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

[Cannon Man]

All this talk about the 1Ds II is really making me want a 1DXs camera!!!!!!
I know it's coming 1013 or 2014, bring it out already!

[Kuja]

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.

[Zlatko]

I just expected more after 8 years of technology development.
....
So, this thread started as a comparison of image quality at f8 and 100ASA, between cameras that are 8 years apart.

At f/8 and ISO100, pretty much every camera looks good.  That's not where technology development has been directed.  You're comparing 16.7mp to 22mp and finding that the differences are minor.  This is to be expected as it is only 15% more in linear resolution (files 5760px wide instead of 4992px wide).  15% is just barely noticeable. 

And you're not seeing the slight benefit of even that minor resolution increase because you're comparing both images at 100%.  With this method, the lower resolution camera always looks crisper.  This is like using a magnifying glass to compare a 10-inch print to an 11.5-inch print of the same scene and concluding that the 10-inch print looks slightly sharper because every detail is 15% smaller. 

However, technology hasn't stood still — 8 years of technology development has resulted in improved high ISO performance, and a much lower camera cost to achieve comparable image quality (at least when you compare these two models).

[dafrank]

I've shot extensively with the following cameras, each of which I've owned: 1DsII, 1DsIII, 5DII and 5DIII. The 1DsIII was better, took better pictures, resolved more detail, shot good quality at slightly higher ISO and had less failures (see mini firewire port) than the 1DsII. The 5DII was almost as good as the 1DsIII in most respects (except for build quality, of course, where the differences were "major"). The 5DII did have a tiny higher high ISO advantage over the 1DsIII and could also shoot HD video - a couple of usefull advantages, but was really not  in the same ball park for pro stills photography.

After testing the 5D3, I abandoned my 1 series Canons altogether, as I don't shoot a lot of sports/action, nor
do I shoot in a lot in inclement weather, the only two reasons I can think of where the 5DIII falls much short of either the 1DsIII or 1DX, much less the earlier 1DsII.

As far as the 1DsII is concerned, it was a great camera in its heyday, and I happily made a lot of money with it. However, it is clear that the 5DIII camera is far superior to it in all but a very, very narrow set of shooting conditions. You may feel very comfortable with the 1DsII, but, unless your testing ignores about 3/4 of what you use a camera for, you will never see better results from the 1DsII than the 5DIII, or even from its successor, the 1DsIII.

Let me put it this way, if like your 1DsII that much, then by all means keep it. But, if you were to give the 5DIII a little more time, I'm pretty sure you'd come to the same conclusion I have: the 5DIII is a superior camera in almost every way.

Regards,
David

[V8Beast]

I find myself adding apx 5-10% contrast bump to the 5DIII's images to match my 1DsII's images.

I'll even go out and say the 5DIII is 2-5% less contrasty as the the 5DII.

I've noticed this as well when going from the 5DC to 5D3, which makes sense considering that the 5DC and 1Ds2 are from the same generation. With the 5DC, I had to ETTR and lift the shadows. With the 5D3, I opt for a more neutral exposure and add contrast in post.

[Aglet]

What you forget is the superior CFA in 1dsmk3 compare to later Canon cameras to gain light

YUP!
I prefer the look of images from many of the older Canon cameras and it's hard to describe so might be an effect of the narrower band CFAs back then.  Even when bringing up contrast and saturation a bit in post from newer bodies there's just something not quite the same.

[bycostello]

interesting comaprison

[LetTheRightLensIn]

hmm
1. maybe the focusing was a trace off with the 5D3 shot?

2. maybe the 5D3 uses the split greens that the 7D did which makes the RAW software not be able to quite extract full detail if it wants to avoid mazing artifacts???  

[ishdakuteb]

Seriously?!?  This is how you think?
Then I think you do not understand the whole concept of artistic intent - which is just fine since you are defending using tools that limit artistic expression.
Some of us prefer to work with hardware with less limitations to provide us with a greater latitude of creativity.
Ultimately, it seems to be this is what it comes down to; some of us want to manipulate our images and some of you are happy with them out of the camera.  Artists vs snapshot documentarians.

DING!
And there's the bell!

Another round begins with Fact moving to the middle of the ring while BS tries to circle around and gag Fact with the odor of BS.

Fact dodges, moves to get some fresh air but it's pointless, BS is EVERYwhere! Boy can BS ever move!

Fact relies on his standard trick, facts.  But no matter how many facts he throws, none of them land a solid hit on BS.  Even when Fact comes out with new facts, BS is still unfazed.  What a fighter!

Can BS defeat Fact!?  We've gone countless rounds and there's still no clear winner.  Every time Fact appears to win on a technical, BS rises to the challenge!  How long can this fight continue!?  Can Fact ever keep BS down!?  Will they declare it a draw!?  I don't think so!  Neither Fact nor BS will tolerate the other coming out on top.  This promises to be a lot longer fight people!

DING! DING!

And there's the bell again!  Fact and BS are off to their respective corners for a little rest and words with their coaches.  Another round will start in a few moments, folks.  Don't leave your seats!
This is a battle you don't want to miss!

And now a word from our sponsor...
Kodachrome!

can you prove it to me that you are artists.  yep, i am still taking snapshots but i bet those snapshots will proably turn out better than yours.  PROVE ME THAT YOU NAME IS ON ONE OF FAMOUS LIST, MR. SHOOTING SKY AT HIGH NOON.

http://a2bart.com/gallery/new/new.htm

AND YOU CALL THESE IMAGES ARE ART?  I WAS ABOUT LAUGHING MY ASS OFF TO THOSE SNAPSHOTS EVENTHOUGH I DO NOT DO LANSCAPE AND ABSTRACT.

Note:  For some of your images, you should take a look at Jay Maisel images, compare it (since they are somewhat identical) and then think why you are not there yet Mr. Artis.

[bdunbar79]

The 1Ds3 at ISO 5000 is awesome compared to later models, such as the 5D3 or 1DX.

[Badger]

So in conclusion,
It sounds like for your purposes, the 1Ds MkII might be the best camera for you, for now. Everyone else who has a 5D MkIII, and loves them, keep them. No need to trade them in.

[bdunbar79]

The 1Ds3 at ISO 5000 is awesome compared to later models, such as the 5D3 or 1DX.

You know perfectly well that this is not the case, but 1dsmk3 have an advantage and it's mid-tone range in the lower iso because of its color filters.

I know.  It sounded funny though didn't it?

[Andy Jazz]

Hi everyone,
A first timer here so please go easy on my thoughts...
The only thing it could be or more than likely is the reason for the slightly softer Raw file is the AA filter. I know the AA filter is thicker on the 5mk3 than the mk2 and certainly thicker than the 5dmk 1. But I'm sure everyone knew this anyway....
cheers,
Andy
Sorry everyone, I seemed to have posted a reply in the wrong section...It should have been on page 1.

[Derrick]

In tests my 1Ds2 has a better look at 100 ISO (where tested - that's all I use) than the 5D2 (have not compared the 5D3). 5D2 smears mid tone detail (some non switchable on chip NR) and shadows are poor compared to 1Ds2. However my 1Ds3 is a slight step up from the 1Ds2 - very similar but just slightly larger - which means more detail is resolved - even better at 100 ISO than the 1Dx.

[Rienzphotoz]

Interesting