Mark Thomas

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/

...for anyone who likes that sort of thing.

Noons

Mark Thomas wrote,on my timestamp of 18/08/2008 9:46 PM:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/
>
> ..for anyone who likes that sort of thing.

Cripes! 8 months later!
These folks:
http://www.cameralabs.com/
are much more timely with most reviews...
Still, better late than never.
Thanks.

Annika1980

On Aug 18, 7:46*am, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com>
wrote:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/
>


"Nikon's D3, launched almost simultaneously to rapturous response
might stolen a little of the Mark III's thunder, but the truth is that
in many respects it is the Canon flagship model that most deserves to
sit at the very top of the digital SLR tree."

"...it'll be interesting to see where the Mark III sits in the grand
scheme of things by next spring. But for now it is, essentially,
peerless."

SMS

Annika1980 wrote:

> "...it'll be interesting to see where the Mark III sits in the grand
> scheme of things by next spring. But for now it is, essentially,
> peerless."

In price as well as image quality!

ASAAR

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:32:47 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 wrote:

>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/
>>
>
>
> "Nikon's D3, launched almost simultaneously to rapturous response
> might stolen a little of the Mark III's thunder, but the truth is that
> in many respects it is the Canon flagship model that most deserves to
> sit at the very top of the digital SLR tree."
>
> "...it'll be interesting to see where the Mark III sits in the grand
> scheme of things by next spring. But for now it is, essentially,
> peerless."

Of course you left out the part of the review that indicated that
its perch atop the SLR tree was due to its high resolution, and how
little difference there was between what it produced and what the
Mark II and D3 were capable of (per Littleboy) coughing up.

While it may be at the top of a landscape or studio photographer's
SLR tree, it's not the only tree in the forest, and the D3 perches
above the Mark III in most sports, PJ and wildlife photographer's
SLR trees. As DPR also pointed out, the high priced Mark III
($8,000) doesn't automatically confer its high resolution advantage.
It also requires a slew of equally high priced lenses to do its
magic. Unless these lenses are already owned, expect an entry level
1DS Mark III kit for many owners to require $15,000, $20,000 or
more.

George Kerby

On 8/18/08 12:32 PM, in article
b9fbd086-3bf1-4a7f-a773-d7bf08e8a379...oglegroups.com,
"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:

> On Aug 18, 7:46*am, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com>
> wrote:
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1DSMarkIII/
>>
>
>
> "Nikon's D3, launched almost simultaneously to rapturous response
> might stolen a little of the Mark III's thunder, but the truth is that
> in many respects it is the Canon flagship model that most deserves to
> sit at the very top of the digital SLR tree."
>
> "...it'll be interesting to see where the Mark III sits in the grand
> scheme of things by next spring. But for now it is, essentially,
> peerless."
"As we said when we reviewed the Nikon D3 a couple of months back, the air
is pretty thin at the very top of the digital SLR tree and at the moment
both the big players avoid trampling on each other's toes too heavily,
meaning the EOS-1Ds Mark III has nothing you could call a direct competitor.
There are currently only three other full frame digital SLRs on the market;
Canon's venerable EOS 5D and Nikon's dynamic duo, the D700 and D3. None of
these can hold a candle to the Mark III in sheer resolution terms, and only
the D3 can match it for build and functionality. The EOS-1Ds Mark III sits
on its own (for the time being) as the undisputed king of the megapixel."

Eat me, "Rita"!!!!

David J. Littleboy

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote:
>
> While it may be at the top of a landscape or studio photographer's
> SLR tree, it's not the only tree in the forest, and the D3 perches
> above the Mark III in most sports, PJ and wildlife photographer's
> SLR trees.

Well, Doh!. Shooting sports with a 22MP camera on a daily basis would be
pretty dumb. Heck, 12MP is way overkill; 8 or 10 MP in a 1.3x crop makes a
lot more sense.

And the D3, with it's lower pixel density, is going to be lower on the
wildlife photographer's wish list.

