5D Mark III or 1Ds III?

<p>I see that used prices for the !Ds Mark III have dropped down out of the stratosphere. If you could have one of those in very good shape compared to a new Canon 5D Mark III, which would you choose and why?</p>

<p>I realize that the "guts" of the 1Ds III are similar to those of the 5D II. That said, what are the advantages of going with the 1Ds III, if any?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Pro: Built like a tank...the flip side of that (the con) - the 1Ds3 is very heavy/bulky compared to a 5D3...I prefer the 5D3 (having owned both for extended time) - image quality about the same with a nod above 800asa to the 5D3.</p>

<p>You can do video with the 5d3 - and Live View is so much better. The rear LCD for image review is not so good on the 1Ds3...</p>

<p>Don't get fooled that owning a top class Canon camera (even if a generation old) would be the cat's meow...technology moves forward rapidly - and the 5D3 is newer; offers more features...I'd go with the newer technology in this case (5D3).</p>

As a working pro, I think the 5D Mk III is a big improvement over the 1Ds Mk. III. The big areas of improvement are the

obvious ones: better AF, better metering, better control layout, better image quality and beter signal over noise quality at

sensitivity settings over ISO 320, and better Live View options.

 

 

Don't get me wrong: the 1Ds Mk. III remains a fine camera but once you have shot with both (I have far more experience

with the 1Ds Mk. IIII but have shot with both) you'll gravitate towards the 5D Mk. III.

 

If you want a high quality "built like a Merkava tank" camera, the 1D X is the clear choice. I go with it over the 1Ds Mk.III

almost all of the time these days for everything from camera in a tripod shots to street shooting.

<p>Thanks, guys.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The big areas of improvement are the obvious ones: better AF, better metering, better control layout, better image quality and better signal over noise quality at sensitivity settings over ISO 320, and better Live View options.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That pretty well sums it up, Ellis. Thanks for weighing in.</p>

<p>I remember when Dan South said that the 5D III was a "1Ds Mark III killer." I guess that that partially accounts for the precipitous drop in prices of the latter. The 1Ds era is in the past.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>If you like to manually focus with the optical viewfinder you may find the 1 series a better bet. I have not used the 5D3 but I was disappointed with the stock viewfinder and screen on the 5D2 - the image did not pop in and out of focus as clearly as with the C-IV screen (which I think is the stock one on the 1Ds3). There may also be some adapted manual lenses which hit the mirror of the 5D3 (again I know this is the case for its predecessor but the new model may have improved it).</p>

<p>I would also consider the 6D as its sensor is a little better still than the 5D3.</p>

<p>I might lean towards the 1Ds. From experience there are subtle things (other than pixel peeping) about this camera that trump the lesser cameras in the field.</p>

<p>Harry: ditto. I got my own 1Ds3 early 2008 (and have used several other 1Ds3 bodies, so I have some experience with that camera) and I totally agree with you<br>

I don't have much hands-on time with 5D3 but I've been using 1Dx (a camera perhaps a notch above 5D3) for a long time and although on paper 1Dx beats the1Ds3 hands down in almost all departments I still prefer the files produced by 1Ds3 at reasonable ISO settings (say, up to 400-800) in terms of their purely photographic, pictorial quality (color rendition, contrast, "3D quality", etc.) Hard to describe but true in my case, a classic case of <em>je ne sais quoi</em>. For deliberate, slow(er) work there is no better Canon DSLR than the 1Ds3 (Nikon 800 is better.)</p>

<p>Yet, for those wishing to remain in the Canon's camp I'd still recommend 5D3: today pure image quality is just one factor.</p>

<p>Lannie, you don't say how you'll be using this full-frame camera, but I don't know any area where the 1Ds beats the 5D3.</p>

<p>The new AF system, better high-ISO performance, more flexible metering system, all make the 5D3 a more versatile camera that it now practical for wildlife, birds and sports. Oh, and it still takes great portraits and landscapes.</p>

<p>"<em>Lannie, you don't say how you'll be using this full-frame camera, but I don't know any area where the 1Ds beats the 5D3."</em></p>

<p>So David you mean to tell me that a $3000 camera beats a $7000 camera. Not sure why Canon would want a throw a curve like that to their loyal customers... </p>

<p>Harry, the 1Ds3 is two generations old. Moores Law applies to digital cameras, such that Canon's Digic 5 processor, combined with the latest sensor technology, can deliver IQ, AF performance and metering performance not available in a full-frame camera three years ago. The 1DX goes even further by using several Digic 5 processors to provide even higher performance.</p>

<p>If Lannie has a specific need that would favor the 1Ds, like he needs more shutter life and he doesn't need superior AF, then the 1Ds might make sense for him. However, in general, the 1Ds is a less versatile camera.</p>

<p>All of you have given me a lot to chew on, especially Ed, Harry, and Michael of those who weighed in after Ellis.</p>

<p>I do confess that I like a big viewfinder, and I do enjoy shooting manual focus. I had the 1Ds II for some years, but I did not shoot it so much after the 5D II came out. That seems a shame in retrospect, but I was strongly into low light photography at that point, and the 1Ds II was a bit disappointing at high ISO.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for their comments.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know any area where the 1Ds beats the 5D3</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Weather sealing. Battery life.<br>

