1DXMKIII - Just OK

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
180
137
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
Surely the initial images you spoke of in the start of this wonderful thread were test images. You owned those. You wouldn't do testing and comparing against the Mark 2 with a clients card or tethered to their gear under contractual conditions. You had two scenarios, testing and client work, right? You can see why this raises eyebrows when you state you have no proof.
Boy you guys are something.... Stopped with the IDXMKIII's and Moved right back to the MKII's. We brought the MKIII's and switched right back over to the MKII's. The client agreed the shots tested were not in-line with what we produced with the MKII. And for me, if a client is not happy and I'm not happy why invest? Wait!!! We don't own the shots, the test shots or watermarks or even "like images" of anything taken at the stadium. When we switch or propose to switch the client wants to see the shots at the venue, in their lighting and tied to their BO&E infrastructure for tethered. Everyone decided to stay with the 1DXMKII's for now.
If you feel the camera is good for you and your clients. Go buy it. Put on your big boy pants and make the decision. We made ours. From a legal/contract perspective we have never breached a contract, why would anyone risk losing all their sports clients? We are grown people with families, homes, kids in school, you ask us to steal pictures for you? People try and bribe us all the time, magazines, newspapers, web sites... They have offered substantial money. They can't get sideline access. We have never "ever" lost a client's trust or stolen from anyone. Again, if you think this camera is good for your business, and your clients buy it. I very much hope you do.
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,893
1,702
Boy you guys are something.... Stopped with the IDXMKIII's and Moved right back to the MKII's. We brought the MKIII's and switched right back over to the MKII's. The client agreed the shots tested were not in-line with what we produced with the MKII. And for me, if a client is not happy and I'm not happy why invest? Wait!!! We don't own the shots, the test shots or watermarks or even "like images" of anything taken at the stadium. When we switch or propose to switch the client wants to see the shots at the venue, in their lighting and tied to their BO&E infrastructure for tethered. Everyone decided to stay with the 1DXMKII's for now.
If you feel the camera is good for you and your clients. Go buy it. Put on your big boy pants and make the decision. We made ours. From a legal/contract perspective we have never breached a contract, why would anyone risk losing all their sports clients? We are grown people with families, homes, kids in school, you ask us to steal pictures for you? People try and bribe us all the time, magazines, newspapers, web sites... They have offered substantial money. They can't get sideline access. We have never "ever" lost a client's trust or stolen from anyone. Again, if you think this camera is good for your business, and your clients buy it. I very much hope you do.
Let's set aside your grand contracts and enviable positioning for a moment...

You are saying you did not test the gear prior to using it in a scenario with the client? You can say the client based shooting was a test but I would think many would agree with me and say it was not.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,430
1,076
The client told you the mk3 was much worse to the point where they weren’t good enough compared to the mk2?
 

arthurbikemad

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 19, 2015
474
54
UK
And this is where I have to call BS, Canon did not make a "worse camera" not to the point a client can tell one from the other imo, and you in your own words say you transmit JPGs to the client, so in a blind test the client has said, "those images, they are not acceptable" and you, now revert back to the Mk2 and all is well. Well, now see here is my beef with that, in all regard, noise, focus, sharpness, can't say megapixels as that's the same, file sizes and just about all other aspects of MY Mk3 that I OWN is better than my Mk2 that I used for the last 4 years... I mean.... so all these shooters, press, sports, and so on who have upgraded will now have work returned, I can see it now, in the press room, "blimey, guys come over hear and take a look at Joes images, they are awful, you can see he's using a 1DX3, what are Canon thinking" lolololol Just looking at noise alone, I don't see a massive improvement at high ISO, where I so see an improvement is THE noise, its smoother, easier to clean up, images are slightly sharper, the new AA filter defo has an effect, speed, the speed is now insane! The AF is on another level IMO, the OVF is better than ever and those new focus points I love them, full touch screen is awesome and so is the new smart controller, battery life - amazing defo WAY better thanks to the single Digic X, and again, the speed, power up from standby is INSTANT, while in standby hit the shutter and B A M, image taken, not just taken but metered, focus and captured, what else springs to mind, oh yeah that speed again, CFe cards and that buffer - no wait - what buffer I have not seen it buffer yet! So these are just a few that I can think of while I jibber on here in this thread, I hope you can see why someone like me is confused and would like to understand more why I should revert back to a Mk2?
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,367
2,109
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
People. This is not some courtroom. This is a friggin' forum. What possible purpose would be served by sharing files? You all would say they are fine and he still wouldn't like them.

