Canon 1D MkIII / Worth it to upgrade?

[christopher hartt dallas]

Admittedly, I am (NOW) a Canon digital loyalist after using Pentax and Nikon

film systems for 25 years. Although there may be superior cameras and or lenses

independently, as a camera and lens system I think the Canon Pro System is about

as good as digital in the 35mm format gets.

 

Canon loaned me one of their new 1D MkIII's and I've shot about 8,000 images

with it. Mostly still (portrait) and 'near still' (wedding) images. In side by

side comparisons in Bridge with this camera's predecessor (1D MkIIN) images, I

have not been able to find any great improvements in image quality worth

upgrading for.

 

I have also read Rob Galbraith?s ongoing commentary about the 1DIII

(http://www.dpreview.com/news/0712/07121101robgaleos1dmkiii.asp) where he

actually gives the earlier generation 1DIIN higher marks in some areas ?

although he shoots primarily action sports. The gist of his many months

commentary though ? which Canon participated in ? is that it may be premature

for anyone to rush out and buy this camera.

 

My question - Have you upgraded from the 1DIIN to the 1DIII. What are your

thoughts. Is it worth $4,500 to upgrade to this controversial camera or is the

controversy mostly just in reviews. Have any Wedding/Portrait/Event shooters

shelved their 1D IIN's in favor of the III. Galbraith discusses his almost

exclusive use of the AI-Servo and back button focus. I rarely use this for my

shooting. Does that difference make for a better report about this camera.

 

I am rarely on the fence about things, especially when it comes to the tools I

earn my living with. But I am not warm and fuzzy about this new pro offering

from Canon (like I was with the last few offerings from them). I would love to

hear any thoughts.

 

Appreciate your thoughts,

 

Christopher Hartt

 

www.harttphoto.com

[KenPapai]

I am qualified to give some answers to these questions having shot Canon since 1990 and having used the system to shoot for pay weddings (a few) and fast-moving sports (a lot).

 

Simple answer has to be "yes" independent of the cost of the new body. Also I have never actually seen the adjective "controversial" so tightly placed with 1D3 until now.

 

I do not have a 1D3 nor have I even held one but if I could pick exactly one camera for sports, cost no object, for SURE it would be the mark 3.

[dave_trayers]

What is important to me is the high ISO performance of the 1DIII and I think it's OVER one full stop better than my 1DII (not N) I now use for backup. I can make 32x48 prints from ISO3200 images with little noise reduction and as I'm typing this a 32x48 print of a ISO6400 image just arrived in the mail. I did have to do a little more work on the ISO6400 file, but from normal viewing distances it looks great.

 

Personally, I have not had any issues with the AF Servo, but I don't shoot in conditions outlined by Galbraith. I shoot mostly indoors and low light, and for that the 1DIII excels. And I use the back button AF Servro all the time.

 

The menu and control layout is much better. I really don't like going back to the 1DII. When it was my primary camera, I didn't think the two button thing was so bad, but now I really don't like it.

[zigzag]

I am not qualified to give any answers to any of these questions but here are a <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=312">bunch of owners opinions</a> some of whom compare with the Mk IIN. It does seem that teething problems come with some new cameras these days (D200, 1DMkIII) and the Rob Galbraith story has shown the value of not getting it on day 1.

[Spearhead]

I have been using one for quite a while. The ergonomics, image quality, and battery life are significantly better than the 2N, which made it easy for me. I haven't had any AF issues. Interestingly enough, I stopped in the shop I bought mine from, which is only a pro shop, no displays, no point and shoots, etc. They handle returns for customers and they have not had anyone come in and ask for their Mk3 to be sent back. That's just one data point, but I trust it more than a bunch of random people on the internet. I've even seen posters "outed" when they didn't own the camera but claimed AF problems with it.

 

Obviously there has been a problem with AF in some situations and new cameras have the latest fix. However, the situations may be too limited for most users.

[mark_chappell]

I recently replaced a 1DII with the 1DIII. At normal ISO, the '3' gives slightly better images

(IMO, not worth the price of admission). At high ISO (>400 or so), the '3' is clearly better

and the difference widens as ISO goes up.

 

As Jeff says, the ergonomics are improved: it's a lot lighter than the II, has a much better

LCD than the original II (I don't have a IIN), and the menus and controls are better --

although that's a personal judgment.

 

I do a lot of action stuff (flying birds, etc.). I haven't done enough with the '3' to reach a

firm conclusion but it doesn't seem to be that different from the II in AF.

[colinsouthern]

Very happy with mine.

