# "Downgrading" for a very specific reason



## memoriaphoto (Oct 14, 2013)

Soo....I've been shooting a lot with 5D MK2 and now two MK3 and overall these are fantastic cameras, especially the mark 3 with exceptional performance all categories.

However recently I was playing around with an old-timer, the 1D Mark 3 (a CPS loaner) and I just realized ...man...these files are just gorgeous! Sure, they are only 10 Mp and the ISO performance is nowhere near the 5D3 but the colors, tonality and overall balance make these files, in my opinion, much more pleasing than the 5D2/5D3. Now, the 5D3 is noticably “better” than 5D2 in this area but even so...the 1D colors seem to pop more with a "glow" and the files respond better in post. And they also have a film-like character which I really REALLY like...

I'm actually considering trading one of my 5D Mark 3’s in for a fullframe 1Ds3 if that one is on par (or even better) than the 1D Mark 3 in terms of color, tonality and general character. I know it's crazy. It's an old camera and the LCD is crap but that's what my heart tells me. And I will still have one 5D Mark 3 for low light work anyway so...

Is the 1D series files better balanced than the 5D2/3 series? To me, the difference seems quite dramatic. I guess you don't ONLY get a better body and faster FPS for that huge amount of extra money you need to cough up for the 1D cameras.

Also, regarding colors....it is often said that anything can be done in post and yes, I can make my 5D3 files come closer to the 1D3 output but it takes time and I can't afford that.

Any thoughts?


----------



## rs (Oct 14, 2013)

What profile was enabled on the camera? These settings get recorded in the raw file, and if you use DPP, unless told otherwise it will obey these settings. Lightroom likes to ignore any in camera settings. 

And if you're using something like LR, you can spend time fine tuning your look and feel, and then get it to apply it to all raw files when imported.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 14, 2013)

If you had mentioned ergonomics, or build, or handling I would say, yeah, a 1D is better designed than a 5D, for demanding users in certain situations, a 1D can be used with the eye to the viewfinder more of the time.

I could see why you might be swayed towards a 1D series camera.

Things to consider:

The 1D3 had a bad rep for AF (IMHO a lot of folk weren't setting them up properly, or simply the camera outclassed their understanding of AF etc) there were firmware and physical fixes.. just something to be aware of.

A 1Ds3 is a different beast. Although a better match in terms of FL conversion, it's

a

much

slower

camera.

What about a 1DIV?

Of course if its the look you are after you could try certain picture profiles. You mention 'film' like.

Tried this: Quick, Easy and Free...

http://www.dxo.com/intl/sony

Otherwise.. I think it would be silly to go old tech for IQ reasons.


----------



## e17paul (Oct 14, 2013)

I have a similar thought when I look at photos from my old Olympus Mju 410. The colour rendition from the 4MP CCD punches well above its weight, despite the built in compact zoom lens. Maybe in the race for megapixels and high ISO performance, colour performance has taken a back seat.

Or maybe it is the glass? Without detailed comparison, my Olympus Zuiko lenses seem to give better colour than the Canon/Vivitar lenses when used on the 6D. When I get chance, I will test the Zuiko 50/1.4 on the adapter against the EF 50/2.5, both on the 6D.

In the light of this post, I would be interested in trying a 5D mark 1

The attached was taken with the Zuiko 24/2.8 adapted onto the 6D. Not a great photo, but the colours of car and sky are as their makers intended.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Oct 14, 2013)

mmm Ford Capri orange. I saw a 3.0L in that colur win best car at the Adelaide classic car rally several years ago.

Sorry, off topic there. I've done a bit of research recently on image quality, and in theory the 1D3 should be on par with the 5D (though worse graining at higher ISOs), and the 5DII and 5DIII should be spanking it, with the 1Ds3 falling between the two newer 5D incarnations. 

However, that's the theory. 

Interesting that you're finding the 1D3 speed machine seems to be out performing the more portrait-oriented cameras in terms of colour, as I'm lookin to get into full frame, and can afford a 1D3 or 1Ds2, but not the newer versions of the 1 or 5 series.

all the best,

Grant


----------



## wsgroves (Oct 14, 2013)

Just remember that the 1D3 is a APS-H camera...not exactly full frame, where the 1DS3 is full frame.

I still have my 1D mark II and I love the pictures it produces to this day and its only 8mp.

Scott


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 14, 2013)

I hate the APS-H sensor with a passion, the 16-35, a severely compromised compromise, becomes your truncated 24-70 and there is no 16-35 comparison lens for it.

The 1Ds MkIII is a different question, I have been using two for the last four years and they are an amazing tool, the files are much nicer than the 1D MkIII files, the framerate is 5fps compared to the 6fps of the 5D MkIII so no real limitation.

But I would like to have some of the features of the 5D MkIII, the iso performance is so much better, the RT flash system functionality and the second joystick on the drive are the three most pressing features I wish I had, but they are not enough to "upgrade" yet. Truth is I am waiting for a >20mp 1Dx MkII.

As for colours, it is digital, with a robust workflow you can make anything look like anything else, there is no reason to change cameras because of contrast, colour or anything else like it. Get some accurate dual illuminant camera profiles into your workflow and make everything look however you want.

1D/1Ds images do seem to have a bit more robustness when pulling and pushing RAW files, I never have worked out why, but the truth is if you get exposure accurate to within half a stop either camera, the 1Ds MkIII or 5D MkIII, will deliver your intended image.

