Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the 1dsmk3 sensor worth $4k more than the 1dmk3

Go to last post
D

Dragos Nenciu

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
491
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I just tested the 1dmk3 and 1dsmk3 side by side today and honestly the image quality to me was better on the 1dmk3 than the 1dsmk3.

Sure 1ds mk3 has higher mpx and more detail if you need it. But the 1d mk3 has much better shadow noise even at low iso.

And if you don't print large enough to need the extra resolution you are losing image quality.

Personally I don't think that the sensor in the 1dsmk3 is worth $4k more than the 1dmk3.

Yes the 1ds is FF and 1d is crop. And yes that is also the reason I went from a 1dmk2 to a 5D I don't regret my choice but I don't really like the body/features on the 5D and would like to return to a 1 series body.

Is just that I can either lose the FF by buying a 1dmk3 or pay a lot more money and slow my whole PP process to get worse images from the 1dsmk3.

So anybody else thinks the 1dsmk3 should not be selling for 8k?
 
No one else can answer that for you. If you don't think it's worth the money, then it's not worth the money to you, which is pretty much the bottom line.

Personally, I print large enough to take advantage of the added detail. That's me, not you. Your mileage may vary.

--
"Passion will make you crazy, but is there any other way to live?" —Kara Saun
 
Yes I agree, if you see the difference and need the extra resolution than you have no choice.

That is not the point. What I wanted to say is that you pay $4K more just for the diff in sensor from 10mpx crop to 21mpx FF.

And I don't think is worth it $4k. If you need the extra res you have no choice but to pay the 4k extra.

But canon should not have sold it at 8k

And I am sure that the price will go down eventually.
 
1Ds and 1DsMark II were also priced at $8,000 and I don't believe the price came down much. If Canon can sell FF for $8,000 and people buy them why would they lower the price? And why do you think the price should be lower? FF sensors are very expensive too make especially as the resolution goes up.

Mike
 
Welcome to the forums. It's nice to have a fellow Ro here.

First, could you post some of the images you took to compare the cameras and tell us what you see in them.

Second, what kind of work do you do and what do you understand by "image quality?"

I didn't have enough patience to check how the images on Imaging-Resource were created (they say "unaltered out of camera image"), but I have to say that the 1Ds3 is the only camera that made me envious (my current camera is a 1D2n) so I am a bit surprised to hear you disappointed.

Best regards,
Alex

PS: why not get a D700, or are you stuck on Canon?
--
..NOT washing my hands before every shoot ANY MORE..
hopefully
 
I will try to post the images tonight.

I don't find the 1ds to be a bad camera by any means.

I applaud the MF mpx (21) and there are a lot of improvements over the 1ds mk2 is just that I find that image quality over 1dsmk2 has not improved much.

A bit better highlights, a bit better colors but beside that same shadow noise at lower isos.

If I had a 1dsmk2 I would not feel tempted to upgrade it to the 1dsmk3.

On the other hand I find that the image quality of the 1dmk3 is a big improvement over the 1dmk2 I had.
 
for me the most important aspect was iso and shadow noise and being able to salvage a photo that has been underexposed by 1-2 stops.

I shot both in the same env.

I good light at low iso ignoring the mpx even a rebel compares to the 1ds.

I totally agree that if you need the 21mpx the 1ds is great.

In my case I don't need it.

I am more than happy with the 12mpx in my 5d so all I get from the 1ds is more processing time and bigger files.

My problem is that I do not have a choice I love the 1dx bodies had a 1dmk2, but I need FF for my primes/zooms to have the intended range.
 
Still didn't say what is IQ (although you mentioned a few things) or what work you do.

Regards,
Alex
--
..NOT washing my hands before every shoot ANY MORE..
hopefully
 
I shoot all kinds of things from portraits, to landscapes, to receptions.

It is just a hobby for me. I don't make much money out of it.

And yes I agree that I am a gear head I like all the latest and greatest. :)

I don't shoot sports and rarely need motion tracking or fast fps. That is why I traded the 1dmk2 for a 5d.

