# I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII



## Kuja (Feb 6, 2013)

I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII.

16,7 old megapixels vs 22 new megapixels.

At base sensitivity of 100ASA 1Ds MkII won in detail resolving abilities!
Also, shadow noise in dark areas looks nicer in 1Ds MkII files.

I have compared tiffs made from RAW using Capture One 7.0.2 with default sharpening both on and off,
with all noise reduction/smoothing options turned off.

1Ds MkII files look crisper and with more fine detail.

Compared to them, 5D MkIII files look as if they were made with lower resolution camera than 1Ds MkII,
and then were artificially up sampled with Photoshop to a larger file size.

Here are two 100% crops... 
Scroll them to the right to see those windows with white blinds:
real usable detail in 16.7mp 1Ds MkII files,
mushy moire in 22mp 5D MkIII files.

Again, both RAW files were developed with the EXACT same settings in Capture One,
test was done on a tripod, with 50mm lens set at f8:















I will post more crops and pulled shadows samples tomorrow, I must go to work now!


----------



## distant.star (Feb 6, 2013)

.
Wow!

I thought I had made the right choice with the 5D3.

Looks like now I'll have to kill myself!!


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 6, 2013)

To me it looks like the 5DIII image is slightly overexposed...or perhaps the 1dsII is a bit underexposed. Something is not right there and until you can get the washed out exposure corrected you cant make a good comparison on detail.


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 6, 2013)

Hi. Don't know how scientific your tests were. But as a 1Ds Mkii owner myself, I've yet to be convinved that newer cameras offer significantly improved image quality at ISO 100 (where I'm at for most of the time). The 5Diii might have better dynamic range, but I don't know how noticeable this would be in the real world. And of course, if you try to shoot at higher than ISO 3200....

Makes you wonder what Canon have been doing for the last 10 years.


----------



## birdman (Feb 6, 2013)

I haven't been on here in a while, and honestly I went to the "other" brand. But I'm still a big fan of Canon. 

Anyway, I'll say that for one, your test is not very scientific. I would use more lenses and scenarios to compare. If you compare a 5d classic RAW file to a 5d3 RAW at base ISO, it's likely the resolving power will be negligible at best. The major innovations in sensor technology happened years ago -- CMOS sensor. 

What we see now are different algorithms in processing, as well as some *slight* changes in sensor design that allow for lower temperatures and other variables to achieve less noise. We're splitting hairs these days. What you do get in newer DSLRs are faster FPS, better ISO performance, better weather sealing, better LCD screens, etc. Don't expect too much -- except large drops in value as the newest model is released. Which is the reason I dumped my 5d2. the Mark 3 had nearly the same IQ, according to reviews. I didn't need FPS, AF points, etc. as a landscape guy.

I'll even go on the record as saying my D800 does not significantly out-resolve my former 5d2. The shadows are much cleaner, however, and RAW files are probably better...uhh....programmed? Outta my league there!! But the 14-24 (I don't own one) and 16-35VR (I do own one) are the reasons I switched from the 5d2 and 17-40L (which I used to own). And all of the newer, highly economical F/1.8 primes they have released.


----------



## Kuja (Feb 6, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> To me it looks like the 5DIII image is slightly overexposed...or perhaps the 1dsII is a bit underexposed. Something is not right there and until you can get the washed out exposure corrected you cant make a good comparison on detail.



You have used the correct word - "slightly". 

There is a small difference in exposure due to slightly changing daylight between the two shots.

I tried to compensate, but the difference was less than 1/3 stop, so this was the best I could do.

Do you think that the difference in exposure of less than 1/3 stop, 
can make one camera having lower detail resolving power than the other 
and will it introduce moire instead of real detail?


----------



## Kuja (Feb 6, 2013)

birdman said:


> Anyway, I'll say that for one, your test is not very scientific. I would use more lenses and scenarios to compare.



I just wanted to test detail resolving power compared to my older camera, 
since I was not 100% satisfied after trying using the 5DIII for the first time on a job.

I immediately noticed some "mushy" quality in 5DIII RAW files compared to my old 1DsII,
so I needed to confirm this.

Sunny afternoon, two cameras set on a sturdy tripod, 
50mm prime lens set at f8, manual exposure, manual WB, 
RAW files developed with the same settings...