As I said, I have 1Ds MkIII's and I am not seriously interested in swapping to 5D MkIII's, but if I had 5D MkIII's I wouldn't be interested in stepping back in time either.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 14, 2013)

@memoriaphoto I have noticed this to with the 1D bodies. It is my belief that Canon put more in to the firmware on the flagship bodies. The files come out with less processing required. 

As you noticed you can PP the 5D files to be as good as, and maybe even better than the 1D III's. The 1D files have less head room for improvement than the 5D files.


----------



## Kwanon (Oct 14, 2013)

Go for the 1Ds Mark III!!!! it's a great idea!
It is in no way a downgrade in my opinion. The 1D series has a lot to give!


----------



## docholliday (Oct 14, 2013)

I still prefer to shoot with my 1Ds3 and 1D3 than any of the newer bodies. Of course, I don't use anything higher than ISO800... For wireless strobes, I use MiniTT1 and FlexTT5s with 430EXIIs and have no range issues. The early reports of problems with the Pocketwizards have mostly been resolved with the newest firmware.

Yes, the files are crispier and more "rich" out of camera. There is definitely a film-like quality from them. This, of course, shot next to a 1VHS with Fuji Acros in it most of the time.

The 1D and 1Ds crop factors do make a difference, but is a good pair to have. For wide and resolution, I'll load the Ds. If I need reach, speed, or just a smaller file, I'll load the D.

Best part is that the configuration of both cameras match perfectly, so no change in controls when moving from one to the other. That, and there is an option to save your current camera configuration to the card. I'll then pull the card, put it into the other camera, and all my settings, custom func's, etc are loaded into the other body.

I've always (personally) preferred a larger body - coming from medium format, the weight and size is still "smaller" than the Hasselblad and Wisner LF cameras I use. The weight isn't a burden, especially with larger lenses. I shoot a lot on a tripod, so that also makes the size/weight issue moot.

It's not a downgrade.

The 1DsMkIII is still my favorite camera to this day. I don't have need for the 1Dx, nor the 1DIV - especially since I don't care for video. If I wanted motion, I'd go get a Red or Arri with Zeiss glass. The 5 series is too light for me and I don't care for the ergonomics, lack of weatherproofing, and having to add a grip to use a sling strap (I hate the Krap-Rapid design, I actually use my tripod mount often with Arca-Swiss plates...). The Op-tech sling kit on the right side top to the bottom lug of a 1DsMkIII is still the best way to carry it.

My favorite setup? 1DsMkIII with Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE or 100/2.8L IS Macro. 1DMkIII with 70-200/2.8L II IS or 180/3.5L Macro. If I was going for more resolution, I'd go Hasselblad H5D...

Get the 1DsMkIII - you'll love it (and once you've used a 1-series, you'll understand why the other bodies just don't feel right!).


----------



## memoriaphoto (Oct 14, 2013)

Thanks for feedback guys. And some seem to agree with me which is nice, I am not loosing my mind after all ;D

As I mentioned earlier it is not really as simple as color profiles. I’ve played around with this for years making own profiles with Xrite colorcharts, tweaking existing ones etc. It’s more technical linked to bayer filters, image sensor/different digic processing and how the 1D series imagefiles in general seem a bit more balanced, respond better in post production and its colors a bit “purer”. Also, I am talking about IQ in the lower ISO range, max 1000

Someone mentioned that they find it interesting that I believe an 1D3 will outperform 5D mark 3. No, it will not outperform per se. High ISO images are beyond any possible comparison, the resolution of mark 3 files is also in another league so on paper it is of course unbeaten on every level.

No, it’s more a look and feel thing, which (to me) is IQ as well, however on a more subtle and personal level of course. This has nothing to do with modern camera performance. I know many still prefer the look of a 2005 EOS 5D compared to the newer ones. And since I mentioned personal it might also be worth saying that some may not even notice and difference at all. How we see and react to colors is very different. 

I don’t know, As some of you have commented already, I guess the bottom line is that I find the 1D rendering more pleasing to my eyes and that the files respond “snappier” to my kind of editing.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 14, 2013)

I felt the same way moving from a 5Dc to a 5D3. The files looked more neutral out of the 5Dc....


----------



## memoriaphoto (Oct 14, 2013)

Does anyone know where to find real-life RAW files (not testcharts/brickwalls) from the 1DS mark 3 for download so that I can play around a bit and get a general feeling? If not, maybe someone could send a few files for testing? That would be interesting.

Cheers


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 14, 2013)

memoriaphoto said:


> Does anyone know where to find real-life RAW files (not testcharts/brickwalls) from the 1DS mark 3 for download so that I can play around a bit and get a general feeling? If not, maybe someone could send a few files for testing? That would be interesting.
> 
> Cheers



PM me, I can send you around 200,000!


----------



## wsgroves (Oct 14, 2013)

As much as I love the feel of the pro bodies, I still think memoriaphoto, that you need to figure out what you want to shoot first.
Will you be shooting a lot of low light situations? The iso on the 1ds3 is a fair bit behind that of the newer cameras such as the 5d3 and 1dx.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 14, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I felt the same way moving from a 5Dc to a 5D3. The files looked more neutral out of the 5Dc....



Funny you mention that because I am beginning to feel that way about the 5D mki as well. I can't put my finger on what it is. Certainly on screen the resolution from the 5D mkii and 6D is much better, but the 5D mki files seem to be smoother and go to print really well. Puzzled.


----------



## canon1dxman (Oct 14, 2013)

Ah, Capri lust. I will put my rose tinted specs back on! Had a Capri 2.0S from new in 1978 and a 2.8is new in 1982. great cars in their day and loved them both. Happy memories but things move on. 

