Pixels on the Subject Question #1 for Roger

Roger, Can you please take us through the pixel math for the following comparison:

Standing in the same spot creating an image of a still bird first with the 1D IV and immediately there after with a 5D III.

Crop the 5D III image to the same size in the frame as the 1D IV image.

How will the pixels on the subject compare?

How will image quality compare?

I have always taken comfort in the larger size of the bird in the frame with a 1.3 crop factor camera and am trying to understand if I should get over that. I will try very hard to understand the math so please keep it simple :).

I'm not Roger but maybe he can grade my answer....it will be short because I'm at work. =)

The 5D Mark III has a pixel pitch of 6.25 microns. The Mark IV has a pixel pitch of 5.7 microns. So the smaller pixels of the Mark IV will give you more detail and pixels on subject. Assuming you were using a 500mm, in practical terms, the Mark IV would give you about 50mm more reach.

Hope you don't mind me taking a swing at it.

I know question is for Roger but let me just give you the answer:

Forget about the crop factor it has nothing to do with the final size of the bird in the image. To calculate how many pixels you have on subject use the following simple formula # of pixels 1D4/ # of pixels of 5D3 =(5D3 pixel size/1D4 pixel size )^2=(6.2um/5.7um)^2=1.18

So if your subject has 5 mega pixels in 5D3 file it will have 5.9 Mpixel in 1D4 (area). Or if the bird is 2000 pixel wide in the 5D3 file it will be about 2175 pixels wide in the MK4 file. So they are very close with 1D4 having slightly more resolution, although I am not sure if you can visually tell the difference at all because you don't pixel-peep ;)

Chuck mentioned Canon has improved pixel structure and sensor efficiency, something that is not evident from the RAW files posted so far but if that is true-we will have to wait for production camera-5D3 might have a slight advantage in higher ISOs :)

Arash, by my calculator 6.2/5.7 is 1.09, not 1.18. What am I missing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Knight

Arash, by my calculator 6.2/5.7 is 1.09, not 1.18. What am I missing?

---

I think it is 1.09 squared.

Is it necessary to use that formula to answer Artie's question? Seems that determining the difference in effective focal length is a simpler option. Arash? Why is it necessary to calculate the area?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Knight

Is it necessary to use that formula to answer Artie's question? Seems that determining the difference in effective focal length is a simpler option. Arash? Why is it necessary to calculate the area?

---

Hey Colin, Artie asked to total number of pixels per subject so I used the area figure. The focal length doesn't really change because it is a property of the lens not the sensor. You can think about it that way too if you want but for e.g. for printing it's easier to know how many more pixels you got :)

best

At least the 5D III is in the ballpark of the 1D IV in terms of pixels on subject in a focal length limited situation. The 1Dx is in 1D III territory if I'm not mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Brown

At least the 5D III is in the ballpark of the 1D IV in terms of pixels on subject in a focal length limited situation. The 1Dx is in 1D III territory if I'm not mistaken.

---

yup, with 6.95um pixels in the case of 1DX, The 1D4 would have 1.49X more pixels per subject than 1D4. This is now a turning point because it means the 1D4 with a 500mm would have equivalent reach of a 1DX with a 600mm in situations where you can't physically get closer to the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Hey Colin, Artie asked to total number of pixels per subject so I used the area figure. The focal length doesn't really change because it is a property of the lens not the sensor. You can think about it that way too if you want but for e.g. for printing it's easier to know how many more pixels you got :)

best

---

Yes, that is a very good way to think about it in terms of print size. Thanks

Since everyone else is answering Artie's question to Roger, I'll chime in here too. I find the easiest way to get a quick and dirty feel for comparing resolution on cropped and non-cropped cameras is to square the crop factor multiplied by the number of pixels. This will give you the approximate number of MP that a cropped camera would be if it were a full-frame camera. You don't even need to know the pixel size in order to figure this out.

For example:

1D Mark IV: 16MP * 1.3 * 1.3 = 27MP
1D Mark III: 10MP * 1.3 * 1.3 = 17MP
7D: 18MP * 1.6 * 1.6 = 42MP

From the above examples, you can see that the Mark IV @27MP (full-frame equivalent) should still out-resolve the 5D Mark III, but it isn't by much, plus newer technology might even the playing field resolution/quality wise. I believe they will be very, very close.

