1D Mk III or 1D Mk IV or ???

[Chris Brennan]

I currently shoot with a 7D and a 40D and am generally very pleased the results I get up to and including ISO 800. Beyond that is where I'm starting to get noise issues on both cameras but actually less so with the smaller sensor on the 40D. Prior to the 7D, I had a very problematic 1D Mk III which spent more time with Canon than with me. It was my only foray into the Series 1 bodies, and it was quite disappointing!

But I'm starting to run into situations where shooting at higher ISOs would be a great benefit to achieving faster shutter speeds in lower light and having the much better dynamic range would be icing on the cake.

Since the release of the 1D MkIV, there appear to be more than a few "low mileage" Mk IIIs showing up on the pre-owned market at reasonable prices. Because of my experience with one, I'm a little "gun-shy" to jump back in. And currently, the pricing on brand new 1D Mk IV's is out of my range although picking up a refurb through Canon may be an option in a few months...

So my question is: Find a good 1D Mk III and hope for the best, or wait until I can afford the Mk IV? And should I consider an even older, but seemingly well-regarded Mk IIN?

I look forward to hearing your responses. Thank you.

[Michael_Loizou]

I would not go from the 7D to the 1DIII and certainly not to the 1DIIn.

I had the 7D, sold it to get the 1DIV and now I am back to the 7D as I found that I prefer the extra reach of the 7D to the advantages of the 1DIV

The 7D is perfectly usable at 1600 if exposed correctly (preferably a bit to the right). The 1DIV will give you max half a stop advantage which makes it not worthwhile IMHO.

Spend the money on a better lens would be my suggestion but obviously it is your choice to make.

Just my 2 pence :)

This I took with the 7D at ISO2000. It has some noise at 100% but nothing close to what would make the image unusable for large prints (on which the noise virtually disappears)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5135/5535407183_20667ff5b4_o.jpg

[Marina Scarr]

I was in a similar situation. I had the 40D and bought the 50D. The noise was so bad that I sold it within 3 months and continued with the 40D. I ended up with a used 1D3 b/c after talking to a # of people, it seemed the 1D3 was as good as the 1D4 for much less money. I have been VERY pleased with my used 1D3. I also still shoot with my 40D and 5D. It just depends on the circumstances. Good luck.

[Fred J. Lord]

I find that my keeper ratio with the 1D4 is substantially higher than with the 1D3. I had no real trouble with the 1D3 though it never seemed to get really sharp images consistently.
If I were you (and I'm not) I'd keep the 7D and blow off the 1D for a while. I shot with the 7D in Yellowstone last fall for a week and it's a darn fine camera as well as being lighter and smaller to pack.

[Roger Clark]

Chris,

Some basic physics: The noise you see in images is mainly photon noise due to 4 things:
1) the amount of light gathered by the lens (the diameter of the aperture), 2) the light is spread out by the focal length, 3) the pixel size, and 4) the efficiency of each pixel.

As the number of pixels (detail) on a subject (linear dimenstion) is proportional to the pixel size, if you change cameras with a different pixel size, then the detail changes too. So going from a 7D with its (small) 4.3 micron pixels to a 1D or other camera with larger pixels to improve signal-to-noise ratio, means also reducing detail. If you then add a TC to get back that detail, then you have less light and you move back to the same signal-to-noise ratio (modified by pixel efficiency).

What all this means is that for a given detail on a subject, the signal-to-noise ratio comes down to the aperture and the pixel efficiency. The 7D has the highest pixel efficiency I've seen measured (in the Canon line), with the 1DIV almost the same. Going to older cameras, loses efficiency. See Figure 10 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/

The advantage of moving to a 1D series camera is not in the signal-to-noise, but other performance, including AF at f/8 and faster AF, as well as many other things, like frames per second, 45-point AF, weather sealing, etc.

If you want the real gory detail, check out Etendue (also called the A Omega product):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etendue

Roger

[Chris Brennan]

I would not go from the 7D to the 1DIII and certainly not to the 1DIIn.

I had the 7D, sold it to get the 1DIV and now I am back to the 7D as I found that I prefer the extra reach of the 7D to the advantages of the 1DIV

The 7D is perfectly usable at 1600 if exposed correctly (preferably a bit to the right). The 1DIV will give you max half a stop advantage which makes it not worthwhile IMHO.

Spend the money on a better lens would be my suggestion but obviously it is your choice to make.

Just my 2 pence :)

This I took with the 7D at ISO2000. It has some noise at 100% but nothing close to what would make the image unusable for large prints (on which the noise virtually disappears)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5135/5535407183_20667ff5b4_o.jpg
Michael -

Thanks for your input! I would never sell the 7D nor the 40D. I've made, and continue to make superb images with both cameras. Whatever camera I get would be in addition to those 2. In terms of my lenses, short of winning the lottery, I'm very pleased with the performance and incredible sharpness of the ones I currently own.

[Chris Brennan]

I find that my keeper ratio with the 1D4 is substantially higher than with the 1D3. I had no real trouble with the 1D3 though it never seemed to get really sharp images consistently.
If I were you (and I'm not) I'd keep the 7D and blow off the 1D for a while. I shot with the 7D in Yellowstone last fall for a week and it's a darn fine camera as well as being lighter and smaller to pack.

Fred -

As I mentioned in my response to Michael, neither the 40D or the 7D are going anywhere... If I decide to get another camera, it would be as an addition. But of the two cameras, I'm very impressed with the enormous flexibility and downright beautiful images I get with the 7D, and may certainly consider adding another one.

[Chris Brennan]

Chris,

Some basic physics: The noise you see in images is mainly photon noise due to 4 things:
1) the amount of light gathered by the lens (the diameter of the aperture), 2) the light is spread out by the focal length, 3) the pixel size, and 4) the efficiency of each pixel.

As the number of pixels (detail) on a subject (linear dimenstion) is proportional to the pixel size, if you change cameras with a different pixel size, then the detail changes too. So going from a 7D with its (small) 4.3 micron pixels to a 1D or other camera with larger pixels to improve signal-to-noise ratio, means also reducing detail. If you then add a TC to get back that detail, then you have less light and you move back to the same signal-to-noise ratio (modified by pixel efficiency).

What all this means is that for a given detail on a subject, the signal-to-noise ratio comes down to the aperture and the pixel efficiency. The 7D has the highest pixel efficiency I've seen measured (in the Canon line), with the 1DIV almost the same. Going to older cameras, loses efficiency. See Figure 10 at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/

The advantage of moving to a 1D series camera is not in the signal-to-noise, but other performance, including AF at f/8 and faster AF, as well as many other things, like frames per second, 45-point AF, weather sealing, etc.

If you want the real gory detail, check out Etendue (also called the A Omega product):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etendue

Roger

Thank you, Roger, for your input! Given how pleased I am in general with the 7D, I might pickup another one and work at continuing to refine and perfect my technique.

[Karl Egressy]

I have owned all the 10D-50D series as well as a 1D MarkIII used and a 1D Mark IV new.
I was happy with the 40D (still have it) and with the Mark III and the Mark IV.
Since I found that the Mark III and IV were almost identical, I sold the MarkIII and bought a 7D for the extra reach.
I use the Mark IV most of the time but the 7D has a place in my arsenal when I shoot with smaller lenses such as 300 F 2.8L IS or 70-200 F 4.0 L IS.
Both cameras are great and the used Mark III was great too.
If you decide to buy a Mark III, try to buy it from someone you know or you trust. (Any mber of this forum I would say)