stanj wrote:
..... One more thing: I keep my lenses current as much as possible. That has a lot to do with the final image quality, sharpness, and "pop". For example, on the 1Ds I had the 16-35, 24L, and 70-200LIS. I had the same lenses on the 1Ds2, and the camera lost some magic. And again on the 1Ds3. Then the 16-35L2, 24L2 and 70-200LIS2 came out. These images have the same pop, if not more, than the 1Ds did with its "current" lenses. I guess what I'm trying to say is that when people compare bodies between generations, they should always use the newest lenses from the same generation. My prime frustration is the 24-70, which was great on the 1Ds, meh on the 1Ds2, and pretty crappy on the 1Ds3. Take that with the usual grain of salt for my bitter statements, but there's a lot of truth to that. That's why I am certain that whatever the next body will be, it will come with a new 24-70 simply because the current one would look like a complete joke.
Stan: I fully understand the theory behind keeping lenses current, but I don't think it holds up. If it did, then the old Nikon AIS and Contax MF lenses I often use with my 5D and 1Ds II would render pretty awful pics. But they don't. In fact, these lenses have never "looked better" than they do with my Canon DSLRs. I also have really old 35mm f/2, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 lenses that I purchased when I was shooting a 10D that are simply superb on my 1Ds II. One reason for this is that I had them adjusted and calibrated specifically for use on the 1Ds II. Canon had both the lenses and the body for several days.
Your frustration with the 24-70 is a frustration you share with many photographers, including myself, even when used cameras way older than my 1Ds II and on Canon cameras covering many different markets. It's always been a perplexing lens. The frustration has been going on for years. Some luck out and get one that's near perfect. Others, like me, try several samples before giving up. Perhaps a newer version will turn the tide.
Anyway, I can't speak about how the 1Ds II compares to the 1Ds III 'cause I've never used the 1Ds III. As I mentioned previously, I might rent one and give it a whirl.
Video, Live View, 21MP, good files for LR3, better IQ at ISO 1600 and 3200, menu system, LCD, battery life, . . . I could probably go on! But, having come from Manualville in the dim past, I can get along fine with the 1Ds2 and its lovely 16+MP images. Nonetheless, I'm sure I'd like the 5D2 better, having most of the features I enjoy on the 60D, and having better IQ to boot.
Like many Canon owners, I'm hoping on, waiting on, a 5D3 with even better options and IQ. Still, I'll be keeping my 1Ds2 and 1D2, and selling my 5D and Nikon D7000 to help fund it. The 1Ds3 gave me a taste of the potential from larger image files, so now I'm hoping for 30+MP and improved dynamic range (maybe in-camera HDR), figuring it needs to be about double the 1Ds2 to be worthwhile for me to buy it.
Jim,
No doubt all those 5D2 benefits are true. Our discussion was about pure IQ at lower ISO. How do the 1Ds2 and 5D2 compare in that regard, you owning both?
rabbitmountain wrote:
Jim,
No doubt all those 5D2 benefits are true. Our discussion was about pure IQ at lower ISO. How do the 1Ds2 and 5D2 compare in that regard, you owning both?
I owned both as well. I did not think the 5D Mark II IQ was better than the IQ of the 1Ds II at any ISO up to 800. I didn't even think it was better than the 5D Classic. Did I get a poor sample? That's always a possibility. But I really doubt it.
IQ, however, isn't something that can be quantified very easily. It's generally a subjective thing. Specific things like sharpness, color, contrast, etc., are relatively easy to identify. But the gestalt of a camera's output and the emotional response one might have to that output is highly subjective. I know more than one photographer who won't have anything in his or her hands other than a Fuji S2 or S3 or S5 Pro, regardless of advancements that have been made since those cams were introduced. So be it .....
When I owned both I did a comparison so I would know it there was any specific IQ improvement between the 2 & frankly I didn't see one. It's not scientific enough to claim anything more than what I wanted to know but I did make an album with my test samples.