As stated above, the 1D Mark III @ 17MP (full-frame Equivalent) is almost identical to the 1DX @ 18MP. Again, until we see the raw images, we won't know how newer technology plays into the resolution/quality.

Alan
www.iwishicouldfly.com

Hello All,
Artie, it looks like you have several answers, or several ways to calculate the answer, and they all look fine on a quick read. I was travelling today so no time to get on bpn.

But no one mentioned the noise. While the cameras with smaller pixels (e.g.1DIV) get more pixels on the subject, the cameras with the larger pixels will get more light per pixel so the noise will look better (signal-to-noise ratio will look better) by the ratios of the pixel size. So depending on one's taste, some people will choose the image with more detail as best, while others will choose less detail but better noise.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Knight

I'm not Roger but maybe he can grade my answer....it will be short because I'm at work. =)

The 5D Mark III has a pixel pitch of 6.25 microns. The Mark IV has a pixel pitch of 5.7 microns. So the smaller pixels of the Mark IV will give you more detail and pixels on subject. Assuming you were using a 500mm, in practical terms, the Mark IV would give you about 50mm more reach.

Hope you don't mind me taking a swing at it.

---

Colin,
That is an interesting way to look at the problem. Smaller pixels are like more focal length with the same lens set to the same aperture diameter on a camera with larger pixels.

Roger

Noise is important factor too, hopefully I will have a 5D3 soon and will compare side by side with the 1D4 to see what improvements are there, if any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Noise is important factor too, hopefully I will have a 5D3 soon and will compare side by side with the 1D4 to see what improvements are there, if any.

---

Arash, I'd love to see your review of the 5D3 when you get it. I'm certainly interested in it but want to wait for real world reviews. It seems like it should be great.

Roger, I am hoping by "interesting" you mean practical and correct.....that's what I was going for. Artie seems to want a tangible answer, so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Knight

Roger, I am hoping by "interesting" you mean practical and correct.

---

Ho Colin,

Yes!

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Knight

I'm not Roger but maybe he can grade my answer....it will be short because I'm at work. =)

The 5D Mark III has a pixel pitch of 6.25 microns. The Mark IV has a pixel pitch of 5.7 microns. So the smaller pixels of the Mark IV will give you more detail and pixels on subject. Assuming you were using a 500mm, in practical terms, the Mark IV would give you about 50mm more reach.

Hope you don't mind me taking a swing at it.

---

Thanks Colon. What is pixel pitch? Your answer seems to jibe with Aash's below....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

I know question is for Roger but let me just give you the answer:

Forget about the crop factor it has nothing to do with the final size of the bird in the image. To calculate how many pixels you have on subject use the following simple formula # of pixels 1D4/ # of pixels of 5D3 =(5D3 pixel size/1D4 pixel size )^2=(6.2um/5.7um)^2=1.18

So if your subject has 5 mega pixels in 5D3 file it will have 5.9 Mpixel in 1D4 (area). Or if the bird is 2000 pixel wide in the 5D3 file it will be about 2175 pixels wide in the MK4 file. So they are very close with 1D4 having slightly more resolution, although I am not sure if you can visually tell the difference at all because you don't pixel-peep ;)

Chuck mentioned Canon has improved pixel structure and sensor efficiency, something that is not evident from the RAW files posted so far but if that is true-we will have to wait for production camera-5D3 might have a slight advantage in higher ISOs :)

---

Arash, In this formula: # of pixels 1D4/ # of pixels of 5D3 =(5D3 pixel size/1D4 pixel size )^2=(6.2um/5.7um)^2=1.18 what does the ^2 mean?

Artie, pixel pitch is a measurement of distance between the pixels. My answer was an attempt at some real world values, and Arash's answer was more specific, and especially helpful in determining difference in print sizes. But yes, we both concluded that there would be little difference in resolution between the two images.

Also, the ^2 in Arash's formula means "squared".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Brown

At least the 5D III is in the ballpark of the 1D IV in terms of pixels on subject in a focal length limited situation. The 1Dx is in 1D III territory if I'm not mistaken.

---

At this point I need to admit that I am not clear on all the explanations above (i.e.in previous panes)... And I realize before Roger commented below that nobody mentioned noise.

If Doug's assessments are correct then it would seem that the only thing to get excited about with both the 5D III and the 1DX are the all new brand new AF systems.... Am I missing something?

ps: Don't get me wrong; I am very excited about the new AF systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Arash, In this formula: # of pixels 1D4/ # of pixels of 5D3 =(5D3 pixel size/1D4 pixel size )^2=(6.2um/5.7um)^2=1.18 what does the ^2 mean?

