I've been photographing for over 30 years, shooting a variety of subjects, but moreso nature/wildlife and sports. (More the former than the latter recently.
I've always shot with film, and will be going "digital" in the near future.
I've shot with both Canon and Nikon cameras, incl the AE-1, F1, Nikon FM2, F3, and currently use the Canon A2.
I've used lenses from 15mm fisheye up to the 300 f/2.8 and 600 f4 ED-IF Nikkor.
Since nature/wildlife is my main subject matter, incl landscapes such as Peyto Lake etc, wildlife, macro, birds in flight etc, my question is,
Would a camera such as the Canon 1D Mark III or new 1D Mark IV be a good "compromise" between a 1.6x crop body (i.e. the 7D) and a Full Frame body?
I realize that a full frame body is preferable for landscape shots, esp with a wide angle lens, and the 1.6x crop bodies give that extra "reach" for distant wildlife/bird photos, but if a person could only afford (for the time being) ONE camera, would a 1D Mark III or IV be a good idea?
I really like/WANT the fast FPS rate that the full frame bodies don't really deliver, the 1.3x seems like a nice little bit of "extra" reach, and from the files I've seen from the Mark III, they do look pretty sharp AND clean, even at ISO 3200.
I'm sorry if this sounds like a total digital NEWBIE question, but I'd appreciate any REAL WORLD feedback and suggestions.
Also, after shooting for over 30 years I "feel" that I am ready for, and DESERVE a "pro" camera body.
Yes I know I don't NEED a "pro" camera, but sometimes it's nice to get what we WANT instead of always getting what we NEED.
I will truly appreciate all feedback.
Thanks
Jason
Posted by Buck Ward on November 13, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Yes, it is a good compromise. I moved up from an APS-C body to the 1D3. No regrets. It means that I use the 2.0xTC on the 300mm lens more often and I get better advantage from wide angle lenses. I still would like to have a full frame body.
Here's a suggestion: For less than the price of a 1D4, you can get a 5D2 plus a 50D or 7D. The best of both worlds?
Posted by Austin Booth on November 13, 2009 at 7:15 PM
If you are going with a "Pro" body I'm assuming you will also be complementing that with "Pro" L series glass. The problem with 1.3x is Canon doesn't make any lenses that are a true ultra wide in that sensor size. The 14mm is the closest it comes and is quite an expensive piece of glass at about $2350 and is roughly equivalent to an 18mm on full frame, not quite as wide as you can get on full frame or with the 10-22mm on aps-c, if you want to go as wide as you can with full frame your only option would be the Sigma 12-24mm lens.
Another thing to consider is the telephoto reach is not as good either, a 300mm lens will be 390mm on 1.3x body and 480mm on a 1.6x body, as someone who has experience shooting wildlife I'm sure you realize that that 90mm of reach can sometimes be enough to make or break a shot when it comes to distant subjects or small song birds which won't let you get too close.
Honestly if you do a significant amount of wildlife at all I think the 7D will be your best bet as it will give you that extra reach as well as 8FPS. You can get the 10-22mm lens for it so you have ultra wide for landscapes, yes it won't quite compare to a full frame but the image quality of a crop camera and the 10-22mm is still very good.
Another thought although it will add slightly more bulk to your load is to get the 5D MK II and then get a crop body such as the 40D or 50D which still offer about 6.5FPS, heck you could even get the 7D and 5D MK II and still be spending less than you would on the 1D MK IV and then you would be getting the best of both worlds. Having a second body is only going to add a pound or two to your load assuming you will already be carrying a wide angle for landscapes and a telephoto for wildlife, its just going to take up a little more room in your camera bag. With two bodies you will also be doing less lens swapping keeping your sensors nice and dust free, the other added benefit is you won't have to be changing settings as much either as each camera will be set up more or less for its specialty. That way when the rare mongolian jackalope crosses your path for just a brief instant you don't miss the shot because you were shooting a landscape and you first have to swap lenses and then stop down the aperture and increase the ISO in order to get a fast enough shutter speed to capture it. You could have the crop camera as your walk around camera and lens combo so you are ready when you see wildlife and when you stop to shoot a landscape you pull out the other body.
