Former 1DMKIIN, Current 1dMKIII Owners only please

I've read the white paper and the numerous threads but I'd like feedback from those who have used the 1DMKIIN and now shoot with a MKIII. Besides some of the function upgrades, is there a significant difference in IQ? With the emphasis on the word "significant". Would this differnce be obvious between two images side by side? As a happy 1DMKIIN owner, that would be the only justification for an upgrade.
Thanks

Leaving aside the AF issues, the approx 1 -stop dr improvement, the higher pixel count, and the dramatically lower noise., especially at high ISO, are a siginificant step forward.

In my experience, if you shoot at 400 ISO or lower, there will not be a dramatic change, but if you shoot action, you can increase the ISO to stop action without worring about obtrusive noise.

Further, if you crop and enlarge, and sharpen a little, you can go a lot further before noise makes the quaility unusable. (Depends on the intended use of the photo, of course,)

The menu settings and button arrangement are much easier to understand and use, I feel.

However none of this helps much if you can't count on the AF working.

I've just started shooting with a 1D Mark III and still have my 1D Mark IIns. I shoot a lot at higher ISOs. I see a significant improvement in IQ at ISO 1600 and 3200 with the Mark 3. I'm not just talking about noise. Both color and detail are improved at these ISO's. The Mark 3 also gives you ISO 2000 and 2500, which is a plus in my book.

I will be processing wedding photos I recently took with a 1D Mark III and 1D Mark IIn in the next few days. These range in ISOs from 100 to 3200 (outdoors to a dark reception hall). I will have a much greater grasp on IQ after that.

John

I didn't have the 1D-IIN, just the 1D-II.

As far as IQ goes between the two cameras, if you shoot at high ISO, I think you'll find the image quality increase to be almost one stop, and it's probably worth the upgrade.

If you don't routinely shoot above ISO800, I doubt it's worth it.

Here's a couple of similar shots (taken a year apart, but at the same venue with the same lighting) for a comparison.

The 1D2 shot is at ISO1600, but the 1D3 shot is at ISO3200. I think the ISO3200 1D3 shot is almost as good as the 1D2 shot at ISO1600 . . thus, I think the 1D3 is almost 1-stop better at high ISO.

Both were shot with RAW, and have not been resized. You be the judge:

http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/images/1D2_rodeo.jpg

http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/images/1D3_rodeo.jpg

Hi David,

.....how are ya?

I think those 2 photographs really exemplify the difference between the IQ of the cameras. Well done!
--
Regards,

Michael Tapes
Owner: http://www.RawWorkflow.com
Creator: WhiBal

I'm doing great, how about you?

I do have a quesetion for you, though, since you were involved with RawShooter and are now advocating LightRoom.

Do you know of any easy way to take settings that I loved in RawShooter and get the same kind of resultsl with an equivalent set of settings in LightRoom?

For example, in Rawshooter (for high ISO pics), I found that setting the sharpness as low as it would go (-50, IIRC), but setting "extract detail" very high gave great results.

I've always found getting good results in RawShooter easy to do. But I never seem to be able to find settings that I like in other converters like Bibble and now Lightroom.

It's odd . . I mean, I can't really put my finger on anything different in the UI that RawShooter was doing compared to the others, but I just can't get the right "feel" of the other converters, and never seem to be able to find settings that I like . . at least not as quickly as I did with RawShooter.

Looks like the 1D2 image has less noise on the blue banner; but the 1D3 image seems sharper with better resolution. Thanks for posting a comparison.

Just about everything on this camera is better. However, two of my favorite features have been the live view for manual focusing and highlight priority.

I ran the live view for two days, six hours each day and the last image looked as good as the first. I expected some noise from the sensor heating up, but apparently it's not a problem.

The highlight priority works great with the weddings, but I really like it when shooting nature shots. It really reduces the glare from shiny leaves and brings out the detail in the shadows for high contrast shots taken in the sun. It is nice because unlike a polarizing filter which reduces reflection, I could get a good refection off a lake, get detail in the shadows as well as the highlights in the clouds.

So far I've not experienced any problems with the AI servo focusing in warm weather, or any other situation. Quite frankly this seems like a dream machine.