Camera Buffs

When I bought my Canon 1D Mark III I knew I'd never look back. I haven't.

I also felt with the image quality being completely film quality that only gimmicks could come next. They did.

I didn't look into this camera a whole lot and I'm just speaking from a general sense. I'll never need another camera.
 
Sapient said:
When I bought my Canon 1D Mark III I knew I'd never look back. I haven't.

I also felt with the image quality being completely film quality that only gimmicks could come next. They did.

I didn't look into this camera a whole lot and I'm just speaking from a general sense. I'll never need another camera.
Click to expand...
Well, sort of. Higher pixel count and lower noise floor (pixel count not so important) and things like in camera stabilizer has improved a lot. Canon still has no in camera stabilizer (not knocking it at all, just stating). The one on my Olympus is now such that one can take 4 or 5 second exposures hand held!
Some nice improvements. Low light capability for compacts and super high ISOs are pretty cool.
But once one gets what they need, no real point in "upgrading".
Same with a phone.
 
Jethro Rocker said:
Well, sort of. Higher pixel count and lower noise floor (pixel count not so important) and things like in camera stabilizer has improved a lot. Canon still has no in camera stabilizer (not knocking it at all, just stating). The one on my Olympus is now such that one can take 4 or 5 second exposures hand held!
Some nice improvements. Low light capability for compacts and super high ISOs are pretty cool.
But once one gets what they need, no real point in "upgrading".
Same with a phone.
Click to expand...

As you know, it's the image sensor that determines the quality and the pixel count only "houses" that information. Once the pixels get too big they outsize the image sensor capability and make the industries key marketing trick completely extraneous. Most of the cameras are like this now, I believe. I don't believe their, or even other brand image sensors from the time have improved. Nor do I think the have to - I think they hit the ceiling with perfection a long time ago. It's no coincidence that Canon's next 1D had to include video - Lol.

Yea, there are always ISO and other improvements but I'm a sheer image quality whore. Lol. People like you I'm sure find benefit from ALL improvements during use. Those are real photographers. I don't do anything serious but like I said, I basically OCD the image quality.
 
Sapient said:
As you know, it's the image sensor that determines the quality and the pixel count only "houses" that information. Once the pixels get too big they outsize the image sensor capability and make the industries key marketing trick completely extraneous. Most of the cameras are like this now, I believe. I don't believe their, or even other brand image sensors from the time have improved. Nor do I think the have to - I think they hit the ceiling with perfection a long time ago. It's no coincidence that Canon's next 1D had to include video - Lol.

Yea, there are always ISO and other improvements but I'm a sheer image quality whore. Lol. People like you I'm sure find benefit from ALL improvements during use. Those are real photographers. I don't do anything serious but like I said, I basically OCD the image quality.
Click to expand...
Sorry, gotta edit. The 1D is an APSC sized sensor. Look at full frame. Huge difference in quality. Huge.
Nothing like full frame. Larger sensor, each pixel is larger , even with more of them. There is no compare if image quality is your thing. Honest.

Image quality - incresding pixel count can help IF the noise floor does not incresse and the color rendition is good.
The 10 MP from yours has improved a fair bit. Mine are 24 MP and full frame which allows more cropping and very low noise where one can shoot at 10k to 25k ISO and with a bit of noise redudtion get insane results.
If sheer image quality is your thing have a peek at a newer 24MP or so.
Once you hit 50 it becomes quite pointless. The 64MP compacts and phones are ridiculous. The more pixels crammed into the same space the smaller they become and less light gathering. I even notice the quality difference higher between my Leica at 24 and the Sony. Sony is newer and has better low light images even with same pixel count.
I can vouch that "perfection" has improved if one compares old images to new
Then there is focus speed etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Here is an example. Full frame sensor. Original and cropped. This can't be done to this extreme and quality with a smaller sensor.

8oPPm8M.jpg



Rqa2vz8.jpg





Now try it at a higher ISO as we are all forced to shoot like that at times. A full frame is nuts! excellent images at like 5000 ISO. It is hard to tell till one compares themselves. I was shocked when I saw the quality difference in a newer full frame sensor.
 
Jethro Rocker said:
Sorry, gotta edit. The 1D is an APSC sized sensor. Look at full frame. Huge difference in quality. Huge.
Nothing like full frame. Larger sensor, each pixel is larger , even with more of them. There is no compare if image quality is your thing. Honest.

