40D or MkIII

dmitrim wrote in post #4033801
I would not buy a MKIII until they fix the AF issues. You might not THINK it has this issue,because you didn't use it in conditions that cause it.

Stay away from it until they fix it. 40D is amazing with AF.

Did you try it or are you just saying some users have said?

I have trier 4 different MarkIII bodys without any problem. We have to be carefull on internet since everything travels very fast. Some people might have some difficulties with some equipment just because of user error. I have talked with many professionnals and many users which do not have any problems. Some might be off, thats what chain production is.

It is the same with Backfocus. As soon as someone shots a couple of frame OOF, they say they're lens is back or front focusing

I currently own the Canon 40D but it his going back with full refund. 1.6x crop is not for me and in noise comparison that I have done for myself, the images are the same to my MarkII.

I've noticed in a Canon catalogue that some bodies are not recommended for prints larger than 11x14. I tend to print mostly 12x18 with my favourite 5D shots and I am "concerned" that a 1D Mark III may be a noticeable step back as far as resolution goes. I really wish the Mark III had a little higher resolution, but please correct me if I'm being way paranoid. Does anyone here regularly enlarge to 12x18 with shots taken from a Mark III?

pcunite wrote in post #4033457
I shoot professionally and I use two 40D bodies. Why? Frankly I don't want to carry two $4,000 3lb cameras with 3lb lenses and flashes attached when the CUSTOMER can not tell the difference between the two images!

If I was shooting for myself I would get the 1DsMarkIII. But what I really want is Canon to come to terms with what some professionals need and that is the following:

* Center and Portrait high precision cross type AF points
* No tracking AF logic
* 5D body size and weight
* All the other features of the 40D

If you are regularly shooting 11x14 inch prints I would get something better than a 10mp camera. Otherwise the LiveView manual focus for the 40D will do fine for those times that it matters.

SunTsu wrote in post #4040985
I've noticed in a Canon catalogue that some bodies are not recommended for prints larger than 11x14. I tend to print mostly 12x18 with my favourite 5D shots and I am "concerned" that a 1D Mark III may be a noticeable step back as far as resolution goes. I really wish the Mark III had a little higher resolution, but please correct me if I'm being way paranoid. Does anyone here regularly enlarge to 12x18 with shots taken from a Mark III?

I know of 3 Photographers that regulary printed 20x30 shots from a 10D. These arent for personal reasons, these are prints being sold for $700 to $1800.

Remeber the differance between 10 MP and 12 MP is less than 10%(A diferance of about 400x300 pixels) when you are talking about image resolution. In order to double resolution you need 3.5 times as many pixels.

An example would be to double a 10 MP resolution you are going to need about 35 MP.

The differances between 10 MP and 12 MP wont matter as much as a good lens, good Post Processing and a quality lab when it comes to large prints.

SunTsu wrote in post #4040985
I've noticed in a Canon catalogue that some bodies are not recommended for prints larger than 11x14. I tend to print mostly 12x18 with my favourite 5D shots and I am "concerned" that a 1D Mark III may be a noticeable step back as far as resolution goes. I really wish the Mark III had a little higher resolution, but please correct me if I'm being way paranoid. Does anyone here regularly enlarge to 12x18 with shots taken from a Mark III?

Your being paranoid! I print as large as 16x20 but I haven't printed anything from MK III yet. I'll be ordering some prints soon and I'll let ya know. I mostly print from TIFF so I don't think resoultion matters. If I'm wrong I'll be corrected by somebody here.

OK, cool. Thanks for the feedback. I'm also considering getting the 40D or the Mark III for a "back up" body and this thread has been pretty informative. I've got my sister's wedding coming up so I figure I should have a back-up body. I'm pretty happy with my 5D, but I'm also really tempted by the highlight priority on the Mark III. I'm currently torn over whether a 5D or a Mark III with highlight priority, would create photos with better IQ.

