Hi!

I'm impressed when I look carefully at those iso 1600 crops. That it's possible to get so much detail out of an iso 1600 file is something unbelievable when comparing to the films we had just 10 years ago.

Anyway, the 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 images have been focused to a slightly different plane, that makes an important difference when comparing the shots. 1Ds3 has lots more detail than 5D (which is expected), Ds2 and 3 are near but not equal (also expected) and with my eyes (on 2 different screens) the differences are real.

It seems that the 1Ds3 images are just a bit darker overal than the others, not just the shadows.

Thanks for the effort in making this comparison!

Cheers,
J

Thanks guys, and I'd like to add a follow-up comment here. To be clear, I still see improvement in detail going from the 5D to the 1Ds2 to the 1Ds3, however, to my eye it is even less significant at ISO 1600 than it was at ISO 400. But it is there. As to whether the difference/improvement is significant enough for the cost deltas, folks need to evaluate that for their own uses.

When the 5D was released a few years ago, I said pretty much the same thing about the 1Ds2, but back then felt the 1Ds2 was worth it for my uses; I could see the difference in fine detail in my large prints and at that time in my photographic career, optimum detail was the holy grail for me. However, it wasn't long before I noticed that if I wasn't comparing the 5D print and the 1Ds2 print side-by-side, both prints looked good to me. Sure, I could see improved fine detail in the 1Ds2 prints, but when I asked several non-photographers in my building which print they liked better, I got varied answers. (My usual print buyer is a non-photographer.) The common comment was, "They look the same to me," or "I like the colors in this one better." And it was a toss-up as to which print they pointed to when they made the color comment...

That was when I realized that image content, not detail, is what made my photographs "purchase worthy," and I started focusing my energies trying to make better images, not just more detailed ones. (Edit: I would like to point to MR's crop of "Mango Langway" in his Madagascar series: Nearly void of detail in the technical digital camera sense, yet it very definitely works as an artistic image.) And thus is how my own personal approach to gear needs has evolved over the past few years. But, just because that works for me, doesn't mean it will work for everybody, and I post my camera comparisons in that spirit --- hopefully I am presenting the data in a fashion that allows everybody to make a more informed decision for themselves.

Cheers,

As photographers a lot of them are indeed novices. In the UK, they seem increasingly to be simply GWCs [Guys with Cameras], they certainly have no interest in photography as such. All they are interested in is catching their prey and the money they can make from images that make their celebrity subject look shit.
And Conrad Black outside a courthouse would be of little interest to them. That's more news photographer territory. I also gather they are getting increasingly thuggish and unpleasant, more meathead bouncer than Richard Avedon!
One of the biggest agencies for selling pap work in the UK is run by a full mouthed bully, who seems to be the figure head for the new wave of agressive paparazzi photographers.
I recall seeing one who had £25Ks+ worth of kit, but didn't know how to use it. He'd simply decided one day to be a pap photographer and bought the best kit and immediately he was a photographer! The only skill deemed necessary was to be able to find prey.



Something an awful lot of photographers could do with doing I'd say!
Probably the most sensible thing ever said on LL!.
And that's why I cannot justify the extra money for a 1DsIII from a business point of view, apart from the fact it's so big and heavy [I prefer lighter cameras]. And if I'm doing work that needs lots more detail, I'd rather rent a Hassie.

Very well said, Jack. Those are points we should all consider seriously, whether we are in the business of selling photos or not.

My own view is, the sorts of difference we are seeing in your test shots between the 5D and the 1Ds3 are the sorts of differences that most of us would have expected to see between the 5D and the 1Ds2, but didn't.

We slowly seem to be coming to a grinding halt regarding substantial image quality improvement. Unless there's a real break-through in the way light received by the camera is processed, I don't see this changing. All we are getting now are incremental improvements of pixel-peeping proportions.

I'll extend this argument a little. Progressions like those the 3mp D30 to the 6mp D60 were substantive and obvious. The next upgrade from the D60 was fairly marginal, no increase in resolution, but at least the 10D boasted a very worthwhile reduction in high ISO noise. The upgrade from the 10D was very marginal in terms of resolution but low noise improvement at high ISO was again outstanding. Another substantive improvement.

But from there on, we've come to a grinding halt regarding fundamental image quality improvement. The 40D is two upgrades from the 20D and sports a lot of additional features but no substantial improvement in image quality.

The jump from the Canon 1D to the 1D2 was perhaps the biggest improvement that Canon has ever offered. A doubling in pixel count as well as a big improvement in high ISO noise.

Those who skip an upgrade have found improvements very worthwhile, except between the 20D and 40D.

The future is looking bleak for gear heads right at the moment . There's nothing out there that attracts me at present.

Amen to that! There is no question in my mind that the current crop of MF digital backs are the pinnacle of direct digital capture. They may not offer as extreme high ISO performance, but if detail and color fidelity are among the top priorities, then I think the MF backs are where we need to turn...

Hi Ray:

I agree with everything you wrote, but think the above excerpt sums my view up perfectly.

For me, I still shoot 4x5 film and scan when I need the ultimate detail. I won't bore everybody with the calculus behind that decision, but in my humble opinion scanned 4x5 is as good or better than MF DB, although clearly not nearly as convenient. If I did more work that required that level of detail and paid well, I would pony up for a MF system in a heartbeat.

Cheers,

Hi Jack, I'm Luis M. in your forum.
I insist in what I've said there.
It would be and interesting point of view if we could have a look on the BEST IQ images that the three models can achieve, no matter what ISO and sharpening work it can be.
May be after see that, we may think we are not so far from MFDB.
Regards.

Luis, in all of these comparisons we're looking at trade-offs between noise (the flip side of IQ) and speed. It's only when you systematically compare images at the same ISO from different cameras that you can begin to appreciate roughly how many f-stops worth of speed enhancement you gain for *equivalent* noise between these models. As for the best IQ in high-end FF DSLRs, comparing full-size images at native resolution in the low ISO range you'll see VERY little difference of IQ in prints between them. As for MF, based on industry representations and the experience of those fortunate enough to use both, it appears that where the DSLR/MF comparison reveals noticeable differences, and therefore becomes interesting, is upwards of 200 ISO and all the more so upwards of 400 ISO.