Pro explanation needed, 1Ds III vs 1D IIII

[Recty]

I really am having an issue with pricing on these two cameras.

The 1Ds Mark III seems like a lesser camera to me than the 1D Mark IV. The only place I can see it beats the Mark IIII is it is full frame, not 1.3 crop, and is 21 megapixel vs 16 megapixel.

The Mark IV has a much higher range of ISO. It takes video. It is 10 frames per second vs the 1Ds Mark III being 5 fps. The LCD is 920K pixels and the 1Ds is 230k. It even weighs less.

Why is it that the 1Ds Mark III is about $1400 more than the 1D Mark IV? Is it really just due to 21MP and full frame? Or is there something I'm missing?

 

[Tremont]

I think the 1Ds III just had a higher markup to begin with. If you want to get one, I would just get a refurb for $4-5k. With a refurb you always know it has rebuilt, tested and is under warranty.

That being said, I don't think a 1Ds III is worth it at all. If you want FF just get a 5dmarkii and then you get video as well and it is cheaper. FF is a bit overhyped anyways. I would rather have the same megapixels for a smaller sensor, there is quite a lot of softness/distortion the further you get from the center of the frame. Try shooting with a 24mm 1.4L at 1.4 and look at the sides of the image and you will see what I mean.

The 1Ds III doesn't have nearly the high ISO noise performance as the 1DmarkIV. Also, many people get a 1D because they need shooting speed and nice AF options rather than more megapixels - so the 1Ds III loses on that front as well.

One last thing to think about is rumor has it that the 1Ds mark IV will be announced soon, which will basically be a 1DmarkIV with a 32 MP sensor and slower shooting speed.

 

[dendronepthya]

Basically full frame is the reason for the higher price tag. I really wish these camera companies would stop with the megapixels. I really hate processing 40MB raw files per photo. It is well past the point of being a diminishing return for me. It's a straight up negative.

 

[IPT]

I use the 1DsMK3 quite a bit. If it were my money I would probably go the new 5D, no doubt (price to value wise). Though I must say that I do like the way a pro body feels ergonomically (once you get used to the heft). Personally, after shooting both formats I would never want a cropped sensor again. Of course I like the wide angle for the Aurora (at least I used to when I actually saw them). I like being able to go really wide without dealing with mega wide lenses to compensate for the crop. Just MHO.

 

[Tremont]

Basically full frame is the reason for the higher price tag. I really wish these camera companies would stop with the megapixels. I really hate processing 40MB raw files per photo. It is well past the point of being a diminishing return for me. It's a straight up negative.

*Looks down at his 17 TB of storage and jumbled mass of USB hubs and starts crying*

Well, you could just shoot SRAW. That's what I used to do with my timelapse stuff to keep it manageable.

 

[BlueCorn]

They're two different cameras. The 1D is a sports camera, the 1Ds is a landscape/fine art wet dream. You're definitely paying for the fullframe sensor but you have to keep in mind that the 5DMII didn't come out until a year after the 1DsMkIII. That said, there are still places that the 1Ds beats it if you're making a living with it. (it is after all a pro body)

Dual memory card slots. You configure them as just raw capacity or as an automatic backup; two copies of every image, in camera.

Weather sealing. The sealing on the 1D series is an order of magnitude better than the rest of the Canon line.

 

[Recty]

Hmmm, so it looks to me like basically the 1Ds is only better if you want full frame, when compared to the 1D Mark IV. Otherwise, everyone has pretty much indicated the Mark IV wins?

That's what I gathered from looking purely at specs, and it just seems weird to me the Mark III is that much more expensive... I've never yet used a full frame camera but wow, I cant believe it's worth that much more. The slightly higher MP is nice, no doubt, but I doubt worth an extra $1400.

I think I agree with IPT and for what I need, I'd go with the 5D Mk II if I wanted full frame that badly, but like beerguy said there are definite benefits to the pro body.

I'm actually really considering getting the 1D Mk IV... crazy. I'm at a point where I'll either need to spend the $$$ now or just stick with my 50D. There are quite a few features the 1D Mk IV offers that I would love when compared to the 50D, plus in my mind the 1.3 crop factor offers the best of both worlds, it isnt full frame but it still give some decent zoom power on all your lenses.

