So now that everyone has gotten a chance to get used to the Mark III a little bit, what are your thoughts on it?

Specifically how high do you find that you really push the ISO. On my Mark II N I don't go much above ISO 1000 and on my 5D I try not to go above ISO 1600. I'm wondering how high I'll actually go on the Mark III. 3200? Do people actually shoot it at 6400 and get OK results?

Also, I've heard the controls are totally different from the Mark II. Are they fine once you just get used to them or does it actually seem like a step backward. I didn't like the controls of the Mark II at first, but now I'm totally used to it and I kinda like it. I'm wondering if it's gonna be the same for the Mark III

Anything else you really like or dislike about it?

I guess we have to be more specific now since there are TWO Mark III's! :-)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5182...rk_III_SLR.html

Is it just me or has the release of this camera been really quiet?

But to answer your question, we did a few "fun" images with the Mark III-1D in the high ISO range (6400), and it wasn't too bad. The images were definately usable:

http://www.megphoto.com/wordpress/2007/09/...-the-ball-game/

It is very nice that the camera shoots at a native 3200. I would say the images are comparable to the 5D at 1600.

~ Charles

Well, I love it...but it decided not to work a couple of e-sessions ago. It's currently at Canon waiting for a part. It was the dreaded er99. The mirrow seemed to momentarily stick up, causing a er99 if you tried to shoot before it fell back down. Bummer. They're also taking care of the focus fix. The camera had been on two weddings. I use a MkII with the MkIII and it hasn't caused to much frustration. Obviously, if finances allowed, I'd be shooting two MKIIIs (or a 1Ds). But, until then, my 5D's will suffice for a full frame sensor.

With that said, I love the 1 series cameras and would pick my mkIII up before the 5D any day...unless I want the full 24mm of my 1.4 (or 16 of my 16-35).

Hey Chris! Hope all is well with you two. Honestly, I like my III better than the II's I used to rent. I rented till I could make the full plunge. So I shot about 12 weddings with II's, plus tons of seniors and models and TTD so I know the II's inside and out and always loved them. It was really nerve wracking when we considered the III but it has ended up being a great decision for us. We've shot 4 weddings so far with the III, 4 seniors and I've done 3 studio model shoots with it as well. Recently I photographed the interior of an event location and dealt with low lighting issues there. All this to say I've just used it a lot so now I feel like I have an honest opinion.

In my opinion, go get in the car dude. I'm going to start with what I mocked the most. I never have thought of myself as a camera snob but when I heard about the live view the snob came out of me. Seriously that's like a point and shoot! I have used it at weddings to do macro focus adjusting as well as in situations where I can't get my head behind the camera, but I really want to get this crazy positioned shot. The angle of view to the screen is incredible and has come in very handy. Last night I even used it with an MUA as we did a painting with light studio session and I wanted her opinion on how we were shooting the model. So the live view is no longer mocked but praised.

The controls took me a little bit to get used to but I here it resembles a 5D which I've never used. I haven't used the 5D so my input on missing out on full frame is nill. I've never had it so I don't miss it. I'm a PC user and have never used a MAC. That said I've been ridiculed for the amount of specific steps you have to go through to file things and do stuff on a PC over a MAC. Well, I like the control. I also like the specific nature of the controls on the III. I have big hands so running all the controls is no issue for me. My wife on the other hand has to readjust her hand to move the dial on the back side and the like. So she's not real fond of that type of issue.

I have never had to use anything past 3200. I shot This Wedding at the San Gabriel Mission with only existing light from the side windows and stage. Outside it was very overcast. It's a very old building built back in like the 1800's so the lighting is horrible. I hand held most shots with a 70-200 2.8 IS at 1600 ISO and was getting speeds around 100 at 2.8. I did shoot a couple at 3200 ISO but really didn't need it. My point here is that I feel the sensitivity of the camera is so high that higher ISO's are not needed. I did put a post up here a while back when I first got the camera where I complained about the grain at I think 1600 because there had been soooo much hype. A Nikon user got on me because he said he gets that much grain at 800 and I should feel incredibly lucky. I realized the error of my ways. And 6400 ISO. The book says it does it, but why? I shoot in crappy situations and have never needed it.

If you have any more questions pleas ask away, call me or PM me. I'm pretty had on this camera so I know it pretty well. I strongly recommend this camera.

Mark

Thanks guys! That's really helpful!

Nobody else has any feedback??

I think you want to buy mine off me so that I can go back to my NIkon family. Should be getting the D3 on Friday!

Yay! Well, that's two so far on this forum!

Anyone else wanna dump their Canon's and rock it out with the Nikons?

J/K - Each has their strengths and weaknesses.

Kind of reminds me of the Miller Lite commercial currently playing where the Bud dog jumps into the Miller truck with "Unchain My Heart" playing in the background. Sorry Dan

Rock on!

