«

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/

...for anyone who likes that sort of thing.

On Aug 18, 7:46*am, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com>
wrote:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/
>


"Nikon's D3, launched almost simultaneously to rapturous response
might stolen a little of the Mark III's thunder, but the truth is that
in many respects it is the Canon flagship model that most deserves to
sit at the very top of the digital SLR tree."

"...it'll be interesting to see where the Mark III sits in the grand
scheme of things by next spring. But for now it is, essentially,
peerless."

Annika1980 wrote:

> "...it'll be interesting to see where the Mark III sits in the grand
> scheme of things by next spring. But for now it is, essentially,
> peerless."

In price as well as image quality!

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:32:47 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 wrote:

>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/
>>
>
>
> "Nikon's D3, launched almost simultaneously to rapturous response
> might stolen a little of the Mark III's thunder, but the truth is that
> in many respects it is the Canon flagship model that most deserves to
> sit at the very top of the digital SLR tree."
>
> "...it'll be interesting to see where the Mark III sits in the grand
> scheme of things by next spring. But for now it is, essentially,
> peerless."

Of course you left out the part of the review that indicated that
its perch atop the SLR tree was due to its high resolution, and how
little difference there was between what it produced and what the
Mark II and D3 were capable of (per Littleboy) coughing up.

While it may be at the top of a landscape or studio photographer's
SLR tree, it's not the only tree in the forest, and the D3 perches
above the Mark III in most sports, PJ and wildlife photographer's
SLR trees. As DPR also pointed out, the high priced Mark III
($8,000) doesn't automatically confer its high resolution advantage.
It also requires a slew of equally high priced lenses to do its
magic. Unless these lenses are already owned, expect an entry level
1DS Mark III kit for many owners to require $15,000, $20,000 or
more.

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "ASAAR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> While it may be at the top of a landscape or studio photographer's
>> SLR tree, it's not the only tree in the forest, and the D3 perches
>> above the Mark III in most sports, PJ and wildlife photographer's
>> SLR trees.
>>
>
> Well, Doh!. Shooting sports with a 22MP camera on a daily basis would be
> pretty dumb. Heck, 12MP is way overkill; 8 or 10 MP in a 1.3x crop makes a
> lot more sense.
>
> And the D3, with it's lower pixel density, is going to be lower on the
> wildlife photographer's wish list.
>
> If Canon comes out with a 16 or 17MP 5DII, it's the D3 that's going to be
> looking pointless: too few pixels for pictorial work/too many for sports/PJ.
>
> Then there's the point that for a lot of sports, 10 fps doesn't get you a
> significantly better chance than 5 fps does. (Calculate how far a fast pitch
> (or slapshot) travels in 1/10 second.); People got great sports shots with
> 4x5 Speed Graphics.
>


While you may have made a point and I personally would not spend the
amount of money a D3 costs ( or even a 1DsMKIII or maybe even a 5DmkII)
one has to remember that one of the major features of the D3 is the
ability to produce very low light low noise high ISO photos. If that is
what one is after then the D3 currently has not competition. But who
knows how long that will last.
>
>> As DPR also pointed out, the high priced Mark III
>> ($8,000) doesn't automatically confer its high resolution advantage.
>> It also requires a slew of equally high priced lenses to do its
>> magic. Unless these lenses are already owned, expect an entry level
>> 1DS Mark III kit for many owners to require $15,000, $20,000 or
>> more.
>>
>
> Huh? The lenses aren't all that expensive. Any of the primes from 24 to
> 200mm will produce superb images on the 1Ds3. Especially, if one is
> intelligent about how one uses them (doesn't shoot wide open when one needs
> max sharpness, just as one did on film). And if you need longer lenses, the
> cheaper lenses look bad on the 5D/D3 as well, so there's no difference in
> lens costs there.
>
>

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:30:31 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

>> While it may be at the top of a landscape or studio photographer's
>> SLR tree, it's not the only tree in the forest, and the D3 perches
>> above the Mark III in most sports, PJ and wildlife photographer's
>> SLR trees.
>
> Well, Doh!. Shooting sports with a 22MP camera on a daily basis would be
> pretty dumb. Heck, 12MP is way overkill; 8 or 10 MP in a 1.3x crop makes a
> lot more sense.

Then we're in agreement. For sports shooting the Mark III doesn't
earn a perch on the highest branch.


> And the D3, with it's lower pixel density, is going to be lower on the
> wildlife photographer's wish list.

