MKIII vs MKII 1ds

Was not hard for me, after i seen the images from the MKIII and had a chance to test it myself, i emptied my pockets for a 1dsmkII, yes not the MKIII. I never shoot above ISO 1000 and i do not need 10FPS. If image quality is what you after then you would be better off with the 1dsMKII.
The resolution power of the camera is amazing. Here take a peek...
Remove the XX and add tt... large File..
hXXp: www.arkadiatechnologies.com/2bux_bak.jpg

Matt_Anderson said:

the camera is 3 years old, it's hard purchasing old technology for me,
I was really hoping the new MKIII on an IQ level would surpass
anything to date ( besides resolution)

Click to expand...

In every area except autofocus, the preproduction Canon EOS-1D Mark III is the best full-featured SLR we've ever used, and its image quality is the best we've seen from a digital SLR in all ways except sheer resolution, where the EOS-1Ds Mark II is still the leader.

Larry H. Smith said:

Matt_Anderson said:

Except for resolution, ...is the image quality itself better on the new MKIII ?

Click to expand...

Rob Galbraith says this (about the 1DIII):

" Pixel-for-pixel, the image quality is the best we've seen from a
digital SLR, ..."

Here's his whole review:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8738-8908

HTH,

Larry

Click to expand...

We're all just guessing here but if you only intend printing up to A3, once the 1DsII had been cropped to match the 1DIII's area and the 1DIII uprezzed to 16 MP, I doubt whether you could tell the difference between prints made with either camera, with the exception that the 1D3 would have better high ISO noise, better colour graduation and 1 stop of better dynamic range.

The main reason I will be getting a 1D3 and have resisted a 1DsII is the many improvements benefiting the process of taking pictures, it seems more usable in many conditions, particularly bright sun or low light. I am fed up not being able to read the VF display or the LCD of my 5D in bright light, and they were improvements the 1DsII !!

The difference, however between the 1D3 and the 1Ds3 will be minimal on the technology and probably quite substantial on the resolution, so my fun with a 1D3 might be short lived.
--
http://www.buchangrant.com
http://www.pbase.com/buchangrant

I'm not sure what kind of shooting but why not go with a 5d...unless you need the speed...couldn't it satisfy your needs...it's not 1 series of course...perhaps you could get this until 1d mk3 or 1ds mk3 comes out...sell the 5d or use it as back up...tell your company what's on the horizon...and the benifits of waiting for the new 1 series...
--
patrick tom

If your company can justify the reason for shooting with multiple 35mm systems then what is the worry to buy a 1DS Mk2? It's still the top of the line and current model. Nobody can predict when the next one would come out. Just go for it. IQ on either one would be more than enough for most jobs unless you are talking about doing fine art books.

Matt_Anderson said:

It's for work. We shoot multiple brands...
I've been told to get a new camera for a new upcoming job. (what
poor timing, i'd buy the MKIII 1ds if it was out)
It doesn't make sense to me buying a MKII 1ds seeing how it's over
two years old, that is,
if the MKIII is of better image quality.
Hence my question ...

I'm also updating our medium format camera (digital) as well.
But man, it's not a good time to buy a flagship camera from either
camp, seeing how the next release is just on the horizon, Oi !

Click to expand...

--

Mikael Kaplar said:

that´s what is does. 14 bit vs 12 bit on 1DsmkII. Read Rob
Galbraith´s review.
--
Regards
Mikael

Click to expand...

--That's a lot. Pixel for pixel, the III should win. That's my guess. I want it, but it's more for low light work, but I'll take better IQ too! The III also has dual DIGIC II Image Processors; one is dedicated for AF.

I have to go as I'm drooling on the keyboard thinking of this!

-nothing beats a fast lense, except a fast girl-

blackhawk13 said:

The III also has dual DIGIC II Image Processors;
one is dedicated for AF.

Click to expand...

My understanding was that it has two Digic III processors plus a general purpose CPU for display and menus, plus another CPU for auto focus.

Jazzy

I believe the dual digic acts like a dul core - which means to process the same task at the same time. That's how the 10fps is achieved (mostly). This info should be in the white paper.

The AF is done with a different cpu.

Jazz57 said:

blackhawk13 said:

The III also has dual DIGIC II Image Processors;
one is dedicated for AF.

Click to expand...

My understanding was that it has two Digic III processors plus a
general purpose CPU for display and menus, plus another CPU for
auto focus.

Jazzy

Click to expand...

--

Nothing "forgotten".

AF was not the OP's interest,...Matt asked specifically about IQ,...and with resolution EXCEPTED. (see his quote below)

AKaz said:

In every area except autofocus, the preproduction Canon EOS-1D Mark
III is the best full-featured SLR we've ever used, and its image
quality is the best we've seen from a digital SLR in all ways
except sheer resolution, where the EOS-1Ds Mark II is still the
leader.

Click to expand...

AKaz said:

Larry H. Smith said:

Matt_Anderson said:

Except for resolution, ...is the image quality itself better on the new MKIII ?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

AKaz said:

AKaz said:

Rob Galbraith says this (about the 1DIII):

" Pixel-for-pixel, the image quality is the best we've seen from a
digital SLR, ..."

