What Gives the 1DMkIII it's "Sizzle?"

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5243420
I guess my ultimage question is: What makes the MkIII "Pro" and the 5D "Prosumer" at strictly the final image level?

Image quality isn't what separates Pro from Prosumer.

cdifoto wrote in post #5247928
Image quality isn't what separates Pro from Prosumer.

I realize that. That's why I asked the question the way I did.

Disregard the physical, operational and mechanical differences between the two cameras and in the end, what makes the 1DMkIII (not the 1Ds) the "cat's pajamas" over the 5D?

So far, it sounds like:

- 14 bit
- Highlight Tone Priority
- Better noise handling (maybe? marginally?)

are the electronic trinity.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5248164
I realize that. That's why I asked the question the way I did.

Disregard the physical, operational and mechanical differences between the two cameras and in the end, what makes the 1DMkIII (not the 1Ds) the "cat's pajamas" over the 5D?

So far, it sounds like:

- 14 bit
- Highlight Tone Priority
- Better noise handling (maybe? marginally?)

are the electronic trinity.

Then you have basically ANY canon camera. Why not say what makes the 5D so much more then the XTi

This is like saying why is a ferrari so much better then a ford. Just disregard the suspension, technology, and motor they both drive on the road so shouldnt they be the same

Well, lets see, it costs 2x as much. Pictures are not larger, Pictures are not 2x as good.

If you factor price in, it really isn't a better camera. Of course if you argue price is NOT a factor, then you can also say the 1Ds is better yet........

Its an apples and oranges argument..........

I've got a 2004 C5 Corvette, 350HP and darn fast. A 2006 C6 Corvette is 430HP and marginally darn faster. Both are sufficently fast, nice looking etc for most people's needs. The 2004 is worth $26k and the 2006 is worth $52k, Same thing, one a bit better, but costs a lot more.

Given the choice of only 2 I'd still pick the 5D with a grip over the MKIII.

However, they are different machines built for different markets....... I personally think that using a MKIII for a wedding is not proper. I also think a pair of 5Ds with different lenses on them is much better. HOWEVER if you want to do a wedding right, then the 1Ds is much better yet...............

Its like Captain Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru; You have to cheat to pass.........

Mark H

ed rader wrote in post #5244718
i don't see that much iso improvement. i think the two cameras are very close in this respect but i do think the mark III is better.

the biggest improvements i see between the two are:

-- improved metering.

-- more responsive (no shutter lag).

-- better color and detail.

in general i just like the mark III images better.

ed rader

the 3 points you brought up pretty much cover the bases. what i immediately noticed is the "less hesitation" during AF. IQ wise, i was not able to discern much difference but i was pleasantly surpirsed that the non-FF 1DMk III still retained the smooth and pleasing character in IQ that the 5D had. add to that the great handling of a built-in grip and its unreal battery life!

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5243420
IOW, strip away the differences in mearly mechanical trappings: higher fps, build, wx sealing, integral vertical shutter, etc, etc, etc...

If you put a full res RAW image from the 5D (12Mp) next to a full res RAW image from the MkIII (10Mp) what (if anything) makes the MkIII image better?

Is it even actually better?

- Is the Digic III processing markedly superior? (Better noise suppresion, etc?)
- Does the MkIII actually process 1s and 0s in a different/better way?
- Do RAW images come out of the MkIII needing less sharpening or other "basic" RAW tweaks?
- Is there something about RAW from a MkIII that can yield superior images after full PP that you can't get out of the 5D?
- Elfin Magic?

I guess my ultimage question is: What makes the MkIII "Pro" and the 5D "Prosumer" at strictly the final image level?

I'm honestly asking in the hope that some technical info can be shared here...

TIA to those who care to chime in.

I am guessing that this has been already pointed out because there are already 3 pages for this thread. But in case it has not, here it is:

1D Mk III's strength is not completely based on the image quality. Yes, low light noise is 1 stop better than 5D (per pixel, but 5D has about 1/4 more pixels which will also help in controlling noise by downsizing). It is based more on build, focus speed, frames per second. These features will allow 1D Mk III to get a particular photo that 5D just cannot (or harder to get).

If you just want to get a high quality landscape photo, I feel 5D would be better: no need for focus speed, no need for frame rate, no need for low light ISO noise. Just make sure you do not do it in the rain.

Thanks to all who replied...

Very interesting discussion.

I think the main point is more that the mkIII can produce photos that the 5D can't.

Totally different beasts.

Innocence wrote in post #5250191
I think the main point is more that the mkIII can produce photos that the 5D can't.

Totally different beasts.