Had a 1D3 from new and the images were fantastic.....when in focus!!! Sadly, that was the problem, too many out of focus images and that rarely happens with the 1DX, thank goodness. I would still have one though as a back up which speaks volumes for the IQ.


----------



## Kwanon (Oct 14, 2013)

Memoria photo, what do you think about the 1DX?
I've had have owned and used the 5D Mark II, 1D Mark III, 1Ds Mark III, 1D Mark IV and now i use the 1D X.

My favourite files are from the 1DX and from the 1Ds Mark III second. If i didn't have the 1D X i could happily use the 1Ds III.


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 14, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I felt the same way moving from a 5Dc to a 5D3. The files looked more neutral out of the 5Dc....



There are certainly differences. I just shot an event with my 5DII and a CPS loaner MarkIII (with a 70-200). Subtle differences but I liked my MarkII better. And I actually got a better keeper rate with it. Probably because I'm more familiar with it. I found that the AF system on the Mark III over complicate things.

Files look very very very similar (maybe because I converted the raw files of the Mark 3 to DNG files first to load them into LR3?).


----------



## memoriaphoto (Oct 14, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> As much as I love the feel of the pro bodies, I still think memoriaphoto, that you need to figure out what you want to shoot first.
> Will you be shooting a lot of low light situations? The iso on the 1ds3 is a fair bit behind that of the newer cameras such as the 5d3 and 1dx.



That's a valid point, i am shooting a lot of weddings summertime and mostly portrait and life-style overall. In general, EOS 5D (any mark) is THE wedding camera, sure. And I get tons of great images. It's just that when I look at 1D images straight out of cam I feel that the starting point is miles ahead. I'm sure it's the result of better colorbalance algorithms and colorfilters Canon put in their high-end bodies. And rightfully so...

However...as for choosing, I own *two *5D Mark 3 bodies, so what I am planning to do (if I trade) is to keep one of the 5D for real low light work and just the 1Ds3 for normal shooting. The only downside I can think of is that I will probably avoid using both bodies simultaneously due to color inconsistency between the 5D and 1Ds3. And of course potential operating issues switching from one body to the other


----------



## memoriaphoto (Oct 14, 2013)

Kwanon said:


> Memoria photo, what do you think about the 1DX?
> I've had have owned and used the 5D Mark II, 1D Mark III, 1Ds Mark III, 1D Mark IV and now i use the 1D X.
> 
> My favourite files are from the 1DX and from the 1Ds Mark III second. If i didn't have the 1D X i could happily use the 1Ds III.



Good question, I am not sure. Haven't tried it personally. Mainly because I DON'T want to like it I guess  a bit on the pricy side for me right now.

It is of course one helluva camera, end of discussion... but looking at how Canon have changed the colorpalette the last years (intenionally or not) I am not suuuure the file _character _will pass my somewhat conservative demands  

How is the 1D Mark 4 compared to the others? Is it close to the 1D Mark III (color/characterwise)?


----------



## Aglet (Oct 14, 2013)

Yup, you're not imagining the difference. This topic has been touched on in numerous, often vociferous debates here in the past. It's likely the tighter bandwidth of the CFA on the older sensors.
I don't know how much the in-camera processing differs, as far as generating raw files is concerned, but even using the same PP workflow I prefer "the look" from Canon images from the Digic 3 or older generations. I sold off most of my newest Canon gear when switching to PentNikon but I retained my favorite Canon croppers; 40D, 450Ds and even 1000Ds. I still prefer the older 350D in some ways, it also has "that look" that's very similar to the 5DC. You can also find this difference, to a less extent, even in PnS cameras like the G-series. G3 is one of my favorite old compacts for IQ. Combined with the different low-iso noise character, those old cameras produced very pleasing results with minimal tweaks in post. HI iso is no comparison, modern wins.

too bad Ankorwatt/Mikael isn't here to have his, "I told you so" moment.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 14, 2013)

memoriaphoto said:


> Soo....I've been shooting a lot with 5D MK2 and now two MK3 and overall these are fantastic cameras, especially the mark 3 with exceptional performance all categories.
> 
> However recently I was playing around with an old-timer, the 1D Mark 3 (a CPS loaner) and I just realized ...man...these files are just gorgeous! Sure, they are only 10 Mp and the ISO performance is nowhere near the 5D3 but the colors, tonality and overall balance make these files, in my opinion, much more pleasing than the 5D2/5D3. Now, the 5D3 is noticably “better” than 5D2 in this area but even so...the 1D colors seem to pop more with a "glow" and the files respond better in post. And they also have a film-like character which I really REALLY like...
> 
> ...



First I will assume ISO100 to keep it simple (the older stuff certainly falls apart much worse at higher ISOs).

One thing is to first compare them after a careful downscaling from 22MP to 10MP to make it fair. Don't underestimate how much of the newer stuff is worse is not true and just comes out of people mistakenly comparing things at different scales.

Another thing is that the color filters on the sensor used to be less color-blind so they could pick apart certain subtle colors better, which ones and to what degree exactly, who knows.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 14, 2013)

memoriaphoto said:


> Kwanon said:
> 
> 
> > Memoria photo, what do you think about the 1DX?
> ...



The 1D IV would be very good, with the higher pixel count the other thing that I think would stand out for you is the true auto ISO feature. If I remember correctly the 1D III ISO setting was not truly automatic, the 7D and 1D IV were the first with this feature. If the 1Ds III is not in your budget then the 1D IV would be out to as it sells for more than the 1Ds III.


