Dawei, the complaints regarding the 1D Mark III were about using Servo focus with fast aperture telephoto lenses (300mm f2.8 for example), on a subject moving towards you quickly at moderate distances. Sports events are good examples.
The shorter lenses did not show the same degree of severity, nor did the slower telephoto lenses such as f5.6 apertures. DOF obviously comes into play there, but that was not the whole story.
Without knowing which lenses you're using, we can't help determine if you're really seeing unexpected success or not.
Based on messages I've seen posted over the past year or so, it became clear a lot of people didn't understand lenses would make a difference, or the type of subjects they were shooting.
Back to the thread title, I have two 1D Mark III's, an early one with all the fixes, and a newer one that had the last calibration service offered by Canon. I also have a 7D.
The 7D tracks in Servo focus better than both of the MarkIII's. Overall I like using the MarkIII's more, partly because of the image quality and responsiveness of the camera. And the One Shot focus performance on my MarkIII's is very, very good.
In my opinion Canon has finally solved the 1D Servo tracking issues by scrapping the AF system developed for the MarkIII, and developing a whole new one for the MarkIV. We're seeing a hint of that performance in the new 7D.
I expect the MarkIV focus system to work extremely well. And we won't have to wait long to see it.
Anyone still paying attention to this thread? I just got my 7D image quality is a "bit" of a downgrade from the 5D Mark II that I've been using. I'm thinking about selling my 7D and getting a used 1D Mark III. I don't plan on using (monetary reasons) anything longer than 200mm. I got just about the right amount of reach using the 7D and a 70-200 2.8 and had some very nice result in a High School football game. I'm just concerned that the reach being a 1.3x and cropping ability of the Mark III would not be enough. Anyone know what are the typical focal lengths used in a basketball game?
My friend shot college basketball and for telephoto, he used a Canon 300 f/2.8 on his 1D III body, I believe. He also used a 5D II body and a wide-angle zoom. In any case, the 300 is a typical basketball focal length from what I know. I don't know how much you can get away with at 260mm (200mm on a 1.3x crop body). You mentioned using your 70-200 on the 7D. That would give you a reach of 320mm which had you in the ~300mm range, which is nice for basketball.
I'm not speaking from experience, though. I just know that 300mm or so is nice for basketball.
-Tom
rluu wrote:
Anyone still paying attention to this thread? I just got my 7D image quality is a "bit" of a downgrade from the 5D Mark II that I've been using. I'm thinking about selling my 7D and getting a used 1D Mark III. I don't plan on using (monetary reasons) anything longer than 200mm. I got just about the right amount of reach using the 7D and a 70-200 2.8 and had some very nice result in a High School football game. I'm just concerned that the reach being a 1.3x and cropping ability of the Mark III would not be enough. Anyone know what are the typical focal lengths used in a basketball game? ...Show more →
That is bizarre and I seriously think you need to reconsider selling your 7D. The IQ is excellent IMO and doesn't give away much to the 5D II.
rluu wrote:
Anyone still paying attention to this thread? I just got my 7D image quality is a "bit" of a downgrade from the 5D Mark II that I've been using. I'm thinking about selling my 7D and getting a used 1D Mark III. I don't plan on using (monetary reasons) anything longer than 200mm. I got just about the right amount of reach using the 7D and a 70-200 2.8 and had some very nice result in a High School football game. I'm just concerned that the reach being a 1.3x and cropping ability of the Mark III would not be enough. Anyone know what are the typical focal lengths used in a basketball game? ...Show more →
shot my first girls hs bball game this week. focal length used during the game with a 7d.
rluu wrote:
Anyone still paying attention to this thread? I just got my 7D image quality is a "bit" of a downgrade from the 5D Mark II that I've been using. I'm thinking about selling my 7D and getting a used 1D Mark III. I don't plan on using (monetary reasons) anything longer than 200mm. I got just about the right amount of reach using the 7D and a 70-200 2.8 and had some very nice result in a High School football game. I'm just concerned that the reach being a 1.3x and cropping ability of the Mark III would not be enough. Anyone know what are the typical focal lengths used in a basketball game? ...Show more →
I am not surprised that the 5DMK2 images look better, but the doesn't the 7d AF better in low light with the outer focus points?