How more scientific can I be in trying to figure out which camera gives better detail resolving power, 
in real life use like, let's say, landscape photography?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 6, 2013)

Kuja said:


> birdman said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, I'll say that for one, your test is not very scientific. I would use more lenses and scenarios to compare.
> ...



Uhh, go do landscape photography with each??


----------



## kbmelb (Feb 6, 2013)

The thing I noticed between the my 1dsII and the 5DII & III is, the 1DsII has less DR and in a sense makes the photo seem crisper since the image is natively more contrasty.

I find myself adding apx 5-10% contrast bump to the 5DIII's images to match my 1DsII's images.

I'll even go out and say the 5DIII is 2-5% less contrasty as the the 5DII.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 6, 2013)

birdman said:


> .. I'll even go on the record as saying my D800 does not significantly out-resolve my former 5d2. The shadows are much cleaner, however, and RAW files are probably better...uhh....programmed? Outta my league there!! But the 14-24 (I don't own one) and 16-35VR (I do own one) are the reasons I switched from the 5d2 and 17-40L (which I used to own). And all of the newer, highly economical F/1.8 primes they have released.



Off-topic here, how do you find the 16-35mm in the corners?.. I've been considering it for my D800 as the 17-35/2.8 is not up to my desires for landscapin.' 
The 17-40L was not very good until stopped WAY down and even then it depended on focus distance.
As for 5d2 vs d800, I sold the former, bought 2 of the latter.

ON topic, I'm not surprised the old 1D series produces a slightly more pleasing image than the 5D3 but there should be some reasons for that. 5D3 should be producing slightly better raw files.. 

Then again, I sold all my newer Canon bodies and kept the old ones because they deliver nicer looking images. And then added bodies from the competition because they provide even better raw files.


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 6, 2013)

Kuja said:


> Here are two 100% crops...
> Scroll them to the right to see those windows with white blinds:
> real usable detail in 16.7mp 1Ds MkII files,
> mushy moire in 22mp 5D MkIII files.


If you down-res the the 5DIII photo to match the 16.7mp of the 1DsII, it will look sharper. Or enlarge the 1DsII image to match the 22mp of the 5DIII and it will look less sharp. The 5DIII is presenting a bigger image of the same scene, so it looks less sharp. If you had a 36mp photo of the same scene and viewed it at 100%, it would look even _less_ sharp. Also the unfortunate moire effect in the 5DIII photo is usually a result of greater resolution, not less.

Both look extremely good — very, very similar. If I had to choose, the 5DIII photo looks slightly more natural to me. Extra sharpness in 100% crops can look overly digital and is not necessarily welcome.


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 6, 2013)

kbmelb said:


> The thing I noticed between the my 1dsII and the 5DII & III is, the 1DsII has less DR and in a sense makes the photo seem crisper since the image is natively more contrasty.


Oh yes, that's a good point. The camera with greater dynamic range will present a less contrasty image. The camera with less dynamic range will present an image that looks crisper overall. But greater dynamic range is usually preferred as you can always add contrast.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 6, 2013)

very very "smart and scientific" comparison... ;D


----------



## Kuja (Feb 6, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Kuja said:
> 
> 
> > How more scientific can I be in trying to figure out which camera gives better detail resolving power,
> ...



I just did! 

The examples above are crops from an urban landscape.

Landscape photography can be more than pics of mountains and forests.


----------



## Kuja (Feb 6, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> Kuja said:
> 
> 
> > Here are two 100% crops...
> ...



This really makes no sense.

If I have tiny real details and texture in the white blinds on the windows in 1DsII sample
and I only have moire in the 5DIII sample,

why do you think that just by downsampling the 5DIII file to 1DsII file size, the detail that is not present in the 5DIII file will magically appear,
...or that just by upsampling the 1DsII file to 5DIII file size, the visible detail in the 1DsII file will magically disappear? 

The resolved details are present in the files or they are not.

You can just try what you have suggested - use the crops that i have posted above, 
resize them both way to match each other 
and see if the lost details will appear in 5DIII file when you downsize it, 
or if the fine resolved details will dissapear from 1Ds file by upsizing it.


Illusion of perceived sharpness achieved by stronger microcontrast is not the same as detail resolving ability.

1DsII files have both - more visible resolved detail _and_ higher microcontrast.

