MK II - MK III - Worth it

All,

I can see the AF issue on the MKIII has been done to death, so well aware of that. I spoke to a couple of camera suppliers in the UK and they have received new batches with AF issue resolved.

I have a Canon 1 D MK II and going over to the Kruger National Park in S.A. in a couple of weeks (my 3rd trip in 12 months) I am considering the MK III and just wanted to get some advice please.

a) Firstly, those who have gone from the MKII to MKIII, AF issue aside for the moment, are you happy. Was it worth it and what do you like

b) How is the ISO performance vs. MK II

c) Is the IQ better

Would appreciate any advice.

I am going through the same decision process although I am not in a hurry. For most of my shooting which is at ISO 100, I don't see a lot of advantage as the dynamic range is the same and the noise is low enough on either camera. I should mention that I shoot raw so I don't really care how well the camera processes jpg images. There does seem to be a stop or so of extra performance at the high ISO end and that is attractive for some of my shooting.

There are a number of things in the MKIII that are nice to have including a larger LCD. The extra pixels would be nice but not a deal breaker by any means.

Finally, I would not get a new camera of any kind if I had to use it rather soon. I prefer to have a period where I can use the camera to get used to using it and to ensure that the camera is working acceptably. For me, it can take a month or so before I am fully comfortable with a new, different camera. Also, if you get the MKII, I would also take the MKII along as a backup.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

delboysafa said:

All,

Click to expand...

I spoke to a couple of camera suppliers in the UK and they have received new batches with AF issue resolved.

Interesting; care to say which UK suppliers you are referring to?

Colin

--
http://www.pbase.com/accentor

delboysafa said:

All,

I can see the AF issue on the MKIII has been done to death, so well
aware of that. I spoke to a couple of camera suppliers in the UK and
they have received new batches with AF issue resolved.

I have a Canon 1 D MK II and going over to the Kruger National Park
in S.A. in a couple of weeks (my 3rd trip in 12 months) I am
considering the MK III and just wanted to get some advice please.

a) Firstly, those who have gone from the MKII to MKIII, AF issue
aside for the moment, are you happy. Was it worth it and what do you
like

b) How is the ISO performance vs. MK II

c) Is the IQ better

Would appreciate any advice.

Click to expand...

I feel it was worth it but that is of course highly individual.

Better image quality and high ISO performance (most important of the upgrades for me), easier handling, larger LCD, slightly lower weight. I didn't think the user interface would be a big deal as I've gotten used to the Mark II but when going back and forth I now notice that the new one is so much more comfortable and intuitive.

I've kept the 1D II as a backup but frankly don't use it much, especially as I shoot a lot at high ISO and the difference in image quality is very noticable. At lower ISO the 1DII is still of course very competent.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

delboysafa said:

a) Firstly, those who have gone from the MKII to MKIII, AF issue
aside for the moment, are you happy. Was it worth it and what do you
like

Click to expand...

So far yes. Although I accept the AF is broken in some way, for indoor shooting the AF is just incredible. Basketball players can pass the ball around as fast as they want now and I can get every player in focus instantly. There's no waiting for the AF to lock onto a player -- they're in focus as fast as I can press the AF button even when they're moving. My Mark2n would always have at least two OOF images during fast breaks, one in the middle for no apparent reason. The Mark3 only goes OOF when the player slows down to make the basketball and many times it even gets that shot.

The placement of the cross focus points is perfect for me. There are three just outside the ellipse that in vertical shooting often end up on the player's high-contrast jersey. I think that's making a huge difference.

delboysafa said:

b) How is the ISO performance vs. MK II

Click to expand...

I've only shot one game so far and I found that the ISO wasn't quite right for some reason. On this court I shoot the Mark2n in manual mode at ISO 1250 1/400 f2.8. I thought I could shoot the Mark3 at something like ISO 1600 1/500 f2.8, but to get that exposure I had to crank it up to ISO 2500.

I did some more comparisons and found the two cameras are metering the same so I don't know what was going on. I'll do more testing at the next game.

delboysafa said:

c) Is the IQ better

Click to expand...

At low ISO, this camera produces the best images of any camera I've owned, even a little cleaner than my 5D. At high ISO with indoor shooting I'm having some trouble with soft images and color balance. I spent a lot of time tweaking the Mark2n to get good images out of it so I think it will just be a matter of repeating the process with the Mark3.

FretNoMore said:

Better image quality and high ISO performance (most important of the
upgrades for me), easier handling, larger LCD, slightly lower weight.

Click to expand...

I've been disappointed with the larger LCD. Yes it's larger but blurrier. When I look at an image on my Mark2n, it's smaller but sharper. I don't see the advantage unless you want to hold the camera farther from your eyes.

