Slightly off topic to the original post, but in response to Tony B I personally would strongly recommend the 1Ds Mk II as a second body to go with the Mark III. I personally find it easier to correctly time images when double fisting when my bodies have the same shutter lag and find even the 1D versus x0D shutter lag is too different, let alone dropping down to the slower still 5D body lag. The 1d Mk IIn as a second body would also meet the shutter lag difference but it is great having a full frame option in hand and the fact that the pixel density is the same between the Mk III and 1Ds Mk II means that I am not losing the 1.25 crop \'advantage\' of a 1D, just gaining more time in post manually cropping images when I find that the 1Ds Mk II image is too loose. It also means that at shoots where I do not care what the frame-rate of the body is I pick and choose my lens/body pairings purely by what fills the frame and having a 1 and a 1.25 crop factor body choice increases the flexibility of my lens collection. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the 1Ds Mk II shares most of the AF traits with the 1D Mk II and Mk IIn, just losing out on the maximum frame rate and the buffer depth.
Here\'s a DII college women\'s volleyball gallery with the first 2 games shot with a 135 2 on the Mk III and and 85 1.8 on the 1Ds II. The last two games are the Mk III w/ 300 2.8. A few sub-par shots with a 50D and fisheye thrown in as well, but I have not yet had the time to work-out a functional post-processing routine for them yet.
And while everyone has a right to there own opinion, anyone that would suggest that the Mk III body as a tool has been supplanted by 50D, 5D Mk II technology or was not in many ways an improvement over the 1D and 1Ds Mk II lines does not shoot the same subject matter in the same style as me.
Andy
Oct 11, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Previous versions of troutstreaming's message #6263079 « So, why would anyone buy 1DIII now? »
