p.1 #2 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
I'm kinda not impressed. The images aren't very great, photographically speaking. Image quality they look amazing, good ol' Canon. I'm just not impressed with any of the photos, the are all pretty lackluster.
p.1 #7 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
I am also disappointed in these pictures.
And all the previous ones.
IQ wise, of course. Couldn't care less for composition or any other technical aspect, since I'm looking at the IQ alone.
Most of them look rather soft, and lack detail.
Sure, the files are huge. But they just look plain soft...
Am I being too demanding? Probably.
But If these files are somewhat representative of the 1DsMIII image quality, then I won't be getting one for sure...
In the 1DsMIII defence, we have to take into consideration that we don't know the settings they were taken with.
Out-of-the-box seems highly likely to me, since most pictures lack some contrast and saturation, specially considering they were taken with one of canon's finest, the 400mm 2.8IS.
But I have yet to be impressed with one single picture of the 1DsMIII...
My 1DMIII files are truly outstanding and, after some fine tuning of the camera settings, most of them don't need any kind of post-processing. They are that good!
I just haven't seen that kind of IQ from a single 1DsMIII picture so far.
Not even close, in fact!
Of course, not a fair comparison, since most if not all the 21MP images available so far are surely from out-of-the-box settings, but still...
Maybe it's just me, and my expectations were too high.
I was getting one, now I'm not so sure...
p.1 #9 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
I think those are probably straight out of the camera, and while I agree they are "meh", I also thing with a little PP they'll look fantastic. We also don't know what in-camera settings the photog was using.
p.1 #10 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
From what I saw, the best of the let's go digital images was the lioness in the field. You could actually see the moving wings on the fly that was flying around the lioness' head.
p.1 #11 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
It is absolutely, undeniably flat out impossible to assess image quality based on web-downsized digital images. Furthermore, the lens choice, camera settings, and amount of post-processing play a much, much greater role in final IQ than does the camera body used. It is simply a waste of time to debate or discuss the merits of a camera body's IQ based on downsized images, and to do so only hints as to one's lack of understanding of the big picture.
p.1 #12 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
Chris, there is no lack of understanding of the big picture.
We are talking about full sized pictures.
In the link the OP mentioned, you can download the full resolution pictures.
Just click on the photo you wish to see, and notice that below it there is the following text:
"Download the original Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III Safari Photo [warning approximately10MB File size]"
Click in the words "Safari Photo" and voila, full resolution 10mb photo.
We are evaluating those, not the downsized versions, which are, obviously, close to wortless in the assessment of IQ.
p.1 #14 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
I don't see how you can hope to evaluate a professional DSLR based on 600x400, web-posted JPGs.
Even the large JPG are not that high a quality and I see nothing astounding about the images themselves. What makes these images good is the subject, composition, and lighting.....the stuff the photographer does, not what the camera is doing.
p.1 #15 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
nathanlake wrote:
I don't see how you can hope to evaluate a professional DSLR based on 600x400, web-posted JPGs.
I do agree.
A 100% crop or the whole image, without PP is the only way to appreciate a camera (while hoping the photographer is good enough to show it at its best).
We saw many reviews with small images, fully PP ; with PS and a good tone-mapping software, many pics can look stunning, even from my 10D
p.1 #16 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
I think whoever uses the tool dictates whether or not the shots are "sharp". I would never judge a camera based on a very mediocre photographer's images. Granted they are in Africa, so the subject matter is interesting, but the photos are basically the lamest Africa shots I think I've ever seen. I'll test the camera for myself and THEN decide. I'm also curious to see what the files look like. Really, the bigger files you get, the more critical focus becomes important. That's what keeps pushing me in the medium format direction. Actually having a big veiwfinder to focus 22+ megapixels makes all the difference on whether things are sharp at 100%. That for me is the achille's heel of the 1dsmkIII (from what I've been able to derive from other people's experiences, images and white papers).
p.1 #17 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
Oh by the way, something I had to mention, because I'm more on the tecky side of photography than a designer...
Nowadays
1 - if the image is in focus and sharp
2 - if the image has enough color depth (or dynamic range), in Raw
3 - if the image is not noisy and colors are faithful to the scene
4 - if the scene is taken with the desired focal length (this is where FF intervenes)
Well, that's it. The rest is cosmetic...
There are tons of PP softs and enough tone-mappings softs [believe me, new algorithms flourish daily] to get the picture as you want it. This part (PP) is maybe not that easy. But this is what makes the difference.
And, this is my point, the camera is not involved anymore after points 1-4 [unless you want to do in-camera PP].
To summarize, find a camera that just delivers points 1 to 4, buy the right softs and you will get whatever pic you want.
p.1 #18 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
I want to see a 40"x60" print from this camera and the 5D side-by-side using the same scene, light (hopefully more quality than this test), focal length and PP.
When viewed large and up close, how much more detail is really there?
That is the test for my work.
p.1 #19 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
Why in the world would anyone evaluate the performance of a 7000.00 20+ MP camera with a JPG. If you don't have raw files you are just guessing at the quality, I don't care how large the JPG is.
I believe that most people that use the IDsMKIII are going to be shooting raw.
p.1 #20 · 1Ds MkIII sample images, anyone seen this?
I'm not evaluating the performance of the camera. I know that the camera is worth the $8k they are going to charge. The high-res JPGS are awesome IQ wise, nothing wrong there.
What I was complaining about as the 2nd poster, was that the images look like crap. Canon hired a bunch of guys, and the guy or group that put these images online at LGD didn't do anything to them. They look awful. None of them look appealing, they look like cheap snapshots. None of them have the contrast or sharpness there, and compositionally, they are lacking a lot. Overblown highlights, the whole gamut. What does it take to be flown to Africa to shoot with the top gear for free, and deliver crappy crappy results?
