"Downgrading" for a very specific reason

[memoriaphoto]

Memoria photo, what do you think about the 1DX?
I've had have owned and used the 5D Mark II, 1D Mark III, 1Ds Mark III, 1D Mark IV and now i use the 1D X.

My favourite files are from the 1DX and from the 1Ds Mark III second. If i didn't have the 1D X i could happily use the 1Ds III.

Good question, I am not sure. Haven't tried it personally. Mainly because I DON'T want to like it I guess a bit on the pricy side for me right now.

It is of course one helluva camera, end of discussion... but looking at how Canon have changed the colorpalette the last years (intenionally or not) I am not suuuure the file character will pass my somewhat conservative demands

How is the 1D Mark 4 compared to the others? Is it close to the 1D Mark III (color/characterwise)?

 

[Aglet]

Yup, you're not imagining the difference. This topic has been touched on in numerous, often vociferous debates here in the past. It's likely the tighter bandwidth of the CFA on the older sensors.
I don't know how much the in-camera processing differs, as far as generating raw files is concerned, but even using the same PP workflow I prefer "the look" from Canon images from the Digic 3 or older generations. I sold off most of my newest Canon gear when switching to PentNikon but I retained my favorite Canon croppers; 40D, 450Ds and even 1000Ds. I still prefer the older 350D in some ways, it also has "that look" that's very similar to the 5DC. You can also find this difference, to a less extent, even in PnS cameras like the G-series. G3 is one of my favorite old compacts for IQ. Combined with the different low-iso noise character, those old cameras produced very pleasing results with minimal tweaks in post. HI iso is no comparison, modern wins.

too bad Ankorwatt/Mikael isn't here to have his, "I told you so" moment.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Soo....I've been shooting a lot with 5D MK2 and now two MK3 and overall these are fantastic cameras, especially the mark 3 with exceptional performance all categories.

However recently I was playing around with an old-timer, the 1D Mark 3 (a CPS loaner) and I just realized ...man...these files are just gorgeous! Sure, they are only 10 Mp and the ISO performance is nowhere near the 5D3 but the colors, tonality and overall balance make these files, in my opinion, much more pleasing than the 5D2/5D3. Now, the 5D3 is noticably “better” than 5D2 in this area but even so...the 1D colors seem to pop more with a "glow" and the files respond better in post. And they also have a film-like character which I really REALLY like...

I'm actually considering trading one of my 5D Mark 3’s in for a fullframe 1Ds3 if that one is on par (or even better) than the 1D Mark 3 in terms of color, tonality and general character. I know it's crazy. It's an old camera and the LCD is crap but that's what my heart tells me. And I will still have one 5D Mark 3 for low light work anyway so...

Is the 1D series files better balanced than the 5D2/3 series? To me, the difference seems quite dramatic. I guess you don't ONLY get a better body and faster FPS for that huge amount of extra money you need to cough up for the 1D cameras.

Also, regarding colors....it is often said that anything can be done in post and yes, I can make my 5D3 files come closer to the 1D3 output but it takes time and I can't afford that.

Any thoughts?

First I will assume ISO100 to keep it simple (the older stuff certainly falls apart much worse at higher ISOs).

One thing is to first compare them after a careful downscaling from 22MP to 10MP to make it fair. Don't underestimate how much of the newer stuff is worse is not true and just comes out of people mistakenly comparing things at different scales.

Another thing is that the color filters on the sensor used to be less color-blind so they could pick apart certain subtle colors better, which ones and to what degree exactly, who knows.

 

[takesome1]

Memoria photo, what do you think about the 1DX?
I've had have owned and used the 5D Mark II, 1D Mark III, 1Ds Mark III, 1D Mark IV and now i use the 1D X.

My favourite files are from the 1DX and from the 1Ds Mark III second. If i didn't have the 1D X i could happily use the 1Ds III.

Good question, I am not sure. Haven't tried it personally. Mainly because I DON'T want to like it I guess a bit on the pricy side for me right now.