Honestly I don't see the reason for how much more expensive the 1D MK IV is than the two cameras below it other than you look cooler with that big honkin' body and everyone who sees you shooting it will ask if you're a pro photographer. Sure the pro bodies have a few more bells and whistles but I don't think its enough to warrant the huge difference in cost.
Thank you both for your replies. They are very thoughtful, and the suggestions are very good.
Right now, I will only be able to afford one body, and even though I don't NEED a fast frames per second rate, it is something I really really LIKE, and really WANT! And the 3.8 fps or so of the 5D Mark II is just TOO FRIGGIN' SLOW!!
I really like what I've seen from the 7D except for the fact that you cannot link spot metering to the selected AF point (unless it's the center point), and I PREFER to use spot metering when I shoot in Manual, which I do roughly 90% of the time. This IS possible on a 1D body. This is also nice considering I like to use the AF-ON button to AF with, and just use the shutter release button to release the shutter.
But if push comes to shove, I might have to "settle" for a 7D. I really like how it feels in the hand, esp with the BG-E7 grip.
I like the EF-S 10-22mm lens, the photos I've seen with it are very sharp, and with a MINOR adjustment does work very well on the 1D (APS-H) bodies from 12mm on up. (Possibly even from 11mm).
The noise I've seen from the 40D and 50D, plus even their less than 8fps frame rate doesn't really thrill me. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they're wonderful cameras, but since the 7D came out, it HAS to be 8 FPS or higher.
Finally, as I mentioned above, I know I don't NEED a "pro" body (1D series), but after all this time I think I've "EARNED" one. After toiling and trudging for over 30 years shooting with "whatever I could afford, or was available", I WANT a 1D body!
It may not be the BEST solution to ALL my photographic needs or styles, but if it'll suffice in even 75% of the time, I'll be very happy.
I eventually do want to get a second body, and if the 1Ds Mark IV would provide even 8 fps with the probable 32 MP sensor and all it's other features, then eventually THAT might be the second body I will purchase.
Again, I know I don't NEED a fast FPS camera, esp when shooting scenics or landscapes, and probably would never shoot it THAT fast, but there is just something about even "knowing" your camera is capable of that rate, and face it, it just sounds so freakin' cool when you do fire off the motor at that speed.
Hey photography IS supposed to be FUN, isn't it?
So once again, thanks for the feedback, I'll probably end up with a 7D because of cost, and I won't be disappointed, but hopefully I will be able to afford a 1D Mark IV. If the 920,000 dot LCD screen for the1D Mark IV was able to be put on the 1D Mark III, that might be the best answer yet.
Posted by Buck Ward on November 13, 2009 at 10:43 PM
If speed is what you want, the 1D's 10 FPS is the ticket. It's so fast, betcha can't take just one.
I expect that the 7D's 8 FPS is plenty fast enough, but then again you're back to the smaller sensor.
I'd be interested to know about the adjustment that will let an EF-S lens work on a 1D body. Just for the heck of it, I tried to mount the kit lens from my wife's Rebel on my 1D3. It wouldn't physically fit.
It's a very simple routine. First off you zoom the lens to it's 22 mm focal length, then carefully remove the rear baffle (the grey coloured "ring" from the back of the lens) with a small pocket knife or similar object, (it just "pops" off.) and you're good to go. You can replace the removed baffle with one from a Canon EF 35mm f2.0 lens, or one from the EF 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 zoom lens, they fit perfectly apparently.
Just make sure you don't zoom below 12mm (although apparently even at 11mm you won't hit the mirror on a 1D Mark III)
This procedure seems to only work with the EF-S 10-22mm lens though. But still that does provide a nice wide zoom range for a 1D body.