---

squared Artie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Stankevitz

Since everyone else is answering Artie's question to Roger, I'll chime in here too. I find the easiest way to get a quick and dirty feel for comparing resolution on cropped and non-cropped cameras is to square the crop factor multiplied by the number of pixels. This will give you the approximate number of MP that a cropped camera would be if it were a full-frame camera. You don't even need to know the pixel size in order to figure this out.

For example:

1D Mark IV: 16MP * 1.3 * 1.3 = 27MP
1D Mark III: 10MP * 1.3 * 1.3 = 17MP
7D: 18MP * 1.6 * 1.6 = 42MP

From the above examples, you can see that the Mark IV @27MP (full-frame equivalent) should still out-resolve the 5D Mark III, but it isn't by much, plus newer technology might even the playing field resolution/quality wise. I believe they will be very, very close.

As stated above, the 1D Mark III @ 17MP (full-frame Equivalent) is almost identical to the 1DX @ 18MP. Again, until we see the raw images, we won't know how newer technology plays into the resolution/quality.

Alan www.iwishicouldfly.com

---

Well, now I am more confused :). I do not understand the math involved to get to the full frame equivalents. Furthermore if 27mp is correct for the 1D IV and my assumption that the 5D3 is 22mp then I ask again, what is the excitement about? Or am I missing something big?

In the same vein, If the 7D offers so much more resolution (am I using the right word?) then why do I am many others far prefer my MIV files to 7D files especially those made in low light???

ps: I am confused by your "but it isn't by much comment" as 27 compared to 22 would seem a significant difference to me....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

Hello All,
Artie, it looks like you have several answers, or several ways to calculate the answer, and they all look fine on a quick read. I was travelling today so no time to get on bpn.

But no one mentioned the noise. While the cameras with smaller pixels (e.g.1DIV) get more pixels on the subject, the cameras with the larger pixels will get more light per pixel so the noise will look better (signal-to-noise ratio will look better) by the ratios of the pixel size. So depending on one's taste, some people will choose the image with more detail as best, while others will choose less detail but better noise.

Roger

---

HI Roger, Lots of different answers that seem to point in the same direction but I still do not understand the basic concepts involved....

What are the pixel sizes for these cameras?:

1DIV
5DIII
7D

thanks, artie

Lastly, my gut feeling is that crop factor cameras would seem, from the math above, to offer real advantages to nature photographers....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

At this point I need to admit that I am not clear on all the explanations above (i.e.in previous panes)... And I realize before Roger commented below that nobody mentioned noise.

If Doug's assessments are correct then it would seem that the only thing to get excited about with both the 5D III and the 1DX are the all new brand new AF systems.... Am I missing something?

ps: Don't get me wrong; I am very excited about the new AF systems.

---

you aren't missing anything, for photographers who usually can't or prefer not to get closer to the subject to use the entire surface of the full-frame sensor the new cameras do not offer a significant advantage in overall IQ. In case of 1DX in some conditions it will be disadvantageous compared to 1D4 given the low pixel count. As pointed out above you can think of 1D4 as a 26Mpixel FF camera in focal-length limited situations, that is 8 mega pixels more than the 1DX.

I will try to compare the 5D3 with the 1D4 when it comes out, I will post my findings here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Lastly, my gut feeling is that crop factor cameras would seem, from the math above, to offer real advantages to nature photographers....

---

Artie, it is not really the crop factor that matters, it is just the pixel size. For example a Nikon D800 has significantly more "reach" than a Canon 1D4 despite the fact that it is a full-frame camera.

Alan's math actually has pixel size implicit in it (sensor size/total number of pixels = pixel area). But I don't like to do it that way because it confuses people to think this has to do with crop factor, it doesn't. The only parameter is pixel size.

Of course noise and diffraction are other factors too so pixels that are too small are not ideal either. This is a complicated topic and it depends on many parameters when it comes to field conditions and how one makes photographs and how one processes them. It also depends on one's precipitation for example people don't like photos that look grainy when they viewed at 100%. Some people have lower tolerance for noise some don't even see noise....these subjective factors are really difficult to measure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Knight

Artie, pixel pitch is a measurement of distance between the pixels. My answer was an attempt at some real world values, and Arash's answer was more specific, and especially helpful in determining difference in print sizes. But yes, we both concluded that there would be little difference in resolution between the two images. Also, the ^2 in Arash's formula means "squared".