It is of course one helluva camera, end of discussion... but looking at how Canon have changed the colorpalette the last years (intenionally or not) I am not suuuure the file character will pass my somewhat conservative demands

How is the 1D Mark 4 compared to the others? Is it close to the 1D Mark III (color/characterwise)?

The 1D IV would be very good, with the higher pixel count the other thing that I think would stand out for you is the true auto ISO feature. If I remember correctly the 1D III ISO setting was not truly automatic, the 7D and 1D IV were the first with this feature. If the 1Ds III is not in your budget then the 1D IV would be out to as it sells for more than the 1Ds III.

 

[BruinBear]

I had a 1Ds III as a CPS loaner for a week and always thought the colors from that camera were much "richer" than that i get from a 6D or 5D3. Glad its not just me that has this feeling.

 

[memoriaphoto]

Yup, you're not imagining the difference. This topic has been touched on in numerous, often vociferous debates here in the past. It's likely the tighter bandwidth of the CFA on the older sensors.
I don't know how much the in-camera processing differs, as far as generating raw files is concerned, but even using the same PP workflow I prefer "the look" from Canon images from the Digic 3 or older generations. I sold off most of my newest Canon gear when switching to PentNikon but I retained my favorite Canon croppers; 40D, 450Ds and even 1000Ds. I still prefer the older 350D in some ways, it also has "that look" that's very similar to the 5DC. You can also find this difference, to a less extent, even in PnS cameras like the G-series. G3 is one of my favorite old compacts for IQ. Combined with the different low-iso noise character, those old cameras produced very pleasing results with minimal tweaks in post. HI iso is no comparison, modern wins.

too bad Ankorwatt/Mikael isn't here to have his, "I told you so" moment.

Couldn't agree with you more! Also, funny you should mention the 350D. I recently bought a used 450D for my mother who needed a light DSLR. Took it for a spin before handing it over, just to make sure everything was OK. When I loaded the RAW files in Lightroom I felt like ".yeah....these files...look....REALLY good!" Straight out of cam, normal light, normal ISO range, kit zoom... for a short second I thought to myself. ....man if only my 5D3 could look this good! Plus the other perfomance of course ;D But still...that was a 250 dollar used camera.

 

[docholliday]

As much as I love the feel of the pro bodies, I still think memoriaphoto, that you need to figure out what you want to shoot first.
Will you be shooting a lot of low light situations? The iso on the 1ds3 is a fair bit behind that of the newer cameras such as the 5d3 and 1dx.

I shoot a lot of low light...with a 1Ds3, and at ISO 100. My 40x60 prints don't say that it's behind the newer cameras. Actually, I prefer it.

 

[kbmelb]

I shoot with a gripped 5D3 and 1Ds3. I prefer the images that come out of the 1Ds3 also.

I think I actually preferred my 1Ds2 most of all. I think the characteristics are closer to 5Dc. I owned in in concert with a 5D2 and usually shot with 1Ds2. I felt it was the most film like of all the DSLRs I've owned. I loved how the gradients and shadow transitions were just so much more smooth. You can't really fix or retrieve that in post. I think the 1Ds3 does this well but not as good as the 1Ds2.

If I could only have one camera though, I'd take the 5D3 due to ISO/low light capabilities. the 1Ds3 really falls off at 800. Wouldn't mind trying a 1Dx but can't justify the price.

 

[Kwanon]

I don't think the 450D can produce a good image no matter what lens or conditions you have.

The 1D IV images are really really good but are also really neutral and kind of flat.

I think my 1Ds III has richer tones.

And my 1D X is astonishing. It is the perfect mix in every way. It has much better colours that any other camera i've used. Before i converted many of my images to B/W subconsciously not really thinking why but after i got the 1D X i realised how amazing the colours and tones are! Also the 1D X takes the sharpest photos and i get much more out of my lenses than before. (i thought i had do buy a leica to get good sharpness)
The tones, sharpness and a perfect ISO performance and a durability of 400 000 and 18MP full frame and 12 fps make it the perfect camera to me.

I really recommend the 1Ds III if you can get the cash. It is a great camera!