If I do this, I'll end up selling my 10-22 which wont work with the mount and probably buying the 24-105L, then a fixed wide angle.

Anyway, it's still a thought at this point, but if I want to get a new camera ever, now is the time

I was trying to convince myself I needed the 1Ds, I really do enjoy landscape type stuff BUT I also really like animal photography, the extra 1.3x range plus the 10FPS would be awesome for that. Freaking awesome. Plus the autofocus and auto ISO would move things to a whole new level for me. Not to mention the huge usable ISO.

To my mind, those things place it ahead of the 5D Mk II for my needs as well. And the weather sealing, SWEET. Although my main telephoto isnt weather sealed, but I guess I could move into the world of the primes

 

[IPT]

oh boy....I hear the 300F4 L calling your name!!

 

[BlueCorn]

Neither the 5D or 1Ds series are "sports" cameras. You might also take a look at the 7D. It's AF is leaps and bounds better than any of the previous consumer bodies.

 

[Jacob D]

The FF expense isn't just to do with the wider FOV it provides, it's mainly to do with the production cost of the sensor, and along with the wider FOV you get low light performance that is noticeably better than that from a similar generation crop sensor.

If you already have a 10-22 and mainly want to shoot wildlife, I would do as Doug suggested and look at the 7D. 1.6x crop + high frame rate + lighter + less expensive. Put the extra coin towards a nice tele lens.


Also wanted to mention, the 24-105L is an OK lens... but certainly nothing I would especially want to use on a 1 series body. You want to put excellent glass on all of these new high res bodies otherwise you're not going to harness their full potential. Primes are an excellent way to go.

 

[dendronepthya]

I agree. A 7D or a 1DIV would work better if you are trying to capture action.

 

[Recty]

Neither the 5D or 1Ds series are "sports" cameras. You might also take a look at the 7D. It's AF is leaps and bounds better than any of the previous consumer bodies.

I've been comparing stats with the 1D IV and the 7D quite a bit lately, I almost had myself sold on the 7D just for the fact that it's 30% of the price. However, this will most likely be the last camera I buy for 3-4 years, maybe ever... so just based off that I'd rather have the better camera, there is more to grow into... but I still might end up with the 7D. The things that matter to me like superb autofocus and high FPS are there, but I also am interested in being able to use 12800 ISO and the 7D seems to be pretty much stuck at 3200 and under for good usable pictures. I know you've got experience with it, although I doubt much of what you do is high ISO... but if you have something to say on the subject I'd gladly listen.

If you already have a 10-22 and mainly want to shoot wildlife, I would do as Doug suggested and look at the 7D. 1.6x crop + high frame rate + lighter + less expensive. Put the extra coin towards a nice tele lens.

Also wanted to mention, the 24-105L is an OK lens... but certainly nothing I would especially want to use on a 1 series body. You want to put excellent glass on all of these new high res bodies otherwise you're not going to harness their full potential. Primes are an excellent way to go.

I really could care less about the 10-22. I'd just swap to the 17-40L which isnt much more expensive and I could sell the 10-22 for pretty close to new price since it's barely used (I might not even replace it for a while). I like the 10-22 but I'm not AMAZED by it or anything, I'm not sure it's a focal length I really need.

I hear what you're saying about the 24-105L... and I've been considering that. If I dont do that route, I'll end up buying the 85mm prime and I've already got the 50mm f/1.4, which should be good enough to produce good images on the 1D. We will see though.

Also, you have a good point about getting the 7D and putting the extra $3000 I'd save towards some good glass. With my relatively recent purchase of the 100-400L, I've really really really started to understand just how much of a difference good glass makes, and that isnt even a super clear fast prime.

I agree. A 7D or a 1DIV would work better if you are trying to capture action.

Agreed. I've talked myself out of even wanting the 1Ds III.

 

[dendronepthya]

$3000 is a lot of money. It's basically how much I have in my two favorite lenses 35L and 85L. Given the choice of that or a better body, there is no comparison. The glass is going to be with me for a very long time!

