1Ds MkIII, Great Viewfinder!

I picked up my new 1Ds MkIII the other day. No surprises, except for the

astonishing viewfinder! Because I was dropping off my 1Ds MkII at the same

time I had the chance to compare both bodies side-by-side with identical

lenses. The new 1Ds MkIII viewfinder is an absolute revelation.

 

It's a bit brighter and a bit bigger, but the real difference is the clarity

and crispness, which hold right out into the corners. Manual focusing becomes

both practical and accurate (I can see an immediate improvement in the final

image quality with T&S lenses), while the ability to really scrutinise the

subject through the viewfinder makes for better composition and

better "decisive moment" timing.

 

It's refreshing in the digital era to be able to report on real and meaningful

improvements to the basic photographic hardware, well done Canon!

That is one kind of improvement I would really like to see trickle down to a few more models.

I'm with Mark U.

 

I lament the addition of Live View on prosumer (and probably consumer models soon), because it gives Canon another reason not to improve the viewfinders.

Funny how back in the 60's and 70's almost every SLR had a great viewfinder and we took it for granted. What happened?

The Money went to sensor development. It will be back.

Wayne...my man I hate to break it to you so bluntly...but we got older, our eyes aint what they used to be!

Modern viewfinders granularity are optimized for reasonably bright viewing of slow lenses rather than accurate sharpness rendition, these two parameters can be traded by the designer. Presumably this is because most people use AF but a lot of people also use fairly slow zoom lenses of f4 or f2.8 at best, in the 60s, 70s and early 80s we mostly used fast primes.

 

Be interesting for the OP to comment on how much dimming he gets of the viewfinder with an f5.6 lens. Most modern viewfinders it is not obvious but put a slow lens on a Ftb viewfinder and it would dim down a lot.

My Minolta X-700 with a slow zoom is still far easier to focus than my 20D with a fast prime. It's the size of the image that's the real difference for me.

Gary, were you using the same lens on both bodies? BTW, I think everyone's a little green with envy...

If you want accurate manual focussing, pick up a rangefinder sometime and then try to go

back to an SLR. LOL!

"Gary, were you using the same lens on both bodies?"

 

Yes, the 50mm 1.4 was on both bodies.

 

One of the main reasons I use Canon rather than Nikon is the three T&S lenses, the weak

point of these has always been focusing accuracy when tilted, unlike with a view camera

you can't just place a magnifying loupe directly onto the ground glass. The extraordinary

crispness of the new 1Ds MkIII viewfinder optics has transformed this, and improved

visibility with all the optics. For example, used with the 85mm 1.2 the viewfinder image is

noticeably more legible than the real like image from the same position with the naked

eye.

Oh thanks Gary......you just caused my business budget to take an $8k hit in 3 or 4 months....I was previously satisfied with my 1Ds2!

 

I never figured that there would be an improvement in the finder. But, a BIG improvement? I'm surprised.

 

Could you tell me how you have found high iso in comparison to the Mark 2?

 

I have been pleased with my Mark 2 since day one. I find that the 20 x 30 images that we make have been great, just as good overall as those shot on MF and LF film. I could wish for better high-iso, but that's just for personal, non-commercial use and not critical. However, if I could get a big jump in high iso performance as well as the finder then it makes a switch a no-brainer.

 

Do you find any disadvantages compared to the Mark 2?

 

Thanks!