First Day with 1DXMKIII - Observations

[tvstaff]

1. Having 600 EXRT II issues with MKIII I can't replicate on my 1DX or MKII will reset everything and try again. These are WB issues not allowing flash exposure setting to kick in.

2. Tried high ISO exposures from 800 on up and so far the MKII has less noise. Also getting better color rendition in low light with 11 vs 111

3. Using 24-70 f/4 it's not focusing right on MKIII but ok on 1DX and MKIII. So far 2.8 70-200 II, 2.8 300mm II and 1.2 85mm working fine. Will test 50mm, 400mm and 35mm next round.

4. Menu differences obvious and able to emulate pretty well what works well on I and II on three. Glad to see Cases were refined.

5. Screen sensitive, need to disable when using OVF

6. Focus points very hard to see even when bright.

7. Switching from M to AV to P to TV so difficult to see

Tomorrow big test shooting some really fast moving objects with the 2.8 300 II and 400 II

If you're a video shooter this camera is packed with new features. I 've never used video on my 1's or II''s but this camera seems to be 100% with more going on there.

Can't wait to see what it does with sports and if it's a vast improvement over my kitesurfing shots with the MKII.

Wondering now if expecting a visible difference in IQ for stills was realistic.




If it were a flag.....

 

[superclarkey]

Point 6, did you happen to know you can make them brighter in the menu? I noticed stand they where too dull also.

any dead pixels out of interest?

 

[Marc dbr]

2. Could you upload test images comparing the two at high iso settings?

thanks for the early feedback

 

[tvstaff]

Point 6, did you happen to know you can make them brighter in the menu? I noticed stand they where too dull also.

any dead pixels out of interest?

Set to brightest setting. Thank you for writing appreciate it.

Dont see any dead pixels.

 

[Occams Razor]

I thought you stated in a previous post that you were disappointed with the resolution in the 1DX3 and were not going to buy the new body. What changed your mind?

Thanks for posting your initial observations.

 

[tvstaff]

I thought you stated in a previous post that you were disappointed with the resolution in the 1DX3 and were not going to buy the new body. What changed your mind?

Thanks for posting your initial observations.

Canon's marketing material led me to beleive there would be a "noted" difference in IQ from the MK11 to the MKIII.

So I figured " what the heck". I'm not seeing any improvement in IQ after taking 100's of thousands of shots with 1DXMKII to compare things to.

But as stated, there are apparent video enhancements. However I'm a still photographer for extreme sports and fast moving runway fashion with difficult lighting and shadows.

If there is no boost in IQ, the MKII is just fine for me until I can improve on it, with another camera. To be fair, I'll keep trying with the MKIII to see if I can get any boost in IQ in any of the circumstances I shoot in.

Why Canon did not improve the viability of focus points is beyond me. I'm having a hard time seeing it on objects in dark and bright light. The squares are smaller and on bright settings no help. Swithching exposure modes is also utilizing super tiny indicator. All of which Happy to accept if IQ is vastly improved.

Hope I'm not chasing windmills.

 

[Pocket Lint]

I thought you stated in a previous post that you were disappointed with the resolution in the 1DX3 and were not going to buy the new body. What changed your mind?

Thanks for posting your initial observations.

Canon's marketing material led me to beleive there would be a "noted" difference in IQ from the MK11 to the MKIII.

So I figured " what the heck". I'm not seeing any improvement in IQ after taking 100's of thousands of shots with 1DXMKII to compare things to.

But as stated, there are apparent video enhancements. However I'm a still photographer for extreme sports and fast moving runway fashion with difficult lighting and shadows.

If there is no boost in IQ, the MKII is just fine for me until I can improve on it, with another camera. To be fair, I'll keep trying with the MKIII to see if I can get any boost in IQ in any of the circumstances I shoot in.

Why Canon did not improve the viability of focus points is beyond me. I'm having a hard time seeing it on objects in dark and bright light. The squares are smaller and on bright settings no help. Swithching exposure modes is also utilizing super tiny indicator. All of which Happy to accept if IQ is vastly improved.

Hope I'm not chasing windmills.

That sounds a bit annoying, dim AF points. When I saw the change in shape to smaller rectangles in the release video I thought it was a little odd. Because the AF sensor has more resolution and is denser, that could explain the smaller AF points. Hopefully this dimness issue can be rectified in a firmware update. I quite like the square AF points.

