One advantage of shooting the Indy 500 is getting to try new Canon gear out or see the results of new gear and last week I got to see the MKIII and it is simply amazing. It has a very large screen and the screen has something many have been asking for in a digital camera, you can watch the screen and see what you are shooting just like a video camera.
The really amazing thing though about this new camera is the noise, Canon has once again taken a huge leap over all the other manufactuers in noise quality with the new sensor that has less noise at ISO 6400 than Nikons best at ISO 400! Now thats amazing!

My only complaint about the new MKIII is that it isn't heavy enough, it is a 1 1/2 lighter than the previous 1D bodies and looks like the 1D with the 20D feel due to it's weight. I prefer the heavier body, for one I am used to it and it feels better to me.

However I may have to see about getting one of these new beasts just for the low light, high ISO capabilities that will eliminate the need for flash in most gyms I shoot at. I spend $1,500 a year just for batteries so that helps offset the $4500 cost of the new body.

Overall I give the new body a 9 and a :thumbsup:

JS

Ya, I heard the noise is minimal on the MKIII...... Makes me drool. :D

Wonder how the weight distribution would feel to me. I like the balance with the MK IIn I have when I use my 70-200 lens, but I wonder if less weight would be a better trade off? Wait, it doesn't matter. Even I can't justify buying myself a MK III.

I agree, the MKIIN is perfectly balanced with the 70-200 and 28-300 and maybe 100-400, 400DO and 35-350, however with bigger and smaller lenses that issue gets thrown out the window.
After seeing it I seriously am considering getting one, if nothing else for those dungeons I have to shoot in :eek:

JS

Wonder what one could get for a barely used MKIIn? ;)

not near what you have in it.... :( thats the sad part of it.. and it's too bad they can't upgrade the old bodies.

JS

It's getting rave reviews. The photography mag I get practically drooled over it. Like John said the selling points are less noise and ability to shoot in low light. Do you think they made it lighter to handle the weight of a battery grip? It's not in my budget, but it looks to be a great camera. John, price wise how does this camera stack up against the competition? For me the Digital Rebel XT was my next step up. Would this be the next one or would you suggest that only serious pros put out that kinda dough?

Jeta I know someone about 40 miles north of you that would consider your old camera body:-) just no way I could swing it this year:-(
Jimmy B

It's getting rave reviews. The photography mag I get practically drooled over it. Like John said the selling points are less noise and ability to shoot in low light. Do you think they made it lighter to handle the weight of a battery grip? It's not in my budget, but it looks to be a great camera. John, price wise how does this camera stack up against the competition? For me the Digital Rebel XT was my next step up. Would this be the next one or would you suggest that only serious pros put out that kinda dough?

Nope, you don't need a battery grip with these, I have shot for 10 days on one charge, the MKIIN is great in that regard, unlike the old 1D where I had to charge it constantly.

As for whether this would be right for you....it all depends on if your making money or not and whether you can justify it.
Right now I can't do it due to GAS prices....$3.39 a gallon, up .20cents over night :mad:

JS

Thanks JS for passing on this information. I've been saving up for this since I heard it was coming out because of the low light mostly. It's nice to hear from someone first hand who has had a chance to shoot it.

Also, have you heard of a release date, other than in May?

Jim

Jeta I know someone about 40 miles north of you that would consider your old camera body:-) just no way I could swing it this year:-(
Jimmy B

Thanks Jimmy. I'm going to do some more research and hit the camera shop soon to have a looksie for myself. Right now we are in the middle of having a pool put in our backyard so I can't afford to make a move in the next couple of months. If I like the Mark III I'd love to have it by Sept for our game at Seahawk Stadium, but I think I'm dreamin'.

Homer,
It appears the official release will be in June, apparently the AP and some select shooters will get them for the 500. Canon has a habit of using the 500 and Super Bowl as testing for new releases of Pro bodies and "L" lenses.

Now I have to figure out which lens I want to use for race day. First I have to find out exactly where I am shooting, a turn, the garage or the pits :confused: The first and last are the best possibilities, and the last would be my preference but it depends on getting the "hot pass" :thumbsup: for race day. I already have pit access the rest of the month :D

JS

JS, you are in big trouble. Can you tell me why I was dreaming about this camera last night? :D

Do you have the pics you shot? Were you able to try it out in low light?

Does the camera shots get a demo b4 it's released?

God help me. I'm too interested in this camera.:mad2:

I tried it at PMA and I'm a convert.
Lighter (good).
Quieter (good).
Faster (good).
Faster AF (good).
Better AF (good).
Micro-focus compensation per lens (good).
Waterproof flash to fit body (good).

I haven't used on in anger, so I can't say how it'll perform in action.
But the budget is now torn between a 400mm L IS, or the 1DmIII

I think I just have to sell to 20D and the EF-S 10-22 and then raid the piggy bank.
Perhaps sell the L IS 100-400 as well.

