely super camera that has given the pro shooter the means to present large images that hold up very well when printed, superb feature set , battery life, write speeds etc etc. but it does need lenses that IMHO Canon doesn`t make as yet( more so down from standard to WA) It`s still an expensive camera that due to Nikon`s catch up has dropped down in price quite a lot but in reality is still a mortgage job for lots of people. If you can afford one, are prepared to spend money on alternative lenses and use MF you will land up with a camera that can do almost anything you want with headroom to crop and still land up with enough res to print big.

That leaves us with the middle runner, the 1dsmk2. The best compromise in the Canon 1 series FF cameras at the moment as far as I`m concerned. Enough res to allow some cropping, enough fine detail when using Canon L zoom like the 17-40/24-105 and good performance for most decent lenses, good battery life and write times and file sizes that won`t eat away at your hard drive space too much.
I`ve never had an image refused from stock work from the mk1 or mk2 other than the occasional missed dust spot. My refusal problems started with the mk3 but I now realise that a touch of sensible sharpening does get them through.
Amazing really because last week i shot a few images on a G9 compact that had decent impact so I upsized them and they got through IQ I`ve also had 40D and 450D images sail through. (it does make me wonder if those big 60Mb natural sized files are getting scrutinised more closely)
I don`t see many 1dsmk2 cameras for sale so obviously other people have realised the value of them.
My mk3 went into canon service twice(once for viefinder alignment and once to have the AF sorted) now I have micro adjusted my lenses I think I`m getting pretty good AF but seeing as I use mainly MF lenses on it then it`s not a problem. BTW the 70-200 F4 IS is great on the mk3.

I suppose that most regular users of this forum already knows much of the above but we do get browsers looking to purchase so it might help someone.
I`m not the most scientific tester but one thing I always do is to say it as i see it in my images.

Thanks to everyone who contibuted to this thread.

Dave

Nice summation. Now if Canon would only get on the stick and start putting some $$$ into it's sub-300mm/2.8 glass. Put it this way, if they don't the revived juggernaught that is the 'new' Nikon (see LL article) will happily take their lunch money from them.

I`d never actually tried the 35-70 on the 1dsmk2 (mainly because it was purchased after getting the mk3) I did some shooting just around the flowers in the garden this morning and I would say just from 50 or so shots that the 35-70 shines on the 1dsmk2. It was that and other contax lenses that allowed me to be happy with the mk3 (although I must say that it didn`t actually blow me away) So, where as the contax lenses didn`t seem to make so much of a difference on the mk1 (for reasons we spoke about earlier in this thread) the IQ from the 1dsmk2 and the Contax lenses seems to really be hooked up ( another 5 * rating for the mk2 in my book) It`s never going to be a mk3 beater for sure from the feature set (especially live view in the studio doing close up work with that super 3" lcd) but for a lot of outside shooting it is getting harder and harder to beat. Now to run through my other Contax lenses and Olympus stuff to see how it fares.

Q.
I like to know what screens people are using in the 1dsmk2 when using MF lenses. I have a split screen in the mk3 that works fine for a lot of the time and I have tried the centre prism and came down on the side of the split screen in the mk3. When using the mk2 today with the 35-70 I found that it was possibly 90% there using the standard screen (which is great as it allows full use of all the metering patterns) but the close stuff definitely needs some form of aid with my old eyes and (because would you believe)the mk2 viewfinder actually looks slightly brighter than the mk3, I just wondering if the micro prism might work out better? because it isn`t so dependant on finding a vertical line which can be a problem with some subjects like flowers.
The other thing I discovered today (although I use them in the studio) was the use of a white card out in the field to give that little lift to shadows under blooms because I don`t like using flash in the natural world.

Thanks for any advice.

Dave

I've tried the split, the super fine matte Ec-S (no where near as good as the 5D's version) and most others and settled on the Ec-CIV that ships OEM with the 1D3 - nice compromise between brightness and in-focus 'snap'.

conner

I have the Ec-B in the 1dsmk3. (mainly because I only use contax lenses on it.)

I have the standard screen on the 1dsmk2 (the Ec-111?? I think) So if I put the screen that was the original in the dsmk3 into the dsmk2 (you are saying is the Ec-C1V) I might see an improvement over the original and might not need to put in a split or micro prism? to be honest i do shoot mainly WA with the contax lenses so critical focus isn`t so much of an issue and when I need tele I use the 70-200f4Is in AFmode anyway.

With the Ec-C1V in the mk2 would there be any exp adjustment?

Dave

It's the Ec-CIV that ships with the 1D3 (no S) - fits fine. No notable exp needed that I've seen so far.

As far as I can see in the PDF manual, the Ec-C1V is also the standard screen that ships with the 1dsmk3 ? So I`ll give it a try. It isn`t listed in the 1dsmk2 screen menu when then it wouldn`t be.

So it looks like the 1dmk3 and 1d `S`mk3 ship with the same screen.

Dave

I've got to be honest: I think threads like this arise because people compare 100% onscreen between files from cameras with different numbers of pixels. It's like cutting a square inch out of a 6x4 inch print and out of a 12x16 inch print and using those two square inches to discuss which camera is better. The misconceptions that occur as a result of these completely misleading comparisons are legion, even here on FM.

