5D vs 1DIII

[samechphoto]

Just a preliminary question.
If the new 1DIII turns out to be the gem it sounds, including picture quality comparable to the 5D, how many people would consider switching to the new camera?
I have a 5D, and most probably I would wait to see what Canon can come up with with an eventual upgrade to the 5D, or the 1Ds, rather than jumping on the 1DIII now.
I have to say I am not a sports photographer I only shoot occasional sport events, and I really like full frame and the large files for cropping. It is also difficult to imagine that the 10MP sensor can trump the quality of the FF 13MP of the 5D.

All the best,

zsolt

[Kevin034]

If I'm goign to upgrade my 5D, it'd be to the 1Ds MK III, not the 1D MK III.

[::John::]

*shrug*

I'm going to keep my 5D and go for the 1DMKIII

I find the 5D is good for landscapes and portraits - but not so good at airshows, birds in flight...

[canoflan]

These cameras are made for different purposes. The new Mk III is mainly for sports and PJ work (i.e. the 10fps vs the 5D's 3fps); while the 5D is a dreamy wedding and landscape camera.

At least that is what I have learned.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think the only 5D owners that would be trading for a MkIII are those that bought the wrong model in the first place.. and would have been just as likely to trade to a MkII once they realized the compromises of each and how they work for there own applications.

(that was a fancy way of saying "apples and Oranges" )

[Ephemeral]

If I was the kind of person who bought an apple and wished it tasted more citrus'y or looked more orange'y, then yeah, I'd probably upgrade my 5D to a new 1D MKIII.

[tom1s]

I'm keeping my 5D. It does everything I want it to.

[PaulEY]

Like has been said, different cameras for different purposes.

[ijohnson]

I would love to switch to a mkIII. However, I don't have the money, and the features don't really help me in the wedding/portrait area.

Regardless, I would grind up and eat my 5D for a MKIII. I could still easily do what I do with it and I would lay in bed listening to it click.

[TomHuckWa]

Same here 5D is more suited to my kind of shooting. HOWEVER---
If mama buys me one for Christmas, I wont turn it down.

[Alnitak]

I think the only 5D owners that would be trading for a MkIII are those that bought the wrong model in the first place.. and would have been just as likely to trade to a MkII once they realized the compromises of each and how they work for there own applications.

(that was a fancy way of saying "apples and Oranges" )

This is the reverse of what happened to me. I got the Mk2N and then narrowed my field to landscapes/nature, and realized I had the wrong camera. 5D for me. Live and learn.

[kster]

I'm keeping my 5D. It does everything I want it to.

Ditto.

[Mr. Clean]

I think it's a more applicable question with the markIII's higher resolution. A side by side comparision is really what's needed. Sure they're different tools for different needs, but the markIII really decreased the differences on paper.

[Photolistic]

If I'm goign to upgrade my 5D, it'd be to the 1Ds MK III, not the 1D MK III.

Is the 1Ds MKII and MKI full frame or 1.3?

[coreypolis]

Is the 1Ds MKII and MKI full frame or 1.3?
FF.

[Photolistic]

The MKIIIs IQ should be better than the 5D, or any camera for that matter because of DIGIC III. The 1D MKIII should be an all around better camera IMHO. There is nothing that the 5D can do that the 1D MKIII can not do.... right?
The only reason to wait for the "next" 5D would be to have a smaller camera or because of price.

[Pekka]

I think it's a more applicable question with the markIII's higher resolution. A side by side comparision is really what's needed. Sure they're different tools for different needs, but the markIII really decreased the differences on paper.

How do you do side by side test of 45 point AF, 10fps, speed in every area, sealing, autoISO, silent mode, liveview, reliability on hard conditions etc. when the other camera does not have these features because it was not designed for such usage and has older hardware/software? Even if end image quality were identical ease of getting the shots, or better still: ability to get the shots, is what you want to pay for in mark III.

[elTwitcho]

The MKIIIs IQ should be better than the 5D, or any camera for that matter because of DIGIC III. The 1D MKIII should be an all around better camera IMHO. There is nothing that the 5D can do that the 1D MKIII can not do.... right?


Wrong.


The quality of DOF on a FF camera and a crop camera are quite different. If I could make an even trade for my used 5D and a new mkIII I still wouldn't do it.

[AdamLM]

autoISO

Finally!

[Photolistic]

Wrong.


The quality of DOF on a FF camera and a crop camera are quite different. If I could make an even trade for my used 5D and a new mkIII I still wouldn't do it.


Ohyeah... I forgot the 1DMKIII is a 1.3 crop. Well then almost everything... The 5D can have a more shallow DOF then.

[Photolistic]

Finally!

Auto ISO and ISO 6400 makes this camera my dream boat!

[AdamLM]

This auto ISO is what I think it is, right? You lock in the shutter speed and apeture value, and the camera selects the ISO?

