1DX and 5D3 RAW files

[tron]

1DsIII and 1Dx is just better sensor than 5D II and III
the 5D had the closest looking IQ 200-400iso daylight/strobe to 1D series...

Since a picture is worth a thousand words do you have example pictures for all that?

 

[telemaq76]

ok 6 monthes later, here i am...i owned a 5d2 then a 5d3 then a 1ds3 and Yes the raw files from 1ds3 are far better than 5d3, especially in low ISo

 

[memoriaphoto]

ok 6 monthes later, here i am...i owned a 5d2 then a 5d3 then a 1ds3 and Yes the raw files from 1ds3 are far better than 5d3, especially in low ISo

I tend to agree with you there. I've worked with the 5D Classic, the Mark 2 and now 5D mark 3 and I also have the 1Ds3. The 5D3 is obviously heaps better on high ISO and the better allrounder but in terms of pure IQ, pleasing color/accuracy and tonality on the lower range of the ISO scale, the 1Ds3 is better to MY eyes. What an amazing image machine that is and I always find myself preferring it over the 5D3 unless I need video or ISO above 1600-2000

 

[danski0224]

I have heard, increasingly lately, that 1DX RAW files are better than 5D3. I have noticed myself, in other posts, that they tend to be able to be pushed farther. Why is this? Thanks for any insight.

My speculation is that there is more latitude built into the 1 series raw file.

I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to understand the properties of a CR2 file, but I am willing to bet that there is stuff buried in the code that differentiates a 1 series image over "everything else", especially when using DPP.

It's not just DPP, though. An underexposed 1D series file can be brightened quite a bit in Lightroom with little/no apparent problems. Noise cleans up nicely, too.

"Latitude" may not be the right word, but there must be some fundamental yet major difference in the CR2 file between a 1 series and "everything else".

 

[nightbreath]

Guys, do you have any observations on the 1D X and 1Ds files difference?

 

[memoriaphoto]

I have heard, increasingly lately, that 1DX RAW files are better than 5D3. I have noticed myself, in other posts, that they tend to be able to be pushed farther. Why is this? Thanks for any insight.

My speculation is that there is more latitude built into the 1 series raw file.

I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to understand the properties of a CR2 file, but I am willing to bet that there is stuff buried in the code that differentiates a 1 series image over "everything else", especially when using DPP.

It's not just DPP, though. An underexposed 1D series file can be brightened quite a bit in Lightroom with little/no apparent problems. Noise cleans up nicely, too.

"Latitude" may not be the right word, but there must be some fundamental yet major difference in the CR2 file between a 1 series and "everything else".

Yup. I am totally convinced that you don't ONLY get a better body and more custom functions for the huge extra amount of $ you have to fork out for a 1D body. Image sensor, RGB and AA filters, parameters and processing should be better and more controlled, resulting in an overall better rawfile on many levels. Also, I find the 1D images (1Ds3 and 1DX) to be a bit "clearer" and crispier from scratch than anything from the 5D3 or 5D2. Fine details are a tad better rendered. The difference isn't huge but it is there.

As for the underexposed part; I have an example where I tested the shadows of the 1DX vs 5D3. I underexposed the two equally and then lifted the shadows. The difference in IQ is quite remarkable. Almost like one of those Nikon vs Canon shadow noise examples out there. I'll see if I can find the test images. So yeah...the 1DX sure can take more beating in post because the files are better built. For sure...

 

[memoriaphoto]

Guys, do you have any observations on the 1D X and 1Ds files difference?

According to my personal taste, the 1Ds3 default has a more pleasing color palette/look. Other than that, the 1DX files are probably better built and has more power in the shadows. Not to mention the ISO performance of the sensor which totally smokes the 1Ds3.

But still, on lower ISO the 1Ds3 is really REALLY outstanding and files can be pushed around in post like crazy. Even compared to the mighty X

 

[vscd]

But still, on lower ISO the 1Ds3 is really REALLY outstanding and files can be pushed around in post like crazy. Even compared to the mighty X

Apart from personal taste or differing internal DIGIC-changes, there is no sign of advantages for the 1Ds3.

Edit: I choosed the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3, but the results remain the same except of a nearly not detectable advantage of 0.2 stops @ISO100.

 

[Quasimodo]

But still, on lower ISO the 1Ds3 is really REALLY outstanding and files can be pushed around in post like crazy. Even compared to the mighty X

Apart from personal taste or differing internal DIGIC-changes, there is no sign of advantages for the 1Ds3.

Edit: I choosed the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3, but the results remain the same except of a nearly not detectable advantage of 0.2 stops @ISO100.

The difference in IQ or RAW files quality is way beyond my field of expertise, but the 1D3 vs. the 1Ds III is huge. My best friend has the 1D III, and I have the 1Ds 3 and 5D II, and after shooting with both I would pick the Ds files any day. Sure it is fun to shoot at the burst rate of the 1D III, but not really a fair comparison.

 

[bdunbar79]

Guys, do you have any observations on the 1D X and 1Ds files difference?

I've shot with both. Before I had a 1Dx I had the 1Ds3 myself. I would like to think about your question and dig up some RAW files.