Remember that RAW files from both cameras were developed with the EXACT same settings,
so you can not say that file from one camera was sharpened more.




...


I'm a professional photographer for 20 years.
I have been shooting with 1Ds MkII since the day it was introduced
and I know every bit of its possibilities very well.

After all this years I wanted to upgrade to a more modern body.
I was hoping for a high MP body but we got 1Dx and 5DIII.

I (naively?) decided to try the 5DIII since it has more resolution 
and the 1Dx is not good investment for my needs (studio) if the big MP camera is around the corner.

The moment I started using the 5DIII in the studio (100 ASA, etc), 
I realised that I don't really like its RAW files compared to my old 1DsII files.

When I opened first 5DIII RAW file in Capture One (confirmed later in DPP and Adobe CR),
I thought for a couple of seconds that I must have missed the focus a little bit.

But I did not. 

I was just used to the crispness and details in 1DsII files that are just not there in 5DIII files.

I was disappointed since _I wanted badly_ to like the 5DIII and to keep it for use in the studio.


----------



## Kuja (Feb 6, 2013)

Shadow detail and noise as promised...

100% crops again, shadows are pulled in Capture One using HDR control, shadows option set to 100%.

Similar results this time, maybe I like noise in 1DsII files better, 
or at least I'm not disappointed in it's performance since it is old technology.

And yes, check the fine detail in those branches compared to 5DMkIII files:


----------



## Cannon Man (Feb 6, 2013)

This is great!!!! Everyone go buy a 1Ds II now =)


----------



## Studio1930 (Feb 6, 2013)

Forum rule #1. If you are going to do a comparison (no matter what it is) then you are going to get arguments from others unless you are a world famous person and then you will just get arguments behind your back. 

Personally, when I buy gear that I don't like then I just sell it or return it. We all know that not everything is as good in real life as it is on paper.

For the record, I sold my 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 for newer bodies like the 1D4 and 1DX. To this day, my 1Ds2 produced more interesting images with my 85L than any other camera. Not scientific, but certainly noticeable in my eyes (and some of my clients').


----------



## commercialshooter (Feb 6, 2013)

I shot with the 1DS2 for years and upgraded to the 5D3 so I have the same exact experience that you have with the bodies. A couple of things...

IF you only have to shoot at ISO 100 then your 1DS2 takes fantastic images. No doubt about it. IF you have to bump your ISO above 400 the images SUCK in comparison. At 1600 they are a complete mess. The 5D3 at 6400 is way better than the 1DS2 at 1600. There are other things that are hugely different as well. 

Better screen on the back of the camera by far which in the real work world I need to see if I got the shot I need at a shoot for my clients.

Much better interface, The 1DS2 had the worst interface ever with the strange 2 button controls for everything.

Live view

Video

more frames per second

Better dynamic range

The list goes on and on.

The other thing is maybe you need to try a different program to edit your RAW files in. The 1DS2 had a VERY soft out of the camera file because of the high pass filter they put on it. The files sharpened up extremely well in PS but they NEEDED it badly. I would try to do more tests with a different software and also change up your lens. Maybe your lens is calibrated perfectly to your 1DS2 but off a little when mounted on your 5D3. The sensor is not "Sharper" on the older camera. Trust me.

The other thing that is quite noticeable in your test is that the 5D3 shots are exposed brighter in EVERY instance. The test would certainly be more accurate if you match exposure. The settings are irrelevant. Its the final image exposure that matters. Need to compare apples to apples.

At the end of the day if you are are only shooting studio work or landscapes at ISO 100 you would never see the detail difference anyway unless you are pixel peeping. PRINT the images out at 24x36 after making them both look the best they can. Don't limit the sharpening, contrast, etc of one to what you do to the other. That is not what you would do in the real world. You would optimize each image individually for it's intended output. Do that and then lets look and see if the 1DS2 is a better camera. I doubt it. I loved that camera for years and I do love the way the images look from it. That said the sensors are much improved since then and there is more to a camera than a sensor.

Happy shooting!


----------



## vmk (Feb 6, 2013)

+1 



commercialshooter said:


> I shot with the 1DS2 for years and upgraded to the 5D3 so I have the same exact experience that you have with the bodies. A couple of things...
> 
> IF you only have to shoot at ISO 100 then your 1DS2 takes fantastic images. No doubt about it. IF you have to bump your ISO above 400 the images SUCK in comparison. At 1600 they are a complete mess. The 5D3 at 6400 is way better than the 1DS2 at 1600. There are other things that are hugely different as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 6, 2013)

Kuja said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Kuja said:
> ...