Here are a couple of links that show how it's done in detail:
Posted by Austin Booth on November 14, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I would be scared to put a modified lens like that that could potentially damage my mirror on a $3500 1D MK III body. I think you would be better off just going with the Sigma 12-24mm on an APS-H sensor. I really don't think there will be a huge difference in image quality between the 12-24mm and the 10-22mm. Sure the third party lenses may not be able to match the image quality of name brand L lenses but many of them can certainly match the quality of mid-grade lenses such as the 10-22mm. One benefit of the 1Ds over a 1.6x crop sensor is you can still autofocus with a 1.4x teleconverter and with some lenses a 2x converter will autofocus too so that will help to make up for the smaller crop factor although the autofocus will definitely be slower using a converter.
No matter which camera you choose every camera will be slightly more suited toward a certain purpose and you will have to make some sort of compromise. Why doesn't Canon just make one super camera that does everything huh? They should make a pro grade super camera which does 10 FPS at full frame but it is also a hybrid camera and has a mechanism inside the camera that rotates and has the full frame sensor on one side and an aps-c sensor on the other side so you can still get that crop factor for telephoto shots...ok maybe that is a little ridiculous and asking too much of Canon.
Actually I've seen the results from the modified 10-22 on a 1D Mark III, and they are INCREDIBLE, and there is no danger to the Mark III as long as you don't go below 12mm. (You can see any vignetting in the viewfinder if you're below 12mm).
I know the Sigma 12-24mm will work, but first off, I like the IQ and colours from the Canon 10-22 a lot better, you can use "normal" wide angle filters, and not have to use rear filters or over sized ones that the Sigma lens takes.
If you're a member of P.O.T.N. one of the members there, DSydor is the one who uses the 10-22 on his 1D Mark III, and the results speak for themselves. lol
Yeah I completely agree about Canon should build a be all-end all Camera. Hell I'd even be satisfied if the new 1Ds Mark IV would be a combo FullFrame + 1.6x crop with 32MP, 5-6 FPS @ FF, 8-10 FPS @ 1.6x etc. Sort of like the Nikon D3x or D3s or whatever model(s) they have that do that.
Posted by Basil Greber on November 15, 2009 at 3:53 AM
Are you heavily invested in Canon glass? Otherwise, you may want to consider the Nikon full frame bodies - they feature rather high frame rates (I think it's 8 fps for the D700 and a couple more if you push it from the D3...). Their resolution is lower than the Canon's, though.
As for the APS-H body - I don't know, really. It may be the best from both worlds. Or the worst. Depending on how you see it. I think the suggestion to get an APS-C and an FF body is not a bad one. Given that you seem able to afford a 1D-series body, you should be able to fund a 5D MkII and a 50D/7D as well. Make sure you read the comments of Darwin Wiggett regarding the 7D, though...
Posted by John Reed on November 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Jason,
Lots of good information by everybody so far. Here's my two cents (well, maybe a nickel)
I began with a 1D Mark II, loved it. Added a 20D as a back-up, loved the reach. Got a 5D for the megapixels and full frame. Loved the detail. Upgraded the 20D to 30D to 40D to 7D and have liked the reach of them all, but as good as they are, they were not my prime weapons. Upgraded the 5D to the 5D Mark II and updated the 1D Mark II to the 1D Mark III. Through it all, I kept finding whatever 1D I was using was "my baby" and kept using it more than the others combined.
I upgraded my back-up so frequently mainly because of the addition of a spot meter, continual metering advances and more focus points (yes, I have been blessed to be able to do all this). Exposure and focus are the most important factors to me. The point of this ramble so far is not bragging. The point is to provide a reference to you that I've "used them all". That said, here is my experience.
