1D MkII vs. 1Ds MkII

I'll admit in advance that I'm embarassed asking this question, but it's been bugging me for over a year, and I'm an admitted amateur, so I'm going to ask it anyway.

Is there any way that the 1D MkII (8.2 megapixels) could take sharper photos -- or indeed be better in ANY way -- than the 1Ds MkII (16.7 megapixels)?

The reason I ask is that when I first got my Seacam housing, I took one trip (to Komodo) with a 1DMkII. I then sold that camera, and I've taken four trips since then with the same housing, but with a 1DsII, and I keep having the nagging feeling that I "like" many photos (composition and subjects aside) taken with the 1DII better, especially some of the macro shots.

In theory, I should be able to severely crop photos from the 1DsII and still have 8 megapixels left from the middle that are "as good" as what I'd get from the 1DII, right? But I'd swear (subjectively) that isn't necessarily the case. Other than the 1.3X crop of the 1DII (making macro lenses effectively 1.3X longer), is there any reason that photos from the 1DII might "seem" better than similar shots taken with the 1DsII?

Hi Bruce,

The pixels in the 1DII are larger resulting in lower noise and a smoother image. That may be it.

On the other hand, the 1DII has a pretty strong AA filter, so images are blurier (is that a word?) but sharpen up well.

Cheers

James

PS, I'd be happy to trade with you :-)

That may be it, James. I recently picked up a 1DIIN body to take as a backup, as well as to use topside when I want/need the 8f/s speed (e.g., bracketing when shooting moving motorcycles), so this question has been really nagging at me because it would be so easy to stick it in the housing and shoot with it. Perhaps sometime when I can do multiple dives in one spot, I'll switch back and forth to see if I can evaluate the difference shooting the same subjects under the same conditions, etc.

However, I'll pass on the offer to trade with you, since the 1DsII is by no means "inadequate" and I'm sure I'll always be able to find SOME use for it.

Well if you are shooting natural light without strobes on serious action (baitballs etc) that 8 fps will come in handy. Use the high ISO ability and try shooting without strobes at 1/250 or more in full action.

The pixels in the 1DII are larger resulting in lower noise and a smoother image.  That may be it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand... According to Herb here:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12305

Larger pixels will produce sharper (and not smoother) images because of diffraction. Would diffraction in the 1ds be the cause of the apparently inferior images?

Luiz

Smoother as in "silky-smoothe" low noise clean blues, etc.

Cheers

James

And don't forget that the 1 D Mark II has a very strong antialiasing filter which softens the image a lot. Post sharpens beautifully though.

The 1D MIIN is about the same but side by side comparisons, the N has a bit less AA. Although many don't think so.

Well if you are shooting natural light without  strobes on serious action (baitballs etc) that 8 fps will come in handy. Use the high ISO ability and try shooting without strobes at 1/250 or more in full action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Next month I'm doing a Belize (Placencia) whale shark trip, and I was already thinking I might use the 1DIIN with a Magic Filter for most of the whale shark dives (at least the ones when the sun is high and bright). Not that whale sharks will be moving "baitball" fast, but I'll likely put the camera in High multi-shot shooting mode (perhaps even with exposure bracketing) and just shoot the hell out of everything that moves!

P.S. I used the 1DIIN topside on Shearwater during shark wrangling, and it really hums along when there's action. Admittedly not important most of the time underwater (gotta wait for strobes to recharge), but as easy as it is to select the best frame and pitch the rest, the high speed is really nice when you can use it and things are moving/changing quickly. Here are a couple of the topside Shearwater shots I shot with it:

1DsMkII

1DMkII

1DIIN (never heard of this one..) MP? New? old?

Why does Canon have to be sooooo damn confusing with the names?

1DsMkII

 

1DMkII

 

1DIIN  (never heard of this one..)  MP?  New?  old?

 

Why does Canon have to be sooooo damn confusing with the names?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mike,

The 1D MkII-N is simply a slight upgrade of the 1D MkII. The primary difference is that it has a bigger review screen than the original MkII, but there are several other slight improvements. Current street price is several hundred dollars more than the original MkII now cost. Here's a discussion of the differences: MkII vs. MkIIN

Sadly, I can't explain Canon's obtuse naming process...

Thanks!