----------



## BruinBear (Oct 14, 2013)

I had a 1Ds III as a CPS loaner for a week and always thought the colors from that camera were much "richer" than that i get from a 6D or 5D3. Glad its not just me that has this feeling.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Oct 14, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Yup, you're not imagining the difference. This topic has been touched on in numerous, often vociferous debates here in the past. It's likely the tighter bandwidth of the CFA on the older sensors.
> I don't know how much the in-camera processing differs, as far as generating raw files is concerned, but even using the same PP workflow I prefer "the look" from Canon images from the Digic 3 or older generations. I sold off most of my newest Canon gear when switching to PentNikon but I retained my favorite Canon croppers; 40D, 450Ds and even 1000Ds. I still prefer the older 350D in some ways, it also has "that look" that's very similar to the 5DC. You can also find this difference, to a less extent, even in PnS cameras like the G-series. G3 is one of my favorite old compacts for IQ. Combined with the different low-iso noise character, those old cameras produced very pleasing results with minimal tweaks in post. HI iso is no comparison, modern wins.
> 
> too bad Ankorwatt/Mikael isn't here to have his, "I told you so" moment.



Couldn't agree with you more! Also, funny you should mention the 350D. I recently bought a used 450D for my mother who needed a light DSLR. Took it for a spin before handing it over, just to make sure everything was OK. When I loaded the RAW files in Lightroom I felt like ".yeah....these files...look....REALLY good!" Straight out of cam, normal light, normal ISO range, kit zoom... for a short second I thought to myself. ....man if only my 5D3 could look this good! Plus the other perfomance of course ;D But still...that was a 250 dollar used camera.


----------



## docholliday (Oct 15, 2013)

wsgroves said:


> As much as I love the feel of the pro bodies, I still think memoriaphoto, that you need to figure out what you want to shoot first.
> Will you be shooting a lot of low light situations? The iso on the 1ds3 is a fair bit behind that of the newer cameras such as the 5d3 and 1dx.



I shoot a lot of low light...with a 1Ds3, and at ISO 100. My 40x60 prints don't say that it's behind the newer cameras. Actually, I prefer it.


----------



## kbmelb (Oct 15, 2013)

I shoot with a gripped 5D3 and 1Ds3. I prefer the images that come out of the 1Ds3 also.

I think I actually preferred my 1Ds2 most of all. I think the characteristics are closer to 5Dc. I owned in in concert with a 5D2 and usually shot with 1Ds2. I felt it was the most film like of all the DSLRs I've owned. I loved how the gradients and shadow transitions were just so much more smooth. You can't really fix or retrieve that in post. I think the 1Ds3 does this well but not as good as the 1Ds2. 

If I could only have one camera though, I'd take the 5D3 due to ISO/low light capabilities. the 1Ds3 really falls off at 800. Wouldn't mind trying a 1Dx but can't justify the price.


----------



## Kwanon (Oct 15, 2013)

I don't think the 450D can produce a good image no matter what lens or conditions you have.

The 1D IV images are really really good but are also really neutral and kind of flat. 

I think my 1Ds III has richer tones.

And my 1D X is astonishing. It is the perfect mix in every way. It has much better colours that any other camera i've used. Before i converted many of my images to B/W subconsciously not really thinking why but after i got the 1D X i realised how amazing the colours and tones are! Also the 1D X takes the sharpest photos and i get much more out of my lenses than before. (i thought i had do buy a leica to get good sharpness)
The tones, sharpness and a perfect ISO performance and a durability of 400 000 and 18MP full frame and 12 fps make it the perfect camera to me.

I really recommend the 1Ds III if you can get the cash. It is a great camera!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 15, 2013)

450d can't compete with contemporary high end bodies or current high end but for its day and market postion it was a great camera, first rebel with 14bit RAWs.

If you can't get a good image with a 450d and decent glass then you aren't much of a photographer, or maybe you are an inveterate snob or a misguided polemicist. 

I had a 400d, which with the right settings and good glass served me pretty well, to the point where, but for the advent of video, and the heavy use my 400d endured I would be perfectly happy to still be using it.

Funnily enough, and I know the 18mp d4 combo is sneered at somewhat, but I've never really trusted out the camera jpegs from any canon I've used, although I recall the noise being less intrusive on my 400d between iso100 and 400.

Thrn again as has been pointed out viewing at 100% for either camera isn't all that objective.


----------



## V8Beast (Oct 15, 2013)

In comparing the straight-out-of-camera RAW files of my old 5DC to my 5D3, I prefer the midtone punch and tonality of the 5DC. With the 5D3's files, I find myself cranking up on the clarity slider in post to recreate the film-like quality of the 5DC's files. After editing, I think there's very little if any difference between the files from both bodies, but the 5DC's RAW files prior to post are more pleasing to my eyes.

I dug through some old shoots with the 5DC just to make sure I'm not crazy, and sure enough, the files had that same midtone punch I remembered with little to no adjustments in post. 






















On a side note, one of these days I have to get around to doing a full shoot with a 1Ds3. There has to be a reason why so many of my peers still shoot with them.


----------



## Ewinter (Oct 15, 2013)

I find the color reproduction of the 1dx much better than the 5d iii. It's definitely my favorite.
As for the one who said if you can't get a good photo with a 450d and good glass you're not a good photographer.... Try shooting a gig with one. And see just how good ISO 1600 is on it


----------



## adhocphotographer (Oct 15, 2013)

All of these are very good points and interesting arguments....

I think if i were to start photography again, i would not go down the same path i did, but would buy an older second hand camera and a good lens. This thread is an argument for doing just that! To all the "what should i buy" guys out there... pick up a used 5D I, and a 50mm instead of the newest XXXD kit...


