CONSIDER A 16X20 SAME SUBJECT PRINT FROM A 1DS MK III AND A D3. WITH SIMILAR LENSES . WILL THE PRINT QUALITY BE NOTICEABLY BETTER ON THE 1DS MK III OR IS THERE A POINT WHEN MEGA PIXILS BECOME OVERKILL.


A MORE CONTROLLED SITUATION.
CONTAX 645 ON TRIPOD 1 EXPOSURE WITH A PHASE ONE P25+ AND 1 EXPOSURE WITH A P45+. BOTH PRINTS 16X20 . ANY ONE OUT THERE WITH REAL EXPERIENCE OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE THAT WILL SUGGEST AN ANSWER ?

MANY THANKS
MARK

Please use upper- & lowercase, except when you want to emphasize - it makes your message MUCH easier to read! And you'll get more people to actually read it .

As far as I'm concerned, all else being equal, more megapixels can't hurt ... if you don't mind the extra storage and resources needed to push them through. I think 17x24 is probably an appropriate threshold for these two cameras.

I own an D3 and a Sinar54LV 22mp on an H1

I am very interested in the fact that you can get 125th of a second at 400ISO compared to 30th at 100ISO

Shooting hand held you can resolve more with the D3 due to camera shake

Using studio lights (or I suppose a tripod) there is no comparison of file quality

The excellent AF of the D3 adds to the probablility of attaining a higher resolving image comapred with the donkey AF on the H1

The Ds3 probably sits in the middle which is a great place if you havnt got a huge heap of nikon glass

Camera shake and misfocus - are the killers of 'real resolution'

S

A p25 back resolves far less than a p45, and I have used both and still use a p45. Not every image taken with a p45 would show an obvious improvement over the p25 in a 16x20 image, but many images show an obvious visual difference, even in 16x20, because subtle textures or fine detail is beyond the capability of the p25 sensor to record. (of course that statement assumes that type of detail is available in the scene, which certainly isn't always the case). 39mp is not overkill and in fact there is still room for improvement. It will probably take 60-70 mp to make a significant difference, but I have stitched 39mp images together with amazing results.

While the D3 is a great camera, and it's high ISO performance is stunning to say the least, at 100 ISO I would find it hard to believe it could compete with the 1DsMarkIII in the ability to resolve detail, especially based on what I am seeing with my new 1DsMarkIII and my 5d. Whether you need it or not ... that's a different discussion.

A number of people, including the owner of this forum, have suggested that the Nikon is a high-ISO offering, to be supplemented by a high-res version of the D3 sometime next year, maybe even in the Spring. That is, comparing the D3 to the 1Ds3 may not be apples-to-apples.

In most cases, in careful printing, I doubt you'd see much difference at 16x20 between the two, simply because the print isn't large enough to really express it well. But any larger than that, assuming that both cameras are being shot in their sweet spots, under similar conditions, I don't think a 12mp Nikon could compete with the resolution of a 21mp Canon. All of this, of course, is confused by the question of glass -- Michael Reichmann suggested a year or so ago (too lazy to look it up) that using Zeiss glass on a Canon (with adapters) made a significant difference in image quality -- which suggests that the Canon lenses he used were not everything they could be. If the Canon glass also falls short of Nikon glass, then, who knows what the extra res would do? Should note that Zeiss makes a line of ZF lenses, which are prime lenses in a Nikon mount, and which, I am told, offer some pretty astonishing results when mounted on a D3.

JC

In looking at the blow ups in Michael Reichmann's article it's clear to me that even at ISO 1600 the D3 would yield a sharper looking print. But not being technically knowledgeable as to how these things work, I'm wondering if this is a hardware issue or a firmware issue. If the latter, Canon could presumably update its firmware to improve results dramatically. I just find it hard to understand how a camera with about 40% less "capacity" could yield better results. Both have full size sensors and the Canon L and Nikon pro glass is more or less similar.

By the way, one commentator has posted that the upcoming Nikon will be a "D3x" with similar megapixels but greater shooting speed.

I've used Zeiss and now primarily Leica glass on a variety of EOS bodies including 1Ds, Ds2 and 5D and the difference in detail captured and clarity of IQ vs. all but the VERY best (135/2, 300/2.8, etc) Canon glass is startling.

Color is also more 'as seen' vs the over-saturated reds and bright green renditions that EF glass on an EOS body delivers. ZF glass is as good if not better than the older (and cheaper) CZ units and would deliver incredible results on a D3. Unlike with a EOS, stop-down metering would not be needed shooting Zeiss ZF on a Nikon.

The first time you use a nice Zeiss/Leica unit and go to sharpen the pics in PS and realize your normal sharpening setting grossly over-sharpen the image, and you see the miniscue detail rendition the glass captures, you know you've hit pay dirt.

This will stir things up a bit, but the sample variation within and the IQ of so-called 'pro' Canon glass given their prices when compared against comparably priced German optics is pathetic.

I guess different folks, different strokes.

I too have used a P25 and now use a P45+. The litmus test for my usage is a double page spread, commercial four colour off-set, average quality paper stock. Under those conditions I can't see a blind bit of difference between the two backs. In fact if it wasn't for the additional camera movements I get with a MFDB on a technical camera I'd happily use a 5D.

Likewise I've used plenty of Leica lenses and Canon lenses.

In my opinion there's not a great deal of difference between Leica and Canon (and Zeiss and Nikon and Pentax and Olympus etc) when it comes to optical design for their better quality primes.

But there's a huge difference in the quality and consistency of their manufacturing and assembly. In other words a good Canon lens (or Nikon, or...) is every bit as good in raw IQ terms than their Zeiss or Leica equivalent, but finding that good individual lens might test the patience of a saint.

Wayne,

Thanks for that informed answer...I found it very helpful.
Mark

I shot some side by side tests with a 1DsII and a 1DsIII the other day.

I used a 16-35 2.8II, 85 1.2 and 300 F4 IS all very sharp lenses.

While I haven't done any prints - the subject matter is just a brick wall with graffiti - I did find the MkIII shots had more detail on screen.

The shots are sharper, it's not a dramatic leap - just an improvement.

I will say though, the new screen & menus on the MkIII are a big improvement.

Also the high ISO performance is much better, I did a lot of shots in a shaded yard at 800 ISO and more inside at 1600 and both gave me frames I would be happy to send to a magazine

Last but not least, the new body is a lot lighter than the old one.

I plan to do some printing over the holidays.

Mark,

Noticeable difference in favour of the 1DS MKIII at lower ISO's, especially for fine structures. When you uprez the D3, it doesn't compete, which is to be expected 12 V 21 MP- see http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html

My litmus test is 40x60" prints. While most images I shoot do not deserve that type of treatment, when I go out on a landscape shoot that is what I'm striving for.

My largest image to date is 6 stitched p45 files to make a 4' x 12' panorama. Detail is amazing in the image.

Different folks, different strokes ... couldn't agree more. My company has over 300 shooting bays doing children's portraits, and I'm perfectly content with the 20d's and 30d's we use in those bay, including a full jpeg capture workflow. No interest in even a 5d in our workflow.

Another key differentiator between Zeiss / Leica glass and the rest are the coatings used, which help tremendously to improve contrast and color saturation especially noticeable under harsh and backlit conditions which I love.

40"x60"

Yeah, not my litmus test. But I'd certainly agree... if you're going that large, resolution is king. p45+ would certainly have an advantage there in resolving detail, especially with the lack of the AA filter.

Horses for courses.