The MkIII definitley produces slightly bigger images, is better at high ISO and most say the colour reproduction is better.... having owned one, I can say it is a very good camera, however as you may be aware it isn't without its issues.. I never really had any serious focussing problems with my camera, I shot full frame puffins in flight with it, drag racing at 320mph - never really had an issue... However I know for a fact there were very serious issues with the focussing on the MkIII, causing some people to move to the Nikon D3.
Canon now say the focussing problems are mostly fixed so I think you'd have to be unlucky to have any serious problems.
With the MkIIn its only 8MP, however the focusing is apparently the best autofocus ever designed for a DSLR and is unbeatable, depends which tradeoff you want.
The Mk111 is miles ahead of the Mk11 in almost all respects, high iso performance, intuitive redesign of button placement, buffer, colour rendition and overall speed.
The Mk11's score highly in A/F , but a lot of the mk111 issues are in folks heads, with a little truth thrown in. Sure in the earlier models there were some A/F issues but these have all but completely vanished. No camera has a perfect A/F
I use both the Mk11s and the Mk111s and I can tell you w/o hesitation that it is always the Mk111s I reach for first.
Hi John,
I was wrestling with the same questions recently although having owned and shot with MK II N's for quite some time previously I knew exactly what they are capable of. However as I was looking to buy kit to start up again I was taking a fresh look at the market and I found that there were still enough reported issues even with the most recently fixed MKIII's that I felt that the purchase would still represent a bigger risk than I was comfortable with. I know that Canon now have extended maintenance terms for Mark III's but I want my camera in the field and working properly, not in a workshop somewhere. I also fear the impact on potential resale value that their tarnished reputation will have.
Now everyones tolerance to risk is different so others may be absolutely happy to buy a MK III and that is entirely their perogative but I am not willing to take that risk on nearly £3K.
Ultimately it was only an opportunity on a lens that kept me in the Canon camp.
The 1D2N is older technology in a field where the technology is advancing quickly. There will be a 1D4 in the next few months so if you are thinking of keeping the proposed purchase for any length of time, a 1D2N will be two generations behind in terms of noise characteristics and data processing speed, as well as image size and low light focusing ability etc. Having said that, I would not recommend buying a 1D3 to anyone, unless you can get a cast iron, full refund, guarantee from the shop if you are not happy with it; no exchange, no sending it away for fixing/calibration. Maybe most of the issues have now been been addressed, but the AF-system on the one that I had never worked as it should after 4 trips to Elstree. Under no circumstances should anyone consider buying a second-hand 1D3.
Phil raises another excellent point and it is my hope that the 1D4 will not only address the current models issues but will also match Nikon if not raise the bar a little as far as high ISO noise goes. I will definately be laying my hard earned down if that is case, but for now I personally felt safest going with the Mk II N and it will make a splendid backup in the future.
My new 1D2n was defective out-of-the-box (af issues), and was 'repaired', then broke down, with various issues, four times subsequently. Canon recently replaced it with a 1D3, which so far appears to work correctly. YMMV!
[Quote]I would be interested to hear from people's experience if the 1 DIII is worth the extra 1,500-2,000 euro over a second hand 1D II N in good condition./[Quote]
Why not go for a 50D as a stop gap measure. I really like the files than my 50D produces. Being newer technology and 15Mp, it would make a better future back-up than the 1D2N imo.
Cheers for all the input folks; very useful. I currently have a 40D and 1Ds II. Both are quite good in their own way. But the 40D autofocus does struggle at times. The 1DsII has a suberb AF but fps are a little lower. I think for now I'll hang tough on any purchase because as mentioned a MArk 4 could be on the way and the 1D Mark III has had it's issues. If I were getting anything I would thnk about picking up a 1D II N. A reasonable one (50-70 k Act.) would be around the 1,00 euro mark.
Discussion
8 repliesI would be interested to hear from people's experience if the 1 DIII is worth the extra 1,500-2,000 euro over a second hand 1D II N in good condition.
Cheers
MJ
The MkIII definitley produces slightly bigger images, is better at high ISO and most say the colour reproduction is better.... having owned one, I can say it is a very good camera, however as you may be aware it isn't without its issues.. I never really had any serious focussing problems with my camera, I shot full frame puffins in flight with it, drag racing at 320mph - never really had an issue... However I know for a fact there were very serious issues with the focussing on the MkIII, causing some people to move to the Nikon D3.
Canon now say the focussing problems are mostly fixed so I think you'd have to be unlucky to have any serious problems.
With the MkIIn its only 8MP, however the focusing is apparently the best autofocus ever designed for a DSLR and is unbeatable, depends which tradeoff you want.
The Mk11's score highly in A/F , but a lot of the mk111 issues are in folks heads, with a little truth thrown in. Sure in the earlier models there were some A/F issues but these have all but completely vanished. No camera has a perfect A/F
I use both the Mk11s and the Mk111s and I can tell you w/o hesitation that it is always the Mk111s I reach for first.
I was wrestling with the same questions recently although having owned and shot with MK II N's for quite some time previously I knew exactly what they are capable of. However as I was looking to buy kit to start up again I was taking a fresh look at the market and I found that there were still enough reported issues even with the most recently fixed MKIII's that I felt that the purchase would still represent a bigger risk than I was comfortable with. I know that Canon now have extended maintenance terms for Mark III's but I want my camera in the field and working properly, not in a workshop somewhere. I also fear the impact on potential resale value that their tarnished reputation will have.
Now everyones tolerance to risk is different so others may be absolutely happy to buy a MK III and that is entirely their perogative but I am not willing to take that risk on nearly £3K.
Ultimately it was only an opportunity on a lens that kept me in the Canon camp.
Regards
JohnS
Regards
John Swift
Why not go for a 50D as a stop gap measure. I really like the files than my 50D produces. Being newer technology and 15Mp, it would make a better future back-up than the 1D2N imo.
Cheers
MJ