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

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5253148
Can the 1-series (or the 40D for that matter) write sRAW faster than full RAW?

I am sure it can (although I did not actually test it). After all, sRaw is only 2.5 MP vs. 10 MP for 1D Mk III (should be the same for 40D).

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #5253143
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...

The 1Ds Mk III is excellent for action and sports photography. The time to lock on and snap the first shot is the same or nearly the same as the 1D Mk III. Yes, you can't do 10 fps but in all other respects it is up to the task.

The biggest hit against the 1Ds Mk III and the reason you don't see more sports photographers using it is the slow file transfer speeds. It takes twice as long to transfer a file and that means a lot when going up against deadlines.

Personally, for me, the AI servo/AF performance makes it 'sizzle'. It can read my mind!

On a side note: I recently just changed my settings to 'AF track priority' and the sensitivity to the fastest. It's insane.

BCinMB wrote in post #5254466
Personally, for me, the AI servo/AF performance makes it 'sizzle'. It can read my mind!

On a side note: I recently just changed my settings to 'AF track priority' and the sensitivity to the fastest. It's insane.

What are you using fast sensitivity for? I haven't messed with that because when I'm shooting wildlife I don't want the camera to quickly change focus to, say, a branch in front of or behind a critter. Does the fast setting help with a quicky moving object?

Ditto with 'sport', depending on what you're shooting. With football, there's nothing worse than losing your focus on a RB (for example) because a CB or WR just shot through your frame.

But don't get me started. We'll be on another "Why I hate referees" thread in a moment!

tonylong wrote in post #5254489
What are you using fast sensitivity for? I haven't messed with that because when I'm shooting wildlife I don't want the camera to quickly change focus to, say, a branch in front of or behind a critter. Does the fast setting help with a quicky moving object?

Track and field. I use the AF-on button, so just a tap, and I'm ready to go. If you hold it down after it achieves focus, it may keep on trying to focus so it becomes a bit jittery, so I'm not sure if it helps with stationary wildlife as much. But for moving objects , it works very well for me.

MkIII 14 bit RAW files are better.

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've been a big fan of the 5D for a for years now. I have 2 to be exact. I said the same thing until I bought one the other week. So glad I did! It is all that! everything is better... I couldn't see what the fuss was all about until I use the M3 for over a week. I'm not going back to any of my non-1D Bodies.

I thought the 1Ds3 had significant transfer improvements. In Canon's white paper (yeah, it's marketing materials), "With a UDMA-compliant CF card, the data transfer speed is twice as fast as with the EOS-1D Mark III, and the writing speed is on par with the EOS-1D Mark III (and about 3 times as fast as the EOS-1Ds Mark II) even though the pixel count is twice as large." Also, in The Digital Picture's review, the reviewer gives similar credit to this camera.

pjtemplin wrote in post #5255658
I thought the 1Ds3 had significant transfer improvements. In Canon's white paper (yeah, it's marketing materials), "With a UDMA-compliant CF card, the data transfer speed is twice as fast as with the EOS-1D Mark III, and the writing speed is on par with the EOS-1D Mark III (and about 3 times as fast as the EOS-1Ds Mark II) even though the pixel count is twice as large." Also, in The Digital Picture's review, the reviewer gives similar credit to this camera.

Also, you need to have HTP off, high ISO noise reduction turned off, and long exposure noise reduction off. Plus, higher ISOs in general take a little longer. Oh, and if you shoot JPEG it's even faster. Nonetheless, even a full size RAW with HTP and noise reduction on, it's pretty fast. I usually don't shoot too many bursts.but when I was messing around with the AI servo, it seemed pretty fast... It certainly writes faster than the 5D after a burst.

pjtemplin wrote in post #5255658
I thought the 1Ds3 had significant transfer improvements. In Canon's white paper (yeah, it's marketing materials), "With a UDMA-compliant CF card, the data transfer speed is twice as fast as with the EOS-1D Mark III, and the writing speed is on par with the EOS-1D Mark III (and about 3 times as fast as the EOS-1Ds Mark II) even though the pixel count is twice as large." Also, in The Digital Picture's review, the reviewer gives similar credit to this camera.

I was talking about after you take the card out of the camera and start downloading the files to the computer. Twice the file size equals twice the download time. Also it takes longer to transfer them over the network. Most sports photographers aren't willing to make their day any longer than it already is and photos from the 1D Mk III are more than good enough for the newspaper.

The longer time to transfer files from a 1Ds is a result of the files being about two times the size of the files in the Mark III. As well as I understand, the internal processing ability is about the same.........

Mark H

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #5254686
MkIII 14 bit RAW files are better.

But only if processing with DPP, not photoshop.

Do you mean for ACR conversion?
I don't use PSCS ACR to process RAW files,.
And I've not noticed this limitation in Photoshop?

DPP, Bibble, Lightroom and Breezebrowser, the four RAW programs I have that read MKIII files, all seem to work very well with the MarkIII's RAW files, all can handle 16 bit out put from 14 bit RAW files so I'm not sure where this limitation you are imposing on "photoshop" would come from?

Anyway, I may be the odd man out, but resolution aside, the 14 bit color and whatever other advancements that were made with the Mark III's CMOS and processor, IMHO show a very noticeable improvement in color and overall image quality over the previous generations of DSLR including the 5D and MkIIn, and even the 1Ds MarkII
Though the 1Ds' 16MP resolution makes the overall advantage still for the 1Ds, I do not feel this is the case with the 5D's small 2MP resolution lead. Here the benefits of the MarkIII's advances outstrip the 5D's resolution ( IMHO )

Then there is the FF vs 1.3x crop, and total res vs. pixel density is a matter of what one shoots, no definite advantage for everyone;

Some will need/want the 5D's ff and slightly higher MP over the advances in the MarkIII images..
Some will need/want the MarkIII's higher pixel density for telephoto detail along with the 14 bit etc..

Still very different cameras, with different appeals for different applications. For the "all in one user" it comes down to what is more important to them.
If I could afford to hold on to all of the above, and carry then all around, I would keep a 5D as well.
I can't though, so for me the one camera I find that does it all for me, with the emphasis on what I shoot the most, is the MkIII.

^^^ Thanks for this post. I think you've summed it up nicely.