I have no image quality issues with any of them so I'm going to leave that for others to argue over whatever minor differences there are. I still use the 1D Mark III more than the other two combined. Mainly because it is FAST in every way. Not just frame rate that appeals to you. With all the focus points, it focuses lightning fast. With all the metering zones, it meters super. In a nutshell, to me, it is the most responsive. I prefer the 5D Mark II for pure landscapes and shooting indoors but if I could only have one body, the 1D Mark III does not lose all that much with the 1.3 factor and all the other factors more than make up for in overall. In fairness, the 7D is new and I've not fully exploited it yet but I think it falls out of the running because of the loss of wide angle others have mentioned.
One final argument for the 1D series is the very fact that they ARE pro bodies...best sealed against dust and moisture, longest shutter life, more rugged and so on. I am sorry to see the Mark IV clutter a great camera up with video since it's now trendy, but then I guess I'm just a luddite when it comes to video.
Hope this helps. If I can tell you more, let me know.
John
Thanks John for your very helpful, and informative reply. I've been mulling this over for the past several weeks, and it seems that no matter how much I try and convince myself otherwise, the answer keeps coming back to the same one...a 1D Mark III or IV.
I realize that it may not be the best choice in EVERY possible shooting situation, i.e. landscapes or scenic etc, but as you mentioned, for focus and exposure, it's hard to beat. Also, I've seen scenic/landscape images taken with the 1D Mark III + Modified EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 combo, and was simply blown away by the quality. So it can't be THAT bad of a camera for landscape/scenic shots.
Also the durability of the camera is another key feature, and yes there is also the "strut" factor. After photographing for over 30 years, I feel I DESERVE a "pro" camera. I may not NEED one, but hey, I WANT one, and if it can do the job I want it to do, why the hell not? lol
Another reason I'm strongly leaning toward the 1D body is the fact that I primarily shoot in manual mode, and use spot metering, and the 1D bodies allow the spot metering circle to be linked to the focusing point, which is a very important feature for me. This is not even available on the 7D, which if it was, would make the decision a little harder.
I'm not really into the video feature, in fact if the 1D Mark III could use the new 920,000 dot LCD screens, I'd be all set.
I may end up with a 1D Mark IV for the screen, and updated AF, but I think for now, (cost being a major factor of course) I think the 1D Mark III will most likely be the body I'll get.
I'll then add a 1D Mark IV eventually, then use the 1D Mark III as a second body.
I already own the following lenses:
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (non I.S.)
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro
The lenses I'm looking to get are:
EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 (Simple modification to work on 1D bodies)
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro
EF 400mm f/2.8L I.S.
TC 2X II
TC 1.4x II
I also want the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens, but I've heard that an I.S. version might be released in early 2010, so I'll wait a bit in case it is. I have some nerve damage in my hands, so the I.S. would really be a benefit in handheld situations.
I'm also deciding between the EF 85mm f/1.2L and EF 100mm f/2.0 lenses. I've seen many sample photos from both lenses, and to be honest, the majority of shots I've seen from the 100 have been sharper, crisper, and more vibrant in colour than from the 85. Perhaps this is from the users using f/1.2 in most of the photos, but that's just the way it looks to me.
I'm also seriously considering the EF 100mm f/2.8L I.S. macro, so that may decide things for me.
Of course there's flash equipment, a solid tripod, the RRS BH-55 ball head with quick release, Wimberley Sidekick, plates, remote releases, better beamer, etc etc.
So I think that system should keep me satisfied for a while.
Thanks again John, and everyone for your very helpful replies.
Discussion
10 repliesI've always shot with film, and will be going "digital" in the near future.
I've shot with both Canon and Nikon cameras, incl the AE-1, F1, Nikon FM2, F3, and currently use the Canon A2.
I've used lenses from 15mm fisheye up to the 300 f/2.8 and 600 f4 ED-IF Nikkor.
Since nature/wildlife is my main subject matter, incl landscapes such as Peyto Lake etc, wildlife, macro, birds in flight etc, my question is,
Would a camera such as the Canon 1D Mark III or new 1D Mark IV be a good "compromise" between a 1.6x crop body (i.e. the 7D) and a Full Frame body?
