1D III to 1D IV, is it worth upgrading?

[tolive455696]

1. I'm generally happy with my 1D III, don't have that many complaints on the AF performance as many others have.
2. I don't care much about the video although it's a nice option

Now, what can I get for a $3,000 upgrade? (selling my like new 1D III can only get me around $2,000 back), is it worth upgrading? I really don't want to spend $3,000 for buying additional 6MP, especially, high ISO on the 1D IV is definitely better than my 1D III?

 

[bluefox9er]

1. I'm generally happy with my 1D III, don't have that many complaints on the AF performance as many others have.
2. I don't care much about the video although it's a nice option

Now, what can I get for a $3,000 upgrade? (selling my like new 1D III can only get me around $2,000 back), is it worth upgrading? I really don't want to spend $3,000 for buying additional 6MP, especially, high ISO on the 1D IV is definitely better than my 1D III?

you might want to ask yourself what you will do in 18 months tiime when a mkV becomes available and all of a sudden the mkIV overnight stops becoming an awesome camera..
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dipak49ers/sets/

 

[Psychic1]

I heard in one thread that the battery consumption of the 1D IV is almost double that of the 1DIII.
I'm keeping my 1DIII and 1DsIII.
--

 

[fal]

first: the battery consumption is higher, not sure that it is double.

second: I find the image quality better than the mk3 and I have had none of the advertised af problems that have been discussed.

third: I sold my mk2n when I bought the mk4 and have kept the mk3--my kind of photography requires 2 bodies with different lenses.
fourth: the hi iso's are better on the 4

fifth: if you need the qualities of the 4 then the choice is obvious, if not, don't waste your money.
fred

 

[bluefox9er]

first: the battery consumption is higher, not sure that it is double.

second: I find the image quality better than the mk3 and I have had none of the advertised af problems that have been discussed.

third: I sold my mk2n when I bought the mk4 and have kept the mk3--my kind of photography requires 2 bodies with different lenses.
fourth: the hi iso's are better on the 4

fifth: if you need the qualities of the 4 then the choice is obvious, if not, don't waste your money.
fred

just curious...how or in what way is the iq 'better' on the 1dmkIV compared to the 1dmkIII ?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dipak49ers/sets/

 

[José B]

1. I'm generally happy with my 1D III, don't have that many complaints on the AF performance as many others have.
2. I don't care much about the video although it's a nice option

Now, what can I get for a $3,000 upgrade? (selling my like new 1D III can only get me around $2,000 back), is it worth upgrading? I really don't want to spend $3,000 for buying additional 6MP, especially, high ISO on the 1D IV is definitely better than my 1D III?

--
Grand slam
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/7d_anna
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/sonya_50d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/leyla_1dmkiii
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/roberta_5dmkii

 

[DotCom Editor]

My 1D III works great for my sports and event photography -- after returning it to Canon five times. And my 5D II gives me the pixels I need for my fine-art work. I'll keep the 1D III, but dump the 5D II in favor (favour) of a 1Ds IV when it becomes available. And I won't be an early adopter.

 

[BMinton]

I also have a 1d3 and 5d2. So far I have not seen anything the 1d IV does better than my 1d3 for the type of work I do. Others mileage may vary. I too am waiting for the 1ds IV which should hopefully be more of an upgrade from the 5d2.

 

[José B]

From the samples I've seen it looks better than the 1D3 not just in terms of noise but dynamic range. Sitll if I will shoot at ISO 6400 again with my 1DMKIII, I will just use RAW.

I also have a 1d3 and 5d2. So far I have not seen anything the 1d IV does better than my 1d3 for the type of work I do. Others mileage may vary. I too am waiting for the 1ds IV which should hopefully be more of an upgrade from the 5d2.

--
Grand slam
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/7d_anna
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/sonya_50d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/leyla_1dmkiii
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/roberta_5dmkii

 

[fal]

iq, i guess it is subjective, but it seems sharper and more vibrant, from the crops (more pixels???) but there is a caveat for this. I raw process using caputer 1--it has a great workflow and i do 100's of shots at a sitting. C1 does not have a mk 4 capability yet so i used dpp for the first time ever. This necessitated that i learn the program and work very slowly--this might have made the difference and i've not had the time to compare files from mk3.???? Also, the only shots i have used the mk 4 was for a stage show (used both cameras) and I liked the mk4's better. Also did a basketball game shooting at iso 3200, i never went above 1600 with the mk 3.

I've had the camera less than a week and the transition from the mk3 was seamless. I really won't know the ups and downs of this camera until it gets a greater variety of situations.

last: when you spend $5k for a camera, one might see only the best!!!

fred

 

[Rich Dykmans]

I heard in one thread that the battery consumption of the 1D IV is almost double that of the 1DIII.
I'm keeping my 1DIII and 1DsIII.
--

I don't think it's double but the MKIII is better. I got into the habit of ignoring the battery in the 1D3 and I'm kind of in that mode with the IV. We'll see how that goes!