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 15, 2013)

adhocphotographer said:


> All of these are very good points and interesting arguments....
> 
> I think if i were to start photography again, i would not go down the same path i did, but would buy an older second hand camera and a good lens. This thread is an argument for doing just that! To all the "what should i buy" guys out there... pick up a used 5D I, and a 50mm instead of the newest XXXD kit...



I would just alter that a little; Ancient & Modern ; pick up a used 5D I and add a 40mm pancake. Within the restrictions of that combo ( use low ISO, slow frame rate, fixed focal length ) you would produce images every bit as good as the latest £££££'s worth of gear.

Also buy plenty of coffee and biscuits as you have to make a brew whilst waiting for the files to transfer........... ;D


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 15, 2013)

Ewinter said:


> I find the color reproduction of the 1dx much better than the 5d iii. It's definitely my favorite.
> As for the one who said if you can't get a good photo with a 450d and good glass you're not a good photographer.... Try shooting a gig with one. And see just how good ISO 1600 is on it



I was that one.

You see I was responding to a blanket statement, so I responded in kind.

And yeah, whilst a 450D wouldn't be my automatic choice for gig photography but with a fast lens and careful post-processing I'd get usable results. Funnily enough I remember folk shooting gigs on the first 1D's and 10D's when that was the best available... and getting decent enough results for newspapers and magazines.

But thats a very specific situation, and that wasn't the spirit of the very bold statement that...



Kwanon said:


> I don't think the 450D can produce a good image no matter what lens or conditions you have.



So lets leave aside gig photography, do you really agree *Ewinter* with Kwanon, that a 450D can't produce a good image under any circumstances? I'm not asking if there was anything better at the time, or anything better since, just simply do you agree with Kwanon's statement?


----------



## Kwanon (Oct 15, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Ewinter said:
> 
> 
> > I find the color reproduction of the 1dx much better than the 5d iii. It's definitely my favorite.
> ...



there is a place for the 450D but when 1Ds II, 1D III, 1Ds III, 1D IV, 1D X pro bodies are talked about the small wonder of a camera does not have a voice. The 1D line starting from the 1Ds II are my definition of a good photo.
450 is not bad, but not good either.


----------



## M.ST (Oct 15, 2013)

I need IQ and the 1Ds Mark III is for me after a few years always the number one for landscapes and portraits. For action, sports and wildlife I prefer the 1D X.

But it´s time to replace the 1Ds Mark III against a up-to-date camera with outstanding IQ. But Canon is sleeping and loosing a lot of pros in the last two years.

I used the 5D Mark III three-fourths of a year before the camera hit the market but I don´t like the camera and I don´t like the IQ (undeveloped). I prefer the 1Ds Mark III or 5D Mark II IQ instead. Even my old 350D tweaked prototype (not the production series firmware) is able to shoot more eye pleasing images and sharper images at ISO 100 (without RAW development).


----------



## Ewinter (Oct 15, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Ewinter said:
> 
> 
> > I find the color reproduction of the 1dx much better than the 5d iii. It's definitely my favorite.
> ...



I don't agree you can't get a good photo with one. I actually started with one of these, it has a place in my heart. 
I preferred its color rendition over the 7d, but as far as features go its rudimentary.

I personally think the rebel line get slated for a lot, due to the large amount of bad images produced with them out there.
It's a lot of people's first dslr; it's not the cameras fault they don't know yet. And they often dont understand the limits of their gear, and how to work around them (or when to give up)


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 15, 2013)

adhocphotographer said:


> All of these are very good points and interesting arguments....
> 
> I think if i were to start photography again, i would not go down the same path i did, but would buy an older second hand camera and a good lens. This thread is an argument for doing just that! To all the "what should i buy" guys out there... pick up a used 5D I, and a 50mm instead of the newest XXXD kit...



I've been saying this exact thing to everyone who asks me what camera is best to start seriously into photography. You can grow with a 5Dc, study with it and eventually make money with it. It still makes good files in all its ISO ranges in my tastes. 

If anyone on this thread would like to contribute photos to the 5Dc thread under the camera bodies section, it would be nice to see more photos from it.


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 15, 2013)

The 450d is still an awesome tool.

It was my first camera, i know (almost ;D ) every single thing about it - using it to shoot almost everything you can think of during my training wheel days.

The camera produces images that are sharper at low isos then the t2i on up. i edit exclusively in raw and have been pixel peeping these files for years now. The biggest difference is the metering- the 450 simply cannot compete with the tonal range from the t2i+. So while i keep it around- its too hard to give it up- i occasionally toss the 70-200 on it and let off some frames. The LCD is beyond bad compared to more modern version, but the raw files are just the same. Spectacular.

So basically- stop dissin' on that cam , buddy


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 15, 2013)

I don't miss my 5D classic a bit. The LCD screen was tiny, the autofocus system sucked and it was very slow writing to the memory card. I did like the smoothness and color of the images, but I can get the same look from the Mark 3 with Lightroom when I want it.

It's really hard for me to make a valid image quality comparison with my 5D3, or with any two cameras, because so much is dependent on the software I use for post processing. 

I've only been using Lightroom for two years. It's fun to go back and re-process the old images from the 5D classic and see what improvements I can make.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Oct 16, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I don't miss my 5D classic a bit. The LCD screen was tiny, the autofocus system sucked and it was very slow writing to the memory card. I did like the smoothness and color of the images, but I can get the same look from the Mark 3 with Lightroom when I want it.
> 
> It's really hard for me to make a valid image quality comparison with my 5D3, or with any two cameras, because so much is dependent on the software I use for post processing.
> 
> I've only been using Lightroom for two years. It's fun to go back and re-process the old images from the 5D classic and see what improvements I can make.



