Canon 1DMKIII: The new low light champ?

Amazing camera. Clearly out does my 5D in low light. Waaaaay faster focusing, faster than my 1DsMKII.

Better highlight control then the 5D also.

 

Tried shots at ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400 all of which would be highly useable for wedding prints @

8X10 ... and this was shooting jpgs since I don't have the new ACR plug-in that supports the MKII yet.

 

In fact, if these test shots prove out over the next few days, I may become a jpg convert (at least with this

camera. ; -)

 

Also took delivery of the new 580EXII flash. Will report back on that after trying it out at this weekends'

wedding. I'll be using the MKIII there also ... it's an outdoor nightime wedding where this camera should

shine for available light work.

 

Bye-bye 5D.

Yeah, the 5d is junky. Tell you what, I'll trade you a case of beer to take that paperweight off

your hands.

 

 

Don

I'm not clear on this transaction. Who is that gets the beer?

I wish I had the money that marc does :-)

marc - ohhh...and I'm stuck in the middle ages with a 20D!

 

can you post example of 100% crops at high iso?

 

also - how does it compare in focusing to the 1dmk2? just curious. I expect about the same.

Marc, you may want to check this link for the raw converter...

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LMfH&unified_p=1

 

-Mario

What kind of beer Don?

 

The 5D is a great camera, but I personally have never liked it and have said so many times

here. Doesn't detract from the 5D, or more importantly those who use it to great effect. The

5D was considered the low light champ .... but I think it just got beat.

 

Now, back to the Beer ... if it was a case of fresh brewed beer in Munich, Germany ... and you

pay the airfare ( first class) and 3 nights lodging ( one to drink the beer and two to recover

from drinking the beer ), we may have a deal : -)

Thanks Mario, the new RAW plug-in doesn't work with PSCS2 or Lightroom. I guess I have

to take the time to get PSCS3.

 

Conrad, The 1DMKIII features increase pixel sensitivity and has more AF sensors and more

of them are the cross sensor f/2.8 type than on my 1DsMKII for off center AF. In addition

the center AF cross sensor is now f/4 sensitive rather than f/2.8, so my 24-105/4L just

got faster in low light.

 

As far as cost, I never pay retail. Depreciation and rental fees for commercial work take the

bite out of it. Buy low and sell at the right time helps keep you ahead of the curve.

 

Nothing wrong with the 20D BTW.

But you just lost full frame..Back to 1.3x and more DOF!

 

BTW, what I haven't yet seen is how much better/smoother images look due to it having a 14bit A/D converter vs. all other DSLRs which are 12bit. The highlight thing seems like a gimmick - everything else is definitely not.

 

Oh - and does it feel lighter, or just on paper?

 

Bogdan

Hard to really compare a 1D MkIII with a 5D.

 

The 1D is a fully PRO camera, the 5D still a semi-pro body (a full frame sensor [$$] in a 10D body).

 

In any case, the case can be made, the best DSLR by far, on the market now, is the 1D MkIII [$$$].

 

In any case, there is not another camera I'd rather be shooting with right now that a Mk III (with a 5D and 10D as backups). Wow.

Were it a case of Rochefort 10 Degree and a trip to Brussels... game on!

Question though. Do you use 1600 and above often? I hardly ever do, and when I do the light is of course crap and so it's not that huge a deal. In other words, these cameras have amazing clarity at high ISOs, but only in good light. And in good light, I never use more than 800 with fast lenses.

 

Bogdan

hi marc - thanks for the reply.

 

all tech talk aside - does it 'feel' faster?

 

yes, the 20D is certainly a capable camera. I admit fall into the 99% category of photographers who are limited by their minds, not their gear :-)

 

for commercial and wedding work, it is always 1600 or less on my 20D bodies. I prefer to not use 1600 unless I must (eg. 1.4, 1/50th and ISO 800 is too dark). that said, I was at a wedding for a friend this weekend and was having fun, and I cranked up to 3200 for some candids. not bad, but not quite as smooth as I would like...

 

http://conraderbphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/2929287#157998973

"But you just lost full frame..."

 

That'd be true if I didn't shoot a 1DsMKII as the main camera. This is the replacement for

the 5D.

 

Back to 1.3x and more DOF!

 

See above. DOF isn't much of an issue since the prime lenses from 24mm to 85mm are

f/1.4 or faster.

 

BTW, what I haven't yet seen is how much better/smoother images look due to it having a

14bit A/D converter vs. all other DSLRs which are 12bit. The highlight thing seems like a

gimmick - everything else is definitely not.

 

Smoother isn't what I look for or even want in available light work. Well see about the

highlight "gimmick". BTW, what 14 bit camera have you shot with? Just curious.

 

Oh - and does it feel lighter, or just on paper?

 

The new battery is half the size of the previous one for starters. Plus the camera itself is

lighter.

 

 

"Question though. Do you use 1600 and above often?"

 

I do want, and will use, the high ISOs because I want to do more available light candid

work. That's why I had the 5D and this camera does it better, and focuses faster. As Jeff

Ascough said, there's good light, you just have to find it. I want to limit motion blur in low

light IF I want that, so having the option is nice.

Marc,

 

I make my own beer, so you can have your choice. I'll make it two cases and deliver them

next time I'm driving though to Grand Rapids.

