• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Some more 1DsMKII and III samples

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Member
okay I was bored (raining and no model until Friday) so with a touch of prompting here are some ISO comparison between MY 1DsmkII and 1DsmkIII. If I do this right...

One favor though, please, please, please DO NOT Pass the links for the CRW files or the full size jpegs outside of this site, I am limited on bandwidth and if say someone on DPR got hold of the links I would have to probably shut down my site for a month, because I can't afford extra bandwidth charges.

So with that said, I can put up any two more sets tomorrow based on what is needed from others. I have full set at ISO 160, 400, 800, and 1600 at f4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, and 22. Some shots at ISO 100, 200, and 3200 and only the two shots at ISO50 f8 (1 each camera).

Without further ado here are two of the sets
.....................................................

ISO 50, f8.0 (both images are together - the mkII copied to the mkIII canvas)
LWI_1476___VI0S1475_web.jpg


Link to full size jpeg (19.35MB)
http://www.longwatcher.com/images/1DsM3_test/LWI_1476___VI0S1475.jpg

link to original 1DsMkIII CRW file (25.1MB):
http://www.longwatcher.com/images/1DsM3_test/LWI_1476.CR2

link to original 1DsMkII CRW file (19.35MB):
http://www.longwatcher.com/images/1DsM3_test/VI0S1475.CR2

..................................................
ISO 3200, f16.0 (both images are together - the mkII copied to the mkIII canvas)
LWI_1429___VI0S1473_3200_16_web.jpg


Link to full size jpeg (35.57MB)
http://www.longwatcher.com/images/1DsM3_test/LWI_1429___VI0S1473_3200_16.jpg

link to original 1DsMkIII CRW file (29.56MB):
http://www.longwatcher.com/images/1DsM3_test/LWI_1429.CR2

link to original 1DsMkII CRW file (18.82MB):
http://www.longwatcher.com/images/1DsM3_test/VI0S1473.CR2

Enjoy
 
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Member
Almost forgot to mention. Except for adjusting White Balance and copying the MkII image to the MkIII canvas, nothing else was done to the large jpeg.

The web version was USM'd though, but that is just for pretty looks anyway.
 
Doug Kerr

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Tim,

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher) said:
One favor though, please, please, please DO NOT Pass the links for the CRW files or the full size jpegs outside of this site, I am limited on bandwidth and if say someone on DPR got hold of the links I would have to probably shut down my site for a month, because I can't afford extra bandwidth charges.
Click to expand...

Thank God no one on DPR can access this post.

Without further ado here are two of the sets
.....................................................

ISO 50, f8.0 (both images are together - the mkII copied to the mkIII canvas)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, which is which?
 
B

Bart_van_der_Wolf

pro member
Stephen Eastwood said:
Quick question, why shoot at 50iso? do you see any gain over 100 iso?
Click to expand...

Hi Stephen,

I've posted a couple of technical analyses (here on OPF) based on the Raw data and they indicate no quality improvement of ISO 'L' over ISO 100 (when properly exposed to the right). Read noise and dynamic range are practically identical, unlike the 1Ds2 which does benefit a small amount.

The pitfall is in blindly following the camera's exposure meter, which will therefore overexpose the image by 1 EV. Subsequently pulling exposure on Raw conversion will lose 1 stop of dynamic range in the highlights, and improve shadow noise a bit. Another matter is how different Raw converters handle files with ISO 'L' settings.

So my advice based on my 1Ds3 (firmware 1.06) evaluations is, ISO 'L' brings no benefits compared to ISO 100.

Bart
 
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Member
And here I thought everyone was just ignoring my images :)

As you have figured out the larger is the 1DsMkIII (more pixels), in the large version it is a one for one pixel, unless photoshop lost some along the way.

I shot ISO 50 just to complete a set to my satisfaction, but as mentioned I do not really see much utility to it (or ISO3200), except for rare occasions. I can get better results by post-processing between ISO100 and 1600.

And if any one had asked for them I would have been happy to put a set of a different aperture/ISO set I did at the same time. I still have the files, but I can not afford the bandwidth on-line for the over 60 CRW files and full size jpeg sets, so I just put up the two extreme ends of the set in terms of ISO.