The images out of my MKIII look much better to me than from my MKII and the camera handles better and is lighter and just a joy to use. When focus is on the camera is fabulous!

My current avi on my OMP port is from MKIII

http://onemodelplace.com/fido

--
Equipment List;

Milk Dud Box With Pinhole
Duct Tape
Hammer
Screwdriver
Homemade Coke Bottle Lens
56 Megapixal Sensor Stuck to back of box with old Milk Dud
Egg Timer

Leon Wittwer said:

I am going through the same decision process

Click to expand...

SNIP

Leon Wittwer said:

Finally, I would not get a new camera of any kind if I had to use it
rather soon. I prefer to have a period where I can use the camera to
get used to using it

Click to expand...

IMHO this is good advice. I have always had a learning curve, with my 1d2, my Sigmonster, my 500/f4.

All three turned out to be all they were advertised to be, but it did take me a while to sort out how they could best be used with my personal shooting style.

Especially with the 1d2 I played around with the functions for a while to figure out which ones best suited how I shoot. And also how to set up the alternate one's for one button switch.

I suspect I will get a 1d3 if the AF issue is really resolved as advertised, but I would not rely on it for a trip like you are planning without using it for a while first.

--
Those who forget history are condemned to go to summer school.

delboysafa said:

All,

I can see the AF issue on the MKIII has been done to death, so well
aware of that. I spoke to a couple of camera suppliers in the UK and
they have received new batches with AF issue resolved.

I have a Canon 1 D MK II and going over to the Kruger National Park
in S.A. in a couple of weeks (my 3rd trip in 12 months) I am
considering the MK III and just wanted to get some advice please.

a) Firstly, those who have gone from the MKII to MKIII, AF issue
aside for the moment, are you happy. Was it worth it and what do you
like

b) How is the ISO performance vs. MK II

c) Is the IQ better

Would appreciate any advice.

Click to expand...

Ok, assuming AF is not a problem, I think the two key areas where you want to know if there's an improvement are with ISO performance and overall picture quality. In a way, both areas are interlinked. One effects the other as no doubt you know. But, in terms of pure image quality (shooting jpeg exclusively) the MK3 is not a massive improvement over the MK2. The jump in picture quality from the original MK1 to MK2 was greater. The MK3 does produce a slightly more satisfying image overall... but, if you're a expecting a 'significant' improvement comparable to the jump from the Mk1 to Mk2 then you won't get that.

Again it's a similar story with regards to ISO performance. The difference between a 1DMk2 and MK3 right up to 1600ISO is once again not significant. It's really only when you're shooting at 3200-6400 does the difference become more apparant and you need to ask yourself how often will you be shooting at high ISO speeds. When you reach such a high ISO there is no longer a level playing field. 3200 ISO on the MK3 comfortably outperforms 3200 on the Mk2. In addition, it's important to note that 6400 on the MK3 hasn't just been tacked on to add an extra feature. It's actually

very useable and I consider it one of the very best features on the MK3. But then, how often will you be shooting at 6400 in the Kruger National Park?

To sum up, if you're happy with what the MK2 produces in terms of overall picture quality for the images you take, then you should stick to the MK2.

However, pluses for the 1DMK3 are - lighter weight, improved battery performance (The improvement here is definetly worth it), Faster FPS (Ignore the 10FPS hype, the actually FPS drops to a slower rate when you are tracking a fast moving subject and drops even slower when that fast moving subject is shot in limited light), Larger LCD (This is great! Ignore comments by those who find the screen fuzzy, it's not, it's just fine), Clearer, brighter viewfinder & re-designed menu system (Yes, it's more intuitive but there are also more options which tend to negate the inutuitivness of it!)

That is, for lower ISO the noise difference isn't a factor but I do most of my shooting in poor light and in my experience the 1DIII is significantly better than the 1DII at high ISO. ISO 100-400 not so much, ISO 800 clearly better, ISO 1600 and up - no contest. I'd say a one stop advantage at high ISO which is a major difference for indoor sports for instance where you tend to use ISO 1600 or ISO 3200 a lot. Many pictures that I had to run through Neatimage before is now fine without noise reduction, my experience overall is that there is much less need for post processing work with the Mark III.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

MaxFoto wrote:
SNIP

MaxFoto said:

However, pluses for the 1DMK3 are - lighter weight, improved battery
performance (The improvement here is definetly worth it),

Click to expand...

SNIP

Hard for me to understand this. My 1d2 battery never seems to die. The finger I use to press the shutter button runs out of juice long before the batter does.

I am talking about shooting all day, well over a thousand images, birds, wildlife and such, chimping, showing images to folks who look at my 500/f4 and say "boy what a nice camera", and usually leaving the camera on while I am walking or driving to my next shooting location.