40D has HTP as well

I upgraded from a 1DMk2 to a 40D and have never been happier. I consider the weight and size of the 1-series to be a disadvantage. And they simply aren't value enough for me. If I was a pro who was counting the return on investment, it would be even LESS value.

As for weather sealed body with no possibility of grip attachment: bring it on, I don't need no grip!

Lightstream wrote in post #4041508
I consider the weight and size of the 1-series to be a disadvantage. And they simply aren't value enough for me. If I was a pro who was counting the return on investment, it would be even LESS value.

As for weather sealed body with no possibility of grip attachment: bring it on, I don't need no grip!

I agree!!

MaDProFF wrote in post #4031729
1/ Days in the UK (winter) are generally Darker, The football matches I shoot, local, for fun, no lighting, are late in the afternoon, take today, I experimented with HTP, TV, and Auto ISO, most were shot at 800 ISO and not a fast enough shutter speed, and still I need more light, I use the 100-400

4/ Carry on and accept that I am going to get 1600 ISO pictures with noise, that are may not be not usable. If it was nite time football I would not mind, but that at daytime

Stuck between a rock and hard place.

Proff, this is on the h setting (6400), oerexposed a smidge, and pulled back a 1/3rd of a stop in DPP. Does this help?

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

bildeb0rg wrote in post #4043424
Proff, this is on the h setting (6400), oerexposed a smidge, and pulled back a 1/3rd of a stop in DPP. Does this help?

What lens, Shutter and Aperture? please

MaDProFF wrote in post #4043477
What lens, Shutter and Aperture? please

Sorry, thought the exif was intact. Ef 300 f2.8 wide open @1/250th. I thought it was pretty clean myself.

Lightstream wrote in post #4041508
I upgraded from a 1DMk2 to a 40D and have never been happier. I consider the weight and size of the 1-series to be a disadvantage. And they simply aren't value enough for me. If I was a pro who was counting the return on investment, it would be even LESS value.

As for weather sealed body with no possibility of grip attachment: bring it on, I don't need no grip!

I can't believe you gave up your Mark II for 40D

sunnythepsychocat wrote in post #4050886
I can't believe you gave up your Mark II for 40D

I was much happier, too. E-TTL wasn't as consistent on the 1D2 as it was on my 30D, 5D and now 40D (now I know where the 'unpredictable' comments came from). I preferred the 5D/40D user interface, the smaller, lighter and better battery packs, the lack of the grip. AI Servo and AreaAF were stunning in broad daylight, but surprisingly, much poorer than the 5D/40D in low light. Unfortunately I do a lot of low light work. This was acknowledged by Chuck Westfall in one of his columns as well.

Lots of other little gripes and issues.. it just never felt like the camera meant for me. I suspect it was because the 1-series was so talked about and the expectations were too high for a camera launched in 2004.

Most of these things, the 1-series owners don't tell you about.. sadly one has to find out the hard way

OTOH, the 40D is exactly what I wanted, and with 6.5fps I don't miss 8.5 very much

bildeb0rg wrote in post #4050145
Sorry, thought the exif was intact. Ef 300 f2.8 wide open @1/250th. I thought it was pretty clean myself.

It is and nothing wrong with it either, a good shot, trouble is I don't have a 300mm F2.8, and I prefer telephoto lenses, well for cost wise, looks like I need to try out the 70-200 with a 1.4TC on my 40D on a nite match and see what happens

MaDProFF wrote in post #4053170
It is and nothing wrong with it either, a good shot, trouble is I don't have a 300mm F2.8, and I prefer telephoto lenses, well for cost wise, looks like I need to try out the 70-200 with a 1.4TC on my 40D on a nite match and see what happens

If your 70-200 is the f2.8 version, I would suggest you try it without the TC first. LOTS of good shots to be had from the touchlines with it. Sometimes I give mine a run out just for fun, and to prove that you don't need the maximum reach available for sport.