1ds versus 1ds Mark II

[Chip_Louie]

Hi Chester,

Brighter? I do push my histos as far right as I can without clipping. This may be part of the difference along with the fact that I'm shooting manual as much as possible even for motorsports. I find that I have much better control over exposure and the histos this way. When shooting buildings I sit and wait for the right light and I control the light inside so I shoot manual mode all the way.

I have a lot of "L" class glass but I have seen that for the most part the non "L" primes are just as good and often better than their faster "L" class sisters. I'm not an "L" fanatic except for zooms (EF16-35 2.8L, EF28-70 2.8L, EF70-200 2.8L IS), and teles over 100mm (EF135 2L, EF300 4L IS EF300 2.8L), O.K. looking at the list maybe I am a bit and "L" fanatic LOL! but I do have several non "L" primes which are what I mostly use for interiors.

As to software I tend to use a lot of tools. When I have an interior job I tend to use the same tools, workflow and settings once I get a good initial image. Then I'll adjust slightly from capture to capture tweaking what I think may work better for a particular image. It's a slower process than what I do for sports images which need much less work for acceptable results (given typical usage and what comes out of an EOS 1D), but certainly faster than working with 4x5 and the time it takes to set the camera and go back and forth from the lab.

Now don't come away thinking that I believe that an EOS 1DSmkI or even mkII is comparable to 4x5 image quality, it's not. In terms of detail and image control scanned 4x5 film kills every DSLR on the market today period, but in terms of film grain vs. sensor noise the EOS 1DS is killing scanned film out of the camera. But you can certainly use the same noise reduction tools on scanned film to make up the difference on 4x5! Knowing this and knowing that most of my work is not output at huge sizes (magazines, brochures etc.), and my client demand for finished prints being rarely larger than 16" X 24" I'm pretty happy knowing that I CAN go larger than this and be very happy with the output using the tools I have.

Sure an EOS 1DSmkII will give me larger image files and maybe a stop better in terms of out of the camera noise but in testing a mkII I found that I can easily match the mkII's noise levels using noise reduction software and still match the mkII for sharpness using the same glass. IMO all things being equal, the 1DS gives up a slight amount of very fine detail under some conditions on printed output. But like I said before there isn't any Canon mount glass good enough to exploit this difference at the moment. Many have found that using lens adapters and mounting 35mm lenses from Contax and Leica that the EOS 1DmkII is capable of incredible image quality. I don't doubt it but I don't want to go back to manual focusing and manual diaphragm setting to get these improvements and I just don't have time to monkey around with it. For my own work I would rather have TWO EOS 1DSmkI bodies than a single EOS 1DSmkII.

Nice work on your site. A D60? WOW! how do you get the D60 to pull focus air to air so well? I had a D60 and hated the AF for sports and immediately went out and bought an EOS 1D which worked just like my EOS 1N's and 1V which is to say exactly like it should have. Your images show just how good the D60 was. In its element, slow considered studio type images the D60 is still IMO an fine image maker. Not too sturdy and the AF made me nuts but the core image system is a peach. How you get the air to air images to work well from a D60's AF system is a wonder to me!

If you do much of the air to air, ground to air and air to ground work you may want to consider buying an EOS 1DSmkI and EOS 1DmkII combination. This is much like I've done to balance the strengths of both body lines. I like the responsiveness of the EOS 1D body and narrowed FOV of the 1.3X sensor size for sports give me the ability to carry an EF300 2.8L with both converters and get the focal length I used to need to carry an EF 400 2.8L for to get the same images. I need the FF sensor of the EOS 1DS and higher pixel count for my interior work which allow me to manipulate image perspective and correct distortion and retain enough pixels to get larger prints without any problem. It's expensive to have the ability to shoot diverse subjects well but I like the way it changes your outlook and sometimes the different experience crosses over and comes in handy.

I figured out that all the pixel peepers are nuts. Yes there are frequently scary looking differences in images captured with one lens vs. another or processed with one program or another when viewed on a monitor at over 100%. But all that really matters IMO is that I can use the tool well, that it produces what I'm happy with, I can get the image on paper and that the client pays me for it. Past that I want it to be reasonably priced and last a long time. What matters is what you can use to produce an image on screen or on paper. Heck, I once had to use a $300 digital p&s that produced fantastic images for product shots used on the web and small prints! Of course they did not look as well when printed larger then 5"x7" but this was a known limitation that the client's put on me going into the job.

Well I've yammered on too much a couple of paragraphs ago. I hope I've helped you in a direction that will help you continue to be successful.