Except for the moire effect, I don't see detail in the 1DsII image that isn't in the 5DIII image. Moire is a problem, but you are mistaking moire for lower resolution. Moire results from interference between detail in the scene and the grid of pixels in the sensor. It is more likely to occur with _higher_ resolution. Higher resolution cameras such as the D800E are a magnet for moire, much more so than say the original 12mp 5D.

It is fact that when you view both images at 100%, the 5DIII is presenting a bigger image of the same scene. If you could compare the original 12mp 5D to the 22mp 5DIII, both at 100%, the original 5D would undoubtedly look crisper. This is a fact of life of higher resolution cameras: as the resolution gets higher, the images look less crisp _if you keep looking at them at 100%_.

Here is your 1DsII image up-ressed to match the 5DIII image (still at 100%) below it:


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 6, 2013)

Perhaps the conclusion could just be that Canon has been making great cameras for years, and when they announce/ release a new model they aren't forcing everyone to go run out and upgrade! They NEED to keep releasing new models to stay current with technology advancement, competition and to continue to market the "new" to new buyers.

There is no crime in shooting with an older camera and then upgrading when YOU need to, not when Canon releases an update.

Fighting about a few extra pixels in the corner of a frame at 100% is a waste of time.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 6, 2013)

This thread has to be a joke. Either way, it's really, really awful.


----------



## meli (Feb 6, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> This thread has to be a joke. Either way, it's really, really awful.



Nothing awful about it. For my part I've decided long ago that the weight of 1d-based system was not for me but i still have my 1ds2 and although i jumped to d800 this season i still go for my ds2 rather than my 5d2s when i feel like Canon. 
I dont have any experience with the ds3 but my feeling is that nothing much has changed in Canon's IQ <400iso since ds2 release 8-9 years ago. Shows how far ahead was back then and how stale is now in this particular sector...


----------



## kbmelb (Feb 6, 2013)

I truly loved my 1DsII. It was a sad day when I sold it. I always loved the images that came out of it. I'm finding the 1DsIII is very similar in most ways just with 4-5 more MPs. Even ISO performance is similar. I didn't/don't like to shoot either over 800.

The 5DIII with similar low ISO performance and amazing high ISO performance make it an incredible all around performer. There are a handful of reasons I went with 1DsIII instead of a second 5DIII, better flash metering, spot metering, better metering in general and build quality.


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 6, 2013)

Have you tried using DPP to do the RAW conversions rather than capture one?


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 6, 2013)

Now I'm really confused. Last week there were countless threads about 1DsIII vs 5D mkIII, now people are saying the 1DsII is the ultimate camera for shooting buildings and cropping 100% for the web???

I really don't know what to buy now, I was gonna go with 2 1DX's because I hate the ugly-turny-knobby-dial™ on top of the disgusting-overpriced-toy™ of a camera (5DmkIII), and I figured I'd get 2 cause I have 2 hands...

Perhaps I'll just switch to the Dark Side™ and get a D3200. DxO must love those cause they are paid by Sony-Sensored-Nikon™


----------



## bdeutsch (Feb 6, 2013)

commercialshooter said:


> I shot with the 1DS2 for years and upgraded to the 5D3 so I have the same exact experience that you have with the bodies. A couple of things...
> 
> IF you only have to shoot at ISO 100 then your 1DS2 takes fantastic images. No doubt about it. IF you have to bump your ISO above 400 the images SUCK in comparison. At 1600 they are a complete mess. The 5D3 at 6400 is way better than the 1DS2 at 1600. There are other things that are hugely different as well.
> 
> ...


Thank you for bringing a little perspective to this old fight. There's a lot more to a camera than its ability to shoot a specific scene at 100 ISO. (And most cameras that have been released over the past 5 or 6 years, including my original 5d can do an awfully good job of that).


