I've seen many comments about the different/improved image qualities of the 1Ds3 on the various web fora and blogs regarding the AA-filter. Some state, without seroius testing, that the AA-filter is 'stronger', others state it is 'weaker', and anything in between.
Bonjour Bart
I think there is a main reason about all these differents comments we read or hear…
If we forget the photog skills, the lens and the conditions of shooting, in the real world the "problem" is the raw converter used. I have been really amazed by the superb quality of the incamera jpegs…
The RC that accepts the 1DS3 files, on Mac, are, by inverse order of good rendering:
LR
ACR
DPP
C1 beta2 (I really await for C1 pro 3.7.8 before the pro 4)
RAW Developer (very good for details) some problem with color, but I never used it before so…)
Sylkipix
There is a HUGE difference between all of these.
The good surprise is Sylkipix and RAW Developer (they do have a trial version)
I also 'tried to try' Bibble but had a magnificent crash when I tried to open it and got time to uninstall/reinstall
[EDIT] After having checked on Bibble website, Bibble 4.9 is not supporting (yet) the 1Ds3… [/EDIT]
I think there is still a lot of improvement, and certainly with moiré (which I haven't encountered yet).
Let's keep in mind that beside DPP the other companies haven't got a lot of time, for now, to develop their tool for the specific files of the 1Ds3 (I guess it is the same for the new Nikons)
So I suggest that any comments here about IQ do mention which raw converter were used.
I strongly beleive that there is a strong relationship between camera body/PPer/Raw Converter…