March 05, 2015, 11:34:05 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Kuja

Pages: [1]
This thread has to be a joke.  Either way, it's really, really awful.

What is a joke here? :)

My 1Ds MkII has already had one shutter worn out and replaced,
now the count on the replacement shutter is around 160.000.

I guess it is time to get myself a new camera! :)

I shoot mostly in studio, or outdoors with additional lights.

ASA is set at 100 for 90% of my work.

I don't do sport, photojournalism or weddings,
so fps speed and high ASA performance are not really important to me.

1Dx is not a good investment for me, with the high MP around the corner.

So, I wanted to replace my prehistoric 16.7MP camera with the latest 22MP one,
that would do the work temporarily while I'm waiting for the high MP Canon to appear.

...And in the transition process I got surprised how well my old camera did compared to the new one.

I just expected more after 8 years of technology development.

Is the new camera right for my needs, or the old one will do the better job?

In the studio I shoot tethered, camera is remotely controlled via firewire and the clients look at images on a 27" screen.

So, this thread started as a comparison of image quality at f8 and 100ASA, between cameras that are 8 years apart.

Nothing really more to it!

...And no! You do not need to sell your cameras and start hunting for an used 1DsII. Nobody said that.

1DsIII might be better. ;) :D

Shadow detail and noise as promised...

100% crops again, shadows are pulled in Capture One using HDR control, shadows option set to 100%.

Similar results this time, maybe I like noise in 1DsII files better,
or at least I'm not disappointed in it's performance since it is old technology.

And yes, check the fine detail in those branches compared to 5DMkIII files:

Here are two 100% crops...
Scroll them to the right to see those windows with white blinds:
real usable detail in 16.7mp 1Ds MkII files,
mushy moire in 22mp 5D MkIII files.
If you down-res the the 5DIII photo to match the 16.7mp of the 1DsII, it will look sharper.  Or enlarge the 1DsII image to match the 22mp of the 5DIII and it will look less sharp.  The 5DIII is presenting a bigger image of the same scene, so it looks less sharp.  If you had a 36mp photo of the same scene and viewed it at 100%, it would look even less sharp.  Also the unfortunate moire effect in the 5DIII photo is usually a result of greater resolution, not less.

This really makes no sense.

If I have tiny real details and texture in the white blinds on the windows in 1DsII sample
and I only have moire in the 5DIII sample,

why do you think that just by downsampling the 5DIII file to 1DsII file size, the detail that is not present in the 5DIII file will magically appear,
...or that just by upsampling the 1DsII file to 5DIII file size, the visible detail in the 1DsII file will magically disappear:)

The resolved details are present in the files or they are not.

You can just try what you have suggested - use the crops that i have posted above,
resize them both way to match each other
and see if the lost details will appear in 5DIII file when you downsize it,
or if the fine resolved details will dissapear from 1Ds file by upsizing it.

Illusion of perceived sharpness achieved by stronger microcontrast  is not the same as detail resolving ability.

1DsII files have both - more visible resolved detail and higher microcontrast.

Remember that RAW files from both cameras were developed with the EXACT same settings,
so you can not say that file from one camera was sharpened more.


I'm a professional photographer for 20 years.
I have been shooting with 1Ds MkII since the day it was introduced
and I know every bit of its possibilities very well.

After all this years I wanted to upgrade to a more modern body.
I was hoping for a high MP body but we got 1Dx and 5DIII.

I (naively?) decided to try the 5DIII since it has more resolution
and the 1Dx is not good investment for my needs (studio) if the big MP camera is around the corner.

The moment I started using the 5DIII in the studio (100 ASA, etc),
I realised that I don't really like its RAW files compared to my old 1DsII files.

When I opened first 5DIII RAW file in Capture One (confirmed later in DPP and Adobe CR),
I thought for a couple of seconds that I must have missed the focus a little bit.

But I did not.

I was just used to the crispness and details in 1DsII files that are just not there in 5DIII files.

I was disappointed since I wanted badly to like the 5DIII and to keep it for use in the studio.


How more scientific can I be in trying to figure out which camera gives better detail resolving power,
in real life use like, let's say, landscape photography?

Uhh, go do landscape photography with each??

I just did! :D

The examples above are crops from an urban landscape.

Landscape photography can be more than pics of mountains and forests. ;)


Anyway, I'll say that for one, your test is not very scientific. I would use more lenses and scenarios to compare.

I just wanted to test detail resolving power compared to my older camera,
since I was not 100% satisfied after trying using the 5DIII for the first time on a job.

I immediately noticed some "mushy" quality in 5DIII RAW files compared to my old 1DsII,
so I needed to confirm this.

Sunny afternoon, two cameras set on a sturdy tripod,
50mm prime lens set at f8, manual exposure, manual WB,
RAW files developed with the same settings...

How more scientific can I be in trying to figure out which camera gives better detail resolving power,
in real life use like, let's say, landscape photography?

To me it looks like the 5DIII image is slightly overexposed...or perhaps the 1dsII is a bit underexposed.  Something is not right there and until you can get the washed out exposure corrected you cant make a good comparison on detail.

You have used the correct word - "slightly". :)

There is a small difference in exposure due to slightly changing daylight between the two shots.

I tried to compensate, but the difference was less than 1/3 stop, so this was the best I could do.

Do you think that the difference in exposure of less than 1/3 stop,
can make one camera having lower detail resolving power than the other
and will it introduce moire instead of real detail?

I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII.

16,7 old megapixels vs 22 new megapixels.

At base sensitivity of 100ASA 1Ds MkII won in detail resolving abilities!
Also, shadow noise in dark areas looks nicer in 1Ds MkII files.

