The REAL truth about the 1Ds Mark III and the 1D Mark III

Ok, the title is there just to catch the eye, but it does have some validity. I almost just posted this in the existing thread here the person is asking some basic questions like which one is better, what is a pixel, etc. I saw the usual answers, one is for landscapes, another for sports or photojournalism, etc. BUT, can a legitimate case now be made that the 1Ds is actually a reasonable crossover platform which could be reasonably be used by pro sports and journalism photogs? Seems like a very good case could be made:

1. Crop factor, 1Ds with higher MP allows one to crop and get a better, "closer" image than a 1.3.

2. Five fps is more than ample for almost any situation in tennis, golf, football and most other sports if one has decent timing. The 10 fps is nice, but how often is it really needed. I'm sure some shots such as getting the ball on the bat in baseball might benefit, but really, is 5 fps not sufficient?

3. Macro, dittos with the post processing and cropping.

4. Landscapes, portraits, other non movement high fps critical shots. Of course, this would be the FF bread and butter and with the extra MP, the choice for sure in those types of photography.

I guess I am convincing myself that by going with the 1Ds I am not losing all that much, and gaining quite a bit in exchange. ****, I don't take enough shots to justify anything more than my Pro1, but that said, if possible, I ant to get the best I can out of my equipment. I don't take a lot of action shots either, but would ant to have the equipment potential if I should choose any given day to hit the sports field for soccer, football, golf and the like, nothing super-fast would be needed.

Dumping the M3 would be a huge load off my mind also as I see this camera becoming the future Edsel of the camera world when it is eventually replaced with a IV or IIIN. Prices are already plummeting and I suspect a $3999 price tag will be seen by some major distributors before Christmas. Even if Canon fixes the **** thing, they have permanently tattooed the scarlet letters AF on it. Canon's PR, or lack of it, will collectively cost all early adapters with hundreds of dollars of devaluation before the M3's time. A III and IIN selling used for the same price in to years, probably not, the IIN price will be higher.

Ok, to be fair, I am coming down harder on the future potential value of the M3 than it will mostly be, but the main idea is accurate, IMHO.

Can anything be done at this point? I think so, a total recall of the camera and brand new ones being distributed, hopefully with an "N" attached, or a firmware that is a NO DOUBT, NO QUESTION fix among the top pros. Anything less will likely lead to the scenarios I have painted, unfortunately.

So, do you think there is a significant loss of shooting ability in some situations with the 1Ds or is the 1Ds built with features that can easily serve as a cross platform which is more than just adequate for the jobs previously filled by the non 1Ds lines? (Mark III, Mark IIN, 1D Mark II)

Thanks for reading. In this post, I have no intention of implying I am worth a **** at any types of photography, but for reply purposes only, please pretend I am a pro level photog who does both sports and studio type work and is just wondering if two cameras are really needed for these jobs now that the 1Ds has bumped up the MP and fps.

I will not have two cameras no matter what, just in case I didn't convey that well enough.

joegolf68 wrote in post #3928056
I guess I am convincing myself that by going with the 1Ds I am not losing all that much, and gaining quite a bit in exchange.

Well you would be losing a fair chunk of cash.

I also think the 1Ds Mk 3 would be the best all round camera, agreeing 5FPS to be Sufficient in 99% cases, and be interesting if Pros or People who need 2 bodies backs it up with a 40D? and not a 1D MK3 as then you would offset the initial high price of the 1Ds Mk3.

I like this kind of thinking already! I would say hell ya! The 1Ds MK III is where it's at. Imho, it's a complete camera. If it does what it says, than I approve without a doubt. Go for it Joe!

A couple of things to consider: ISO performance on the 1DmkIII should be considerably better (maybe a stop) than the 1Ds. For me the crop factor actually works to my advantage when shooting action sports. It turns my 400 F2.8 into a 520, etc... On the soccer field this is a nice advantage. The images sizes will be smaller on the 1D, and while normally this would work against you, when you shoot maybe 500 shots during a soccer match this is something to be considered. Arguments can be made that the 1ds has the larger image size, and with cropping you get similar results, but then again I have better things to do after the shoot than cropping thousands of images (I have to crop enough with the 1D already). I also like the 10FPS on the 1D, I track plays in the making and sometimes just one of those frames has a combination of composition and expression that really stands out. The chance of capturing this with a slower camera is reduced proportionately. Of course the faster camera gets back to more editing once again... You learn to use the bursts judiciously.

Finally, I think for most photojournalism activities the extra pixels just don't make a significant difference at this time. In three years from now, things will probably be different, as storage, bus speeds, monitor resolutions etc... are increased.

On a nature/wildlife perspective, I don't know, I think the race is probably closer there, I don't do much of that type of shooting, and when I have I've not noticed a significant difference between the 5D and the 1D bodies (I don't have a 1Ds yet, but have one on order

Very true. All of the large news agency PJ's moved to the MIII but there are alot of freelancers still shooting with 1D MII's and 1D N's along with 20D's and 30D's so I think 8MP's will be more than sufficient for at least three years. But even then, how big can we really make magazines or computer screens to fit the gigantic dimensions taken by 16+ MP cameras? Its great for such things as adverts where you can blow it up to ginormous sizes but for standard PJ work, it just seems a bit much.
But that being said, using the 1Ds for PJ work, I don't see why not. Its got the same tank-like durability and weather-sealing as the 1D. IQ will be top notch and 5 FPS is plenty for standard PJ work.