I realize that a full frame body is preferable for landscape shots, esp with a wide angle lens, and the 1.6x crop bodies give that extra "reach" for distant wildlife/bird photos, but if a person could only afford (for the time being) ONE camera, would a 1D Mark III or IV be a good idea?
I really like/WANT the fast FPS rate that the full frame bodies don't really deliver, the 1.3x seems like a nice little bit of "extra" reach, and from the files I've seen from the Mark III, they do look pretty sharp AND clean, even at ISO 3200.
I'm sorry if this sounds like a total digital NEWBIE question, but I'd appreciate any REAL WORLD feedback and suggestions.
Also, after shooting for over 30 years I "feel" that I am ready for, and DESERVE a "pro" camera body.
Yes I know I don't NEED a "pro" camera, but sometimes it's nice to get what we WANT instead of always getting what we NEED.
I will truly appreciate all feedback.
Thanks
Jason
Here's a suggestion: For less than the price of a 1D4, you can get a 5D2 plus a 50D or 7D. The best of both worlds?
Another thing to consider is the telephoto reach is not as good either, a 300mm lens will be 390mm on 1.3x body and 480mm on a 1.6x body, as someone who has experience shooting wildlife I'm sure you realize that that 90mm of reach can sometimes be enough to make or break a shot when it comes to distant subjects or small song birds which won't let you get too close.
Honestly if you do a significant amount of wildlife at all I think the 7D will be your best bet as it will give you that extra reach as well as 8FPS. You can get the 10-22mm lens for it so you have ultra wide for landscapes, yes it won't quite compare to a full frame but the image quality of a crop camera and the 10-22mm is still very good.
Another thought although it will add slightly more bulk to your load is to get the 5D MK II and then get a crop body such as the 40D or 50D which still offer about 6.5FPS, heck you could even get the 7D and 5D MK II and still be spending less than you would on the 1D MK IV and then you would be getting the best of both worlds. Having a second body is only going to add a pound or two to your load assuming you will already be carrying a wide angle for landscapes and a telephoto for wildlife, its just going to take up a little more room in your camera bag. With two bodies you will also be doing less lens swapping keeping your sensors nice and dust free, the other added benefit is you won't have to be changing settings as much either as each camera will be set up more or less for its specialty. That way when the rare mongolian jackalope crosses your path for just a brief instant you don't miss the shot because you were shooting a landscape and you first have to swap lenses and then stop down the aperture and increase the ISO in order to get a fast enough shutter speed to capture it. You could have the crop camera as your walk around camera and lens combo so you are ready when you see wildlife and when you stop to shoot a landscape you pull out the other body.
Honestly I don't see the reason for how much more expensive the 1D MK IV is than the two cameras below it other than you look cooler with that big honkin' body and everyone who sees you shooting it will ask if you're a pro photographer. Sure the pro bodies have a few more bells and whistles but I don't think its enough to warrant the huge difference in cost.
Right now, I will only be able to afford one body, and even though I don't NEED a fast frames per second rate, it is something I really really LIKE, and really WANT! And the 3.8 fps or so of the 5D Mark II is just TOO FRIGGIN' SLOW!!
I really like what I've seen from the 7D except for the fact that you cannot link spot metering to the selected AF point (unless it's the center point), and I PREFER to use spot metering when I shoot in Manual, which I do roughly 90% of the time. This IS possible on a 1D body. This is also nice considering I like to use the AF-ON button to AF with, and just use the shutter release button to release the shutter.
But if push comes to shove, I might have to "settle" for a 7D. I really like how it feels in the hand, esp with the BG-E7 grip.
I like the EF-S 10-22mm lens, the photos I've seen with it are very sharp, and with a MINOR adjustment does work very well on the 1D (APS-H) bodies from 12mm on up. (Possibly even from 11mm).
The noise I've seen from the 40D and 50D, plus even their less than 8fps frame rate doesn't really thrill me. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they're wonderful cameras, but since the 7D came out, it HAS to be 8 FPS or higher.
Finally, as I mentioned above, I know I don't NEED a "pro" body (1D series), but after all this time I think I've "EARNED" one. After toiling and trudging for over 30 years shooting with "whatever I could afford, or was available", I WANT a 1D body!
It may not be the BEST solution to ALL my photographic needs or styles, but if it'll suffice in even 75% of the time, I'll be very happy.
I eventually do want to get a second body, and if the 1Ds Mark IV would provide even 8 fps with the probable 32 MP sensor and all it's other features, then eventually THAT might be the second body I will purchase.
Again, I know I don't NEED a fast FPS camera, esp when shooting scenics or landscapes, and probably would never shoot it THAT fast, but there is just something about even "knowing" your camera is capable of that rate, and face it, it just sounds so freakin' cool when you do fire off the motor at that speed.
Hey photography IS supposed to be FUN, isn't it?
So once again, thanks for the feedback, I'll probably end up with a 7D because of cost, and I won't be disappointed, but hopefully I will be able to afford a 1D Mark IV. If the 920,000 dot LCD screen for the1D Mark IV was able to be put on the 1D Mark III, that might be the best answer yet.
I expect that the 7D's 8 FPS is plenty fast enough, but then again you're back to the smaller sensor.
I'd be interested to know about the adjustment that will let an EF-S lens work on a 1D body. Just for the heck of it, I tried to mount the kit lens from my wife's Rebel on my 1D3. It wouldn't physically fit.
Just make sure you don't zoom below 12mm (although apparently even at 11mm you won't hit the mirror on a 1D Mark III)
This procedure seems to only work with the EF-S 10-22mm lens though. But still that does provide a nice wide zoom range for a 1D body.
Here are a couple of links that show how it's done in detail:
http://daniel.nordling.nu/foto/EF-S-10D/
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/609503
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/discuss/72157604422834954/
No matter which camera you choose every camera will be slightly more suited toward a certain purpose and you will have to make some sort of compromise. Why doesn't Canon just make one super camera that does everything huh? They should make a pro grade super camera which does 10 FPS at full frame but it is also a hybrid camera and has a mechanism inside the camera that rotates and has the full frame sensor on one side and an aps-c sensor on the other side so you can still get that crop factor for telephoto shots...ok maybe that is a little ridiculous and asking too much of Canon.
I know the Sigma 12-24mm will work, but first off, I like the IQ and colours from the Canon 10-22 a lot better, you can use "normal" wide angle filters, and not have to use rear filters or over sized ones that the Sigma lens takes.
If you're a member of P.O.T.N. one of the members there, DSydor is the one who uses the 10-22 on his 1D Mark III, and the results speak for themselves. lol
Yeah I completely agree about Canon should build a be all-end all Camera. Hell I'd even be satisfied if the new 1Ds Mark IV would be a combo FullFrame + 1.6x crop with 32MP, 5-6 FPS @ FF, 8-10 FPS @ 1.6x etc. Sort of like the Nikon D3x or D3s or whatever model(s) they have that do that.
As for the APS-H body - I don't know, really. It may be the best from both worlds. Or the worst. Depending on how you see it. I think the suggestion to get an APS-C and an FF body is not a bad one. Given that you seem able to afford a 1D-series body, you should be able to fund a 5D MkII and a 50D/7D as well. Make sure you read the comments of Darwin Wiggett regarding the 7D, though...
Lots of good information by everybody so far. Here's my two cents (well, maybe a nickel)
I began with a 1D Mark II, loved it. Added a 20D as a back-up, loved the reach. Got a 5D for the megapixels and full frame. Loved the detail. Upgraded the 20D to 30D to 40D to 7D and have liked the reach of them all, but as good as they are, they were not my prime weapons. Upgraded the 5D to the 5D Mark II and updated the 1D Mark II to the 1D Mark III. Through it all, I kept finding whatever 1D I was using was "my baby" and kept using it more than the others combined.