I don't understand...  According to Herb here:

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12305

 

Larger pixels will produce sharper (and not smoother) images because of diffraction. Would diffraction in the 1ds be the cause of the apparently inferior images?

 

Luiz

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This 1DsII has smaller pixels than the 1DII even though the sensor is bigger. If the lense is the limiting factor, diffraction or other reasons, then the 1DII can look sharper if you look at a 100% crop. I think this is what James was trying to say.

1DsII should still resolve as much or more details.

If you look through the forums at www.robgalbraith.com I think that you will find that there is a concensus that the 1DSMkII requires more sharpening than earlier/other cameras. I can't remember the theory behind this but it is to do with the AA filter/pixel size/etc I think.

I use 1DS bodies and find that I have to apply a 'fine' (I use 300/0.3/1 in PS CS) unsharp mask to extrapolated 50Mb tiff files generated from it or it will appear to be pretty soft (at 100%!), and then add in a coarser unsharp mask when I output to print or if know the output size (usually I don't as much I shoot is stock). As I use 'soft' Seacam/Subtronic strobes I also have to boost contrast as a matter of course, which also has an effect of the apparent sharpness. The 1DS produces very 'smooth' tonality indeed.

Bruce - I went through the same chronology you did. I bought the 1DMKII first, and used that in my Seacam MKII housing until the 1DsMKII came out. Then I began using the 1DsMKII in the housing, and the MKII for backup and noncritical topside. Also, for anytime I need 8 frames per second or a 1.3 sensor crop. That only happens rarely UW, and usually when shooting 100 macro with ultra small subjects, and then typically in conjunction with Wet Two. But, I digress.

So, I still have both cameras, and for absolutely sure, the 1DsMKII produces a better file in every way than my MKII. I don't typically sharpen nearly as much as Paul suggests, but let's say taking 75 as amount, the 1DsMKII is much sharper at actual pixels than my MKII, all else being equal. But, more significantly, the noise levels are worse in the MKII and the tonal gradations are not nearly as smooth. And finally, since a 50MB 8-bit file is the standard of commerce, the MKII file requires more interpolation than I am comfortable with.

In my admittedly subjective opinion, you have absolutely the right camera in your housing, and the choice of a 1DMKIIN for a backup and topside is perfect. At least for now, until they bring us a 1DMKIII with 20 megapixels AND 8 frames per second that fits in our MKII housings

I agree with Steve, and have the same setup. I LOVE the subjective feel of the 1D Mk II's shutter, and it is really crisp even when I use delayed shutter cock (personal function), which I use to make the camera quieter.

But it can't compete with the 1Ds Mk II in terms of image quality. I don't shoot the 1Ds in a way that requires a crop, most of the time, so comparing a cropped 1Ds image vs. a full image from the 1D isn't that useful.

Hi Stephen

"I don't typically sharpen nearly as much as Paul suggests" - perhaps I should add that this is a starting point for many macro shots taken with very soft lighting from close Seacam strobes - if I don't apply a very fine amount of sharpening to deal with both the moire (AA) filter and the easily lost very fine detail, then I've realised that printers (who in my opinion should apply appropriate unsharp masks when final output size is known) simply don't get the best out of my images.

Which probably all goes to prove just how subjective and personal 'sharpness' really is.

On this note, I owned and used an EOS1D for a time and it did produce excellent results - within its inherent limitations. I still have the files and they are punchy and require minimal sharpening, but in terms of detail can't compete with any of the current cameras.

It all comes down to what you are shooting, what you need from the files and how satisfied you are with how they work for you!

Sharpness is an issue where I suspect we will see software changes - I imagine that someone will develop 'intelligent' unsharp masking which applies a different level depending upon the edge contrast it encounters and the preciseness of the edge - a halfway house between contrast and unsharp masking.

Sharpness is an issue where I suspect we will see software changes - I imagine that someone will develop 'intelligent' unsharp masking which applies a different level depending upon the edge contrast it encounters and the preciseness of the edge - a halfway house between contrast and unsharp masking.

The software you're imagining has already been developed in a few different varieties. One that I've liked is PixelGenius' PhotoKit Sharpener, which not only provides varying degrees of capture sharpening, but also tailors the sharpening methods/amounts to selected output type.

I've noticed many users of Nik Sharpener and some of Fred Miranda's sharpening plugins as well...

~Matt Segal