There are wildlife photographers and wildlife photographers. I
recall discussions you and Roger took part in a year or three ago
talking about the difficulty of getting some types of wildlife shots
where having really long lenses with very wide apertures and
especially cameras with the fastest target acquisition and tracking
were critical for getting a reasonably high percentage of keepers.
The Mark III, fine as it is, wasn't designed with that type of
shooting in mind. I guess that you've also noticed that the
photographer's areas in the Olympics are no longer a sea of nothing
but large, white lenses.


> If Canon comes out with a 16 or 17MP 5DII, it's the D3 that's going to be
> looking pointless: too few pixels for pictorial work/too many for sports/PJ.

All hail Littleboy! The Canonista returns! I was wondering where
you'd gone.


> Then there's the point that for a lot of sports, 10 fps doesn't get you a
> significantly better chance than 5 fps does. (Calculate how far a fast pitch
> (or slapshot) travels in 1/10 second.); People got great sports shots with
> 4x5 Speed Graphics.

Here's a clue. Sports photographers need cameras and lenses that
excel in all of the sports they're assigned, not just a tiny subset.
How many shots taken today of runners sliding into second base or of
dekeing(sp?) basketball players or football players cutting and
running (Democrats?) are likely to be taken with 4x5 Speed Graphics.
The only thing that "Speed" indicates today is the lack of . . .

Thom Hogan made the point a couple of days ago that the reason why
the photographers at the Olympics almost exclusively use Nikon and
Canon cameras is that they're the brands where the speed lies.
Olympus, Pentax, etc. may make cameras that take pictures with more
than enough image quality, but organizations that can afford to send
teams of photographers aren't about to hobble them with gear that
shoots at 1/2 to 1/3 the rate. One or two great images missed can
represent a financial loss greater than the cost of all of the
expensive photo gear.


>> As DPR also pointed out, the high priced Mark III
>> ($8,000) doesn't automatically confer its high resolution advantage.
>> It also requires a slew of equally high priced lenses to do its
>> magic. Unless these lenses are already owned, expect an entry level
>> 1DS Mark III kit for many owners to require $15,000, $20,000 or
>> more.
>
> Huh? The lenses aren't all that expensive. Any of the primes from 24 to
> 200mm will produce superb images on the 1Ds3. Especially, if one is
> intelligent about how one uses them (doesn't shoot wide open when one needs
> max sharpness, just as one did on film). And if you need longer lenses, the
> cheaper lenses look bad on the 5D/D3 as well, so there's no difference in
> lens costs there.

That last sentence is worthy of RichA, not you. I wasn't talking
about the 5D or D3. If the Mark III is used with cheaper lenses,
the photographer might as well have saved money by using a 5D or D3.
I was specifically talking about the Mark III owner being able to
achieve the quality that the camera body promises. Paying $8,000
for all that potential and then squandering it with a cheaper lens
would almost be like using a kit lens on a 40D or 5D.

Referring to the high cost, I also did *not* say "for all owners".
Some that get the Mark III may find that one of two of the shorter,
less expensive high quality lenses are sufficient. But I doubt that
Canon expects that all of the photographers that buy the Mark III
will not want to buy any of their long, expensive glass. If they
only buy one lens, they'll have reached $15,000 with a 400mm f/2.8
IS or 600mm f/4.0 IS lens. If that one lens is the 800mm f/5.6 IS
lens, they've reached the $20,000 that I mentioned. But I doubt
that even you would think that anyone purchasing one of these lenses
for the Mark III wouldn't purchase any other lenses. Use yourself
as a non-Mark III data point. How many Canon lenses do you own?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:24:23 -0500, George Kerby wrote:

>> "The EOS-1Ds Mark III sits on its own (for the time being) as the
>> undisputed king of the megapixel."
>
> Eat me, "Rita"!!!!

Is that "king of all DSLRs"? Obviously not. Many of us here have
at least one P&S. Which one would most of us want to own? I'll bet
it wouldn't be one wearing the "king of the megapixel" crown.

