Canon 1D mark iii or iv in 2020 or budget alternatives

[Jamespugin]

Any thoughts on the Canon 1D mark III or IV or others (open to suggestions budget of 700 USD) for wildlife photography. Thoughts on those two :

• Decent buffers
• Good AF
• High frame rates
• Reasonable priced

Thanks in advance,

 

[rmexpress22]

7DII might be better on most fronts. Not sure how the APS-C sensor stands up to APS-H on the 1D4 but I would think at worst, it's comparable.

I think the 1D4 is more passable than the 1D3 at this point.

 

[Tannin]

Hmmmm .... not a silly idea. I used a 1D III as my primary birding camera for some years, then replaced it with a 1D IV. They worked very well indeed, offering all of the advantages you have outlined in the OP - very fast, brilliant AF systems, good noise performance by the standards of the day, and extraordinary toughness and reliability, coupled with a huge battery that lasts for several days of intensive use.

I used them with a 500/4 for the most part. None of the 1D cameras have ever had very good pixel density. (The 1Ds units did, but they were a different series.) The 1.3 crop helps a bit, of course, nevertheless, they don't put nearly as many pixels on the bird as (for example) a 70D, a 7D Mark 1 or a 5D IV. With a 500/4, that was OK. I'm not sure that I'd really want to use a 1D as a first-choice birding camera using a 100-400. You'd struggle for reach a bit too often.

I found the ruggedness and all-round class of the 1Ds, allied with their pretty fair low light ability, made them an excellent choice as a birding camera. The relative lack of reach was something I could live with (being blessed with a 500/4), especially after I added a 7D Mark 1. From that time on I use the 7D in good light when reach-limited, and the 1D IV for everything else. It was a great combo, and the 1D IV remained my most-used camera for many years - not just for birding, I loved using it for landscapes too.

Eventually, the 1D IV got pushed out of prime-time use by a 7D II and especially by the 5D IV. It is still a joy to use - it's the most responsive and all-round fun camera to use I have ever owned - but I get tired of the sheer bulk and weight of it. I habitually carry two or three cameras, and these days I tend to take an EOS R as the third body, simply because it is small and light. Nevertheless, I pull the old Mark IV out quite often, and always find it delightful in the hand. Are the shots sub-standard compared to the 30MP full-frame goodness of the 5D IV or EOS R? Not really. It has always had wonderful colour straight out of the camera, and looking at a big print, you very seldom remember or notice that it was taken with a "low" resolution body.

Would I select a used 1D III for birding today, if I was on a budget? No. Not when you could get a Mark IV, which is a noticeable step up.

What about a Mark IV? Maybe, but it depends on my intentions. If I was going to do a lot of reach-challenged stuff with lighting not a problem (waders on a beach, for example), then I'd go for a 7D Mark 1. Excellent reach, responsive, good to use. The only issue is that 400 ISO is your limit for really clean results, 800 ISO if pushed. It's not really usable past 800 ISO.

If, on the other hand, I was doing a more varied selection of tasks, the Mark IV would be an excellent choice. And if I was doing a range of wild subjects in a range of environmental conditions - from small birds right through to large mammals, then the Mark IV would be ideal.

 

[t6]

Maybe consider a 1DX (the first one) too. Just wait a few months and prices may drop further due to availability of 1DX III ...

 

[Tannin]

Good idea, T6, but depending on the subject. I wouldn't want to use a 1DX for birds if I could have a 1D IV instead because the 1DX has a significantly lower pixel density. But if my main interest was wildlife more generally, then sure, at the right price it's a great camera.

(As a matter of detail, I had my choice of 1DX and 1DIV when I bought my Mark 4. I didn't want an X. But then I'm mainly a bird shooter. For other purposes, a different matter.)

 

[t6]

Well, I had the 1D4 also before changing to 1DX eight years ago. Also doing BIF and wildlife stuff and not missing anything wrt pixel density - even more happy with less but fatter pixels. Maybe the available lenses / reach may make a difference - usually I'm using the EF 800. Suggest to rent/loan a 1DX for a few days and test it.

 

[Jamespugin]

Thanks for the responses. I have been looking online at some sample images with the 400 mm F5.6 and they look great to me. I think what I will do is try get a rental here and then see how that copes for what I want to do. In terms of the price difference, the 1D IV does look like the better option. I have had some success with effective focal lengths of around 450 mm and with the 400 mm f5.6 I would get approximately 520 without a TC.