 

[bdunbar79]

I looked at the graphs, and why in the heck would you post graphs of the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3? Not even close to the same. From memory, I think ISO 400 and below the 1Ds3 files were certainly preferred over either the 1Dx or 5D3. I loved that camera, but my typical shooting requires higher ISO's, so I just couldn't keep it.

 

[danski0224]

Apart from personal taste or differing internal DIGIC-changes, there is no sign of advantages for the 1Ds3.

Edit: I choosed the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3, but the results remain the same except of a nearly not detectable advantage of 0.2 stops @ISO100.

There must be more to it than charts and graphs. I can listen to stereo amplifiers with comparable specs and they sound different.

Given a properly exposed image, I'd agree that there is little difference.

But, if the image is underexposed (accidentally or intentionally), 1D files have a lot more working room.

 

[telemaq76]

i m not a pixel peeper or a graphic/dxolab lover but i use my cams a lot for work and for fun. Sure 5dmarkIII is a good cam for the price, i was very pleased to use him I bought a 1ds3 just to test a 1d serie, cheap price on ebay. First i was dissapointed by my first tests, nothing more than my 5d. but when i began to work with seriously, especially portrait and landscape, i had a WOW effect. First time i see no banding in shadows , and you can push shadows like crazy, you keep details and great colors it s just Insane compared to a 5d3. the skin tone in portrait are perfect, nothing to edit, i kept final pictures with NO editing at all, RAw files out of body, exposition is perfect even with contrasty, backlight, hard light. And so fantastic details in hairs, , textures are crisp, i think the low pass filter are better than 5d series. I like my 5d3 for the AF and iso performance, silent mode, and lcd screen but i LOVE my 1ds3 for stunning image quality, always have that WOW effect when i take a picture at low iso, and the grain at 640 iso and more is just amazing like film grain, it s only luminance noise, no color noise, easy to manage .thank you for reading and sorry for my english if there is some errors, it s not my native langage

 

[danski0224]

Yup. I am totally convinced that you don't ONLY get a better body and more custom functions for the huge extra amount of $ you have to fork out for a 1D body. Image sensor, RGB and AA filters, parameters and processing should be better and more controlled, resulting in an overall better rawfile on many levels. Also, I find the 1D images (1Ds3 and 1DX) to be a bit "clearer" and crispier from scratch than anything from the 5D3 or 5D2. Fine details are a tad better rendered. The difference isn't huge but it is there.

As for the underexposed part; I have an example where I tested the shadows of the 1DX vs 5D3. I underexposed the two equally and then lifted the shadows. The difference in IQ is quite remarkable. Almost like one of those Nikon vs Canon shadow noise examples out there. I'll see if I can find the test images. So yeah...the 1DX sure can take more beating in post because the files are better built. For sure...

Just a bit of a tangent...

I recently picked up a minty and complete original 1D for a very reasonable price. Different sensor tech that still has a following and the price was good. Enough of a reason to see what the fuss is about.

The images are way better than what I would have thought from a camera with only 4 megapixels- I was thinking 4MP point and shoot image quality. I really don't see an issue printing up to 13" x 19". Maybe more, I am still messing with it.

This camera outputs TIFF and JPEG. I had to reformat a card so it works- it wouldn't recognize a CF card formatted in a CR2 camera.

Canon's DPP works just fine with these TIFF files. Just a little bit of sharpening and it looks great.

So, why did Canon switch RAW formats when this camera from 2001 puts out a nice TIFF file? (end of small tangent)

Well, apparently, the TIFF format sucks when things change, like camera settings. See the short rant here in the 4th paragraph: http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/canon_raw.html

So, I guess that someone at Canon early on recognized the limitations of the TIFF format.

This previously linked page (http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/) has a whole bunch of stuff that is over my head, but I can pick out parts where portions of the code are used to identify things like the camera model.

There's also a bunch of blocks with a "?" in them.

Given that Canon can easily cripple camera features with firmware, it is easy to assume that there is a bunch of stuff happening between the tags in a CR2 file and software like DPP and therefore why some feel that DPP renders the Canon image better than other software.

 

[vscd]

@bdunbar79

I looked at the graphs, and why in the heck would you post graphs of the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3?

If you read carefully you would've seen that I already mentioned this, but you can compare by yourself on DXO. The results don't differ that much.

I'm no pixelpeeper, but there are some legends out there which people tend to build up further and further. In fact I think the 1dx is superiorexcept of resolution, but I don't think someone has to buy it if he already has an 1ds3. The differences between the 1-series and the 5-series are even well documented:

http://www.robo47.net/media/data/martin-wieser-kamera-setup.pdf

 

[privatebydesign]

@bdunbar79

I looked at the graphs, and why in the heck would you post graphs of the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3?

If you read carefully you would've seen that I already mentioned this, but you can compare by yourself on DXO. The results don't differ that much.

I'm no pixelpeeper, but there are some legends out there which people tend to build up further and further. In fact I think the 1dx is superiorexcept of resolution, but I don't think someone has to buy it if he already has an 1ds3. The differences between the 1-series and the 5-series are even well documented:

http://www.robo47.net/media/data/martin-wieser-kamera-setup.pdf

In a thread about 1DX and 5D MkIII raw files we diverted a bit to the 1DsMkIII raw files, but I fail to see what relevance a setup PDF, in German, for a 1D MkII/n 1DsMkII has to do with anything?