[elTwitcho]

Ohyeah... I forgot the 1DMKIII is a 1.3 crop. Well then almost everything... The 5D can have a more shallow DOF then.

Not just shallow, it falls off differently and more pleasingly (IMO and IME of course). As a portrait photographer, that's worth more than weather sealing, ISO 6400, 10fps (or 100 fps for that matter) or anything else the MKIII does. For what I look for in a camera, it's a downgrade.

[Phil Light]

To me the feature I drool over most probably has to be the improved 45 AF points. Still, even if I could afford the MkIII, I wouldn't dump my 5D. This is the best camera that has ever been held by these talent-challenged hands.

[Photolistic]

Not just shallow, it falls off differently and more pleasingly (IMO and IME of course).


Can you elaborate more? Could you show a side by side example? (not necessarily with these two cameras)
Im shocked but realize that ISO 6400 is not that big of a deal to some people. I just love taking night pictures and sometimes I do not have a tripod so its the world to me... I just wish I could afford it.

[elTwitcho]

Not sure I could really elaborate so much on it, but I notice it for sure. Do other people notice it in my work? Probably not, but I would think they would agree that photo 1 looks better than photo 2 despite not being able to say "photo 1 has nicer DOF fall off than photo 2 does".

To my feeling it seems like the DOF falls off more sharply on my 5D than it did on my 10D. I'm not necessarily sure that's the right explanation for it, and some pixel peeper who reads tech manuals for fun might come in and prove me wrong, but that's how I would best describe what I'm experiencing between the two cameras.

[Photolistic]

Like you see better "shaped" blurred pixels? I have not noticed this before, I only have 1.6 crop bodies.

[Bill10D]

Maybe we should wait for the testing to come out before we beat it up. Im sure it will be put under a close microscope. I think im going with this up grade, the mkIII looks like it has a lot of goodys. Just my thought.

[Photolistic]

Or are you talking about; like the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 but the compensation would be in the crop of the camera and not the aperture?

[coreypolis]

Can you elaborate more? Could you show a side by side example? (not necessarily with these two cameras)
Im shocked but realize that ISO 6400 is not that big of a deal to some people. I just love taking night pictures and sometimes I do not have a tripod so its the world to me... I just wish I could afford it.
everyone needs something different. I'd rathr have a 1d3 than a 1ds3 when it comes out, as the 1d3 meets my needs, just as teh 5d meets eltwitcho's needs. Its a matter of finding whats important to you and getting the equipment based around that.

[Kevin034]

everyone needs something different. I'd rathr have a 1d3 than a 1ds3 when it comes out, as the 1d3 meets my needs, just as teh 5d meets eltwitcho's needs. Its a matter of finding whats important to you and getting the equipment based around that.
Exactly. Personally, I don't shoot a lot of sports or fast moving objects, so a quick fps and large buffer doesn't really draw me to a camera. Yes, the 1D MK III looks ... interesting, but I wouldn't give up my 5D for one.

Now the 1Ds MKII or MKIII ... I just wish I had the money for these cameras. I see these as an upgrade for my 5D.

[elTwitcho]

everyone needs something different. I'd rathr have a 1d3 than a 1ds3 when it comes out, as the 1d3 meets my needs, just as teh 5d meets eltwitcho's needs. Its a matter of finding whats important to you and getting the equipment based around that.

Exactly. I emphasized all the parts about personal prefference in my post, because I don't do what the next guy may necessarily be doing, and so we'll naturally have different needs.

Or are you talking about; like the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 but the compensation would be in the crop of the camera and not the aperture?


Not really, I dunno I can't explain it. Personal prefference maybe, which is what I'm really talking about. This camera isn't for everybody, just as the 5D certainly isn't for everyone either.

[Mikester]

Anyone know of some good comparison of 5d vs m3? is it worth the extra $?
I am buying new body in may. And wondering if I should buy the m3 or 5d will do? mostly portrait and weddings. and a couple of sports events per year.

What do you think?

[Mikester]

hee hee. I just found a post similar to this one. sorry.

[coreypolis]

completely different cameras in every way.

[Mikester]

Thanks Cory. I agree from what I read. But based on the fact I do litlle sports and have little need for the fast 10fps.... What would experienced users buy?

[Damian75]

Wrong.


The quality of DOF on a FF camera and a crop camera are quite different. If I could make an even trade for my used 5D and a new mkIII I still wouldn't do it.

The MKIII should produce more fine detail than the 5D due to the fact that the image sensor is of a higher pixle density than that of the 5D but on printed output will anyone ever see it ?

[AdamLM]

The MKIII should produce more fine detail than the 5D due to the fact that the image sensor is of a higher pixle density than that of the 5D but on printed output will anyone ever see it ?


This doesn't quite make sense to me. Yes, I understand that on the sensor itself, the MkIII has a higher pixel density, but the 5D still has more pixels. If you made 2 prints the same size from both cameras, you have higher 'pixel density' in the 5D print.

