1ds versus 1ds Mark II

[Chip_Louie]

Hi Chester,

I don't know what you are going to shoot with your new DSLR or what lenses you have as you don't mention these bits in your post. The differences between the two is not that great unless you need really big finished output. For me the lack of truly great WA lenses is the limiting factor. There are no lenses really good enough yet to take full advantage of the EOS 1DS mkII's higher pixel count sensor. This may change as time goes by or Canon will improve the way the sensor collects light from the rear lens element but at the moment there's a core problem at the edges of the frame.

I've been shooting with the EOS 1D for a couple of years and the EOS 1DS for 8 months or so. I shoot mostly architecture and fashion/lifestyle/musical personalities with the EOS 1DS. I shoot with ambient light and studio flash in manual exposure mode with almost no FOC (flash on camera), except as fill and I save to RAW format (and depending on the job RAW+JPG), process using C1 Pro, NN, PK-Sharpen, PTLens, Image-Align, PS-CS and if I'm producing output (for final or proofs for color), in-house I also use QImage to manage the printing and resampling. This is a typical process most pros shooting RAW go through to get the best image quality.

I must have one of the good EOS 1DS bodies and the people posting here must have all of the bad EOS 1DS bodies. I've got no complaints about noise on the EOS 1DS when well exposed up to ISO 800 nor have I ever seen any banding as can happen on my EOS 1D if I'm not pushing the exposure right enough on the histogram. This is not to say there isn't any noise at ISO 800 on the EOS 1DS but on the prints I really can't see any problems (and I'm really picky), nor have any clients mentioned noise. Now I may be working my images more fully than some people do but really, the EOS 1DS' noise at ISO 800 is not much of an issue on paper even without using the NN plug-in.

Mostly clients can't believe that I can produce images this good looking from a DSLR camera when they are used to seeing images produced by 4x5 and larger. Don't get me wrong, the EOS 1DS is not a match for a 4x5 view camera but I can shoot a job with nearly the same image quality at reasonable output size in less time from start to finish at a lower out of pocket cost (OOPC), and this makes me more money per job.


HTH

[Craig_Lamson]

I've been using my MKII for about a week now and IMO there is no contest. The MKII outperforms my 1Ds in every respect, color, noise, and speed. I've got a trailer set built in the studio right now and tomorrow I'm going to test them side by side, but I expect the MKII will reign supreme. I don't regret for a second making the purchase.

[ChesterGoosen]

Well Chip, you certainly paint a little brighter picture for the 1ds. (no pun intended)
All my lenses are Canon L series and all my post shooting is done through PS CS Raw. You mentioned a lot of software in your work flow. Are you saying you use all of them in series or are you just using the one that work best in each situation? We could start an whole new thread on that one.
If you want a better idea of the type of work I do you are welcome to go see my web site at www.f22photo.ca

I have done a lot of 4x5 shooting and like the idea of getting back to that kind of quality. I have been using the old D60 and I could certainly be swinging the penduleum to far but as I said, I don't want to keep upgrading. For my air to air work I sometimes find I have to crop into the negative a lot and then things go down hill fast.

You have a good point about what shows in the prints. I will do some more testing and take it all the way. What shows up on the screen sometimes is really scary and really doesn't come through on the prints nearly as bad.

CG

[RalphEisenberg]

To the pertinent comments already made I should like to add the following observation: If you are doing a comparison, I believe that you should do so using both bodies under identical lighting conditions. More specifically, an iso to iso comparison may be misleading. What you are likely to find is that what you are able to capture using the 1Ds1 @ iso 400, all other factors held constant, requires roughly iso 800 on the 1Ds2. There are certainly significant enhancements in the 1Ds2, but the original 1Ds is a superb camera.

[ QUOTE ]
There are certainly significant enhancements in the 1Ds2, but the original 1Ds is a superb camera.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my brief testing the 1ds2 seems to be a stop under the 1ds1.

I could kick myself in not really testing the 1 and 2 side by side, especially for higher iso, noise, exposure, but just jumped in with two 1ds2's and the 1 was so much in demand I sold them in hours.

In reviewing past files from the 1 compare to the 2 I believe the difference in actual detail between the cameras is almost equal and since the 1 is sharper I prefer the look.

For me the only advantage of the 1 vs. the 2 is the 2 has a better lcd and faster buffer. (when it works).

One change from the 1ds 1 and 2 is on the 1 SRGB is the standard output space for a neutral look, where on the 2 Adobe98 is the standard space. Canon said this was by customer demand.

I much prefer the 1 in this regards and in final ouput IMO the 2 is not really an improvement.

If money is an issue go with the original, because at 4k it is a deal.

If I had to do it all over again, I would have saved my money and kept the originals.




Best,

James Russell
www.russellrutherford.com

[ChesterGoosen]

When I did my testing I shot under the same light conditions and used the same lens.
I hadn't really paid attention to the exposure but after you comments Ralph I remembered noticing something when shooting.
I went back and checked my meta data and found that the 1ds was in fact about 2/3rds of a stop faster than the Mark II.

[JackFlesher]

I have a slightly different take on this...

IMO the 1Ds1 actually overexposed slightly and blew highlights more than the 1Ds2. Not sure that translates to the 1 having a "faster" sensor; more likely it suggests a lower DR for the 1. IMO it translated to just under 2/3 stop at the top with perhaps another 1/3 stop available in the shadows with the 2, for a net gain of almost 1-stop of DR with the 2. It takes a slight "S" on curves to get the same look from the 2, yet you still maintain more shadow detail while preserving highlights.

As for this statement: >>since the 1 is sharper I prefer the look<<

I understand (and maybe even agree) that your files may appear sharper initially with the 1... BUT if they also have more detail than your 2 files, then IMO you have not optimized your workflow for the 1Ds2 files yet. Properly processed 1Ds2 files are notably more detailed than those from the 1.

Acutance, or how well edges get rendered, is a function of contrast and to a lesser degree resolution, but it is often confused with resolution. However, while acutance itself does generate the impression if increased resolution, it does not mean more true resolution. And acutance is better straight off the sensor with the 1 -- and this is probably further amplified by the lower DR Of the 1 described above. To evaluate true resolution, you have to look at the same edges or line-pairs at much lower contrast values -- if you do, the 2 will win out.

Notwithstanding any of the above, I feel the 1Ds1 remains a very competent, high-quality imaging device -- and if the 2 had not come out with all of its speed, color and noise improvements, I would still be shooting my 1 [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

My .02 only and respect YMMV,
Jack

[Pro Photo Store]

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying