Canon 1Ds Mark III Review

[Phil Holland]

http://www.artbyphil.com/phfx/photography/2007_Canon1DsIIIReview/index.html

Hello Asher and everybody else out there.
I haven't been around here in ages!

Just finished my 1Ds Mark III review.

Thoughts and comments welcome.

Phil

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Just finished my 1Ds Mark III review.

Phil,

Thanks for sharing. Sounds like the camera is a perfect match for your type of work.

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Congratulataions. You have done an excellent job. Thanks for sharing. I love the example with the leaf taken from the tree. Excellent demonstration with va real example.

Asher

 

[Ralph Eisenberg]

In reading your excellent review, I progressively found myself forgetting about its central concern with the 1Ds3 as I became increasingly captivated by the suberb photographic work. Many thanks.

 

[John_Nevill]

Well done Phil,

Nice review and some great images. I'm impressed with the long exposure night scene and was quite surprised to read about the reduction in selectable cross-type AF points.

Your conclusions raise some valid points regarding ownership. Nevertheless, it will no doubt be the next "must have" piece of gadgetry for some.

I look forward to seeing some of your work from it and over the coming weeks, likewise your longer term impressions.

 

[Michael Fontana]

So some people will have to buy new, better glass?

Phil used good ones only, in his review!

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thoughts and comments welcome.

Phil,

Just 2 questions that popped up after reading your review.

How would you rate the larger brighter viewfinder for manual focussing?
How would you rate the dynamic range, compared to other cameras/backs you've used in the past (I understand that would be quite a subjective comparison, but still).

Bart

 

[Phil Holland]

Thanks everybody. Glad you all enjoyed the review.

I'll attempt to answer a few of these questions.

Michael Fontana - Well sort of. I was trying to make the point that I know the glass I use are some of Canon's better performers, however, if I was shooting with some of the sub $500 zooms I think you'll be stretching them to a limit they may not be able to handle. However, if you are going for a 1Ds series body you probably aren't using those lenses as primary glass anyways.

Bart_van_der_Wolf - It is indeed better for manual focusing. I don't know how I'd rate it, but after thousands of shots with the 1Ds Mark II the difference is very noticeable and a very good upgrade. It's the best viewfinder I've ever used on a camera like this. I think waist level finders might be the only really that's better, but a may be over stepping that a bit.

I would say the dynamic range is pretty excellent. Especially when using the Highlight Tone Priority mode. I would really need to do a side by side to give you some hard thoughts on the matter, but if you look at the landscapes I took in the review, like

and

you'll notice a great deal of highlight and shadow detail. I find this very impressive when shooting through morning fog which basically grabs onto the sunlight and holds it while maintaining the shadow details on the trees facing me.

Like I said in the review as well, the raw file out of the 1Ds Mark III is very workable. You can pretty much do what you'd like with it. Only terribly extreme adjustments begin to really degrade image quality.

Hope that helps.

 

[Michael Fontana]

Phil

did you already feeled, that the Mk3's resolution capabilities are surpassing the lens resolution?

Clearly, the Mk 3 has more resolution, so the lenses have to match it, too.

In your review, the widest prime is a 24 mm, can you comment on wider one's?
- as its really starting to °hurt° in that focal lenghts region.

Speculation: I could imagine, that a 12-24 mm Sigma will limit the sensor's capabilities to the resolution of a 1 Ds-2... any comment, Nicolas??

 

[nicolas claris]

Hi Michael, just a few trial test shots, show that the 12-24 is still a bit soft in corners… but not more than with the Ds2…

What makes a huge difference in IQ, is the raw converter used…

I have tried with the same files, ACR, LR 1.3, DPP (latest), Raw Converter and C1 4ß2.

The latter is clearly the winner (IMhO) better NR, better sharpness, better clarity… the issue is that it doesn't handle auto WB…

For now I'm checking the highlight protection (or whatever Canon calls it)… not sure it is really usefull if you shoot - for example - architecture with manual sttings… (which I do for yachts interiors).