@GoldWing doesn't have to prove anything to any of us. He tried it. He didn't like it. That's his opinion. It doesn't matter what his reasons were or whether or not you think it is valid.
For all I care, if someone didn't like it because it doesn't come in pink, that's their right.

Let it go already.
 

arthurbikemad

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 19, 2015
474
54
UK
People. This is not some courtroom. This is a friggin' forum. What possible purpose would be served by sharing files? You all would say they are fine and he still wouldn't like them.

@GoldWing doesn't have to prove anything to any of us. He tried it. He didn't like it. That's his opinion. It doesn't matter what his reasons were or whether or not you think it is valid.
For all I care, if someone didn't like it because it doesn't come in pink, that's their right.

Let it go already.
I get your point 100%, for the record I am only posting as interested to know more, not that there is more to know, and like you say, he has kind of justified himself, plus I am not trying to make myself feel better about my Mk3, to me its just a camera, takes photos... Guess I am giving the guy a slight hard time as I just disagree with some of it, the fact people can tell the diffence, the fact the images are that much worse they have had to revert back to the old model, that's what I find hard to believe sat here with a Mk3, anyway, none of it matters, like you say its just a forum, just a bunch of people posting opinion's, I'm only here as my misses hates cameras, if I talk cameras she just flips me the finger :D that's when I normally go for a ride :D

p.s these guys are still loving it HERE
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,442
1,602
Alberta, Canada
Singular issues can always pop up and colour a person's opinion; doesn't mean they are wrong but it also doesn't mean the issue is more general or extensive. There is no way that I would believe as a general statement, that the 1DX3 is not a lot better than the 1DX2. It just doesn't make sense.

Now based on individual needs the camera may not be worth acquiring and that's a personal decision. If a wad of money were burning a hole in my pocket, I'd grab one in a blink but for my birding needs I'm convinced I'll be better off with more resolution. I can't afford a 600 and neither can I hike with one. Tripods and hiking with super heavy lenses for me spoils the fun, so it's 400 F4 with converts and a R based camera as a second body, probably the R5 unless there is reason to wait for an R1.

Isn't it great that we are able to have the choices we do in such high quality gear!

Jack
 

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
180
137
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
The client told you the mk3 was much worse to the point where they weren’t good enough compared to the mk2?
It's not "much worse". It's not what "we agreed on" would justify switching for something that is not broken. None of us saw The MKII as dated or lacking aside from wanting a bit more resolution it is still a great tool and we all agree, one of the best. It focuses and tracks very well in the hands of a professional. Our workflow with CR2 and JPEG needs no modification. Putting CR3 and HEIF aside they were a non-factor. If we switched it would be multiple bodies for multiple photographers and we saw no justification for it based on the tests we ran in actual lighting at an actual venue. There was no compelling reason to sell our old equipment and invest in all-new bodies. If you paid for our equipment, adopted any changes to our staff and then changed our client's workflow we still would not change. We had issues not dissimilar to the MKII and we are going to wait before we make a very big investment for multiple photographers. There was no BIG difference between the MKII and MKIII that would make us want to switch. If we have (3) three people covering games and need multiple copies for each, it's an investment that a single user would not understand nor the ramifications of any changes to the camera itself for the photog, our firm and our clients. None of us wanted to make the change based on our "Still Photography" modality.

We don't want to buy the MKIII, We don't need the MKIII. We are staying with the MKII. We do not buy equipment for the sake of buying equipment just because there is a new version. Only an idiot would do that if they are running a business.

There must be a compelling reason to do so. We saw no compelling reason based on our still photography needs, budget or the ramifications to do so.

If anyone does not understand why we opted NOT to upgrade. I feel you have an agenda and I really don't care. We are staying with the MKII, until we can see a "substantial" "compelling" reason to buy all new equipment for multiple photographers and what goes along with it.

We wanted to try the MKIII and substantially improve IQ and we did. We are staying with the MKII and we are happy.