 

[Jacob D]

Sure, you can always grow into the 1D4 and all it's capabilities, upgrade your lenses over time, etc... but why pay a premium for it now? I'm sure the 7D can 'hold you over' until your lens lineup is the stuff you dream of.


On the lenses: I've owned the 10-22 and tinkered with the 17-40L. The IQ is very similar IMO. Not all L's are created equal (this is more a compliment to the 10-22 than a complaint about the 17-40 which is a nice lens). The 50/1.4 is an "ok" lens, honestly I have not been happy with any of the Canon 50's. Luckily there are a few flavors of Zeiss, picking one is the hard part There is a lot of glass other than Canon and Canon/L out there... I could spend tens of thousands and that's without any long tele's in my bag... luckily I don't shoot wildlife unless I count my kids

 

[BlueCorn]

II also am interested in being able to use 12800 ISO and the 7D seems to be pretty much stuck at 3200 and under for good usable pictures.

The 7D and the Nikon D3s, when tested by Pop. Photography had the same numbers up to 6400. Above that both were rated unacceptable. The 1DmIV looks a little cleaner at 6400 but you'd be kidding yourself if you thought that you'd be happy with how shots at 12800 looked.

 

[BlueCorn]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/page29.asp

 

[Recty]

The 7D and the Nikon D3s, when tested by Pop. Photography had the same numbers up to 6400. Above that both were rated unacceptable. The 1DmIV looks a little cleaner at 6400 but you'd be kidding yourself if you thought that you'd be happy with how shots at 12800 looked.

I really need to get my hands on one and test it.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/page29.asp

Thanks. I've read through that whole review at least once in the last day or two, plus the 1Ds Mk III, the 5d Mk II and the 7D. I keep referring back them all through my "work" day... I'm admittedly distracted right now.

This is one of the pages I focused on, you can directly side by side see the difference in ISO between the 1D, the 1Ds, the 7D and the D3s.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/page17.asp

With that said, I've been reading other review sites and a lot of sports photographers are taking pictures at 12800 with the 1D and saying the results are printable in large format. With that said... what they consider printable and what I consider printable might differ.

 

[Recty]

Sure, you can always grow into the 1D4 and all it's capabilities, upgrade your lenses over time, etc... but why pay a premium for it now? I'm sure the 7D can 'hold you over' until your lens lineup is the stuff you dream of.

Here is the weird thing... if I'm going to be spending in the $2000 range for a camera, I think I'm going to get the 5D Mk II. I realize it's $2500 whereas the 7D is only $1700, but still if I'm going for that price range I'll get the 5D Mk II.

Oddly enough, I think at that point I'll be OK with less FPS and no x1.6 crop factor due to the FF sensor and superior high ISO performance.

Beerguy, this is asking a lot I know but sometime when you are out photographing, could you take the EXACT same shot with your 5D and with the 7D, same lens and ISO and everything? And post the results? Or if that is too much to do (totally understandable) then maybe just give me your input on owning either the 5D or the 7D? To me it seems like the picture quality coming out of the 5D is just better than the 7D. I dont know if it has to do with being full frame or what, but I can tell the difference (I think) between the 7D and the 5D shots.

Anyway, I know that's a lot to ask and it isnt really a big deal in the scheme of things.

When it comes down to it, I think I'm either going with the 5D Mk II or else the 1D Mk IV. The autofocus improvements are slick on the 7D and the 1D Mk IV, but actually my 50D does superb at keeping things locked in focus for me and I think the 5D Mk II would be just as good, if not better, PLUS it would give me higher MP and full frame sensor.

And yes, I know the 5D Mk II and the 1D Mk IV are different cameras designed for different things. However, I'm not so stuck in one aspect of photography that I HAVE to have a camera that does sports, or I HAVE to have a camera that is good for landscape.

Arg, it's just so hard to decide.

 

[BlueCorn]

Actually, AF performance is probably better on your 50D than it is on either 5D. They really didn't upgrade that system when the MKII came out.

On a computer screen I can see the difference between the two, the 5D being cleaner and sharper. On a print, after processing, I really can't tell the difference.

 

[dendronepthya]

My 5D is always on center point AF!