If Canon comes out with a 16 or 17MP 5DII, it's the D3 that's going to be
looking pointless: too few pixels for pictorial work/too many for sports/PJ.

Then there's the point that for a lot of sports, 10 fps doesn't get you a
significantly better chance than 5 fps does. (Calculate how far a fast pitch
(or slapshot) travels in 1/10 second.); People got great sports shots with
4x5 Speed Graphics.

> As DPR also pointed out, the high priced Mark III
> ($8,000) doesn't automatically confer its high resolution advantage.
> It also requires a slew of equally high priced lenses to do its
> magic. Unless these lenses are already owned, expect an entry level
> 1DS Mark III kit for many owners to require $15,000, $20,000 or
> more.

Huh? The lenses aren't all that expensive. Any of the primes from 24 to
200mm will produce superb images on the 1Ds3. Especially, if one is
intelligent about how one uses them (doesn't shoot wide open when one needs
max sharpness, just as one did on film). And if you need longer lenses, the
cheaper lenses look bad on the 5D/D3 as well, so there's no difference in
lens costs there.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

measekite

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote:
>
>> While it may be at the top of a landscape or studio photographer's
>> SLR tree, it's not the only tree in the forest, and the D3 perches
>> above the Mark III in most sports, PJ and wildlife photographer's
>> SLR trees.
>>
>
> Well, Doh!. Shooting sports with a 22MP camera on a daily basis would be
> pretty dumb. Heck, 12MP is way overkill; 8 or 10 MP in a 1.3x crop makes a
> lot more sense.
>
> And the D3, with it's lower pixel density, is going to be lower on the
> wildlife photographer's wish list.
>
> If Canon comes out with a 16 or 17MP 5DII, it's the D3 that's going to be
> looking pointless: too few pixels for pictorial work/too many for sports/PJ.
>
> Then there's the point that for a lot of sports, 10 fps doesn't get you a
> significantly better chance than 5 fps does. (Calculate how far a fast pitch
> (or slapshot) travels in 1/10 second.); People got great sports shots with
> 4x5 Speed Graphics.
>


While you may have made a point and I personally would not spend the
amount of money a D3 costs ( or even a 1DsMKIII or maybe even a 5DmkII)
one has to remember that one of the major features of the D3 is the
ability to produce very low light low noise high ISO photos. If that is
what one is after then the D3 currently has not competition. But who
knows how long that will last.
>
>> As DPR also pointed out, the high priced Mark III
>> ($8,000) doesn't automatically confer its high resolution advantage.
>> It also requires a slew of equally high priced lenses to do its
>> magic. Unless these lenses are already owned, expect an entry level
>> 1DS Mark III kit for many owners to require $15,000, $20,000 or
>> more.
>>
>
> Huh? The lenses aren't all that expensive. Any of the primes from 24 to
> 200mm will produce superb images on the 1Ds3. Especially, if one is
> intelligent about how one uses them (doesn't shoot wide open when one needs
> max sharpness, just as one did on film). And if you need longer lenses, the
> cheaper lenses look bad on the 5D/D3 as well, so there's no difference in
> lens costs there.
>
>

ASAAR

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:30:31 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

>> While it may be at the top of a landscape or studio photographer's
>> SLR tree, it's not the only tree in the forest, and the D3 perches
>> above the Mark III in most sports, PJ and wildlife photographer's
>> SLR trees.
>
> Well, Doh!. Shooting sports with a 22MP camera on a daily basis would be
> pretty dumb. Heck, 12MP is way overkill; 8 or 10 MP in a 1.3x crop makes a
> lot more sense.

Then we're in agreement. For sports shooting the Mark III doesn't
earn a perch on the highest branch.


> And the D3, with it's lower pixel density, is going to be lower on the
> wildlife photographer's wish list.

