Reading mode: Light Dark

RAW in 1DsIII seem far, far richer than RAW in 60D. Why?

Go to last post
R

Rational

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
369
Reaction score
92
Location
US
I shot a large number of photos of basically the same event, both with the 1DsIII and the 60D. Processed both with Adobe CS5's included RAW converter.

Both cameras have a roughly comparable number of megapixels and bits per pixel, yet the RAW files for the 1DsIII are vastly richer and more amenable to customized jpg outputs from the Adobe RAW decoders. The slider levels in CS5's RAW converter result in a much, much larger spectrum of effects for the 1DSIII RAW files than for the 60D RAW files. Why is that?

Just saying "full frame vs. cropped frame focal plane" does not answer the question.
 
The Adobe software might be giving you different default values for each of the cameras, either as managed presets or as based on in-camera parameters. Check ALL of the settings tabs, including contrast, brightness, saturation, vibrance, levels, sharpness, etc. as well as the oft-overlooked camera profile.

Other thing to do is to select Sync settings from one camera file to the other camera file. Make sure the sync choices box has EVERYTHING checked. Then see if you notice any change.

You are correct... sensor size alone does not explain "far, far richer" images. But if, for example, one camera's files are set as Landscape, and another at Adobe Standard, the two files WILL appear different.
Rational said:
I shot a large number of photos of basically the same event, both with the 1DsIII and the 60D. Processed both with Adobe CS5's included RAW converter.

Both cameras have a roughly comparable number of megapixels and bits per pixel, yet the RAW files for the 1DsIII are vastly richer and more amenable to customized jpg outputs from the Adobe RAW decoders. The slider levels in CS5's RAW converter result in a much, much larger spectrum of effects for the 1DSIII RAW files than for the 60D RAW files. Why is that?

Just saying "full frame vs. cropped frame focal plane" does not answer the question.
Click to expand...
 
Rational said:
I shot a large number of photos of basically the same event, both with the 1DsIII and the 60D. Processed both with Adobe CS5's included RAW converter.

Both cameras have a roughly comparable number of megapixels and bits per pixel, yet the RAW files for the 1DsIII are vastly richer and more amenable to customized jpg outputs from the Adobe RAW decoders. The slider levels in CS5's RAW converter result in a much, much larger spectrum of effects for the 1DSIII RAW files than for the 60D RAW files. Why is that?

Just saying "full frame vs. cropped frame focal plane" does not answer the question.
Click to expand...
Well, you are going to have to ask the question much better to get a better answer.
What were you comparing with what?

If you were comparing shots at the same exposure settings (shutter speed and f-number) then like portions (let's say on 18-millionth, the size of the 60D pixel) of the sensor, which will end up the same size of the final image, are receiving 2.65 times as many photons on the 1DsIII. Now the 60D sensor is about 1/3 more efficient, so in the end the 1DsIII is receiving twice the number of photons as the 60D, that's a stop more or a stop better noise in each colour channel.

If you were comparing them trying to take the same photograph (same framing, angle of view, shutter speed and depth of field) then like potions of the sensor would receive exactly the same number of photons, so the 60D would be a bit better, due to its higher efficiency - the 1DsIII would probably win for detail, though due to the lower magnification required from the lens.

--
Bob
 
Can you confirm that both camera are using the same color space? color responds from sRGB and adobeRGB are difference.
 
Yes, I am using sRGB for both cameras. Also, the same basic scenes and camera settings for both cameras.

Since the RAW format suffix of the file name for the 1DsIII and the 60D is different, I can only suspect that either each of these two camera models save different information in its respective RAW files, or that the Adobe CS5 software processes each differently (or both).

Not quite sure what was meant by a responded who recommended matching camera presets. I thought that RAW files are, well, "raw" and unaffected by camera presets that are intended for JPG customization. Regardless, both cameras are set to the same basic settings.

Will be happy to upload an example of RAW files from each camera for basically the same scene (well, not "upload" here, because they are huge files, but to a web site that I can provide the URL for here).
 
Rational said:
Since the RAW format suffix of the file name for the 1DsIII and the 60D is different, I can only suspect that either each of these two camera models save different information in its respective RAW files, or that the Adobe CS5 software processes each differently (or both).
Click to expand...
I just looked at the IR test files, and as far as I can see, they both yield a '.CR2' just like every other Canon DSLR. I though at first that you might have accidentally switched one to sRAW or mRaw, but those are '.CR2' too. What are the suffices that you see?

--
Bob
 
You are right about the RAW file name suffixes being the same (CR2). The contents, however, are different. I took a sample of the same object with the two cameras and processed both identically with Photoshop CS5 and got totally different results.

I tried to upload the results to flickr but it has a limitation of 20MB/file which is exceeded by all these files individually.
 
Rational said:
You are right about the RAW file name suffixes being the same (CR2). The contents, however, are different. I took a sample of the same object with the two cameras and processed both identically with Photoshop CS5 and got totally different results.
Click to expand...
The contents will of course be different, because the sensors are different so teh raw data coming from them is different.
Rational said:
I tried to upload the results to flickr but it has a limitation of 20MB/file which is exceeded by all these files individually.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what it is that you tried to upload to flckr, the CR2's or the result after processing. The result after processing will probably be a JPEG, if you want to put it on a web resource such as flickr. Can I suggest a bit more information on what you've actually done:

What was the shot (how about a processed JPEG from each, so we can see what you mean)

Exposure details for both (see my post) and other settings. An EXIF dump would do this all in one go..

