Undoubtedly, its a wonderfull camera, but Canon's stonewalling and refusing to admit the autofocus issues really spoiled its reputation. Those like me who have not bought one, and can get by with lesser equipment are waiting to see if a new model has the problem fixed. I'm not a pro, and do not make my living from one, or I would have it.
It does seem likely that Digic IV has better autofocus capability, and may be the fix. The price of the 1D III is dropping rapidly too. Our local camera store has dropped their price to below $4,000 now, and its likely to drop more towards the end of the year.
scalesusa wrote:
Undoubtedly, its a wonderfull camera, but Canon's stonewalling and refusing to admit the autofocus issues really spoiled its reputation.
I wouldn't say they refused to admit there were any issues. They did post information on their website regarding the AF mirror issue and sent out email to those that registered their cameras.
scalesusa wrote:
It does seem likely that Digic IV has better autofocus capability, and may be the fix.
Are they really using the Digic processor now for autofocus? Are there any whitepapers available that discuss this?
Curator wrote:
I wouldn't say they refused to admit there were any issues. They did post information on their website regarding the AF mirror issue and sent out email to those that registered their cameras.
They *were* a bit "guarded" in their responses, though, until they had identified the problem and come up with a fix.
But this seems to be SOP for most camera manufacturers (and other things, as well) these days.
Are they really using the Digic processor now for autofocus? Are there any whitepapers available that discuss this?
I think they do (for the body AF, not the lens AF, of course).
I'm pretty sure that the 1D3 white paper would address this.
Should I Wait?? Has been covered well before in many other threads. But as to will/can the Mk IV (or whatever) be substantially better: The technology exists and the product cycle verses Nikon/Canon food fight suggests:
1. Greater than 25Mp (Nikon's reputed D3s) for the sensor of the FF 1Ds Mk IV with even better ISO (including 6400 +) and bigger/faster shot buffer. Maybe a proprietary HD scheme. And, of course, 900 pixel LCD of the 50D.
2. 1D Mk IV selectable 16Mp 1.3x Crop and 21 Mp FF with bigger/faster shot buffer and 900 pixel LCD. With even better than 1Ds Mk IV ISO performance?
Currently I couldn't imagine needing any more than I can do with my 1Ds or 1Ds3. I'm sure that will change in the future, but I live in the present. Shoot with the best gear you can afford now, and worry about tomorrow tomorrow.
DavidP wrote:
I think they do (for the body AF, not the lens AF, of course).
I'm pretty sure that the 1D3 white paper would address this.
Yeah, I have the Mark III white paper, but I would be interested in seeing one from one of the new cameras that will be using the Digic IV processor. The Digic processor is an imaging processor and receives the data from the sensor after the image has been captured, so I doubt they are using this processor for any AF duties on the new cameras.
SoundHound wrote:
Should I Wait?? Has been covered well before in many other threads. But as to will/can the Mk IV (or whatever) be substantially better: The technology exists and the product cycle verses Nikon/Canon food fight suggests:
1. Greater than 25Mp (Nikon's reputed D3s) for the sensor of the FF 1Ds Mk IV with even better ISO (including 6400 +) and bigger/faster shot buffer. Maybe a proprietary HD scheme. And, of course, 900 pixel LCD of the 50D.
2. 1D Mk IV selectable 16Mp 1.3x Crop and 21 Mp FF with bigger/faster shot buffer and 900 pixel LCD. With even better than 1Ds Mk IV ISO performance?...Show more →
Sounds interesting, but I would guess a more modest mp increase....more like 12 to 13 and stay a 1.3 crop. Naturally the better lcd screen, and ISO performance that would surpass the D3 by a full stop. Better in camera noise reduction for the jpeg event/pj/sports shooter. I would guess little or no improvement in frame rate, but a larger buffer and faster clearing. IQ will be better, maybe a true 16 bit. There will be a few toys included like horizon leveling, etc. The AF will be so good the Armed Forces will use it instead of laser guided bombs. Not much better than the MKIII you say? Canon only needs to stop some of the bleeding, they aren't on life support yet.
Marcus Watts wrote:
I don't think the 1d4 will be over 12 megapixels.
I am expecting it to come out much sooner that usual due to the Nikon onslaught this past year and it's own focus problems which would be nice for Canon to put behind them as quickly as possible.
Until the 50D bombshell I'd have agreed, but all bets are off now. A 15MP 1.3x crop 1D IV would be perfect for me and it will be even cleaner than the 50D. I'd be disappointed if they didn't increase pixel density even if the AF is sorted; 10MP in a 1.3x crop is still too low IMO. 20D pixel density would see it at around 13.3MP, 40D pixel density at around 16.2MP. I'd rather it stayed 1.3x crop too and leave the FF to the 5D replacement.
godfather wrote:
The 1d IV will be perfect out of the box.
There will be TONS of threads about the camera being crap, overpriced, too heavy, bad viewfinder, AF is off, ISO is not improved, etc etc.
Actually until the 1D III fiasco, the 1 series were generally highly respected and garnered little negative press. I still have my 1D II and think it's still brilliant. I've never shot a 1D III, but in Australia we do not have return policies like the US, so I would have to pay close to $5K and just take pot luck. If it's crap too bad. I'd never risk that on the 1D III. No one has ever complained about anything other than it's erratic AF.
SoundHound wrote:
2. 1D Mk IV selectable 16Mp 1.3x Crop and 21 Mp FF
No, your math is in error. For example, a sensor sized like that in the 1D MK III would have only ~12.8 MP compared to the 21 MP FF sensor in the 1Ds MK III.
