David Clapp wrote:
Recent tests on noise and long exposure prove this too, I could jack 5D files from the exposure depths with remarkable results, not so with this fellow.
That's another pixel-peeping myth in my opinion. I would never contemplate shooting my 5D at ISO 12800. Here's what my 1Ds3 can do at that speed: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/663088
David
I think you were being told exactly what I was getting at , on my stock library they were definitely turning my work done based on what they were used to seeing.(of course the Contax lenses did make it a lot better)
Braniac
I know what you are saying with regards to up-ressing or down ressing but when the IQ checkers look at a 1dsmk2 file submitted at 50Mb 8 bit tiff (which is close to it`s natural output) and then they open up a 60Mb file from the mk3 which again is near to it`s natural output and view as they must at 100% they are not allowing for just how big the image is on their monitors (we all know that 100% viewing is a road to disaster) more so if you are not educated at what you are supposed to be seeing. What ever, I`ve started to add a sensible amount of sharpening (that I didn`t have to do before the mk3) and they are clearing IQ now. I`ve had so much hassle since submitting to a library that it is starting to take the edge off of my photography. In the past, I knew what I was supposed to be seeing, got on and PP`d the files and had them printed to customers sizes and they came back 99% of the time superb. For the amount i sell on stock and now the new micro sales for .60p I`m not spending as much time keywording and uploading.
I can make as much at a craft/country fare selling framed prints in a day as months on stockwork. (probably because my photography isn`t actually commercial) but more pleasing if you know what I mean. I`ve got to say that when you see a lot of work that is sold for mags and brochures to be printed small then I think at times presenting 60Mb files of everything is actually a waste of my time.
Conner999 wrote:
It's the Ec-CIV that ships with the 1D3 (no S) - fits fine. No notable exp needed that I've seen so far.
conner
I`ve swapped around screens and I agree with regards the 1V screen being a good bright compromise. However (and as dark as the view goes when fitting the split image screen) there are certainly times when that added help is nice to have. I have also liked the fact that with the split image you can confirm that your Canon AF lenses are getting it right (which they don`t always as you know) I know you actually loose the correct spot metering etc with the split image but to be quite honest, it was more important in the pre digital days before histograms.
I`ll do some more shooting and make my mind up after I`ve had a lie down in a dark room for a while
David Clapp wrote:
After some careful capture sharpening experiments, the 1DsIII files spring into life, but the camera is not very tolerant of any mistakes at all. Recent tests on noise and long exposure prove this too, I could jack 5D files from the exposure depths with remarkable results, not so with this fellow.
David
I live in Norfolk, where it is famous for big skies, I`m used to watching near sunset and am always ready to jump in my car and shoot up to one of many spots if it looks promising. when i first got the mk3 before Christmas (the time when the sun falls just right for decent sunset landscapes) I came back from the first shoot with some really good stormy sunsets but Boy was there some noise in the darker parts of the sky. Remember, I`ve lived around here for 9 years which covers a lot of Canon DSLR`s and the noise from the mk3 frightened the life out of me. OK, making a selection it was easy to remove the noise to a level that was acceptable as it was in the sky but never the less it surprised me and I`ve had to really tighten up my technique to keep noise out of these shots to the way I had become used to. so you are not alone.
Thats nice to read. Its just more crucial to get a good exposure I guess. The shot in question was an ISO200 image fo 5 mins I took yesterday night, pushing the limits in any camera. When I look at the images there seems to be noise the equivelant of an ISO 640 shot from my 5D, thats what got me thinking. As soon as I resize the image to 5D files its all gone. Again the camera takes some getting used to...
dave chilvers wrote:
If pixels are good why do they need extra help? is it noise reduction blurring that is taking the edge off of high pixel count sensors? and they then need top resolution lenses to bring back/invent more IQ. What we gonna do when sensors get over 30 million pixels?
We might get sales pitch like this " Yes sir, if we only had better lenses I could demonstrate just how good this camera is but alas
Dave
Having a camera sensor which finaly outresolves the lenses would be great as the sensor would not need an AA filter as the lens might provide this service for free, even the best lens would be diffraction limited at f4 or 5.6 with a SLR sensor of 50m. At least thats what I understand
Andi Dietrich wrote:
Having a camera sensor which finaly outresolves the lenses would be great as the sensor would not need an AA filter as the lens might provide this service for free, even the best lens would be diffraction limited at f4 or 5.6 with a SLR sensor of 50m. At least thats what I understand
I agree. When the 1Ds3 first came out, the general impression among users was that it had a stronger AA filter than the 1Ds2. Then Chuck Westfall mentioned somewhere that the AA filter is similar on both models. The truth is, 1Ds3 images look softer at 100% not because of a stronger AA filter but because of the sensor vs. lens resolution. In fact, Canon should have used a weaker AA filter instead. In my understanding, AA filters are indispensable for the current Bayer sensors, but they can become weaker and weaker with the increase of sensor pixel count.
