This is just a quick snapshot taken with the 50/1.4 from my livingroom window. Practically zero PP. I'll post better pics later on. I have to say I'm very impressed with the resolution. Also colors and sharpness are fantastic.
Definitely wide enough for me. 24-105 is very sharp in the center but gets a bit soft in the corners with a FF sensor. Nothing too serious though. Focus is spot-on and colors are great. Some amount of vignetting is visible.
Also Im pretty sure your camera is worth more than my car......
beltsander TKO
02-19-2008, 09:36 AM
Petri
02-19-2008, 10:20 AM
RKA
02-19-2008, 11:52 AM
Shep 1.8T
02-19-2008, 11:55 AM
Tanner
02-19-2008, 11:58 AM
Petri
02-19-2008, 12:20 PM
ISO 1600. This was about 2/3EV under, so I had to brighten it up in ACR. No noise reduction in PP. The 1Ds is not the high iso king but iso 800 looks very clean and 1600 is useable. Haven't tried the 3200 yet. In-camera "high iso noise reduction" setting manages to remove most of the chroma noise pretty well without losing any detail.
But I would use 1600 without batting an eyelash. On my 5D I'll generally only go to 800 without concern.
Petri
02-19-2008, 12:49 PM
Yep, I agree. 3200 is only for emergencies, I think. 800 looks nice and clean but I wouldn't go any higher unless I really have to. In bright conditions ISO 1600 looks good but why would you use it then anyway... Capturing sports, perhaps.
Here's a macro shot at 1600. Doesn't look too bad.
as long as it can print to 11x17 or so, that's all I need. Realistically, 8x10 is enough, but every now and again, something gets into the frame that you don't want and you have to crop a bit. Based on the 100% crop you posted, the 1600 files *should* do fine at 8x10 even if cropped by 25%.
Petri
02-19-2008, 01:08 PM
Yep, I agree. 100% crops show some noise on screen but that doesn't show in reasonably-sized prints. If you reduce the image size by 50%, it looks very nice also on screen.
Petri
02-19-2008, 01:17 PM
100% crops are noisy but the resized image is not too bad. 50% reduction is size gets rid of most of the noise. Bed lamps look a bit soft but they are probably just a bit too far to be in pin-sharp focus which is somewhere in front of the pillows. This was a hand-held shot at 1/13s.
Well, not for the purposes I have in mind. Too much lost detail. If I throw in underexposed shots, and some cropping, I'll have a hard time saving something from a 3200 shot. But there are 1/3 stop increments, and as nice as 1600 is, I'll be willing to bet there is a good middle ground between the two.
Thanks for ripping out the test shots! I'm not in the market, but it's nice to see what these new fangled bricks can do!
Tanner
02-19-2008, 01:37 PM
... by a lot!
Though I'm still thoroughly impressed with the high ISO on the Nikon D3.
Petri
02-19-2008, 01:53 PM
Yep. 3200 is 1D Mark 3 and D3 territory. 2000 is probably still useable.
I played a bit with D3 high-iso raw files a few days ago and while the images were clean, they had a very plastic look to them. I don't personally like that look very much. There's no noise but all the fine detail was also gone.
Here's a bit sharper version. It's a different image. I added a bit more sharpening and removed some of the noise with neat image.
I'll have to try and print an ISO3200 image some day to see how it looks.
Yep, the 1DsM3 has a pretty nice high iso performance considering the amount and size of pixels. I rarely go above 800, so I'm more than happy with the results I'm getting. I didn't have any problems with the 30D iso noise, so getting more resolution and even lower noise levels is a win-win situation for me.
NogaroHiro
02-19-2008, 07:14 PM
Petri
02-19-2008, 10:01 PM
I almost bought the D3 with 24-70 & 70-200 but after playing with the raw files (both high and low iso) I just wasn't happy enough with the results. It is a wonderful camera, no doubt about it, but I felt that Canon produces images that have more detail and "pop". If I had to shoot mostly in low-light situations, I probably would have gotten the D3. I also feel that the D3 is just a bit short on pixel count for landscape work. Several people have said that the 5D produces images with more detail. Different tools for different jobs. It's a good thing we now have more choices, thanks to Nikon!
NogaroHiro
02-19-2008, 10:54 PM
I tried D3 for a while, too, but the pictures of the camera did not move me so much as 5D in 2005. I hope to control NR system, but the camera always control the system itself, though some trial and tools are coming out to expose so called mod 3 exposure in astrophotography.
Petri
02-19-2008, 11:55 PM
Interesting, it seems we had similar experiences with the D3 files. 5D is really something special. It's the combination of high-quality sensor and good in-camera image processing that makes it shine. D3 has too radical noise reduction for high-detail work in my opinion. And it could use a bit more pixels, say 16mp.
NogaroHiro
02-20-2008, 12:52 AM
though I believe lower pixel density may be better for astrophotography in sensitivity and dynamic range.
Petri
02-20-2008, 01:02 AM
Yes, I agree, but I feel that the pixel density might be just a tad too low on the D3, the resolution starts to suffer. Combine that with super aggressive noise reduction and you get plastic and smeared looking images. I'm exaggerating a bit but that's how the images looked to me.
Maybe the upcoming 5D Mark II is the perfect camera for astrophotography? 16mp and similar or lower noise levels than the 1D Mark III. That should be pretty sweet!
NogaroHiro
02-20-2008, 03:26 AM
sorry for kidding. our future is full of wonder. I love Canon.