Or maybe I am thinking about it in the wrong way...

[Photolistic]

This doesn't quite make sense to me. Yes, I understand that on the sensor itself, the MkIII has a higher pixel density, but the 5D still has more pixels. If you made 2 prints the same size from both cameras, you have higher 'pixel density' in the 5D print.

Or maybe I am thinking about it in the wrong way...

Its the software and the two new DIGIC III processors it has inside.

[AdamLM]

So, it doesn't have anything to do with the pixel density or even how many pixels total?

[Ephemeral]

I don't get it. This isn't to dis the OP, it's just that...the MkIII isn't even out yet. The only review is of a pre-production copy (I think), a few video's on the web and pictures. Granted it probably won't dissapoint in it's final retail incarnation, but comparing it already?? :P

[Mikester]

Well stores are already preselling them. There are many specs on the store web site also with lots of advertising. That is why I pose the question... Since retailers are pushing it already I was wondering if the pro users would also support it.
Example store with large banner ad is henrys.com (a large retail chain in Canada).
Also Canon has it right on their web site.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=14999

I would like to know what the experts feel are pros and cons vs the 5d.

[Pekka]

This auto ISO is what I think it is, right? You lock in the shutter speed and apeture value, and the camera selects the ISO?

It's all in white paper http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III_White_Paper.pdf

It works in Tv, Av and P modes, when correct exposure can not be obtained it starts to shift ISO.

[Stan43]

I would be more likely to sell the 20D and XT to fund part of the MKIII. I would not sell the 5D.

[Stan43]

If your doing weddings get the 5D. You can use the 20D for sports.

[GyRob]

On page 20 of the white paper it says the mk3 can focus on something comming towards its at 31mph ,im sure i read somewere thw mk2 could keep up with something around 170 kmh using a 300f2.8 lens ,what am i getting wrong or miss reading here ?
Rob.

[Collin85]

If I could make an even trade for my used 5D and a new mkIII I still wouldn't do it.

I would. Sell it for profit, get a new 5D and some more glass.

[SuzyView]

For fun, I reread my Magic Lantern for the 5D while on the planes I took. I think I am going to wait and see with the MkIII because I would probably keep the 5D for portrait and wedding work and get the new camera for sports. Like most have said, the two are amazingly different in what you need it for and I know if my kids get serious about their sports and have indoor games, I'm going to upgrade, eventually. :)

[JMHPhotography]

Not just shallow, it falls off differently and more pleasingly (IMO and IME of course). As a portrait photographer, that's worth more than weather sealing, ISO 6400, 10fps (or 100 fps for that matter) or anything else the MKIII does. For what I look for in a camera, it's a downgrade.


With all due respect, I don't think the difference between FF and 1.3x crop is really that significant.

I was going to get a 5D for my wedding and portrait work and a mkIIn for my sports and action work, but have decided to hold off and get a 1DmkIII instead. I'll end up saving money and get the best of both in one single camera body.

Now I do as much portrait work as anything else, and have been doing so with my 30D and 20D with good results. I can't see NOT having better results with the mkIII. In fact, I'd even be happy if I were to get similar results as I've never really been unhappy with my portrait work. At any rate... I've seen the test images (including portrait images) and they're fantastic!!! I'll be absolutely thrilled with the IQ of this camera. I think that it'll perform just fine in the studio, and it'll perform even better in the field. This is exactly what I wanted.

Where the mkIII will improve my overall body of work is with my action and wedding work. It's a terrific low light performer... with 19 high precision (with lenses f/2.8 or faster... except the center point which is f/4) AF points and the AF low sensitivity is -1 EV vs. the -.5 EV of the 5D and 30D/20D. The mkIIn was 0 to put it into perspective. That combined with very usable ISO6400 and remarkable ISO3200 image quality, I can more easily go flashless in dimly lit church... within reason of course.

The AF micro adjust feature will be AWESOME!!!! Some people are afraid of it, but really it's not that complicated.

[JMHPhotography]

On page 20 of the white paper it says the mk3 can focus on something comming towards its at 31mph ,im sure i read somewere thw mk2 could keep up with something around 170 kmh using a 300f2.8 lens ,what am i getting wrong or miss reading here ?
Rob.

Well 300mm is a telephoto... which you would use to fill the frame with something further away, right? Something traveling at the same speed further away appears to move slower than it does when it gets closer to you. Take an airlliner... when you look in the sky and see that jet going about 500MPH, and a car zooms by you going 65mph... which looks like it's moving faster? It's all relative.

[GyRob]

Well 300mm is a telephoto... which you would use to fill the frame with something further away, right? Something traveling at the same speed further away appears to move slower than it does when it gets closer to you. Take an airlliner... when you look in the sky and see that jet going about 500MPH, and a car zooms by you going 65mph... which looks like it's moving faster? It's all relative.
Right with it now :)
Rob.