snowboarder wrote:
I think you are judging 1Ds MkIII from an upgrader's point of view, for me it's here
finally and I don't feel I,m buying something 3 years old anymore...
It's my first 1Ds camera and I feel quite excited about it
I agree with Snowboarder. I've been shooting with the 5D since it came out and have never owned a 1Ds (partly because of its bulk and weight). At this point in time, though, I would consider the upgrade to the Mk3 for a myriad of small reasons that all add up. Not ever having owned a 1DsMk2, the improvements for me will be considerable (plus, its 6oz less than a Mk2!).
After working the image, I'm quite impressed with the file. It needed a touch of warming, some leveling, a bit of highlight recovery, and some heavy sharpening and the file held up well. I only induced a very small amount of noise, which could easily be fixed with some Noise Ninja.
Now the color looks great, the eyes are quite sharp, and you can see the hairs on her nose. Very impressive camera.
I would have bet a body part that the MKIII would have an additional stop of high ISO performance. Oh well.
But the files from the 1DIII are lovely. I expect that from the 1DsIII too.
I guess we're seeing the maturity of 35mm cmos technology. So change the basics (MF CCD) or wait for the new, new thing. For me the truly WOW cameras were the D30, 1D, and the 1Ds.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the new Nikon FFish camera.
madmax200 wrote:
Does anyone else think Canon should spend more money on models?
See Canons lackluster Flagship shoot the shop foremans daughter.
Id rather see that French News anchor.
i've always wondered this too! all their brochures and stuff have models that look like they are probably the daughters of the canon exec's or something, instead of true professionals...haha. I havent' seen anything yet for 1ds Mark III but I'm sure CPS will send me a full page brochure trying to get me to buy immediately.
Suggestions? I had decided to wait until the Mark 3 foucs issues were resolved and now along comes this Ds Mark 3. I do mainly wildlife but some (10%) ordinary, run of the mill landscape and scenic photography. How many of you have used full frame for wildlife and how do you think the new Ds Mark 3 will compare as a wildlife body to the D Mark 3. By wildlife I do not mean birds, at least only occasionaly. My wildlife photography is mainly on safari in Africa. Any thoughts?
Regards-John
Mariner wrote:
Suggestions? I had decided to wait until the Mark 3 foucs issues were resolved and now along comes this Ds Mark 3. I do mainly wildlife but some (10%) ordinary, run of the mill landscape and scenic photography. How many of you have used full frame for wildlife and how do you think the new Ds Mark 3 will compare as a wildlife body to the D Mark 3. By wildlife I do not mean birds, at least only occasionaly. My wildlife photography is mainly on safari in Africa. Any thoughts?
Regards-John
suggestion - get a 1D2 and wait a year until the Ds3 has been released for over 6 months, then decide
alternate suggestion - if you want to spend $8000 then get the Ds3. If you dont, then get the D3. Either one will be more than capable of going on a safari, and "ordinary, run of the mill landscape and scenic photography"
Oh, it appears my 1Ds2 can't take very good shots any more...... oh wait a minute, the lens cap is still on - oh, that's better, good as it was when I bought it 2.5 years ago. Phew!
hahr wrote:
16.7 at 16-bit and 12 full stops of DR would have been even better. it'll be interesting to see if the 5D replacement gets 16.7 at 14-bit or if it stays down around 12.7 mp to help keep the 1Ds2 second in line in the FF game.
-erik
The 1Ds2 is last generation, no longer produced. It's not "in line" anymore, even though it'll stay on the roster until the 1Ds3 is on the shelves.
madmax200 wrote:
Can anyone estimate the fstops of dynamic range it will have in total? What are the downside of highlight expansion?
From one 1DIII review I read, they estimated just over 11 stops. I would expect the 1DsIII would be very similar.
Downsides of HTP: can result in more noise, especially in shadow areas at high ISOs. If using it in RAW, it may not translate to 3rd party RAW converters. HTP enabled RAW files that I browse through the Finder or Preview on my Mac appear about a stop underexposed (I believe because that is exactly what happens - the files are underexposed to retain more highlight info, then treated in software to bring back midtone/shadow detail).
"A Highlight Tone Priority image is processed differently in the camera, regardless of whether the camera is set to CR2 or JPEG. Specifically, the amount of gain applied during the analog-to-digital conversion step is less. For instance, if the camera is set to ISO 200, the amount of gain applied is similar to or the same as ISO 100, which means more of the highlight detail captured by the sensor is preserved during this early in-camera processing step. This is the main reason the camera can't be set lower than ISO 200 when Highlight Tone Priority is enabled; it requires the extra highlight headroom it gets by applying a level of analog signal boost to the sensor data that is commensurate with a lower ISO setting."
I would have prefered the 16 bit over the sensor upgrade by far. I am really disapointed that the GPS did not make it to the ds3 from the ds2 for those of us who shoot landscapes. Looks like Canon is going to milk the technology for another two years. Oh well maybe Pentax will come through, if not there is always the ZD. If the 5D2 does not have 16 bit Canon has lost me.
This may have been mentioned before, but the 1DsMkIII does natively support the 300x Lexar and Xtreme 4. I remember someone on the forum commenting that no one yet had a fast enough camera for the 300x.
Caleb Williams wrote:
This may have been mentioned before, but the 1DsMkIII does natively support the 300x Lexar and Xtreme 4. I remember someone on the forum commenting that no one yet had a fast enough camera for the 300x.
Either way, this is a nice feature to have.
Is that something we will need as landscape photogs? Or will it come into play at the 5fps and fast paced shooting?
madmax200 wrote:
Is that something we will need as landscape photogs? Or will it come into play at the 5fps and fast paced shooting?
Michael, it's an important feature when we are talking 25MB RAW files.
Even for you I think it's important as the speed of saving those big files to a card
will improve and the camera won't "choke" - you will be able to write
all your passes quicker.
I noticed that when I want to shoot a few passes for DR extension or just
two exposures (sky-ground) I want to take them as close to each other
as possible - clouds move!
If you want to capture more passes, it might be even more important.
With UDMA support we are jumping from ~10MB/sec to ~40MB/sec
write speed, this is big.
