Hi,

While there are many differences between the above, I am mainly interested in what the quality of in-camera jpegs is like. I've found the 1Ds II jpegs look a bit lifeless and soft and I've never really liked the in-camera processing however the important thing for me is that other people like the images

Is the 1D III substantially better in this regard, with respect to colour, sharpness and contrast with jpegs produced in-camera?

I cannot answer your question with any certainty but I can confirm that 1D2 in-camera jpegs are unnecessarily soft for reasons that are nothing to do with the anti-aliasing filter or other hardware. The jpegs can be enhanced with processing but converted raw files are better, and the fact that converted raw files are better indicates that the hardware cannot be the cause of the jpeg softness - it has to be firmware-related.

I believe that the 1D3 in-camera jpegs are also better. Mind you, that's only if it gets the focus right.

The 1D3 probably has an extra stop of useful dynamic range in its raw file captures than the 1D2, and that allows for better-looking contrast in the jpegs too. There are limitations to this - you cannot squeeze 9-10 stops of useful DR into an 8-stop jpeg file without losing something somewhere. There are other variations on this theme too - e.g. the scene being photographed may have more or less DR than what the raw file or even the jpeg file is capable of recording.

Sharpness could be better with the 1D3 due to its increased resolution but that also assumes that the combination of lens quality and diffraction allow a sharper image to be seen by the sensor.

As you have probably guessed by now there is no single universally correct answer to your question.


- Alan

Thought I'd just add a closing comment given I went for the mark III in the end. The JPEGs are better out of camera but the raw files certainly do have extra play in them, certainly for highlight recovery - much better than my 1Ds Mark II for sure. This thing seems to be much better at high ISO than the 1Ds II.

I haven't used a 1D II but judging by what I have seen and what I know about the 1Ds II, I'd say that other than this (unconfirmed from my own experience) AF issue, the mark III is a MUCH better camera to shoot with.

The colours are also much nicer than the 1D II shots I've seen. There's just that little bit more punch to the images.

Straight out-of-camera jpegs from the MIII are truly outstanding.
To a point where, if you spend a little time fine-tuning the settings to your liking, the jpegs will require almost no PP, or, in some cases, no PP at all.
They are that good.

They also have a look to them that is very hard to put to words.
Some OOF areas become silky smooth.
I'm at work right now, so I can't post any examples, but I have a dirtbike pic where the rooster is just amazing. I have some pictures of my 6 month old baby where the OOF hair has an amazing look to it, very soft and smooth.
I never, ever, got results like those from my former 1DMIIn.

Disclaimer:
I'm not one of those people that thinks that what they have at the moment is the best. Coming from a 20D, I was somewhat disapointed by the 1DMIIn, expected better IQ.

fraga wrote:
Coming from a 20D, I was somewhat disapointed by the 1DMIIn, expected better IQ.

I came to my 1D2N from a 1D2 and thought the quality was much better (at least of the jpegs which weren't as soft), much punchier

I'd heard the 1D3 was very similar up to about 400ISO, clearly you think the 1D3 superior, that's interesting

David

dhphoto wrote:

I came to my 1D2N from a 1D2 and thought the quality was much better (at least of the jpegs which weren't as soft), much punchier

I'd heard the 1D3 was very similar up to about 400ISO, clearly you think the 1D3 superior, that's interesting

David



Well, I never used a 1DM2 non-N, so I can't compare.

When I say I was somewhat disapointed, you have to take it into perspective.
It doesn't mean it has bad image quality, it's just that coming from a 20d, I expected a camera costing nearly 4 times as much to have considerable better IQ. It doesn't, at least IMHO.
The difference is very small. In fact, at high iso it's even worse than the 20d.

The rest of the camera is miles away from the 20d, but IQ wise, I was just expecting a more discernible difference from all that hard-earned money it cost me.

As far as the 1D3 is concerned, it's just the exact opposite: it's better than I expected.
When looking at photos archived in my external HDD, I can imediately detect if they were taken with the MIII or the MIIN just by looking at them.
At least for me, I consider the jump in IQ to be considerable and very noticeable.
Colours and contrast are truly outstanding, not to mention high iso of course.

As I said before, straight out of camera jpeg's need hardly any PP at all, if any.
I surely can't say that about the 1DMIIn.

This is just the way I see it, of course.
Yours and others mileage may vary.

The 1DIII JPG is as good, if not better than my 5D. I returned a NIB 1DII that cost $1800 and purchased the 1DIII for $4000 because I could save time at the computer.

14 bit makes a big difference in IQ.

The 1d3 JPG's completely blew the 1d2's out of the water in terms of sharpness. Amazing files, very similar to the 5d. When you compare RAW's the difference in sharpness is less.