 

[jffielde]

I do have a single blown pixel on my LCD (glows green). Mildly annoying when the screen is blank, but I won't return it over that issue.

 

[BlueRay2]

1. Having 600 EXRT II issues with MKIII I can't replicate on my 1DX or MKII will reset everything and try again. These are WB issues not allowing flash exposure setting to kick in.

2. Tried high ISO exposures from 800 on up and so far the MKII has less noise. Also getting better color rendition in low light with 11 vs 111

i am quite surprised here! it is hard to believe that canon wasn't able to at least match the vibrant colors of 1Dx v.1 and v.2 on v.III! although i am not a technical person in color science of the cameras but i would think that canon could have transferred the package to v.3.

and same goes to higher ISO noise! it is not that the sensor pixel density was dramatically increased in v.III to cause the noise, strange! wonder what happened there.

we'd be interested to hear your next assessment when you use your new v.III to the max ;-) hopefully you are able to post some photos, as well. good luck.

3. Using 24-70 f/4 it's not focusing right on MKIII but ok on 1DX and MKIII. So far 2.8 70-200 II, 2.8 300mm II and 1.2 85mm working fine. Will test 50mm, 400mm and 35mm next round.

4. Menu differences obvious and able to emulate pretty well what works well on I and II on three. Glad to see Cases were refined.

5. Screen sensitive, need to disable when using OVF

6. Focus points very hard to see even when bright.

7. Switching from M to AV to P to TV so difficult to see

Tomorrow big test shooting some really fast moving objects with the 2.8 300 II and 400 II

If you're a video shooter this camera is packed with new features. I 've never used video on my 1's or II''s but this camera seems to be 100% with more going on there.

Can't wait to see what it does with sports and if it's a vast improvement over my kitesurfing shots with the MKII.

Wondering now if expecting a visible difference in IQ for stills was realistic.

 

[Fred Greaves]

2. Tried high ISO exposures from 800 on up and so far the MKII has less noise. Also getting better color rendition in low light with 11 vs 111

Is this based on jpeg, heif, or raw images? If raw, how are you processing the images? Are you basing this on raw files processed with DPP? Lightroom?

I am finding that the high ISO RAW files processed in Lightroom are a bit smudgy and not quite as clean as when they are processed in DPP (which is still kind of a clunky solution.) When Canon released the mkII back in 2016, Adobe kicked out a fast update right before the camera was released that was not producing optimal results, either. They updated it a few weeks later and it produced much better results.

I would image we'll see a better Adobe RAW profile for the camera soon.

Personally, I'm looking forward to C1 support for the mkIII, which is my preferred editing platform. Converting the CR3 files to DNG's before importing into C1 doesn't always produce the best results, either.

 

[tvstaff]

2. Tried high ISO exposures from 800 on up and so far the MKII has less noise. Also getting better color rendition in low light with 11 vs 111

Is this based on jpeg, heif, or raw images? If raw, how are you processing the images? Are you basing this on raw files processed with DPP? Lightroom?

I use both. For the most part. I find DPP to be superior

I am finding that the high ISO RAW files processed in Lightroom are a bit smudgy and not quite as clean as when they are processed in DPP (which is still kind of a clunky solution.)

I'm finding the MKIII to be "muddy" so far. It tends to shoot "hot". Lack of definition, muddy... I'll define better after last shots

When Canon released the mkII back in 2016, Adobe kicked out a fast update right before the camera was released that was not producing optimal results, either. They updated it a few weeks later and it produced much better results.

I'll hope that Canon DPP is truer to form for now and finish edits in LR or PS

I would image we'll see a better Adobe RAW profile for the camera soon.

Personally, I'm looking forward to C1 support for the mkIII, which is my preferred editing platform. Converting the CR3 files to DNG's before importing into C1 doesn't always produce the best results, either.

So far I have real AWB color rendition issues with so much... I'll post my findings later.

 

[tvstaff]

1. Having 600 EXRT II issues with MKIII I can't replicate on my 1DX or MKII will reset everything and try again. These are WB issues not allowing flash exposure setting to kick in.