I know what you mean. Handling is poor compared to todays standards... the LCD is really crappy on the original 5D and the AF is poor. But even so...the images are still gorgeous. I sold my old 5D Classic a couple of years ago but I miss it... I'm thinking about getting another one again, just for fun. Like having sex with your ex or something. And they are so cheap now anyway - the 5D, not my ex (at least not that I am aware of)

As for the lightroom editing part... I have never been able to get the original 5D look with my 5D3 files though. May I ask your workflow/settings in LR? It would be interesting to hear


----------



## Pi (Oct 16, 2013)

memoriaphoto said:


> Does anyone know where to find real-life RAW files (not testcharts/brickwalls) from the 1DS mark 3 for download so that I can play around a bit and get a general feeling?



Try http://www.imaging-resource.com/. I am not sure how "real life" you will find them.


----------



## Pi (Oct 16, 2013)

In terms of color separation 5D>5d2>5d3. Of course, color separation cannot be measured with one number only, so those inequalities are a bit fuzzy. Color separation is related to noise, and in terms of noise, 5D<5D2<5D3.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Oct 16, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > All of these are very good points and interesting arguments....
> ...



You have indeed! I knew someone has been, but i could not remember who, and was too lazy to search!


----------



## Hannes (Oct 21, 2013)

I am beginning to wonder if people aren't just preferring the look of the old 12-bit files more in general compared to the 14-bit ones they have now. Those files are a bit more contrasty natively it seems. 

My old 350D did produce great photos and the 400D I have sitting on my desk creates gorgeous shots. I even don't mind the ISO 1600 shots, they remind me a lot about 400 ISO film.

I also know what you mean with the 1D files being very nice to work with. I recently picked up a used 1D III for similar money to a new canon 700D. It is certainly a lot more camera, the files look wonderful and the 10fps makes you giggle every time you use it. I wouldn't mind if it had a few more megapixels and a little bit better high iso noise performance but on the whole I'm very happy with the purchase. It was basically half the price of a used 5D II and about a third more than a 5Dc


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 22, 2013)

Both the 1D MkIII and the 1Ds MkIII both have 14 bit output in 16 bit files.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Oct 24, 2013)

For me it's not about the 12 vs 14 bit. It's just the old rendering of Canon sensors from the Digic II/III era. They must have used significantlly different color filters. I've read somewhere by a swedish sensor expert that Canon changed their RGB layout in the Bayer filter starting with the EOS 50D model, in some areas to the better but in daylight - sadly - worse. If this is true or not, I couldn't tell but there's a clear difference, I know that much.

Also, now after editing some 1Ds3 raw files I am absolutely convinced that they appear more pleasing to my eyes but also respond better in post processing.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Oct 25, 2013)

memoriaphoto said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, you're not imagining the difference. This topic has been touched on in numerous, often vociferous debates here in the past. It's likely the tighter bandwidth of the CFA on the older sensors.
> ...



Ditto! I still have a lot of love for the 30D Digic 3 images I took and also the 40D. My favorite body that I still occasionally use today is the 5D. I've never gotten quite as close or connected with the 60D I own. In fact, I may buy another 40D someday. I really loved shooting the 30D and 40D. Great cameras, great images.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Oct 26, 2013)

Allright...just got me one! Pulled the trigger on a mint condition 1Ds3 yesterday. So far it really shines! On lower ISO it is indeed better than the 5D3, hands down. Images are clearer and crispier and can handle post production work way better. And colors more balanced and pleasing...absolutely LOVE it.  

The only thing I miss from the 5D3 is the AutoISO and silent shutter.... I thought the low-res LCD would be a potential issue, but it really isn't. Good enough...

What was it Obi Wan said? Taking the first step into a larger world? Nerdy reference but true nevertheless...


----------



## Pi (Oct 26, 2013)

DXOmark measures the Sensitivity metamerism index for the 1DsIII to be 86 vs. 74 for the 5DIII (and 80 for the 5D2), all in daylight. The blue CFA filter is very "clean". I have this weird thought that the DXOmark data may be actually worth something...

Enjoy your new toy!


----------



## memoriaphoto (Oct 26, 2013)

Yes, I saw that on DXO as well...seems the 1Ds3 is one of the most color accurate cameras out there. Bad score for the 5D3 even though I often prefer its image character compared to the 5D2.

What's really surprising is that the mighty 1Dx scored about the same as the 5D3 (actually even worse). Not sure what that means in reality but I would have thought it'd be at least on par with the 1ds3

Sh*t, I've promised myself not ever EVER to go to DXO mark and look for charts and numbers.


----------



## Aglet (Nov 1, 2013)

I was in a time-wasting mood tonite so looked at over 140 different camera specs on DxOmark and specifically for the metamerism sensitivity ratings.
YUP, 1ds3 and 5d are at 86 and 84 respectively, and these are 2 bodies that are extolled for their image quality.
another good image camera, the 20d, is at 83.. a score it shares with the sx50 compact superzoom and G1x!

Of all the ones I've looked at, there are few bodies on DxoMark that score higher in this metric, 2 are Canons.. and there's a few Sonys. I'm not a Sony fan so not familiar with them but they're included at the bottom.