Actor Headshots NYC | Gotham Family Photos | NY Wedding Photography


----------



## unfocused (Feb 6, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> Now I'm really confused. Last week there were countless threads about 1DsIII vs 5D mkIII, now people are saying the 1DsII is the ultimate camera for shooting buildings and cropping 100% for the web???
> 
> I really don't know what to buy now, I was gonna go with 2 1DX's because I hate the ugly-turny-knobby-dial™ on top of the disgusting-overpriced-toy™ of a camera (5DmkIII), and I figured I'd get 2 cause I have 2 hands...
> 
> Perhaps I'll just switch to the Dark Side™ and get a D3200. DxO must love those cause they are paid by Sony-Sensored-Nikon™



Careful. You are going to get yourself banned and the thread erased.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 6, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Forum rule #2: Everybody has an opinion; very few people embrace contradictions to that opinion. Some (about 1%)of the opinions are broad based and will apply to all users. Very few posters have a broad technical understanding of photography, and they don't really need to. Relying on what you "feel" from looking at your photography has proven to not be very accurate in determining photography physics, it does, however, make a good basis for your personal purchases. Your best personal purchases are rarely the best purchase for another user.



You are being too logical.


----------



## Cannon Man (Feb 6, 2013)

All this talk about the 1Ds II is really making me want a 1DXs camera!!!!!!
I know it's coming 1013 or 2014, bring it out already!


----------



## Kuja (Feb 6, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> This thread has to be a joke. Either way, it's really, really awful.



What is a joke here? 

My 1Ds MkII has already had one shutter worn out and replaced, 
now the count on the replacement shutter is around 160.000.

I guess it is time to get myself a new camera! 

I shoot mostly in studio, or outdoors with additional lights.

ASA is set at 100 for 90% of my work.

I don't do sport, photojournalism or weddings, 
so fps speed and high ASA performance are not really important to me.


1Dx is not a good investment for me, with the high MP around the corner.

So, I wanted to replace my prehistoric 16.7MP camera with the latest 22MP one,
that would do the work temporarily while I'm waiting for the high MP Canon to appear.


...And in the transition process I got surprised how well my old camera did compared to the new one. 

I just expected more after 8 years of technology development.

Is the new camera right for my needs, or the old one will do the better job?

In the studio I shoot tethered, camera is remotely controlled via firewire and the clients look at images on a 27" screen.


So, this thread started as a comparison of image quality at f8 and 100ASA, between cameras that are 8 years apart.

Nothing really more to it!


...And no! You do not need to sell your cameras and start hunting for an used 1DsII. Nobody said that.

1DsIII might be better.


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 6, 2013)

Kuja said:


> I just expected more after 8 years of technology development.
> ....
> So, this thread started as a comparison of image quality at f8 and 100ASA, between cameras that are 8 years apart.



At f/8 and ISO100, pretty much every camera looks good. That's not where technology development has been directed. You're comparing 16.7mp to 22mp and finding that the differences are minor. This is to be expected as it is only 15% more in linear resolution (files 5760px wide instead of 4992px wide). 15% is just barely noticeable. 

And you're not seeing the slight benefit of even that minor resolution increase because you're comparing both images at 100%. With this method, the lower resolution camera always looks crisper. This is like using a magnifying glass to compare a 10-inch print to an 11.5-inch print of the same scene and concluding that the 10-inch print _looks_ slightly sharper because every detail is 15% smaller. 

However, technology hasn't stood still — 8 years of technology development has resulted in improved high ISO performance, and a _much_ lower camera cost to achieve comparable image quality (at least when you compare these two models).


----------



## dafrank (Feb 6, 2013)

I've shot extensively with the following cameras, each of which I've owned: 1DsII, 1DsIII, 5DII and 5DIII. The 1DsIII was better, took better pictures, resolved more detail, shot good quality at slightly higher ISO and had less failures (see mini firewire port) than the 1DsII. The 5DII was almost as good as the 1DsIII in most respects (except for build quality, of course, where the differences were "major"). The 5DII did have a tiny higher high ISO advantage over the 1DsIII and could also shoot HD video - a couple of usefull advantages, but was really not in the same ball park for pro stills photography.

After testing the 5D3, I abandoned my 1 series Canons altogether, as I don't shoot a lot of sports/action, nor 
do I shoot in a lot in inclement weather, the only two reasons I can think of where the 5DIII falls much short of either the 1DsIII or 1DX, much less the earlier 1DsII.