Image quality - incresding pixel count can help IF the noise floor does not incresse and the color rendition is good.
The 10 MP from yours has improved a fair bit. Mine are 24 MP and full frame which allows more cropping and very low noise where one can shoot at 10k to 25k ISO and with a bit of noise redudtion get insane results.
If sheer image quality is your thing have a peek at a newer 24MP or so.
Once you hit 50 it becomes quite pointless. The 64MP compacts and phones are ridiculous. The more pixels crammed into the same space the smaller they become and less light gathering. I even notice the quality difference higher between my Leica at 24 and the Sony. Sony is newer and has better low light images even with same pixel count.
I can vouch that "perfection" has improved if one compares old images to new
Then there is focus speed etc etc.
Click to expand...

Well, you will ultimately know better than I, but I did ...oops, mention the wrong cam. It's the 1DS Mark III that I have not just "D". Huge difference as I've had the "D" and the D Mark II and they were poop. The "DS" was miles ahead, and to me, final.

Canon 1DS Mark III - 5616 x 3744 · 21.1 megapixels · Full frame (36 x 24 mm) · CMOS · 100 - 1600 in 1/3 stops, plus 50, 3200 as option.

nyiPLbm.png


Jethro Rocker said:
Here is an example. Full frame sensor. Original and cropped. This can't be done to this extreme and quality with a smaller sensor.

8oPPm8M.jpg



Rqa2vz8.jpg





Now try it at a higher ISO as we are all forced to shoot like that at times. A full frame is nuts! excellent images at like 5000 ISO. It is hard to tell till one compares themselves. I was shocked when I saw the quality difference in a newer full frame sensor.
Click to expand...
So, that, land sold, no work, gigs, gets to be "Jetro Rocker". :cautious:

I HAVE been cheated in life.

;)

Also, with all due respect, that image quality would not pass for me. I'm that bad. Sorry. I'm sure a BMP or RAW is much better as it's mostly likely quite compressed.
 
Last edited:
Sapient said:
Well, you will ultimately know better than I, but I did ...oops, mention the wrong cam. It's the 1DS Mark III that I have not just "D". Huge difference as I've had the "D" and the D Mark II and they were poop. The "DS" was miles ahead, and to me, final.

Canon 1DS Mark III - 5616 x 3744 · 21.1 megapixels · Full frame (36 x 24 mm) · CMOS · 100 - 1600 in 1/3 stops, plus 50, 3200 as option.

nyiPLbm.png



So, that, land sold, no work, gigs, gets to be "Jetro Rocker". :cautious:

I HAVE been cheated in life.

;)

Also, with all due respect, that image quality would not pass for me. I'm that bad. Sorry. I'm sure a BMP or RAW is much better as it's mostly likely quite compressed.
Click to expand...
Awww the kitty! How cute!!

Sorry I see you are at full frame 21 MP. Big difference!! No point in trying to improve on that at all, no.
Yes posting final jpgs from Imgur is not the real deal but no other way to do it. My image has less DOF than yours but pretty hard to tell any difference without huge crop in.
I do believe on Lightroom I have my jpgs fairly compressed as well given where the final result goes. Imgur won't allow a huge TIFF file. Was shot in RAW obviously. At 60% quality the images are like 500kb. At 100% they are 10 MB! But to have friends download the huge files seems pointless. I still can do it tho. Impossible to show that here I think with so many stages till it gets to the screen.
The low light now allows for ridiculous ISOs.
 
Last edited:
Sapient said:
So, that, land sold, no work, gigs, gets to be "Jetro Rocker". :cautious:

I HAVE been cheated in life.

;)
Click to expand...
As long as you are enjoying it then NO you have not!!

It seems you have helped me solve a problem I didn't know I had!
The final jpg on LR is indeed set to 60% because at one point I was doing shots for a freind's website, no need for huge files. Seems I didn't set it back between:confused:.
So at 100% files are give or take 10 MB depending how much solid color is in it as I mentioned. But I didn't change it back so all those are at 600k or so. Boo!! I now have compression set so file size is much larger.
Thanks for that, I can't believe I have done a few at that low a setting. At least I have all the raw plus the LR edits just a matter of resaving.
Do you use Lightroom? I find it very fast and efficient.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
Jethro Rocker said:
As long as you are enjoying it then NO you have not!!