Is just that from a functionality perspective the 5D is so much less than the 1dmk2 and I don't want to return to crop.

Nikon is not an option as I have too much invested in lenses. So I only have a choice between a used 1dsmk2 or a new 1dsmk3. The 1dsmk2 is still a great camera but is old.

And the 1dsmk3 is too expensive for me.

So I guess is just my point of view and I am not a good customer for the 1dsmk3 I guess.

What I know is that I will not be getting the 5dmk2 or whatever is called if it continues to use a souped up xxD body/features even if it has 16mpx and iso25600.
 
I was thinking similar things about the cost vs the extra resolution. Luckily Nikon and Sony is on the rise and either way hopefully a 20+mp body will sell for about $5-6k within 2 yrs or so.

As of today I think the 1Ds3 is not expensive if the user is comparing it to Hassy's. Also quite a lot of people go rent the 1Ds3 on assignment basis if needed and pass the cost along to the clients who demand that kind of resolution. If I were to own one out right I better make sure the break even pt come soon enough. Owning one as a toy for the hobby? If you can afford it, and be happy with it, you don't even need to make a single print to justify the cost.

Of course with bigger files you'll also need to upgrade your computer storage, ram, and bigger mem cards, etc.
Dragos Nenciu said:
I just tested the 1dmk3 and 1dsmk3 side by side today and honestly
the image quality to me was better on the 1dmk3 than the 1dsmk3.

Sure 1ds mk3 has higher mpx and more detail if you need it. But the
1d mk3 has much better shadow noise even at low iso.

And if you don't print large enough to need the extra resolution you
are losing image quality.

Personally I don't think that the sensor in the 1dsmk3 is worth $4k
more than the 1dmk3.

Yes the 1ds is FF and 1d is crop. And yes that is also the reason I
went from a 1dmk2 to a 5D I don't regret my choice but I don't really
like the body/features on the 5D and would like to return to a 1
series body.

Is just that I can either lose the FF by buying a 1dmk3 or pay a lot
more money and slow my whole PP process to get worse images from the
1dsmk3.

So anybody else thinks the 1dsmk3 should not be selling for 8k?
Click to expand...
--

 
YES!
I like it. :0)

Mine mine mine…….

--
I am out to take the perfect picture, if it exits! :)
 
Dragos Nenciu said:
for me the most important aspect was iso and shadow noise and being
able to salvage a photo that has been underexposed by 1-2 stops.

I shot both in the same env.

I good light at low iso ignoring the mpx even a rebel compares to the
1ds.

I totally agree that if you need the 21mpx the 1ds is great.

In my case I don't need it.

I am more than happy with the 12mpx in my 5d so all I get from the
1ds is more processing time and bigger files.
Click to expand...
Read the brochure, there is more.
Dragos Nenciu said:
My problem is that I do not have a choice I love the 1dx bodies had a
1dmk2, but I need FF for my primes/zooms to have the intended range.
Click to expand...
There are always choices, you may not like them - but they are there.

Want Canon FF? 1Ds, 1DsMKII, 1DsMKIII, 5D.

Want Canon 1D series body? 1D, 1DMKII, 1DMKIIN, 1DMKIII, 1Ds, 1DsMKII, 1DsMKIII.

Want faster processing time? Buy faster a computer and learn to take better pictures.

I know this is painfully obvious, but your "problem" is a painfully silly one (to me). You seem to be complaining just to be complaining. You are complaining that the "perfect" camera at the "perfect" price is not in your hands this instant, or at least not in the stores right now.

Maybe you're just "thinking" out loud, I don't know. Sometimes having others respond to what you perceive as "problems" gives you pause to re-think what you consider to be problems.

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.
 
Sure there are:

I am not complaining, I am just stating my problem.

I would like to upgrade the 5D for the reasons described above.

The 1d mk1, mk2, mk3 are not FF so they are out of question for me.

The 1ds is really old, the 1ds mk2 is a nice camera but is old already and I can only buy it used and the 5d had better IQ than it.

1Ds mk3 is a step up but the iso performance is not better than the 1dsmk2 and also is expensive.