JS, you are in big trouble. Can you tell me why I was dreaming about this camera last night? :D

Do you have the pics you shot? Were you able to try it out in low light?

Does the camera shots get a demo b4 it's released?

God help me. I'm too interested in this camera.:mad2:
#1: I am always in trouble...nothing new there :rolleyes:
#2: Ummmm, nope, can't help ya there.... I'd be dreaming about it too but I am too dang tired!
#3: Nope, they were just quickies in the office, and the light isn't too hot there
#4: answered above
#5: I don't know, depends on the dealer and their rep with Canon I guess

I got to see it because Canon is the official camera of the Indy 500 and they have an office at the track.

#6: Guess I'm in trouble again....:D

JS

the track.

#6: Guess I'm in trouble again....:D

JS

At least you own it! :yesnod:

Thanks as always for answering my laundry list of stupid questions. You know there'll be more coming! :D

At least you own it! :yesnod:

Thanks as always for answering my laundry list of stupid questions. You know there'll be more coming! :D


Thanks JETA :eek:

And the only stupid questions are the ones that are not asked - although I may not always have an answer for the ones that are asked :confused:

JS

Since stupid questions are welcome. :D

It uploads pics with USB 2? Am I missing something here? Wouldn't this be painstakingly slooooooooooow?

Since stupid questions are welcome. :D

It uploads pics with USB 2? Am I missing something here? Wouldn't this be painstakingly slooooooooooow?

It can be, however your better off using a card reader anyway. The only way I use the cable is if I am using the remote software to shoot with, which is great for nature stuff.

JS

Can you show me what kind of card reader you use? I couldn't ever get mine to work with my Canon cameras.

That could be difficult as it's built into my elcheapo E-Machine computer. On my laptop I use a plugin Sandisk card to read them. Never had a problem on any computer using a card reader, I'd check to make sure you have all the drivers installed, thats usually the issue with this type of thing.

JS

With the new firmware release in the USA (but not the UK, boo) some AF issues are fixed, by changing the camera's preference for near/far focus when there is high contract in the background and not in the focus area.

I've also seen reports that hint later manufactured bodies have better AF than earlier, but it's not conclusive by any means.

Looks like the beta testers have been through it, and we have something reliable hitting the shops. I am glad this time my head ruled my heart and I waited.

I'm more then happy with mine. Take that with a grain of salt from someone with not alot of experience. Maybe a teeny weeny bit of backfocusing, but I'm skeptical it's the camera. I haven't had any time to mess with the microfocus or many of the other custom functions.

I was happy to see the firmware for no other reason then it makes me feel better.

My plan was to hang onto my Mark IIn for 3-4 months just because of the Mark III issues I read about. I'm ready to let go of my Mark IIn. There's no need for it any more in my life. In the last two weeks during football camp my plan was to use it. Never once pulled it out. I'm ready to let go of my security blanket. I'm falling in love with my Mark III.

I'm falling in love with my Mark III.
I know I will, when I get mine.

Canon has once again taken a huge leap over all the other manufactuers in noise quality with the new sensor that has less noise at ISO 6400 than Nikons best at ISO 400! Now thats amazing!


Wherever you found that fact, I suggest you don't visit that site anymore because it's definitely not true. That's just spewing BS everywhere in an act to advertise for Canon. I suggest you edit that post because it's not true. ISO1600 would be more reasonable.

EDIT: http://reviews.cnet.com/4326-6501-6578722-4.html?tag=ss_thmb
It actually looks like ISO 3200 on a D200. Whoever gave you that "Opinion" needs to learn how to use a camera.

http://www.pbase.com/image/80756931
That looks really bad.

many have stated (and I agree) that nikons are better at lower ISOs than canons are. It's when they get into the higher ISOs that canon trumps them. But specradio is right, ISO 400 looks much better than ISO 6400.

and in reality, it's really about exposure too. ISO 6400 on a canon correctly exposed or +1/3 is going to look better than nikon ISO 400 underexposed.

Wherever you found that fact, I suggest you don't visit that site anymore because it's definitely not true. That's just spewing BS everywhere in an act to advertise for Canon. I suggest you edit that post because it's not true. ISO1600 would be more reasonable.

EDIT: http://reviews.cnet.com/4326-6501-6578722-4.html?tag=ss_thmb
It actually looks like ISO 3200 on a D200. Whoever gave you that "Opinion" needs to learn how to use a camera.

http://www.pbase.com/image/80756931
That looks really bad.

I'm not going to change anything, I saw it first hand, straight from each camera to the exact same monitor and printer, no doubt about it, the Canon blows Nikon away, it isn't hype, better see it in an actuall side by side comparison in front of you before you go off telling people to edit their posts.