 

[realmadeira]

Any thoughts on the Canon 1D mark III or IV or others (open to suggestions budget of 700 USD) for wildlife photography. Thoughts on those two :

• Decent buffers
• Good AF
• High frame rates
• Reasonable priced

Thanks in advance,

Your best bet is 7DII:

- right on your budget if buying used

- ticks all the boxes

- don't bother with older 1D series - you will need to crop anyway with wildlife no matter how long is your lense, therefore larger sensor is not that useful

- 1Ds series have much worse AF than 7DII

- 1DX is comparable to 7DII in speed, but is used is at least $1000 for very beaten up condition and 7DII has better reach

 

[Michael Thomas Mitchell]

Any thoughts on the Canon 1D mark III or IV or others (open to suggestions budget of 700 USD) for wildlife photography. Thoughts on those two :

• Decent buffers
• Good AF
• High frame rates
• Reasonable priced

I used my old 1DIII for the final time at a wedding in 2015. It had long before been replaced by a IV, but I took it out for a few more shots before selling it for about $1100.

I kept the Mark IV alongside a 6D for weddings for a bit. (I had previously paired the standard 1D bodies with their higher resolution "s" cousin, but there never was, unfortunately, a 1DsIV.) For a short time (until a theft), the 5DIII and 7DII were my wedding bodies. Today, the 5DIV does absolutely everything I need from a DSLR (although I'll sometimes pair it with an 80D).

There's nothing in the Mark IV I didn't like better than the III except the louder "thwock" shutter. Of the pre-X 1D bodies, the 1DsII seemed the least loud (and even nostalgically film-like), while the Mark IV seemed the loudest. Not a dealbreaker for me, since the quiet 6D often did my low-light ceremony stuff where noise could be an issue. But maybe an issue for wildlife.

As much as I enjoyed the 1DIV, the 7DII really did challenge it, and I might recommend it first over the 1DIV. Where the Mark IV is probably no longer serviceable, the 7DII is still sold new. From AF and IQ to FPS and ISO, it will likely meet or beat what the IV offers. Plus you get far better video AF and FPS capabilities, if that's a thing at all. Similar price, too.

 

[threw the lens]

I feel that amateurs are forced to overpay for the 1D IV, because it was the last APS-H camera. A lot of the ones I see have been thrashed by people who held on to them because they had more reach for telephoto work in daylight.

You should consider the 2009 7D on image quality grounds, unless you are purely on an old pro camera kick. If you decide the 7D has not enough image quality, you should not be considering the 1D III either!

If you resize 1D IV files down to 1D III size you get something like 1/4 stop better high iso if that means anything.

If you get a 7D II you have more advanced AF and it's quite a lot more useful for video.

One thing against the 1D III & IV are that the APS-H is really a non-standard sensor size and a PITA for non-telephoto work. Your standard 24-70 works more like a 28-75 and the 16-35s work like 20-45mm, big difference through the viewfinder. Most APS-C lenses will not cover the whole of the APS-H sensor and you can't use Canon EF-S. Again, it complicates your life.

The reason I even bothered writing so much about it is based on fun times back in the day shooting with the Mark III, but the head says no to more APS-H. Image quality has moved on and with FF I get another stop of high iso. The 1D IV high iso has a bit more chroma noise in raw than Nikons, which needs more treatment. If you're willing to forego a little image quality and can find the right used model though, you should like it.

 

[Coffeejohn]

Hi have Cannon 1DMark iii and 5D markii the Mark iii I picked up for €250 and is the best camera I have ever used. The low light and focus is unbelievable it captures many shots other cameras would struggle. I not one to get hung up on higher resolution but 5D does help but the 10fps is so quick and quiet it is hard to miss a shot. If you put a good lens it also helps

John

 

[DailyHack]

I have just sold me 1d3 mainly used for birding and few other documentary things, my main body is an ageing 5d2, but it still produces stunning images with its 21MP FF.

I had brief flirt with a used 7d, primarily because the screen was so much nicer than on the 1d3, its is woeful, it really is, you cant even tell if what you have shot is in focus because of the resolution.

7d I sold as the it was so noisy, I know there is alot of talk about this, but the files just dont look clean at all, and they need alot more PP to get even close to the 1d files, even from the 1d3's 10MP, again built well, and very accomplished, but just the output.

Shooting above 1000 iso is pretty normal to match the fast shutter speed and middle aperture required for birds, and i was forever disappointed with the 7d's files over 400 iso.

I sold my 1d3 solely on this issue, and upgraded to the 1d4 recently, utter bargains now, the LCD screen is so much better (16MP is also nice)

1'ds may feel like dinosaurs today, but they are built for the job, and my massive hands love holding these bodies, ergonomics are fantastic, and that is one reason small bodied mirrorless systems will not work for me just on them grounds.