[zml]

Christopher: I use many bodies and seldom dispose of cameras so I shoot (among many other cameras) with 2x Mk II and 2x MK. III, and the latter beats the MK. II in every respect, including AF accuracy. I really like the menu system, the ergonomics, and the layout of controls. IQ is also vastly improved, esp. at high(er) ISO but even at ISO 200 the smooth areas with delicate colors are resolved much better. Neither of my Mk. III is blue-doted yet and - although I can reproduce some AF issues shooting at 10 fps on a hot day the proverbail runner going straight at me - I experience very few AF-related problems in real life, mostly operator's errors. And yes, I have used the Mk. III on really hot days (90F +) and in the tropics.

 

Keep in mind, that Rob Galbraight - although also a photog - is a reviewer, you know, one of those guys who complain that there aren't enough cup holders in a Maserati :-)))

[christopher hartt dallas]

Thanks all, I appreciate your responses. Of necessity, I will likely upgrade to a couple of new 1D III's in the next couple of weeks and you've made me feel better about doing it. Thanks.

[roberto_carli]

FOR MICHAEL LICZBANSKI

 

you're right Rob Galbraith is a reviewer,but for first time Canon Inc has admitted the error!

from the delivery of 1D(one of best accuracy AF ) the next Canon camera don't work as

well as The name (Canon) suggest.

In that period Canon was without competition,the best Nikon camera was D2H,very far

from Canon AF.

But now with the D3 the game is changed,and Nikon AF is an excellent and stable way to

use AF in sport shots.

I am considering to move in Nikon system,as well as many Nikonists move to Canon some

year ago.

My care is not to have Canon or Nikon but only have a reliable camera to shot in sport

event.

i am very tired to test with my money ,new cameras for Canon.I am CPS and every time(in

last period) i bought new camera(1DmII,1DmIIN),have to gone to the technical support.

I shot above all sport photos,but not only,and after testing 1DmIII can say it still not

working well,and not only in sunny and hot areas but even inside cold palasports.

<a href="http://www.robertocarli.com">www.robertocarli.com</a>

[zml]

Roberto: cameras are tools - pick the best one for your needs and be done with it. If Canon doesn't work for you why do you keep buying their cameras..? I shoot less than 50% of my work with Canon but the Mk. III (and Mk. II, and 40D...) is well-suited for my needs so that's what I use. Now, I shoot a lot of LF - wanna hear my stories about Arca Swiss cameras and Schneider lenses..? I bet ya they beat all the "bad" things ever written about the Mk. III...

[roberto_carli]

Sure Michael i agree,everyone have an ideal camera to use for what they need,there are many

differences from reporters.... what i look for in a camera isn't what you look for or need,but

when you pay over 4000$ for a camera i think you have to get full satisfaction because you

work with it.

[daniel_smith6]

Go to http://www.sportsshooter.com and check out the message boards for many, many posts on this camera and the AutoFocus problems to date.

It 'should' be an excellent camera but appears to have been rushed to market way too soon. The controversy is not 'just in reviews' but is real and effects many users who rely on solid gear to make a living. Why should one have to carry an older backup camera when they have three 1DmkIII bodies on an assignment?

 

Better to wait a bit longer until Canon actually gets it right before buying. Why get something that still has known problems?

[louis_greene]

I have yet to see the MK3 available anywhere (reputable) on-line. Where are you guys getting these things?

[bmeister]

If you have a worn out 1DmkII, then yes the 1DmkIII is an upgrade worthy of its price (if the AF works). There are issues that Canon has taken steps to resolve, so if purchasing a 1DmkIII from a pro dealer NOW there should be nothing but good working units outside of normal manufacturing defects. Having said that, if one has a good 1DmkII or 1DmkIIN and is happy with the output, then I don't see the $2500 "worth" to upgrade (sell the 1DmkII for ~$2000 and buy a 1DmkIII for $4500). There just is not that huge a difference in performance and forget even mentioning the small resolution difference; the 8.2 vs 10.1 megapix difference is insignificant.

 

The main differences in my experience has been the 14bit color (better shadows from RAW), nicer menu, lighter weight and 10fps for when the need arises; it is surprisingly noticeable going from 8fps to 10fps. The AF, however, is equivalent and one might even say they are the same. After getting bit by the 1DmkIII, I am so glad I hung onto a 1DmkII that I was selling and that the 40D I also picked up has been a solid backup to the 1-series. While I still love my Canon gear and remain a loyal customer, the 1DmkIII has not been their best moment.