--=EOS 1D MK III=-- The Official Release Thread

jr_senator wrote in post #3271697
Man that sucks. The early announcements from Canon priced it at $3999.00.

it's the law of supply and demand i'm afraid. By the fall it will probably come down a bit and by early 08 it will most likely be 4k.

Good idea Belmondo.

Update from the Dallas area... I want a Canon 1D3.

No other news to report.

donlavange wrote in post #3271212
If you don't have the Mark 111, you will do just fine. My Daughter got a Doctorate in Psychology last Saturday (does the pride show) and I shot with the 5D. I spite of it's slow frame rate, I have about 35 -45 shots of her in every phase of the process.

As you say, the Mark 111 would have been nice, but that is not what it is all about!

That's what I was going to say too (and not in a bad way). If I had to shoot the event of a lifetime tomorrow, where the memories are more important, I'd simply grab the best hardware I could lay my hands on (and that includes renting it where necessary), familiarize myself with it and go and take the shot. Hardware we can use today is better than toys we can play with tomorrow, nice as though they may be..

There's always something better around the corner, we use what we can get today. The 1DsMk2 is still a VERY credible camera, I shot one alongside the 1DM3 at PMA, actually I was bored waiting for the M3 so I decided to play with whatever else they had. I like it. Typical born and bred 1-series with the legendary AF. I'd use the 5D too, great camera and 12MP with awesome high ISO performance (short of the M3).

That having been said I still hope you get your M3!

I had to do a wedding in Pittsburgh today, but my wonderful wife went in and got my new camera for me. And the little sweetheart even charged the battery up for me so it would be ready to play when I got home. But I'm just to exhausted to really get into it right now. Sorry for the crappy pics, but I'm beat.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Awesome. Are the little covers on the battery charger spring loaded or do you just take them off when you put the battery on?

that was very nice of here how much are camera shops getting for the mark III's ?

When the excitement subsides a bit, I'd like to see some comparisons of performance MkIII vs. MkII(N), like.....

AF....ergonomics.....h​igh ISO......WB......ISO safety shift and such.

That is a very expensive camara at its introduction price, something like $1,200 more than MkII(N). The question in my mind is simply.....is the $ difference worth it ?

Depends on the buyer. If you have a M2N right now, no point rushing out to get a M3 unless you desperately need one of the new features (in which case the question wouldn't come up because it has already been justified on that basis).

However I shot the M3 and the M2N side by side, while I realize I could be happy with a M2N, the M3 totally blew me away in all regards - handling, ergonomics, better control set, better battery pack, lighter weight, ISO safety (helps a lot for some things I do). Plus I currently have no 1-series hardware.. so I might as well go all the way. New buyers coming in from the cold have a different value proposition.

PetKal wrote in post #3272467
When the excitement subsides a bit, I'd like to see some comparisons of performance MkIII vs. MkII(N), like.....

AF....ergonomics.....h​igh ISO......WB......ISO safety shift and such.

That is a very expensive camara at its introduction price, something like $1,200 more than MkII(N). The question in my mind is simply.....is the $ difference worth it ?

Well I can tell you from your point of view what I noticed. For BIF it is much more responsive and tracked Bif against a distracting bg much better. AF speed was superior to MK IIN. Noise at high iso (especially shadows) was better than my 5D. In my tests the MK III was the best followed by the 5D and the 1D MK II N last. But really I thought the noise would be even better on the MK III than it is. Let me state that for my visual comparisons there is no HUGE difference in noise especially at 1600 and below BUT the MK III is much better at 3200

morehtml wrote in post #3272558
Well I can tell you from your point of view what I noticed. For BIF it is much more responsive and tracked Bif against a distracting bg much better. AF speed was uperior to MK IIN. Noise at high iso (especially shadows) was better than my 5D. In my tests the MK III was the best followed by the 5D and the 1D MK II N last. But really I thought the noise would be even better on the MK III than it is.

Thanx Allen, that helps.
Another obvious consideration is that by the next spring, I anticipate the camera to go down in price to about $3,700 or so.

PetKal wrote in post #3272569
Thanx Allen, that helps.
Another obvious consideration is that by the next spring, I anticipate the camera to go down in price to about $3,700 or so.

Well as soon as you can get enough out of your 1d MK IIN to cover it, let me know . Cameras all drop like a rock.

morehtml wrote in post #3272573
Well as soon as you can get enough out of your 1d MK IIN to cover it, let me know . Cameras all drop like a rock.

I recently sold my MkII(N), planning to upgrade to MkIII. However, I think I shall wait with that a few more months.

morehtml wrote in post #3272558
Well I can tell you from your point of view what I noticed. For BIF it is much more responsive and tracked Bif against a distracting bg much better. AF speed was superior to MK IIN. Noise at high iso (especially shadows) was better than my 5D. In my tests the MK III was the best followed by the 5D and the 1D MK II N last. But really I thought the noise would be even better on the MK III than it is. Let me state that for my visual comparisons there is no HUGE difference in noise especially at 1600 and below BUT the MK III is much better at 3200

My economic justification is the Sports Photography that pays bills. But in truth, it is the better performance on Birds in Flight that keeps me awake at night!

PetKal wrote in post #3272593
I recently sold my MkII(N), planning to upgrade to MkIII. However, I think I shall wait with that a few more months.

So what you shooting with?

In my case the Mk III just offers upgrades to so many things it's worth it. But there is no single big reason.

morehtml wrote in post #3272558
Noise at high iso (especially shadows) was better than my 5D. In my tests the MK III was the best followed by the 5D and the 1D MK II N last. But really I thought the noise would be even better on the MK III than it is. Let me state that for my visual comparisons there is no HUGE difference in noise especially at 1600 and below BUT the MK III is much better at 3200

For the ISO comparisons, what did you have C.Fn II -2 set at? 0 or 1? Also, does this in-camera noise reduction also work on RAW files?