But the thread was not about my problem with what to upgrade to it was about wether the 1dsmk3 is expensive or not.

And the consensus I got is that its not expensive for the people that really need it's resolution and can aford/justify the cost.

In my case it is so I will see what the solution is.
 
The 1DsMkIII is probably $3000 overpriced, relative to the 1DMkIII, and $4000 overpriced, relative to the 5D. But, hey, people are buying it. I'm hoping that Nikon introduces a 24MP FF D700X/D800 for about $3500 and Sony does likewise with their FF model. It'll also be interesting to see if Canon introduces a 16MP, 5FPS, $2200 5DMkII.

--
Bob
 
Dragos Nenciu said:
Sure there are:

I am not complaining, I am just stating my problem.
Click to expand...
Not a problem, what you want is not available
Dragos Nenciu said:
I would like to upgrade the 5D for the reasons described above.
Click to expand...
Ok
Dragos Nenciu said:
The 1d mk1, mk2, mk3 are not FF so they are out of question for me.
Click to expand...
Ok
Dragos Nenciu said:
The 1ds is really old, the 1ds mk2 is a nice camera but is old
already and I can only buy it used and the 5d had better IQ than it.
Click to expand...
If your 5d has better IQ then why are you warring about these?
Dragos Nenciu said:
1Ds mk3 is a step up but the iso performance is not better than the
1dsmk2 and also is expensive.
Click to expand...
I had a 1Ds Mark II before my 1Ds Mark III and the IQ of the 1Ds3 is better than the 1Ds2, and they both cost the same.
Dragos Nenciu said:
But the thread was not about my problem with what to upgrade to it
was about wether the 1dsmk3 is expensive or not.
Click to expand...
Only if you can’t afford it.
Dragos Nenciu said:
And the consensus I got is that its not expensive for the people that
really need it's resolution and can aford/justify the cost.
Click to expand...
The great majority of the 1Ds Mark III's were purchased by people who wanted it and could afford to buy it, and we do not need to justify why we purchased the 1Ds Mark III.
Dragos Nenciu said:
In my case it is so I will see what the solution is.
Click to expand...
--
I am out to take the perfect picture, if it exits! :)
 
Dragos Nenciu said:
Sure there are:

I am not complaining, I am just stating my problem.
Click to expand...
I read it as complaining, a mistake on my part.
Dragos Nenciu said:
I would like to upgrade the 5D for the reasons described above.
Click to expand...
Then you know the two best choices.
1. Wait for Canon to release a new camera that comes closer to what you want.
2. Buy a Nikon D3 and lens now.
Dragos Nenciu said:
The 1D, 1DMKII, 1DMKIIN, 1DMKIII are not FF so they are out of question for me.
Click to expand...
I figured as much, but are choices that fit your love of 1D bodies just the same. I told you you wouldn't like some of the choices.
Dragos Nenciu said:
The 1Ds is really old, the 1DsMKII is a nice camera but is old
already and I can only buy it used and the 5D had better IQ than it.
Click to expand...
I figured as much, but are choices that fit your love of 1D bodies just the same. I told you you wouldn't like some of the choices.
Dragos Nenciu said:
1DsMKIII is a step up but the ISO performance is not better than the
1DsMKII and also is expensive.
Click to expand...
ISO performance is what it is, because it's a studio camera.
Dragos Nenciu said:
But the thread was not about my problem with what to upgrade to it
was about weather the 1DsMKIII is expensive or not.
Click to expand...
Being purely pragmatic, the question weather a popular, well selling, product is expensive or not seems, well... a bit frivolous.
Dragos Nenciu said:
And the consensus I got is that its not expensive for the people that
really need it's resolution and can afford/justify the cost.
Click to expand...
Again, pragmatically speaking, did you really think otherwise?

BTW - "justifying cost" and "need" are not good barometers on weather or not someone thinks a product in expensive.
Dragos Nenciu said:
In my case it is, so I will see what the solution is.
Click to expand...
I'm done picking the nits.
Good luck. I'm reasonably sure something will come along soon.

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top