ducss wrote:
I find it interesting that people who depend on AI-Servo overwhelmingly diss the Mark III, while fanboys search for any kind of cheapshot or insult to apply to critics of the body.
I find it interesting that every post you have made since you become a member here, is about how bad the MKIII:s AF is. So this is your main interest in photography
I don't understand why anyone asks questions comparing the 5D2 with the 1D3. Are they so ignorant that they don't know the difference between the 1D3 and the 1Ds3?
Comparing the 1Ds3 and the 5D2 makes sense - they have similar features, similar target market - plenty of differences, and that makes for an interesting discussion. The 1D3 is a different animal.
Tony Rogers wrote:
I don't understand why anyone asks questions comparing the 5D2 with the 1D3. Are they so ignorant that they don't know the difference between the 1D3 and the 1Ds3?
Comparing the 1Ds3 and the 5D2 makes sense - they have similar features, similar target market - plenty of differences, and that makes for an interesting discussion. The 1D3 is a different animal.
That's exactly what I said back on page 1:
Seth Tower wrote:
To the OP, the 1D3 is in a completely different league than the 5D2. 1.3x 10MP sensor and 10 FPS verses full frame 21MP and 3.9 FPS (not to mention the dramatically different AF systems, metering, build quality, custom functions, weather sealing, etc.). Seriously, WTF? Comparing the 1Ds3 to the 5D2 makes much more sense.
You're kidding right? Comparing apples to oranges? These are two totally different tools for different jobs... One has 21mp but only 3fps, the other has 10fps but only 10mp, weather sealing, 45 AF points, dual memory cards, etc... The 5D2 is the ultimate lightweight landscape/commercial/deep pocket amateur camera, but the 1 series will be preferred by most event/sport professionals thanks to its more practical file sizes, faster response/AF, ruggedness, dual card redundancy/failover etc... Apples to oranges.
Now a more interesting question is who will still hang on to their 1Ds3, for those fortunate few who actually need 21mp? That's a tougher and much more relevant question. Me, I'll be keeping my 1D3 for wedding/event/sport work, where speed and accuracy are more important than monster resolution. And I'll trade my 1Ds3 for a 5D2 for landscape and large commercial work, where speed is not important but resolution is. With this combination I'll always have the most efficient tool for the varied tasks at hand.
stockriderman wrote:
What, nobody else noticed the sarcasm I had in all of my posts? I was dying laughing at all the responses I was getting to my questions. Oh man...
And here I thought it was just ignorance and bad grammar.
stockriderman wrote:
I don't see ANY reasons why anyone would consider buying a 1D MarkIII camera over 5D MarkII Was it Canon intention to introduce this camera for people to change over from 1D. I mean, 1D III was sort of a failure,with all the photographers complaining about focusing issues that it has. If 5D doesn't have the same issues, it seems to me nobody would be buying 1D series bodies.
No I wouldn't buy a 1D III now, but that has nothing to do with a 5D II being released. The cameras serve a vastly different purpose in general (of course there can be large overlap). I own a 5D and 1D II and see them as complimentary, not exclusionary.
I,m holding out on a 1D IV but will be disillusioned if it's not announced at PMA 2009, as that will leave me with my 1D II for another year.
Not comparable cameras.
The question may be a bit better if you were asking about both FF cameras - the 5d2 and the 1dsm3... but again, very different cameras for different audiences.
stockriderman wrote:
I don't see ANY reasons why anyone would consider buying a 1D MarkIII camera over 5D MarkII Was it Canon intention to introduce this camera for people to change over from 1D. I mean, 1D III was sort of a failure,with all the photographers complaining about focusing issues that it has. If 5D doesn't have the same issues, it seems to me nobody would be buying 1D series bodies.
I shot low light fast moving dancers with two 5Ds for months (because of the tiny 5D shot buffer). I used MF because I couldn't frame and recompose fast enough to just use the center sensor in AF.
