Ben Horne wrote:
There is a pretty decent difference between the two at 12x18 if you look close. The 1DsIII will be at 300 ppi, and the 5D will be quite a bit less. Both will be good, but the 1DsIII will definitely hold more detail. As you mention though, it does depend on how good the lens is.
No, not at 12 x 18. If you held the two prints side by side and inspected very closely - but only if you printed on certain papers - and went back and forth between them long enough my might convince yourself there was a difference, but you might just be imagining it and you would be the only person to make the selection in an A/B test.
From printing from various formats at 16 x 24 size, I'm convinced that an observant photographer would be able to distinguish between them at that size, but most buyers would not notice.
Larger than that and I think you reach a point eventually where the difference might become more obvious. But if you measure the actual difference horizontal and/or vertical pixel dimensions I think you'll see that it isn't as great as some might expect.
I think you should turn it around. How large do you want to print? Then decide which camera will get you there.
Most printers won't even get you a real 300ppi, so you can use that to determine the max output from each camera. Personally, in my tests, FWIW *I* can't see much difference in a print once it reaches 220ppi.
John Power wrote:
So what then is the 4K premium over the 1DSMK2 paying for if what counts the most isn't really the different in the vast majority of cases?
If you go to a camera store and compare them side by side, you will see a big difference in build quality and the fact that the 1 series weighs about 3x the 5d. I also wonder if there is 4k worth of difference.
danmitchell wrote:
No, not at 12 x 18. If you held the two prints side by side and inspected very closely - but only if you printed on certain papers - and went back and forth between them long enough my might convince yourself there was a difference, but you might just be imagining it and you would be the only person to make the selection in an A/B test.
So you've compared them in person as well? I was able to see a difference, but maybe I just have stellar eyes. The difference is how the fine details are rendered.
i can't speak about 12x18s printed with the 1ds3, but i can say this for sure: a 12x18 printed with the 5d is SPECTACULAR. in a practical sense, the 5d is simply a phenomenal camera for the price. also, the 5d has a better form factor in my opinion (smaller, lighter).
brainiac wrote:
Hmmm. Pretty numbers, but I don't think I'm seeing that in reality. The 1Ds3, provided you use good technique, does seem to be able to out-detail the 5D a lot of the time. F8 and good lenses help, but it's amazing what a 17-40 can do at F8. Don't forget there's a culture here that a lens which can't use every pixel to the very corner of the frame is, by rights, landfill. For many photographers what matters is what you see over most of the frame, and the corners are largely irrelevant.
Also, it's not just about detail. Tone is better, maybe due to 14 bit, and I can now shoot at 1600 iso what I used to shoot at 800....Show more →
Sure, you just don't see it in 12x18 prints unless you put them under a microscope.
Just out of curiosity, how many of those who are saying that the 5D is just the same at 12x18 have owned and shot both and actually compared the results? I suspect that it is mostly based on assumptions of people who have not used the 1DsIII. I have owned both, and printed both at 12x18.
SoundHound wrote:
Example: If you shoot at or above 1600 ISO the larger pixels of the 12Mp camera can render a better image than a 21Mp sensor that must have more noise.
That is not my experience. The 1Ds3 at 1600 iso produces results which look like a 5D at 800. At 3200 it looks like a 5D at 1600. Although each 1Ds3 pixel may be noisier than a 5D pixel, there are nearly twice as many of them. It is not noise per pixel but noise per square millimeter of output that matters. To get an idea of the comparitive noise level you should downrez the 21 megapixel to 12 megapixels and then compare per pixel noise. Or make prints.
Edited by brainiac on Apr 17, 2008 at 12:25 AM GMT
Encouraging brainiac! I, presently use a D3 @ 6400 and can print up to 24x36." Although this is the Canon forum that is, now, my 12 MP standard. Not so sure how the 1Ds Mk III would compare. But very interested in any camera that will give me an edge.
SoundHound wrote:
Encouraging brainiac! I, presently use a D3 @ 6400 and can print up to 24x36." Although this is the Canon forum that is, now, my 12 MP standard. Not so sure how the 1Ds Mk III would compare. But very interested in any camera that will give me an edge.
There have been a few threads on this. It's my opinion that the 1Ds3 more or less matches the D3 at 6400 and 12800 if you use desktop noise reduction to match Nikon's in-camera noise reduction and downrez to 12 megapixel. You have to push a raw file and set 3200 iso and -1 exposure compensation, so it's a pain for JPEG shooters, but it illustrates that total image noise is a sensor-size and generational issue more than a cell-size issue.
Here's a 12800 iso 1Ds3 file shot under the very dim light of a low-energy light bulb:
rprouty wrote:
I guess I'm going to find out...UPS should deliver it on Monday..
Dude - the 5DMkII will be out within 2 months, and the price of 5D will be reduced by at least $500... do you really need a 5D... waiting 2 months may be a good idea... no?
rprouty, you have here more than enough reason to go either way. I personally cannot see the justification in the MIII's price tag, but you might. Here's a read you might really enjoy:
I was told that I would see a big difference between a 1DMkIII and a 1DsMkIII file. I was skeptical. I was also wrong.
There is a significant difference between the two and although the 1DMkIII is two MP's short of the 5D, I don't think resolution is the only thing at play.
From my experience at native resolution (5D) you may not see any resolution differences though the 14bit of the 1Ds mkIII may give better tonality theoretically. Once you start to uprez the difference will become pretty apparent, there is something about uprezzing which makes digital images fall apart in the fine detail for close viewing in a way that film doesn't, no doubt due to the cleanliness of the file (film has grain and muck to break up the lack of detail).
More to the point, the moment you crop the file your native resolution drops dramatically. If you shoot lose for an 4:5 crop or usually apply a little tilt and/or tidying of the file you would be surprised how fast 13 megapixels becomes 10. The 5D doesn't have a 100% viewfinder and you would be surprised how often that 5% needs cropping off because of elements you haven't seen. With more resolution, however much it may not be necessary in theory, it does give you a lot of extra resolution. Hell, yesterday I was applying some perspective correction in PS, 3 megapixels gone in a flash.
You can get a 18X12" at native resolution (240DPI is good enough for that size print) if your picture is perfect out of camera every time and you don't want to print larger then 24X16" then a 5D ,resolution wise, is enough especially with excellent glass. In my very personal opinion even slight uprezzing doesn't look natural if the picture will be viewed close up as most landscape type pictures are in which case more is better, even just as a safety net.
Keep in mind also that your choice of subject matter is super crucial to the decision, although this is a landscape image it has very little that requires actual resolving of detail and even in this 8 megapixel crop of a 5D file (to make it a pano) all the detail you would expect to see has been resolved and prints beautifully. It's when you uprez without adding detail that you would expect to see, for example a street scene with a signpost that is uprezzed large enough to be big enough that you would expect to read the sign, but the text is just mush, etc. http://www.beni-art.net/pics/large/arnisdale.jpg
Good point: an improved facility to crop is one of the great joys of the 1Ds3. As long as you've ensured your lens is delivering, you can take away nearly half the image and still have something that competes with a 5D frame.
I just received 8 architectural prints, sized 30" x 50", all taken with a 5D as I don't have a 1Ds. While without any doubt the 1Ds III prints would have been way better I must say I'm still extremely pleased with the results. Uprezzed with Genuine Fractals Pro 5 and printed by a professional, you can stand 10 inches from the prints without feeling bad about them, and I tend to be very critical of my own work ( as I guess we all are - critical of my work that is ).
Should I receive more architectural jobs, I will get a 1Ds though. No doubt about that.
).