---

Hi Colin, Thanks X2. So pixel pitch is different from pixel size???? I am glad that your answers pretty much agreed. The problem is that I do not get the mathematical concepts as they apply to my originally posted question. No doubt in part a result of my feeble, jet-lagged brain. Few would believe that I was accepted to both MIT and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or that I attended Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute on a full academic scholarship.... Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

you aren't missing anything, for photographers who usually can't or prefer not to get closer to the subject to use the entire surface of the full-frame sensor the new cameras do not offer a significant advantage in overall IQ. In case of 1DX in some conditions it will be disadvantageous compared to 1D4 given the low pixel count. As pointed out above you can think of 1D4 as a 26Mpixel FF camera in focal-length limited situations, that is 8 mega pixels more than the 1DX.

I will try to compare the 5D3 with the 1D4 when it comes out, I will post my findings here...

---

Thanks on all counts but I am still confused. I do not understand how a MIV works out to be 26 megapixels full frame...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Hi Colin, Thanks X2. So pixel pitch is different from pixel size???? I am glad that your answers pretty much agreed. The problem is that I do not get the mathematical concepts as they apply to my originally posted question. No doubt in part a result of my feeble, jet-lagged brain. Few would believe that I was accepted to both MIT and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or that I attended Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute on a full academic scholarship.... Go figure.

---

they're the same, pixel pitch = pixel size

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Thanks on all counts but I am still confused. I do not understand how a MIV works out to be 26 megapixels full frame...

---

here is how you calculate

MK4 pixel size is 5.7um. A full frame sensor is the same size as 35mm negative i.e. 36mmX24mm

total number of pixels = sensor area / pixel area = sensor area /pixel_size^2 (pixels are square) = 24mmX36mm/5.7um^2 ~ 26.6 Million pixels

That means if Canon filled a FF sensor with 1D4 pixels they would get 26.6Mpixels. But they used larger pixels instead, so fewer, i.e. 18 million fitted on the sensor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Artie, it is not really the crop factor that matters, it is just the pixel size. For example a Nikon D800 has significantly more "reach" than a Canon 1D4 despite the fact that it is a full-frame camera.

Alan's math actually has pixel size implicit in it (sensor size/total number of pixels = pixel area). But I don't like to do it that way because it confuses people to think this has to do with crop factor, it doesn't. The only parameter is pixel size.

Of course noise and diffraction are other factors too so pixels that are too small are not ideal either. This is a complicated topic and it depends on many parameters when it comes to field conditions and how one makes photographs and how one processes them. It also depends on one's precipitation for example people don't like photos that look grainy when they viewed at 100%. Some people have lower tolerance for noise some don't even see noise....these subjective factors are really difficult to measure...

---

What is the math for the D800?

Am I correct in thinking that pixel size and pixel pitch are not the same????

I only see bad noise. And don't get me started on diffraction.....

I think that the only way that I will ever understand all or even any of this to have a long sit down discussion with you or Roger or ?? after a morning sail on the Hooptie Deux....

Maybe I should just quit trying to understand all of this science and go back to creating images with the cameras that I like :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

here is how you calculate

MK4 pixel size is 5.7um. A full frame sensor is the same size as 35mm negative i.e. 36mmX24mm

total number of pixels = sensor area / pixel area = sensor area /pixel_size^2 (pixels are square) = 24mmX36mm/5.7um^2 ~ 26.6 Million pixels

That means if Canon filled a FF sensor with 1D4 pixels they would get 26.6Mpixels. But they used larger pixels instead, so fewer, i.e. 18 million fitted on the sensor.

---

Thanks. That is great explanation.

Now back to Pane 1: Standing in the same spot creating an image of a still bird first with the 1D IV and immediately there after with a 5D III. Crop the 5D III image to the same size in the frame as the 1D IV image. How will the pixels on the subject compare?

If I am understanding correctly, the edge would go to the MIV by a small margin (with noise and diffraction not considered....)

Is that correct?

What is the math for the D800?

D800 is a 36 Mpixel FF sensor with a pixel size of 4.9um so it has more reach than any Canon camera other than 7D.

Am I correct in thinking that pixel size and pixel pitch are not the same????

they are the same

I only see bad noise. And don't get me started on diffraction.....

