new Canon 1D MKIII - should you buy?

[JSPhoto]

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/4326-6501-65...ml?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

[specradio]

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:

Weekend Part 1 Football

[specradio]

*edit double post

[JETA]

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:

Weekend Part 1 Football

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.

[JSPhoto]

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:

Weekend Part 1 Football

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

[specradio]

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?)



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



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'.



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

[JSPhoto]

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]

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.

[Loupey]

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.

[specradio]

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.

[JETA]

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.

[specradio]

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.

[Jimmy B]

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

[livin4lax09]

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

[JETA]

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.

[Loupey]

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]

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.

[JSPhoto]

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

[livin4lax09]

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

[specradio]

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?

[SmartWombat]

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.

[Jimmy B]

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

[SmartWombat]

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.

[Jimmy B]

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

[SmartWombat]

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 ?