Ordering the New 1D Mark III Who has or will take the plunge?

[Anthony Arkadia]

Anthony,

Professional Masters, also choose the particular tools for the job. When photographing a mega architectural marvel on the other side of the world, requiring a crane to hoist one to position, getting the perfect lens and camera can make that picture go from great to stellar.

Rainer Viertlbock often employs the finest Sinar Backs (he's tried everything) and custom re-machined Gottsschalt camera with XY movements.

So there needs to be another category for adding technical excellence to mastery of light! What would you call it?

I would call him a Master Craftsman

Kathy,

The "no dust issues" will unlikely arrive! MFRs will choose material better that dont shed particles so readily. However, dust is part of life, everything breaks down to dust after all.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Anthony,

I don't know where the quote came from originally, but we could update it!


Amateurs always talk about the latest and greatest.
Pros always talk about money.
Masters always talk about light!
the latter might be really technicians, however,
Artists talk with images!


Why people take pictures:

Amateurs, to celebrate what they own

Commercial Photographers, to a budget

Friends and families and travelors, to prove they were happy.

Artists, to share the image from their mind

Asher

 

[Harry Brink]

Planning on buying when first available

I have planned to upgrade my camera since last fall and have been saving for the upgrade since then. I am now ready to get the 1D III as soon as it is available. I'll not be waiting for the price to drop as I don't foresee that happening till possibly next year.

 

[John Sheehy]

I've been following this thread for while now and can keep up with some of the tech speak.

But, here's where I get confused, I have used the 10D, 20D and 1DmkIIN extensively for a wide variety of applications, both in low and high iso applications. Yet to my eyes the 1DmkIIN exhibits less noise than the 20D. In fact my cut off point was 400 iso on the 20D, whereas i'm happy to run the 1DmkIIN to <1000. So why is this?

Optics. The 1DmkII has a weaker AA filter (which has some drawbacks), and the pixels are spaced farther apart, so they can obtain a higher pixel-to-pixel contrast, lessening the need for sharpening. When a RAW converter has the same sharpness settings for a 20D, and a 1DmkIIN, the sharpnening is not the same, internally. Every camera sharpens with a different default, even if the number used in the converter is the same.

 

[John_Nevill]

Thanks John, so higher pixel to pixel contrast yeilds greater outline emphasis, requiring less in camera sharpening, hence lower noise. Doesn't this contradict the debate?

 

[John Sheehy]

Thanks John, so higher pixel to pixel contrast yeilds greater outline emphasis, requiring less in camera sharpening, hence lower noise. Doesn't this contradict the debate?

Which debate? This has split into multiple debates, over multiple threads.

If you mean that this may contradict my preference for more, smaller pixels, the answer is no.

More, smaller pixels allow lens MTF to come through closer to the analog ideal. You can ignore noise above a certain frequency when you outresolve the lens; you KNOW that it is not false detail.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The major dealers in the Netherlands have it currently pegged at EUR 4149 (incl 19% VAT) and mid-May availability, and I don't think they have to substantially drop the price too soon, unless some sort of competition develops and Canon facillitates such a move.

The anticipated availability has been shifted to mid-June. I also spoke with Canon reps who confirmed that May would be unlikely. Price is still the same, although some accessories (non-Canon) are included in a bundle.

Bart

 

[Anthony Arkadia]

I am glad, because i would not have bought a new 1ds MarkII like i just did. I forgot just how much i loved this camera.​

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

The anticipated availability has been shifted to mid-June. I also spoke with Canon reps who confirmed that May would be unlikely. Price is still the same, although some accessories (non-Canon) are included in a bundle.

Bart

That's a bit sad for me. I was "shooting" for the end of summer to get it hoping that the dust would settle by then. Oh well... Maybe I'll wait until Xmas then... I have two very capable 30D bodies, and paypal gives me 5% yield, so the longer I wait, the more $$ I'll have. Maybe I'll just get EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 in the mean time to accomodate the GUD (Gear Urge God

 

[Ferenc Harmat]

I thought about it too!

And decided that for $4000 I will buy quality studio lighting and wait for the next round of 5D that has no dust issues and 14mp. I am pretty happy with the 5D and for small hands it's easier.

...And, as it turns out, the 1D MKIII has no substitute, and will also make great use of new/better lights, and will also work wonderfully (in tandem) with the next 5D revision, which will come with 16.6 Mpixels. That would be the killer duo, the "Serenghetti's" Chita+Leopard combo (putting aside the fact that Leopards need a lot of "greenery" to thrive)

Therefore, I am now seriously thinking on the whole picture, rather than just some parts!

 

[Ferenc Harmat]

Correction...

I'm going by the number of photons captured at RAW saturation (or any RAW level above black) at the same ISO, per pixel. The ratio is 52300:51000 for the 1DmkII vs the 20D, virtually unity.

At such same ISO speed, my 1D MKII-N shadows *whips* my 30D's shadows, on equivalent / exposure conditions. Overall, my N's output "integrity" seems clearly better all the way from ISO100 to ISO800-1000, at least, with the added benefit of more micro-contrast, better detail, even with the same spatial matrix.

This relative difference in the shadows somehow suggests the idea that there may be difference levels on the analalog gain levels for the same ISO speed between these sensors, or simply other sources of noise affecting the 30D's output, that are not present on the 1D MKII-N capture. One possible interpretation of this is that the 1DMKII/N may be tuned at a lower "volume" than the 30D, yet it will hold closely the same levels of electrons because of larger wells, and more light coming through, inspite of the lower analog gains. A real possibility, though.