The 1D MK3 is the biggest improvement/upgrade in the 1D Series, in virtually every area, especially IQ, ISO and battery life/usage. Stomps any camera I've owned prior. I don't expect to see a MK4 any time soon.
How do you know the 5D II is the perfect cam for you? It isn't even officially announced yet. It may take weeks before it hits the shelves. Only then it becomes clear if it is better than the 1Ds3 (in the noise department). And if it is free from "issues".
Good question. The 5D was as good at imaging as the 1Ds2, except for detail, and it served me very well in every respect except for the lack of pop-up flash. I'm just assuming that the 5D2 will more or less match or exceed the 1Ds3 in image quality, except perhaps for resolution, that it will be much lighter to carry, and cost much less than a 1Ds3. Those three factors make it the right camera for me. I should be very surprised if the 5D2 doesn't fulfil those criteria, since they are the criteria that I think made the original 5D such a success.
brainiac wrote:
Good question. The 5D was as good at imaging as the 1Ds2, except for detail, and it served me very well in every respect except for the lack of pop-up flash. I'm just assuming that the 5D2 will more or less match or exceed the 1Ds3 in image quality, except perhaps for resolution, that it will be much lighter to carry, and cost much less than a 1Ds3. Those three factors make it the right camera for me. I should be very surprised if the 5D2 doesn't fulfil those criteria, since they are the criteria that I think made the original 5D such a success....Show more →
I hope your assumptions about the 5D2 are correct
It's just that by selling your 1Ds3 before anything substantial about the 5D2 is known, shows a great deal of blind faith and courage
Anyway, good luck with the selling... I imagine it can be hard to get anybody to buy a (used) 1Ds3 with the new 5D2 around the corner
Daan B wrote:
It's just that by selling your 1Ds3 before anything substantial about the 5D2 is known, shows a great deal of blind faith and courage
Well, the 50D already looks very usable for my purposes. So does the D700. The 1Ds3 has been the best camera I have ever used, bar none, but I am a 2 or 3 camera around my neck kind of photographer, and I like to shoot 2 or 3 copies of the same body. The weight and cost of the 1Ds3 make it not so appropriate for that use. For someone who tends to heavily favour one camera and have a lesser one for backup, it's ideal.
> Anyway, good luck with the selling... I imagine it can be hard to get anybody to buy a (used) 1Ds3 with the new 5D2 around the corner
Hopefully someone will want the weather sealing, AF, speed, and overall quality of the best there is. I don't think the 7D will surpass it. Who can say that the 5D was a better camera than the 1Ds2? In the meantime I'm stuck using a crappy 21 megapixel 1Ds3 - the best camera on the market. Poor me! ;-)
Just got one used from Craigslist for $2800 with 4600 actuations. Someone sold it because of health issues. I made few test shots with 35L lens today. Image quality is much better than 1ds Mark III for some reason. Images are sharp! Can't find any issues. I am glad I bout it!
babakn wrote:
Just got one used from Craigslist for $2800 with 4600 actuations. Someone sold it because of health issues. I made few test shots with 35L lens today. Image quality is much better than 1ds Mark III for some reason. Images are sharp! Can't find any issues. I am glad I bout it!
babakn wrote:
Just got one used from Craigslist for $2800 with 4600 actuations. Someone sold it because of health issues. I made few test shots with 35L lens today. Image quality is much better than 1ds Mark III for some reason. Images are sharp! Can't find any issues. I am glad I bout it!
I assume your are talking about the 1D3 here?
When equalized, files from both the 1D3 and 1Ds3 should basically look the same. There were some threads recently that confirmed this by showing 1D3 vs 1Ds3 (noise) comparisons.
Maybe there was something wrong with your 1Ds3.
BTW The little girl doesn't look too happy. I guess she has been a test subject many times before
Daan B wrote:
I assume your are talking about the 1D3 here?
When equalized, files from both the 1D3 and 1Ds3 should basically look the same. There were some threads recently that confirmed this by showing 1D3 vs 1Ds3 (noise) comparisons.
Maybe there was something wrong with your 1Ds3.
BTW The little girl doesn't look too happy. I guess she has been a test subject many times before
Seriously my 1ds Mark III didn't produced same quality as 1D Mark III does.
I didn't see much improvement in image quality from my 1ds II body. But 1D3 blows me away.
Even Rob Galbraith noticed that: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537
"The EOS-1Ds Mark III doesn't deliver the same image quality balance as its lower-resolution sibling: its files are noisier than the EOS-1D Mark III. But with a great lens attached, the level of detail that comes from its sensor, combined with the sheer number of pixels, enables you to make clear, sharp, big enlargements that ought not to be possible from a 35mm-size camera body."
babakn wrote:
Seriously my 1ds Mark III didn't produced same quality as 1D Mark III does.
I didn't see much improvement in image quality from my 1ds II body. But 1D3 blows me away.
Even Rob Galbraith noticed that: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537
"The EOS-1Ds Mark III doesn't deliver the same image quality balance as its lower-resolution sibling: its files are noisier than the EOS-1D Mark III. But with a great lens attached, the level of detail that comes from its sensor, combined with the sheer number of pixels, enables you to make clear, sharp, big enlargements that ought not to be possible from a 35mm-size camera body."
Not much better than the MKIII you say? Canon only needs to stop some of the bleeding, they aren't on life support yet.