I have a 5D and the Mark III and I love both of them. Having played with the Mark II on a couple of previous occasions, I found the Mark II's control layout to be overly complicated. The Mark III is simpler, cleaner and all of the controls are easily accessible and it is SO much lighter than the Mark II, especially on a long wedding day.

I wish it were full frame, but that's what my 5D is for.

I have found a couple of uses for Live View as well. nice.

I don't go up to 3200 often. I wanted a cleaner 1600 which I could push a little harder when needed.

I shoot all of my portrait sessions with the Mark III now. I find that in conjunction with the 5D, my lenses are a lot more flexible now and I can pretty much cover everything from 16mm to 260mm with a lot of aperture variety.

Hope that helps!

Just make me an offer I absolutely can't refuse and maybe I'll get out my check book.....



How do find the color of the Mark III and the 5D compare?

Do you find ISO 1600 on the Mark III is a lot cleaner than 1600 on the 5D?

Hey Chris,
The files out of the III are unreal, even better than the great files that come out of the 5D. I still use the 5D for my group shots though.

It is cleaner.

The only draw back to the III (and it is kind of a big deal) is that the images look bad on the back of the camera. Even with the software update, I look at something and it looks pretty bad (over saturated, red, too much contrast, not enough separation) but I know from experience (and the histogram) that it will be great when I download it.

I shoot raw and know that is a jpeg on the back of the camera, but if someone knows how to adjust how it looks, then please let me know. Someone told me that it is because it is easier to see in bright light?

Hey Chris,
Just found out mine has to go back in
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...540CR1000000168

I haven't noticed any problem with this but it is on the list and I can't afford to wait until I do.

I use ISO 3200 indoor and find hte noise is not an issue at all. And the color just really pops out! Love it so far.

Frank,

I sent mine in a week or so ago to fix the er99 problem, but they had to keep it a little bit longer to wait on a part. Two different issues I think. I like the camera so much (and it couldn't have been sent in at a better time) it doesn't really bother me. I have faith that Canon wants to see happy MkIII owners as much as we WANT to be happy MkIII owners

BTW, there's quite a few extremely positive reports from the latest firmware release as well.

I'm SO happy they changed the layout to more closely resemble the 5D. Not the layout really but the function. You no longer have to hold the buttons down while you change the settings and there's only one 2-button combination. The images really are amazing though and the overall function of the camera is fantastic. I was really surprised how many ergonomic improvements there were coming from a 5D, in terms of how many more things are at your fingertips. I shoot the 1Dmk3 and the 5D side-by-side and only reach for the 5D when I need wide stuff.

That said, the LCD just plain sucks. Bad. Really bad.

Katie Torres borrowed mine during a wedding 2 weeks ago and after about 3 shots she said "What am I doing wrong... I don't think this thing is focusing." I looked at the LCD and said, "No, that's just what the LCD looks like."

So I'll be staying on the Canon bandwagon for at least a year, but boy 'o boy does that D3 look sweet!

BenV

I can't verify it myself, but I've seen several posts that claim the newest firmware update improves the display. Could be I guess. Probably changes the way it renders (sharpens) the preview image.

Thanks Michael.
I do the same thing with both cameras Ben.

I was editing a wedding today though and looking carefully for the mirror problem, and I did see that my camera does need repair. I had a bunch of soft images with no real focus point and thought that maybe I dragged the shutter to much causing the blur. I was really surprised by this because I am usually a good judge as to what I can get away with before this happens but I thought oh well maybe I pushed it too far because I was at such a high ISO. But sure enough, even at 1/60 of a second one frame is tact sharp and the next (shot exactly the same way) has that blur with nothing really in focus.

The recall does come at a perfect time (maybe that was planned too), but I shot at least 5 or 6 weddings with this camera. I waited a long time for the camera (everyone knows that) and it cost me a big chunk of change. Plus my couples are paying me to do a great job for them.

I am kind of disappointed that Canon had to wait for us to discover this issue, and now is recalling all of these cameras. Sure they will pay for shipping and handling, and there is no repair bill but this is something very serious and the camera should never have been released like that.

For me, January is going to be the best time to send the camera back. Hopefully, they'll have the ball rolling by then. They've announced the recall but aren't really geared up to repair cameras yet AFAIK.

Hey Ben!

How do you feel the Mark III compares to the 5D's color?

I have the 5D and Mark II N and while I LOVE my Mark II, the 5D does have a "buttery" look to it that the Mark II doesn't really have.

You like the images coming out of the Mark III a lot better than the 5D?



I've wondered about the screen thing too. I've heard a lot of people talk about that. It's odd that they increased the screen on the Mark III by another half an inch from the Mark II, but didn't add any more pixels!