 

Don

>>As Jeff Ascough said, there's good light, you just have to find it.<<

<p>Neil seems to have found the light here: <url>http://www.planetneil.com/faq/finding-

the-light.html</url>

Link: <a href="http://www.planetneil.com/faq/finding- the-light.html" >Finding the light.</

a>

Hey Marc, congrats! Where did you pick up this camera? Is the price much higher than the 5D? Thanks for updating us on how doog it is! Hope you get some really wonderful shots out of it! Bob

"Smoother isn't what I look for or even want in available light work. Well see about the highlight "gimmick". BTW, what 14 bit camera have you shot with? Just curious."

 

None - that's why I was asking. This is the first DSLR that captures at 14bit! But I haven't yet seen samples on the net talking about this or showing the difference. Yet there has to be a huge one! It's 16,384 levels vs 4,096! That's 4x as many. So gradations, color, etc. HAS to be better. I just wanted to see a comparison - and noted I hadn't - of the same shot taken with this and maybe the 1DMKIIN (to keep the same sensor size). Even JPEGs should look better, because the CAPTURE is 14bit - even though it goes to 8bit in-camera.

 

Regarding good light and finding it, I agree, but most of the time I have to use 1600 and above, light is not good - just low quantity. At weddings and such it's usually flat tungsten light - not good light! In good light, most cameras are fine at high ISOs. I want to see this baby in low light under wedding circumstances. I've seen samples in good light, which to me mean nothing since I would not use 1600 or 3200 then. So please help us here with nice samples from real world events!

 

Bogdan

BTW I was saying more DOF since the sensor is smaller. In that sense, larger FF sensors are better, no matter the lens.

 

Bogdan

"That's 4x as many. So gradations, color, etc. HAS to be better."

 

Not necessarily, it depends on the noise level. You could easily find that the extra resolution effectively adds random bits to the end of each sample because the noise level is higher than the measurement resolution. This would apply particularly at low light levels.

 

It's easy to measure things to high precision; it's very very hard to ensure that the measurements are either accurate or meaningful.

If it wasn't twice the price of the 5D I would go out and buy one tomorrow. I have a 5D dedicated to an 85mm 1.8 shot wide open, only the center focusing point is in any way accurate and even then I have to focus bracket significantly. The metering is awful as well, I was shooting backlit yesterday, couldn't dial in more than a +2 and I needed more, you can't underexpose too much at iso 1600.

Alec,

 

If the color and gradations are NOT better, then it's an implementation issue - and it should be at all ISOs, my question wasn't at high ones I don't use. I'm surprised though, since 14bit (to me at least) seems to be the biggest thing going for this camera, yet few talk about it. All the talk seems to be about clean high ISOs. This (14bit) is what I'd call a real step forward - not the other things. Also, how is the DR at high ISOs? This is important. I can care less about clean 1600/3200 if the range is still crappy compared to lower ISOs. This is why I avoid high ISOs to begin with. If your WB or exposure is even a tiny bit off, and you mess with it in post, the file will be affected a lot more. It's not just about clean ISOs!

 

I can't imagine a wedding scenario where I'm shooting 3200! This is more for sports!

 

Ben, keep the money in the wallet. What's here will be in the next FF sensors for sure - better too. Maybe not the super AF, but the other things. No hurry IMO. I'm waiting to see real world examples - not test charts or Canon official pictures LOL.

 

Bogdan

The field of view is the only thing that changes, not the DOF for any given

lens. So a 24mm becomes a field of view of a 31mm but retains the DOF of

the 24mm. The longer the lens the less the effect is visually apparent. With a

50/1.2 and 85/1.2 on a 1.3X crop camera it's irrevelant for all practical

purposes.

 

But I agree FF is better in most cases, but that's why I'm keeping the 1DsMKII

and will replace it also IF they improve it to the degree they did the 1DMKIII.

 

Ben, I paid 1/3 more than I did for the 5D when new. The benefit of developing

a long term relationship with my Canon dealer. I buy a lot, he discounts a lot.

Keeps me coming back. Paid a lot less for the flash also.

 

From my limited goofing around with the camera it is really fast. There is a

custom function to shorten the shutter release lag time ... and it works ...

almost like a hair trigger ... probably for sports, but useful for "decisive

moment" wedding stuff.

 

"Not necessarily, It depends on the noise levels".

 

Agreed. And that's where the rubber meets the road for a camera like this.

Canon claims to have improved the noise control especially in the shadow

areas. My initial tests seem to support this even when using ISO 6400 ...

what's interesting is that while there is noise it' seems even distributed with no

"clumps" ... even with the high ISO noise control function turned on. We'll see

if that remains true after a wedding or two.

 

Can't fully evaluate the camera until I upgrade to PSCS3 and the new ACR

Plug-In. There is a new upgrade for Lightroom coming soon and I understand

it will support this camera.

 

Like I said, I'll be using it at an evening wedding tomorrow and will have a

much better idea of it's abilities as a wedding camera.

Here's how I see the benefit of higher "usable" ISOs. First thing I noticed is

that ISO 800, 1000, 1250 and 1600 are much cleaner than from either of my

other Canons. These tend to be more in the range I'd use for available light

work. 3200 and 6400 are useable, but would be for more extreme lghting

stuations, or where movement would be an issue.

 

That's the big benefit IMO, use of a higher shutter speed to avoid subject

motion when desired. This is something even an IS lens can't solve.