If Canon or Nikon or SONY can improve on what we have now..... Bring it on! But so far one of the most important reasons we stick with Canon is CPS. They are there at the venues, we get 24hr turnaround on repairs, loaners for repairs and we get to try equipment before others. 24/7 there is someone there for you. No matter the country or state for major events they stand behind their products. We have had issues outside the U.S. and Canon has NEVER failed us. Not once. Believe me when I say we ALL wanted the MKIII to be the best thing in the world. We are not giving up on Canon.... We are waiting for "WOW" vs. "OK".

OK? Stop attacking me or our firm for our decision, we have made it based on our needs. If you like the camera vs. the MKII and think you'll make more money, then buy it.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,442
1,602
Alberta, Canada
It's not "much worse". It's not what "we agreed on" would justify switching for something that is not broken. None of us saw The MKII as dated or lacking aside from wanting a bit more resolution it is still a great tool and we all agree, one of the best. It focuses and tracks very well in the hands of a professional. Our workflow with CR2 and JPEG needs no modification. Putting CR3 and HEIF aside they were a non-factor. If we switched it would be multiple bodies for multiple photographers and we saw no justification for it based on the tests we ran in actual lighting at an actual venue. There was no compelling reason to sell our old equipment and invest in all-new bodies. If you paid for our equipment, adopted any changes to our staff and then changed our client's workflow we still would not change. We had issues not dissimilar to the MKII and we are going to wait before we make a very big investment for multiple photographers. There was no BIG difference between the MKII and MKIII that would make us want to switch. If we have (3) three people covering games and need multiple copies for each, it's an investment that a single user would not understand nor the ramifications of any changes to the camera itself for the photog, our firm and our clients. None of us wanted to make the change based on our "Still Photography" modality.

We don't want to buy the MKIII, We don't need the MKIII. We are staying with the MKII. We do not buy equipment for the sake of buying equipment just because there is a new version. Only an idiot would do that if they are running a business.

There must be a compelling reason to do so. We saw no compelling reason based on our still photography needs, budget or the ramifications to do so.

If anyone does not understand why we opted NOT to upgrade. I feel you have an agenda and I really don't care. We are staying with the MKII, until we can see a "substantial" "compelling" reason to buy all new equipment for multiple photographers and what goes along with it.

We wanted to try the MKIII and substantially improve IQ and we did. We are staying with the MKII and we are happy.

If Canon or Nikon or SONY can improve on what we have now..... Bring it on! But so far one of the most important reasons we stick with Canon is CPS. They are there at the venues, we get 24hr turnaround on repairs, loaners for repairs and we get to try equipment before others. 24/7 there is someone there for you. No matter the country or state for major events they stand behind their products. We have had issues outside the U.S. and Canon has NEVER failed us. Not once. Believe me when I say we ALL wanted the MKIII to be the best thing in the world. We are not giving up on Canon.... We are waiting for "WOW" vs. "OK".

OK? Stop attacking me or our firm for our decision, we have made it based on our needs. If you like the camera vs. the MKII and think you'll make more money, then buy it.
Well, I got what you were saying before, no problem and this is overkill and surely will put the topic to rest for everyone. :) Interesting, how things work in your business.

Jack
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,752
678
It's not "much worse". It's not what "we agreed on" would justify switching for something that is not broken. None of us saw The MKII as dated or lacking aside from wanting a bit more resolution it is still a great tool and we all agree, one of the best. It focuses and tracks very well in the hands of a professional. Our workflow with CR2 and JPEG needs no modification. Putting CR3 and HEIF aside they were a non-factor. If we switched it would be multiple bodies for multiple photographers and we saw no justification for it based on the tests we ran in actual lighting at an actual venue. There was no compelling reason to sell our old equipment and invest in all-new bodies. If you paid for our equipment, adopted any changes to our staff and then changed our client's workflow we still would not change. We had issues not dissimilar to the MKII and we are going to wait before we make a very big investment for multiple photographers. There was no BIG difference between the MKII and MKIII that would make us want to switch. If we have (3) three people covering games and need multiple copies for each, it's an investment that a single user would not understand nor the ramifications of any changes to the camera itself for the photog, our firm and our clients. None of us wanted to make the change based on our "Still Photography" modality.

We don't want to buy the MKIII, We don't need the MKIII. We are staying with the MKII. We do not buy equipment for the sake of buying equipment just because there is a new version. Only an idiot would do that if they are running a business.

There must be a compelling reason to do so. We saw no compelling reason based on our still photography needs, budget or the ramifications to do so.