As far as the 1DsII is concerned, it was a great camera in its heyday, and I happily made a lot of money with it. However, it is clear that the 5DIII camera is far superior to it in all but a very, very narrow set of shooting conditions. You may feel very comfortable with the 1DsII, but, unless your testing ignores about 3/4 of what you use a camera for, you will never see better results from the 1DsII than the 5DIII, or even from its successor, the 1DsIII.

Let me put it this way, if like your 1DsII that much, then by all means keep it. But, if you were to give the 5DIII a little more time, I'm pretty sure you'd come to the same conclusion I have: the 5DIII is a superior camera in almost every way.

Regards,
David


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 7, 2013)

kbmelb said:


> I find myself adding apx 5-10% contrast bump to the 5DIII's images to match my 1DsII's images.
> 
> I'll even go out and say the 5DIII is 2-5% less contrasty as the the 5DII.



I've noticed this as well when going from the 5DC to 5D3, which makes sense considering that the 5DC and 1Ds2 are from the same generation. With the 5DC, I had to ETTR and lift the shadows. With the 5D3, I opt for a more neutral exposure and add contrast in post.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> What you forget is the superior CFA in 1dsmk3 compare to later Canon cameras to gain light


YUP!
I prefer the look of images from many of the older Canon cameras and it's hard to describe so might be an effect of the narrower band CFAs back then. Even when bringing up contrast and saturation a bit in post from newer bodies there's just something not quite the same.


----------



## bycostello (Feb 7, 2013)

interesting comaprison


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 7, 2013)

hmm
1. maybe the focusing was a trace off with the 5D3 shot? 

2. maybe the 5D3 uses the split greens that the 7D did which makes the RAW software not be able to quite extract full detail if it wants to avoid mazing artifacts???  :'(


----------



## ishdakuteb (Feb 7, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Seriously?!? This is how you think?
> Then I think you do not understand the whole concept of artistic intent - which is just fine since you are defending using tools that limit artistic expression.
> Some of us prefer to work with hardware with less limitations to provide us with a greater latitude of creativity.
> Ultimately, it seems to be this is what it comes down to; some of us want to manipulate our images and some of you are happy with them out of the camera. Artists vs snapshot documentarians.
> ...



can you prove it to me that you are artists. yep, i am still taking snapshots but i bet those snapshots will proably turn out better than yours. PROVE ME THAT YOU NAME IS ON ONE OF FAMOUS LIST, MR. SHOOTING SKY AT HIGH NOON.

http://a2bart.com/gallery/new/new.htm

AND YOU CALL THESE IMAGES ARE ART? I WAS ABOUT LAUGHING MY ASS OFF TO THOSE SNAPSHOTS EVENTHOUGH I DO NOT DO LANSCAPE AND ABSTRACT.

Note: For some of your images, you should take a look at Jay Maisel images, compare it (since they are somewhat identical) and then think why you are not there yet Mr. Artis.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 8, 2013)

The 1Ds3 at ISO 5000 is awesome compared to later models, such as the 5D3 or 1DX.


----------



## Badger (Feb 8, 2013)

So in conclusion, 
It sounds like for your purposes, the 1Ds MkII might be the best camera for you, for now. Everyone else who has a 5D MkIII, and loves them, keep them. No need to trade them in.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 8, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The 1Ds3 at ISO 5000 is awesome compared to later models, such as the 5D3 or 1DX.
> ...



I know. It sounded funny though didn't it?


----------



## Andy Jazz (Feb 9, 2013)

Hi everyone,
A first timer here so please go easy on my thoughts...
The only thing it could be or more than likely is the reason for the slightly softer Raw file is the AA filter. I know the AA filter is thicker on the 5mk3 than the mk2 and certainly thicker than the 5dmk 1. But I'm sure everyone knew this anyway....
cheers,
Andy 
Sorry everyone, I seemed to have posted a reply in the wrong section...It should have been on page 1.


----------



## Derrick (Apr 13, 2013)

In tests my 1Ds2 has a better look at 100 ISO (where tested - that's all I use) than the 5D2 (have not compared the 5D3). 5D2 smears mid tone detail (some non switchable on chip NR) and shadows are poor compared to 1Ds2. However my 1Ds3 is a slight step up from the 1Ds2 - very similar but just slightly larger - which means more detail is resolved - even better at 100 ISO than the 1Dx.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 13, 2013)

Interesting


----------

