1DsIII vs. 5D real life experience

I'd like to share a real life experience, simple and streight forword:
Borrowed a 1DsIII and compared it to my 5D

My areas: Portraits and Landscape, no sports
My principle: I trust real pictures more than text.

Goal: big enlargements (60 x 90 cm) so I wanted to know, what degree of improvement the 1 Ds III can deliver in real world.

My method: 5D, 1DsIII, tripod, RAW (yes I am not Ken), MLU, ASA200, Mode P, same Optic 24-105L

See the result: (location is Fraueninsel, Chiemsee, Bavaria, Germany South)



My result:
I assume, that my optic fits perfectly to my 5D.
Obviously this optic does not fit perfectly to the 1DsMkIII
Even corrected, there is really very little difference between the two.

To be honest, I expected a different result, but OK, that's real life.
Send me your comments, perhaps I oversaw something.

Albert

I'm only guessing...

I read somewhere that with the amount of pixel density that the Mark III has it causes diffraction to occur at apertures larger than when the 5D has diffraction occur.

For example... Lets say diffraction for the 5D occurs at F13 but for the Mark III 1Ds it starts to happen at F8. So if you shot two identical shots at F10 the image from the 1Ds Mark III would look like it has less detail.

I've only heard this which probably is complete rubbish. Maybe its something entirely different.

Hopefully someone else comes here with more knowledge on the matter.

Sorry Albert.

This is a terrible picture for comparison. Why don't you throw a pic in from your phone so we get a better idea of dynamic range.
--
Just my two cents worth in a world that gives a
penny for my thoughts.

As the sensor's individual site size decreases, smaller aperatures cause serious loss of resolution due to diffraction. You can't ignore the laws of physics. I'm beginning to think that the 5D is close to optimum for f8-f13. This is also quite often the best "sweet spot" for many lenses. Voila! The 5D produces fantastic images under these circumstances.
Malcolm

In looking at the lower section of the photo, the MkIII seems to have greater detail in the water waves and dock pylons as well as the door on the boathouse.

I have done similar tests with my 1DMIIN and 1DSMII. Given that the DS has 16 MP, it will show greater detail and allow me to crop and crop without much penalty.

I would think the same holds try between the 5D and 1DSMIII.

--
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right!

Hello Guys,

your comments accepted, I guess you're on the wrong track:

forget defraction - it's 5.6
I put a EXIF here



I admit, it's a huge crop out of the original - get an impression of the original here:



Albert

Are you kidding? Both of these shots look like they came from a camera phone.
--
Just my two cents worth in a world that gives a
penny for my thoughts.

24-105L is soft on the long side. Neither does it belong to top of the line.

Interesting test, especially since I'm waiting for my new 1DsIII after shooting 2 years with my 5D.

Very interesting and unavoidable for fair comparison are the exif-data, which in this case (thanks for showing them) show following eventually problematic points:

Speed was not the same (1/100 DsIII vs. 1/160 5D), which might explain the difference (how stable was your tripod? did you use mirror-lockup?)

The lens you used is popular since it gives good versatility, but it is not specifically sharp. I reed regularly that the 1DsIII will profit from its pixel-density only with the sharpest lenses, since otherwise optics might be the limiting factor). Well, optics for the 5D in this case was the same, but I might not be the ideal combination with the 1DsIII.

There are much postings, that lenses fitted perfectly out of the box with the 5D, but they needed to be calibrated with the 1DsIII. So before the test you did has some significance, I guess you should do a perfect calibration for both cameras before such a test; at least, you should do a "pixel-peeping" sharpness-test of the 1DsIII - lens - combination and eventuelly micro-adjustements (or did you do that before?).

Fazit:

1. For such a test, I would take only the sharpest lens, for example the 300 2.8 IS.

2. I would make shure that the lenses are perfectly calibrated for the lens-camera combination (there is much reading how many had to calibrate their lenses on the 1DsIII whereas they had no problem with the 5D).

3. Speed and aperture-value must be the same, aperture - value best between 4-6.

4. Mirror-lockup is a must.

5. Tripod must be very stable.

Only under these conditions I would give the test-result some significance.

--
pt

jonlee1 said:

I have done similar tests with my 1DMIIN and 1DSMII. Given that the
DS has 16 MP, it will show greater detail and allow me to crop and
crop without much penalty.

Click to expand...

The 1DS2 has the same weakness of AA the 5D has (only more refined) - has the 1DS-3 got one as weak? - I don't know but it doesn't look as sharp in those crops, there could be of course other variables such as RAW converter used not being Equally Honest with both files - the 5D is natively Cleaner so may be adding detail killing NR to the 1DS3 files ??

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist



P880 E1 - The Colourmeisters

Loooks like 5D better in fine details or sharpness and 1DsMark3 better in color reproduction.

I also suggest you to use prime lenses, not zooms for such tests

looks like some form of movement during the exposure on the 1ds, did you use mirror up? Wow the 5D certainly holds it own thou.
--
5d, Fuji S2 --- I love my 10.5mm fisheye

Alberti Barnes said:

Hello Guys,

your comments accepted, I guess you're on the wrong track:

forget defraction - it's 5.6
I put a EXIF here



I admit, it's a huge crop out of the original - get an impression of
the original here:



Albert

Click to expand...

How can the details in the both your images be sampled by the same number of pixels when the 1DsmkIII have smaller pixels and you used the same focal length, distance and framing ?

You also set the the scaling to 66% in both images.

Something doesn't add up here. Did you resample the images ?

--
Henrik