I have compared tiffs made from RAW using Capture One 7.0.2 with default sharpening both on and off,
with all noise reduction/smoothing options turned off.

1Ds MkII files look crisper and with more fine detail.

Compared to them, 5D MkIII files look as if they were made with lower resolution camera than 1Ds MkII,
and then were artificially up sampled with Photoshop to a larger file size.

Here are two 100% crops...
Scroll them to the right to see those windows with white blinds:
real usable detail in 16.7mp 1Ds MkII files,
mushy moire in 22mp 5D MkIII files.

Again, both RAW files were developed with the EXACT same settings in Capture One,
test was done on a tripod, with 50mm lens set at f8:

I will post more crops and pulled shadows samples tomorrow, I must go to work now!  :)

I do think, however, that the 1Ds Mark III gets skin tones and mid tones correct, or at least they are much more accurate than the 5D Mark III.  I've had this battle a bit with the 5D3.

Good skin tone is the most important factor for the type of work that I do
(fashion and nude photography for magazines).

So, I should definitively stay with the EOS 1 series of cameras?

Is 5D Mark III significantly inaccurate regarding the skin colors?

Skin color correction in Photoshop is always major pain in the ... for me. :)

Thanks for the quick answer. :)

How would you describe the differences in IQ between the 1ds3 and the 5d3?

These are the Canon lenses that I have:

TSE 17/4 L

TSE 90/2.8

135/2 L

1.4x TC

17-40/4 L



...and they are the only reason for not getting a Nikon D800. :)

OR... I could keep my 1Ds MkII for use with my present Canon lenses,

and for the price of 5D MkIII body I could get a D800 + Nikkor 85mm lens for studio portrait work,

...AND buy a tilt shift adapter,
that will allow me to use my old Hasselblad Zeiss CF lenses on the Nikon.

I already have Zeiss CF 50mm FLE,  CF 80mm and CF 150mm lenses
and they can make a great Nikon tilt shift setup.

I'm facing the upgrade dillema - should I get a second hand 1Ds MkIII or a new 5D MkIII...

For almost eight years now, I'm shooting with a 1Ds MkII
and I'm thinking that maybe it is time to replace it. :)

It is still doing a good job and my clients are happy, but...

I almost exclusively work in the studio, or outdoors in the range of 100-400 ASA.

I'm only interested in the image quality.

Can someone describe in detail, the differences in image quality between 1Ds MkIII and 5D MkIII?

EOS Utility 2.10.2
Mac 10.6.8
MacMini2,1 (Core2 Duo)

Works like a champ :D

Also, using a hard drive (iomega external 2.5" fw400/fw800/usb2) to go from FW800 to FW400, a Macbook Pro (8,2 - 2011 thunderbolt i7) with 10.6.8  and the same EOS utility works

Let me know if you need additional info or such.

Wow! Thanks a lot! :)

That sounds great! :)

Are you sure your EOS 1Ds is mark II and not III? ;)

Informations on Canon support pages are terribly wrong then.

They say that EOS 1Ds Mk II is not supported in EOS Utility 2.10.2 - here is the list of supported cameras:

5. Supported Models
EOS Kiss X5 / EOS REBEL T3i / EOS 600D, EOS Kiss X50 / EOS REBEL T3 / EOS 1100D, EOS 60D, EOS Kiss X4 / EOS REBEL T2i / EOS 550D, EOS 7D, EOS-1D Mark IV, EOS Kiss X3 / EOS REBEL T1i / EOS 500D, EOS 5D Mark II, EOS 50D, EOS 40D, EOS Kiss F / EOS REBEL XS / EOS 1000D, EOS Kiss X2 / EOS REBEL XSi / EOS 450D, EOS-1Ds Mark III, EOS-1D Mark III

For EOS Utility 2.10.2 and OS compatibility they say:

System requirements

1. Supported OSes
Mac OS X 10.5, 10.6
Mac OS 10.5.6 users should update it to Mac OS 10.5.8 or later.


We have discovered a problem in the connection with cameras when using EOS Utility in Mac OS 10.6.8.
Please do not use EOS Utility if you use Mac OS 10.6.8.

Your test results will make life much easier. :)

Thanks again,



Also, be sure to check with the software you would be using to tether. If you buy a new Mac Mini, it will come with MAC OSX 10.8 (Mountain Lion) which is very new. Canon hasn't fully caught up yet, and a lot of their software is not yet compatible...including tethering for 5D3 and 1DX.. Can't say for your camera.

My camera is an old model,
Canon is not supporting it anymore with the latest EOS utility,
so I must use older OSX and an old Mini. :(

I have an older Mini at home and a 1DsII - will give it a shot and reply with the info.

That would be great!

Thanks a lot!



Hello! :)

I have an aging (but still going strong) EOS 1Ds MkII.

I'm using an old PC for tethered shooting,
but due to size/bulk i would like to get a Mac mini.

I'm not interested in laptops since I want to keep my 24" monitor.

Is anybody here successfully using (or has used) a 1Ds MkII connected to Mac mini's firewire port?

If yes, what exact version of Mac mini an what exact OSX version.

What is/was the software configuration?

Canon EOS software, Aperture, Lightroom or CaptureOne?

On Canon's web site I have learned that my camera is supported by EOS Utilty 2.7.2
and that it requres MacOS X v10.4 - v.10.5:

What about firewire port - is Mac mini's port compatible?

Minis from 2007 have firewire 400 port, minis from 2009 have firewire 800 (cable adapter will be required).

Canon says that firewire port must be "OHCI compliant" and that Texas Instruments firewire chipset is recommended.

My 1Ds MkII refused to work with some PC laptop that had VIA firewire chipset.

Thanks in advance, :)



Pages: [1]