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,
I've had double page pics in surf mags from a D30, sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of photos from the D30 and 1D, shots 20+ weddings with the IIn and 20D,
So as much as I would love the mark 3 I wont be getting one. Here are some samples can you tell which camera took what shot, all from 4 different cameras.
Given that I shoot vertical quite often, having the more sensative AF sensors in positions where I can actually use them with the D3 should be quite benifitial.
Does it mean I'll never take an OOF picture again ? Of course not, and theres of course plenty that goes into a good shot besides the camera, but will it help ? I think so.
Same with ISO3200 and even ISO6400. Will it mean super clean shots at those settings ? I highly doubt it, but what it can mean is hopefully giving me the ability to produce shots with a similar level of noise to what I've got now but with gaining a stop of shutter speed due to better high ISO performance, that can only help my gymnastics and other low light work.
Is it going to turn me into Peter Read Miller ? Nope, but it should allow me to use what skills I already have better and work smarter/faster due to some nice design and interface improvments.
Edited by Brutus_B on Feb 24, 2007 at 07:52 AM GMT
Well, you're clearly a good photographer. It doesn't look like the 1D3's features would have somehow made it easier to get shots like these so you're right, it probably won't help much.
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Well, you're clearly a good photographer. It doesn't look like the 1D3's features would have somehow made it easier to get shots like these so you're right, it probably won't help much.
One can't really judge from the keepers someone shows us, we've got to see all the shots that were deleted to make that call.
I remember shooting a D60 back in the day, sure I could show you a great action shot taken with it, but for each keeper, I could show you about 100 where the focus was on the background instead of the subject.
I don't think all Mark II N users have a need to upgrade. But I, as a Mark I user, certainly feel the need to get something with a little more "oomph", and a Mark III would be a better choice than a Mark II N (funds permitting, of course).
hehe I was just playing to see your reaction have no clue which is which. But I dont think thats the point. I am not a pro photographer like you IIn holders and neither have teh talent to reproduce any of your work, but I think it is clear that no one gets these updated cameras for increased image quality but rather for increasing productivity. Before buying my first DSLR I tried a Konica Minolta A200. Some of the pictures that I got from it were stunningly sharp. Yet its sloooooooow autofocus meant I would loose many many shots. And I see people great sports pictures matching the clarity of your pictures with cameras like FZ50 as well. But off course the IIn gives more than just the possibility of getting a great shot
No. It will improve the image technical quality under certain limited conditions but the best way for me to improve my work is for me to learn how to take better images.
Koivulehto wrote:
I sure hope 1d3's live preview and improved high ISO will help in shots like this and enable reduced time for postprocessing: http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/5760/webfireflywq3.jpg
BTW, it was shot with a Canon FD 100 f/4 macro lens on 5D at 1:05 night time.
Quite a lot of banding on the middle/top right hand side, was this the dreaded AF motor/AI Servo problem?
Well, I'm not sure that the urgent need we feel for getting new stuff can be rationalized, and certainly not based on the image quality. Exceptionnal shots were made back in the 70's with pretty outdated stuff according to the current standards.
To make an exceptionnal shot, you first need an exceptionnal light and have some basic skills for framing, selecting the aperture and shooting at the right time. Then comes the hardware, and lenses are obviously much more critical there than the bodies...
But a new body means new gadgets. Not saying that gadgets are useless, they help and generally save time and pain.
After a while, they get integrated to the standard. I bet that wireless capabilities for instance will in a few years from now, be deemed necessary.
Do I feel the need for a Mk3? NO!!
Will I get one? YES!!
How long will I resist? Depends of my wife...
...the only question asked was, could the mark3 have improved my shots?
Brutus_B's comment on percentage of keepers seems to be very on point for someone who's "had double page pics in surf mags from a D30, sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of photos from the D30 and 1D, shots 20+ weddings with the IIn and 20D,"
Will the 1D3 improve the % of keepers - and therefore sales - over your 1D2n?
Would selling your 600/4 and replacing it with a 500/4 (to fund the 1D3) compromise your ability to shoot certain subjects?
Coming from a 20D, I would assume that I should be able to capture less OOF shots for motor sports, aviation and field sports with the faster, more accurate AF. I don't know that the quality of my keepers will increase, I think the sheer number of keepers will increase.
Also, at 10 FPS, the chances of capturing that illusive contact point, or that perfect facial expression should be increased 2X. So for me, yeah, I think the equipment change will benefit me.
BTW... my wife has already blessed the purchase.... I just dread what she will be wanting to purchase to "make it even"
I haven't tried anything yet that my 30D has limited me in accomplishing, but I have noted the difference in focusing speed between the 30D and the EOS-3. For that reason alone, I will be looking at the 1d mkIII when its pricing has settled out on the market.
The 1D3 might help with the middle two images. Depends upon how much detail you removed in processing and posting.
The middle of the tailpipe flames and the upper right surfing shot; blown wave highlight.
I shoot extreme light situations, so it's an issue I'm sensitive to and time will tell if there's a stop or two improvement in DR; 14bit processing w/Digic III.
These improvements, if successful, "will" allow you to take creative license with your efforts, allowing you to push the envelope, that much further which will have the overall affect of improving your work.
So if my above "assumptions" of DR improvement are correct, "yes" the 1D3 will "allow" you to improve your work cause good or bad, you're only as good as the limitations of your tools.
Oooooooh, I can hear the howls now. Flame suit on.
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Well, you're clearly a good photographer. It doesn't look like the 1D3's features would have somehow made it easier to get shots like these so you're right, it probably won't help much.
Ha, a "good" photographer. He's the kind of photographer that reminds me that I am NOT a good photographer!!!
But at least it gives me something to aspire to!!!
have no clue which is which. But I dont think thats the point. I am not a pro photographer like you IIn holders and neither have teh talent to reproduce any of your work, but I think it is clear that no one gets these updated cameras for increased image quality but rather for increasing productivity. Before buying my first DSLR I tried a Konica Minolta A200. Some of the pictures that I got from it were stunningly sharp. Yet its sloooooooow autofocus meant I would loose many many shots. And I see people great sports pictures matching the clarity of your pictures with cameras like FZ50 as well. But off course the IIn gives more than just the possibility of getting a great shot
.