Canon 1DS Mk III review is finally up at DPReview

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Mark Thomas, Aug 18, 2008.

  1. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Mark Thomas, Aug 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark Thomas

    Annika1980 Guest

    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, Aug 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark Thomas

    SMS Guest

    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!
    SMS, Aug 18, 2008
    #3
  4. Mark Thomas

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
    ASAAR, Aug 18, 2008
    #4
  5. Mark Thomas

    measekite Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "ASAAR" <> 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.
    >
    >
    measekite, Aug 18, 2008
    #5
  6. Mark Thomas

    ASAAR Guest

    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?
    ASAAR, Aug 18, 2008
    #6
  7. Mark Thomas

    ASAAR Guest

    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. :)
    ASAAR, Aug 18, 2008
    #7
  8. Mark Thomas

    D-Mac Guest

    measekite wrote:
    >
    >
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "ASAAR" <> 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, Aug 18, 2008
    #8
  9. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    OT-ish Re: Canon 1DS Mk III review is finally up at DPReview

    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/rec.photo.digital/browse_frm/thread/56cba655ae971d75

    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.)
    Mark Thomas, Aug 18, 2008
    #9
  10. John Sheehy <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote in
    >> John Sheehy <> 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*
    pissed 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 21, 2008
    #10
  11. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:
    > John Sheehy wrote:


    >> Canon has dropped the ball in many ways, but they still have the DSLR
    >> with the best RAW IQ at this point in time.


    > LOL! Tell that to the people that are voting with their feet and buying the
    > good old D3.


    All 3 of them!
    I don't expect the others who already have serious Nikon glass to change.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 21, 2008
    #11
  12. Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > John Sheehy <> wrote:
    >> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote in

    []
    >>> 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*
    > pissed off by that behaviour.


    (I hope I got the attribution correct)

    Shouldn't that be fixed easily with a firmware upgrade? Has anyone
    actually asked Nikon?

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 21, 2008
    #12
  13. Mark Thomas

    John Sheehy Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in
    news::

    > John Sheehy wrote:


    >> Canon has dropped the ball in many ways, but they still have the DSLR
    >> with the best RAW IQ at this point in time.


    > LOL! Tell that to the people that are voting with their feet and
    > buying the good old D3.


    There are good and bad reasons to buy a D3. The belief that it has better
    IQ than the 1Ds3 is false, and a bad reason.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    John Sheehy, Aug 21, 2008
    #13
  14. David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> John Sheehy <> wrote:
    >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote in


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


    > Shouldn't that be fixed easily with a firmware upgrade?


    Of course, trivially at that!
    Though the observed noise behaviour would be worse for non-Mode
    3 users, which may or may not be a reason for Nikon to stop
    doing that.

    > Has anyone actually asked Nikon?


    I wouldn't know.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 22, 2008
    #14
  15. Mark Thomas

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:09:21 -0400, Rita Berkowitz wrote:

    >> There are good and bad reasons to buy a D3. The belief that it has
    >> better IQ than the 1Ds3 is false, and a bad reason.

    >
    > Hell, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying that the IQ is
    > equal when we both know the D3 is much sharper and cleaner. The sad part for
    > Canon shooters is the 1Ds Mk III is offering so much less for $3,000 more.
    > Most sane people are embarrassed to admit they own a 1dS Mk III.


    and too embarrassed to claim that their Panasonic FZ50 is the
    worlds bestest, mostest superest duperest high detail, low noise
    camera on the planet. Maybe that's why Sheehy's promised rebuttals
    to Roger Clarke's criticisms never materialized. Temporarily too
    busy saith he. Yet in the intervening month or two, monkey man
    (appropriate sig image) had enough time in DPR's forums to post
    perhaps hundreds of his trademarked 'noisy' replies. Not that his
    relative silence here was anything to complain about. :)
    ASAAR, Aug 22, 2008
    #15
  16. Mark Thomas

    John Sheehy Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in
    news::

    > Hell, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying that the IQ
    > is equal when we both know the D3 is much sharper and cleaner.


    Only you "know" that, and you know wrong. The 1Ds3 has more pixels, and
    a weaker AA filter, so how in the world could it be less sharp than the
    D3? You don't make a bit of sense. You are a frothing-at-the-mouth fan-
    androgyne.

    > The sad
    > part for Canon shooters is the 1Ds Mk III is offering so much less for
    > $3,000 more. Most sane people are embarrassed to admit they own a 1dS
    > Mk III.


    I've never spent more than $1600 on a digital camera, but if I were told
    that I had to buy a D3 or a 1Ds3, else I'd forfeit $5K, I'd pay the extra
    $3K and buy the latter. Might put a Nikon 14-28 f/2.8 on it, but that's
    what I'd buy.


    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    John Sheehy, Aug 22, 2008
    #16
  17. Mark Thomas

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:
    >John Sheehy wrote:
    >
    >>>> Canon has dropped the ball in many ways, but they still have the
    >>>> DSLR with the best RAW IQ at this point in time.

    >>
    >>> LOL! Tell that to the people that are voting with their feet and
    >>> buying the good old D3.

    >>
    >> There are good and bad reasons to buy a D3. The belief that it has
    >> better IQ than the 1Ds3 is false, and a bad reason.

    >
    >Hell, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying that the IQ is
    >equal when we both know the D3 is much sharper and cleaner. The sad part for



    _____________________
    /| /| | |
    ||__|| | Do not feed the |
    / O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
    / \ | --Mgt. |
    / \ \|_____________________|
    / _ \ \ ||
    / |\____\ \ ||
    / | | | |\____/ ||
    / \|_|_|/ | _||
    / / \ |____| ||
    / | | | --|
    | | | |____ --|
    * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
    *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
    / _ \\ | / `
    * / \_ /- | | |
    * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Aug 23, 2008
    #17
  18. Mark Thomas

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:
    >John Sheehy wrote:
    >
    >>> Hell, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying that the IQ
    >>> is equal when we both know the D3 is much sharper and cleaner.

    >>
    >> Only you "know" that, and you know wrong. The 1Ds3 has more pixels,
    >> and a weaker AA filter, so how in the world could it be less sharp
    >> than the D3? You don't make a bit of sense. You are a
    >> frothing-at-the-mouth fan- androgyne.

    >
    >Only on the paper and spreadsheets of technical fiction writers.


    As opposed to the patently false propaganda of a dishonest cultist?

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Aug 23, 2008
    #18
  19. Mark Thomas

    John Sheehy Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in
    news::

    > John Sheehy wrote:


    >> Only you "know" that, and you know wrong. The 1Ds3 has more pixels,
    >> and a weaker AA filter, so how in the world could it be less sharp
    >> than the D3? You don't make a bit of sense. You are a
    >> frothing-at-the-mouth fan- androgyne.


    > Only on the paper and spreadsheets of technical fiction writers.
    > Print a 20"x30" print and you'll see the D3 has the edge in most cases
    > and the Mk III in others.


    Rita, are you a fan of the mosaic look? We can get even closer to it by
    binning the 1Ds3 2x2.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    John Sheehy, Aug 23, 2008
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Randall Gillespie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    363
    Randall Gillespie
    Oct 3, 2004
  2. Bob G
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    455
    TJWilson
    Mar 6, 2007
  3. Giovanni Azua
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    289
  4. Rita Ä Berkowitz
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    894
    Yoshi
    Apr 4, 2007
  5. Joe

    Canon 1Ds Mk III Sensor?

    Joe, Aug 7, 2006, in forum: Canon
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    337
    Bill Funk
    Aug 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page