 

[Michael Fontana]

.............
What makes a huge difference in IQ, is the raw converter used…

congratulation for your new baby, Nicolas!

meanwhile there might be in the future some converter's update, you raised a important point:

touching the limits of physics/reality, the software and the photographer's skills of understanding and using it will become more and more important.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Michael, just a few trial test shots, show that the 12-24 is still a bit soft in corners… but not more than with the Ds2…

What makes a huge difference in IQ, is the raw converter used…

I have tried with the same files, ACR, LR 1.3, DPP (latest), Raw Converter and C1 4ß2.

The latter is clearly the winner (IMhO) better NR, better sharpness, better clarity… the issue is that it doesn't handle auto WB…

Nicolas, you might want to drop Michael Tapes a note. I read that he is developing a new Raw converter (currently in beta if I'm not mistaken), and he might be interested in 1Ds3 support in his upcoming product. Maybe Asher can arrange a contact if necessary.

I've see conversion comparisons on the web between DxO 5 and C1 4ß (and a couple of others) which came out best with regards to the least amount of (mazing and aliasing) artifacts and the best retention of detail. C1 was my personal preference, DxO 5 came close but was more noisy (before NR). For me a big question mark is C1's future ability (or lack thereof) to reduce Chromatic Aberration (even more important with the 1Ds3).

For now I'm checking the highlight protection (or whatever Canon calls it)… not sure it is really usefull if you shoot - for example - architecture with manual sttings… (which I do for yachts interiors).

It's not useful if you already correctly expose to the right (it'll only cost you in reduced dynamic range).

Bart

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Phil: I'm getting to this a bit late, but I wanted to add my thanks for, and salute to, your -real- 1Ds III mini-review. It's an excellent, practical, hands-on piece that's head and shoulders above any such piece I've seen from any Internet pundits in recent memory. (It also shows that you're a practiced and skilled photographer, unlike most of the pundits. That makes a real difference.)

My 1Ds III has been on order since Oct 25. I had almost forgotten about it, as I've been immersed in a large photo project since then. Needless to say, your article made me very eager to get behind that viewfinder.

Thank you for your work, Phil.

 

[nicolas claris]

Bonjour Bart

Nicolas, you might want to drop Michael Tapes a note.
I read that he is developing a new Raw converter (currently in beta if I'm not mistaken), and he might be interested in 1Ds3 support in his upcoming product. Maybe Asher can arrange a contact if necessary.

Thanks for the info, I'll drop him an email soon!

I've see conversion comparisons on the web between DxO 5 and C1 4ß (and a couple of others) which came out best with regards to the least amount of (mazing and aliasing) artifacts and the best retention of detail. C1 was my personal preference, DxO 5 came close but was more noisy (before NR). For me a big question mark is C1's future ability (or lack thereof) to reduce Chromatic Aberration (even more important with the 1Ds3).

I've been a fan for long time of DxO but I find the software much unstable on OSX and still so slow…


It's not useful if you already correctly expose to the right (it'll only cost you in reduced dynamic range).

Yep! I agree but wanted to give it a try, manual mode is much better IMhO


Bart

 

[Ray West]

Hi Phil,

Don't stay away so long. I loved your 'Alice', described in detail on another forum, a year or two ago. I'm pleased to see it on your web site. Have you done anything similar more recently?

Best wishes,

Ray

 

[Edward Bussa]

I was so depressed after reading this review! One week with a new camera and Phil created images I can barely even imagine...

Excellent imagery.

