Canon Rebel vs Canon Mark III

asfixiate · Mar 27, 2008

To many this will be a noob question but I'm not shy. I'm just curious about this because I own a Canon Rebel XT and it takes some pretty decent pictures. By decent I mean I could sell.

Its a sunny day and there's a bird perched on a park bench. Taking both a Canon rebel and a Canon Mark III out of the box using factory settings I take a shot. If I open the pictures on my PC and look at both what is going to be the first noticeable difference? If you were a camera sales rep what would be the pitch to sell me the Mark III.

Obviously mp, shutter speed, lense are factors but lets say the lenses are pretty equal for this question.

Steph · Mar 27, 2008

Hmmmm, weird question!! Anyway, are you talking about the 1D Mk III or the 1Ds Mk III?

asfixiate · Mar 27, 2008

Lets go with 1ds

With guitars for example I can play a song with an Ovation or a Martin guitar. Obviously unplugged a Martin will sound better but I can always plug in the ovation add effects and it could sound similar.

Digital Matt · Mar 27, 2008

The 1DS photo is nearly twice the resolution, to start. Given the same lens, same focal length, same aperture, the 1DS photo will have less depth of field, and a wider perspective, because it has a full frame sensor with no crop factor. The image will probably have a higher dynamic range, given that the sensor is newer, and the processing chip(s) are newer, not to mention less noise, which comes from a combination of processing chip and sensor size. (On the larger sensor, the individual photo sites are spaced out further and produce less heat).

Image quality is not the sole concern when choosing a body. The 1DS has substantially better build quality, including weather sealing, and a host of features that the Rebel XT does not. For the professional photographer, these concerns are often equally as important as image quality.

asfixiate · Mar 27, 2008

Thanks for the feedback. I like your website by the way. Anyone else have any info?

Mav · Mar 27, 2008

asfixiate said:
Its a sunny day and there's a bird perched on a park bench. Taking both a Canon rebel and a Canon Mark III out of the box using factory settings I take a shot. If I open the pictures on my PC and look at both what is going to be the first noticeable difference?

Probably just about nothing, because casual shooting like this isn't going to be pushing the capabilities of even a Rebel. It's not dark out. You're not pushing ISO. You're not trying to freeze action. And you're not trying to catch a key moment in the action so you don't need higher FPS. Viewed at 100% on your screen which is the equivalent of sticking your nose into a 3 foot wide print you'd probably see somewhat better and sharper detail, but at normal print sizes and normal viewing distances there would be virtually no difference. The lens you're using would probably make a far bigger difference, and an even bigger distance than that is the person standing behind the camera composing the shot.

Check this out: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

There's different Mk III's out there too, which are very different cameras.

The 1D MkIII is a 1.3x 10MP-ish sports camera
The 1Ds MkIII is a 1.0x 20+MP full frame landscape/studio camera.

Steph · Mar 27, 2008

Digital Matt said:
...not to mention less noise, which comes from a combination of processing chip and sensor size. (On the larger sensor, the individual photo sites are spaced out further and produce less heat).

That's interesting. I read a review of the 1Ds MkIII in the April issue of Outdoor Photography (the UK magazine) and they noticed a fair amount of noise from 200 ISO if I remember correctly (but did not compare it to the XT). A quick calculation showed that the pixel density is roughly the same on the XT (8 MP on a 14.8x22.2 mm2 area) and the 1Ds (21 MP on a 24x36mm2 area) at about 24300 pixels per square millimetre. Maybe Canon killed the benefits of a larger sensor in terms of noise by putting too many pixels on it?

asfixiate · Mar 27, 2008

Thanks all for the feedback so far. My wedding is coming up in october and instead of hiring a photographer I'm having someone who I know is good with a camera use my Rebel. I am comfortable with the quality and feel it will work out nicely.

By no means am I bashing the big brothers of canon I just like the simplicity and quality of Rebel as well as its ability to take relatively complex shots.

usayit · Mar 27, 2008

In regards to noise and the 1ds markIII, all the samples I've seen show almost no noise until you get to ISO 1600. Even then, it is still acceptable.

Comparing the Rebel to the 1ds MarkIII is like comparing a honda to a ferrari.. kinda silly comparison. Build, sensor, and overall performance are drastically different. If you have ever shot with a 1series (even film) you'll understand. Not to mention that the 1ds MarkIII is more than 10x the cost of the Rebel XT.

Comparing the two image to image wise isn't even the beginning..... you'll have to consider lens choices as well as the photographer. You'll never realize the potential of the high end cameras unless both are up to speed as well.

usayit · Mar 27, 2008

asfixiate said:
My wedding is coming up in october and instead of hiring a photographer I'm having someone who I know is good with a camera use my Rebel. I am comfortable with the quality and feel it will work out nicely.

You will be doing yourself a disservice by going this route..... I can't begin to tell you how off the statement is.... (and I'm not saying the Rebel can't do the job)

asfixiate · Mar 27, 2008

All great feedback thanks!

Alex_B · Mar 27, 2008

asfixiate said:
Thanks all for the feedback so far. My wedding is coming up in october and instead of hiring a photographer I'm having someone who I know is good with a camera use my Rebel.

Sounds scary. no disrespect towards your friend, but if he or she normally uses different cameras, and on that special day will use your Rebel ... very scary.

What cameras does he or she usually use? there can be quite extreme differences in the way you shoot.

asfixiate · Mar 27, 2008

believe me I'm going to spend a lot of time with her ahead of time. I'm also going to program the settings before the wedding as well as verify the config during the wedding. I'm also going to be taking a lot of the photos myself anyways.

Mav · Mar 27, 2008

asfixiate said:
Thanks all for the feedback so far. My wedding is coming up in october and instead of hiring a photographer I'm having someone who I know is good with a camera use my Rebel. I am comfortable with the quality and feel it will work out nicely.

By no means am I bashing the big brothers of canon I just like the simplicity and quality of Rebel as well as its ability to take relatively complex shots.

Ummm, wow. OK I'll agree with usayit here too in that this is a bad idea, for a lot of reasons. What sort of camera does this person use? Do they shoot with SLRs at all? Also, what you were describing above just shooting a bird in a park on a sunny day is in no way even remotely close to being the same thing as shooting a wedding where you have moving subjects in often difficult lighting situations all of which are why you hire PROS to shoot weddings, because they know how to handle those situations the best.

Your comparison above is like asking what would get you through a casual drive through the park with some cars in front of you faster? A 400hp Corvette or a 150hp Honda? Neither. You're not pushing the limits so both will get you from A to B just the same. A wedding is the automotive equivalent of the Indy 500 or a Formula 1 race. You need every bit of speed and capability that your camera bodies and lenses have, and the skill to match to know how to use them properly. Can you get by with less? Yes, but in situations like these the equipment DOES matter. I think you might be taking this for granted.