measekite wrote:
>
>
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "ASAAR" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> While it may be at the top of a landscape or studio photographer's
>>> SLR tree, it's not the only tree in the forest, and the D3 perches
>>> above the Mark III in most sports, PJ and wildlife photographer's
>>> SLR trees.
>>>
>>
>> Well, Doh!. Shooting sports with a 22MP camera on a daily basis would
>> be pretty dumb. Heck, 12MP is way overkill; 8 or 10 MP in a 1.3x crop
>> makes a lot more sense.
>>
>> And the D3, with it's lower pixel density, is going to be lower on the
>> wildlife photographer's wish list.
>>
>> If Canon comes out with a 16 or 17MP 5DII, it's the D3 that's going to
>> be looking pointless: too few pixels for pictorial work/too many for
>> sports/PJ.
>>
>> Then there's the point that for a lot of sports, 10 fps doesn't get
>> you a significantly better chance than 5 fps does. (Calculate how far
>> a fast pitch (or slapshot) travels in 1/10 second.); People got great
>> sports shots with 4x5 Speed Graphics.
>>
>
>
> While you may have made a point and I personally would not spend the
> amount of money a D3 costs ( or even a 1DsMKIII or maybe even a 5DmkII)
> one has to remember that one of the major features of the D3 is the
> ability to produce very low light low noise high ISO photos. If that is
> what one is after then the D3 currently has not competition. But who
> knows how long that will last.
>>
>>> As DPR also pointed out, the high priced Mark III
>>> ($8,000) doesn't automatically confer its high resolution advantage.
>>> It also requires a slew of equally high priced lenses to do its
>>> magic. Unless these lenses are already owned, expect an entry level
>>> 1DS Mark III kit for many owners to require $15,000, $20,000 or
>>> more.
>>>
>>
>> Huh? The lenses aren't all that expensive. Any of the primes from 24
>> to 200mm will produce superb images on the 1Ds3. Especially, if one is
>> intelligent about how one uses them (doesn't shoot wide open when one
>> needs max sharpness, just as one did on film). And if you need longer
>> lenses, the cheaper lenses look bad on the 5D/D3 as well, so there's
>> no difference in lens costs there.
>>
>>

There is a 32 MP. SLR camera in the same league as the Mk III. A Mamiya
DSLR which will probably be on the shopping list of most serious fashion
poster photographers shopping lists.

It can do double duty as a upper class panorama camera or it would make
a really nice wedding photographer's camera - if any couples could
afford the photographer!

It's the same old story. 35mm! Common as peanuts. Real "Pro" cameras
that don't cost all that much more are never talked about by anyone but
working Pros.

--
Meet my trolls...
#1. Mark Thomas - really Charlie Stevens from South Australia:
http://www.marktphoto.com/whoami.htm
#2. Jeff Ralph - A nasty little bugger from the back of Penrith (NSW)
who fancies himself as a Latin expert.
#3. Steve Brooks (Brooksie) Thinks it's smart to use non keyboard
characters in his (current) screen name.

There's probably a few more but they are so insignificant I can't really
be bothered looking them up.

D-Mac wrote:
> There is a 32 MP. SLR camera in the same league as the Mk III. A Mamiya
> DSLR which will probably be on the shopping list of most serious fashion
> poster photographers shopping lists.
>
> It can do double duty as a upper class panorama camera

For panoramas like this gem?
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/examples/4theidiots.htm

I'm not entirely sure you are qualified on that topic. And of course
we're still waiting on the Manly panorama:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html

> or it would make
> a really nice wedding photographer's camera - if any couples could
> afford the photographer!

Even 'medium-end' weddings are often still shot on MF. Didn't you know
that?

> It's the same old story. 35mm! Common as peanuts. Real "Pro" cameras
> that don't cost all that much more are never talked about by anyone but
> working Pros.

Which conflicts with what you just said.. And not that long ago, you
made this claim as 'Tropical Treat':

"Images from "digicams" ..like the FZ20 and FZ30 ..can be enlarged
...with quality as good as the best 645 cameras and films."

http://groups.google.com.au/group/re...cba655ae971d75

There are 'working pro's', and then there are...


--
mt
(Thanks for adding me to your sig line - I must be getting right up your
nose again.)

John Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> John Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>> You may be confusing software NR with lack of noise (Nikons almost
>>> always receive more NR than Canons, even in the same converter;

>> Obviously, Nikon *needs* that sort of NR :-)

> Historically, perhaps. The D3 doesn't need any heavy noise reduction;
> it's one of the cleanest DSLRs available.

I wonder if they stopped RAW-mangling and bad black level offset.
And yes, I hope Nikon manages to be really good in that area,
so Canon won't become complacent.

>> Even the RAW is smoothed in the camera(!) before saving(!),
>> much to the dismay of the astrophotography crowd.

> It doesn't look smoothed, except for a bit of hot pixel rejection,
> perhaps. There's nothing wrong with that.

Google for Nikon and "Mode 3". The astrocrowd is *really*
****ed off by that behaviour.

> There's no point in assuming
> that a pixel's value is meaningful if it has a value that is optically
> impossible through the AA filter.

A simple median filter isn't checking for that, though.

-Wolfgang