 

[paul13walnut5]

450d can't compete with contemporary high end bodies or current high end but for its day and market postion it was a great camera, first rebel with 14bit RAWs.

If you can't get a good image with a 450d and decent glass then you aren't much of a photographer, or maybe you are an inveterate snob or a misguided polemicist.

I had a 400d, which with the right settings and good glass served me pretty well, to the point where, but for the advent of video, and the heavy use my 400d endured I would be perfectly happy to still be using it.

Funnily enough, and I know the 18mp d4 combo is sneered at somewhat, but I've never really trusted out the camera jpegs from any canon I've used, although I recall the noise being less intrusive on my 400d between iso100 and 400.

Thrn again as has been pointed out viewing at 100% for either camera isn't all that objective.

 

[V8Beast]

In comparing the straight-out-of-camera RAW files of my old 5DC to my 5D3, I prefer the midtone punch and tonality of the 5DC. With the 5D3's files, I find myself cranking up on the clarity slider in post to recreate the film-like quality of the 5DC's files. After editing, I think there's very little if any difference between the files from both bodies, but the 5DC's RAW files prior to post are more pleasing to my eyes.

I dug through some old shoots with the 5DC just to make sure I'm not crazy, and sure enough, the files had that same midtone punch I remembered with little to no adjustments in post.

On a side note, one of these days I have to get around to doing a full shoot with a 1Ds3. There has to be a reason why so many of my peers still shoot with them.

 

[Ewinter]

I find the color reproduction of the 1dx much better than the 5d iii. It's definitely my favorite.
As for the one who said if you can't get a good photo with a 450d and good glass you're not a good photographer.... Try shooting a gig with one. And see just how good ISO 1600 is on it

 

[adhocphotographer]

All of these are very good points and interesting arguments....

I think if i were to start photography again, i would not go down the same path i did, but would buy an older second hand camera and a good lens. This thread is an argument for doing just that! To all the "what should i buy" guys out there... pick up a used 5D I, and a 50mm instead of the newest XXXD kit...

 

[Sporgon]

All of these are very good points and interesting arguments....

I think if i were to start photography again, i would not go down the same path i did, but would buy an older second hand camera and a good lens. This thread is an argument for doing just that! To all the "what should i buy" guys out there... pick up a used 5D I, and a 50mm instead of the newest XXXD kit...

I would just alter that a little; Ancient & Modern ; pick up a used 5D I and add a 40mm pancake. Within the restrictions of that combo ( use low ISO, slow frame rate, fixed focal length ) you would produce images every bit as good as the latest £££££'s worth of gear.

Also buy plenty of coffee and biscuits as you have to make a brew whilst waiting for the files to transfer........... ;D

 

[paul13walnut5]

I find the color reproduction of the 1dx much better than the 5d iii. It's definitely my favorite.
As for the one who said if you can't get a good photo with a 450d and good glass you're not a good photographer.... Try shooting a gig with one. And see just how good ISO 1600 is on it

I was that one.

You see I was responding to a blanket statement, so I responded in kind.

And yeah, whilst a 450D wouldn't be my automatic choice for gig photography but with a fast lens and careful post-processing I'd get usable results. Funnily enough I remember folk shooting gigs on the first 1D's and 10D's when that was the best available... and getting decent enough results for newspapers and magazines.

But thats a very specific situation, and that wasn't the spirit of the very bold statement that...

I don't think the 450D can produce a good image no matter what lens or conditions you have.

So lets leave aside gig photography, do you really agree Ewinter with Kwanon, that a 450D can't produce a good image under any circumstances? I'm not asking if there was anything better at the time, or anything better since, just simply do you agree with Kwanon's statement?

 

[Kwanon]

I find the color reproduction of the 1dx much better than the 5d iii. It's definitely my favorite.
As for the one who said if you can't get a good photo with a 450d and good glass you're not a good photographer.... Try shooting a gig with one. And see just how good ISO 1600 is on it

I was that one.

You see I was responding to a blanket statement, so I responded in kind.