As for the lighter weight, with the 400/5.6 the balance on the 1d2 seems just right to me. And when I put it on a gimbal head with my Sigmonster it seems easier to balance than when I use my xti on the Sigmonster.

Not to say I wont be getting a 1d3 when it is obvious the AF issue is resolved (and it looks like that may be very soon) because I really need very clean very high ISO. But the battery in my 1d2 has never been a problem.

--
Those who forget history are condemned to go to summer school.

Pull the battery out of your camera and tell me where the battery was made. Japan or China. The Original batteries that came with my three 1D mark IIN's were all made in Japan. The backup batteries I purchased are made in Chiona and do not perform nearly as long. Anyone else have the same experience???
--
Kevin Krows

Kevin Krows said:

Pull the battery out of your camera and tell me where the battery was
made. Japan or China. The Original batteries that came with my
three 1D mark IIN's were all made in Japan. The backup batteries I
purchased are made in Chiona and do not perform nearly as long.
Anyone else have the same experience???
--
Kevin Krows

Click to expand...

I got one Chinese battery and one Canon battery with my used 1DsII, and the Chinese one lasts much longer. It's 2200 mAh as opposed to Canon's 1650 mAh. On the other hand the fit is rather bad, the locking lever doesn't stay folded up, and the locking button doesn't work at all. So partly good, partly bad.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

I'm in a similar situation and here are my thoughts. I'm a complete amateur photographer with a 1DMarkII. In terms of upgrading, I see two options:

(1) Sell the 1DMarkII and get a 1DMarkIII. I figure this will cost about $2000-$2500 when all said and done.

(2) Wait for PMA and the potential and now mythical 5DMarkII. Assuming Canon has to respond to Nikon and if current prices on the 5D are an indicator, the 5DMarkII will not be priced at $4000+. If that is the case, I could get the 5DMarkII and keep my 1DMarkII as well.

Of course option 2 could not work out for many reasons. The 5DMarkII might not be released anytime soon. It might have an MSRP of $4000.

At the moment I am content to wait until Jan/Feb to see what happens.

I primarily shoot weddings and sports, which includes a lot of indoor sports.

For weddings the Mark III is superb. Low light focus is vastly improved. IQ is improved, and the highlight priority mode is great. High ISO IQ is greatly improved. I no longer hesitate to use ISO 1600 or even 3200 during the reception.

For sports, the camera is great. I have had none of the AF problems. These past few weekends I've been shooting marching band competitions. I took about 7000 shots total. Every shot was with my 200 f/1.8 with the 1.4x exender. I used single point AI Servo AF (almost never the center point). The AF was phenominal. At f/2.8 to f/3.5 I would say 98% of the photos where tack sharp. The ones that weren't were no doubt operator error. Note that the conditions were on the cool side (50-60 degrees). Granted, shooting high school marching bands is not the most challenging work for a sports dSLR, but I just couldn't be happier with my Mark III.

Gymnastics season is fast approaching. I will use the superb ISO 3200 all season, and kick it to 6400 when necesary.

I think the biggest improvement in IQ is the high ISO IQ. Noise asside, the detail and color you get from high ISO photos is a real big improvement over the Mark 2.

For me, the Mark III is a great improvement, and making me money.

John

MaxFoto said:

However, pluses for the 1DMK3 are - lighter weight, improved battery
performance (The improvement here is definetly worth it), Faster FPS
(Ignore the 10FPS hype, the actually FPS drops to a slower rate when
you are tracking a fast moving subject and drops even slower when
that fast moving subject is shot in limited light), Larger LCD (This
is great! Ignore comments by those who find the screen fuzzy, it's
not, it's just fine), Clearer, brighter viewfinder & re-designed menu
system (Yes, it's more intuitive but there are also more options
which tend to negate the inutuitivness of it!)

Click to expand...

Another plus is reviewing and zooming images is MUCH faster. If you like to review shots for focus during half time, you won't have to patiently wait for the camera to pull each image off the card and then zoom it like you did with the Mark2. The Mark3 does this almost instantly. You can check a hundred shots with zoom almost as fast as you can turn the knob.

Yeah, the screen is fine but it's no better than the Mark2n's. It's just larger.

I have the original and an el cheapo backup from some guy on ebay. I put either one in and shoot all day, go home at night and recharge, and do the same thing next day.

I have never had any problems with them dying. It is not uncommon for me to shoot a whole weekend and recharge one Sunday night.

It may be true one lasts longer than the other, but if I can shoot from dawn to dusk with the same battery it is not an issue to me.

--
Those who forget history are condemned to go to summer school.

I have let the camera sit idle for over a week.

The original Canon holds up well, even when at low, the battery goes and goes.

The $25 dollar fleaBay battery will shoot all day on a fresg FULLl charge, but once they get low, they die rather quickly. They also do not seem to hold the charge as well as the Canon.

Just my experience!