Canon 1DIIN vs 1DIII

JimKarczewski

So, besides megapixels, ISO and screen size.. is there really that much difference between the 1DIIN and the 1DIII? I've found some great prices on both and still can't make a determination which would be better. The III is obviously 2x the price of the IIN but my question is are there any gotchas to either? I know the III had some focus issues but I thought they were fixed with a ROM upgrade...

I mainly need something for sports. Will be working for a good majority of the time under ISO1250, typically I run 500-800 for indoor sports since I use lighting.

CookieS

I still think the 1dmk2N is one of Canons more stable dependable cameras, and at 8 MP its really big enough for most sports venues. fast and accurate without the focus issues the 3 and 4 had.

ziggy53

I still have 2 - 1D MKII bodies. While I've looked at both the 1D MKIIN and 1D MKIII bodies as potential upgrades, the truth is that they are not that much of an upgrade for me.

I rarely ever needed more shot buffer than the 1D MKII can deliver, but that might be a larger motivation for some as the 1D MKIII has twice the shot buffer of the previous.

In most regards all of these cameras are very similar in responsiveness, with the 1D MKIII also having a somewhat faster continuous shooting rate at base ISO. (I believe that the 1D MKIII does slow the continuous shooting rate at high-ISO, due to a loose coupling of the metering with the AF section.)

The battery in the 1D MKIII is a much newer technology Lithium-Ion technology, with better cold weather performance and lower self-discharge between charge cycles. It is also smaller and lighter than the previous Ni-MH batteries used in the 1D MKII/MKIIN.

I'm still holding out for a used 1D MKIV, as that does provide me a considerable number of distinct advantages, and it's a more versatile body with better application to sports, wedding and event, studio and video. Unfortunately, those get snatched up pretty quickly and they are holding their value extremely well.

Matthew Saville

The moment you say "besides ISO", you really open the door to awesomeness with the 1D mk2, from what I hear. The only other concern you might have would be the buffer size, Canon didn't get on the massive-buffer-bandwagon until the mk2N from what I hear. A lot of talk about mk2 users standing next to D2H users, being jealous. But hey, that's what medium size JPG is for, I always say. Might not be an option for you. If you really need RAW And a good size buffer, I think (but I'm not sure) that the mk2 N has a slight buffer upgrade.

Other than that it's a stunning camera. The batteries stink cause they're NiCad, I think.

Actually the 7D is allegedly better at autofocus tracking, though. So says a sports-shooting buddy who shoots for a paper; he knows what he's talking about. I'd almost consider the 7D if I were you. If it's in your price range, I know the 1D mk2N is probably getting WAY down there by now.

JimKarczewski

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The moment you say "besides ISO", you really open the door to awesomeness with the 1D mk2, from what I hear. The only other concern you might have would be the buffer size, Canon didn't get on the massive-buffer-bandwagon until the mk2N from what I hear. A lot of talk about mk2 users standing next to D2H users, being jealous. But hey, that's what medium size JPG is for, I always say. Might not be an option for you. If you really need RAW And a good size buffer, I think (but I'm not sure) that the mk2 N has a slight buffer upgrade.

Other than that it's a stunning camera. The batteries stink cause they're NiCad, I think.

Actually the 7D is allegedly better at autofocus tracking, though. So says a sports-shooting buddy who shoots for a paper; he knows what he's talking about. I'd almost consider the 7D if I were you. If it's in your price range, I know the 1D mk2N is probably getting WAY down there by now.

7D my issue is the 1.6x crop factor.... 1.3 is fine and perfectly manageable. 1.6 is not.. especially with basketball and a 70-200.

Other thing I didn't mention is voice annotation, if that were on the 7D, I'd consider it MAYBE if I could adjust to shooting the 24-70 full time for basketball. But not having it is also a deal breaker.

Matthew Saville

JimKarczewski wrote: »

7D my issue is the 1.6x crop factor.... 1.3 is fine and perfectly manageable. 1.6 is not.. especially with basketball and a 70-200.

Other thing I didn't mention is voice annotation, if that were on the 7D, I'd consider it MAYBE if I could adjust to shooting the 24-70 full time for basketball. But not having it is also a deal breaker.

Yeah, too bad the Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS is nowhere to be seen, after being announced like a YEAR ago... :-(

=Matt=

puzzledpaul

Ergonomics.
I had the opportunity to try a used mk2 (from a local shop) over 2yrs ago before eventually buying a used mk3 shortly after (at a price that was slightly cheaper than a 7D, btw)
Whilst I'd have got used to either, the 3 - imo - is easier.

pp

ThatCanonGuy

The mkIII is supposed to be lighter because of the lighter battery. Other than that, I like my mkII. The screen is a little small compared to a 5DII . The battery is huge compared to 5/20D. The mkII AF is very simple, and the mkIII AF is very complex.

Psychic1

The 1DIII battery is good for over 5000 shots and the AF works as well and most often better than the II as long as you do NOT over customize it.

The reset feature is great.

tenoverthenose

I still love my 1dII - quite simply it's never let me down.