Landscape, Nature And Travel Photography

Noise at 1600 in daylight isn’t bad at all. It’s more noticeable at night. 3200 ISO at night is really noticeable, but still, I like how well preserved the delineations between light and dark are. There’s no “bleeding” of contours. So Canon went and did the impossible. They squeezed 21 megapixels out of a 36×24mm sensor, and they did it while keeping noise down.

What’s your take on the image quality, Jim? You haven’t said a word about that.

Raoul I was rushed this morning when I found this and posted it to my blog. The noise level, as expected, is quite low. I was holding back on passing judgment until I could evaluate the photos with greater scrutiny this weekend. I would expect an incremental improvement over 1Ds Mark II image quality.

Man those RAW files must be huge files. If I ever got a 1DS MKIII it would probably only be used for landscapes with special light or highly detailed scenes. The cost for storage space would be ridiculous especially with the quantity I shoot!

As an amateur, I’m impressed with the specs on the 1DS Mk III (it’s beyond my current needs), but with 21 MP & 24×36mm sensor, I do wonder about something I’ve read more about recently: diffraction. This arises when using smaller apertures, with noticeable diffraction (causing image quality degradation) beginning at f/11 or f/16 for most DSLRs, depending on sensor size, focal length, & I imagine other variables.
While 21 MP sounds good, my impression is that this may cause more diffraction at lower f-stop levels, which would be a concern for getting great DOF, I would think. Here’s a recent article that includes a “tool” (1/3 of the way into article) for determining the aperture setting beyond which noticeable distortion occurs:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

If I’m interpreting it correctly, this tool suggests problematic diffraction will occur with apertures beyond 10.3 (or approx f/11).
I’m not sure how valid this concern is, but I’d hate to spend $8K & then discover such a fundamental (physics-based) limitation.

To Chris – I read the document you linked to and while it is very interesting it does point out (and even you do) that this is largely dependent on lens quality. A professional photography realizes that the quality of the glass you put on the camera is generally more important than the quality of the camera you’re putting that lens on and will generally invest in very high quality lenses. While it is true that a cheap junky lens will probably look worse on a great camera like this than it will on a cheaper camera, a great lens on a great camera will be better than that great lens on a cheaper camera. So really the only lesson from that document is don’t spend $8K on a camera and $400 on a lens. So if you’re buying an $8K camera and don’t already have professional lenses then be prepared to spend $11K all together after buying the camera and a couple of prime lenses. This is the biggest factor that keeps nikon people using nikon and canon people using canon – the ability to take that great glass and put it on your new great body instead of having to start over and buy everything again.