Canon 1D Series: To "III" or not to "III"

photosbyms

...That is the question. I certainly have the funds for a used $1800-$2400 Mark II-II/N, but the III continues to knock on my interest door.

So it is time to evaluate the pros/cons.

1) I've heard mark III users are having some problems, according to wikipedia and forums, with AF issues, sensor lines, etc. Can this be avoided a few months from now?

2) What is the MSRP on the Mark III? I've seen some numbers floating around, as low as $3999 and as high as $5899. Will Canon continue to drip III's into the market, or will they eventually open the flood gates for prices to drop? It appears Mark III's are exiting the shelves real quickly. I know I can afford one if the price gets down to $4000, without having to sell my 5D.

3) Will a Mark II be enough? I'm subject to photograph NCAA sports this fall, along with concerts. The Mark II is half the cost of the Mark III right now, and I'm not convinced to buy a Mark II N just because of a screensize/buffer size. I'm mainly concerned with fps and sensor quality.

I would just like to hear if anybody found themselves in the same position...between a used II and a new III, both financially and for specs. I have about 2 months until football season, and 5 months until basketball season.

I have an offer for a $4800 1D Mark III in hands, but again, I'd have to sell my 5D and not have two bodies. I'm not interested in switching lenses during the job. The other option is to get a Mark II for $1800-2100.

-Michael

mercphoto

Canon is actually acknowledging the auto-focus issues on the III, so that should tell you something right there.

photosbyms wrote:

3) Will a Mark II be enough? I'm subject to photograph NCAA sports this fall, along with concerts. The Mark II is half the cost of the Mark III right now, and I'm not convinced to buy a Mark II N just because of a screensize/buffer size. I'm mainly concerned with fps and sensor quality.

Well, plenty of people have been using the II for years now photographing exactly what you are going to photograph, so I think the answer is a simple "yes, the II will be enough". Only thing I like about the "N" over the II is the ability to write RAW to one card and JPG to the other, which may or may not be useful to you, plus the Picture Modes, which is useful if you shoot JPG a lot and need print-ready or nearly-print-ready files out of the camera. The in-camera JPG's from the II are not like you can get from a 20D or 30D. You will not get as much saturation, contrast and sharpness, for example.

To me, shooting with the II was a religious experience over the 20D. Even though I hardly shoot anything for profit any longer I simply cannot give up my Mark II and go back.

photosbyms

That is good to hear. Canon has done a good job addressing issues in the past.

I am actually not too far away from you right now. I have a summer job in Midland, TX, trying to make the money to buy this 2nd body. You also have the lenses I have.

Is there anything else to photograph around here in West Texas? I went to Carlsbad Caverns a few weekends ago, and got to shoot 15 seconds shutters at f/8 ISO 100 for 3 hours underground.

I think the other issue is that any Mark II I purchase won't last as long as a Mark III. I figure if I purchase either one, I work it until it dies, much like a vehicle.

I shoot all in RAW now. Processing RAW is not a problem on a Mac Pro .

dogwood

photosbyms wrote:

I think the other issue is that any Mark II I purchase won't last as long as a Mark III. I figure if I purchase either one, I work it until it dies, much like a vehicle.

Can't help you with your OP though I'm a MKIIN shooter with a 5D backup. The AF issues on the MKIII are keeping me from maxing out my credit for now (thankfully-- so hey, Canon, no need to rush to fix it ).

But... just wanted to add that the most likely failure on a MKII would be the shutter-- which Canon can replace for about $200. Seems unlikely everything on the camera would die all at once, but what do I know?

I did visit Austin in September-- seemed like a lot of pretty women down there worth shootin' to me. But maybe you're looking for more landscape/scenic shots?

lynnesite

Oh my goodness, the III.
#1 stellar low light performance, less post processing.
screaming speed and customization of controls
more intuitive control layout/organization
battery life estimated at 2700 shots at 73 degrees F

I was in the same boat--whether to buy the III or get a II or IIn.

And bought the III tonight (truth is, I'd put a deposit down a couple of weeks ago, just in case the research convinced me.)

I'm coming off of the 30D/20Ds (looks like the 20 is sold already, down the food chain.) I shoot sports--horses and aerobatics, and do fine art and portraits as well. I'm not a motor drive type for the horse stuff, but the ability to do it for the more difficult aerobatic manuevers from a fixed wing will be welcome.

Here's a 2000 ISO shot from a moving vehicle at 1/8th, converted in iView so no settings tweaked, check the noise! $4499 is the MSRP, I think.