2. Tried high ISO exposures from 800 on up and so far the MKII has less noise. Also getting better color rendition in low light with 11 vs 111

i am quite surprised here! it is hard to believe that canon wasn't able to at least match the vibrant colors of 1Dx v.1 and v.2 on v.III! although i am not a technical person in color science of the cameras but i would think that canon could have transferred the package to v.3.

and same goes to higher ISO noise! it is not that the sensor pixel density was dramatically increased in v.III to cause the noise, strange! wonder what happened there.

we'd be interested to hear your next assessment when you use your new v.III to the max ;-) hopefully you are able to post some photos, as well. good luck.

Thank you!!!

3. Using 24-70 f/4 it's not focusing right on MKIII but ok on 1DX and MKIII. So far 2.8 70-200 II, 2.8 300mm II and 1.2 85mm working fine. Will test 50mm, 400mm and 35mm next round.

4. Menu differences obvious and able to emulate pretty well what works well on I and II on three. Glad to see Cases were refined.

5. Screen sensitive, need to disable when using OVF

6. Focus points very hard to see even when bright.

7. Switching from M to AV to P to TV so difficult to see

Tomorrow big test shooting some really fast moving objects with the 2.8 300 II and 400 II

If you're a video shooter this camera is packed with new features. I 've never used video on my 1's or II''s but this camera seems to be 100% with more going on there.

Can't wait to see what it does with sports and if it's a vast improvement over my kitesurfing shots with the MKII.

Wondering now if expecting a visible difference in IQ for stills was realistic.

 

[Snapper2013]

an exchange.



Sometimes you have to cherry pick 5 or 6 cameras to get a good one these days.

Good luck.

 

[Magnumdarkstar]

This is why jumping the gun is a bad idea especially if you have a good working camera. So far does not sound great. 1DX has great color science and noise levels. The most important thing a camera needs to do is provide good images.

maybe the video features meant a compromise for stills?

If your not happy I am definitely going to steer away.

 

[Snapper2013]

nt

 

[Fred Greaves]

Nothing wrong with the cameras. Just waiting for the RAW support to catch up.

 

[tvstaff]

Here are my feelings after two days of shooting with the Canon EOS 1DX MKIII. I can only compare my experience being a first adapter of the 1DX and 1DXMKII, shooting professionally for Sports and Runway Fashion.

1. I find there to be no "noticeable" upgrade in IQ and in some instances, greater noise
2. There is a "muddy" lack of definition across a variety of shooting circumstances
3. fur and Human hair exhibit an unusual lack of definition and noise
4. At reasonable ISO levels, there is too much noise
5. Color rendition utilizing AWB in "Standard" has been way off. Oranges are of particular weakness. "Fine Detail" corrects some of these anomalies
6. Focus points are particularly difficult to follow and see even when on the brightest settings. Single point is beyond arduous. I like to see where my camera has focused clearly and distinctly in and out of single point.
7. Switching between M. AV, TV, should be with brighter larger indicators in the OVF
8. Focusing on objects coming straight at you has improved
9. Single point expanded still exhibits drift outside of the visual parameters of the grouping
10. Exposure runs "hot" and based on the noise of the MKIII this is particularly difficult to work with outdoors in bright sun and stadium lighting. Runway for fashion where mode'ls faces, tend to bloom, at front of stage, will provide many issues. ETTR should be avoided unless utilized taking this into consideration.
11. I'm having issues with the 600 EXRTII that I still can't resolve that I can't replicate on the MKII or 1DX. I've not used strobes yet.

For video, there are many enhancements but I'm a still photographer and can't speak to them nor am I qualified to review video.

The advantage with the MKIII, if greater IQ is not needed, will be when placed downfield, with athletes moving straight at you with a zoom like the f/4 200-400. This is an improvement over the MKII. Most "trained" will get the same number of keepers with the MKII. Another improvement, I could not get the buffer to overflow with the MKIII. All my Wise 512GB cards are still on backorder.

If you're looking for greater IQ by buying the MKIII, not the right choice.

 

[tvstaff]

an exchange.

Sometimes you have to cherry pick 5 or 6 cameras to get a good one these days.

Good luck.

Snapper, This might be a case of waiting to see if the firmware can improve IQ before going through copies. I'm not high on the IQ now for stills.

 

[BlueRay2]

i am underwhelmed ;-)

 

[tvstaff]

i am underwhelmed ;-)

Me too. I can't tell you how disappointed I am.