I'm feeling a little better know though - I've decided maybe its the camera

 

[nicolas claris]

Update info for raw converters:
C1 ß4.2 doesn't recognize sRaw files from Ds3…

 

[nicolas claris]

http://www.artbyphil.com/phfx/photography/2007_Canon1DsIIIReview/index.html

Bonjour Phil

I didn't want to look at your review has I got my own ds3 body in the same time…
You know, in case you would have bad comments for the new Canon…

After I have done some test meself, I've read it (still not enough in depth, I must confess) this morning and I do agree with most of your conclusions, except about the lighness function, which doesn't work as well for me as for you. Certainly a way of personnal shooting…

Indoor, I have been for long time confronted with highlight/shadows (DR) and got used to do manual settings and PP to keep as much as details possible…
Outdoor, I find more DR and details with lightness disabled…

But what a machine! and what improvement from the -still- excellent Ds2…
we do both agree on this…

Thanks for sharing and for the time passed to do the tests, writing them and putting them on line… excellent and usefull job! (and pics BTW)

 

[Phil Holland]

Thanks for the kind words everybody. I'm very happy that so many people found the review helpful. The comments on the photographs mean even more than that.

I'll try to answer a few questions.

Michael Fontana - I have a pretty stellar copy of the 24mm f/1.4L, the reason why it was mentioned is that it's the widest I shot before I published the review. I have a Canon 20mm f/2.8, Sigma 14mm f/2.8, and 15mm f/2.8 that are wider. I'll be shooting with the 20mm this weekend. It's not great wide open, but around f/5.6-f/8 it tightens up. Like I said in the review though you're going to get the sharpest images from primes. I know on the 12mm of that Sigma the corners get pretty fuzzy as Nicolas stated. I also wasn't really impressed by the out of camera contrast. If compared to the now discontinued Sigma 14mm f/2.8 you'll notice that the zoom seems to have a little "gray" in the blacks.

Ken Tanaka - Thank you. I'm still very impressed by the viewfinder. It's not a drastic size increase on paper, but looking through it everyday makes a huge difference.

Ray West - I'll try not to! I just horribly busy sometimes and keeping up with all the forums gets difficult. I still lurk quite a bit though. I haven't done a personal project like Alice for a little while, but I will likely do 6-10 projects like that in 2008 in preparation for a new gallery show. I'm glad you liked that. It's one of the images/projects I'm pretty happy with vision-wise.

Edward Bussa - Thanks Edward. It's not all the camera, some of those shots in my folios are from the old 10D, 1Ds, and 1Ds Mark II. It's up to you to figure out which ones though.

Nicolas Claris - Congratulations on the new camera Nicolas. I think the Highlight Tone Priority mode test I did was rather extreme, which is why the results are so clear. I mean the strobe was a few inches from the glass and string. I think in the real world with things like wedding dresses, product work, skies in landscapes, and reflections on water people will still see the effect. But I think it won't be as dramatic.

Again the only real issue I have with the body is the missing auto focus points compared to the 1Ds Mark II. Other than that I'm pretty happy with the camera.

Thanks again everybody. And let me know if you have anymore questions.

p

 

[nicolas claris]

Thanks Phil for the answers…
BTW, I do like the new shutter noise when firing, so soft!
It makes the same difference with the DS2', as a car door slap Mercedes' compare to Renault's…

Not clack! but vlap…

Love it!

 

[Ralph Eisenberg]

Phil, would you have any further comments to make about the automatic WB handling of the Ds3, and in particular how you find its rendering of skin tones under a variety of lighting conditions? Thanks.

 

[Phil Holland]

Nicolas - It's a weird difference. It's a much softer noise like you said. When I took the first frame with the camera I thought it was broken because of that!

Ralph - Hi Ralph, I'm the wrong person to ask about automatic white balance. I only shoot in raw and pretty much only process my raws through Adobe Camera Raw. However, I do feel the camera renders skin tones very well. In that shot of Toby with the Arizona can the light pinks, greens, and blues were picked up very nicely in his face. I've been shooting a few more people since and I've been very pleased. If anything, a straight raw file may have a little more saturation in the reds than real life, but it's easily dialed down to what you would feel "real" is. Canon's images are sort of known for that though.

 

[Ralph Eisenberg]

Thank you Phil. In fact, even though I exclusively use Raw, I wished to know whether the camera under AWB will get me in the right color temp ball park. Admittedly, I should have framed my question both in terms of a subjective comparison with the 1Ds2 (that is, if there is an improvement) and also whether in some prints the tonal and color transitions reflect the 14-bit capture and are thereby enhanced to your eye.