ChrisDM wrote:
I have a 1D3 and a 1Ds3, and they do compliment each other very well. Noise is better controlled on the 1D3 though, obviously because of the larger pixel/density. I don't hesitate to push the 1Ds3 either, but ideally if I'm going into a high ISO shooting situation, like weddings, concerts etc, I grab the 1D3 for its high ISO performance. But for commercial projects, controlled/studio lighting etc, nothing beats the 1Ds3... The two make a perfect pair of tools for the professional that shoots a wide variety of environments and projects.
Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com
Chris, with respect, I don't believe you have properly tested the difference between the two cameras in that regard. By test I mean take the same picture with both cameras and appropriate lenses and apertures so that the field of view is the same and the amount of light reaching the sensor is the same, and then make a large enough print to see the differences. The 1Ds3 is a better high iso camera, in my experience.
The reasons people are not discovering this is that they set too much store by received wisdom, and they compare images at 100% instead of at the same output size.
The 1Ds3 has a larger sensor, and that gives it an advantage that outweighs any marginal advantage that pixel size gives the 1D3. Larger pixels don't automatically give you less noise per image, they only give you less noise per pixel, which is a movable feast.
Sensor size matters more to noise per image than pixel size, and that's why the 1Ds3 is better at iso 12800.
brainiac wrote:
Chris, with respect, I don't believe you have properly tested the difference between the two cameras in that regard. By test I mean take the same picture with both cameras and appropriate lenses and apertures so that the field of view is the same and the amount of light reaching the sensor is the same, and then make a large enough print to see the differences. The 1Ds3 is a better high iso camera, in my experience.
The reasons people are not discovering this is that they set too much store by received wisdom, and they compare images at 100% instead of at the same output size.
The 1Ds3 has a larger sensor, and that gives it an advantage that outweighs any marginal advantage that pixel size gives the 1D3. Larger pixels don't automatically give you less noise per image, they only give you less noise per pixel, which is a movable feast.
Sensor size matters more to noise per image than pixel size, and that's why the 1Ds3 is better at iso 12800....Show more →
You're right Brian, I hadn't properly tested it. I'm more of a "look and feel" tester. But after reading your post I thought I would put my "look and feel" to the test. Here's the same image shot with both cameras at 3200. And while the 1Ds3 is quite good, the 1D3 image just looks a little cleaner, here shown at "the same output size". It's just enough difference to split hairs over, quite remarkable considering the S's pixel pitch and density. And you could even say that you like the S's "grain" better, but it really comes down to a personal preference of course. I just prefer the smoother look of the 1D3's high ISO files. Can you tell which is which?
Were these two images taken with the same custom WB, in the same format, and processed the same way? The first file definitely looks either 1/4 stop underexposed or "deeper" than the other. Or perhaps that is the 1ds3/1d3 difference I'm seeing.
Were these two images taken with the same custom WB, in the same format, and processed the same way? The first file definitely looks either 1/4 stop underexposed or "deeper" than the other. Or perhaps that is the 1ds3/1d3 difference I'm seeing.
-Jim
Yes, identical manual settings and processing. The only difference was that the 1Ds3 had the 24-70 at 70mm and the 1D3 at about 50mm to get the same framing.
To my eye, No#1 looks maybe...maybe a wee bit cleaner.
However, both images would really benefit from a pass thru Noise Ninja or some such. So it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Not at this size. Great info - thanks. Can we see some crops? But please be sure to uprez the 1D3 file to 5616 pixels wide before making them.
At this size the only thing that might tell them apart is the 1D3's slightly higher dynamic range (I assume) and d.o.f.. The first image appears to have less d.o.f. so I'm guessing that's the 1Ds3.
brainiac wrote:
Not at this size. Great info - thanks. Can we see some crops? But please be sure to uprez the 1D3 file to 5616 pixels wide before making them.
At this size the only thing that might tell them apart is the 1D3's slightly higher dynamic range (I assume) and d.o.f.. The first image appears to have less d.o.f. so I'm guessing that's the 1Ds3.
I did you one better. Here's a link to a large file (2.2 megs) with both images downsized to 8x12@240ppi... When making comparisons such as this, it is more effective, in terms of final output, to view files at their realistic final output size. And at ISO 3200, an 8x12 is as large (or larger) than I would consider delivering. It's nice to know that both cameras can deliver an 8x12 at 3200, but the 1D3 file's noise is less distracting for these typical print sizes. Once again it is remarkable that the S performs at this level considering its pixel size and density, but it isn't the camera I grab when going into a high ISO shooting situation.
For me it simply comes down to the right tool for the job. If I'm shooting commercial images that are to be delivered at poster sizes, I'm going to grab the 1Ds3 anyways, and I'm not going to shoot them at 3200. But for weddings/concerts/events/etc, where delivery sizes are smaller and ISOs are typically higher, the 1D3 is the more efficient tool for the job considering the more appropriate file sizes and the slightly better noise handling, as well as the ability to go to 6400.