Would you believe...
coming in at 87 is the.... 50D! (my least favorite body because of it's high subjective noise levels)
and, in *TOP SPOT*, with a *SCORING* of *88* ... (Can we have some trumpets please?) 
The lowly consumer body, *LIKELY ONE OF THE CHEAPEST CONSUMER DSLRS EVER MADE...*
*THE 1000D!*

Instead of everyone rushing off and wasting a lot more time to see how a bunch of Canon bodies fare (in daylight index), here's what I put together, below.
Generally, it seems that most cameras that score at least in the high 70s can provide pleasing color although we see that even 70 or lower can still provide a decent image, witness the 6D.
Combined with unobtrusive noise characteristics, better CFA results seem to be what's appealing to our visual sense of perceived image quality. _(yet there's all those processing factors in there that should be able to make up for a good part of the difference?..)_

Canon

88	1000d
87	50d
86	1ds3
84	5d
83	sx50
83	g1x
83	20d
82	1d4
81	400d
81	30d
80	550d pre-prod
80	5d2
80	450d
80	s100
79	s90
79	40d
79	350d
78	7d
78	500d
78	1100d
78	G16
77	70d
77	60d
76	g12
76	g11
75	700d
75	s95
75	m
74	5d3
73	650d
73	600d
73	100d
73	1dx
69	6d

Pentax

85	km
84	mx1
83	k52, k52s
82	k20
82	kx
81	q10
81	K10D
81	k7
78	k500
78	k5
78	k200
77	k50
77	k01
77	kr
76	q
76	k30
75	645D


Nikon

85	d60
85	d40x
85	d40
84	d300
84	d200
84	d70
84	d70s
84	d50
83	d700
83	d2xs
83	d2x
82	d90
81	1j1, 1v1, 
81	p7700
80	d3200
80	d3000
79	1j3, 1v2, 
79	coolpix p6000
79	d3s
79	d7100
79	d5200
79	d3x
79	d80
78	1s1, 1j2
78	p7800
78	d800
78	d7000
78	d5100
78	d3100
77	d800e
77	d4
77	d610
77	d600
77	d300s
77	d3
77	coolpix p30
76	coolpix a
75	d2h
73	p7100
71	p7000

Olympus

86	e520
84	410
83	pen ep2
83	510
82	e600
82	e420
82	e3
80	pen epm2
80	pen epl5
80	pen ep3
80	e5
79	pen ep5
79	omd em5
79	omd em1
79	pen epl3
79	pen epl2
78	pen epm1
78	pen epl1

Fuji

82	s5pro
81	s3pro
79	xf1
79	f800exr
78	f600exr
77	x100
76	xz1
74	xs1

I'm not a big Sony fan, but most of their stuff is pretty well placed in this area.

Sony

87	a900
86	a77, a230, 
85	a99, a58, a450, a35, 
84	a37
83	a33
82	a100
79	a200, a290
74	a700


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 1, 2013)

^

I think what you have proofed here is that at least one of the DXo measurements is a load of b******s, and is misleading when taken out of context with all the other characteristics of the sensor.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Nov 1, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> I think what you have proofed here is that at least one of the DXo measurements is a load of b******s, and is misleading when taken out of context with all the other characteristics of the sensor.



Yep. Using another set of DXO scores for image quality, you get the 6D joint top with the 1Dx with a score of 82. As Mark Twain, who wrote a book or two once said, "lies, damned lies and statistics".

If you like the colours / image quality / look of it then go for the one that you like / suits you. One person's love for a 5Dc's image is differnt to someone elses love for a 7D or 1Dx's images.

Embrace your differences and maybe the world can be a better place  (cue the New Seekers and "I'd like to teach the world to sing")


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 1, 2013)

TrabimanUK said:


> (cue the New Seekers and "I'd like to teach the world to sing")



;D

You're showing your age !


----------



## Pi (Nov 1, 2013)

Aglet said:


> I was in a time-wasting mood tonite so looked at over 140 different camera specs on DxOmark and specifically for the metamerism sensitivity ratings. [...]
> coming in at 87 is the.... 50D! (my least favorite body because of it's high subjective noise levels)



The metamerism sensitivity index is just one of the many possible measures of how close the color vision of the sensor is to the human one. It is not affected (much) by noise. DXO have a different way to measure what they call tonal range, which includes both noise and color separation. In that, I believe the 50D does not shine at all. 

For good accurate color reproduction, you need CFA filters which project to a color space close to the human one but you also need low base ISO noise, and you need "good separation", which can keep the values of the color matrix under control (the conversion from Bayer to rgb creates its own noise). Canon's cameras mainly differ by the blue channel separation. 

BTW, DXO has ellipse charts or something of that sort for color noise. The 1DsIII performs very well compared to any other Canon, almost as good as a Nikon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2013)

DxO's metamerism test is so irrelevant even they don't use it in their sensor scores. In the opening line explaining their test concept they point out that _"Digital processing permits changing color rendering at will"_.

To put the various scores in perspective. Take a picture with auto white balance, now take another with manual WB 1,500K different, that would score you a 50 on their test. Which is fine if you couldn't adjust WB in post! As for jumping on a camera that shows a difference of a few points, grow up, the differences are miniscule even if they weren't totally adjustable. Most camera phones are tested in the 40's and colour is not forefront in most peoples analysis of their IQ.

Oh, and make some decent camera profiles...........


----------



## Pi (Nov 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> DxO's metamerism test is so irrelevant even they don't use it in their sensor scores. In the opening line explaining their test concept they point out that _"Digital processing permits changing color rendering at will"_.
> 
> To put the various scores in perspective. Take a picture with auto white balance, now take another with manual WB 1,500K different, that would score you a 50 on their test. Which is fine if you couldn't adjust WB in post! As for jumping on a camera that shows a difference of a few points, grow up, the differences are miniscule even if they weren't totally adjustable. Most camera phones are tested in the 40's and colour is not forefront in most peoples analysis of their IQ.
> 
> Oh, and make some decent camera profiles...........