I upgraded my back-up so frequently mainly because of the addition of a spot meter, continual metering advances and more focus points (yes, I have been blessed to be able to do all this). Exposure and focus are the most important factors to me. The point of this ramble so far is not bragging. The point is to provide a reference to you that I've "used them all". That said, here is my experience.
I have no image quality issues with any of them so I'm going to leave that for others to argue over whatever minor differences there are. I still use the 1D Mark III more than the other two combined. Mainly because it is FAST in every way. Not just frame rate that appeals to you. With all the focus points, it focuses lightning fast. With all the metering zones, it meters super. In a nutshell, to me, it is the most responsive. I prefer the 5D Mark II for pure landscapes and shooting indoors but if I could only have one body, the 1D Mark III does not lose all that much with the 1.3 factor and all the other factors more than make up for in overall. In fairness, the 7D is new and I've not fully exploited it yet but I think it falls out of the running because of the loss of wide angle others have mentioned.
One final argument for the 1D series is the very fact that they ARE pro bodies...best sealed against dust and moisture, longest shutter life, more rugged and so on. I am sorry to see the Mark IV clutter a great camera up with video since it's now trendy, but then I guess I'm just a luddite when it comes to video.
Hope this helps. If I can tell you more, let me know.
John
I realize that it may not be the best choice in EVERY possible shooting situation, i.e. landscapes or scenic etc, but as you mentioned, for focus and exposure, it's hard to beat. Also, I've seen scenic/landscape images taken with the 1D Mark III + Modified EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 combo, and was simply blown away by the quality. So it can't be THAT bad of a camera for landscape/scenic shots.
Also the durability of the camera is another key feature, and yes there is also the "strut" factor. After photographing for over 30 years, I feel I DESERVE a "pro" camera. I may not NEED one, but hey, I WANT one, and if it can do the job I want it to do, why the hell not? lol
Another reason I'm strongly leaning toward the 1D body is the fact that I primarily shoot in manual mode, and use spot metering, and the 1D bodies allow the spot metering circle to be linked to the focusing point, which is a very important feature for me. This is not even available on the 7D, which if it was, would make the decision a little harder.
I'm not really into the video feature, in fact if the 1D Mark III could use the new 920,000 dot LCD screens, I'd be all set.
I may end up with a 1D Mark IV for the screen, and updated AF, but I think for now, (cost being a major factor of course) I think the 1D Mark III will most likely be the body I'll get.
I'll then add a 1D Mark IV eventually, then use the 1D Mark III as a second body.
I already own the following lenses:
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (non I.S.)
Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro
The lenses I'm looking to get are:
EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 (Simple modification to work on 1D bodies)
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro
EF 400mm f/2.8L I.S.
TC 2X II
TC 1.4x II
I also want the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lens, but I've heard that an I.S. version might be released in early 2010, so I'll wait a bit in case it is. I have some nerve damage in my hands, so the I.S. would really be a benefit in handheld situations.
I'm also deciding between the EF 85mm f/1.2L and EF 100mm f/2.0 lenses. I've seen many sample photos from both lenses, and to be honest, the majority of shots I've seen from the 100 have been sharper, crisper, and more vibrant in colour than from the 85. Perhaps this is from the users using f/1.2 in most of the photos, but that's just the way it looks to me.
I'm also seriously considering the EF 100mm f/2.8L I.S. macro, so that may decide things for me.
Of course there's flash equipment, a solid tripod, the RRS BH-55 ball head with quick release, Wimberley Sidekick, plates, remote releases, better beamer, etc etc.
So I think that system should keep me satisfied for a while.
Thanks again John, and everyone for your very helpful replies.