Here's his whole review:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8738-8908

HTH,

Larry

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

love_them_all said:

I believe the dual digic acts like a dul core - which means to
process the same task at the same time. That's how the 10fps is
achieved (mostly). This info should be in the white paper.

Click to expand...

I wonder how powerful a single Digic III is in relation to a Digic II.

Think about this: We know a single Digic II can process 12-bit 8 MP images at a rate of 8.2 per second. We also know that two Digic III CPUs can process 14 bit 10MB images at 10 per second. That means the two Digic III processors together are about 70% faster than a Digic II (in this application). So in theory a single Digic III could actually be slower than the Digic II!

My guess is there is quite a bit of reserve horsepower left for the next gen 1Ds.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Jazzy

you can~t just go by pixel count, there is only a 15% increase in resolution from a 5d to a 1ds mkII the pixel pitch and processors and firmware are just as important, I think when you put the mkIII against the 1ds mkII between the 14bit color depth, the new 2 digimarc III processors, highlight limit and shadow boost, I fully expect the image quailty of the mkIII to be superior to the ds mkII the only camera that will trump the mkIII is when the 1ds mkIII comes out. Pixel count is a poor qualifier for a quality image.

Rhonda Stone said:

1DS Mark II.

This is a stupid question, really.
...

Click to expand...

...by all the joy and enlightenment you spread in this community.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

You speak the truth.
--
http://www.johninjapan.com
HDR Tutorial: http://www.squidoo.com/hdr-photography/

if you bought a 1DmkIII and it was my studio It is a sprorts camera, the resolution of the 16mp will be greater. now if you are using it for other purposes, then sure. but below ISO 400 I really doubt it is worth it for the 1DIII (unless you are saving money)

Not for studio purposes, for various shots on site for clients 10 MP would be enough, that is, if it's a real high quality 10MP. Some digital files are more forgiving to intense post processing, scaling, and scrubbing away at, then others. Just hard spending money on such an older camera.

If you've been told to "order it right now", does that imply that you need it right now? Because that alone will answer your question.

You can get a 1DsII right now.

The Mark III - maybe April, May, June, July, or August depending on which forum members crystal ball is working the best (mine's been busted and I can't seem to find a good crystal ball repair shop

--
Carbonman

Following up on Matt's initial posting the mostly civilized conversation that has followed I will add my $0.02.

I have been shooting with a 20D for about 16 months now, having finally made the plunge from using my trusted 1N for quite a few years.

I do not have the benefit of my camera earning me $150,000, so I can pretty much rule out the 1DS MK anything. So, I am shopping between 1D Mark II or III and the 5D. I should add that I will be buying probably some time in the late summer, so the Mark III should be available as well as old stock Mark II.

8mp is fine for what I do (magazine editorial work and some small scale photos sales to individuals), but I seriously miss the AF capabilities of the Canon EOS 1 series cameras -- film or digital.

The other day I picked up the 1N for the first time in a year or so and I just loved the heft, the precision, the robustness that the camera offers -- the very confidence it gives you in your hands. Yes, I understand that a human takes the picture, but once you reach the limitations of a piece of equipment (first A2 and now 20D), the next step up can be very compelling.

So, what do you guys think between a 1D (Mk II or III) and the 5D? I don't care about super fast FPS, but AF speed is crucial. I am not a huge fan of crop cameras, but I can live with a 1.3 factor.

FWIW, the samples I have seen from colleagues with 1Ds and 1Ds Mk II are OUTSTANDING in terms of image quality.

Folks with 5D and 1D cameras, let me know what you think between the two of them.

And, Matt, I hope I am no co-opting your thread, but just adding a bit more to the dialogue.

Cheers,
Terry

There must be some extra loads such as task distributions between two DIGIC IIIs. This is very similar to parallel computing using PCs and two identical PCs cannot make double performnace of single PC due to the similar reasons.

a MKIII,
What I didn't mention is I also will be shooting with a HD3-39,

Hence, my position on not needing more megapixels, just a well rounded high quality camera.

I'm putting my faith in Canon and it's new camera engineering,
and putting my faith in Rob G.'s initial review.

Matt_Anderson said:

Ideally i'd wait till September, but I think I have to have this
camera in hand within one month or less.

Click to expand...

that narrows it down to currently announced. I wouldn't feel that hesitatant about the 1DMarkIII - I don't think you've seen with either canon or nikon professional bodies any serious issues after release date, that were fixed in 2 to 6 months. not being an early adopter and being a late adopted didn't make much difference.

your needs... it depends on print sizes..

in printing the largest possible size, you have to go with the most resolution - simply because at any print size, it will give you a more precise picture with more data. however, if both cameras capture enough digital data to render the print sizes, then it's down to the individual characteristics.

if it's tonality you are looking for, and 10Mp achieves the print density you need, then yes, the MarkIII would give you a better image - simply because it captures more information per pixel.

if 10Mp doesn't do it for you and you need more image data to create your prints, then nothing is close to a 1DsMarkII for that.

and that's not being a canonite about it.. it's simply math, if you are printing at Y DPI, the less magnification of the pixels in the image to get to that Y DPI for the print size, the better the image will be.

as far as the 1DsMII being two years old, same technically is the D2X (the s was a minor upgrade and not to the main portions of the body) as they were announced within a month of each other.