1Ds III only 4 of 5 stars for image quality...

[f8BeThere]

Well, not long ago, when before D3 existed, Canon users says 5D is the best camera ever produced.Many stated this simply because of it's high ISO capabilities. Many even poh poh the 1ds MKII in spite of the high pixel count. Perhaps, it was Canonite world wide who caused this sort of mentality to take place in the first place.

BTW, I am a Canon user.

 

[Ludovic Monchat]

But this guy is practically correct. Let me develop.

Ratings are nothing but snapshots of a certain period and should be considered for what they mean during a limited time, for digital imaging maybe a couple of years but not more.

Imagine the D30 Canon today on DPR...He would be noted "way below average" and maybe could get one star. 10 years ago it was a real wonder. "highly recommended"

Imagine a Château Margaux 1945. 5 Stars. The very same 1961, 1982, 1990, all are 5 stars wines.

The purpose of the example is to show that some things are timeless, others no.

In this case the D3 established a new rank on it's own. It's a brand new beast able to make obsolete or tarnish any existing camera, and even Phil will soon be announcing it. Just read the test of the D300, a smaller D3 and you will be convinced. He stated that "There's simply no better semi-professional digital SLR on the market."

The D3 will have the very same complimentjust switching semi-professional with professional.

So don't be upset if the press changes ranking and re adjust the 1Ds. Every tower is the highest, until someone build one more high and in this case, you must change your PR ;0)

The 1DsmkIII is certainly a pleasure to work with, but in good light conditions only and if you print very, very large only. For the rest the D3 is probably more interesting. Let's wait and see if the leakd 5DII is as good if not better. I'm not so sure as Canon would have needed more time after the D3/D300 release to really kick R&D butts but who knows...

Ludo from Paris
Tankers of tools, thimbels of talent
BestOf http://ludo.smugmug.com/gallery/1158249

 

[ghpoty]

That assessment is somewhat misleading.

--
http://www.photography-blog.com/

 

[Woody W.]

Several years ago, the issue wasn't just high ISO noise, but noise in general, and when the Canon D30 and D60, as well as the original 1Ds, came out they were clearly superior at ALL ISO's to anything else in the market. And the D60's low ISO images can still stand up against just about any camera at 12x18 or below - the 1Ds at 20x24 or even larger.

So in that regard, there are no truly "bad" DSLRs out there today, and judgements need to be made closer to the fringes of the spec sheet. I understand that, but the point the OP had about the review was that the reviewer's only apparent concern with awarding 5-stars for image quality was high ISO noise.

Even in the beginning there was much more to an image than that, though noise definitely played a big part; but that was then, and today everything is so good that noise shouldn't be as much of a factor, let alone the only one.

--

• Woody -

Eqiupment: Lots. (partial list in profile)

Quote: 'The only thing some people will believe is their own eyes. But in the realm of the quality of a printed image, is there really anything else that can be believed? '

 

[Ominous]

Different cameras, different designed applications.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
http://flickr.com/photos/eric_whalen/

 

[Woody W.]

I am certain the D3 is a marvelous camera in every way. So is the 1Ds III. And I'm sure the new FF Sony will be as well.

Yet they are three very different animals. When people ask me about which camera to buy, my principle criteria (and I hope don't sound too much like MR over at LL) is to tell them to pick up the camera and handle it. See which one feels best in your hands, with the controls where you can easily reach them, without hitting the wrong one by accident.

Sure I explain the difference in lens systems, etc... but the reality is that unless you push the edges (and few of these folks will), virtually any DSLR on the market today will allow you to take pictures that are skill or environment limited, rather than equipment limited.

--

• Woody -

Eqiupment: Lots. (partial list in profile)

Quote: 'The only thing some people will believe is their own eyes. But in the realm of the quality of a printed image, is there really anything else that can be believed? '

 

[Mark-M]

I find this utterly good for consumers. Competition is a good thing, regardless if it is your brand of camera or not.

Can you believe this? I find this utterly preposterous.
http://www.doglesbyimages.com

--
Mark-M

 

[SDRebel]

Try setting your 1Ds3 to ISO 12800 so you can get a late night shoot in a downtown urban setting at 100th of a second. You can't do it.

Consequently, if that is the sort of photography on a particular evening you want to enjoy, the D3 would be the camera of choice.

Of course, you can fiddle with the 1Ds3 and perhaps get a similar shot. I don't know for certain. All I know is that I am limited to an ISO setting with my 1Ds3 to H (3200).

I also know that many sites carry D3 photographs taken at 6400 ISO that appear perfectly acceptable for photography of the sort I am talking about.

What I don't know, and what I don't know is legion, is whether Canon's technology will permit it to meet the Nikon high ISO challenge.

High ISO may not matter to many people and so Canon may not even bother to meet the challenge. Again, I don't know. What I do know is that the buzz concerning the D3 is particularly focused on high ISO and low noise. Absent that, I have no particular reason to be interested in the D3. It would be a very different matter if I owned a number of Nikon lenses, but I don't.

 

[Ominous]

Link to full size

http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen/image/84787478/original

It's possible to do...is it that pretty? Nope.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen
http://flickr.com/photos/eric_whalen/

 

[Jim Moy]

Why are they even reviewing the most outrageous DSLR you can buy!

 

[J A K]

So don't be upset if the press changes ranking and re adjust the 1Ds.

