Canon EOS 1Ds MarkIII Post up pics and discuss!

jdizzle wrote in post #12227610
Very nice Vincent! Some people think this camera sucks at high ISO. This is not the case here. I'm glad you like it.

Ya, what's funny is that when I was looking at coming from my 5d2 to a 1ds3, I looked a lot at ISO because I spend so much time at high ISOs. I heard from MANY people that the 5d2 is better. And I heard from a number of people that the 1ds3, 1ds2, and 5dc were all pretty close (just that the 1ds3 had a little advantage at a common print size, but was basically equal at the pixel level).

After extensive testing between the 1ds3 and my 5d2, I can not declare a champ there. The only advantage the 5d2 seems to have is in it's jpeg processing, which offers more NR options, and better jpeg NR. In raw, they are different, but I couldn't say there was any big difference either way (both good). In jpeg, the 5d2 take a little little lead at 3200, but the 1ds3 noise at 3200 is not very offensive.

Lastly, a good friend just picked up a 5dc (I had one a few years ago), and I've been spending some time using it. After getting used to the 1ds3, the 2 things that have shocked me is 1. how SLOW the 5dc is (even 5d2 feels sluggish after the 1ds) 2. the 1ds3 high-iso is a large improvement both at pixel level, and even more at common print/viewing sizes.

I think the 1ds3 iso is very good. Wouldn't mind if it was better though, but I haven't taken a picture yet with this body that was ruined by noise.

I describe the noise as 'honest and unoffensive, even pleasant at times', and I'd take that over 'smooth but fake/unnatural/over processed'

marcus riley wrote in post #12233244
Ya, what's funny is that when I was looking at coming from my 5d2 to a 1ds3, I looked a lot at ISO because I spend so much time at high ISOs. I heard from MANY people that the 5d2 is better. And I heard from a number of people that the 1ds3, 1ds2, and 5dc were all pretty close (just that the 1ds3 had a little advantage at a common print size, but was basically equal at the pixel level).

After extensive testing between the 1ds3 and my 5d2, I can not declare a champ there. The only advantage the 5d2 seems to have is in it's jpeg processing, which offers more NR options, and better jpeg NR. In raw, they are different, but I couldn't say there was any big difference either way (both good). In jpeg, the 5d2 take a little little lead at 3200, but the 1ds3 noise at 3200 is not very offensive.

Lastly, a good friend just picked up a 5dc (I had one a few years ago), and I've been spending some time using it. After getting used to the 1ds3, the 2 things that have shocked me is 1. how SLOW the 5dc is (even 5d2 feels sluggish after the 1ds) 2. the 1ds3 high-iso is a large improvement both at pixel level, and even more at common print/viewing sizes.

I think the 1ds3 iso is very good. Wouldn't mind if it was better though, but I haven't taken a picture yet with this body that was ruined by noise.

I describe the noise as 'honest and unoffensive, even pleasant at times', and I'd take that over 'smooth but fake/unnatural/over processed'

This is exactly what I'm talking about! Thank you! I used to shoot the 5Dc and it was pretty good at high ISOs but, it was the AF that bugged me. And to be honest there isn't much of a difference between the 1Ds III and 5D 2. It's marginal at best. Although, the 1Ds III does have better ISO performance from 100-400 imho.

jdizzle wrote in post #12234385
This is exactly what I'm talking about! Thank you! I used to shoot the 5Dc and it was pretty good at high ISOs but, it was the AF that bugged me. And to be honest there isn't much of a difference between the 1Ds III and 5D 2. It's marginal at best. Although, the 1Ds III does have better ISO performance from 100-400 imho.

Yes and yes! In my testing, I found the 1ds3 to have the advantage at lower ISOs, and at higher ones, even though the 5d2 could make a slightly smoother pictures (SLIGHTLY!), I found my 1ds3 had more detail, AND could handle adjustments much better (example, push a iso1600 pic and artifacts and banding would show up in the medium shadows on the 5d2 when the 1ds3 still looked great. I'm NOT talking about alleged 5d2 has banding issues, just that the 1ds3 gives you a noticeably more... refined and balance image quality at the pixel level.)

marcus riley wrote in post #12234434
Yes and yes! In my testing, I found the 1ds3 to have the advantage at lower ISOs, and at higher ones, even though the 5d2 could make a slightly smoother pictures (SLIGHTLY!), I found my 1ds3 had more detail, AND could handle adjustments much better (example, push a iso1600 pic and artifacts and banding would show up in the medium shadows on the 5d2 when the 1ds3 still looked great. I'm NOT talking about alleged 5d2 has banding issues, just that the 1ds3 gives you a noticeably more... refined and balance image quality at the pixel level.)

What's great about 1Ds III files is that you can remove noise nicely in just LR3 without losing detail. And that's not using any other NR software!

Mike Geng wrote in post #12233015
Wow Julian, you're my new idol . M9 is next on my list, just picked up a minty M3. Are you going to post your work on rangefinders forum as you create it?

Thanks Mike. I've been active on FM quite a bit but, there's a bit of a learning curve. I'm so used to shooting with a DSLR that framing with a rangefinder is totally different. Anyways, congrats on your minty M3.

This thread needs more pictures less talk... even if they are not good pics. LOL

LOL! Hi Evil! Love the second to last image.

@PUREVIL

seriously man why is every single one of those pictures out of focus.
i hope your not thinking they are, because they are very clearly not.
especially 1, 3 and the last one.
but in general they are all out of focus.

looks like a work break room or meeting room or school... shame on you

v_lestat wrote in post #12236521
@PUREVIL

seriously man why is every single one of those pictures out of focus.
i hope your not thinking they are, because they are very clearly not.
especially 1, 3 and the last one.
but in general they are all out of focus.

looks like a work break room or meeting room or school... shame on you

What the hell are you talking about? I dunno they look fine on my computer? But I dont care I suck at taking pics.... I've said that countless times in this and other threads LOL

Sharing some pics of my new daughter and son.

PUREVIL wrote in post #12236486
This thread needs more pictures less talk... even if they are not good pics. LOL

v_lestat wrote in post #12236521
@PUREVIL

seriously man why is every single one of those pictures out of focus.
i hope your not thinking they are, because they are very clearly not.
especially 1, 3 and the last one.
but in general they are all out of focus.

looks like a work break room or meeting room or school... shame on you

I guess the focal point for PUREVEIL is a bit different than yours . It seems perfectly focus.

mobilebucky wrote in post #12237417
I guess the focal point for PUREVEIL is a bit different than yours . It seems perfectly focus.

It may be a bit soft because I was taking them at a slightly slower shutter speed or maybe I used a bit to much noise reduction.... but when I have them at 100% they look pretty sharp so you'd think they'd be sharp cropped and resized. I dunno. Whatever I like taking snapshots of people, i wasn't trying to go for a modeling portrait LOL

^I was checking your EXIF Evil. A SS of 1/15 to 1/25 is a bit slow. Anyways, it doesn't matter. You had fun.

jdizzle wrote in post #12237517
^I was checking your EXIF Evil. A SS of 1/15 to 1/25 is a bit slow. Anyways, it doesn't matter. You had fun.

Ya I should have changed it and pump the exposure where I like it in post, but I was just taking snaps.... I was to busy looking at my subject and not concentrating on my settings LOL.

mobilebucky wrote in post #12237417
I guess the focal point for PUREVEIL is a bit different than yours . It seems perfectly focus.

nice focus point!