Furthermore, this pseudo-theory of mine is also backed-up by the fact that 5D output seems to be noisier than the 1D MKII-N by virtue (most probably) of different analog gain levels. I can see these shadows differences right from ISO100 and onwards. This is also backed-up by the fact that when you switch the 5D to "ISO50" it simply means (and will continue to operate) at ISO100, indeed.

Yes. The 1DmkII has one of the lowest in the industry. It only gets 80,000 photons by having extra exposure (ISO 50).

CorrectionL: there is NO ISO50 on the 1DMKII/N (at least on the N). It is basically ISO80, and at such speed speed it swallows a whole chunk more of light than anything the 30D can (or will) be able to handle. I have already seen that in low-light captures, where the 30D performs great but the 1D MKII-N performs superbly (clearly and visibly better than my 30D).

Enjoy!

 

[Jack Joseph Jr]

I'm still on the fence. I shoot several jobs in the fall for which the Mark III should be able to provide a faster shutter speed and lower noise than my N can. The thing that I'm trying to overcome is the notion that a better camera will make my pictures that much better. A secondary question is even if the IQ is better will my clients know or care.

Most of my work is Web posting, contributions to magazines and 8x10 prints. 10MP and lower noise would make better pictures in my eyes but how about in others. Two weeks ago I shot the Ford Ironman Arizona. The specs called for shooting Small JPEG 5 images. Our company produced 5x7 prints from them.

How much different would a Mark III have made and would the customers have noticed or cared? It's a serious question that I have to deal with before I replace a perfectly good, great camera with and even greater one. I just don't want to let the fact that the Mark III is new and fantastic and really cool effect my decision.

 

[Paul Bestwick]

Hey Jack,

sounds to me like you have no need to upgrade based on your current requirements. If you intend to continue in the same vein for a while perhaps you would be best served by waiting for the MKIV ?
My dilemma is different. Having no backup (except for a 300D which does not count) to my 1DSMKII, the MKIII is really tempting. Particularly given that I am thinking that the IQ may even challenge my current unit. Alternatively I wait for the 1DSMKIII, & that has not even appeared on the horizon yet. It would be helpful if Canon were to somehow signal their intentions.

Cheers,

Paul

 

[Ferenc Harmat]

You may need to re-do your homework, then...

I'm still on the fence. I shoot several jobs in the fall for which the Mark III should be able to provide a faster shutter speed and lower noise than my N can.

Regardless of what the camera will be able to do: DO YOU absolutely need such speeds or not? In my case, most of the work we require the EF 24-105 f/4L IS. But this is an f/4 lens, which imposes on us the need to stay around ISO400-ISO800 when going indoors for non-sports customer jobs (lots of shadows and lost of bright things). The 1DMKII-N performs admirably well at these speeds, but, if we could get ISO800 at current ISO400-500 noise levels, I would not even think twice, since my job will definitely benefit, as well as the true-to-live look of final images (ISO800 @f/4, with slow shutter speeds such as 1/25s-1/30s with IS on gives pretty good chances for excellent non-moving indoor captures and portraits, while still using only ONE zoom!) Here, we will go to the 1DMKIII. The ISO800 samples posted on www.imaging-resource.com are UNBELIEVABLE. I simply have no words for them.

The thing that I'm trying to overcome is the notion that a better camera will make my pictures that much better.

Why are you trying to overcome this if, in reality, it is TRUE!? If the photogrpaher behind stays equally good (between two bodies) and one of the bodies open-up possibilities that were not in the range of the other one... guess what: you will be able to get better images, or simply images you could not get really right with the older body. The ISO variables, AF sytem (19-cross points), the 61-area metering, the highglights priority mode, etc., all come into play here. And we have not even yet mentioned extra resolution, or live-view, or 225grs less weight, etc.

A secondary question is even if the IQ is better will my clients know or care.

If they do not care, is because *you* are not doing your job into putting such benefits in the prints. It requires that you truly extract the juice of the cam, the software, the post-processing (when required), etc. Our customers do notice the tonality depth, color density, dimensionality, color-fidelity and ultra-vivid (and clean) look of our images, and, not only that, they get used to it and notice when it is absent, though.

Most of my work is Web posting, contributions to magazines and 8x10 prints.

Here, the most important thing for you is if the extra ISO sensitivity will allow you to FREEZE/CAPTURE moments that you will otherwise blur with the 1D MKII/N or you could not pull so cleanly/sharply. For the rest, no need to upgrade if this is what you do.

How much different would a Mark III have made and would the customers have noticed or cared?

They care for what you are able to put on the paper, visibly and tangibly. A blur-free, clean, sharp, well exposed (under-adverse conditions) image is something you should be able to put in paper, if your shooting circumstances/needs call for those items, though.

Good luck!

 

[Steve Saunders]

Already taken the plunge and have the 1D Mk III on order, along with several lenses. This will be my first Canon DSLR, hopefully it will live up to the sample images on RG's site. If it does, then it really is a sports shooters perfect camera at the very least. It's the low noise at high ISO that has finally swayed me to try Canon. Nikon sports shooters have been wanting this for years (we don't all live in nice sunny countries were decent light can be counted on) but it hasn't been delivered. IMHO I think that Nikon's insistence on still using Sony sensors is a limiting factor to date. My D2X has 2MP more than the 1D Mk III, but the much better high-ISO of the Canon kills the MP advantage of the Nikon for me anyway.