Decision help wanted (I've done my homework) - 1Ds MkIII vs 1DMk IV, specifically AF

Hi all, sorry for just another 'what should I buy' post but I'm really wanting to get it right this time.After recently upgradingfrom a 40d to the5d MkII I found the AF performance wanting when shooting fast moving subjects. I then got a 7d to correct that but may consider replacing the 5d/II with one of the above bodies. I'm niether wealthy nor particularilyskilled, but this is our main hobby and I'd really like (not need) to keep two bodies. Now the obvious answer is that with the two cameras I have I've got the best of both worlds. Undeniably standing pat is an option I'm also considering vs. upgrading the 5D/II to one of the 1D bodies.


As I see it (ccorrect me if I'm wrong) the MkIV has a faster shutter (10 vs 5) but after that I can't see much in the Mk IV specs to make me go that route. $5k for the 1D Mk IV (when available)orI can get a refurbished 1Ds Mk III for $4.5k. Assuming I can live with the slower shutter speed (continuous shooting) and smaller number of consecutive shots,are there other reasonsI should consider the newer Mk IV? I've got reach with lenses/1.4x TCso the true full frame appeals to me vs the 1.3x crop sensor of the Mk IV. I also understand that the 5 extra MP's of the Mk IIIare not in and of itself that big of a deal but it can't hurt as I do end up cropping often. Probably waiting until Bryan's full review of the MkIV is in order as well.


My shooting is sports,energetic dogs,landscapes, and I also like various wildlife shots. Getting birds in flight with the 5d/II wasn't going as well as I had hoped it would. Nor a fast moving dog or motorcycle, especially when closing on me. That's probably the crux of my question right there - is the AF speed and precision of the 1Ds Mk III up to the standards of the 1D MkIV? I realize I'm asking for a simple answer to a compicated question. Either one should be significantly 'faster' than my 5d/II, as the 7D has proven to be.


In any event, I genuinely appreciate anyone's input. gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltgary

In any event, I genuinely appreciate anyone's input. gary

---

Gary, you shouldn't buy anything. I honestly don't thinkthat youareready for neither the 1Ds Mark III nor the 1D Mark IV, simply because you asked the question "what should I buy". I suggest you stick with the 5D Mark II and the 7D and learn how to use them. You are HAVING the best of both worlds right now, a fullframe camera for landscape and potrait, and an APS-C camera for action.


Now that said, I would keep the 5D Mark II for fullframe purpose and get the 1D Mark IV for action. Why?


7D and 1D Mark IV, you'd have two crop bodies and no fullframe


7D and 1Ds Mark III, the 7D is good but not as good as the 1D Mark IV, and 1Ds Mark III is a fullframe but you canget full frame from a $2500 5D Mark II


You see? You're about to make a mistake if you sell your 5D Mark II. Save your money!


So again 5D Mark IIand 1D Mark IV is a perfect combo if you insist in getting a pro body [:)]

Rent the cameras and try them out for yourself in the environments in which you shoot.

sell both and get the 1Ds IV when it comes out in less than a year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltgary

I then got a 7d to correct that but may consider replacing the 5d/II with one of the above bodies.

---

If you want the best birding camera the 7D is it. If you want the best landscape the 5D II is it. The 1D IV is a compromise camera as it has low pixel densityso you do not have the reach of the 7D for birding, and do not have a true wide angle like 1.6 or 1 crop bodies.It does however have avery fast frame rate and the best focusing available from Canon, which gives it a very high keeper rate with fast action, particularly sports. If I were you I'd keep your camera bodies untill you can take great shots with them and when you have narrowed your style of photography, instead of just taking a picture of everything and trying to have the best camera for everything. Then you can consider a 1D IV or later a possible upgrade. The 1D IV is a very specialized tool and it's not for everyone.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltgary

I can't see much in the Mk IV specs to make me go that route

---

The 1D4 has many advantages over the 1Ds3, but they may not be important to your style of photography. Here are some of them:

• Much better performance in low light (e.g. ISO 12,800)
• Smaller pixels for lens-limited situations such as wildlife photography
• Much better autofocus coverage area (and better autofocus overall).
• Video (cinematographers are actually renting them just for video if you can believe it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltgary

I also understand that the 5 extra MP's of the Mk IIIare not in and of itself that big of a deal but it can't hurt as I do end up cropping often.

---

If you crop for wildlife because you could not use a longer lens, then the 1Ds3 is at a disadvantage: if you crop the 21 MP down to 1.3X, you're left with only 12 MP vs the 18 MP of the 1D4. On the other hand, if you crop just because of an improved composition (and not because your lens limited you), then the 21 MP is an advantage. But you're right, 16 MP vs 21 MP is a small difference (same as 6 MP vs 4.5 MP.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltgary

is the AF speed and precision of the 1Ds Mk III up to the standards of the 1D MkIV?

---

No. On paper, the 1D4 is a big improvement over the 1Ds3. And now that Bryan's review is out, it is confirmed that the theoretical advantage also occurs in practice:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]As always, what matters is reality - how the design works in real life.
And in real life use, the statement I am continually telling myself
while reviewing my 1D Mark IV shots (especially those taken in AI Servo
mode) is ... I'm impressed.



