I can't take good photographs without the 1DIII. In fact the mere announcement of its released has improved the shots I take.

I can't wait until they announce tha 1DsMKIII because just the thought of that camera will surely make my photographs better.

Jim

OK

No1 D30 with a 600/4 on a monopod

No2 1DIIN with 24-70

No3 1D with the 600/4

No4 D30 with a 600/4

No5 20D with 24-70

when I look back at most of what I don't keep it is more to do with the shot not being right due to subject matter and positions of people in those shots, Sure there are a % of OOF shots, But from what I've looked at with diferent cameras the % of non keepers is about the same for me.

I never really had any trouble shooting motor sports with the D30, sure people will say its not possible but if you know what your trying to do and how your gear works you'll have more success, here is another example this is on a fast corner with the D30 and 70-200 from memory, technique plays a vital role in your end results.

I currently own a 1dIIn and a 5d and i don't really see enough improvement in the feature set to justify a purchase of that size for me. I had my 1dIIn out today all day in the bitter cold at an Ice Day celebration which is basically an ATV outing on a frozen lake. I must say I can't imagine where I could have wanted anything more in functionality. I personally would love more lens development but Canon's profits are tied up in converting people from body to body every 2 years. Glass turns over less and sells less so we see much less development there. That is sad.

I am searching for an upgrade to my 10d for my assistant and my plan was a 30d. Now I am thinking maybe a 1dIII but I don't think it is worth the cost for me.

I think I will end up with a 30d or another 5d or maybe a 400d. The 30d is nice to have if i want a little extra reach with the 1.6 crop sensor and the 400d is almost a write off since it is so inexpensive and depreciates so fast. It is a nice basic camera..

darryn patch wrote:
I too am so tempted to get the 3 but my missus brings me back to earth pretty quickly, she prefers that she spends our money rather than me??

We went through some of my photos and the only question asked was, could the mark3 have improved my shots?

The simple answer was no,

Edited by darryn patch on Feb 24, 2007 at 03:54 PM GMT


I suspect you are looking at the wrong photos. Look at the ones that didn't turn out well rather than the ones that did and see if the answer is the same. If it is, then don't buy the camera. If the answer changes then decide whether the value of the increase in output exceeds the cost. If it does, buy the camera.

I currently own a 1D2N (and love the 1.25x crop) and vowed for most of last year I wouldn't be interested in an upgrade. Then the need for a 2nd body came along and I am 'ummed' and 'ahhed' over a 5D eventually discounting it, did the same over a 1Ds2 as I found the price too high and being in the 'end game' of its product life (not that the latter in itself is a bad thing, just don't like buying at the end of a cycle). Then the 1D3 came along. It has some very good features and I do see it as a major improvement, at least on paper, over the N. Will it improve the results of my photography? Yes I can imagine it will and the extra resolution is nice to have too.

Darryn,

Great pictures, and your thoughts are probably correct. Why improve on something that doesn't really need improving?

As far as your pictures, is that last one taken on the northern beaches of Oahu? Seems I remember a setting just like that one when the wife & I were there last summer, but the water wasn't green. Very nice scene.

Buying new runners get me out running... getting a new lens get me out trying new things. It's no different with a new body. You can discuss if that's what photograpy is all about but it does work for me. As another poster said... it depends on where you are coming from and may I add where you hope to be going. I am changing my tune about 1D3. Having shot with the D60 and 20D over the past 4 1/2 years I've have often missed shots. Mind you I also have many keepers. The most trying job for me every year is covering cross country ski races in all kinds of weather. Last year I then borrowed a 1D Mark II and I absolutely had more in focus shots. The 8 fps for sure helped me getting the racers in that perfect position.

going from a 1.6x to 1.3x I would be looking forward to getting a wider 16-35 On the other end ideally I would love to add a 300 2.8L but I think I better slow down a bit.

For me the dilemma is whether to upgrade to a cheaper mkII or go big and get the mkiii. I shot with a 1D for 3 years and decided to sell it last fall as I thought I wouldn't be shooting as much sports this past winter and bought a 20D (wanted something smaller as well). As it turns out I'm shooting as much sports as ever and cursing the 20D - the AF, especially in poor light, is miserable in comparison to the 1D. So its upgrade time.

The question is relevant in the context of would spending an extra $2,000 or more for the mk3 over the mk2 get me enough better images to justify the delta. For sure either will be a huge improvement over the 20D. I can about buy a 5D for the difference. So its a tough choice.

