I like the 3rd shot, but the ball in the air doesn't look right until I realized it must have been from the guy next to him. Great capture, with a little luck!
GeneO, I would wait until PMA next year to see if Canon releases a replacement to the 1D3. I have the cash ready to purchase another 1D3 but more likely a 1Ds3 as having another body with over 10MP would be very very useful to me. A circa 16MP 1D3 replacement would be ideal for me as I do like the 1.3x crop so I am waiting.
GeorgeK-NJ wrote:
I like the 3rd shot, but the ball in the air doesn't look right until I realized it must have been from the guy next to him. Great capture, with a little luck!
Thanks, it took me a minute to figure that one out as well...
GeneO wrote:
I am trying to make a decsion now. I pre-ordered a 1D Mark III when they were announced but cancelled when the AF issues surfaced and bought a 1D mark IIN instead.
Now I am looking for a backup to or replacement of my 1D Mark IIN as primary. I was very unhappy to have to have had to make such a decision - I had hoped a 1D Mark III could last me a long while in terms of IQ and ability to capture action. I shoot wildlife at 400-700mm and action so I want a high frame rate and fine detail IQ. I am leery of the 1D Mark III, but don't see any viable Canon alternatives (50d or 5D mark II). So I am thinking of a gradual shift to Nikon d300 or D3, though it would be very costly because of the long glass, and I might have to give up bird photgraphy for a while.
The mkIII is a great cam, but BIF is not its forte. I have tried it every which way and you can get some fabulous shots. It's just not as easy as the mkIIn to get fast action in a reliable manner. The main reason is because the mkIII doesn't do well when subjects are small in the frame. If you shoot all of your birds with the frame filled then it would work fine, but that's not reality. That is a distinction that you don't hear in many reports and reviews of the camera. I know there must be a lot of bad mkIIIs out there, but I guess I waited long enough till the problems were worked out.
The mkIIn does a killer job on fast moving subjects that are small in the frame. The mkIII has other autofocus advantages and seems to work great for sports like soccer, motorsports, basketball, and a lot of other things. I love using my mkIII whenever possible, but I understand its limitations a lot better now.
I believe small BIF must be the most taxing autofocus enviroment. I also believe that my mkIII is functioning as well as anyone's out there because I can capture a lot of different kinds of action very well with it.
I would be very skeptical of the Nikon cameras in the same conditions where the mkIII autofocus struggles. I know the latest Nikons (D3, D700) have come a long way, and their high ISO is excellent now. I have not seen any proof of the autofocus accuracy on fast, small subjects though.
I think Canon really had the autofocus figured out on the mkIIn for BIF. The mkIII is better in certain types of autofocusing so that's why you hear some users claiming it is better overall than the mkIIn. I don't think any of them are small BIF shooters though. So if Canon can figure out how to meld the less than full frame focusing of the mkIIn with the super fast focusing of the mkIII they will really have the best of both worlds.
If someone said I'll pay you $1000 to get a sharp pic of a Swallow in flight with only 25 frames, then I would grab the mkIIn w/400 5.6 lens. No doubt about it.
So my sage advice right now is don't buy anything. Wait and see.
The mkIII is a great cam, but BIF is not its forte. I have tried it every which way and you can get some fabulous shots. It's just not as easy as the mkIIn to get fast action in a reliable manner. The main reason is because the mkIII doesn't do well when subjects are small in the frame. If you shoot all of your birds with the frame filled then it would work fine, but that's not reality. That is a distinction that you don't hear in many reports and reviews of the camera.
I read Les's site a while back and got a lot of good info from it. I use some of the same settings he does, but I never saw any small fast BIF on his site. Since that is the type shooting I do professionally I need the best possible AF for it and the mkIII just ain't it. I think you can sense how happy I am with the mkIII overall but it is still my second camera when shooting paid R/C stuff, or BIF. The mkIIn is my primary for all that. When I just have to get the shot, the mkIIn makes it easier. It's usually outside in good light too. With that said, there are still a slew of other things I shoot that I would never consider the mkIIn for anymore now that I have the mkIII in my bag.
I read Les's site a while back and got a lot of good info from it. I use some of the same settings he does, but I never saw any small fast BIF on his site. Since that is the type shooting I do professionally I need the best possible AF for it and the mkIII just ain't it. I think you can sense how happy I am with the mkIII overall but it is still my second camera when shooting paid R/C stuff, or BIF. The mkIIn is my primary for all that. When I just have to get the shot, the mkIIn makes it easier. It's usually outside in good light too. With that said, there are still a slew of other things I shoot that I would never consider the mkIIn for anymore now that I have the mkIII in my bag. ...Show more →
Well Mark I agree the Mark II's AF accuracy and speed for BIF is astounding. I won't give it up I am looking for something with a little better IQ for wildlife (mainly birds).
I read Les's site a while back and got a lot of good info from it. I use some of the same settings he does, but I never saw any small fast BIF on his site. Since that is the type shooting I do professionally I need the best possible AF for it and the mkIII just ain't it. I think you can sense how happy I am with the mkIII overall but it is still my second camera when shooting paid R/C stuff, or BIF. The mkIIn is my primary for all that. When I just have to get the shot, the mkIIn makes it easier. It's usually outside in good light too. With that said, there are still a slew of other things I shoot that I would never consider the mkIIn for anymore now that I have the mkIII in my bag. ...Show more →
Well Mark I agree the Mark II's AF accuracy and speed for BIF is astounding. I won't give it up I am looking for something with a little better IQ for and better ISO performance if possible for still wildlife (mainly birds).
GeorgeK-NJ wrote:
I like the 3rd shot, but the ball in the air doesn't look right until I realized it must have been from the guy next to him. Great capture, with a little luck!
You've obviously never seen my feeble attempts at golf. I can do that and much worse easily
Gene, while my experience is the MkIII has its quirks, I still believe it's one of the best cameras Canon has ever produced. I don't have any hesitations recommending it. Yes, I do loose shots because of those quirks (frustrating) and yes, I do get keepers I'd probably not have gotten with any other cam. People calling it perfect simply haven't shot enough in a wide enough range of circumstances.
Still, the sage thing to do would be to wait and see if there's a MkIV around the corner...
I certainly wouldn't call the Mark III's AF "perfect", but it's no where near as bad as people would have you believe. Are the world's Sports Photographer's idiots? Sports Illustrated? Reuters? They're still using them.
I've told people that even though I've moved on to Nikon for a variety of reasons, I firmly believe that the 1D Mark III will probably have been the best camera I ever owned - it's fantastic.
I think you're dead on with this. I agree that it has something to do with small subjects in the frame and definitely think this is much of the problem that people (including myself) have seen.
I've been reaching that very same conclusion too this week. The MkIII thrives on big, contrasty things but can have problems with low-contrast detail.
It's frustrating in a way isn't it Emile....right now people seem to have a lot fewer issues with the latest releases...but then the prospect of an entirely new body seems appealing.....
Lord Fluff wrote:
It's frustrating in a way isn't it Emile....right now people seem to have a lot fewer issues with the latest releases...but then the prospect of an entirely new body seems appealing.....
absolutely. I would love to upgrade from my 1ds2, and feel comfortable now on the 1ds3. We know and understand the few quirks. But given the quality (potential) of the new 5d2, and the disparity in pricing, the prudent thing would be to hang on a few more months.
Lord Fluff wrote:
With its own new set of problems.......
And what, exactly, is EVER perfect whether that be cameras, cars, computers, or any other item? And one person's definition of perfect is never the same as another's. I have a Mark III and for my needs and wants, it is perfect.
I am looking for something with a little better IQ for wildlife (mainly birds). 