Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Review

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Review

I ran an initial series of performance comparisons between the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III and the EOS-1Ds Mark II. Conclusions are at the end of the review.

Resolution and 50% MTF Performance

Methods Used for Tests on Resolution and 50% MTF

Raw file processing
DPP = Digital Photo Professional v 3.2.0.4
C14 = Capture One 4

The Mark III has higher resolution using the USAF 1951 chart.

50% MTF is highly dependent on RAW converter used (default settings). 50% MTF performance appears to be markedly lower for Mark II files than for Mark III files using DPP in default mode.

Parking Garage Target - Sharpness, color, noise and shadow detail.

EOS-1Ds Mark II
ISO 100

EOS-1Ds Mark III
ISO 100

Images were taken with an EF 50mm f/1.4 lens @ f/8 with camera on tripod. RAW images were converted to tifs and jpg's with Capture One 4 using default settings and resized in PhotoShop CS2. Slight unsharp mask has been added to the thumbnail images.

A left-side field panel detail image can be selected from both cameras that were processed with by DPP or C14 in the following table:

Camera	DPP RAW Conversion	C14 RAW Conversion
Mark II	click here	click here
Mark III	click here	click here

EOS-1Ds Mark II
ISO 100
jpg conversion from 12x18 inch section of 40 x 60 inch print

EOS-1Ds Mark III
ISO 100
jpg conversion from 12x18 inch section of 40 x 60 inch print

After printing 300 dpi tifs of the parking garage at 12 x 18 inches and then 20 x 30 inches (as panels), I detected only minimal improvement in quality of images produced by the Mark III over those produced by the Mark II. When I printed 12 x 18 print sections from a 40 x 60 inch master tif at 300 dpi, it was easier to pick out minor improvements in image quality that are represented in the panels above. The image from the Mark III has slightly better palm frond detail and grass texture detail. The image from the Mark II has slightly better shadow detail that shows in the print when processed with default tone settings. The diagonal border line in the yellow and black pedestrian crossing sign has "jaggies" in the printed image from the Mark III (with version 1.0.6 firmware). Jaggies don't show in the jpg.

It was a bit of a shock finding what appeared to be greater shadow detail in the image produced by the Mark II camera. The dynamic range tests and shadow and highlight tests below show that the Mark II and III have comparable recoverable shadow detail in underexposed areas of the image.

EOS-1Ds Mark II
ISO 800

EOS-1Ds Mark III
ISO 800

The above cropped fields are from capture files taken at ISO 800. Color and tonal range in the images from the Mark III look better to me than those from the Mark II.

High ISO Performance
The following images were taken at an intrasquad gymnastics team exhibition held in a practice gym at the University of Florida. Lighting is a mixture of tungsten lighting and diffuse daylight overhead. Images were all shot at ISO 1600 with white balance adjusted off a grey card. EOS-1ds Mark II images were taken with an EF 135mm f/2L @ f/2.8. EOS-1ds Mark III images were taken with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 (non-IS) at the 135mm setting and f/2.8

EOS-1Ds Mark II ISO 1600	EOS-1Ds Mark III ISO 1600
At ISO 1600, image color, tonal range and sharpness look better to me in the Mark III images taken of UF senior gymnast Tiffany Murry during her warmup on balance beam. Shadow detail looks better out of the Mark II camera using default C14 settings. If you shift processing curves and enhance shadow detail with C14, comparable shadow detail can be produced by the Mark III.

Dynamic Range: Maximum Highlights and Shadow Detail at ISO100
A Kodak photographic step tablet (21 steps from density range 0.05 to 3.05 in 0.15 increments) was photographed on a light box in RAW with the Mark II and the Mark III cameras set at ISO 100 and an EF 50mm f/1.2L lens at f/4. Exposures were taken in manual mode at 1/30 sec (spot metered from central grey panel). Exposure were also taken at 4 stops overexposed (1/2 second) and 4 stops underexposed (1/500 second). Image files were processed in Capture One 4 using the linear curve setting with adjustment of shadow and highlight settings and processed to jpgs. Grossly overexposed and underexposed images were converted to greyscale.

Photographic step tablet exposed properly and processed in Capture One 4 with linear curve setting and 0 settings for shadow and highlight. The image from the Mark III has more tonal steps between white and black.	Mark III below The 14-bit Mark III image file has more tonal steps between white and black than the 12-bit Mark II image file. Mark II above
Step tablet underexposed 4 stops and processed in Capture One 4 with linear curve setting and 100 setting for shadow and 0 setting for highlight. Similar shadow detail can be recovered from images produced by the Mark III and the Mark II.	Mark III below Mark II above
Step tablet overexposed 4 stops and processed in Capture One 4 with linear curve setting and 0 setting for shadow and 100 setting for highlight. The Mark III image file has greater recoverable highlight detail than the Mark II image file.	Mark III below The Mark III file has greater highlight detail that is recoverable from overexposed areas of the image with C14. Mark II above

Shooting Action
Any doubts I had about the improvement of the Mark III over the Mark II disappeared when I shot my first gymnastics meet with both cameras. The Mark III autofocused much more accurately and quickly on gymnasts in the coliseum with cluttered backgrounds. Multishot burst exposures processed rapidly and were moved from buffer to card with blazing speed. Images were immediately available for review. I found myself waiting impatiently for images from the Mark II to be written to card so that I could look at them. Both cameras were tested using 8GB SanDisk Extreme IV CF cards. Image quality (color quality, saturation, sharpness) from the Mark III were much better than anything I had previously produced under the same conditions with the Mark II. Photos from the meet taken with the Mark III are below.

University of Florida gymnast Lynn Denblyden performs a sheep jump on balance beam.

University of Florida gymnast Amanda Castillo at the end of her reverse Hecht release on uneven bars.

Conclusions

1. Image quality

The 26% increase in pixel density of the Mark III over the Mark II yields a very small increase in image sharpness and detail in large prints.
Images from the Mark III at high ISO settings (e.g., 800 and 1600) yield better color quality.
The 14-bit image files produced by the Mark III have more continuous tonal range with more steps between black and white than the 12-bit files produced by the Mark II.
The Mark III produces RAW files with greater recoverable highlight detail in overexposed areas and comparable recoverable shadow detail in underexposed areas with Capture One 4.
"Jaggies" in diagonal lines in very large format prints persist with the Mark III even with updated firmware (v 1.0.6) in some of the images that I produced.

2. Autofocus speed and accuracy including servo tracking are significantly improved in the Mark III camera. If you shoot action, the Mark III will give you more keepers than the Mark II.
3. Speed of image processing and file writing are blazingly fast with the Mark III. You can fire a burst of exposures, and they are almost instantly available to review. Buffer clears rapidly. This is a major improvement over the Mark II
4. Lighter, high capacity lithium ion batteries provide lighter weight and smaller size than the Mark II battery system (nickel-metal hydride).