Ludo, the real issue is the "re-adjust", not the actual rankings by themselves. I think most folks will agree it makes absolutely zero sense to change a ranking of an older camera just because a new camera is released.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter



SEARCHING FOR A BETTER SELF PORTRAIT

 

[FretNoMore]

Are the minor differences between these two top-of-the-line cameras what make or break your photography? Does the difference in noise even matter one bit, especially in a print of equal size, and do you really think this is what people see when looking at your photos?

Does an opinion from Popular Photography make any difference to the quality of your photos? Is the title "best camera" more important to you than "best photos"?

Maybe people should really worry more about other things...

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

 

[SDRebel]

I'll give that a try.

I understand your point regarding the noise; however, if one is taking urban photographs at night the noise actually contributes to the atmosphere and so may not by some, at least, be considered a problem.

Now, can you get to ISO 25600?

 

[Ghozer]

Never said it had any impact on my photography. Kind of a weird non sequitur from you. The point is the review is seriously flawed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are the minor differences between these two top-of-the-line cameras
what make or break your photography? Does the difference in noise
even matter one bit, especially in a print of equal size, and do you
really think this is what people see when looking at your photos?

Does an opinion from Popular Photography make any difference to the
quality of your photos? Is the title "best camera" more important to
you than "best photos"?

Maybe people should really worry more about other things...

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

--
Cheers,
Doug

http://www.doglesbyimages.com

 

[FretNoMore]

Never said it had any impact on my photography. Kind of a weird non
sequitur from you. The point is the review is seriously flawed.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Never said you did, but maybe I touched a nerve?

Things is, why do you even care about what Popular Photography writes, they are not exactly known to be the best source, and does it matter one bit anyway what they think?

A lot of people here obsess about this though, when they should spend their time on more important aspects of photography. Like taking pictures ...

EVen if I did care, the review is meaningless unless they define what they mean with "better" - which depends on your needs and wants, and how and for what you use your camera.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

 

[candleJack]

And furthermore i think you have a right to be outraged. If you paid money for the magazine then the review they gave is insulting to you as a customer. However this kind of thing happens all the time and you can just stop buying their "work." I went through a similar situation, and although my expectations of the Romanian version of "Photo magazine" were i think lower than yours my disappointment with the technical writing was.. well, let's just say i never even thought of buying that pile of garbage again. I guess there are some people who's purpose is to amaze us with their incompetence. Have a laugh if you can and say good-bye.
--
..washing my hands before every shoot..

 

[Honor]

and they did according to your quote of their review. But here is my take :

This has been an ongoing subject of debate you can't compare two FF sensors with different pixel count on noise unless you down rez the picture from the higher MP camera. If down rez is down correctly (which you don't know they have) then it is essentially a Low pass filter that will 2D curve-average neighbooring pixels at each pixel. It is a well known fact that noise being a random process an averaging of N pixels into 1 pixel results in a noise over signal reduction of sqrt(N). There are two ways to make a visual comparison between the protagonist cameras either print same size pictures of same subject angle with different dpi so as to effectively print every pixels of the higher MP camera or do a downrez first then print at the same pixel count. In the first case the averaging is done by your eye due to minimum angular vision and in the second case you get some help from the downrez Post processing but there should not be a difference. Now if you blow out the print and peek at the pixels it is not a fair comparison. Basic law of physics imply that a larger pixel area will gather more light (photon count) therefore signal strength will be proportional to the increase in area. That is the same N number as the number of pixels you do average on when downrez the higher MP camera pic.

So for the noise IQ to be the same when making the correct comparison the noise has to scale up by no more than N/sqrt(N) = sqrt(N) as pixel count is increased. So the real question is :

Is the 1dsMIII noise at each photosite sqrt(21.1/12.1)= 1.32 times more but no more than for the D3 ? If so the cameras are equals for noise IQ

There is one caveat to the scalibility of the signal since the D3 sensor is claimed to have micro lenses meaning the part of the sensor surface that is not a light sensitive -think of it as a grid- is not flat but more like a waffle 3D shape which redirects photons landing on the non sensitive part to photsites. Canon has not used this technology but you bet they will next. For noise scalability without getting into greater details this is a direct consequence of semiconductor technology being used. The smaller the better. Currently it is below 10 nano meter. This is usely quite uniform accross the industry.

 

[Dave Harpe]

Excellent point. According to this reviewer's logic - MF backs are far inferior to any other camera out there...

 

[Morbius]

It's a UK magazine. I've typically enjoyed their magazine until now.
I'll never buy it again after this display of utter ignorance.

You mean after they didn't praise your brand of camera enough or gasp like Nikon more!!??

It's entirely reasonable to adjust any marking scale according to what else is available. What was judged a good digital cam 5 or so years ago would be pretty average by todays standards and if it was given 5 stars then should get less now. Technology improves and standards change - thank goodness. Today it's Nikon doing well, tomorrow it will be Canon. Settle down.

 

[Robert Whiteman]

the 1Ds3 with the D3 at low ISO and compare resolution and detail? Is the only factor high ISO/low-light photography now?

There are so many factors in recognizing the IQ of today's digital bodies and all facets should be compared if there is any comparison at all.

In the low ISO resolution comparisons I've seen the D3 isn't close, but evidently this has no bearing on the overall score.

Freedom of the press means they make their own rules I suppose.

So be it.

Robert