And although I can't always follow what Bart's analysis' say; I have agreed with the results he came up with based on my own experience and not so technical analysis so far. I had already set my camera to full stop ISO only, but it was nice to know I wasn't really losing anything by doing that.

As I would say I am a former Imagery Analyst, not an Image Scientist. I can tell how good an image is, not so good on how good the sensor is, except as it relates to the final image. I do however have an understanding of the principles involved given I have worked with some advanced sensor projects, so I could follow most of the analysis. My eyes tend to glaze over when I see algorithms though, I think it was working with too many USAF pilots over the years.

On a final note since I can't remember if I mentioned it elsewhere. With exceptions, I have found I prefer the "look" of my 1DsMkII images at ISO1600 and 3200 to the MkIII, but the MkIII still retains more detail. At all other ISO settings I prefer the look of the 1DsMkIII images. Given I tend to shoot at ISO100, unless I can't; I don't see this as any problem. I note the exceptions seem to be when there is a cluttered and complex background (such as shooting into the woods or bushes, with little sky ), but when I have a clean and simple background I just don't like the look as good coming from the new camera - Just a personal opinion I suspect.

And the offer still stands to put up any two other sets from that test, if requested with a reason other then just because.
 
B

Bart_van_der_Wolf

pro member
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher) said:
And here I thought everyone was just ignoring my images :)
Click to expand...

With 144 views at the time of my writing this, I wouldn't exactly consider it ignored ;-)

And although I can't always follow what Bart's analysis' say; I have agreed with the results he came up with based on my own experience and not so technical analysis so far. I had already set my camera to full stop ISO only, but it was nice to know I wasn't really losing anything by doing that.
Click to expand...

In fact, below ISO 500, it's better than using 'intermediate' ISOs.

Given I tend to shoot at ISO100, unless I can't; I don't see this as any problem.
Click to expand...

Same here. ISO 100 unless the lighting/shutter-speed/aperture combination for exposure-to-the-right dictates otherwise (bracket when possible and in doubt, or when dynamic range dictates).

My take is that the choice for the 1Ds3 at normal ISOs is resolution driven, and for the 1D3 is speed and Dynamic range driven. For the extremes in speed, or resolution, or dynamic range, there are other solutions but none as versatile as both of the Mark III solutions (from an established Canon lens foundation centric view). Their feature sets are, while not perfect, impressive, as is the color rendition and resolution. Lenses may need some consideration for the best results.

Bart
 
A

Alan T. Price

New member
Tim, as both of these ISO ratings (50 and 3200) are beyond the recommended or best performing ends of the ISO range of the 1Ds2 (if not also the 1Ds3) I would like to download the two files for ISO 800 or 1600 and, if bandwidth permits, ISO 200 or 100. These are more meaningful for me as I generally use ISO 200, 400 and 800 with my longer lenses if the subject is moving at all.

Thanks,

- Alan
 
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Member
How about I will see if tomorrow (as my photo computer is off for the night) I can upload the ISO100, 800 and 1600 shots. I will also try to provide the large jpeg versions of ISO 200 and 400.

By default I am going to provide aperture of f4, if you want a different aperture, let me know. I already took the shots, so it is just a matter of uploading the files. Since the bandwidth was not as bad as I expected, I can probably do a couple of apertures.
 
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Member
Well the universe that is my life decided to have some fun with me.

When I went to upload the requested images a few minutes ago, they would not load and on top of that, when I tried to just re-write the folder they were in, it lost all of the images. Lastly, my service for my photography site is not available after 10PM EST (price of virtually free service ).

So no pictures until I can get hold of my friend and have him fix the problem, it normally takes about 2 or 3 days to fix based on past examples (happens about once every six months in some fashion) - rest of the site remains fine luckily. It was only the test images that went bye bye.
 
Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Tim Dolan (Longwatcher)

Member
Before the site goes down again

http://www.longwatcher.com/camera_test.html

I put all the test images I am going to load any time soon, up and linked from this page.
Note the web versions are not linked from this page, all the links are either full size images or raw files.

As a reminder do not pass this to other forums (as in DPReview), please.
If I am going to break my bandwidth, I want to be fully responsible.

The total is a little over 500MB of images, which took about 4 hours to upload.

Edit: And I just realised the ISO 50 image is at f8.0 not f2.8. But I have already shut down my other computer for the night, so not fixing it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top