Anyone else drooling over the 1D mark III?

Forced Perfect said:

~huge image~

• 10.1 effective Megapixel APS-H size CMOS sensor; 1.3x focal length conversion
• ISO range of 50 to 6400, with Canon calling the latter "highly usable"
• Live view on a 3.0" LCD display; image can be enlarged 5X or 10X, just like on Olympus and Panasonic's live view cameras
• Dual DIGIC III image processors allow for shooting at a whopping 10 frames/second, for up to 30 RAW or 110 JPEG images
• Ultrasonic dust removal system (just like on the Rebel XTi)
• Upgraded shutter can handle 300,000 cycles
• Full manual controls (obviously) and 57 custom functions
• 45-point autofocus system
• New sRAW format produces smaller files with less resolution; don't worry, regular RAW iss till there
• Camera can be controlled remotely from a Mac or PC using USB or Wi-Fi. Apparently the live view works too.
• CompactFlash and SD/SDHC memory card slots (same as other 1D series cameras)
• Improved software package includes Digital Photo Professional 3.0 and EOS Utility 2.0
• Optional Wi-Fi via WFT-E2A adapter
• Uses new lithium-ion battery; 2200 shots per charge
• Ships this spring for $3999 (body only)

In case you're wondering what 10 frames per second on an SLR sounds like, this is what the previous model (Canon EOS 1D Mark II) sounds like at 8.5 frames per second.

Click to expand...

dang! that shutter sound is HAWT!
hopefully the chicago tribune photographers will get those and then I'll be able to be within a few feet of them. wow! that'd be awesome! sRAW and live view sound like the coolest parts!

It's fairly impressive. Still, I really don't need the speed, I'll stick with my 5D. Unless you're a sports photographer, you really wouldn't be all that blown away.

Theoretically, if I was shooting 10 frames a second, the shutter would last for 8 hours. Hm. That's 10 frames per second for 8.3 hours.

It is worth drooling over, but a 30d is more in line with my needs.

Eh...

It's all about the photographer, not the camera.

I drooled over it for 10 minutes then came to my senses...my D200 has:

1. 10 Megapixels
2. 5 frames per second (plenty for me)
3. 95% viewfinder (pretty good)
4. Large and bright viewfinder (.94x mag)
5. ISO 100-1600 (I've never needed more than 1600)
6. Detachable vertical grip -- reduces size and weight
7. No live view -- never needed it
8. Only $1699 (about $1300 street price now)

The Mark III is a great package (with anti-dust feature that Nikon needs to develop), but the price/performance ratio of the D200 is still unbeatable.

Forced Perfect said:

Oh I totally agree. I get by just fine with my Canon S2 IS and Digital Rebel (300D), but that doesn't mean a nice new awesome camera body won't help your great pictures be even better. Or allow you to get shots you couldn't otherwise get with your current hardware (my 4 shot buffer comes to mind).

Click to expand...

Maybe. But, maybe not. People are still rocking an old Rolleiflex and producing fantastic images. Or even a Holga.

FPS isn't a big selling point to me. I think my camera gets 3 FPS, maybe? But I only take one photo at a time. I might take two photos within a minute's time. Maybe.

When I see Canon cameras, I instantly think "gear-heads" for some reason. Maybe just because every time I run into a photographer who just likes to talk about equipment (and never about the images of merit that are being produced), he or she eventually will show me the camera and yep, it's a Canon.

FrankieTDouglas said:

Maybe. But, maybe not. People are still rocking an old Rolleiflex and producing fantastic images. Or even a Holga.

FPS isn't a big selling point to me. I think my camera gets 3 FPS, maybe? But I only take one photo at a time. I might take two photos within a minute's time. Maybe.

When I see Canon cameras, I instantly think "gear-heads" for some reason. Maybe just because every time I run into a photographer who just likes to talk about equipment (and never about the images of merit that are being produced), he or she eventually will show me the camera and yep, it's a Canon.

Click to expand...

I am really not qualified to say if that is a Canon thing, but I find myself drooling over new gear more than thinking of new ways to utilize the gear I already own. Sadly, I do this with everything, Macs, cameras, audio equipment, I can't help it. I also happen to have a Canon 35mm SLR, and have been drooling over the new digital offerings.

I have never had occasion to need the fps offered by the top cameras, but damn, that audio clip made me want it just the same.

FrankieTDouglas said:

Maybe. But, maybe not. People are still rocking an old Rolleiflex and producing fantastic images. Or even a Holga.

FPS isn't a big selling point to me. I think my camera gets 3 FPS, maybe? But I only take one photo at a time. I might take two photos within a minute's time. Maybe.

When I see Canon cameras, I instantly think "gear-heads" for some reason. Maybe just because every time I run into a photographer who just likes to talk about equipment (and never about the images of merit that are being produced), he or she eventually will show me the camera and yep, it's a Canon.

Click to expand...

rrrright. I bet a lot of the Sports Illustrated photographers or Getty Images photojournalists would do very well with a Rolleiflex or a Holga...