For shooting indoors the better low light AF and extra ISO stop are the big feature chnages that would improve my work. Many of the ice riunks I shoot in I can get perhaps 1/320 at f2.8 at ISO1600 - marginal. So both are significant.

Using quick reply on the first page, without seeing the probable correct choices later in the post, I'll guess D30; 1D; IIn; 20D

Ansel Adams didn't need a Mark III did he?

Let's face it: There is nothing wrong with being a gear-head and all, but it's the Indian, not the arrow. If you've seen Robert Clark's photos taken with a Sony cell phone vs. some IIN photos on here and other photos you'll know...it's the Indian, not the arrow. Photography is about seeing/seeing things in ways no one else does, and reacting to those with the tools you have. Learn the tools you have, both strengths and weaknesses, and use both to your advantage. Will a $4000 new body HELP? For some...probably. But for others? They can take beautiful photos with a Disposable P&S.

Anyone that honestly thinks a more expensive or different camera will improve thier work hasn't spent nearly enough time as a photographer...learn and apply basic photography skills and you can be really good or great with any camera.

Your income will triple if you get the new camera. If you buy a new lens too, then you may find that you sell so many shots you'll have to hire two new assistants to take orders.

Your wife will be so happy with these things she'll tell you she wants you to buy 3 cameras. It's probably time for you to wake up now.

Edited by jamesf99 on Feb 26, 2007 at 07:02 AM GMT

"Ansel Adams didn't need a Mark III did he?"

No, he sure didn't....., but then again, I don't recall him doing weddings, fashion, news, sports, event or contemporary Postmodern photography either.

"If you've seen Robert Clark's photos taken with a Sony cell phone vs. some IIN photos on here and other photos you'll know...it's the Indian, not the arrow."

He shoots weddings, sports, magazine layouts, fashion and events with a cell phone?
-----------------------------------------

"Anyone that honestly thinks a more expensive or different camera will improve thier work hasn't spent nearly enough time as a photographer...learn and apply basic photography skills and you can be really good or great with any camera."

This is a typical refrain of someone who "thinks" they have a clue. Those who "push" their gear, know how untrue the above is but it sure sounds, on it's face, to be profound.

last shot is from Krabi in Thailand, so many rocks there they all start to look the same after a while??

BeeMan458 wrote:
"Ansel Adams didn't need a Mark III did he?"

No, he sure didn't....., but then again, I don't recall him doing weddings, fashion, news, sports, event or contemporary Postmodern photography either.

"If you've seen Robert Clark's photos taken with a Sony cell phone vs. some IIN photos on here and other photos you'll know...it's the Indian, not the arrow."

He shoots weddings, sports, magazine layouts, fashion and events with a cell phone?
-----------------------------------------

"Anyone that honestly thinks a more expensive or different camera will improve thier work hasn't spent nearly enough time as a photographer...learn and apply basic photography skills and you can be really good or great with any camera."

This is a typical refrain of someone who "thinks" they have a clue. Those who "push" their gear, know how untrue the above is but it sure sounds, on it's face, to be profound.

Thank you Thomas for inserting some reality. If I recall correctly, most of Adams's most famous shots were with an 8x10 view camera, not a pinhole camera or a Brownie. Could he have taken a decent picture with either? Probably. The fact that he choose not to shows that he had a lot more sense than those who claim that he would have achieved the same status if he had. Come on guys, get real. You can shoot a charging lion with a view camera and get a great image but that doesn't mean that it is a good f*&^ing idea.

I kinda went there in my mind as I saw this cartoon of Ansel in my head, running from a bear, 8X10 view and legs over the shoulder and the cartoon balloon reading. "Got the shot" with brim hat flying off his head.

I totally disagree.
1st off you must have interesting subject and composition with out that nothing matters… but 2nd great equipment always, always helps. I do art for a living and do photography as a hobby, if I was a pro (and not so cheap) I would be all over this camera. Darryn I think the Live Screen would help you. I most also say the car shot ROCKS, as good as it gets!!!!

D30, 1D, 1DIIN, 20D.
Of course, we can't really tell from these small versions, and I'm sure even with full sized files it would be tough except for the smaller size of the pics from the older bodies.

All the points about the primacy of photographic skill and artistic vision are valid, but I'm still with Thomas (BeeMan) and others about the value of having the best tools you can get for the job you're trying to do.

why would anyone waste a second of his time on this crazy forum unless he thought the gear made a big difference? everyone here believes that the artistic side is very important. both aspects matter.

I own the cameras in my sig line. And I used to have SONY F505V. My personal best collection are made from the photos from all of them. It seems that what matters is not the camera but my sincere effort to get a good shot.