jmikes955 wrote:
It ain't always user error. The Mark III (or at least a very large number of them) is notorious for being unable to differentiate between a target and a busy background on a sunny day. It is especially prone to doing so if you have any of the helper sensors activated. It doesn't matter if the target is moving or static. I can mount mine on a bean bag or tripod, focus on a target with busy background, and watch it ratchet back and forth, into and out of focus, if I'm using AI servo. My 2n exhibits no such tendencies.
Even if the background is clean, far too many Mark IIIs (like mine) have problems focusing on sunny days. This has been so well documented by so many accomplished photographers, that I'm surprised there are still people who blame focus errors entirely on user error. Some work, some don't. Mine is reliable indoors ard on days with heavy overcast. But if the sun comes out, so does my 2n.
Slowing the AF switching sensitivity in search of a work around for the Mark IIIs focusing problems does not work. Why would it, if the problem is inability to keep focus on an object when the focus point never leaves the target? Slowing down the switching speed may help when it's hard to keep the focus point from drifting off target, but it's a two-edged sword. It may keep focus from shifting quickly, but once it does, it also keeps it from quickly reacquiring the target when the focus point moves back to where it should be. ...Show more →
The guy doesn't even own a mkIII and I'd take his 'user error' remarks in conjunction with that as plain internet noise, trolling infact. I wouldn't bother trying to argue the point with him John.
mabidally wrote:
The 1D MkIII at 10mp is just not enough when even a P&S G10 has 15mp.
10MP is not enough for... I have a 30x20 print hanging in my office cropped from an 8mp 30D image that is less than 5mp, printed cheaply from Costco, that at normal viewing distance looks fantastic.
Would it have been better with a 50D or 7D. Yeah probably. But as with the 50D the increase in resolution adds other IQ issues that don't always make "more mps" better.
mabidally wrote:
I did a comparison of the 7D vs the 1DMkIII at ISO800, uprezzed both images to 10800pixels and took 100% crops. After uprezzing to equal size at 10800 pixels (36" at 300DPI) the 7D seems to have more textural details.
However the 1 DMkIII has better colour rendition and less noise.
Honestly that is blown up to over 9 feet @ a monitor's 100 dpi that you are looking at from a viewing at a distance of a couple of feet. You are not viewing it at 300dpi. That there is a resolution difference and it gets magnified when blowing up an image and viewing it at low dpi is no surprise.
Oh, and by the way, the 7D shot is more sharpened than the 1D3. Try applying a little sharpening to the 1D3 shot before upressing and you will find much less difference.
7D is noise reduced in camera, sharpening these images produces many more artifacts than the 1DIII. The 1DIII files take PP really well. 18MP will obviously give more detail but whether you can exploit that detail without loss of colour/contrast and objectionable noise at large print sizes (and whether you need print sizes that large when there are trade-offs in quality) remains to be seen. I don't think perfectly lit subjects will necessarily reflect real world results either. If the sensor tech is really a step forward I'm all for it but if they're just doing more NR and adjustments in camera with no user control then I'd rather have my RAW images unadulterated.
Yakim Peled wrote:
A marketing decision. It enables Canon to charge more for it and (likely) to offer a 60D with reduced spec at reduced price.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
If that is indeed the case, I find that kind of move a bit damaging. For years a significance has been attached to single, double, triple and quadruple digit models.
Again if the 7D is clearly a camera that belongs in the 2-digit series the naming is not going to fool any photographer who knows what a spec means when he sees it.
Look at Nikon and Sony. They are doing the exact same thing. They also splitting the market with more and more cameras with smaller and smaller differences between them. See the A850/A900 and A500/A550 for example.
Beni wrote:
The guy doesn't even own a mkIII and I'd take his 'user error' remarks in conjunction with that as plain internet noise, trolling infact. I wouldn't bother trying to argue the point with him John.
"Trolling"?
Good grief...
Some folk have - without owning a Mk III either - been beating up on the bloody thing forever, and yet when I proffer an equally informed alternative view (and be clear about this, I don't own but have used a MK III and been very impressed by its AF) I'm trolling?
I wouldn't dispute there have been plenty of 1DIIIs with problems but for the past 18 months, opinion from current owners seems to suggest that a large majority of shooters seem very satisfied with it. My own camera's AF has been absolutely stellar since the outer AF point fix earlier this year.
I think there's some truth in what Keith Reeder says. There are some people who for whatever reason (be they Nikonians, people who can't afford a pro camera, trolls and WUMs as well as a few very disgruntled early adopters determined to make a lot of noise) are desperate to paint the 1DIII in a much less favourable light than it now deserves. I'm also not sure that the initial problems in bright sunlight which were severe and readily apparent are directly connected to the more subtle misbehaviour which Canon has battled with after the initial submirror assembly fix.
IMO the damage was done for the 1DIII in the first six months after its launch. Most of it's harshest critics bought the camera early on and gave up on it.
It will be intersting to see how the IQ of 7D MRAW(10.1MP) compares with that of 1D3 in terms of noise(looks like MRAW is not simply downsizing the RAW).
At least, I will be happy if I have an option of using clean ISO 1600 MRAW of 7D if needed with plenty of pixels.
A Mark III is a pro camera. the 7D not. I love my Mark III and would never sell or change it for a 7D. A Mark III will last much longer. Have you ever shot with a Mark III?
Yes, comparing lenses on the MKIII is apples and oranges also.
Like I said, the 500f4 does excellently, and mainly because it brings the bird closer, so with a larger target the MKIII locks on well. Focal area has alot to do with the focus lock, so yes, most people with closer targets do not have a problem with the MKIII. And that is why it's not an issue for everyone. Like I said, it's a fantastic camera.
The desire for the 7D is mainly a new focus system to try out, a larger file, hence a larger bird, possibly a better aiservo. I doubt you can compare the two cameras, however.
I have a 30x20 print hanging in my office cropped from an 8mp 30D image that is less than 5mp, printed cheaply from Costco, that at normal viewing distance looks fantastic. 