I agree that the photographer makes the image and its not all about the camera, but there are many people out there that need all the speed, resolution and flexibility their camera can give them. If you're into still life and/or abstract photography, certainly this isn't the camera for you.

And generalizing that all Canon shooters are gear-heads is ridiculous. Hell, there's a Nikon shooter in this very thread touting why his gear is better.

Either way, the ID MKIII is a nice camera, no disputing it. It probably doesn't meet everyones needs, but it wasn't made to.

I would prefer this camera any day...



but it's a little bit outside of my justifyable price range as I would need a couple of lenses as well.

I agree with the statements that the photographer makes the photos. I shot some stuff recently with my cell phone that I liked because I did not have my gear with me. I used all the same composition skills and framing that I would have done with my pro gear. Now having said all that I would not want to use my cell phone all the time. There are features that I look for on a pro rig that can't be discounted. Resolution, FPS for people needing it, iso range is critical and so on. I would not want to continue earning my keep with a first generation D1 but I could get good photos from it. The photographer is the most important feature in a photo but good gear is also an important factor.

satty said:

but it's a little bit outside of my justifyable price range as I would need a couple of lenses as well.

Click to expand...

Swap that for this and I'm in:

ksz said:

6. Detachable vertical grip -- reduces size and weight
7. No live view -- never needed it

Click to expand...

My vertical grip for my 20D is never removed.
They can keep the live view.

Lovesong said:

It's fairly impressive. Still, I really don't need the speed, I'll stick with my 5D. Unless you're a sports photographer, you really wouldn't be all that blown away.

Click to expand...

I'd love to have the speed. I use my dSLR for just about only sports. For everything else, I pull out film. I just can't justify the cost as of yet. If I can manage to start pulling in more business, then maybe.

Afther thinking about it for the weekend, I am pretty sure that I am going to get one.

Contrary to what a lot of people said, the biggest advantage of the camera isnt its 10fps and huge buffer or the live preview. Its all about the sensor and the processsor. These are the element that get the job done.

When you are in the pro market (or wanna be pro), there are only two choices (when talking Canon): Mark II Ds or the D. With 45 focus points, you know that the subject is going to be focused. Its 4-5 times more than any other camera. This is the reason why all the shots look so sharp.

I am very currious about the usability of ISO 1600-3200 and that is probably the reason why I am interested to much about this body. Thats 5 times more light than at ISO 100. If it can perform better than a 5D with its full frame sensor, it will be a done deal. It would give a bit more reach and IQ.

As I said in an earlier post, it would have been better to have a full frame with 8.5fps but I guess Canon wanted to be the first to hit that magic number.

The thing that scares me the most about pro gear is the price of all the accessories and of courses, they are never compatible with each others... The shutter cable for my Rebel XT is 40$ but its over 250$ for the Mk II...

looks pretty good

A few things look really nice like the higher ISO (if it looks clean) and the improved auto focus, but I still love the quality and full frame of my 5d so hopefully they will put some of these features into a new 5d and then I would be set.

I drool over images not the hardware. It is one means to an end.

yawn.
This is a spoof. These shots have circulated for some time, just to scare those of us who (out of necessity of our profession) have had to invest in these babies.

Personally even if there was a DIII I'd not take it. I've shot a 36 sheet poster on mine and can't think of a reason I'd need more capacity.

M8s are great but don't shoot well in reduced light like the old analogue versions and I'm still waiting for my two IR filters to cure the "black looks purple" issue.

gooseman said:

yawn.
This is a spoof. These shots have circulated for some time, just to scare those of us who (out of necessity of our profession) have had to invest in these babies.

Personally even if there was a DIII I'd not take it. I've shot a 36 sheet poster on mine and can't think of a reason I'd need more capacity.

M8s are great but don't shoot well in reduced light like the old analogue versions and I'm still waiting for my two IR filters to cure the "black looks purple" issue.

Click to expand...

No spoof, its on the Canon website...

Why need an upgrade? If you are a pro, the cost of upgrading gear is ridiculously low since your current body should be totaly amortised. So you sell the old model with a profit and they grab that one.

It is the same reason why people who work in the 3D modeling change their hardware every year. It is cost effective for them to do so.

satty said:

but it's a little bit outside of my justifyable price range as I would need a couple of lenses as well.

Click to expand...

I'm in.

As for the Canon, it sure is ugly.

Oh, so it is! Hah!!

Well I guess that burst rate was put in as the sports smudgers were complaining about their 8Mp 1Ds cameras... But I'm surprised at bumping the res to only 10...

Still not interested!

These discussions are painful...

It is a phenominal camera. I got my hands on one last weekend at a conference and I found it to be a great camera.

But I don't need one. The 1D MKIIN works perfectly for what I require. Once the MkIIN fails, then I'm sure we'll buy whatever the current revision is.

The camera isn't made for hobbyists, it's a tool for photojournalists and sport photographers. You don't have to justify your use of another camera because you don't have a need for the MKIII.