1DIII vs. 1V

This one could be fun I think. This thread is NOT a 'which would you choose', because that'd most likely be down to film vs. digital.

Here's the deal. The 1d3's specs are implying that digital has finally caught up to film in terms of speed. But has it really? The FPS is matched finally, but what about the AF and such? On the 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, Canon lists it as being the fastest AF system when used with a 1V. Do they not mention the digitals because of laziness or are they really not quite as fast.

Fight it out, gangsters

As far as I know the Af from the original 1D was the same as the 1V, and every 1D revision since has had the usual upgraded/improved/refi​ned/tweaked AF on the spec sheet, so I presume it's even better than on the film SLR's - Canon is probably just lazy on updating the product write-ups.

Ves wrote in post #2762106
This one could be fun I think. This thread is NOT a 'which would you choose', because that'd most likely be down to film vs. digital.

Here's the deal. The 1d3's specs are implying that digital has finally caught up to film in terms of speed. But has it really? The FPS is matched finally, but what about the AF and such? On the 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, Canon lists it as being the fastest AF system when used with a 1V. Do they not mention the digitals because of laziness or are they really not quite as fast.

Fight it out, gangsters

When all those specs and literatures were printed for the 1V, the 1D series cameras didn't even exist. So that explains the absence of any mention of the 1D series cameras.

From reading the 1DIII white paper, it has the best AF Canon has ever put on a camera, so I'd say it's the top dog right now for action / AF performance.

The 45 point AF on the 1D series cameras is pretty much a match for what was on the 1V film cameras. It may even be faster and better now with the dedicated Digic III processors.

Makr

the 1v was no slouch, its big huge viewfinder and smaller for factor made it more ideal to hold all day. As for AF speed, its such a small difference if there is that it'd be hardly noticeable.

The 1vhs was way ahead of its time, you were able to download shooting stats (exif) onto the computer and track how many rolls of film went through it etc. I hate not having mine anymore, theres a bag of around 100 rolls of various velvia, astia and provia in the fridge just waiting for her to come back.

Corey, that's like $300 worth of film right there.. you gonna use it or sell it or give it to me? :P
I've always 'admired' the 1v, always kind of wanted one, but the film man Only way to make it okay would be to have a film scanner, but I'd want a good one and that's in the upper $1000s. They should make auto-developers you can buy now..

Ves wrote in post #2762420
Corey, that's like $300 worth of film right there.. you gonna use it or sell it or give it to me? :P
I've always 'admired' the 1v, always kind of wanted one, but the film man Only way to make it okay would be to have a film scanner, but I'd want a good one and that's in the upper $1000s. They should make auto-developers you can buy now..

you pretty much nailed it, I'd shoot it and develop it, but my lab wants $1/mb scanned, and I don't have the $$$ for a dedicated scanner. I'll use it up eventually, we still have a couple old elan 2e's, but the shutter is going on atleast 1.

I got most of it for cheep whn a guy went all digi (50 rolls for $50), and some is left from buying bricks of it for school. You really need great color to appreciate it, and its been the grayist dreariest winter on record.

coreypolis wrote in post #2762433
You really need great color to appreciate it, and its been the grayist dreariest winter on record.

No kidding!

Mark

but... one wrong move with a 1V and you've wiped out your roll in just under 3 seconds... Damn thats got to be upsetting!

It's weird, too. I really like having my pictures printed. With my AE-1 I'd just get the developed at Walgreens or Ritz or something, and it's always kind of fun looking back at the pictures. But with digital it's different. I like it because you see the pictures right away, but they don't look anywhere near as good. I've never looked at a 35mm print and gone "that could've used some PP". But you can share digital easier and blah blah.

It's bullcrap.

Ves wrote in post #2762106
Fight it out, gangsters

POW POW POW POW POW POW POW ZING POW BOINK POW ZING!
Hey, you said Fight and gangster in the same sentence, so that implies a gun battle

I had a 1V hs and the biggest problem with it was have to reload the camera every 3.6 seconds

Ves wrote in post #2762484
It's weird, too. I really like having my pictures printed. With my AE-1 I'd just get the developed at Walgreens or Ritz or something, and it's always kind of fun looking back at the pictures. But with digital it's different. I like it because you see the pictures right away, but they don't look anywhere near as good. I've never looked at a 35mm print and gone "that could've used some PP". But you can share digital easier and blah blah.

It's bullcrap.

The reason you've never looked at your 35mm prints and said 'that could use some PP' is because they already HAVE been processed. When you take film to a lab to get developed, they don't just shove it through....they adjust color balance, exposure, contrast and more. Take the same negatives to two different labs, and you'll get two different prints.

One of my favorite shots from my old 35mm compact was a sunset shot on my grandpa's lake....the 4x6 had deep, rich blues and purples in the sky...when I had an 8x12 made later, the lab brought out the reds far more prominently. Great shot both ways, but very, very different processing.

One of the biggest reasons I love digital so much is that I get to control the image from capture to print. I don't have to hope the guy working the lab that night is really good.

Ves wrote in post #2762106
This one could be fun I think. This thread is NOT a 'which would you choose', because that'd most likely be down to film vs. digital.

Here's the deal. The 1d3's specs are implying that digital has finally caught up to film in terms of speed. But has it really? The FPS is matched finally, but what about the AF and such? On the 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, Canon lists it as being the fastest AF system when used with a 1V. Do they not mention the digitals because of laziness or are they really not quite as fast.

Fight it out, gangsters

The 1D (4.5MP version) essentially used the 1V's af system with little alteration. It was/is the 1V's equal in this regard.

The 1D MkII surpassed the 1V with the improvements Canon made 5 years after the into of the 1V.

The MkII and now the MkIII have no film equivalents, unless Canon decides to market a new Film body.