Clarification? Canon 1DIII, 1DIV, 1DsIII

[mrmacedonian]

I attempted to search the forum several times to get a clarification from a former thread but I failed to find one. I've heard places that each camera has its "niche" (sports vs. studio, etc.) but looking through the specs, being a novice, I can't discern these niches. also, I wonder why the highest price-point model wouldn't coalesce the abilities of the lesser. I may be naive but the 7k pricetag i'd want to use it all the time >_<.

any way, i'm not the type thats afraid of doing my own research but if someone could point me in the right direction i would be grateful.

andrej

 

[WTF?]

well the 1dIV is the new version of the 1dIII, this line of cameras is designed with more of a focus on speed, so fast framerate (~10fps), fast and accurate auto focus and fast processing - these features makes it better for sports and fast paced photography.

the 1Ds line signifies that it is a full frame camera (rather than the 1.3x crop as in the 1dIV/III/II/I), and replaces speed with sheer image quality. having to move that much more information lowers the frame rate from 10fps to something like 4 or 5fps - not ideal for shooting f1 cars going 200mph.

basically one is faster, the other has better image quality.
i hope i explained it clearly enough and helped you understand

 

[gsgary]

Most of the worlds top sports photographers actually use the 1Dsmk3 and not the 1dmk3/4

 

[Derrel]

Most of the worlds top sports photographers actually use the 1Dsmk3 and not the 1dmk3/4

And that is because most of the world's top sports photographers actually prefer a full-frame, high-resolution camera instead of one with a reduced FOV sensor. The 1Ds Mark III has a nice, 16.7 MP full frame sensor, that allows top sports shooters to use their 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 lenses at the close camera-to-subject distances that "credential-wearing" shooters are actually standing at when photographing sporting events. That's another reason the Nikon D3 series took off so well--full-frame sensor coverage allows you to use your 70-200 at closer ranges, and your 24-70 as well. Gary's right...many of the top-level sports shooters prefer the FF sensor size of the 1Ds Mark III over the 1D-Mark III and its 10.3 MP sensor and 1.3x FOV factor.

 

[gsgary]

Most of the worlds top sports photographers actually use the 1Dsmk3 and not the 1dmk3/4

And that is because most of the world's top sports photographers actually prefer a full-frame, high-resolution camera instead of one with a reduced FOV sensor. The 1Ds Mark III has a nice, 16.7 MP full frame sensor, that allows top sports shooters to use their 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 lenses at the close camera-to-subject distances that "credential-wearing" shooters are actually standing at when photographing sporting events. That's another reason the Nikon D3 series took off so well--full-frame sensor coverage allows you to use your 70-200 at closer ranges, and your 24-70 as well. Gary's right...many of the top-level sports shooters prefer the FF sensor size of the 1Ds Mark III over the 1D-Mark III and its 10.3 MP sensor and 1.3x FOV factor.

Another reason is you can't just shoot sport, my friend is an accredited F1 photographer and uses the 1Dsmk3 (i bought his old 1Dmk2) but with 2 weeks between races he has to shoot other things to survive

 

[inTempus]

If you go through and look at SI.com's pages, sometimes they mention the cameras used such as at this link:

SI.com - Photo Gallery - Bill Frakes' Favorite Shots

Obviously it's a Canon operation. Of the 25 random pics they've commented on at that link, over half are 1D's and the rest are 1Ds's (with a 20D thrown in).

I would like to see some semi-scientific numbers that show "most" sports photogs use 1Ds's vs. 1D's. I've certainly not found anything more than anecdotal evidence, and even that suggests at best it's a 50/50 split.

 

[Montana]

I can image a 50/50 split myself, depends on the sport really. The 1DsIV will be interesting for sure. I myself love the 1.3 crop. Its perfect for ME. Kind of a happy medium. Sure wouldn't dump my 5DII if I didn't haveto, but if I could only shoot with one body it would be 1D series for sure.

 

[usayit]

I have no idea what the spread is... but..

If the majority of sports photogs shoot with the 1ds full frame rather than Canon intended sport model the 1d line, then why would Canon even still continue to find the 1d camera profitable. Obviously studio and magazine types are going to prefer full frame... what's left?

 

[Big Mike]

Some pros might have been scared away from the 1D series with all those AF problems they had on the early III versions. I know of a couple shooters who switched to Nikon because of that.

I guess it's plausible, but I don't know how many photographers would prefer the full frame view for shooting sports (except on the rare wide angle shots they need to take). I've always heard them talking about the extra 'reach' of the 1.3 crop as a good thing. (of course, there are always those dinosaurs who have been shooting 35mm film for so long, that they can't wrap their head around working with the crop factor).