I think that the only way that I will ever understand all or even any of this to have a long sit down discussion with you or Roger or ?? after a morning sail on the Hooptie Deux....

Sounds good, I'm in if you we get borscht for breakfast :S3:

You've got it Artie. Correct. The 1D Mark IV should have a slight edge resolution-wise, but there may be advances in technology that may negate the advantage. Until we can do a side-by-side RAW comparison, we're just speculating, but I seriously doubt there's been any major advances from looking at the 5DM3's initial RAW images.

Of course the Mark IV has 10fps vs 6fps compared to the 5D Mark III. Will autofocus be any better on the 5D Mark III vs 1D Mark IV? That's going to be hard to top.

The one advantage that I do like with the 5D Mark III is that it's full-frame. Less chance of clipping a wing out-of-frame when shooting BIF from a fixed distance when compared to the 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop) or worse, the 7D (1.6x crop).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Thanks. That is great explanation.

Now back to Pane 1: Standing in the same spot creating an image of a still bird first with the 1D IV and immediately there after with a 5D III. Crop the 5D III image to the same size in the frame as the 1D IV image. How will the pixels on the subject compare?

If I am understanding correctly, the edge would go to the MIV by a small margin (with noise and diffraction not considered....)

Is that correct?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Stankevitz

You've got it Artie. Correct. The 1D Mark IV should have a slight edge resolution-wise, but there may be advances in technology that may negate the advantage. Until we can do a side-by-side RAW comparison, we're just speculating, but I seriously doubt there's been any major advances from looking at the 5DM3's initial RAW images.

Of course the Mark IV has 10fps vs 6fps compared to the 5D Mark III. Will autofocus be any better on the 5D Mark III vs 1D Mark IV? That's going to be hard to top.

The one advantage that I do like with the 5D Mark III is that it's full-frame. Less chance of clipping a wing out-of-frame when shooting BIF from a fixed distance when compared to the 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop) or worse, the 7D (1.6x crop).

---

Thanks Alan. Confused again when you say "That's going to be hard to top." What is the that thatyou are referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Thanks Alan. Confused again when you say "That's going to be hard to top." What is the that thatyou are referring to?

---

Hi Artie,

I was referring to the autofocus ability of the Mark IV, especially when it applies to BIF. In my opinion, it's very, very good.

I'm hoping the new autofocus system on the 1DX and 5DM3 will be just as good or better, but with many new options, I'm sure there's going to be a learning curve.

Alan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Stankevitz

Hi Artie,

I was referring to the autofocus ability of the Mark IV, especially when it applies to BIF. In my opinion, it's very, very good.

I'm hoping the new autofocus system on the 1DX and 5DM3 will be just as good or better, but with many new options, I'm sure there's going to be a learning curve.

Alan

---

I agree in part. I have written often recently that for a bird flying right at me I would be more confident with either a 7D or a 5DMII. That said I have used those cameras only sparingly. But my gut feeling is that the new AF system might be really, really good....

Artie, I find these things are good to know before comparing/buying a camera, and then when choosing the correct body for a given situation in the field. But as you said, keep making great images with the cameras you love. I too am looking forward to the new AF, ISO performance, and frame rates of the 1Dx, sad it's been delayed until the end of April. It's going to be a great sports camera, and wildlife in the right conditions. But I know, from these types of discussions, that in good light during focal length limited situations, the $6800 camera will stay in the bag and the 7D will come out and do what it does best- gives me a lot of those 4.3 micron pixels on target.

Well, for me in good light, today, I reach for my MIV bodies. Why? I sold my two7D bodies because I prefer MIV files... Go figure.

That is interesting. I never bought a Mark IV. I did a side by side comparison of the specs and image quality with a friend's and never saw the reason to upgrade. These days I'm wanting to do a lot of sports, and as I said before, the frame rate and ISO performance of the 1Dx it seems will be top notch.

I was shooting whitetails with a friend in the Blue Ridge mountains late last year. I was using my 7D, he was using his Mark IV. Funny, at times he was wanting my pixel density and other times I was wanting his larger field of view. Each of these cameras definitely have their place, and I think discussions like this help people figure out where that place is. Good stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Knight

That is interesting. I never bought a Mark IV. I did a side by side comparison of the specs and image quality with a friend's and never saw the reason to upgrade. These days I'm wanting to do a lot of sports, and as I said before, the frame rate and ISO performance of the 1Dx it seems will be top notch.