JS

I'm not going to change anything, I saw it first hand, straight from each camera to the exact same monitor and printer, no doubt about it, the Canon blows Nikon away, it isn't hype, better see it in an actuall side by side comparison in front of you before you go off telling people to edit their posts.

JS

Well, I guess you know a lot about noise. You shoot ISO3200 full time.

And if you're trying to say something good for Canon, don't say anything about Noise on any camera if your pictures look like this:

http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=34667

*edit double post

Well, I guess you know a lot about noise. You shoot ISO3200 full time.

And if you're trying to say something good for Canon, don't say anything about Noise on any camera if your pictures look like this:

http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=34667

The beauty of this board is a common respect for everyone no matter what their level.

I'd never suggest any edit their post until I read this. :( Please stop it.

Well, I guess you know a lot about noise. You shoot ISO3200 full time.

And if you're trying to say something good for Canon, don't say anything about Noise on any camera if your pictures look like this:

http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=34667


Well since this a forum where we try to help those who do not understand things in photography and not to bash or accuse people of things I will now explain to you that these shots have absolutly nothing to do with noise.These look the way they do because of resizing them for this site and having done so after they had been processed for another use causing them to be saved in a very lossy form in order to fit site constraints on file size.

JS

Well since this a forum where we try to help those who do not understand things in photography and not to bash or accuse people of things I will now explain to you that these shots have absolutly nothing to do with noise.These look the way they do because of resizing them for this site and having done so after they had been processed for another use causing them to be saved in a very lossy form in order to fit site constraints on file size.

JS

When I get home, I'll do that to one of my pictures, just to make sure!

Update:

Original 210mm F5 ISO800(?Not Sure?)

http://www.topicify.com/shakervz7.jpg

Saved at JPEG Quality 1 of 100 in Photoshop CS2 'Save For Web'

http://www.topicify.com/shakerlow.jpg

Where is this 'chroma' noise you speak of when saving it really low quality? I don't see any!

And Finally, to get my picture to look like yours, I had to go to 'add noise' and use around 5% gaussin noise, and then had to severely mess with the curves. Also saved at Quality 1 of 100 in Photoshop CS2 'Save For Web'.

http://www.topicify.com/shakerlow2.jpg

Don't try to give me some excuse and say 'I Know Nothing'. Oh and check your PM, I gave you a kind response.

Specradio,
Of course it doesn't look like those that I did. Your going about it wrong and your confusing one thing for another, so you won't get it right. I don't have time to go through it with you as I have work to do, but when you take an already processed file thats degraded and then degrade it even more you'll get what I had. It has nothing to do with noise.
Now on to important things...like work.

JS

Specradio,
Of course it doesn't look like those that I did. Your going about it wrong and your confusing one thing for another, so you won't get it right. I don't have time to go through it with you as I have work to do, but when you take an already processed file thats degraded and then degrade it even more you'll get what I had. It has nothing to do with noise.
Now on to important things...like work.

JS

Great Explanation! Did anybody else not get anything he just typed?

You are the epitome of narcissism.

Great Explanation! Did anybody else not get anything he just typed?

You are the epitome of narcissism.

I, along with the 681 (minus 1) viewers of this thread, would like to see this thread matured up.

I came here looking for info on the MkIII as it is on my list to purchase soon. My old 10D has a "usable" upper ISO end of 200. When I purchased the 30D, the salesman did a good job of claiming "noiseless" images at ISO 1600. I wasn't sold on that claim but did purchase it for other reasons. I find the 30D has a "usable" upper ISO of 400 (still a considerable improvement IMO).

Now I'm curious how the 1 DmkIII stacks against the 30D noise-wise. Even if the noise is compariable at ISO 800 against my 30D's ISO 400, it would make a worthwhile investment for me as most of my shots are low light and/or DOF critical. But other people have claimed that the noise level is comparable at even higher ranges with the MkIII.

I would like to hear/see more examples from those who are now using this camera.

I, along with the 681 (minus 1) viewers of this thread, would like to see this thread matured up.

I came here looking for info on the MkIII as it is on my list to purchase soon. My old 10D has a "usable" upper ISO end of 200. When I purchased the 30D, the salesman did a good job of claiming "noiseless" images at ISO 1600. I wasn't sold on that claim but did purchase it for other reasons. I find the 30D has a "usable" upper ISO of 400 (still a considerable improvement IMO).

Now I'm curious how the 1 DmkIII stacks against the 30D noise-wise. Even if the noise is compariable at ISO 800 against my 30D's ISO 400, it would make a worthwhile investment for me as most of my shots are low light and/or DOF critical. But other people have claimed that the noise level is comparable at even higher ranges with the MkIII.