Oh I know they're different and that they're meant for very different applications.

I was just curious if there was actually something that could be singled out in the electronics or processing more so than in the use or physical operation.

I guess what has me scratching my head is the way Canon have chosen to evolve their line of cameras over the last few itterations. It seems (to me) sort of a "two steps left and one step right" kind of thing:

- We'll give you awesome IQ, 12Mp and FF (5D) but none of the 1-series bells and whistles and it only offers 3 fps.

- You can get 10 fps + the 1-series ergonomics, customization and ruggedness but you'll have to "settle" for only 10Mp and a 1.3x crop (1DMkIII)

- You can have the 21 mind-blowing FF Mp's of the 1DsMkIII and all the 1-series bells and whistles but don't go use it for sports as it can only do 3 fps.

- Oh wait, you CAN have 12Mp @ something better than 3fps but it isn't weatherized or customizable at all. In fact, it's our entry level dSLR (XSi)

- Oh, hold on, 3 customizable settings at (an acceptable) 6 fps but now you have to "settle" again for 10Mp and it's a 1.6x crop (40D)

I dunno... Feel free to rip me as you like (and I've no doubt some of you will...)

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5250315
Oh I know they're different and that they're meant for very different applications.

I was just curious if there was actually something that could be singled out in the electronics or processing more so than in the use or physical operation.

I guess what has me scratching my head is the way Canon have chosen to evolve their line of cameras over the last few itterations. It seems (to me) sort of a "two steps left and one step right" kind of thing:

- We'll give you awesome IQ, 12Mp and FF (5D) but none of the 1-series bells and whistles and it only offers 3 fps.

- You can get 10 fps + the 1-series ergonomics, customization and ruggedness but you'll have to "settle" for only 10Mp and a 1.3x crop (1DMkIII)

- You can have the 21 mind-blowing FF Mp's of the 1DsMkIII and all the 1-series bells and whistles but don't go use it for sports as it can only do 3 fps.

- Oh wait, you CAN have 12Mp @ something better than 3fps but it isn't weatherized or customizable at all. In fact, it's our entry level dSLR (XSi)

- Oh, hold on, 3 customizable settings at (an acceptable) 6 fps but now you have to "settle" again for 10Mp and it's a 1.6x crop (40D)

I dunno... Feel free to rip me as you like (and I've no doubt some of you will...)

The greater the MP, the longer it takes to write the info to the card so the less FPS you get... Portraits and weddings benefit from this as they don't need to shoot at a fast FPS, and they don't usually need the crop for extra reach...

Sports and wild life photographers need high FPS to capture the action and a very high MP count would slow this down... The crop also helps with the reach or tight composition...

Until technology can transfer data at the lightning speed needed to combine both you have to make your choice of which is most important, or buy both types...

Isn't the 1DsMkIII 5fps? Still not necessarily fast enough for sports, but a nice step up from 3fps.

One thing Canon could have done is to put a crop mode in the 1Ds Mk III. At 1.3x crop, the data file will be smaller: Instead of 21 MP, it will produce photos at 12.4 MP. So if 1Ds Mk III can process data at 5 fps, then, at the crop mode, it should be able to process data at 8 fps, good enough for sports.

Nikon D3 does have some of these little things that got Nikon users excited.

Kennymc wrote in post #5251234
The greater the MP, the longer it takes to write the info to the card so the less FPS you get... Portraits and weddings benefit from this as they don't need to shoot at a fast FPS, and they don't usually need the crop for extra reach...

Sports and wild life photographers need high FPS to capture the action and a very high MP count would slow this down... The crop also helps with the reach or tight composition...

Until technology can transfer data at the lightning speed needed to combine both you have to make your choice of which is most important, or buy both types...

Very good points, thanks...

pjtemplin wrote in post #5252043
Isn't the 1DsMkIII 5fps? Still not necessarily fast enough for sports, but a nice step up from 3fps.

I stand approximately corrected as the specs do say "Approx 5fps..."

So call it somewhere between 4 and 5fps. And you're right, it is better than 3fps but not by much but still not really sports/action fast.

Thanks for the clarification...

pieq314 wrote in post #5253067
One thing Canon could have done is to put a crop mode in the 1Ds Mk III. At 1.3x crop, the data file will be smaller: Instead of 21 MP, it will produce photos at 12.4 MP. So if 1Ds Mk III can process data at 5 fps, then, at the crop mode, it should be able to process data at 8 fps, good enough for sports.

Nikon D3 does have some of these little things that got Nikon users excited.

Can the 1-series (or the 40D for that matter) write sRAW faster than full RAW?