Thanks Chris - that's very interesting. I don't think downrezzing the higher rez file is ever a fair way of comparing, since detail is thrown away. I certainly think in your downrezzed versions the bottom file, presumably the 1D3, has slightly less chroma noise in the shadows. Are they both set the same as regards in-built NR? There is a high iso NR setting buried in one of the menus. I would be interested to see how the files compare at full resolution after appropriate NR has been applied. Any chance you can post the raws? Or email them to me?
brainiac wrote:
Thanks Chris - that's very interesting. I don't think downrezzing the higher rez file is ever a fair way of comparing, since detail is thrown away. I certainly think in your downrezzed versions the bottom file, presumably the 1D3, has slightly less chroma noise in the shadows. Are they both set the same as regards in-built NR? There is a high iso NR setting buried in one of the menus. I would be interested to see how the files compare at full resolution after appropriate NR has been applied. Any chance you can post the raws? Or email them to me?...Show more →
I'll email them to you. But once again my point is that the most useful, practical, meaningful comparison in real world terms is to look at standard prints/print sizes. Sure the 1D3 may be crippled if uprezzed to 5600 pixels, but why would I ever upres a 1D3 file? For the type of work the 1D3 is best suited for, files are typically downsized for printing. The more practical comparison is the more useful comparison.
ChrisDM wrote:
I'll email them to you. But once again my point is that the most useful, practical, meaningful comparison in real world terms is to look at standard prints/print sizes. Sure the 1D3 may be crippled if uprezzed to 5600 pixels, but why would I ever upres a 1D3 file? For the type of work the 1D3 is best suited for, files are typically downsized for printing. The more practical comparison is the more useful comparison.
...the only difference between downrezzing the larger and uprezzing the smaller is that in the former case you are throwing away detail, and therefore handicapping the higher resolving camera. Uprezzing isn't significantly lossy whereas downrezzing is.
Also, for best results, noise reduction should be applied to the larger file BEFORE downrezzing, if you must downrez, since good noise reduction is more complex than just averaging.
Have PM'ed you my email address.
Also, could you tell us which lens/focal-length/shutter-speed/aperture was used for each shot?
Chris has kindly emailed me the full rez versions of these files, apparently converted with CS3. The only difference seems to be that the 1Ds3 file holds considerably more detail, which is quite surprising considering they were shot with a zoom at f2.8.
I imagine that the 1Ds3 really does have slightly less dynamic range, hence the apparently higher contrast visible here, but one question remains for me: if the 1Ds3 file were processed with slightly less contrast so that its contrast matched the 1D3 file, could we tell the files apart (notwithstanding the difference in d.o.f.)?
It would also be interesting to see a comparison of performance at iso 12800. I sold my 1D3 before I got my 1Ds3, so I haven't been able to do a direct comparison.
brainiac wrote:
I imagine that the 1Ds3 really does have slightly less dynamic range, hence the apparently higher contrast visible here, but one question remains for me: if the 1Ds3 file were processed with slightly less contrast so that its contrast matched the 1D3 file, could we tell the files apart (notwithstanding the difference in d.o.f.)?
Depends on the purpose/output... But even then I don't think differences are more than marginal. Considering the amount and density of pixels, the 1Ds3's low noise performance is pretty impressive
The 1Ds 3 noise qualities are awesome, and I thought when I bought them they'd be a step back from my 5d.
In a wedding album I have here I have a 28" double spread with 6-7 photos on it, all taken at 3200 iso with the 35/1.4, and they all look clean as a whistle and nice and sharp. amazing kit.
While I do appreciate the comparison here, I find it academic. These two cameras have very different feature sets (10 vs 21mp, 5 vs 10fps, ISO3200 vs ISO6400, etc) and are clearly intended for different purposes. While it is certainly impressive that the 1Ds3 can nearly hold its own against the 1D3 in terms of high ISO performance, it is the last reason I would pick it up over the other. It's like choosing a truck over a car in a road race simply because it has more horsepower... The 1D3 is the ultimate tool for sports/action/event/wedding etc shooting, not just for its slightly cleaner high ISO performance, but for its 6400 ability, more appropriate file sizes, much faster FPS, etc... But when it is resolution you need, for tasks such as landscape and commercial work, there's no better tool. Makes a good backup wedding camera too...
Once again, neat comparison, but only proves that these cameras are much more different in many more ways other than their 3200 ability. I share my opinion here not to stir a debate, but for the benefit of someone who may be reading this thread trying to decide between the two, from someone who owns and uses both cameras extensively.
ChrisDM wrote:
While I do appreciate the comparison here, I find it academic. These two cameras have very different feature sets (10 vs 21mp, 5 vs 10fps, ISO3200 vs ISO6400, etc) and are clearly intended for different purposes. While it is certainly impressive that the 1Ds3 can nearly hold its own against the 1D3 in terms of high ISO performance, it is the last reason I would pick it up over the other. It's like choosing a truck over a car in a road race simply because it has more horsepower... The 1D3 is the ultimate tool for sports/action/event/wedding etc shooting, not just for its slightly cleaner high ISO performance, but for its 6400 ability, more appropriate file sizes, much faster FPS, etc... But when it is resolution you need, for tasks such as landscape and commercial work, there's no better tool. Makes a good backup wedding camera too...
Once again, neat comparison, but only proves that these cameras are much more different in many more ways other than their 3200 ability. I share my opinion here not to stir a debate, but for the benefit of someone who may be reading this thread trying to decide between the two, from someone who owns and uses both cameras extensively.
MSC wrote:
Hey, without reading the whole post...which photo was which
The "s" is on top. I had forgotten actually, had to go back and look at the originals to figure it out. It is remarkable how close the "s" is in terms of high ISO performance...
ChrisDM wrote:
The "s" is on top. I had forgotten actually, had to go back and look at the originals to figure it out. It is remarkable how close the "s" is in terms of high ISO performance...
I am also curious about a fair comparison at iso 12800. Banding becomes a problem at such high isos, and I found it more of a problem on my 1D3 than on my 1Ds3. I no longer have the 1D3, so I can't easily do a comparison now.
So it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
