madmax200 wrote:
God IM so glad I kept my 1ds2. Saved 4500k and no headaches. Good luck selling the 1ds3 in 3 years. It wont be worth much.
I was in the same camp, but once I upgraded, there is no way I can look back. My biggest gripe about the 1Ds2 was that there was a lot of noise in the shadows at low ISO settings. At ISO 100, the noise in the shadows was very annoying. On the 1DsIII, the low ISO settings provide extremely clean shadow areas. It reminds me of the D30. Detail is superb, and I really like the new menu system, battery system, ability to set the # of bracketed shots, etc. Stepping up to the D30 from point and shoot land was a huge leap, and because of all the changes made, I feel like the jump from the 1DsII to the 1DsIII is a similar leap.
The AF systems in the 1D2 and 1Ds2 were identical except for an algorithm adjustment to suit the slower maximum frame rate. Canon acknowledged this in one of their documents.
There's no reason to expect the 1D3 and 1Ds3 not to also be twins. That's partly why the AF sensor coverage in the 1Ds3 is relatively smaller than in the 1D3 - it's the same physical size in a larger image size. Just like the 1Ds2 and 1D2.
With far fewer 1Ds3s out there and relatively few of them being used for tracking moving subjects it is to be expected that there will be fewer complaints. Given Canon's recent history of blaming everyone but themselves for their AF system defects it is perfectly reasonable at this early stage to be suspicious of the 1Ds3.
Let others take the risks for a few months if you can, or take them yourself if you must. I've settled on keeping my 1Ds2 and will skip the 3 series completely, but I can afford to do that. There's been too much bad blood and too many 1D3 solutions that needed further solutions for me to have blind faith in the 3 series at this stage, and not enough 1Ds3s have been sold for any problems to be reported yet - especially of they are intermittent and/or not universal, like on the 1D3.
[edit] History shows us that whoever is first to criticise the 1Ds3 will cop a lot of criticism and inuendo from Canon and from fellow FMers. For taht reason alone you can expect some reluctance to be the among the first. Only after a while will people complain and then others will come out of hiding - if indeed there are problems to complain about.
ward1066 wrote:
How to you tell if the sensor is misaligned? Do you use a grid focus screen or bubble?
Down and dirty. Line up the edge of the frame on a straight edge and click. I noticed right off the bat that lines I felt should have been straight from the way I shot them weren't and that they were constantly off by about the same amount in the same direction (1.5% clockwise averagish). Did some quick tests and they confirmed it. If it wasn't that 100% are off then I would say it is me but there is a constancy to the problem that defies any other explanation - especially in light of it being a known issue. No big deal but it is annoying.
PS. I don't know if it is the sensor or the focusing screen which is misaligned. Having shot for 15 years with pin-registered Nikons that were critically aligned and accurate to 1/1000 of an inch I feel very comfortable in asserting that one of them is off.
If it is anything at all like the 1D3 then you simply cannot rely on individual good results like mbailey's to indicate a good chance of no problems on your camera. In the absence of reported problems in these early days you can either play it safe or take your chances and hope that you're as lucky as the happy 1Ds3 owners. As for me, my experience with past purchases tells me that I would never be that lucky.
Can you afford the financial loss and the protracted hassles of getting it wholly or partly fixed if your new camera is defective ? If so then go for it. Otherwise be wise and wait longer.
Just got the 1Dsm3, and only put about 1500 clicks on it, but so far for BIF, low light and servo AF I am very pleased. One shot is dead on, although I have only tried it on a couple of lenses as I shoot mainly birds. The only downside I can see with this camera for BIF or action is that 5fps is a lot slower than you would think. The buffer also fills up quickly, so you have to time your sequences carefully. At first I was convinced I was neither getting 5fps or a full buffer, but after checking it, it is delivering as advertised(although at higher ISO's it seems I only get 11 in the buffer).
The camera is an absolute pleasure to use, especially after suffering trying to shoot BIF or animals with a 5D and 40D. One thing I have noticed with BIF, is that for larger birds(cormorants, swans, geese) their wing beating frequency often sync's with the 5fps, and I will get 10 frames in a row with the wings in the exact same position. That is a situation where the 1Dm2's and 1dm3 would be definitely superior with the higher frame rate to give you more choices. For smaller birds with a higher frequency like ducks, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Tracking is dead on and easily acquires.
scott f wrote:
The buffer also fills up quickly, so you have to time your sequences carefully. At first I was convinced I was neither getting 5fps or a full buffer, but after checking it, it is delivering as advertised(although at higher ISO's it seems I only get 11 in the buffer).
Are you using a UDMA card? I found with a UDMA Sandisk Ducati card I could get 14 RAWs (iso 100) into the buffer before it filled.
I have tried two cards, a 12gb extreme III and a Delkin 16gb UDMA. I haven't had time yet to actually analyze the buffer fill and empty times, but from field use at ISO400 and above, 11 seems to be the norm.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Mine has excellent AF. The best that I have used on any camera. I agree with Johnny, it's a fabulous piece of equipment
totally agreee!!!
