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

OK, forget 10 fps for a second. Awesome? Sure.

But, what if this thing has better high ISO performance than the 5D and the 1DsII?

And what if it has AF the likes of which man has not experienced before?

And personally I really like the 1.3X crop factor....perfect balance.

And then there is the issue of reasonably sized RAW files. 10 Mpix is wonderful. I've got a 30x40" print from my 1DIIN, printed by SmugMug, and it's a wonderful image. So I know that 10 Mpix is enough to print what I want.

I mean, let's face it, in some respects this camera, the 1DIII, might give the 1DsII a real serios run for the money.....assuming better high ISO performance.

It's about the ISO gentlepeople.

AeroSmith wrote in post #2762837
...It's about the ISO gentlepeople.

I agree. 10fps means nothing if the IQ sucks.

Until the 1Ds mkIII is released.

AeroSmith wrote in post #2762837
OK, forget 10 fps for a second. Awesome? Sure.

But, what if this thing has better high ISO performance than the 5D and the 1DsII?

And what if it has AF the likes of which man has not experienced before?

And personally I really like the 1.3X crop factor....perfect balance.

And then there is the issue of reasonably sized RAW files. 10 Mpix is wonderful. I've got a 30x40" print from my 1DIIN, printed by SmugMug, and it's a wonderful image. So I know that 10 Mpix is enough to print what I want.

I mean, let's face it, in some respects this camera, the 1DIII, might give the 1DsII a real serios run for the money.....assuming better high ISO performance.

It's about the ISO gentlepeople.

Oh it will, the saem happened when the MkII was introduced, the MkII had all those improvements.. and merely lacked 3MP.
Same here. But more so. The MkIII is a much bigger leap in everything but MP from the 1DMKII.

Well, the MkIII's 3200 ISO still looks like 3200 ISO IMHO..

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2762895
Well, the MkIII's 3200 ISO still looks like 3200 ISO IMHO..

Yeah, seems to. Is the 5D 3200 about the same as this or better?

"The comparison is even more favorable to the EOS-1D Mark III Digital SLR because Canon's intense involvement with sensor technology has enabled it to increase the proportion of each pixel that is sensitive to light, called the fill factor, so its pixels are not only bigger, but they are also more receptive to light."

Interesting!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2762895
Well, the MkIII's 3200 ISO still looks like 3200 ISO IMHO..

its a bit better, but compare it to 3200 asa film it'll look like iso 50 chromes

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2762895
Well, the MkIII's 3200 ISO still looks like 3200 ISO IMHO..

Yep, I am unforteuntly dissapointed. It doesn't look much better then my 30D 3200 ISO, I was hoping for a lot more (expected this to be like ISO 800 on my camera.)

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2763200
Yep, I am unforteuntly dissapointed. It doesn't look much better then my 30D 3200 ISO, I was hoping for a lot more (expected this to be like ISO 800 on my camera.)

I hope your kidding. ISO 1600 and 3200 look like crap on the 20D/30D. I dont even use 3200 since I dont like post processing for noise. But I will if I have to.

The 5D blows 20D/30D out of the water, and the Mark III is supposed to be better than the 5D. And I hope it is, since this is the make or break point for me getting this camera.

I dont think you can draw conslusions from just one photos w/o side by side shots from each camera.

StealthLude wrote in post #2763215
I hope your kidding. ISO 1600 and 3200 look like crap on the 20D/30D. I dont even use 3200 since I dont like post processing for noise. But I will if I have to.

The 5D blows 20D/30D out of the water, and the Mark III is supposed to be better than the 5D. And I hope it is, since this is the make or break point for me getting this camera.

I dont think you can draw conslusions from just one photos w/o side by side shots from each camera.

Perhaps, but I'm not kidding. Look at that photo, it has severe amounts of noise, it is by far in my opinion nowhere near clean, it has way more then what I'd call a small amount of noise (which would be like iso 800 on my 30D.)

coreypolis wrote in post #2762461
don't forget the highlight tone priority and added DR, thats huge for wedding photogs.

Yup, thats true, I forgot about that. The 12 - > 14 jump in bit rate is awesome, that will add some amazing color range!

Actually, that picture at ISO3200 is very damn good. The only spots I really see that are "too noisy" are in the bottom right and a couple other small patches.

This picture is better than the 5D. I shoot with the 5D at high ISO very often. The 5D ISO3200 shots are not nearly as detailed. Yes, the noise is similarly low...but this new 1DmkIII retains a lot more detail. 1600 and 3200 on the 5D is where detail begins to fade. 1600 is workable for most prints. 3200 bothers me a little. Then again, I am usually just glad I got a workable shot!

In print and reduced size photos, the noise becomes virtually a non-issue. This new technology has really furthered that IMO.

The in-camera noise reduction im sure is helping this a lot. What an interesting custom function to add.

coreypolis wrote in post #2762461
don't forget the highlight tone priority and added DR, thats huge for wedding photogs.

That would be sweet... Now if I could just happen to find 4 k$... More like 5 k$ in our colourful canadian money

StealthLude wrote in post #2763215
I dont think you can draw conslusions from just one photos w/o side by side shots from each camera.

Totally agree on this, the juries still out IMHO, but the one ISO 32000 MkIII pic I've seen is not giving me goose bumps is all.
Who knows, maybe the Photog forgot to turn on the CF for ISO noise?


Blue, your point about detail is a good one. Noise is visible, but the details still look good.