This is a gross misrepresentation of what the index means. They do say that this index has a small impact of the IQ but no adjusting in color rendering can compensate for loss of information. You left out the most important part of that sentence, and by doing that, you distorted the meaning of that sentence, and its raison d'être. Here is the original:

_The sensitivity metamerism index (SMI) is defined in the ISO Standard 17321 and describes the ability of a camera to reproduce accurate colors. Digital processing permits changing color rendering at will, *but whether the camera can or cannot exactly and accurately reproduce the scene colors is intrinsic to the sensor response and independent of the raw converter.*_


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2013)

Show me pictures from two cameras with a difference of 10-15 points where the difference is not adjustable to the RAW file with a decent workflow.

P.S. If it is such a critical aspect of sensor design why don't even they include it in their proprietary sensor scores?


----------



## Pi (Nov 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Show me pictures from two cameras with a difference of 10-15 points where the difference is not adjustable to the RAW file with a decent workflow.



Is that an admission that you were wrong, before you changed the topic? 

Now, tell the OP that he wasted his time and money.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2013)

Don't quite know how you implied that from my reply, but whatever.

The off the sensor colour response is independent of the RAW converter, but we can't see that, *what we actually see* is entirely dependent on the RAW convertor and that relies on any subsequent camera profile. A yellow interpreted by the sensor data as 205, 207, 37 loses no quality being told to display at 207, 207, 34. So we can argue the benefits of a metric you can't see in a visual medium, or we can try to educate people that the way to get more accurate colours is not to buy a different camera but to make camera profiles. I don't care, I use a camera with a high rating (though that played no part in me getting it) and I use custom camera profiles. I come here to help people make educated decisions for them to achieve their own goals, and point out some common fallacies and misunderstandings, not endlessly debate highly technical measurements that even the measure's don't use, I leave that to you and Aglet.

As to the OP, he and I were in contact, as I suggested on the threads first page, and the 1Ds MkIII RAW files I sent him played a part in his decision making process to get one. I see no contradiction.


----------



## Pi (Nov 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> The off the sensor colour response is independent of the RAW converter, but we can't see that, *what we actually see* is entirely dependent on the RAW convertor and that relies on any subsequent camera profile. A yellow interpreted by the sensor data as 205, 207, 37 loses no quality being told to display at 207, 207, 34. So we can argue the benefits of a metric you can't see in a visual medium, or we can try to educate people that the way to get more accurate colours is not to buy a different camera but to make camera profiles.



The whole point is that we can see what we can't see.  We see as "yellow" a wide variety of colors (spectral distributions), and the camera sees another variety of colors as "yellow". This is loss of information, and there is nothing we can do about that. The colors in nature belong to an infinitely dimensional space; we see a 3D one, and the camera sees a 3D space but a different one. 

The most obvious example of what I am talking about are the Sigma sensors. They are able to produce vivid "neon" colors but they are extremely inaccurate, meaning far from the human vision. There is no processing that can change that. In any specific shot, you can make the face, for example, look accurate but then everything else will be far off.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2013)

You talk as though you can only adjust an entire colour space, not tune individual colours within that space; but this is not true, you can, you can even tune individual tones of a specific colour within a space. 

If you want accurate colours you can accept that a sensor records 207, 207, 34 as 205, 207, 37, just so long as you then make sure the software displays that "false" colour correctly at 207, 207, 34, that is all profiling does.

I have no specific knowledge of Sigma colour output, but the fact that software designed to profile Bayer array sensor colours *might not* be as accurate on Foveon readouts is not, necessarily, a surprise.

I would, however, be surprised if most people could pick what sensor was used based on colour output if they each had a basic 24 patch dual illuminant profile applied.


----------



## Pi (Nov 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I would, however, be surprised if most people could pick what sensor was used based on colour output if they each had a basic 24 patch dual illuminant profile applied.



I would be surprised if they could not see that any two cameras produce different colors.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2013)

You clearly don't use camera profiles.


----------



## Pi (Nov 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> You clearly don't use camera profiles.



Camera profiles can do just that - basically replace certain colors on the target with the right colors, in specific light. It is like painting over an image. What it cannot do is to fix the other colors, and by that, I mean, colors in nature and how we see them. Also, you need to profile in any given light, which nobody would do. With a camera having color vision close to ours, you just need to worry about WB, no more that that.

_...but whether the camera can or cannot exactly and accurately reproduce the scene colors is intrinsic to the sensor response and independent of the raw converter._


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 1, 2013)

Not only do you clearly not use custom camera profiles, you clearly don't understand the concept of dual illuminant profiles.

One of the areas I have had some small success in is flower photography, it is a discipline and clientele that holds colour accuracy as a key aspect of even basic quality work. I have never met a flower photographer who cared a jot about what sensor they used with regards colour accuracy, they all make it themselves. 

My point is, almost every camera made gives us pleasing colours, if "accurate" colours are important to you there is much you can do to mitigate any inherent or software induced issues, further, there is very little actual real difference between most current cameras inherent recording capabilites and none that will restrict you in your desire to be as anal as you like regarding colour accuracy, if you choose to.

The same is not true of other sensor metrics, but those are included in the DxO sensor scores.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 1, 2013)

Pi said:


> Here is a good read:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#Mathematics_of_color_perception



Proof that you haven't the foggiest idea what PBD is talking about.


----------

