Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III Digital SLR Camera Review
It is always exciting to hear that your most-used piece of photography kit is being replaced with a new and improved model - as was the case for me with the announcement of the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III. The 1Ds III is Canon's ultra-high-end DSLR, delivering top-of-the-line image quality from a top-of-the-line shooting system matched to a top-of-the-line physical structure.
If you read the Canon EOS 1D Mark III Review (Canon's other current-at-this-time 1-Series DSLR), you are going to think that much of the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III review sounds familiar. And for a good reason. These two redesigned-from-the-ground-up cameras are mostly identical with the exception of a few significant differences - including the sensor size/resolution (and associated parts including the viewfinder) and the max frame rate/buffer depth. Here is how they and the other current Canon DSLRs compare in these and other regards
Each of Canon's 1Ds bodies to date have been introduced with a new sensor having the highest resolution available at that time (the prior-model 1Ds Mark II is still the second highest resolution DSLR). And as usual, the new sensor gets a significant amount of the fanfare in this latest 1Ds iteration. No current DSLR compares to the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III in regards to its ultra high 21.1 megapixel full frame resolution.
Going from the 1Ds II's 16.6 MP to the 1Ds III's 21.1 MP sensor is not a huge resolution jump, but it makes a nice difference - more than I expected. I think the ISO 12233 resolution chart tool shows this difference the best. Here you can use the mouseover feature to compare the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III resolution with the ...
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II and the Canon EOS 5D using a Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens *
* What you need to know about the above comparisons (aside from how to use the tool's mouse-over feature) ... Canon specifies the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III viewfinder as having an "approx." 100 percent horizontal and vertical view. In reality - and like the Canon EOS 1D Mark III, it is somewhat less than 100% (maybe 98%?) - this makes precisely framing a test chart hard as I must rely completely on the zoomed LCD review. But, the LCD does not show a 100% view of the final image - cutting about 5 pixels off each side. For most real world uses, these are non-issues for this camera, but for these comparisons, the 1Ds III has an approximately .4% disadvantage to the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II and the Canon EOS 5D (which also doesn't mean much in the real world). Full disclosure finished.
Another resolution comparison - use the mouseover feature on the links below the following image to compare the 1Ds III to the 1Ds II and 5D.
Expect the additional resolution to help most with the tiny details in your pictures - and with large prints or 100% zoom computer viewing. More headroom is available for cropping as well. If your subject does not have small details in it, the difference from 16.6 MP will not be as apparent.
Noise is a DSLR image attribute that gets a lot of attention. As pixel density on the sensor is increased and individual pixel size is decreased to accommodate this, there is less light reaching each pixel well. The result we often see with increased pixel density is increased high ISO noise in our images. In other words, without a technology improvement, the 1Ds III should produce noisier images than the 1Ds II. Thanks at least in part to an improved sensor design, increased noise is not the case in this comparison.
I shot a lot of comparisons between these two bodies (and the 5D with its much less-pixel-dense sensor). In the end, I could show you examples to make either of the two 1-series bodies appear to be slightly better than the other. If you plan for the 1Ds III and 1Ds II to have a similar amount of noise, you will not be disappointed. Up to and including ISO 400, they are about the same. Above ISO 400, the 1Ds III more frequently begins taking a very slight lead (less noise) and this lead increases to slight at ISO 3200. Of course, uprezzing the 1Ds II to the 1Ds III's pixel dimensions gives it a slightly increased disadvantage. Canon has always given us excellent low noise performance in their cameras - and unlike in the 1D II N to 1D III upgrade decision, noise performance is not a good reason alone to upgrade from the 1Ds II to the 1Ds III.
I mentioned that I compared the 1Ds III to the 5D, Canon's other current full frame DSLR, as well. With its larger individual pixel wells able to capture more light, it is expected that the 5D would be able to deliver better high ISO performance. Even with the disadvantage of being introduced over two years ago - a lifetime in digital SLR years - the 5D still turns in slightly better low noise performance at ISO 1600 and even slightly better performance at ISO 3200. Of course, as you can see with your own eyes in the above comparison links, the 5D does not come close to the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III in resolution. Uprezzing the 5D image to the pixel dimensions of the 1Ds III results in a softer image with similar amounts of noise.
Noise reduction anywhere in the imaging process can be used to virtually eliminate any amount of noise, but image detail is sacrificed in this process. I did all my testing with noise reduction off - you can turn it on in-camera or add it during post-processing for noise-reduce to your personal taste. I would rather have this option than to have the camera over-reduce noise and destroy image detail in the process.
You can compare the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III ISO noise at full stop settings from ISO 100 through 3200 by moving your mouse over the ISO labels. This composition shows several smooth color tones/shades including those that show noise most readily. These images were taken from a long distance (slight atmospheric distortion is visible) and sharpening was set to 1 (very low). Increasing the sharpness setting increases the visible noise in the higher ISO shots. Notice how the small rivets in the door remain very identifiable even at ISO 3200.
source:the-digital-picture.com
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment