Help! Compare the Mark III to the 1Ds

I am trying to understand the differences between the original Canon 1Ds and the new MarkIII. I can find comparisons to the MarkII but not back to the first 1Ds, which is what I have.

Can someone give me the short answer on the major differences? I understand the huge change in number of shots per second. What else? Does the old 1Ds have anything over the MarkIII or is it a dinosaur?

The 1DMkIII is on the 1.3 crop series of bodies, not the full frame series. In that regard, the 1Ds does have the fact that it is full frame over the 1DMkIII.

Otherwise, the 1DMkIII has better signal to noise ratio leading to better high ISO performance, higher frame rate, a new lighter battery system, some changes to the AF system. There is probably a whole lot more to list.

If you are shooting landscapes, the 1Ds is still a fine camera I think and I don't think the 1DMkIII replaces it for that functionality. Alot of people expect a 1DsMkIII to come out sometime soon.

Mel-

I realize this is basic stuff that I should know, but what are the ramifications of the 1.3 crop series. Does that in effect make ones lenses longer, or is it the same as if one simply cropped the full frame and blew it up?

Thanks in advance.

Yep. Since the frame captured is a smaller dimension, it is like using a slightly longer lens. For example, the 16mm becomes equivalent to a 20.8mm lens on your 1Ds. Also the 1.3 crop cannot use the APS-C 1.6 crop lenses (EF-S), so you can't use the Canon EF-S 10-22 lens for an ultrawide. On the other hand, you would get a little extra reach out of your telephotos. Some lenses like the Tokina 12-24 are reported to work OK with the 1.3 crop cameras at some focal lengths.

Umm, Mel, don't you mean the 16mm becomes the equivalent of a 20.8 mm on the 1.3 crop factor of the 1D mk2, mk2n and mk3? In your latest post, you said the the 16 goes to 20.8 on the 1Ds, which, as full-frame sensor, would not have a crop factor, so the 16 mm acts like a 16 mm.

Or did I miss something? I just spent two hours under my Toyota 4Runner wrestling with the exhaust system, so it's quite possible I've been overcome by fumes and didn't understand something basic.

Peter, Canon makes three sensor sizes on its DSLRs. Full-frame, 1.3 crop factor and 1.6 crop factor. The 1.3 crop factor is a bit smaller than the full-frame, and the 1.6 a bit smaller than the 1.3. I don't have the actual pixel dimensions in front of me, but full-frame is about the size of a 35 mm film negative.

Here's how I look at it.

To keep the math simple, let's use a 20 mm lens as an example of how crop sensors are commonly perceived to alter apparent focal length. To get the "equivalent" focal length using a crop sensor, multiply the lens's inherent focal length by the crop factor. That yields a 26 mm with a 1.3 sensor and a 32 mm with a 1.6. And so crop sensors are seen to compromise a lens's native ability to shoot at a wide angle, which is a bad deal. However, the same principle holds true for telephoto. A 400 mm on a 1.3 sensor acts like a 520 mm, and on a 1.6 sensor it's like a 640 mm, and that's a good deal.

Steve and Mel,

Thanks so much for trying to help a newbie comprehend. Here is the question I am still left with. If I crop my full frame image by a factor of 30% I have in fact now enlarged the image and made my sensor the same size as the Mark III. Does one actually gain anything by going to the 1.3, or are you in effect pre-cropping every image?

I guess if they pack as many pixels in the smaller sensor then I really did gain because my "pre-cropped" image has the same resolution as my uncropped full sized sensor and thus more than a cropped image on my full sized sensor.

Am I making any sense or did Steve's fumes drift all the way from Ely to SE MN?

Peter

Peter,

You have it right. Cropping the full frame sensor will end up with an equivalent field of view mimicking the longer lens impact of the smaller sensor. However, as you note, it's likely the smaller sensor will have a higher resolution by virtue of having more pixels per unit area.

That being said - I'm a big fan of the full frame Canon sensors for landscape photos which benefit greatly from the native wide angle capabilities. I have the Canon 5D, the lower priced full frame camera.

Ernie,

Thank you very much.

Peter

Hi Peter, for the type of photography that you are doing (bird and wildlife mostly) the 1dIII will be superior because of the 1.3 factor and the ability to shoot at a higher iso without much noise.

Peter, don't buy the Mark III until Canon gets the AIServo focus tracking issues corrected. Especially, don't buy now because many, many serious (read that "pro") birders are experiencing focus lock loss with the 1D Matk III. I'm holding off on buying mine until Canon corrects those issues.

Sorry Steve. That was a typo and I've been gone all weekend. 1D has the crop factor making 16mm equivalent to 20.8mm. 1Ds does not have a crop factor and 16mm is 16mm field of view.

Sorry to cause any confusion here.

Mel-