I haven't lost the replacement yet. If I do, I'll let the forum know. I wrote my original post because the first cap had fallen out twice and I thought others might want to check the security of their caps. Certainly the electrical pins under the cap shouldn't be exposed for long and the big metal nut that fits in that opening isn't an ideal replacement.
I took a trip to the SF Zoo yesterday because and out-of-town friend wanted to visit. The light was bad -- full sun, 10-12 AM. Even so, fur and feathers make great test subpects --).
Several things impressed me about the files, all positive. Dynamic range, color, and detail were all as good or better than anything I've seen. I've photographed at the Zoo before using three cameras: 20D, 5D, and a Leica DMR. The files are clearly beter than the Canon bodies and in the general ball park of the Leica. I will probably run sone comparisons between the DMR and the 1D3. For now, all I can say for now is I'm very pleased. The 1D3 is showing why the 300 f/2.8 lens is so highly regarded. I often shot at 1/60th hand held leaning against whatever wall or fence I could find. The results were very good.
About ACR vs C1. I am only using C1 and I find the conversion to be satisfying to my eye. I stopped using ACR with my DMR files because C1 was much better. I haven't tried ACR 4.1,
JimboCin wrote:
A question on the bokeh aspect. I understand bokeh with a lens - how does the camera body impact bokeh, specifically with the same crop factor?
I thought I also noticed a different "look" on wide open shots in particular with fast lenses, but I had just chalked it up to lighting at the time or other differences. Now that someone else has mentioned it maybe I am seeing it. From a technical perspective I think this is an advantage of 14 bit files. In deeply blurred OOF areas, a lot of adjacent pixels will have values close to one another. In a 12 bit file there would be less of a range to assign values to the same pixels. With a 14 bit files greater tonal range there are simply more tones in transition areas, and bokeh tends to me made up of predominantly of transitions and blocks of subtle color differences.
Good explanation, I was almost hesitant to ask in fear of people thinking I was crazy
Hammerli wrote:
I thought I also noticed a different "look" on wide open shots in particular with fast lenses, but I had just chalked it up to lighting at the time or other differences. Now that someone else has mentioned it maybe I am seeing it. From a technical perspective I think this is an advantage of 14 bit files. In deeply blurred OOF areas, a lot of adjacent pixels will have values close to one another. In a 12 bit file there would be less of a range to assign values to the same pixels. With a 14 bit files greater tonal range there are simply more tones in transition areas, and bokeh tends to me made up of predominantly of transitions and blocks of subtle color differences. ...Show more →
Adobe will support CS3 ,but not CS2 for the new Mark III
They want you to upgrade to CS3
Please all of you complain to Adobe about their decision to not support your Photoshop CS2
RichardRickard wrote:
Adobe will support CS3 ,but not CS2 for the new Mark III
They want you to upgrade to CS3
Please all of you complain to Adobe about their decision to not support your Photoshop CS2
If you want to use 1DIII raw file with CS2, use the DNG converter. The DNG converter supports the 1D III. Then you get a DNG file which you can open with CS2 and ACR3.
monoprint wrote:
I think that's right. All the strengths of Loctite I've ever seen say, 'not recommended for use on plastic'.
Someone saying "use Loctite" is like saying go buy a motor vehicle. There are an awful lot of thread locking compounds produced by Loctite, some of which are meant to be used on plastics (there is an entire book from Loctite on which thread lockers to use with plastics.) That said, the generally available Loctite products, such as 242 (blue liquid commonly sold at auto parts stores), generally don't work well on plastics, and have the potential of harming the plastic. From the 242 technical data sheet:
"This product is not normally recommended for use on plastics
(particularly thermoplastic materials where stress cracking of
the plastic could result). Users are recommended to confirm
compatibility of the product with such substrates."
Incompatible Loctite/materials most often exhibit issues at weld lines, parting lines or similar areas that are weakest; take a look at the location of the parting lines on the cap threads, not a place I want to use a Loctite that may or may not be compatible.
monoprint wrote:
Ok, now the BIG question ... where should we look for a version of Loctite that is plastic friendly?
The bigger question is why are people who have just spent $4500+ having to worry about this at all? Shouldn't Canon be in the equation before end users fix their problem with a product that may cause damage to the connectors?
Hammerli wrote:
... There are an awful lot of thread locking compounds produced by Loctite, some of which are meant to be used on plastics
monoprint wrote:
Ok, now the BIG question ... where should we look for a version of Loctite that is plastic friendly?
I think you are going to spend more time and effort on that one than it is worth. First, have you had an issue with your cap? Mine has shown no signs of loosening in any way, so my first inclination would be to suggest using a little Teflon tape on the threads if you do have an issue. No one else I shoot with locally has had the issue with their MKIIIs either, so jumping to adhesives wouldn't be my first choice.
Jim Victory wrote:
Mine did come off but I put a little teflon tape on it and it has stayed in place. You don't want to know what Canon's recommendation was.
I just recieved a new replacement body for my defective one. The new one is money. There are definate issues with the servo mode of my first one. I'm so glad this one is perfect. There is nothing more frustratong than having an issue like this. It's very hard to prove weather it is the camera or my ability to operate it. It was driving me nuts. It only took a couple of shots to see that the two were worlds apart. I headed off to the little league field and came back with a couple hundred beautiful photos. My dealer and Canon both were great in getting me a replacement in a little over a week. The good thing is I now have a very good understanding of every custom function in the camera, as I tried every combination possible to find the magic comination.
lohnman wrote:
I just recieved a new replacement body for my defective one. The new one is money. There are definate issues with the servo mode of my first one. I'm so glad this one is perfect. There is nothing more frustratong than having an issue like this. It's very hard to prove weather it is the camera or my ability to operate it. It was driving me nuts. It only took a couple of shots to see that the two were worlds apart. I headed off to the little league field and came back with a couple hundred beautiful photos. My dealer and Canon both were great in getting me a replacement in a little over a week. The good thing is I now have a very good understanding of every custom function in the camera, as I tried every combination possible to find the magic comination....Show more →
Would you mine detailing your Servo issue I have not had a chance to use Servo mode but it would be nice when I do to know what to look for.
you'll know right off quick if your camera has the same issue mine did. Most images are soft when using AI servo. You luck out every so often and get a sharp picture or 2, but from past expereince with 1 series cameras I knew I should expect much more from this camera. As you might have seen by a sample shot I took earlier in this post, using one shot would produce the kind of pictures you would expect from this camera. My first camera was a serial number over 2000, My new one is just over 14000. They have been working hard in the past few weeks pumping thses things out. That's quite a jump in a short amount of time.