It seems you have helped me solve a problem I didn't know I had!
The final jpg on LR is indeed set to 60% because at one point I was doing shots for a freind's website, no need for huge files. Seems I didn't set it back between:confused:.
So at 100% files are give or take 10 MB depending how much solid color is in it as I mentioned. But I didn't change it back so all those are at 600k or so. Boo!! I now have compression set so file size is much larger.
Thanks for that, I can't believe I have done a few at that low a setting. At least I have all the raw plus the LR edits just a matter of resaving.
Do you use Lightroom? I find it very fast and efficient.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Lol.

Glad I helped. I mean, the image looks good and I know your point wasn't a top notch image anyway. It did make your point but hey at least I got you to that setting. :dood:

I don't use it, no. I do typical edits in Paint Shop Pro. I've always used it since the mid 90's, so... I've done a few things with its lighting functions but not very much or often. Typical sharpen, brightness, noise, vignette type of stuff, etc. I know some people really get into the editing part. Some, like wedding guys etc. have to.

I totally agree on the efficiency factor. The software does miracles these days.
 
Sapient said:
Lol.

Glad I helped. I mean, the image looks good and I know your point wasn't a top notch image anyway. It did make your point but hey at least I got you to that setting. :dood:

I don't use it, no. I do typical edits in Paint Shop Pro. I've always used it since the mid 90's, so... I've done a few things with its lighting functions but not very much or often. Typical sharpen, brightness, noise, vignette type of stuff, etc. I know some people really get into the editing part. Some, like wedding guys etc. have to.

I totally agree on the efficiency factor. The software does miracles these days.
Click to expand...
I don't edit tons but shooting raw one has to set color profile, noise at times, and the ability to adjust shadows and highlights separately is very cool. Clarity, dehaze, lots of easy to use ways get it set before saving.
Yeah One cannot show true resolution from imgur to here.
BUt now I have my jpg settings up to around a 3 MB file, subject dependent of course!
 
Jethro Rocker said:
I don't edit tons but shooting raw one has to set color profile, noise at times, and the ability to adjust shadows and highlights separately is very cool. Clarity, dehaze, lots of easy to use ways get it set before saving.
Yeah One cannot show true resolution from imgur to here.
BUt now I have my jpg settings up to around a 3 MB file, subject dependent of course!
Click to expand...
Yea, it really depends I should say. With my phone pics I do more denoise and "fix" sort of work. The Cannon pics are usually just good to go after a resize and maybe some vignetting.

I always upload a BMP to imgur. I know it treats different files different with recompression and such. I really forget what I read a long time ago, but BMP came out the best and anything compressed turned to icy frost.

Subject, of course! Gibsons and Marshalls get to push it right?? Lol.
 
Sapient said:
Yea, it really depends I should say. With my phone pics I do more denoise and "fix" sort of work. The Cannon pics are usually just good to go after a resize and maybe some vignetting.

I always upload a BMP to imgur. I know it treats different files different with recompression and such. I really forget what I read a long time ago, but BMP came out the best and anything compressed turned to icy frost.

Subject, of course! Gibsons and Marshalls get to push it right?? Lol.
Click to expand...
With minimal co pression jpgs are fine. TIF files are just too huge.
So with Raw files you don't play with any sharpness, color or WB? Band ones are always fun because of the often weird colored lighting.
 
Jethro Rocker said:
With minimal co pression jpgs are fine. TIF files are just too huge.
So with Raw files you don't play with any sharpness, color or WB? Band ones are always fun because of the often weird colored lighting.
Click to expand...
Sometimes. I don't do a whole lot with the Canon shots usually. Remember, we are probably a bit different in our involvement. I hadn't shot with my Canon in over a year until just a couple days ago. A lot of people, including me have gotten smartphone lazy. Lol.
 
Sapient said:
Sometimes. I don't do a whole lot with the Canon shots usually. Remember, we are probably a bit different in our involvement. I hadn't shot with my Canon in over a year until just a couple days ago. A lot of people, including me have gotten smartphone lazy. Lol.
Click to expand...
My phone camera is so terrible I don't bother to edit them!!:p
I ususally take one of my compacts to football games etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top