Also, don't expect the 1DMK3 images to have the same quality as the 5DMK2. I can tell the images I shot with my 1DMK3 from the images from my 5dMK2. But, with enough post processing I can get the 1DMK3 images closer.
abqnmusa wrote:
Just personal thoughts here ... I chose a 7D over a used 1D Mark III
10 MP is not enough if you are focal length constrained.
For example, I have a 400mm F5.6 L as my birding lens. I cannot afford the 500mm, 600mm, or 800mm lenses. They are just too expensive. So I am contrained to 400mm.
with the 400mm F5.6 L ...
A 7D (18 MP) gives 18 MP and a field of view equivalent to 640mm.
A 5D (12.8 MP) gives 5.1 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
A 1D Mark III (10 MP) gives about 5.6 MP when cropped to the 7D field of view.
The 1D Mark III is awesome if you can use longer lenses.
But when constrained to 400mm the 7D puts far more pixels on the bird.
I have found the 7D crop-ability to be excellent. I have also found noise levels to be very good. The 1D Mark III might be cleaner at some ISO's but it is of little use if I do not end up with enough pixels on my subject. ...Show more →
Did you ever used a 1d markIII? Because shooting with a 1d serie is completely different then a xxd series. Not the megapixel but the whole cam is different. I had a rebel xt, a 30d and after that the 1dm3. Believe me I tried all but the 1d3 is a different league
Yes, heavy though, and 7D is at different league compare to xxD series.
Xandervt wrote:
Did you ever used a 1d markIII? Because shooting with a 1d serie is completely different then a xxd series. Not the megapixel but the whole cam is different. I had a rebel xt, a 30d and after that the 1dm3. Believe me I tried all but the 1d3 is a different league
kewlcanon wrote:
Yes, heavy though, and 7D is at different league compare to xxD series.
To be honest, shortly after I bought the 1dm3 (3k euro) the 7d came out and I never used the 7d. The 5dmII vs the 1dm3 was the choice for me.... I didn't regret I bought the 1dm3. It's 10 Mp fantastic cam. A3+ is the print size I max print and then 10 Mp is more then enough. The 1dm3 is heavy!! but in use it's great and If you see the final quality at your screen then you take this disadvantage.
I also think the whole bunch of eos cam's that are developed in teh last 8/9 years for 15 years we dreamed about it. No film No extra cost and shooting until your card is full or battery's go empty.....
Xandervt wrote:
To be honest, shortly after I bought the 1dm3 (3k euro) the 7d came out and I never used the 7d. The 5dmII vs the 1dm3 was the choice for me.... I didn't regret I bought the 1dm3. It's 10 Mp fantastic cam. A3+ is the print size I max print and then 10 Mp is more then enough. The 1dm3 is heavy!! but in use it's great and If you see the final quality at your screen then you take this disadvantage.
I also think the whole bunch of eos cam's that are developed in teh last 8/9 years for 15 years we dreamed about it. No film No extra cost and shooting until your card is full or battery's go empty.....
PetKal wrote:
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.
It does seem as though he hasn't got the mkIII setup properly - there's a lot of CFs for the AF, and it's easy to have it set sub-optimally.
I've had a fair bit of time with a (borrowed) Mk III on my 100-400mm (the camera had already been set up for the kind of shooting I do), and truthfully, the AF in 7D I've got now feels pretty much just as fast, responsive and "snappy" as I remember the Mk III being.
Certainly, I was seriously considering a good used Mk III when I first started thinking about the 7D, but went for the newer body and - honestly - I don't regret the decision at all.
It really depends on what you want to do.
In my case, I decided the 7D looked fancy but in the end, it was still a 1.6 crop without the DOF that I wanted. I wanted the extra fps, build quality, AF flexibility that my current 5D didn't provide. I found a good second hand Mark III for the price of a new 7D and I don't regret it. Everything is a lot crisper to use and from what I remember from using the 7D, it's a great camera, but it wasn't what I wanted for sports/portraits/landscape. Now if I were a BIF person or needed a ton of reach, I would probably have gone to the 7D.
