Who in his right mind... sheesh nice talk!
When i'm standing next to honestly one of the absolute best aviation photographers in the business and flanked by a really good Nikon shooter on the other side... and I'm holding a 1Ds Mark II with a 100-400 L IS AND a Mark III with a 70-200 L IS 2.8... and the damn Mark III doesn't perform as well under similar conditions and compared to the other guys who are shooting with similar settings (since 1/80 IS the standard for prop disc)
Who the hell are you to question something you evidently didn't read or know enough to say anything about? Stay with your 1/1000 safety shots - but when you're ready to play with the big boys... you're gonna have to show your stuff at 1/80th!
---------off my soap box speech to the ill informed...
now on to one who matters...
Tony - that 1/100th shot of the blue Staudacher(?) is really nice and your panning is coming along nicely. Its really really good. It might be a tad soft though but that could be the difference between the 5D and the 1D series. I don't believe its you. I've just seen too many Mark III shots like that. I've also seen too many Mark II and IIn shots that are so tack sharp you would cut yourself.
Head to head - by experience and by the results of others as well as mine - I'm going to judge the Mark III in the shooting conditions for which it was made - high speed, AF servo tracking fast moving objects. It fails - it has failed and Canon has acknowledged it - and it hasn't been remedied to the satisfaction of many pros who have tried to shoot with them. It is too unreliable for day to day use - when an important clients spends 10 grand or more on a one hour air to air shoot - and then has to be told you'll re-shoot for free when your Mark III images aren't good enough. You're not going to get a recall - you probably will get sued!
I know my skill set isn't Jim Wilson's or Paul Bowen's or a lot of shooters out there - but frankly - they are pretty good and I aspire to get better. I left 1/1000 long ago unless I'm shooting jets - which have no visible moving parts you WANT to blur... and I could shoot 1/4000 or more if the light were right... gee...
|HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO|
foreground tack sharp - background out of focus due to depth of field... appropriate panning blur, prop disc complete, 1/80th with the 300 ƒ2.8 w 1.4 on Mark III on a good day. Everything I wanted worked on that shot. It can be done with practice and you should be able to expect a very high hit ratio - knowing some won't be.