dslr.ws

Canon has released firmware updates for both the 1DMkIII and the 1DsMkIII.

For the Canon 1DMkIII, firmware version 1.2.3 is available, giving you:

• Improved stability of AF accuracy in AI servo AF when shooting extremely low-contrast subjects.
• Direct selection of AF points by the Multi-controller is added to C.Fn III-9.
• Alternate access to Exposure compensation is added to C.Fn IV-3.
• With the camera’s External Speedlite control menu, Flash function settings can be used to set the Wireless setting and Zoom.

For the 1Ds, firmware update 1.1.2 gives you the same things, minus the Speedlite settings.

Download, flash that firmware, and enjoy!

Canon yesterday released a new firmware update for the Canon 1Ds Mark III (firmware version 1.0.6).

Canon says that it fixes an issue involving a color cast and vertical lines that appeared in images. I hadn’t heard any reports about this, does anyone have more details or sample photos that show this bug?

The firmware update also improves the CF card communications reliability, with some cards.

Both sound good to me, you lucky 1DsMkIII owners should get clicking right about here to get to the Canon firmware download page for the 1Ds Mark III.

John Harrington posted an interesting comparison between the Nikon D3 and the Canon 1Ds Mark III.

Some of the highlights include the D3 apparently blowing away the Canon on high ISO noise performance. The Nikon shows significantly less noise at 3200 ISO, and perfectly usable images at 12,600 ISO, which probably isn’t an ISO number you ever thought about before:

Look at the results! I would be comfortable delivering an image from a dark Congressional hearing, or a candle-lit church ceremony with this iso. The colors are more than fine, as is the sharpness. Moreover, the noise looks more like film grain than the noise of days gone by. The noise in the Canon above looks less like noise than it’s predecessor, but it looks more like noise than the Nikon does.

I don’t really agree with the analysis of the noise results at ISO 25,800, though:

Next up is the Nikon, at iso25,800. Yes folks, that’s not a typo. And, again, sorry, but Canon can’t go that high. Can you say “I can make an image in available darkness?!?!” Again, the colors are more than fine, as is the sharpness. Moreover, the noise here again looks more like film grain than the noise of days gone by.

However, the image shows some splotchy colors, kind of like an overly compressed JPEG. It’s still an amazing result for 25800 ISO, though, and I can’t even begin to imagine what kind of lighting conditions I could shoot with at that point.

He then moves on to a resolution comparison at 3200 ISO, and because of the lower noise of the D3 he actually prefers enlarging the lower resolution Nikon D3 image over what he gets from the 1DsMkIII:

Here’s the same Nikon iso3200 file, but it has been rezzed up to be the same size as the Canon file. No sharpening has been applied. It appears there is less noise, and it’s smoother overall. I know it’s not as sharp, but when you’re so deep into this photo, either the viewing distance of the viewer or the reproduction abilities of the output device will all but take care of this concern.

Here’s the same Nikon iso3200 file but it has been uprezzed and sharpened to my tastes. It appears equal to, or better than, the Canon image. In other words, by up-rezzing the file to the size of the Canon file, I can actually achieve a more pleasing final result than the native file results from the Canon.

Unfortunately, the comparison images for these are from a Barbie doll, which looks appropriately plasticky. I’d have preferred to see an image with much more detail for a resolution and detail comparison; a Barbie doll’s plastic surface is probably the best-case scenario for noise reduction and up-rezzing, since it’s supposed to look smooth and lacking in detail.

He also posts some interesting theories about the future, and what a Nikon D3X might bring to the game:

Following in the footsteps of the D1, and the D2, so too will there be a D3x. I’ve heard that it’s comparable to the Mark III as to file size. If the D3x has a comparable filesize to the Mark III, and the high ISO’s of the D3, it’ll trounce all over the Mark III, but I’ll not hold my breath for that “perfect storm” of capabilities. It’s coming in the Spring, certainly in time to get into the hands of photographers before the Olympics.

He also briefly discusses the Foveon sensor, which seems to have fallen out of the headlines lately, but has always seemed promising.

In the end, the reviewer says that he prefers the D3, if only “by a nose,” and stating that it’s only for the way he shoots:

For large commercial jobs, where I am thinking I want a higher native resolution, it’ll be the Canon I reach for. For low light situations, which are all too common, it will, without a doubt, be Nikon. In fact, with the noise issue out of the way, and most client deliverables needing to be down-rezzed anyway, I can see that the Nikon not only would be a better solution to speeding up my post-production process, but moreover, storing the RAW/DNG files will save me significant hard-drive space in my archives over the larger Canon files.

Personally, I’m hoping to see a similar comparison, but with a different subject than a Barbie doll. No offense, Barbie dear, but you’re not really a good candidate for detail and resolution comparisons. You need more acne and pock-marked skin. Ken might dump you, but you’ll be famous on camera websites throughout the world! It’s a fair trade.

The good people over at Luminous Landscapes have posted a “first impressions” essay based on a pre-production Canon 1DsMkIII. It’s very preliminary, and he warns people not to put too much stock in any one part of the post, since he was just out taking photographs for fun, not for evaluation or comparison purposes.

That said, he did shoot enough to come up with, as promised, some first impressions:

Auto white balance is as good as I’ve ever seen. Tonal renditions are excellent, and it appears that the 14 bit processing capability is of definite value, especially when working on files which require some extensive manipulation.

At 21 MP the extra pixels are very welcome for either making big prints, or cropping. I have not done any comparisons yet to a 1Ds MKII or the 5D (I plan on doing this before my Madagascar report appears in mid-November).

My quick summery is that the 1Ds MKIII is Canon’s best camera yet for anyone that doesn’t specifically need higher frame rates for sports or similar subjects. The camera has excellent image quality, much improved features and user interface, a much superior battery system, faster frame rate, etc etc.

Sounds good to me! Even more entertaining is this little blurb about an upcoming trip to Madagascar and the opportunities that will bring for a more extensive look at the 1Ds Mark III. My favorite part is to see what he considers traveling light:

Our shoot will encompass landscape, wildlife, and cultural photography, and we’ll be offroading, flying in small planes, canoeing, camping, and hiking – what promises to be a pretty rugged journey. We have to travel light, so what camera gear to bring is going to be a tough choice. Right now the 1Ds MKIII will be my primary camera, with a 5D as backup. I also have a Canon G9 along as my pocket snapshot camera. My lens choices aren’t final yet, but I’m thinking of the 24-105mm f/4L IS, the 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and 100-400mm f/5.6L IS. All of this and whatever other shooting gear I bring will have to fit in a Lowepro Minitrecker. A 13″ Macbook Pro and 4 portable hard drives totaling about 300GB of storage, as well as a satellite phone, will travel in a rolling briefcase, and everything else including tripod, chargers and clothes in a duffle bag.

Two DSLRs, one point and shoot, four lenses, a laptop, four hard drives, a satellite phone, and a tripod. And here I’m often leaving my single DSLR and its two (relatively) small lenses behind because I don’t want to deal with the bulkiness. I’m clearly not doing this right.