I've worked with nearly all of the full frame cameras, beginning with the 1Ds and going on from there to the Kodak SLR/c, 5D Classic, 5D Mark II, Nikon D700 and my 1Ds II. I've never tried the Sony A900/A850 and probably never will.
Of all the full frames I've used, only the 1Ds II seems to satisfy me fully. The files have a richness ... a glow if you will ... that none of the other cameras have ever matched. The 1Ds II gives images a fullness and roundness that I find unique to that camera. The color is simply exceptional, as is the metering ... wholly reliable indoors and out.
And, unlike my 5D II (which I long ago sold), the 1Ds II files can be pushed and pulled and stretched without deterioration. I did not have the same latitude with my 5D II, nor did I ever see the same level of richness in the 5D II files that I clearly see in the 1Ds II files.
This isn't a matter of post-processing. As much as I've tried to elicit the same qualities out of the other cameras files using various p/p software and techniques, it's simply didn't happen. What the 1Ds II offers is, to my mind, simply intrinsic to that camera.
Here are samples of what I consider to be good examples of the 1Ds II's "magic," photographed at a large home earlier this week using just two 430 EXs and one 580 EX:
Hard to argue with that.
The MP number on the 1DsII seems to be optimum for FF CMOS.
And thanks so much for reminding me how badly I need to clean up my hovel.
Steve - Is that still the same one you bought from me? There is definitely an almost indefinable "something" about those files that's hard to pinpoint. I know what you mean.
Peter Figen wrote:
Steve - Is that still the same one you bought from me? There is definitely an almost indefinable "something" about those files that's hard to pinpoint. I know what you mean.
Hello Peter. No, it's not the same one. I made the serious mistake of selling the "Figen model" because I thought "I wasn't using it enough to justify keeping it" (how many times have we heard THAT one before on the B&S board!).
After realizing the error of letting it go, I bought another in nearly the same, immaculate condition as yours. The file quality is identical. Good to hear from you.
- Steve
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure I remember you starting a thread (quite a while ago) where you had decided to switch to the 5D2 as the one body that could keep you happy. You didn't say anything bad about the 1Ds2, but simply felt that the 5D2 was just as capable but in a smaller package (or something like that). Having owned both (sold the 5D2 & kept the 1Ds2) I also find the 1Ds2 hard to replace, so hard in fact I'm watching for a second one.
outlawyer wrote:
Hard to argue with that.
The MP number on the 1DsII seems to be optimum for FF CMOS.
Firstly, I will be the last one to diss the 1Ds2, which I've owned and loved. But your statement seems to imply that the number of megapixels in e.g. the 1Ds3 is inferior to the 16MP in the 1Ds2. I have never felt that 21MP was an inferior number to 16MP. This after about 90k shots on the 1Ds2 and a few hundred grand with a few 1Ds3s. Can you explain your statement?
Personally I feel I can do more with the 1Ds3, not saying that's because of the MP, but at the same time I certainly don't feel that the MPs of the 1Ds3 are holding me (or it) back.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. My 1DsII is without a doubt my favorite camera body of any that I have ever owned. I also love the colors that come out of it. Magical is the word that I use to describe it.
Those are perfect shots to show off an amazing camera. Thanks for sharing.
Cicopo wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure I remember you starting a thread (quite a while ago) where you had decided to switch to the 5D2 as the one body that could keep you happy. You didn't say anything bad about the 1Ds2, but simply felt that the 5D2 was just as capable but in a smaller package (or something like that). Having owned both (sold the 5D2 & kept the 1Ds2) I also find the 1Ds2 hard to replace, so hard in fact I'm watching for a second one.
Yeah, I was pretty enthusiastic about the 5D II when I first bought it. But real world day-to-day shooting ... and particularly my architectural assignments ... revealed aspects of the camera that turned me off, not the least of which was mild noise in the mid-ISO range, noticeable banding at higher ISOs and other things. Mostly, I didn't like the overall image quality. Very plastic to my eyes; a decidedly "fake look" ... not always, but enough times to get me to sell it. I think the clincher was that it didn't give me the latitude I was used to and need in post-processing.
surreywharf wrote:
I agree on the 1DsII. How did you light the house interiors, the shots are great. I struggled with an architectural shoot last week, and I now know how difficult it is to get shots like the ones in your post. Can you share your technique?
Thanks,
Jim
Thanks Jim. I appreciate your comments.