Seriously! Part of me really just wants to wait and see what they do with the Mark III N (or whatever the decide to call it). Or what the 5D replacement is gonna be.

my first taste with the body was at market week because TJ rented it, and i picked it up a couple times and was surprised by how different the interface was. it's definitely got a different feel to it.

sorry to hear your problems frank, that sucks bro.

chris, im curious as you why you dont push your MkII past iso 1000? i regularly push mine to 1600 and have no problems whatsoever. in fact, as alisha will agree, i regularly add grain to my iso 1600 images when i convert them to BW. i guess jason really turned me on to that whole TMAX 3200 look back in the film days. i loved that look, and with todays complete lack of noise in these cameras i have no problem pushing them to the max. i mean what's useable and acceptable ya know? its going to differ all the time. are my clients going to blow up an image at 1600 to 60x80? probably not. but i just saw one of my images printed full page back cover in the bride and bloom that was shot at 1600, added some grain, and looked great (at least i thought).

I honestly can't say yet if the Mk3 images compare in quality to the 5D. From a noise standpoint, definitely. But the 5D JPEGs were like total buttery creamy goodness. On the other hand I've been shooting RAW for so long that the differences between cameras is a little less noticeable to me. When other people shoot with me I can pick out the 20D and 30D images EASILY. But the 5D and 1DMk3 are much closer.

Here's a shot -- RAW, WB 3200K, ISO3200, f/1.8, 1/40s.

Opened in Lightroom 1.3, less contrast, more blacks (my default action). Then web prepped in Photoshop + Kubota's MagicSharp:



100% crop, no sharpening, no nothing:


100% crop, no sharpening, no nothing (to show shadow areas):

That was actually a Coors dog...you know those dogs that will jump on anyone else's wagon...

I have absolutely no issue with grain. I love grain, and I'll sometimes shoot things that I KNOW they are going to end up b/w at 1600 or even 3200 just to get that effect (or I'll add grain later in photoshop). TMAX 3200 is amazing and part of me wishes I would bring a film camera to every wedding and just throw a few rolls of that in there cause the look is awesome.

It's noise that bothers me.

I guess with color files, I just like really really clean looking files. I don't know if it's some deep down fear that a client would complain if that they thought an image was noisy (I've never had that happen).... I don't know. It's just a personal standard thing I guess.

It's always easier to add it than to try to take it away.

try 1600 out my friend. you'll find that it's very usable. i understand having personal standards, but when national magazines are willing to use 1600 on their full page back cover you know the noise is barely an issue. you obviously have to be careful when using 1600 because you can't push it (underexposing one of those and pulling it back is tough). but what do you do when you want to do street shots late at night? night portraits? extremely dark churches? dont be afraid to use it. im certainly not going to shoot family portraits at 1600 but there are situations when it comes in handy.

I've used it before. It's not the end of the world, and besides when I find I REALLY need to shoot in low light that's where the 5D shines. I shoot my 5D at 1600 at probably every single wedding. It's amazing. This last wedding I even shot at 3200 it was so dark... check out this shot...

Canon 5D
1/15th (THANK GOD for IS)
f2.8
ISO 3200
200mm

These are basically right out of camera...



a closer crop...

ahhhhhhh that makes more sense. i was definitely curious when i read your last post.

and yes i agree the 5D is cash dolla dolla bills in low light situations. i even think the low light AF can be better on the 5D than the MkII at times.

thank god for IS is right. i saw a thread on here a while ago where people were talking about IS not being a huge deal and i was like

Yeah, its not that I WON'T shoot ISO 1600 on the Mark II.... It's definetly better to get the right exposure and shoot at 1600 rather than try to shoot at 800 and underexpose (and then try to correct). I just don't like to (particularly when I have the 5D). I just love how fast the Mark II is and how fast the buffer is on it so sometimes I wish I didn't need to use the 5D in low light.




Note to self... "cash dolla dolla bills" is my new favorite phrase! LOL!



People actually think that?! I feel I have a pretty steady hand, but still IS is pretty amazing.

Hey guys,

This was a super tough shooting situation. Sandra Day O'Connor didn't want the press or cameras there so they called me in to try and get something. Of course flash wasn't even a possibility, I would have gotten the boot after two frames. It was strongly back lit, so almost nothing on the face compared to what is around her. The Mark III did this at 3200 iso, f/5, and 1/250th of a sec. IS/handheld with the 70-200 2.8. Of course I worked it, but it will be the new cover of the Cornell Law School Magazine in about a week (attached is a mock up of the cover, the image was worked more after this mock up was created, and the color is a little off here, but I don't have the time to fix it right now. Just wanted to show you what it can do.

The fact that an image shot like this meets the high standards for a cover is a great testament to the camera!




URL=http://imageshack.us][/URL]

Frank that's awesome!

The shot, the quality, the fact that you got cover, and the coolness of getting to shoot someone like that.

Very very cool!

(or should I say niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice!)

Thanks Chris!

yea, no doubt about it, that camera is Niiiiiiiicce!

It is totally worth the extra bucks, even if it has a few wrinkles to get worked out of it.