I've been trying to find info on what options there might be with regards to registered focus points and how the buttons under the thumb can be programmed. For someone using both a Mark III and a Mark II in parallell it would be something of a pain if they can't be made to function the same way. I currently use the * button for focusing and the WB button to momentarily switch to an alternate focus point while the button is depressed. It would be great if the Mark III could function the same way but I have not been able to verify that.
DmitriM wrote:
I hate it. only 10MP is not enough Too bulky. They should've made it 5D size. Hard to carry a life-size brick with you everywhere.
Um, that's why they make smaller cameras. If you don't like the size of the so-called brick, you can have the 5D, as strangely enough that's 5D sized and it's got 12.8MP.
Funny how so many of us manage to struggle along with a life sized-brick around our neck, but we all have our crosses to bear.
A lot of these "bricks" have large lenses on them and sit on monopods or tripods... they aren't really designed primarily for vacation or walkaround photography, hanging from someone's neck .
If I may play devil's advocate, what I really don't understand is the existence of the 1.3 crop cameras at all. Can someone explain it to me?
They can't use EF-S lenses, so they miss out on those size/weight/cost gains. They certainly can't compete with the FF cameras on image quality, since this very sensor technology could just as easily be used in a FF sensor.
Where is the economy in making 2 versions of the 1D series? I don't get it. If I was in charge at Canon :) I would make a single full frame 1D series camera with a half resolution sport mode and stack em high.
At the risk of answering my own question, perhaps someone knows if it is all about sensor fab yield. FF sensors have much worse yield and so cost considerably more.
From the spec and the test shots online it looks like the 1D3 will just about beat the 5D for image quality, but nevertheless I will stick with the 5D and hope for a 5D2 because of full-frame, weight, size, and least important, cost.
brainiac wrote:
If I may play devil's advocate, what I really don't understand is the existence of the 1.3 crop cameras at all. Can someone explain it to me?
They can't use EF-S lenses, so they miss out on those size/weight/cost gains. They certainly can't compete with the FF cameras on image quality, since this very sensor technology could just as easily be used in a FF sensor.
Where is the economy in making 2 versions of the 1D series? I don't get it. If I was in charge at Canon I would make a single full frame 1D series camera with a half resolution sport mode and stack em high.
At the risk of answering my own question, perhaps someone knows if it is all about sensor fab yield. FF sensors have much worse yield and so cost considerably more....Show more →
If you were running Canon wouldn't you rather sell your clients more than one camera?
As it stands, I will 'need' to purchase three cameras instead of two for the variety of work I perform - that's 50% more sales just there.
ctrl-alt-grant wrote:
I quite like the way the diopter adjustment is "hidden" behind the eyecup - I have messed up so many shots on my 30D by using manual focus with the diopter having been shifted off normal. Sorry if that's a pain for any of you that wear glasses - but to me that's just another small improvement that makes this 1DIII look like such a well thought out camera. I also like that they've gone with more of the "prosumer" UI.
Isn't it impossible to have an unfocused image appear sharp in the VF due to a diopter error?
Wouldn't the subsequent unfocused image just appear more out of focus?
cwphoto wrote:
Has there been any talk of focus points other than the centre one being sensitive to AF at f/8?
In the white paper it:
"As with the EOS-1D Mark II N, the center AF point is a cross-type sensor. It is vertical-line sensitive with maximum apertures as small as f/4, and horizontal-line sensitive with maximum apertures as small as f/8. "
No other AF points are mentioned to be sensitve at f/8
If you were running Canon wouldn't you rather sell your clients more than one camera?
As it stands, I will 'need' to purchase three cameras instead of two for the variety of work I perform - that's 50% more sales just there.
That's the question. If the 1DsII had had an 8fps mode how many sports shooters would have preferred it? The facility for extra resolution doesn't hurt. How many more D2h/x users would have switched. How much cheaper could it have been bearing in mind they would probably have sold twice as many? How many 5D buyers would have stretched to the extra expenditure. A single comprehensive flagship with 8fps, 17MP and a keener price would be a potent product by which I myself would be much more tempted. I don't see why we must always be made to choose between full-frame resolution and speed. Is there a technical reason?
i prefer FF and don't need 10 fps. if i'm gonna upgrade from 5D to a 1D/1Ds, i'd rather spend the $$$ on resolution. if the extra resolution of the 1DsIII doesn't show through enough in real-word images or they can't keep the noise reasonably close to that of the 5D, i'll probably get a 1DIII for the superior AF and deal with the 1.3x crop.
brainiac: They certainly can't compete with the FF cameras on image quality, since this very sensor technology could just as easily be used in a FF sensor.
Personally, I am very happy that 1d mkIII was released. It is exactly a camera I need (by the way, do you remember EOS 1V ? Why was no one surprised that is was 10 frames/sec).
Simply put: I could not afford 1ds mkIII, I do not like 5D's build and cannot afford 500 f/4.0L either. 1D mkIII constitutes the best camera I can keep for the next 3-4 years. I was actually using my film camera recently and was shocked to realize that I do not like FF any more (I mean with lenses I have).
Well, if the price of this "unified" FF/crop camera is the same or higher as for a FF camera don't you think a lot of photographers that don't need such high resolution would be annoyed? Sports photographers for instance that use two 1D type bodies would have to shell out for two 1Ds bodies.
why we must always be made to choose between full-frame resolution and speed. Is there a technical reason?
The simple answer is: "processing speed limitations".
Surely that's just a question of more parallel DiG!Cs? An extra grand should cover it. In fact, the economies of scale in marketing and tooling up for only one body should cover it. Why am I wrong?