I've also heard from a photographer talk about how he prefers crop cameras (1D and even XXD bodies) over his 1Ds sometimes because the extra DOF is a good thing. For example, if you need to shoot at F2.8 because of the light levels and/or shutter speed requirements, and you have to get two people in focus, you might not want the shallow DOF of a full frame body (where you might have to stop down to F4 to get the same DOF)

 

[Derrel]

SportsShooter.com: Equipment Profiles

Many of the "top" sports photographers, as in Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and so on, prefer a full-frame camera. Canon's Chuck Westfall, the Canon USA ombudsman admitted some months ago that Canon is reconsidering the 1.3x crop of the 1D Mark-series bodies,and said that when that was originally produced, it was due to cost alone, and that there is little benefit in remaining with the 1.3x FOV crop body now, in this current state of d-slr evolution. Many of the 'top" sports shooters like Robert Beck and Robert Hanashiro have swirtched to Nikon's D3 series for the high-ISO capabilities and the full-frame angle of view.

Bird photographers absolutely love the crop-sensor bodies in the 1.5x and 1.6x ranges because they are "reach-limited". Credential-carrying sports shooters, those actually working events from the press pits and sidelines and baselines in many sports, find that the issue is not being reach-limited, but rather being what is called focal-length constrained. When they are stuck at the end-line of a USA football stadium and a touchdown occurs under 30 yards distant, a full-frame camera shot with one's bread-and-butter telephoto of 70-200,200,300,or 400mm prime lens becomes VERY "tight", and so they have to drop their monopod camera to the crook of their elbow, and grab their 24-70 just to get a shot with a little bit of context, or risk getting nothing usable. Since images in S-I and most newspapers are screen printed, there is no need for much resolution, even for a double-truck in S-I.

Anybody who wants to hear what Canon's official USA spokesman said about APS-H can read it here: Q&A: Canon's camera tech guru Chuck Westfall | Underexposed - CNET News

an excerpt: "With Nikon and now Sony adding weight to the full-frame market, what role is there for the in-between sensor size, APS-H? (It's about halfway between the full-frame sensors used in the high-end SLRs and the APS-C sensors use in the top-selling models such as the Rebel XTi and 40D. The APS-H is used in the 1D Mark III and its predecessors.)

Westfall: When we introduced APS-H in 2001 with the original EOS-1D, the idea was to compete against other professional DSLRs with APS-C. In that respect it has been extremely successful. At that point it was about what the competition had to offer. It's only been in the last six months that there has been an alternative. We've had a good long run with APS-H.
Going forward, it remains to be seen whether it will continue to be a desirable format. We're not ready to say it's over.

Is there a unique advantage APS-H has over full-frame sensors besides price? Nikon's D3 is a full-frame competitor to the 1D Mark III at about the same cost.

Westfall: At this point, no. Price would be the only thing."

 

[inTempus]

...still nothing of any substance showing "most" Canon sports shooters prefer the 1Ds over the 1D. The link provided is meaningless as it has comments from "assistants" and other random people that aren't even photographers. Let's not mention it's not even close to a scientific sampling as some cameras (like the 1Ds3) have 1 review whereas the 1D4 has 11 (which if you took at face value would indicate the 1D4 is more popular than the 1Ds3).

 

[cfusionpm]

Full frame and 1.3 crop aside, wouldn't sports shooters also want to benefit from twice the burst speed and faster autofocus? Do the 1D and 1Ds bodies share the same AF system?

 

[mrmacedonian]

Thanks for all the explanations, very helpful indeed. So instead of multiple 'niches' there is a D line for sports and Ds line for more of a studio setting (Canon's intent; not arguing the real-world spread).

So then if the 1.3x crop factor isn't necessary anymore thanks to technological advancements than the 1DV will be a full frame high-burst while the new 1DsIV (whenever released) will again be a full frame mid-burst model or will they combine these two lines? obviously just interested in thoughts and opinions.

I personally understand the theory of two parallel lines suited for their respective uses, just wondering why the price points had a $2k difference if each is the best for its purpose; I would expect a more parallel marketing/pricing.

Thanks again for the clarification!

 

[FrankLamont]

Rubbish on the fact that most Canon sports shooters use the 1Ds - the 1.3x crop factor does not make any difference whatsoever; pixel peeping is the only way to see evidence otherwise unseen at normal view, whereas the effective crop can be seen, which is 'applied' without any loss in quality.

 

[Montana]

Personally, I like that Canon offers us a choice of formats in pro bodies. Being a wildlife and sports shooter, the 1.3 is welcome. In studio, I prefer the smaller 5DII and have no need for anything more autofocus points or other bells and whistles since I have all kinds of time to take "the shot".

And who knows, maybe Nikon will gain some of the pro sports market now that the D3s firmware was updated. Wonder how it performs now?