Not really. Having more frames per second means that you have a better chance at getting the right shot you need. And 5 FPS just isn't enough for just "almost". Pro sports shooters need to get that shot so they would gladly take 10 FPS over 20+ MP's.

I shoot sports all the time with a 1Ds as does the majority of F1 shooters. Not a long stretch at all.

joegolf68 wrote in post #3928056
2. Five fps is more than ample for almost any situation in tennis, golf, football and most other sports if one has decent timing. The 10 fps is nice, but how often is it really needed. I'm sure some shots such as getting the ball on the bat in baseball might benefit, but really, is 5 fps not sufficient?

I think this is reason enough to get a 1D instead. If you shoot baseball, or feel the need for 8/10 FPS AT ALL, it makes no sense to have a 1D III for those games, and 1Ds III for everything else. Just get the 1D III and use it for everything.


If I ever get one I'd surely change my tune, but I don't think a 1Ds III is much of a gain over the 1D Mark III. You're getting a full frame sensor. You're losing the FPS. You get the same body. You now have 21MP files to deal with, so if you're computer isn't up to snuff, then you've got a new system to add to the $8000 1Ds III cost of entry. Unless you're shooting for billboard print or fine art that looks as sharp from an inch as it does 20 feet 99% of the time, it doesn't seem worth it to me.

First, we are assuming arguendo that the 1DsMKIII will not have the same AF problems. Okay, let's assume that.

Here's my take on your post, Joe, most respectfully.

1. You say dumping the Mark III would be a huge load of your mind. I truly think that is a bit dramatic to say the least. You are obviously not a poor man. And I am not counting your money here. But if you could sell it and get a 1DsMKIII (and I believe I read you have a medium format back also), what's the difference if you lose $500? Is that really going to make or break you? I doubt it.

I owned the 1DsMKII before the Mark III. It was a great camera that at times exhibited some of the "lose focus" problems that the Mark III does.

Cropping did not make up for the extra pixels. Though I did love the full frame and do miss it.

As to FPS, it really doesn't make a hill of beans. Someone above said it may make the difference in catching the ball on the bat. That has been proven to be wrong. You'd need 30 to 45 frames per second to burst and hope you get that moment in time.

I shot a football game last weekend and concentrated on getting the kicker's foot on the ball. I did it after four tries (and I'm not bragging, it was mostly luck), shooting once, maybe twice, and attempting to time it. The burst capability is nice, but it doesn't make up for timing.

It was stated above that the extra megapixels doesn't really make a difference. That is correct in some situations, e.g., going from 10 to 12 or 8 to 10, or even 12 to 16 perhaps.

However, going from 10 to 21 I guarantee will make a stunning difference in both resolution and the size which can be printed.

just my two dollars.
me

and how is this any different??

Very interesting thread as I'm interested in both of these cameras. There is a major price difference though which could go towards some serious lenses for the 1D3.

Additionally, I can say to Mrs Tobers how much a 1Ds3 costs to get her prepped, then buy the 1D3 and "save" £2.5k which I can then use for other stuff .

I think the 1Ds3 is the most complete package you could wish for. I dont think the extra 5fps will make much difference to most. I'm looking forward to some side-by-side comparisons though.

Oh, and what's to say that the 1Ds3 wont have focus issues??

I have been watching the AF issues thread for my brother who is waiting for them to be resolved before placing his order for the 1DMkIII. I have 5D and 20D and consider the pair to be ideal for the things I want to shoot - 5D: portrait and landscape, 20D: wildlife.

When I first looked at the 1DsMkIII preview I was pretty much in wishlist heaven. But given that the AF issues in the 1D are resolved, I have to step back a bit and say that the 1D and not the 1Ds is most likely what I would spend my dollars on if I were to forgo the two bodies that I own. When you look at the 5D vs 20D (or 30D or 40D) the 1.6X to FF crop factors make the bodies clearly two different funtionaries. At 1.3X though we're kind of middle of the road and a clear compromise between a traditional crop versus traditional FF (This is coming from a prosumer perspective, not someone that has been shooting with 1DMkII). All the other reasons for moving to the 1D series apply of course in dumping the two prosumer bodies and here, with the same funtion set on both the 1D as 1Ds there is little reason for me to go to the s, and lots of reasons to go to the 1 series. Also, with the additional $4000 I can make a pretty good dent in the price of the 500 f/4 that I've been wanting (and would probably acquire first).

Stew

MDJAK nailed it.

Joe can trade me his Mk.III for my 1Ds Mk.II - I'm still thinking about trying it out.

rmcrowe wrote in post #3928800
A couple of things to consider: ISO performance on the 1DmkIII should be considerably better (maybe a stop) than the 1Ds.

Actually, if you are talking about the noise in the printed photo (not noise in a pixel), 1Ds Mk III should do better because it collects more lights (assuming the sensors have similar performance).

It turns out that 1Ds Mk III has higher pixel density, so that it (not the 1D Mk III) has more "reach".

Nikon did something very good with its D3 camera: 9 fps at full resolution, and 11 (or something like that) fps by cropping the photo in software.

So if Canon does something similar to the 1Ds Mk III, say 5 fps at full resolution, and 8-8.5 fps at 1.3x crop resolution, it would be a really nice camera!

pieq314 wrote in post #3930734
So if Canon does something similar to the 1Ds Mk III, say 5 fps at full resolution, and 8-8.5 fps at 1.3x crop resolution, it would be a really nice camera!

The camera does not have this feature.