Maybe some screen dumps from CS5, showing the processing options and what are the effects that you are talking about.
--
Bob
 
I took a photo of a colorful chair outdoors shot with both cameras at ISO:250 focal length about 100mm (actual for the 1DsIII, full frame equivalent for the 60D), same white balance, and same everything else. Saved both cameras' versions as RAW files (.CR2), and then used Photoshop CS5 to do the identical processing on both which was to maximize saturation on each RAW image by the same amount. Then saved the results as the high resolution JPG file for each.

I would have expected comparable results. Instead, the image taken with the 60D was visibly less saturated and had a washed-out look.

Now, I appreciate that there are far too many other variables at work here for an apples-to-apples comparison,such as different lenses, but at the macro level I would have expected both images to be comparable in saturation, contrast, visual appeal, etc. They were quite different, in fact. (The lens for the 1DsII was the 24-105mm L, and the one for the 60D was the new Tamron 18-270 VC PZT one).

I suppose one gets what one pays for. The 1DsIII costs about 6+ times more than the 60D. It is just that it is much heavier to haul around for any length of time.

Appreciate your comments. No need to concern yourself with this any more.
 
Try with the same lens. The 24-105 have much more contrast and color saturation than the Tamron. Try both lenses on both cameras to see the difference.
 
I would think the different choice of lenses here would provide a good explanation for the differences in IQ - much moreso than the cameras. Did you take that into your assessment?
Rational said:
The lens for the 1DsII was the 24-105mm L, and the one for the 60D was the new Tamron 18-270 VC PZT one).
Click to expand...
 
bobn2 said:
I just looked at the IR test files, and as far as I can see, they both yield a '.CR2' just like every other Canon DSLR.
Click to expand...
My 10D (a Canon DSLR) generated .CRW files.

--

 
arthon said:
Try with the same lens. The 24-105 have much more contrast and color saturation than the Tamron. Try both lenses on both cameras to see the difference.
Click to expand...
I agree, expecting a 15x superzoom on APS-C to give comparable results to a 5x L zoom on FF is a big ask.
--
Bob
 
Victor,

As the "2" in the suffix suggests, .CR2 are Canon's second generation raw file format that has been around since the 20D. The original CRW format is notably different in that the thumbnail preview was not embedded in the raw file, but was a separate THM file. (These files, by the way, are useless to keep, even though they consume very little space. Raw software will generate their previews just fine, just as with the CR2 files.)

The numbers of us users who still have and use these early generation bodies is seriously diminishing. (I still have and actually use both a 10D and the original D30 on occasion, in addition to newer bodies, as they are not worth as much on the market as they are for me; 10D bodies are barely fetching $150-200 these days, and D30 bodies are half that. I pull out that D30 for photographing motorcycle and car parts whenever I'm doing mechanical repairs for reference photos. The 10D is great for occasionl snapshots and travel trips when I don't want to use the big 1D-series bodies.)

So obviously, the poster was referring to every current DSLR rather than every Canon DSLR ever.
Victor Engel said:
bobn2 said:
I just looked at the IR test files, and as far as I can see, they both yield a '.CR2' just like every other Canon DSLR.
Click to expand...
My 10D (a Canon DSLR) generated .CRW files.

--

Click to expand...
 
After you try both cameras with the same lens, the next experiment I would do would be to process both raws with Canon DPP just to see if the results from it are any different than ACR.
 
the 1DsIII has a CFA that prioritizes color separation over transmissivity (which is the compromise with consumer cameras starting with the 5DII that results in less accurate color). The 1DsIII's larger pixels also have the potential for collection more electrons before saturation, so highlight recovery is more effective. Finally, generally higher quality electronics should translate into lower read noise and more usable dynamic range. I can't believe you're actually surprised that 1DsIII files are of significantly higher quality and malleability compared to those from the 60D. I would expect that to be, and in my experience it always is, the case.
Rational said:
I shot a large number of photos of basically the same event, both with the 1DsIII and the 60D. Processed both with Adobe CS5's included RAW converter.

Both cameras have a roughly comparable number of megapixels and bits per pixel, yet the RAW files for the 1DsIII are vastly richer and more amenable to customized jpg outputs from the Adobe RAW decoders. The slider levels in CS5's RAW converter result in a much, much larger spectrum of effects for the 1DSIII RAW files than for the 60D RAW files. Why is that?

Just saying "full frame vs. cropped frame focal plane" does not answer the question.
Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com
 
Steven Noyes said:
The simple answer is the 1Ds Mk III costs $7500 for a reason.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The reason is called Canon marketing's pricing policy.
Steven Noyes said:
Part of that, IMO, seems to be a better CFA when compared to the consumer cameras like the 60D, 7D and even the 5D Mk II.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this really holds water. Here is the DxO tested CFA response of the 1DsIII



It looks remarkably similar to that of the 60D



and rather different from that of the D3X



--
Bob
 
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