Even to begin discussing the relative performance of these cameras you MUST uprez your 1Ds and 1Ds2 files to 21 megapixel. Then talk about what a great camera the 1Ds is. By viewing at 100% you are missing the crucial difference between these cameras: the detail. If detail doesn't matter, then don't even bother with a 1Ds - just use a 3 megapixel camera.

The suggestion that more megapixels requires better or more stopped-down lenses isn't exactly heresy.

All very interesting reading.

I was talking with a agency today and asking about capture sharpening. I now have a 1DsIII and I couldnt be happier with the camera; its a superb design, the functions and features are just incredible and i wouldnt be without any of them - but from a 5D to the 1DsIII was somewhat scary when looking at the images first off.

I shoot with some Contax thanks to this place, some Canon, but the files out of the camera and the need for capture sharpening had me retesting everything initially. The 5D and 35-70 or the 28-85 were totally excellent. On the 1DsIII both these lenses very look good but not jaw dropping..... as I had been used to. This made me rather edgy and confused.

The agent was saying that technology is getting so good even they are getting misguided. The 1DsIII is capable of producing such a large file that it is revealing so much more to be critical about that it is confusing and not fair if they dont consider this on selection. Its something they are trying to address with regard to equipment and photographers in general, very misleading. They were never this critical over film, something a huge % of the company still sells, its just that once you go up in quaity theres no going back. He agreed he's not used to seeing such large digital files other than scanned slides.

After some careful capture sharpening experiments, the 1DsIII files spring into life, but the camera is not very tolerant of any mistakes at all. Recent tests on noise and long exposure prove this too, I could jack 5D files from the exposure depths with remarkable results, not so with this fellow.

I am now getting settled working with the RAW files and TIFs. You have summed it up very quickly Brainiac. I up-resed a 5D file of the same shot and it was mush. I also did it the other way and the results were almost identical. Its about getting used to new kit I am sure.

David Clapp wrote:
Recent tests on noise and long exposure prove this too, I could jack 5D files from the exposure depths with remarkable results, not so with this fellow.

That's another pixel-peeping myth in my opinion. I would never contemplate shooting my 5D at ISO 12800. Here's what my 1Ds3 can do at that speed:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/663088

brainiac and david

I agree with both of you.

David
I think you were being told exactly what I was getting at , on my stock library they were definitely turning my work done based on what they were used to seeing.(of course the Contax lenses did make it a lot better)
Braniac
I know what you are saying with regards to up-ressing or down ressing but when the IQ checkers look at a 1dsmk2 file submitted at 50Mb 8 bit tiff (which is close to it`s natural output) and then they open up a 60Mb file from the mk3 which again is near to it`s natural output and view as they must at 100% they are not allowing for just how big the image is on their monitors (we all know that 100% viewing is a road to disaster) more so if you are not educated at what you are supposed to be seeing. What ever, I`ve started to add a sensible amount of sharpening (that I didn`t have to do before the mk3) and they are clearing IQ now. I`ve had so much hassle since submitting to a library that it is starting to take the edge off of my photography. In the past, I knew what I was supposed to be seeing, got on and PP`d the files and had them printed to customers sizes and they came back 99% of the time superb. For the amount i sell on stock and now the new micro sales for .60p I`m not spending as much time keywording and uploading.
I can make as much at a craft/country fare selling framed prints in a day as months on stockwork. (probably because my photography isn`t actually commercial) but more pleasing if you know what I mean. I`ve got to say that when you see a lot of work that is sold for mags and brochures to be printed small then I think at times presenting 60Mb files of everything is actually a waste of my time.

Just my views BTW

Dave

I think when you change systems it takes a lot of getting used to. Your obviously used to looking at the files whereas I am not.

I just resized the shot back to 4374px and the noise was non existant. Its a myth, your right. Its all about head space!

Conner999 wrote:
It's the Ec-CIV that ships with the 1D3 (no S) - fits fine. No notable exp needed that I've seen so far.

conner

I`ve swapped around screens and I agree with regards the 1V screen being a good bright compromise. However (and as dark as the view goes when fitting the split image screen) there are certainly times when that added help is nice to have. I have also liked the fact that with the split image you can confirm that your Canon AF lenses are getting it right (which they don`t always as you know) I know you actually loose the correct spot metering etc with the split image but to be quite honest, it was more important in the pre digital days before histograms.

I`ll do some more shooting and make my mind up after I`ve had a lie down in a dark room for a while

Thanks for your input. Anyone else?

Dave

David Clapp wrote:
After some careful capture sharpening experiments, the 1DsIII files spring into life, but the camera is not very tolerant of any mistakes at all. Recent tests on noise and long exposure prove this too, I could jack 5D files from the exposure depths with remarkable results, not so with this fellow.

David

I live in Norfolk, where it is famous for big skies, I`m used to watching near sunset and am always ready to jump in my car and shoot up to one of many spots if it looks promising. when i first got the mk3 before Christmas (the time when the sun falls just right for decent sunset landscapes) I came back from the first shoot with some really good stormy sunsets but Boy was there some noise in the darker parts of the sky. Remember, I`ve lived around here for 9 years which covers a lot of Canon DSLR`s and the noise from the mk3 frightened the life out of me. OK, making a selection it was easy to remove the noise to a level that was acceptable as it was in the sky but never the less it surprised me and I`ve had to really tighten up my technique to keep noise out of these shots to the way I had become used to. so you are not alone.

Dave