There are wildlife photographers and wildlife photographers. I
recall discussions you and Roger took part in a year or three ago
talking about the difficulty of getting some types of wildlife shots
where having really long lenses with very wide apertures and
especially cameras with the fastest target acquisition and tracking
were critical for getting a reasonably high percentage of keepers.
The Mark III, fine as it is, wasn't designed with that type of
shooting in mind. I guess that you've also noticed that the
photographer's areas in the Olympics are no longer a sea of nothing
but large, white lenses.


> If Canon comes out with a 16 or 17MP 5DII, it's the D3 that's going to be
> looking pointless: too few pixels for pictorial work/too many for sports/PJ.

All hail Littleboy! The Canonista returns! I was wondering where
you'd gone.


> Then there's the point that for a lot of sports, 10 fps doesn't get you a
> significantly better chance than 5 fps does. (Calculate how far a fast pitch
> (or slapshot) travels in 1/10 second.); People got great sports shots with
> 4x5 Speed Graphics.

Here's a clue. Sports photographers need cameras and lenses that
excel in all of the sports they're assigned, not just a tiny subset.
How many shots taken today of runners sliding into second base or of
dekeing(sp?) basketball players or football players cutting and
running (Democrats?) are likely to be taken with 4x5 Speed Graphics.
The only thing that "Speed" indicates today is the lack of . . .

Thom Hogan made the point a couple of days ago that the reason why
the photographers at the Olympics almost exclusively use Nikon and
Canon cameras is that they're the brands where the speed lies.
Olympus, Pentax, etc. may make cameras that take pictures with more
than enough image quality, but organizations that can afford to send
teams of photographers aren't about to hobble them with gear that
shoots at 1/2 to 1/3 the rate. One or two great images missed can
represent a financial loss greater than the cost of all of the
expensive photo gear.


>> As DPR also pointed out, the high priced Mark III
>> ($8,000) doesn't automatically confer its high resolution advantage.
>> It also requires a slew of equally high priced lenses to do its
>> magic. Unless these lenses are already owned, expect an entry level
>> 1DS Mark III kit for many owners to require $15,000, $20,000 or
>> more.
>
> Huh? The lenses aren't all that expensive. Any of the primes from 24 to
> 200mm will produce superb images on the 1Ds3. Especially, if one is
> intelligent about how one uses them (doesn't shoot wide open when one needs
> max sharpness, just as one did on film). And if you need longer lenses, the
> cheaper lenses look bad on the 5D/D3 as well, so there's no difference in
> lens costs there.

That last sentence is worthy of RichA, not you. I wasn't talking
about the 5D or D3. If the Mark III is used with cheaper lenses,
the photographer might as well have saved money by using a 5D or D3.
I was specifically talking about the Mark III owner being able to
achieve the quality that the camera body promises. Paying $8,000
for all that potential and then squandering it with a cheaper lens
would almost be like using a kit lens on a 40D or 5D.

Referring to the high cost, I also did *not* say "for all owners".
Some that get the Mark III may find that one of two of the shorter,
less expensive high quality lenses are sufficient. But I doubt that
Canon expects that all of the photographers that buy the Mark III
will not want to buy any of their long, expensive glass. If they
only buy one lens, they'll have reached $15,000 with a 400mm f/2.8
IS or 600mm f/4.0 IS lens. If that one lens is the 800mm f/5.6 IS
lens, they've reached the $20,000 that I mentioned. But I doubt
that even you would think that anyone purchasing one of these lenses
for the Mark III wouldn't purchase any other lenses. Use yourself
as a non-Mark III data point. How many Canon lenses do you own?

ASAAR

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:24:23 -0500, George Kerby wrote:

>> "The EOS-1Ds Mark III sits on its own (for the time being) as the
>> undisputed king of the megapixel."
>
> Eat me, "Rita"!!!!

Is that "king of all DSLRs"? Obviously not. Many of us here have
at least one P&S. Which one would most of us want to own? I'll bet
it wouldn't be one wearing the "king of the megapixel" crown.