And how much better than the 1Ds3 is the 5III when it comes to AF, really? (That is a genuine and not a rhetorical question: I went with the 1Ds3 rather than the 5II because the latter's AF, away from the centre-point, was said to be quite poor. Thus far I had had the impression that the 5III had caught up with but not surpassed the 1Ds3, but I have had no experience with the newer camera.)</p>

 

<p>The 5D MkIII's AF is leaps and bounds ahead of the 5D MkII and just a scouce behind the 1DX. The 1DX has a Digic 5 processor totally dedicated to AF and it's higher voltage batteries manhandle the lenses with more authority, making it the AF champion of the world. The 5D MkIII is behind that, with it and the 1D MkIV neck and neck, depending on the test. The 1DX's voltage and ability to snap the Series II lenses into focus with more authority is the main difference that you'll notice. If you don't shoot super-telephoto lenses with teleconverters attached, you might not notice any difference at all.</p>

<p>The 1Ds III was designed to provide high resolution, and for some years it was the king of high resolution in small format photography. If we can assume that the 5D Mark II has comparable IQ to the 1Ds Mark III, then the 5D Mark III exceeds both of them in detail and sharpness.</p>

<p>Don't make the internet fanboy mistake of assuming that 22MP is only a little bit better than 21MP. The difference between the 5D2 and 3 is significant. I have seen instances where I preferred the 5D3's output over my D800E shooting the same scene. That's not going to happen every time, but it gives you an idea of the 5D3's IQ capability.</p>

<p>The LCD on the 5D3 is amazingly sharp. If you manually focus critical shots from a tripod (as in macro work, for example), the 5D3 will be an asset. It's also very good at AF, considerably better in my opinion than any body that Nikon manufacturers today.</p>

<p>The 1Ds III is rugged, so if you tend to bang your camera into things, don't need the best resolution available, never shoot over ISO 400, and don't need Live View for critical manual focusing, it might be a good choice. Otherwise, I would opt for the 5D3 or the 1Dx.</p>

5D3 for ISO alone.

As a long-term Canon user, Canon seemed to put all their up-to-day technology on their flagship model like the 1d series.

However, they probably never put the same on other prosumer model. Canon pursues "what you pay, what you get"

policy. They certainly cut down the features and built quality on lower model. For example, from the bare structure

diagram of 5d3, you can find that the lens mount is solid metal but the foundation is just plastic. It is questionable whether

it is strong enough to hold those big glasses like 3002.8.

 

Seeing that Canon does not have sensor technology innovation on latest model, I would suggest 1ds3.

<p>WS HO, based on your argument, our OP should go for the 5D MkIII because it shares AF technology with the current flagship 1DX and the new sensor technology is indeed an innovative step forward from the prior generation.</p>

<p>I've only got around 40,000-clicks on my 5D3/500mm combo, but I'm not noting any chinks in the body's armor. </p>

<p>The 1ds3 is not current generation. In it's time, it was top shelf, but it's getting long in the tooth.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 1ds3 is not current generation. In it's time, it was top shelf, but it's getting long in the tooth.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That might well be, but someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse on one that was like new--and I took it. I shoot in the rain, I scramble over rock, and I never know what I am going to run into.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Protect your 1D in the rain. Arty Morris killed two 1D bodies in one outing a year or so ago. They're NOT waterproof.</p>

<p>Enjoy it.</p>

<p>Thanks, David. I'll try the 1Ds III, since it virtually dropped into my lap. If it's not good enough, I reserve the right to sell it and see if I can't pick up a good deal on the 5D III, although I don't see prices dropping one the new ones until a new model comes along.</p>

<p>I was holding off on the 1Ds III because I could find no original Canon batteries, but I just found some at Bedford Camera in Arkansas. They shipped yesterday. (I don't like shooting with third party batteries.) I was without any Canon equipment for over a year due to financial reverses in the winter and spring of 2012, after shooting Canon since 1982. I've been shooting the D800E since last fall, but it seems more and more like a specialty camera. I will hang onto it if I can, but with Canon I always got the shots, in part because I knew Canon equipment. For a while, I will be straddling more than one fence--old v. new, and Canon v. Nikon. That could change in a hurry, but I will do it as long as I can.</p>

<p>I should point out that shooting with second-hand gear has become a way of life after last year--with the exception of the D800E.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>David, how on earth did Artie Morris ruin two cameras in one day? Was he carrying no protection whatsoever?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, apparently not. You can search his blog to find more details. I it was raining, like on the Georgian Islands, and Art tried going without any extra protection. A couple of 1D3 or 4s died.</p>

<p>Back in 1999 (some 14 years ago), I once traveled with Arthur Morris. The way he treats his equipment made our jaw drop. We were at Bosque del Apache in New Mexico. Each one of us had a rental car. Morris had a cardboard box in his trunk. He saw him just put his camera bodies and lenses into that box, with nothing soft to separate one item from another, no camera bags, no padding. And then we all drove off on some bumpy roads.</p>

<p>I wouldn't be surprised at all that he damages a lot of equipment.</p>

<p>As a Canon "Explorer of Light", Art receives lots of free equipment from Canon. There's a video out relatively recently where he declares that Canon tells him that he damages more equipment than any other EoL recipient.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's a video out relatively recently where he declares that Canon tells him that he damages more equipment than any other EoL recipient.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's a remarkable story. I can't afford to treat my gear as other than sacred artifacts.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>