Then I bought the, then new, MK III (cheaper than, then, two 5Ds) and quintupled my focused keepers. I also got new action shots with 10 fps. If you are shooting daylight lite rocks and grass you can use most any digital and even stitch your way to a huge negative. So with this reasoning why buy anything but a cheap P&S??
ducss wrote:
I find it interesting that people who depend on AI-Servo overwhelmingly diss the Mark III, while fanboys search for any kind of cheapshot or insult to apply to critics of the body.
Sorry ducss, I don't see the insult here. I see a statement of fact based on my real-world application and use of the Mark III. So I guess you are telling me that my Mark III and those of other photographers I personally know are actually much worse than we believe? Do I depend on AI-Servo? No but I do use it 98% of the time shooting sporting events. Does AF fail me? Sometimes yes, most of the time no but no more and usually much less than the Mark II's I own. Do I regret making the leap of faith and purchasing the MK III. Not at all . . . it's already paid for itself several times over.
Perhaps you were insulted by my statement concerning the over generalization by many that the the Mark III is bad despite the many of us who use it and couldn't be happier? Once again nothing more than a simple fact. If you really take this as an insult then possibly you're just taking it a bit too personally or not. Fanboy? Not really. Just a working professional who appreciates having equipment that does what it's supposed to without me having to worry or think about it.
stockriderman wrote:
Seriously the IQ (image quality...) of those who posted here is about 160 collectively...at low resolution
I'd say that based upon the majority of your comments posted in FM I'd have to guess that trolling must be a more serious hobby/vocation to you than photography.
If nothing else you certainly are proving that the anonymity of the internet can turn lambs into lions.
You've got to be kidding me ! OP, please tell me you did not make that post in seriousness. I do not consider my Mark III a failure at all. I would love to have another one if I could afford it. It still makes me money just fine and I don't have any complaints. No, it was not Canon's intention to make people switch from a 1 series to 5DII. Yes, the new 5D II is a beautiful camera but presently I have absolutely no use for it and there's no way in heck I'd give up my 1D for it. I like the new 5D but I just don't have any real attraction to it for my uses. I agree with everyone else in that you're trying to compare two completely different worlds that have no real reason to be put in the same comparison since each has their place. I think if you're making a post like this you must have some serious misconceptions. Go with whatever makes ya happy but there's no way I could leave my 1D for a 5D for what I shoot. That does not mean I would not like to try one on occasion and enjoy it but it's no replacement for a 1D in any way.
Don't be so harsh on the 1D's focus. It remains the best of any camera I've ever shot with for my uses in both focus and image quality as well as in operation, features and responsiveness. It has gotten me shots I could not have obtained with other cameras. When I started shooting it was on film so that's saying something. I have shot the original 5D and enjoyed it but it has entirely different uses from a 1D. My 1D III still nails the shots for me when I need it to the most and amazingly it did not suddenly stop working the day a new camera came out. People still shoot the original 4 MP 1D and the classic (did I really just say that ?) 20D. Why ? Because they know what photography is really about and apparently their cameras don't stop working the second a new and improved label shows up. How can you even consider shooting with a 5D II when the 5D III would be so much better ? But then again you probably should skip the inferior 5D III and wait for the mark IV. This is not what photography is about !
I don't think any one of my customers would be able to see the difference if they tried between two cameras such as this at a medium to large print size (which they tend to not buy anyway because they're more expensive). Unless I'm planning to start doing 30x40 and larger landscapes all day why should I look at a 5D ? Yeah, it's definitely awesome *for it's class* but my 1D is everything I've ever wanted in a camera. Is it perfect ? Of course not, but there's no way it's the failure you blindly stereotype it as. Yes, it will be replaced with a better model and the world will move on but the level of performance it has is all I could ever ask for already. It shouldn't matter anyway because the most important factor here is NOT the cameras, it is the person behind it. If I want to start seeing better images I'm not looking for a 5D, I'm looking for techniques, ideas and improvement of my skills. Find something better to do with your time.
you guys should be ashame of yourselves. attacking a member because of his opinion
and yes i own a l Dmk 111 and a 5D and i have a love hate relationship with it.
you guys should get to know some of the people who has real issues with this camera
and stop defending canon for Their major screw up.