 

[dontbsme_1a]

my 2 cents, your always going to need longer than 400mm unless your shooting with APS-C sensor,

Id suggest A Nikon D500 and or Sony A6400-6600....

 

[threw the lens]

my 2 cents, your always going to need longer than 400mm unless your shooting with APS-C sensor,

Id suggest A Nikon D500 and or Sony A6400-6600....

Strange intrusion to the thread as the guy never mentioned lenses and was talking about Canon DSLRs.

If you're going to bring a D500 into the conversation then the guy might as well go for a 7D II instead. Similar performance, little bit cheaper, and he gets to stay in Canon.

The people used to the 1D appreciate the ergonomics though.

 

[dontbsme_1a]

Wildlife was in is question, and he has not indicated or listed what he owns...

my 02 cents indicates, I may not stay strictly to the question...

Canon does not service the Mark III any longer also the D500 will do everything the Mark IV will do....

 

[John Sheehy]

Thanks for the responses. I have been looking online at some sample images with the 400 mm F5.6 and they look great to me. I think what I will do is try get a rental here and then see how that copes for what I want to do. In terms of the price difference, the 1D IV does look like the better option. I have had some success with effective focal lengths of around 450 mm and with the 400 mm f5.6 I would get approximately 520 without a TC.

I don't think that 35mm-equivalent focal lengths are a very useful concept for focal-length-limited photography. There is no real benefit, IQ-wise, to having a subject at a given distance larger in the frame; that target is completely hollow, because it does not tell us anything about how it got to be that size, as a percentage of the frame.

With the same subject, subject distance, and lens, the subject will fill the frame of a 3.1MP EOS D30 better than a 50MP EOS 5Ds. If it is a 400mm lens, then you might claim that it is equivalent to 640mm on the D30, but where does that get you? The longer focal length in that case means only one thing: more of the lens' image circle is not captured. What isn't lost, is captured at a much lower resolution, as a 1.6x crop from a 50MP FF camera is about 20MP, vs the 3.1MP of the actual crop camera.

"Longer" equivalent focal lengths may be nothing but a loss, unless the pixel density is actually higher; then you lose more of the image circle, but what you do capture is resolved better.

The focal-length-derived real number that is relevant for focal-length-limited photography, which very few people talk about, is the focal length divided by the linear pixel spacing. That is what determines how many pixels wide or tall your subject is, at a given shooting distance and subject size.

Of course, there are other final image quality factors like lens sharpness and AA filter presence or strength, but those are also ignored in the "35mm-equivalent" paradigm.

 

[John Sheehy]

7d I sold as the it was so noisy, I know there is alot of talk about this, but the files just dont look clean at all, and they need alot more PP to get even close to the 1d files, even from the 1d3's 10MP, again built well, and very accomplished, but just the output.

The original 18MP 7D is certainly noisier than current options, but for focal-length-limited photography (noise per unit of sensor area), it should be similar to the 1D3. Perhaps you are drawn to 100% pixel views, at the same ISOs, but that does not actually represent focal-length-limited comparisons. The 1D3 is cheating in such a comparison, with lower subject magnification.

Shooting above 1000 iso is pretty normal to match the fast shutter speed and middle aperture required for birds, and i was forever disappointed with the 7d's files over 400 iso.

Sharpening noise and detail at 100% pixel view, a level at which the 1D3 records nothing; neither noise nor detail?

 

[JDavilaPhotography]

If you want the 1D look (can't say experience because what i'm about to suggest, you can find that experience and more in a mid range pro camera) .... go for 1D mk iv, but if performance is what you're are really looking for in wild life or sports photography, then i recommend you get the canon 7D mark ii its performance is far more superior than the 1D mark iv its body is made of the same magnesium allow chasis that All 1D series cameras have, its weather proofing is the same grade as the 1Dx, 20.2 mega pixels (16 in MKiv) with 65 focusing points all cross type, 10fps and very customizable, the camera is a beast, considered by professional sports or wild life photographers to be if not the best but one of the best cameras in the world in those categories, but the best news is that it will save you money finding one used these days, the cost cheaper than a 1D mark 4. do some research look around and compare for yourself. and if you still want that 1D look just add a battery grip to it, that's my recommendation I have both cameras and i find myself usinf the 7D mkii more because the auto focusing is faster and more accurate that 1D mkiv and the buffer is far superior.

 

[MarshallG]

I'm sure he's bought his camera by now.