Posted by Peter Conway on July 24, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I can see where the full size sensor could be a big advantage over the 1D for landscapes but wonder which of the two would be preferred for macro work?
Also I see it advertised from discount houses on the net for a little as $4199. Is there a danger in buying from these places and saving all that moola?
I you are saying that you are seeing the 1Ds Mkiii for $4199 don't even stop to collect your 200 at go, just run away. For any of the discount places always check google for customer reviews before spending money
For macro I would just purchase one of the new digital rebels at 12mp. I have a 1dsII and rebel and find myself alway picking up the rebel when doing macro with ringlight. Most of the macro shots on my website are from the rebel. Now if you shoot most of your macro from a tripod that is different.
Peter, ditto what's already said about bargain prices. If in doubt, check resellerratings.com.
I don't see any advantage or disadvantage in comparing the 1Ds Mk3 vs the 1D Mk3 specifically for macro. The former of course has an advantage in that you can ultimately make a larger print from its tremendous mass of megapixels compared with the latter, but I can't see any way one is better than the other simply in terms of macro work.
Am I missing something or reading your question wrong, Peter?
I've been very happy using my 1Ds Mark III for macro, but if you don't need the extra resolution I'd imagine the 1D Mk3 would do a great job too.
I guess with macro you are sometimes struggling to get a high enough shutter speed if there is any wind, so the slightly better high-ISO performance of the 1D might be desirable...but I don't think it's a big difference...you could check places like dpreview for that.
Posted by Peter Conway on July 25, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Steve,
My thoughts were along these lines. Macro is about being able to see detail in tiny objects. I thought the 1Ds because of the higher pixel count may thus show more detail as one enlarges the image. I didn't know if this is in fact true and if so how perceptible the difference.
The flipside may be that since the 1D is not a full size sensor does it in effect act as a built in magnifier? Is it like starting with a 30% bigger image of the object being photographed?
Macro is new to me so I am trying to understand the basics of camera body as it relates to that specialty.
Peter, the 1.3 crop sensor of the 1D Mk3 does act as a magnifier, but in macro I don't think it's an appreciable factor. There are extension tubes and TCs to either get the lens closer to the subject or magnify the subject further, as well as the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x for when you REALLY need it close.
Plus the Mp count of the 1Ds Mk3 is high enough that if you can't get quite as close as you'd like, you can still crop significantly and be left with a lot of resolution.
The 1DS Mark III is better no matter what you are shooting as long as you can get the shot. It is the highest resolution DSLR made without going to a med format back and spending much more. The 1D Mark III is only a 10 mp body less than 1/2 the resolution. If you want to shoot macros just buy a good macro lense and pick the body that's best for you.
Posted by Peter Conway on July 25, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Thanks all. It sounds as if any quality body will be perfectly fine.
It sounds as if any quality body will be perfectly fine.
Peter, you hit it exactly.
I have macro work shot with the Canon 100 f2.8 macro on 8 Mp bodies and so far have printed up to 20x30 with excellent results. Macro work is one of the least demanding forms of photography on a camera body. As long as you've got a solid tripod mount, mirror lock-up and can use the camera's self timer or a remote shutter release, it's all good. And even the entry level DSLR sensors these days provide excellent IQ, particularly up to iso400. Getting a sharp, crisp prime macro lens of top quality will have a much bigger impact on IQ than getting one of the top Canon bodies.
And the 5D has a full-frame 12Mp sensor that offers stunning IQ with very low noise, and for less than half the money of the 1D3, not to mention the 1Ds3. Plus, I reckon the 5D upgrade, when it finally comes out, will have the new pixel technology that dramatically reduces noise and is used in the two new "1" bodies as well as the entry level XSi.
Not that I would actually mind owning the 1Ds3. Might take an image someday I want to turn into wallpaper.
The newer Canon cameras (and other brands) have live view, which is a plus for macros. The 1 series cameras have a lot of performance features that will never be used or needed for macro and other general photography.
Ring flash, proper tripod/head , and longer/bigger macro lenes will have a large impact. 1 series will not.