For this home, available light pretty much carried the day. I'm not always that lucky, but for this project I was. My support lighting consisted of a single 580 EX and two 430 EXs, both with gels mounted that match the incandescent lighting of the home. The two 430's are on light stands and are either shooting straight forward and angled inward (to cancel the shadows that might be created by either one). The 580, when needed, is usually aimed at a wall and used reflectively. The three strobes are always shooting through white umbrellas mounted about 20" in front of the strobe. I use the ET-2 to fire them and control the flash amount via the camera.
My overall goal is to even out the lighting as much as possible, with only the most subtle shadows and highlights. To do this, I bring my own low-wattage bulbs (15-40) ... a whole variety of them ... and replace the homeowner's bulbs with mine. 60-watts and higher ... unless the lighting is on a dimmer ... glares pretty badly and screws up exposure. Fortunately, most of the lighting in this home was on dimmers, which I turned down about half way ... or more.
The rest is, as usual, a matter of proper exposure technique and getting that histogram to fall off at the left and right corners and have a nice hump just to the right of middle. I play with my lighting, strobe strength and EV until I get that histogram where it needs to be. Sometimes moving a strobe just a few inches back or forward is all it takes. I almost always shoots at ISO 400 to gain light sensitivity and to help balance outside light coming through windows and the lighting indoors.
This home took 3 days to shoot. Yeah, it's hard work.
stanj wrote:
Firstly, I will be the last one to diss the 1Ds2, which I've owned and loved. But your statement seems to imply that the number of megapixels in e.g. the 1Ds3 is inferior to the 16MP in the 1Ds2. I have never felt that 21MP was an inferior number to 16MP. This after about 90k shots on the 1Ds2 and a few hundred grand with a few 1Ds3s. Can you explain your statement?
Personally I feel I can do more with the 1Ds3, not saying that's because of the MP, but at the same time I certainly don't feel that the MPs of the 1Ds3 are holding me (or it) back....Show more →
I happen to agree with outlawyer. In fact, I've stated quite a few times on fm.com that I think 10-12MP is optimum for a full-frame camera, all things considered.
And when I say that, I'm not referring to resolution per se, or print size or anything "technical" that MP figures are usually associated with. Rather, I mean that 10-12MP seems, to my eyes, to be optimal for maximum "photographic integrity" ... an image that appears more natural, less "digital," and with more depth and soul than the super-resolved, super-sharp, super-detailed images that the higher MP-count cameras are providing.
The 1Ds II is my exception. Somehow, Canon managed to squeeze in those extra 4MP without any losses compared to their 12MP cameras.
I've downloaded and printed full-rez images from the Sony A900 and the big Nikon. Pretty amazing from a technical standpoint, but not the kind of imagery I prefer and enjoy. My personal step up from the 1Ds II would be medium format.
veroman wrote:
Yeah, I was pretty enthusiastic about the 5D II when I first bought it. But real world day-to-day shooting ... and particularly my architectural assignments ... revealed aspects of the camera that turned me off, not the least of which was mild noise in the mid-ISO range, noticeable banding at higher ISOs and other things. Mostly, I didn't like the overall image quality. Very plastic to my eyes; a decidedly "fake look" ... not always, but enough times to get me to sell it. I think the clincher was that it didn't give me the latitude I was used to and need in post-processing.
BFahey wrote:
How does the 1dsII compare to the 5dII when it comes to high ISO performance for low light work? I am looking at adding another body and I primarily shoot weddings. Low light performance is critical for most wedding sin my area.
If you measure high ISO performance in terms of noise, d/r, contrast and color, high ISO performance is better with the 5D II. I used mine at ISO 5000 without hesitation. The 1Ds II is good to ISO 1600 and is quite usable at ISO 3200, whereas the 5D II produces a pretty good file even at ISO 6400, though I only used it at that setting in an emergency.
However (there's always a "however" isn't there?), even though the high ISO files from the 5D II are clean and do a good job with color and contrast, I didn't care for the overall way the 5D II images looked at ISO 3200 and up. I saw a slight smearing or blooming or whatever you want to call it, probably the result of non-defeatable, built-in noise reduction even in the raw files. There was always something unnatural in the high ISO files, something not easy to put my finger on or describe.
Since you do weddings, you might also want to check out a 5D Classic, good to ISO 3200. Quite a few wedding photographers i know still use one as their main body. Still a great camera, and REALLY great with fast lenses like the 35 L and 24 L.
