Megapixels

[Michael Lloyd]

I've been musing over this subject for a long time. Numerous times I've read about this topic. Generally the response to it begins with "a good photographer can make great images with less gear than a bad photographer can with the best gear" To that I say (to myself) "duh". Lets even the playing field out and do the same analysis with the very best photographers (lets stay with nature as the various genre's do not overlap all that well). This post assumes that good technique is/was used.

I'm looking for an honest assessment from experience professional photographers. If someone disagrees I'm all about listening to their opinion(s).

My thoughts-

I'm blessed in that I am able to own some pretty decent gear (just wish that translated to income :D ). All Canon. All L glass. 1DMKIII, 1DsMKII, 1DsMKIII. I actually use all three cameras quite often. Almost daily in fact. The DMKIII is my primary sports body and the DsMKII is my backup (usually has a 70-200 f2.8L on it and I use it hand held when the action gets close. The DMKIII typically has a 300 f2.8L IS on it mounted to a monopod. ) However, I use every body (each with a different lens on it and readily available to use) when I shoot wildlife and that's what the focus of this topic is.

Observations (open to any thoughts on this)

(1) The crop factor of the DMKIII can be a blessing however I am not as happy with this camera as I am the DsMKII when it comes to shooting wildlife (macro is another story. I really like it for macro). I'm not sure how to describe my ?? dissatisfaction is too strong of a word... not sure how to describe what I feel. The DMKIII, when compared to the DsMKII and DsMKIII, especially if the image is cropped (duh) doesn't seem to have the "depth" that I get from the two higher end bodies.

(2) It might surprise some to know that of the two (DsMKII and DsMKIII) I prefer my old workhorse DsMKII to the III. Yes the extra megapixels are nice when it comes to cropping but not enough to warrant the cost of the body nor can I see a great improvement in image quality. If I could have found a "low mileage" DsMKII I would have picked it up instead of the DsMKIII. I think the DsMKII will go down in history as one of Canon's winners.

(3) The biggest complaint that I have with the DsMKIII is the size of the buffer. I don't shoot a lot of bursts (rarely actually. Even my hummingbird shots are singles) but when I do I need the camera to perform. There have been times when I missed the real shot because I was waiting for the camera to finish writing to the card. The DMKIII shines in this regard by the way. The DsMKII is pretty good too.

(4) In marginal conditions the DMKIII doesn't seem to produce the image quality that the other two bodies do. It's not unusual to see data missing at both ends when looking at a histogram of an image shot in less than optimum light.

(5) On the other hand, when the light is right, all of the camera's produce good images

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Michael, Thanks for the heads up on this thread. Your original post had a typo that I corrected. You wrote: 1DMKIII, 1DsMKII, 1DsMKII.

While I have used all the cameras that you are asking about, it is important to note that I do not have a very good eye for fine detail. Lots of folks think that that is a cop-out but it is not. Others may ascribe my views below or elsewhere to being a Canon shill, aka an original Explorer of Ligh, but I have striven to be honest and truthfull in all areas for as long as I have been doing this.

Much of what I will say below has already been covered in past BAA Bulletins. The 1Ds MII was my favorite camera for about two years and I used it almost exclusively. I now own three EOS-1D MIII bodies and a 40D (on loan from Canon till I get my 50D). I owned a 1Ds MIII for a while but sold it as the file size was excessive--we rarely make large prints and Corbis accepts all of my up-rezzed files from the MIII--and I found the noise at the higher ISOs to be objectionable.

Like Chas Glatzer, I love the quality of the images from the 1D MIII. I might give a slight edge (as would be expected) to images from the 1Ds II or the 1Ds III but only at ISOs of 320 or below. Noise control with the MIII is in my opinion unequalled by any current Canon camera.

As I said, I loved my 1Ds II and the images it produced but it cannot touch the MIII for noise control at the higher ISOs, for frame rate, for the buffer, or the sensor cleaning Folks get so hung up with the AF problems of the MIII that they forget how great the camera is in all other areas.

Do you have any noise control "On" with your MDs III? Doing so reduces the buffer to two frames...

With regards to:

(4) In marginal conditions the DMKIII doesn't seem to produce the image quality that the other two bodies do. It's not unusual to see data missing at both ends when looking at a histogram of an image shot in less than optimum light.

I am totally confused. In low light, low contrast situations the histogram will typically be bunched up, not spead across the graph as would be typical of images made in sunny or bright conditions. There is therefore, no "missing data" at both ends... There is no such thing as far as I can figure...

Eeverything above is of course subjective. Which camera we love and which we don't is completely personal. Let me know if I have missed anything.

[Michael Lloyd]

I appreciate your response greatly Artie. It's always good good to hear from someone that has the level of experience that you do.

It sounds like I need to give the MKIII more field time.

The image that prompted my post was taken back in July. It's bugged me ever since I took it. The process of trying to find it caused me to revisit my post processing. I didn't realize someone could hose up an image in ACR quite so horribly... I've since "fixed" my over zealous slider fiddling and will post in a followup. This is the image with everything in ACR set on zero. I'll follow this with a snapshot from ACR. Then my version. I still like my DsMKII images but apparently the problem that I was seeing had more to do with bad post processing technique (just like with riding motorcycles, I guess there are days when it's best to stay off of the keyboard) than camera limitations.

[Michael Lloyd]

ACR snapshot. This is what I meant by "missing data". The black and white point have empty space.

[Michael Lloyd]

Quickie post processing... BTW- BAA II has some very handy info in it (as I'm sure you know). I modified my post processing for web posts quite a bit because of the info I read in the PDF file. Thanks for creating it.

[Michael Lloyd]

PS- these are all full frame images. Ie no crop

[Michael Lloyd]

I forgot to reply to the noise control question. It's not on in the DsMKIII.

[Arthur Morris]

ACR snapshot. This is what I meant by "missing data". The black and white point have empty space.

Hi Michael, There is no "missing" data in the histogram. You could have added a bit more light to the exposure to push the histogram to the right as is always desirable. You want to have the data end just before it would be pegged against the right histogram axis.

The image in the repost is much too contrasty.