Yes the 5D2 does higher ISO's well but I just don't need that feature as much as the AF system of the 1D bodies. I sold the 5D2 shortly after my test & haven't regretted it because as nice as it was I just didn't use it.
Ralph -- I don't have both. I have the 1Ds2 and the original 5D (not the 5D2). I chose to wait out this intermediate 5D round, waiting for a 5D3. The 1Ds2 is my top body.
I've seen a lot of impressive examples from others shooting the 5D2, as well as my having used that 1Ds3, enough to know the amazing IQ results that would surely please me. If I needed to wait another year, I'd probably spring for the 5D2.
Right now I'm covering all three Canon sensor sizes. But I'm having a shift in viewpoint since buying the 1D2 and reacquainting myself with the beauty of 8MP imaging. Now I think I'll shift away from APS-C and concentrate on FF and 1.3X: 8MP, 16MP, and (hopefully) 32MP bodies to supply a range of IQ and image sizes.
Hi Jim,
I apologise. You stated earlier what gear you have and it's also in your profile. My mind must have had a short-circuit last night. So except for your 60D and 1D2, we share the same camera's: 1Ds2 and 5DmkI. I too haven't jumped at a 5D2, and I too want to see what the 5D3 is like before selling my 5D. I think it's amazing what a small 6-year old design can produce.
As for the pro bodies, I was aiming for a 1D4 to replace my broken 1Ds2, but now I'm not so sure anymore.
veroman wrote:
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.
It is funny how many people think that 12 MP is the optimum also for APS-C. And, wait, the Sony 16 MP sensor seems to manage to squeeze those extra 4 MP in without losing the integrity.
Oh, wait, people seem to think that around 12 MP is the optimum for micro 4/3 as well.
Let me think, my Olympus XZ-1 seems to be at the optimum for P&S with its 10 MP.
IMHO, the 12 MP "sweet spot magic number" seems to have nothing to do with smaller or larger photosites.
alundeb wrote
It is funny how many people think that 12 MP is the optimum also for APS-C. And, wait, the Sony 16 MP sensor seems to manage to squeeze those extra 4 MP in without losing the integrity. Oh, wait, people seem to think that around 12 MP is the optimum for micro 4/3 as well. Let me think, my Olympus XZ-1 seems to be at the optimum for P&S with its 10 MP. IMHO, the 12 MP "sweet spot magic number" seems to have nothing to do with smaller or larger photosites.
If it were just everyday "people" who thought that there was a sweet spot relative to sensor size, I wouldn't pay much attention to the idea either. But, other than trusting my own eyes, I've had extensive conversations with people on the manufacturing side, including folks from Mamiya, Leaf, Leica, Nikon, etc. who are pretty clear about the fact that there's always a price to pay when the photosites get smaller. I admit that the price is getting lower and lower. Some see no degradation at all. And there's certainly been a lot of improvement in dynamic range, noise levels, etc. with each increase in MP count. But there remain tell-tale signs of these increases in resolution ... just as, with film, there have always been tell-tale signs associated with higher ISO film stock. Perhaps one day soon the "sweet spot" will be a non-issue.
- Steve
Steve -- Sorry to get too sidetracked. To get back to your terrific images: If you answered my questions, I missed it. What sort of transluscent umbrellas do you use (brand & size) and what sort of bracket for flash/umbrella? You aren't using any HDR or image blending?
If you have any other 1Ds2 interiors, I'd love to see them posted.
Thanks so much for all the information you've provided.
Steve,
No doubt I really enjoyed looking at your images. Great colour, contrast and saturation, but not too much. Still I see room for improvement on distortion. Did you leave it in on purpose?
Gunzorro wrote:
Steve -- Sorry to get too sidetracked. To get back to your terrific images: If you answered my questions, I missed it. What sort of transluscent umbrellas do you use (brand & size) and what sort of bracket for flash/umbrella? You aren't using any HDR or image blending? If you have any other 1Ds2 interiors, I'd love to see them posted. Thanks so much for all the information you've provided.
rabbitmountain wrote:
Steve, No doubt I really enjoyed looking at your images. Great colour, contrast and saturation, but not too much. Still I see room for improvement on distortion. Did you leave it in on purpose?