I was shooting whitetails with a friend in the Blue Ridge mountains late last year. I was using my 7D, he was using his Mark IV. Funny, at times he was wanting my pixel density and other times I was wanting his larger field of view. Each of these cameras definitely have their place, and I think discussions like this help people figure out where that place is. Good stuff!

---

That's my point exactly; I do not rely on theoretical pixel counts or other data. I rely on the images. All the science in the world can point to the fact that 7D files should be far superior to MIV files but I ain't buying :).

I'm not sure anyone is saying they're far superior, just that it gives you more reach. For this reason my photography buddy is quick to put his Mark IV down and pick up his 7D when we're shooting waterfowl.

Speaking of new AF systems, you should be getting your 5D Mark III soon. I trust you'll be posting a review of it here as soon as you can?

Arash, the very skilled, Jim Zipp, Doug Brown, heck, just about everyone that I know prefers MIV files to 7D files... Yes, as soon as I get out with the body I will be sharing. I am hoping to have it for my F3C field workshop at Tigertail Beach on Friday but it is not looking good for that....

I'll watch the stock on the 5D Mark III. Hopefully it will give me an idea of how the 1Dx release will work. I'm not sure that preordering gives any kind of an edge unless the supplies are very short. I'm hearing that's not the case for the Mark III.

Possibly we can look forward to you posting images related to your question above? Maybe you could give us two frames, one with the Mark IV and one with the 5D III and see how well all this theory works. Of course this could be done with your Mark II as well.

Artie,
Perhaps this image will illustrate the pixel pitch differences. I used the same lens with the same ISO, same f/ratio, same shutter speed on 4 cameras to illustrate pixel pitch and detail on the subject. With the same lens, aperture and exposure time, the same amount of light from the subject was delivered to the sensor. Think of the pixels slicing up a pie. The larger pixels are delivering greater pieces of pie but fewer pieces. With light, the more light one collects per pixel, the better the noise looks (the signal-to-noise ratio is better). The 7D image has the greatest apparent noise (lowest signal-to-noise ratio), but most detail. This illustrates what photographers will get in focal length limited situations on any subject. Which image would you prefer in such a situation?

I have all of the cameras shown and choose the 1DIV for most situations, except when I want to travel lighter.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

I agree in part. I have written often recently that for a bird flying right at me I would be more confident with either a 7D or a 5DMII. That said I have used those cameras only sparingly. But my gut feeling is that the new AF system might be really, really good....

---

Hope you are right about the new AF systems...I have read the 5dIII manual on AF and there are some settings that have me curious. ... in light of a blog I read elsewhere about the differences in the focusing systems between the 1dx and the 5dIII....It spoke of the 5dIII having some new AF presets while the 1dx might have a bit more control...not sure until we see it...but I did see in the 5dIII manual, settings for accelerating/decelerating objects...hmmm...I was hoping the camera would figure that out and adjust automatically.....maybe it will..I can see how a preset would be helpful in some situations like shooting the finals of the 100m dash since the subjects would be accelerating towards the camera....Not sure how that will work for BIF...but we will find out soon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Furthermore if 27mp is correct for the 1D IV and my assumption that the 5D3 is 22mp then I ask again, what is the excitement about? Or am I missing something big?

---

The excitement is from photographers who don't shoot birds, and aren't focal length limited. For fashion, wedding, and landscape photographers the 5D Mark III is a solid upgrade. It would be nice if Canon would show bird photographers a little love one of these days though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold

The excitement is from photographers who don't shoot birds, and aren't focal length limited. For fashion, wedding, and landscape photographers the 5D Mark III is a solid upgrade. It would be nice if Canon would show bird photographers a little love one of these days though...

---

Per email this morning from Robert Otoole in Alaska....He has a student with the 5dIII in his workshop . Robert writes "So far excellent. Scott B has a 5dmkIII here. He says the AF is the best on a Canon so far".. would be expected but since its an eagle workshop, it would be getting a very good test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold

The excitement is from photographers who don't shoot birds, and aren't focal length limited. For fashion, wedding, and landscape photographers the 5D Mark III is a solid upgrade. It would be nice if Canon would show bird photographers a little love one of these days though...

---

ERW, Don't get me wrong. I am excited by the new AF system. I should have mine Monday....