How much better is a 1D MK III over the MKII?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SMT
  • Start date Start date
SMT

SMT

Messages
767
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
Now I've gone and spent loads of money (to me!) on a 300mm f2.8L IS, it's being used on my 1D Mark II which I only recently bought to try with my 100-400L and 1.4x convertor which didn't really work out hence the purchase of the 300mm f2.8L IS.

So I'm now wondering if I should chop in the 1D Mark II for a Mark III? Is it going to be that much better? I don't print large prints, so that's not an issue.

Thanks - Simon.
 
Simon,

I think you'd gain the ability to crop a little more (if needed) on your wildlife shots especially with the 300/2.8's clarity. Other than that, the occasional benefit of better performance at higher Iso levels but the rest is simple ergonomics.

If you find yourself a "bitter higher up" the country, you're welcome to borrow mine for a look-see.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Ummmmm.... perhaps I shouldn't bother then. Thanks for the offer Bob, thats very kind of you.
 
I'd gather other opinions too Simon but the stuff on your website (excellent it is too) is all well within the scope of the MkII.

Bob
 
1D3 also has a MUCH better Li-Ion battery, which gives more shots (over 2000 on a single charge) and weighs 225g less than the mk2 NiMH monster. Also should last a lot more cycles and no memory effect.

And a bit more FPS.
 
I can vouch for the 1D3 as a go anywhere, take anything camera. Its solid-build and weather-proofing takes a load of worry out of the photographer. As the guys above said, it has a battery that seems to go on forever, good low-light capabilities and is very ergonomic. You should have a look at this review -

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-III-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

The original AI Servo issue has been resolved by Canon and it is a thoroughly reliable body. Certainly worth a shot at the price you can get it for these days


My 2c


a010.gif


H
a035.gif
 
Thanks for the extra feedback, it's making me think I should just hang on to the MKII for now.
 
I'd go for the mkIII every time.
It does handle higher ISO better than the mkII, but the mkIII is just much more intuitive to use. And, has been mentioned earlier the battery is in a different league.

As far as IQ goes theres not a massive difference to be honest, either would be good enough for most purposes. But overall the mkIII is a way better body.
 
I have had a mk2 and mk2N's and a mk3, it was one of the late mk3's with no problems. there is a lot of things on the mk3 that were better than the mk2, I found the IQ was quite a bit better producing really nice files maybe because its 14bit and the mk2 was 12bit, bigger screen, better battery life, better high ISO performance, safety shift when using flash and the list goes on.
 
I guess IQ improvement is the thing I was looking for most of all. All the other stuff isn't really an issue for what I intend use it for, which is daytime Wildlife. If the IQ isn't that much better? then I can't really see the point of changing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top