So if you want the best Canon autofocus, the 1D4 is it.

As always, good advice here.You guys have convinced me.


I've been using the 7d more and am finding I do indeed have an excellent set up as is. I like the low light capabilites the 5d has given me as well as the wide view with the 24-70/L (among many other things I like about it). With the 7d, I seem to have solved the AF issues sufficiently to make me happy. We went on a snowshoeing/camping trip last weekend in NE Mn. and having two bodies was a real plus. Amy was able to get some landscape shots and I had the 7d/70-200 ready for the moose/lynx/eagle/wolf etc we never actually saw. As an aside, it was a tent camping trip, both nights it reached exactly -17degrees F, and both batteries held their charge for the weekend. That was only about 150 shots per body but I was pretty happy with the battery's low temp performances.


Ok, just one more question and I'll quit pestering. I tried to get a shot of the night sky/stars and failed. I used with the 5d/24-70, solid tripod, mirror lockup remote release, various Av and Tv setting, as well as metering options but never could get the stars clearly (moonless night). Does anybody have a basic starting point for a static photo of a starry night? It was clear enough that the night sky was drop dead gorgeous to the eye. Perhaps I'd have done better without the whiskey but note the temps in my earlier paragraph. Some things seemed necessary.


Thanks, gary

Thanks for the update.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltgary

Does anybody have a basic starting point for a static photo of a starry night?

---

Raw, f/2.8, 30 seconds, ISO 1600, and boost the brightness in post. Getting critical focus is difficult. Start with liveview if you have it (7D), otherwise you can try autofocus on a bright star or just take picture and review on screen until you get it in focus.

Waltgary,


You may want to read this ...





http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484





Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltgary

I tried to get a shot of the night sky/stars and failed.

---

In what way did you fail? It is hard to say what went wrong without knowing what you were going for and what you ended up with :)


Lots can go wrong with night sky photography. You have to get the exposure right. As Daniel says, if focus was the difficulty, you should use manual focus and live view and a bright star. Long exposures cause trails (or elongated stars for medium length exposures), nothing you can do about that but use shorter exposures or tracking (or decide that you *want* trails... trail pictures can be very nice). Long exposures also cause thermal noise, for this use long exposure noise reduction or make a dark frame and subtract.


There is a whole list of other problems, but I thought I would just mention the few that I have been able to overcome :)

I have a 5D MK II, and had a 40D as backup. i decided to buy a 7D as a birding camera, but decided that it was too specialized and returned it and bought another used 40D. Then, I had a opportunity to buy a almost unused 1D MK III, so I bought it and sold the 40D.


It gets much more use than the 7D did, at a couple of hundred more than the 7d, I much prefer it.


As I see it, the advantage to me of the 1D MK IV is the high iso. When photographing rapidly moving objects, a fast shutter speed is better, 1/2000 sec is often ideal. That combined with a slightly stopped down aperture requires high ISO, so that would be a improvement. My 1D MK III can shoot at ISO 3200 with good results, but not 6400.


I would be able to use 6400 or maybe 12800 on a mark IV. That translates to smaller apertures and or higher shutter speeds and sharper images.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

In what way did you fail? It is hard to say what went wrong without knowing what you were going for and what you ended up with :)

---

Seeing what you and Mr Browning wrote, I suspect my using AF or infinityMFwas the isssue, along with many others. I will be using your suggestions in the next week or two and see if I can get something. I wasn't anywhere near a 30 second exposure nor did I try live view/manual focus so this is a good starting point. That was the final piece I was missing before being able to get a decent shot (by my standards) of the moon. I can never seem to get my head around not using infinity focus for something so far away.


gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob

You may want to read this ...





http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10048-10484





Bob

---

I've bookmarked your link and will review the article as time permits. Thank you, gary

Interesting. I wonder how the 7d compares? gary

For lack of other answers, I'll throw in my experience this past weekend with the 7D. I'm a complete novice at machinegunning, but took advantage of the uncharacteristic sunny two days shooting my two Labradors playing in a nearby field and small lake. Of about 1200 shots total, I kept 963. Surprisingly few were outright garbage with nothing in focus or focused on the background. Some contained only partial dogs. I kept a few that will print well at small sizes but are slightly out of focus. The remaining 923 are in critically sharp focus. The keeper rate improved greatly as I learned to frame and track, and more importantly figured out the appropriate settings. The bigger problem is what to keep and what to throw away.


The conditions weren't particularly challenging. Some were backlit in full afternoon sun and unbroken snow. Some were shot against competing backgrounds of chainlink, brush, and tall grass. The least challenging were of them running full tilt directly at the camera. I'm guessing they do about 25 mph in full stride, figuring about 3 seconds for 40 yards.


I have little expectation that the 7D is of the same caliber as the 1D4. At the same time, I don't see how the AF tracking can be meaningfully improved. Almost all the garbage shots were made early on as I figured out the settings and how to frame and track. A bit more practice and I'll be ready to go pro. As it stands, the 7D is already ready.