I would like to hear/see more examples from those who are now using this camera.

It's not the camera that improves your imaging. Why don't people seem to get that through their head? I'm running a D50, 70-300 F4-5.6, 24-70 F2.8, and I still seem to get pictures that stand up to people with 1D2n's and Canon 24-70 F2.8's.

Loupey, what type of tests could I do with my Mark III that you'd like to see?

I was quite please with some pics I took in the weight room at 2000 ISO.

Advise me on what you think would be a good way to test this out. I'd be more then happy to.

Loupey, what type of tests could I do with my Mark III that you'd like to see?

I was quite please with some pics I took in the weight room at 2000 ISO.

Advise me on what you think would be a good way to test this out. I'd be more then happy to.

ISO 6400 Please. On a Flower.

for any one with a 1D ever use....... 50 ISO I wish I had it on my 30D. Have a wonderful day, Jimmy B

ISO 50? I don't have it on my 1d... although it is a mark I. only 200 and L.

Mark IIn & Mark III go down to 50. I've almost never used it on the IIn and haven't yet on the III.

Jimmy, did you want me to test it out for you on anything in particular, or better yet. Why don't you come and pick up are IIn and try it out for yourself. :D

It's not the camera that improves your imaging. Why don't people seem to get that through their head?

That statement used to hold true when cameras were simply fancy boxes which held the film. Now, cameras have become the film themselves so saying that different cameras don't affect the images is analogous to saying that different films don't affect the images.

Believe me, I'm all about using existing equipment in ways others haven't/don't. I used my 10D up until this past December. So I know when I've reached the full potential of the equipment and I can recognize when I need to upgrade.

Loupey, what type of tests could I do with my Mark III that you'd like to see?


Jeta - thank you for the kind offer. Do you have anything outdoors around dusk at around ISO 1600? If you have a full frame image along with a tight crop of a section - preferrably without any noise reduction done in post processing - that would be great.

I have many wildlife shots with those conditions and I can try to match up anything you might have to show some comparative examples here.

ISO 50? I don't have it on my 1d... although it is a mark I. only 200 and L.

50 ISO is availablr theough Custom Functions or Personal Functions and can be turned on and off as needed, although I left it on in case it was needed, but rarely used it. One thing the original 1D did though the MKIIN doesn't and that us a shutter speed of 16000 which would stop most things dead in their tracks.

JS

I know, ISO expansion, C.Fn 3, but I assumed L ISO was 100, not 50.

yeah, just tested it and ISO L is 100.

ISO 200 - 1600 in 1/3 stop steps, ISO 100 or 3200 available from a custom function

50 ISO is availablr theough Custom Functions or Personal Functions and can be turned on and off as needed, although I left it on in case it was needed, but rarely used it. One thing the original 1D did though the MKIIN doesn't and that us a shutter speed of 16000 which would stop most things dead in their tracks.

JS

Will you be taking pictures of the sun itself?

for any one with a 1D ever use....... 50 ISO I wish I had it on my 30D.
Yes, I use 50 ISO whenever I can on the 1DSII.

Thanks Paul and everyone
Jeta I sure would like to give it a shot but I am busy the next few weekends.
I like using 50 ISO on my p&s just because I can.
Jimmy B

I like using 50 ISO on my p&s just because I can.
Is it any good?

I went from the MInolta A1 to the A2, form 5MP to 8MP on the same size sensor.
The minimum ISO available went from 100 to 80 and I thought it would be better like film when you go to lower ISO..
Wrong.
In almost every aspect except resolution, the A2 was inferior to the A1.
Particularly noticeable was the higher shadow noise.

Paul my shots taken for last months project night photos were taken @ISO 50, I did get a few good comments? you tell me if I was wasting my time? I had fun taking them.
JB

Paul my shots taken for last months project night photos were taken @ISO 50, I did get a few good comments? you tell me if I was wasting my time? I had fun taking them.
JB

I thought you used 30D or dRebel for those, not P&S ?

On that trip I only took the p&s and a mini tripod. Check your PMs.
Jimmy

For those of you wanting to see the high ISO performance see this shot by Photo John
http://gallery.photographyreview.com/showphoto.php?photo=80145&what=allfields&crproducts=385769:Canon%20EOS-1D%20Mark%20III|&mcats=518

And check out his Yellowstone thread in viewfinder that has links to more info and shots at various ISO's
It really IS as good as they say!

JS

On that trip I only took the p&s and a mini tripod.

And I thought they were good for your DSLR !
No problems with low ISO and long exposure on that P&S.
They look good.

I'm going to have to check in to this body. Anything to help shoot night rodeos would be welcome.

I'm going to have to check in to this body. Anything to help shoot night rodeos would be welcome.

That body and a 580EX flash should do the job very well :thumbsup:

JS