I realize that we do not know much about "real world" performance of 7D but many here know 1d MkIII quite well.
I know that it is a bit hypothetical and may be even silly question but would you choose 7D or 1D mkIII, if you could get it (new) for 1.6 x the price of 7D (not much more expensive than 5D mkII)? I found a good price for a new 1d mkIII and although I am on the waiting list for 7D, I started to have second thoughts.
Michael, if I have to choose, I'd go for 7D over 1DMkIII regardless of the price.
The reason is in my belief that a large % of 1DMkIII population are not AF-ing right.
If you get a dodgy one, it will surely cripple your enjoyment of photography.
However, I wouldn't get 7D either before sufficient positive operating feedback with it has been accumulated.
I'd just sit tight with 40D (or 50D) in my hands for now. Those two are capable cameras and a good value for your $$.
PetKal:
However, I wouldn't get 7D either before sufficient positive operating feedback with it has been accumulated.
Thank you, Peter. I thought the same but a 1D mkIII (for C$3400) is attractive - mostly because of autofocus up to f/8.0 (and center point high precision at f/4.0). I really do not need movie mode of 7D.
That would quite literally be trading down several model lines! I'd happily trade a 40D for a 7D (assuming it delivers in real life) but I wouldn't dream of giving up my 1DIII for either (or both for that matter). Have you used a 1DIII?
Well, I bought one - after the latest fix - I am stunned by it's performance & capabilities. It's my first 1 series & I was quite amazed at the enormous difference between it & the xx & x D lines. My suggestion is that you try to rent or borrow one & use it for a day or so. My guess is that will quell your doubts.
mfurman wrote:
Thank you, Peter. I thought the same but a 1D mkIII (for C$3400) is attractive - mostly because of autofocus up to f/8.0 (and center point high precision at f/4.0). I really do not need movie mode of 7D.
$3,400 is still a pile of money. Henry's have a new looking 1DMkIIN for about $2,000 now. Three month warranty. Low risk, high performance option reasonably priced.
PetKal wrote:
Michael, if I have to choose, I'd go for 7D over 1DMkIII regardless of the price.
The reason is in my belief that a large % of 1DMkIII population are not AF-ing right.
If you get a dodgy one, it will surely cripple your enjoyment of photography.
However, I wouldn't get 7D either before sufficient positive operating feedback with it has been accumulated.
I'd just sit tight with 40D (or 50D) in my hands for now. Those two are capable cameras and a good value for your $$.
i've had five of them in my possession and all focused quite well.
PetKal wrote:
$3,400 is still a pile of money. Henry's have a new looking 1DMkIIN for about $2,000 now. Three month warranty. Low risk, high performance option reasonably priced.
Though some would think $2000 is also a pile for a camera that may well soon be 2 models behind current. OP, if you have the ability to test-drive the 1DIII you're considering, I'd encourage you to do so. I don't think you'll regret it.
I've owned Canon cameras since the early 1970s and the 1D Mark III is an awesome camera. I've had mine for two years and taken more than 20,000 images. I have shot BIF, rock concerts and sports. The camera has gone through a couple of trips back to Canon, but it has done everything asked of it plus some. No camera is perfect and technology keeps redefining the state of the art, but if this was as good as it got, I'd be satisfied.
The other day I was shooting the same birds as a fellow with 1DMkIII and 400DO.
I had 1DMkIIN + 400 f/5.6.
We were both doing handheld.
He just couldn't get the camera to focus on the geese.....the camera AF kept jumping to the background. For my 1DMkIIN this was relatively easy....if I had an IS lens all of my shots would have been in focus.
One can say there is the experience factor at play perhaps, or may be he didn't set up his camera right. However, that was just one of many instances where I didn't think 1DMkIII AF inspired confidence.
Petkal, you're obviously entitled to your reservations but, without knowing anything about the 1DIII in question, or it's operator (or the images he produced), I'm not sure that your anecdote tells us very much about the model as a whole. After all, it's entirely possible that he simply isn't in your league when it comes to GIF - or setting the functions on his camera for that matter.
This is one type of shots I'd test the 1DMkIII AF performance on if someone would give me a camera free of charge. Not too hard from the bird standpoint, but aggravated by the background. My acquaintance from before kept saying that his camera was leaping to the reeds on the heron shots.
What I do know is how 1DMkIIN and 1DsMkII perform in situations like those..........which is fairly well and very consistently from a camera to another.
Well, if it's bells and whistles you want then get the 7D. If you want the best all around camera you can get, get the MkIII.
The 7D seems awesome on paper. Sure to be the equal or better than the D300s (about time). But just like the D300 is not the same as having a D3, despite the similarities, the 7d is NOT a MkIII or even MkIIN.
Check out DXO Mark, the sensor in the MkIIN is still better than any APS-C sensor.
That would quite literally be trading down several model lines! I'd happily trade a 40D for a 7D (assuming it delivers in real life) but I wouldn't dream of giving up my 1DIII for either (or both for that matter). Have you used a 1DIII?
I was actually on a waiting list for it before all the AF issues came out.
Not too hard from the bird standpoint, but aggravated by the background. My acquaintance from before kept saying that his camera was leaping to the reeds on the heron shots. 