Expect the 16mp 5D mkII in the fall for ~$3500. A nice camera for macro. Very little difference in IQ compared to the 1DsIII.
Don, my thinking is that if the full-frame 16 Mp 5DII has the same pixel technology as the full-frame 23 Mp 1DsIII, 5DII IQ (particularly noise performance) will actually be better than the MkIII.
Of course, it's all just speculation at this point, not to mention of questionable importance, but it's fun to talk about.
Posted by Scott Fricke on July 31, 2008 at 8:39 PM
A little more specifics on the "discount" pricing - When I was going to buy a 1DS Mark II a few years back, I looked into the "discount" pricing and what I found was they were not offering the entire accessory package that Canon included in the box. They excluded cables, battery, battery charger, etc. By the time they included all the items they took out of the box it actually cost more than anywhere else. So go onto the Canon website, print out what comes in the box and verify that with the place you are going to buy. Also make sure it is new, not refurbished, and has a US warranty (if you live in the US). The other trick they tried to pull was offering a 3-year Canon warranty. Canon only offers 1-year. They were trying to pass off a 3rd party warranty as a Canon. Even when I confronted the salesmen with the facts of what was supposed to be in the box and the truth about the warranty, including telling him I verified this info with a Canon representative, he continued his lies, even saying at one point the Canon rep was mistaken. When he asked for my personal/credit card info I told him he was a crook and hung up.
Discussion
14 repliesAlso I see it advertised from discount houses on the net for a little as $4199. Is there a danger in buying from these places and saving all that moola?
Peter
Does it offer any significant advantage for macro work?
I don't see any advantage or disadvantage in comparing the 1Ds Mk3 vs the 1D Mk3 specifically for macro. The former of course has an advantage in that you can ultimately make a larger print from its tremendous mass of megapixels compared with the latter, but I can't see any way one is better than the other simply in terms of macro work.
Am I missing something or reading your question wrong, Peter?
I guess with macro you are sometimes struggling to get a high enough shutter speed if there is any wind, so the slightly better high-ISO performance of the 1D might be desirable...but I don't think it's a big difference...you could check places like dpreview for that.
My thoughts were along these lines. Macro is about being able to see detail in tiny objects. I thought the 1Ds because of the higher pixel count may thus show more detail as one enlarges the image. I didn't know if this is in fact true and if so how perceptible the difference.
The flipside may be that since the 1D is not a full size sensor does it in effect act as a built in magnifier? Is it like starting with a 30% bigger image of the object being photographed?
Macro is new to me so I am trying to understand the basics of camera body as it relates to that specialty.
Peter
Plus the Mp count of the 1Ds Mk3 is high enough that if you can't get quite as close as you'd like, you can still crop significantly and be left with a lot of resolution.
Peter
Peter, you hit it exactly.
I have macro work shot with the Canon 100 f2.8 macro on 8 Mp bodies and so far have printed up to 20x30 with excellent results. Macro work is one of the least demanding forms of photography on a camera body. As long as you've got a solid tripod mount, mirror lock-up and can use the camera's self timer or a remote shutter release, it's all good. And even the entry level DSLR sensors these days provide excellent IQ, particularly up to iso400. Getting a sharp, crisp prime macro lens of top quality will have a much bigger impact on IQ than getting one of the top Canon bodies.
And the 5D has a full-frame 12Mp sensor that offers stunning IQ with very low noise, and for less than half the money of the 1D3, not to mention the 1Ds3. Plus, I reckon the 5D upgrade, when it finally comes out, will have the new pixel technology that dramatically reduces noise and is used in the two new "1" bodies as well as the entry level XSi.
Not that I would actually mind owning the 1Ds3. Might take an image someday I want to turn into wallpaper.
Ring flash, proper tripod/head , and longer/bigger macro lenes will have a large impact. 1 series will not.
Expect the 16mp 5D mkII in the fall for ~$3500. A nice camera for macro. Very little difference in IQ compared to the 1DsIII.
Of course, it's all just speculation at this point, not to mention of questionable importance, but it's fun to talk about.