I upgraded for 1 reason - video and the LCD is the icing. Other then that they could have buried me with the MKIII.

 

[Rich Dykmans]

first: the battery consumption is higher, not sure that it is double.

second: I find the image quality better than the mk3 and I have had none of the advertised af problems that have been discussed.

third: I sold my mk2n when I bought the mk4 and have kept the mk3--my kind of photography requires 2 bodies with different lenses.
fourth: the hi iso's are better on the 4

fifth: if you need the qualities of the 4 then the choice is obvious, if not, don't waste your money.
fred

just curious...how or in what way is the iq 'better' on the 1dmkIV compared to the 1dmkIII ?
--

Other then the added resolution (at regular ISOs) I don't think it's any better. Which is fine with me, I was afraid it was gonna have more of that coarse digital look of the 7D.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dipak49ers/sets/

 

[Doug J]

The IV looks good, but I'm satisfied with the Mk III. The high ISO improvement is nice, but enough to justify a $3K upgrade for me. I'll probably buy a longer FL telephoto instead, it's been on my list for awhile.

Best regards,
Doug
--
http://pbase.com/dougj

 

[BMinton]

From the samples I've seen it looks better than the 1D3 not just in terms of noise but dynamic range. Sitll if I will shoot at ISO 6400 again with my 1DMKIII, I will just use RAW.

It looks to me like the noise is definitely less on the 1d4 than on my 1d3 at the higher ISO's. However, it's not enough less for what I do that it would make enough of a difference to me to justify buying one (I rarely shoot above 1600 anyway). To be honest I was hoping for more than they delivered in terms of noise performance but Canon seems to only take very small steps when they upgrade bodies.

I hope when the 1DsIV is released that there is a bigger performance jump compared to the 1Ds3 than going from the 1d3 to the 1d4, but in reality there probably won't be.

 

[Mentor_1]

yes
--
May the light be with you
Stop global whining
Stupid should hurt

 

[Joe Schwartz]

second: I find the image quality better than the mk3 and I have had none of the advertised af problems that have been discussed.

Can you please elaborate on the AF? Are you saying that your Mark 3 has had none of the common AF problems, or do you mean that your Mark 4 has none of the Mark 3's AF problems? In general, how does the AF accuracy compare between the Mark 4 and Mark 3?

 

[PhillipA]

... are the full auto-ISO on manual and the orientation sensitive focus point selection. I shoot a lot of birds, and being able to select an aperture and shutter speed and have the ISO adjust for shade and sunlight seems like a great addition for me. I also shoot a lot of the family and like to use upper A/F points for portraits The option of having points pre-selected and have them become active depending on the orientaion of the camera also seems like a great idea. If everything else stays the same - A/F as good as a "good" mkIII, high ISO as good or better and it's got more pixels ( I print up to 24" x 16") - then I'm sold !
--

Judge: ' This image may be better in black and white - perhaps even just black! '

 

[José B]

Agree with your comments. I would have been tempted to upgrade if the small steps came via 12MP and 12 fps. I think high ISO performance would have been better. Having said that it looks like the 1DMKIV is a terrific camera.

It looks to me like the noise is definitely less on the 1d4 than on my 1d3 at the higher ISO's. However, it's not enough less for what I do that it would make enough of a difference to me to justify buying one (I rarely shoot above 1600 anyway). To be honest I was hoping for more than they delivered in terms of noise performance but Canon seems to only take very small steps when they upgrade bodies.

I hope when the 1DsIV is released that there is a bigger performance jump compared to the 1Ds3 than going from the 1d3 to the 1d4, but in reality there probably won't be.

--
Grand slam
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/7d_anna
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/sonya_50d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/leyla_1dmkiii
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/roberta_5dmkii

 

[Bernie_King]

Or at least a similar boat. I'm trying decide if I want to dump either my 1D3 or my 1Ds2 for the 1DIV. I've got the $3000 in my "camera fund." I've been close to putting my 1Ds2 on the block a couple of times since I absolutely hate the interface compared to my 1D3, but then I use it and realize why I got it in the first place. I mostly shoot wildlife so the 1D3 is the logical choice to keep, but at the same time keeping the 1Ds2 gives me a FF option.

I tell myself to wait until the price drops, but it's likely that either camera will depreciate significantly by the time that happens and I really won't have saved anything. So the question is which to keep (if not both). I suppose this is the problem to have. I'm pretty sure that the 1D3 will depreciate faster than the 1Ds2, but who knows after the 1Ds4 releases next month.

I do think, however, that if I (or you) keep the 1D3 for much longer we may as well keep it forever. I don't know about you, but it would kill me to sell my 1D3 for $900 in another year
--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking
http://www.bkingphoto.com

 

[News Shooter]

I agree you do only see the best but it is a gem of a camera.

DPP is crap, I have been converting my files to DNG's and maintained my old workflow