And yeah, whilst a 450D wouldn't be my automatic choice for gig photography but with a fast lens and careful post-processing I'd get usable results. Funnily enough I remember folk shooting gigs on the first 1D's and 10D's when that was the best available... and getting decent enough results for newspapers and magazines.

But thats a very specific situation, and that wasn't the spirit of the very bold statement that...

I don't think the 450D can produce a good image no matter what lens or conditions you have.

So lets leave aside gig photography, do you really agree Ewinter with Kwanon, that a 450D can't produce a good image under any circumstances? I'm not asking if there was anything better at the time, or anything better since, just simply do you agree with Kwanon's statement?

there is a place for the 450D but when 1Ds II, 1D III, 1Ds III, 1D IV, 1D X pro bodies are talked about the small wonder of a camera does not have a voice. The 1D line starting from the 1Ds II are my definition of a good photo.
450 is not bad, but not good either.

 

[M.ST]

I need IQ and the 1Ds Mark III is for me after a few years always the number one for landscapes and portraits. For action, sports and wildlife I prefer the 1D X.

But it´s time to replace the 1Ds Mark III against a up-to-date camera with outstanding IQ. But Canon is sleeping and loosing a lot of pros in the last two years.

I used the 5D Mark III three-fourths of a year before the camera hit the market but I don´t like the camera and I don´t like the IQ (undeveloped). I prefer the 1Ds Mark III or 5D Mark II IQ instead. Even my old 350D tweaked prototype (not the production series firmware) is able to shoot more eye pleasing images and sharper images at ISO 100 (without RAW development).

 

[Ewinter]

I find the color reproduction of the 1dx much better than the 5d iii. It's definitely my favorite.
As for the one who said if you can't get a good photo with a 450d and good glass you're not a good photographer.... Try shooting a gig with one. And see just how good ISO 1600 is on it

I was that one.

You see I was responding to a blanket statement, so I responded in kind.

And yeah, whilst a 450D wouldn't be my automatic choice for gig photography but with a fast lens and careful post-processing I'd get usable results. Funnily enough I remember folk shooting gigs on the first 1D's and 10D's when that was the best available... and getting decent enough results for newspapers and magazines.

But thats a very specific situation, and that wasn't the spirit of the very bold statement that...

I don't think the 450D can produce a good image no matter what lens or conditions you have.

So lets leave aside gig photography, do you really agree Ewinter with Kwanon, that a 450D can't produce a good image under any circumstances? I'm not asking if there was anything better at the time, or anything better since, just simply do you agree with Kwanon's statement?

I don't agree you can't get a good photo with one. I actually started with one of these, it has a place in my heart.
I preferred its color rendition over the 7d, but as far as features go its rudimentary.

I personally think the rebel line get slated for a lot, due to the large amount of bad images produced with them out there.
It's a lot of people's first dslr; it's not the cameras fault they don't know yet. And they often dont understand the limits of their gear, and how to work around them (or when to give up)

 

[RLPhoto]

All of these are very good points and interesting arguments....

I think if i were to start photography again, i would not go down the same path i did, but would buy an older second hand camera and a good lens. This thread is an argument for doing just that! To all the "what should i buy" guys out there... pick up a used 5D I, and a 50mm instead of the newest XXXD kit...

I've been saying this exact thing to everyone who asks me what camera is best to start seriously into photography. You can grow with a 5Dc, study with it and eventually make money with it. It still makes good files in all its ISO ranges in my tastes.

If anyone on this thread would like to contribute photos to the 5Dc thread under the camera bodies section, it would be nice to see more photos from it.

 

[ashmadux]

The 450d is still an awesome tool.

It was my first camera, i know (almost ;D ) every single thing about it - using it to shoot almost everything you can think of during my training wheel days.

The camera produces images that are sharper at low isos then the t2i on up. i edit exclusively in raw and have been pixel peeping these files for years now. The biggest difference is the metering- the 450 simply cannot compete with the tonal range from the t2i+. So while i keep it around- its too hard to give it up- i occasionally toss the 70-200 on it and let off some frames. The LCD is beyond bad compared to more modern version, but the raw files are just the same. Spectacular.

So basically- stop dissin' on that cam , buddy