Thanks for the comments. No, the distortion, minor as it is, is not there on purpose. These are not the final processed images. These were jpeg samples I sent off to the homeowner and the magazine right after the shoot. Are you referring to any shot in particular? The distortion in all of them is really minimal ... in fact, hardly noticeable. Not even the magazine editor noticed!
Ziffl3 wrote:
Steve, why do you shoot during the bright time if the day as apposed to early morning or late afternoon? is it a time schedule issue? just curious.... some nice shootin'
Hmmm ... strange question. This was a BIG house. I shot all day, every day, from 9AM til about 7PM, for 3 days in a row. I'm always in a race with the sun, but I adjust my lighting and exposure for each situation as it comes up. I generally start in the mornings in the rooms that are facing west, where the incoming sun is minimal, then move gradually through the house til I end up in the afternoons in the rooms facing east. In this case, the days were actually all cloudy. I got lucky. There were no real "bright times" to speak of. And on the afternoon of the 3rd day, I got lucky again: the sun came out just as I was preparing to shoot the exterior.
Besides, if I'd shot only in the morning and late afternoon, this job would have taken well more than a week. The homeowners and their family would have had to live elsewhere ... given that the house was prepped and styled for the shoot. Leaving it that way for 3 days was hard enough for the homeowners. They have 3 kids!
veroman wrote:
. Are you referring to any shot in particular? The distortion in all of them is really minimal ... in fact, hardly noticeable. Not even the magazine editor noticed
Well don't get me wrong, I don't have the experience to create the lighting. I admire that. The distortion I see is mostly visible in a kitchen image called "original-6", the second in your opening post. It's mostly the shape of the lamp in the upper right corner and the checkerboard floor and wooden side panel where I noticed it straightaway. I'm sorry I just notice these things. I can't help it. I could shut up about it and I already feel bad for criticizing your lovely images. But my intention was to help you improve, not break you.
I downloaded the images and managed to correct a lot just in one minute LR work. But if the editor doesn't notice, why would I even be suggesting....
Ralph
Steve -- Thanks for the info on the gear. I love B&H too, so nice to get a plug in for them.
I have some 33" transluscent umbrellas already, but need those flash/umbrella holders, as I want to move away from the powerpack Norman strobes to something easier to manage/hide.
Really terrific images on this MTM house! I love architecture, and your work just sings. Great angles and camera height.
rabbitmountain wrote:
Well don't get me wrong, I don't have the experience to create the lighting. I admire that. The distortion I see is mostly visible in a kitchen image called "original-6", the second in your opening post. It's mostly the shape of the lamp in the upper right corner and the checkerboard floor and wooden side panel where I noticed it straightaway. I'm sorry I just notice these things. I can't help it. I could shut up about it and I already feel bad for criticizing your lovely images. But my intention was to help you improve, not break you. I downloaded the images and managed to correct a lot just in one minute LR work. But if the editor doesn't notice, why would I even be suggesting....
Ralph...Show more →
Not to worry. I'm not the least offended. And it's something I would want to know. It was helpful for you to point it out. But, knowing the editor of this particular magazine, I'm sure he caught it, too, and has already corrected it ... if it's a shot he's going to use in the article.
- Steve
Gunzorro wrote:
Steve -- Thanks for the info on the gear. I love B&H too, so nice to get a plug in for them. I have some 33" transluscent umbrellas already, but need those flash/umbrella holders, as I want to move away from the powerpack Norman strobes to something easier to manage/hide. Really terrific images on this MTM house! I love architecture, and your work just sings. Great angles and camera height. I'm officially a fan!
I did the same ... moved away from both an assortment of hot lights and then away some big, heavy strobes that I'd gotten quite a while back. FYI: on this particular shoot I only used 3 flashes. But I have 8 in total, and there are some jobs when all 8 had to be used ... and not necessarily on stands.
- Steve