Cheers/Chip

[Dave_Chilvers]

Comparing mk1 and mk2 images(every thing else aside) IMHO the mk1 images give up more fine detail.The use of WA lenses on both cameras find the mk1 giving better results. The mk2 is a dream of a camera in many ways as has been described but for me and my kind of photography(landscape and general)the jump up to the mk2 wasn`t really required(of course you don`t know that till you shell out for it)There is more DR in the mk2 images and obviously noise is better.Unless I`m doing something wrong I would say that to pull the detail from a mk2 file is very hard. I can convert a mk1 file, add a standard amount of USM and out pops the detail(every time)I don`t run into noise problems because I use a tripod and normally keep it down to 100asa.
It is obviously horses for courses and if you need the improvements that the mk2 gives then fine but if your needs are small and you just want to produce the wow factor on prints up to 20x16 the mk1 does it all.Probably one of the really good points of the mk1 is that you can use zooms more frequently and my 17-40(which is a bit of a mediocre L lens really)is great on the mk1 but lacking on the mk2.
I`ve got no axe to grind and both cameras are great but my advice is to shoot side by side before deciding. You might save some money or you might not depending on your needs.

[MichaelTing]

I think a lot of people are trying to justify their $8000 purchase by making overhyped comments.

You can't really say "noiseless at ISO so-and-so" with digital capture (at least with my experience of Canon CMOSes). Sometimes you get image that are clean at ISO 400. Sometimes grainy image at ISO 50 - on the same camera. It all depends on the amount of light for a particular scene, and exposure settings.

Having said that, ideally, if you want noise-free shadows, take some fill lights to put additional light into shadow areas. This will make help the sensor capture smooth gradients. Then, on the post-processing, burn those shadows back to put the contrast back in. Anyway these days, post processing is a must. Otherwise you end up with perfectly exposed, perfectly lit, BORING images.

I love the way the original 1Ds render images so much. I've been using it for so long I know exactly how to produce the color I want even shooting JPEGs. You can combine tone-curves, color temperature settings, and color matrixes to produce the feel you want straight from in-camera processed JPEGs. Sure the new 1Ds have the same customizables, but it'll take time before I get familiar to them. In the mean time, I think the difference between the two cameras is little. Noise? lit those shadow areas. Detail? It's the same size sensor, the same lenses with same resolution on the lens. Tonal gradation? It's STILL a 12-bit 35mm CMOS sensor. Get a Leaf is you really want to improve your image. But then I'm not sure if Leaf can handle tungsten and HMIs.. Cine lights open up a whole new world of photography, and I'm not sure Leaf backs would react to them like my 1Ds does.

[Shawn_G_Henry]

I'd agree with James and Michael... While the 1ds2 is a great camera with many nice improvements, it's certainly not leaps ahead of the original. The biggest benefit to the Mark 2 for me is the boost in speed: I was much more likely to hit the buffer with the Mark 1, but I've yet to hit it with the Mark 2, and fortunately, I've only experienced the file corruption problem that many folks have reported with the M2 once & I was able to recover the images from the card.

The original 1ds, despite being replaced, is still a great tool.

Shawn

[AlexLins]

Quote Seriously, do people even read when somebody from INDONESIA posts? Where's the credibility in that? Unquote.

Michael, your remark is uncalled for and smacks of jingoism which is not allowed on this forum. Malaysians are no more and no less credible than Indonesians.

[sami_kulju]

I´m one of those odd anoraks that have choosed to use original Canon 1Ds and Leaf Valeo 17. I have to say that for me the compo is perfect. Canon makes lifestyle alive and cinema-like, while Leaf handles the other end - with HMI and tungsten too. I just may say that in mixed light conditions Leaf is very nice. Even fluorecent+flash is easy to balance for nice skintones and that has been one of the hardest things to fix with film and digital.

Anyway I´m very happy with both cameras and their resolutions and when I had an opportunity to compare the Valeo 17 with 1Ds2 I choose Valeo with no doubts. Maybe it´s the bigger chip - maybe it´s something else but the files are sharper and the tonal range is just what I wan´t with Valeo. I tested the Valeo 22 earlier but I felt that it was just a bit too big for me... files and postprosessing took twise the time and usually I ended to downscale them anyway. So - I couldn´t justify the extra money for 5 million pixels more. The jump from 17 to 22 is really not that big jump as You have noticed with 1ds and MKII - they have not that much difference. This has been a big question mark for me that why everybody wants have 22Mb backs if they could do 99% of their work with 16-17 MB?

Anyway these are different tools and the style, colors and overall feeling is very different if compared side by side. So I just pick the style I think that suits the needs and there we go.

Sami

[Craig_Lamson]

Heres a test between the original 1Ds and the MKII.

Small studio set, no artistic value. 2000w Mole from high and behind, 650 mole into a diffusion panel to the right, reflector board to the left.

Both cameras exposed to a meter reading from a minolta incident meter. Cameras set to tungsten wb, flies processed in C1 no banding or noise reduction, no sharpening nor any other adjustments. A third file was exposed with the 1Ds at -2/3 from the meter reading.

Lens is a Hasselblad Zeiss 150mm sonnar at f22.

The files are full frame PNG files in colormatch rgb.

MKII base exposure:
http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/41776583/original

MKI base exposure:
http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/41776584

MKI -2/3
http://www.pbase.com/infocusinc/image/41776588

[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