What’s Your Preference?

Optikal iLLusion · #1 (**permalink**) 02-05-2012, 06:34 PM

So I stumbled across the adorama.com website and noticed how great it is(IMHO anyway). I think its cool that they sell used equipment and give you a condition rating on it as well. As i was browsing i came across this

Canon Eos-1d Mark-III 10.1 Megapixels Digital Slr Camera Body

and it raised a question in my mind... Would it be worth it to buy a used 1D Mark III over a new 7D? I did some searching on comparisons between the two and opinions seem to be about 50/50 when money is no object. So i thought i would post the question here. What would you prefer if someone was just going to give you one or the other (with no strings attached of course) and why?

RichardTaylor · #2 (**permalink**) 02-05-2012, 08:44 PM

ID-Mark III mainly because of the 10 fps and 30 frame buffer (When shooting RAW).

bhursey · #3 (**permalink**) 02-05-2012, 08:56 PM

I would Probibly get the 7d considering my current camera is almost an 8 year old model close to the 1dmkiii in age and 2 things that make the 7d nice is the LCD for previewing and the pop up master however I don't have the money for either. Right now my goal is a 60d. I have messed up some pictures because I did not catch problems that I would of seen on a bigger LCD with group shots. But really I would need to try both first.

Optikal iLLusion · #4 (**permalink**) 02-05-2012, 09:31 PM

My only concern would be the megapixel difference. I know that the number of megapixels are not the only thing that determines final image quality (read a few days ago that dynamic range has alot to do with it as well) but it seems odd to me that a professional level camera would have such a "low" megapixel count.

Optikal iLLusion · #5 (**permalink**) 02-05-2012, 10:06 PM

The Megapixel Myth

just came across this regarding resolution.. kind of making the megapixel difference between the said camera here pointless i guess.

RichardTaylor · #6 (**permalink**) 02-05-2012, 10:11 PM

The thing with with more megapixels it does give you more flexibility to crop if need be.
I have a friend who shoots motor sport with a 7D & primes and does that a lot when he has the "wrong lens" on.

I mostly use a 100-400 zoom and try to fill the frame on my 10 & 12 MP cameras.

gturner · #7 (**permalink**) 02-06-2012, 11:30 AM

Great question!

I have the 1D mkiii and the only issue I have with it is the ISO quality over 800. It is NOT as good as the 7D.

That said, the blinding speed of the AF, shutter response and frame rate make it awesome for sports and birds.
I use a 5D mkii for people and places and it is perfect for that purpose.

SwissJon · #8 (**permalink**) 02-06-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Optikal iLLusion

The Megapixel Myth

just came across this regarding resolution.. kind of making the megapixel difference between the said camera here pointless i guess.

I think you need to be careful when it comes to Ken Rockwell.. I find he tends to overlook things and bend figures to fit his own version of reality and make his point.. This article is a perfect example.

Quote:

Doubling pixel count only increases the real, linear resolution by 40%, which is pretty much invisible.

I'm 6ft tall. If you increase my linear resolution by 40%, I'll be 8ft5" tall.. That's really not "pretty much invisible".. That's the difference between me looking short on a basketball court and me being paid millions by the NBA.

Take what ken Rockwell says with a pinch of salt. He has his uses, but shouldn't be seen as gospel.

Having said that, I had a D7000 which has 16MPix, and I would swap it in an instant for a D3s which has 12MPix. Why? Because the D3S is a far better camera. The quality of the images that you can obtain from the D3S are outstanding. The color depth, the contrast, the dynamic range and the low Noise at high ISO, the sharpness are all much better.

My camera can print 6"x4" prints at 720dpi, the D3s can't, unless you upscale. Or 12"x8" at 360dpi. You need high pixel counts for large high quality pictures, but you trade off against the resolution your lens can produce, the speed that it is capable of producing those pictures (The new D800 which is due to be released tomorrow is supposed to have 36MPix, but it's shutter count and buffer are supposedly less than it's predecessor.) and things like diffraction and chromatic abberation.

However my screen on my computer is only 1920x1080, so there's no point in offering it anything more than a 2MPix image, it just downscales them.. However it does allow you to zoom in a long way..

Personally I'd go for the 1DMk111 for the same reasons as RichardTaylor

OsmosisStudios · #9 (**permalink**) 02-06-2012, 12:50 PM

If you're comparing a 1DIII with a 7D, keep in mind that the former is EF lenses only; the latter does EF and EF-S

Optikal iLLusion · #10 (**permalink**) 02-06-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gturner

Great question!

I have the 1D mkiii and the only issue I have with it is the ISO quality over 800. It is NOT as good as the 7D.

That said, the blinding speed of the AF, shutter response and frame rate make it awesome for sports and birds.
I use a 5D mkii for people and places and it is perfect for that purpose.

Can you post any examples of images shot above 800ISO from both cameras?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

If you're comparing a 1DIII with a 7D, keep in mind that the former is EF lenses only; the latter does EF and EF-S

I hadnt thought about this. Why would they take the IS off the table for a professional level camera? Do most pros prefer not having IS?