I strongly urge Canon to keep the APS-H format and keep the 1 series as two lines. A 15MP APS-H sensor would be ideal, enough pixels for everything from landscape to allowing decent crops for birding etc and should be better noise than the 50D.
I live in the Arizona desert. I've tested mine in heat, bright light, almost dark, still shots, shots of moving objects, One Shot and AI servo. It just works.
That seems to be the crux of the problem. Some work....some don't. People who put down their hard earned cash on a lemon have earned ( bought ) the right to bitch about their camera that did not work.
My goodness, there is still apparently much confusion about the MarkIII's focus issues. I guess stunned is the best way to describe my feeling when reading some of these threads.
No wonder there were so many conflicting reports about the camera's AF performance.
Garylv wrote:
My goodness, there is still apparently much confusion about the MarkIII's focus issues. I guess stunned is the best way to describe my feeling when reading some of these threads.
No wonder there were so many conflicting reports about the camera's AF performance.
Wow.
The bottom line on the subject is that the "new" Mark 3's work for many but some are still skeptical. You will notice that the sidelines of major sporting events are lined with Mk3s, which are of course evidence that the Mk3 works well for those who know how to use it... But there are also an unusual number of Nikons as well, something new! And I think it is great to see, Canon has been able to rest on its laurels for too long (Those laurels being excellent high ISO performance!)
As for me, i can honestly say i don't trust the camera yet.
ive gotten shot's that were so bad that i wanted to kick something, anything.
Then every now and then with my strobe
connected or my 580 connected i get a couple that makes me think i should use the camera some more.
Most of my lens for this camera are micro-adjusted to -20
I've reinstalled the firmware and sent it back to canon. the bottom line is my camera works indoors most of the time and is horrible outdoors
So i do sympathize with the people who has bad copy of this camera. and i understand why someone would think no one would want to buy the 1D.
i think canon should have put out some kinda tutorial
http://www.kendraalexis.com/bebe.jpg
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS-1D Mark III
Firmware
Firmware Version 1.2.3
Shooting Date/Time
9/28/2008 16:30:00
Tv(Shutter Speed)
1/125Sec.
Av(Aperture Value)
F6.3
Metering Modes
Evaluative metering
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
100
Lens
EF70-200mm f/2.8L USM
Focal Length
200.0 mm
Image size
3888 x 2592
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
Off
White Balance
Color temperature
AF mode
One-Shot AF
Picture Style
Standard
That is saying a lot about the IQ of the 5D Mk II, but I am happy to hear that, as I pre-ordered one. I won't be too happy if I had bought a 1Ds Mk III a few months ago. Here's the DP Review interview with the guy:
chesapeake wrote:
Masaya Maeda, Director and Chief Executive of Cannon Immging, made the following reply to a question diected to himby DPReview. Some professional users have expressed concern about the fact that the 5D Mark II offers the same resolution and a more modern processor than the EOS-1Ds Mark III, making the 1Ds Mark III seem a little dated. What are your thoughts on the relative positioning of the two products?
"That's a very good question. The 5D Mark II we're positioning as the very highest product in our high-end enthusiast range. The EOS 1Ds Mark III, by comparison, offers robust durability and long shutter life as the most important features for use in harsh studio conditions, we believe. However when it comes to image quality itself; because of the constant digital technology developments in this industry, it's always the latest camera that is best. So things like ISO expansion range and dynamic range are in a sense better in the 5D Mark II."
Perhaps the new Series I bodies are not too far off ...Show more →
While the 5D II may offer a more up-to-date processor and the same resolution than the 1Ds Mark III, there's more to the Mark III than that. For what and how I shoot I'd still consider the 1Ds MK III over the 5D II.
The 1Ds III has the best AF system of any Canon DSLR without a doubt, and it is built like a Humvee, but if you don't need the ruggedness and durability of the 1Ds3 and can live with a mediocre but reliable AF system, the 5D II is hard to beat at $2,700. You can buy 2 of these and still have plenty of change left in your pocket for extra batteries, CF cards, and such.
Steve Ickes wrote:
While the 5D II may offer a more up-to-date processor and the same resolution than the 1Ds Mark III, there's more to the Mark III than that. For what and how I shoot I'd still consider the 1Ds MK III over the 5D II.
ChrisDM wrote:
(...) which are of course evidence that the Mk3 works well for those who know how to use it (...)
to which I quote yourself
ChrisDM wrote:
(...) I will tell you that a civil discussion is more effective as valid points don't get lost in childish insults (...)
I'm glad you don't have any problems with your 1D III, but have to consider your opinion that it works for those who know how to use it a childish insult. Better practice what you preach next time.
ChrisDM wrote:
The bottom line on the subject is that the "new" Mark 3's work for many but some are still skeptical. You will notice that the sidelines of major sporting events are lined with Mk3s, which are of course evidence that the Mk3 works well for those who know how to use it... But there are also an unusual number of Nikons as well, something new! And I think it is great to see, Canon has been able to rest on its laurels for too long (Those laurels being excellent high ISO performance!)
Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com
I guess those new Nikon users on the sidelines are those who knew how to use a Mark III, but couldn't because of Mark III equipment issues.
I'm glad you don't have any problems with your 1D III, but have to consider your opinion that it works for those who know how to use it a childish insult. Better practice what you preach next time.
I apologize, my comment you quoted above was not meant as an insult. I simply wanted to point out that there are multitudes of professional sports photographers who are shooting successfully with the 1D3. From that I should have let you draw your own conclusion, instead of imparting my own. I apologize again.
GeneO wrote:
I guess those new Nikon users on the sidelines are those who knew how to use a Mark III, but couldn't because of Mark III equipment issues.
Partially, yes, but the Nikon D3 drew away a multitude of Canon users for many different reasons. But the two primary reasons being its landmark high ISO performance, and second perhaps the 1D3 AF performance issues, for those photographers not willing for wait for Canon to finally get it figured out.
ChrisDM wrote:
Partially, yes, but the Nikon D3 drew away a multitude of Canon users for many different reasons. But the two primary reasons being its landmark high ISO performance, and second perhaps the 1D3 AF performance issues, for those photographers not willing for wait for Canon to finally get it figured out.
Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com
And you know this for a fact first hand as you are a pro sports photographer, or you interviewed these sports photographers first hand ?? I am just curious as to the source of this information. I mean, it is a BIG commitment and investment switching brands and buying new lens. and the Mark III has excellent high ISO performance as well.
GeneO wrote:
And you know this for a fact first hand as you are a pro sports photographer, or you interviewed these sports photographers first hand ?? I am just curious as to the source of this information. I mean, it is a BIG commitment and investment switching brands and buying new lens. and the Mark III has excellent high ISO performance as well.
Yes, I photograph the PGA Tour, although I realize that some might challenge whether or not golf is a sport
Well, I guess you wouldn't need 10 fps