dhphoto wrote:
With Nikon's pro D3 I think the 1Ds3 is hugely overpriced now
The D3 is a sports camera (low MP high FPS), just like the 1D Mk III. The fact that it has an FF sensor and not 1.3X sensor is not relevant. Not long ago (after the D3 introduction) Chuck Westfall said they originally introduced the 1.3X format (AKA APS-H) to compete with the APS-C format. He also said that currently, the only advantage it has over FF is price. That indicates that Canon's next sports camera will either be cheaper or have an FF format.
In the next 6-12 months Nikon is expected to introduce a D3x with more than 20 MP and lower FPS. This will be the true competitor of the 1Ds Mk III.
I sympathize, but as a professional, I owe it to my clients never to put myself in a position where the loss of one item for repair would prevent me from working.
I have back up cameras coming out of my ears. nothing stops me working either mr pro fesssional. I don't however have a digital 21 mpx £6ooo camera spare lying around my money tree... I can shoot but I owe it to myself to use the best quality I have.
dhphoto wrote:
I am truly dismayed that Canon have allowed a viewfinder misalignment problem on such a hideously expensive dslr. I hadn't heard of that before. Their standards really are slipping
David
Tell you what, David, you go manufacture a few hundred thousand fabulously complex pieces of equipment and offer them for sale to a few hundred thousand fabulously anal-retentive photogrpahers---let us know how that works out for you.
Mar 31, 2008 at 09:55 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
kirstin wrote:
1ds III - Horizon 1 degree off, auto focus is flawless. Best focus I have ever used. The horizon issue is a big one though. I can't send it back for repair because funnily enough I need to use it for my job and I need to get paid all the time if I'm going to give canon £6000 for a dogs ass camera that has been assembled by a drunk. Frigging nightmare. Canon suck, That's a fact.
No serious professional that need the camera every day, would only work with one camera body. Sooner or later any camera you own will need service or repair
I have both Canon 1D and 1Ds MK3. Cannot be happier with both although sometimes I am tempted to blame the 1D MK3's AF 'problems' to explain some of my own mistakes. Did not own the other 1Ds, but when I got the 5D, I thought the image quality was great. It is VERY good but not great. The 1DS image quality is GREAT, especially when used with the UDMA cards. Don't understand why the 1DS costs almost twice the 1D, though.
To directly address your implied issues in selecting a new 1D Canon: First decide your intended use, display size and medium. The 1Ds Mk III is very a different camera than a l D Mk III. The, almost twice as expensive ,1Ds Mk III gives up many features/capabilities when compared to the Mk III for just one thing-more than double the resolution.
That's great if you print really big (24x36"and larger) but you give up shooting speed, buffer capacity, at least 1 stop of ISO, and the (advantage of) 1.274 magnification on a tele.
You also must deal with double size files (approx 25Mb RAWs that open up to about 200Mb 8 bit files and 16 bit 400Mb PSDs). That probably means another hard drive (array) and/or a new computer.
SoundHound wrote:
To directly address your implied issues in selecting a new 1D Canon: First decide your intended use, display size and medium. The 1Ds Mk III is very a different camera than a l D Mk III. The, almost twice as expensive ,1Ds Mk III gives up many features/capabilities when compared to the Mk III for just one thing-more than double the resolution.
That's great if you print really big (24x36"and larger) but you give up shooting speed, buffer capacity, at least 1 stop of ISO, and the (advantage of) 1.274 magnification on a tele.
You also must deal with double size files (approx 25Mb RAWs that open up to about 200Mb 8 bit files and 16 bit 400Mb PSDs). That probably means another hard drive (array) and/or a new computer....Show more →
See, that's the problem with what you said. Shooting the same subject (say a bird at 20m) with the same lens (say 600L) will give you more pixels on the bird with the 1Ds3 than with the 1D3. Even the 1Ds2 will give you the same pixels on the bird as the 1D3. The 1Ds3 has smaller & denser pixels than the 1D3. So you have actually less reach with a 1D3 than with a 1Ds3. Try it.
And having owned both (still own the 1Ds3), there's something about the image quality of the 1Ds3 that is hard to quantify, but that's outstanding. You don't need to print 24x36 to see it.
SoundHound wrote:
To directly address your implied issues in selecting a new 1D Canon: First decide your intended use, display size and medium. The 1Ds Mk III is very a different camera than a l D Mk III. The, almost twice as expensive ,1Ds Mk III gives up many features/capabilities when compared to the Mk III for just one thing-more than double the resolution.
That's great if you print really big (24x36"and larger) but you give up shooting speed, buffer capacity, at least 1 stop of ISO, and the (advantage of) 1.274 magnification on a tele.
You also must deal with double size files (approx 25Mb RAWs that open up to about 200Mb 8 bit files and 16 bit 400Mb PSDs). That probably means another hard drive (array) and/or a new computer....Show more →
A couple of corrections. In order to double resolution, you have to square the number of pixels, so to double the resolution of a 4mp camera , you need to go to 16mp camera, not that you need to double the resolution to see a difference.
1Dsm3 is full frame, but the pixel density is greater than the 1dm3 , so you have more pixels on the subject. 10mp x1.3 x1.3(crop factor) gives around 16mp full frame, whereas the 1Dsm3 is 21mp.
The 40D will actually give you more pixels on the subject than the 1Dsm3 or 1Dm3.
The files are not that large, an 8bit tiff is in the 60-70meg range, 16bit double that.
>That's great if you print really big (24x36"and larger) but you give up shooting speed, buffer capacity, at least 1 stop of ISO, and the (advantage of) 1.274 magnification on a tele.
1) ...or if you ever need to crop
2) 1Ds3 performs BETTER at iso 6400 than the 1D3 (be sure to downrez to 10 megapixel before drawing your conclusions)
3) as others have said, the 1Ds3 gives you MORE reach, not less, due to the high pixel density (notwithstanding the fact that the pixels are a mite noisier)