If anyone does not understand why we opted NOT to upgrade. I feel you have an agenda and I really don't care. We are staying with the MKII, until we can see a "substantial" "compelling" reason to buy all new equipment for multiple photographers and what goes along with it.

We wanted to try the MKIII and substantially improve IQ and we did. We are staying with the MKII and we are happy.

If Canon or Nikon or SONY can improve on what we have now..... Bring it on! But so far one of the most important reasons we stick with Canon is CPS. They are there at the venues, we get 24hr turnaround on repairs, loaners for repairs and we get to try equipment before others. 24/7 there is someone there for you. No matter the country or state for major events they stand behind their products. We have had issues outside the U.S. and Canon has NEVER failed us. Not once. Believe me when I say we ALL wanted the MKIII to be the best thing in the world. We are not giving up on Canon.... We are waiting for "WOW" vs. "OK".

OK? Stop attacking me or our firm for our decision, we have made it based on our needs. If you like the camera vs. the MKII and think you'll make more money, then buy it.
you raised a brand new topic on a Canon fan forum and made some absolutely extra ordinary and unsubstantiated claims against a new Canon product (asking for trouble?), refusing provide any factual materials that we can independently make our judgement upon. the point is not to prove you wrong, but rather form our own opinion based on what our (experienced, trained?) eyes can determine. you hit forum between eyes and what did you expect in reward? Well, naturally, a sh1te storm.. or should I say avalanche? :)
What was your motivation behind this post? Inform forum of 1D III shortcomings? can you please do us (forum) a favour and demonstrate what you were referring to. Thank you.

here is your OP:

Four days with the camera and our firm is going to hold off on placing our staff with the new cameras. We are surprised with the noise and virtually no increase in picture/image quality.

We have soft and oof shots that exceed what's acceptable, plus noise at 800 ISO we dont have on our MKII'S. We tried a few color charts and find the awb to be less than desired.

This camera is not ready.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
180
137
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
I stand by the evaluation.
  1. And as I stated, If Canon makes changes as they did with the 1DX and 1DXMKII, we are willing to look at the camera again. In the past with one or both the 1DX and 1DXMKII. We went through both cameras being honed extensively with Canon.
  2. Mirror Box.
  3. PCB,
  4. Sensor,
  5. Overheating
  6. Media compatibility
  7. Service Advisories
  8. and firmware modifications brought both the 1DX and 1DXMKII to where they are today.

    It took a lot to get the 1DXMKII to be a 100% reliable tool.

    When or if the camera (MKIII) is right for "us" we will consider it. The camera still needs work and the more we pushed it the worse it got as we drove it very hard. We really tried to make it work but fell back to our MKII's and they worked flawlessly where the MKIII failed. This is no different than our first trials with the 1DX or 1DXMKII. We would have been surprised if the "early" product we received would not need to be honed... And it does. And it will because multiple firms like ours participate. What we found will be addressed. Even if others don't use all the functionality, communications or number of actuations in conjunction with our use. The odds of these issues affecting normal users in the future are high.
What irks me are people who have not used all 3 Cameras, or used all 3 the way we have chimed in with "Fan Boy" statements like we should buy the camera just because it was made, or that we should buy it before it's ready for what we need.

Why would the MKIII be different in its ecology than the 1DX or 1DXMKII? It's not! It's a new production run. At the Olympics, each copy could easily expend 10,000 shots per day based on the events assigned. With all our feedback to Canon over the years, we have received nothing but cooperation from a product management perspective and nothing has changed. My evaluation and that of others will help those who use the MKIII, just like those in Germany, Austalia and Canada played their roles.

I don't know what your years of experience is with the development, testing and extensive experience with the 1DX and 1DXMKII but we have a tremendous amount of acumen from being asked what we wanted and needed and then passing our experience to Canon. Our voice is one of many globally who we have also interacted with.

I strongly advocated for the MKIII to have increased resolution sacrificing frame rates for video and Canon felt it would preclude sales. I've seen the videos and they are vastly superior on the MKIII vs. the II. Canon was right. However, we do not shoot video. For those who have not seen the video look here
We do shoot sailing competitions and water is a true test of any camera, still or video.

I'll come back here with an updated "evaluation" if we test the camera again after a few tweaks ;)
 

arthurbikemad

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 19, 2015
474
54
UK
Well I guess I poked the fire, sorry for that.
At least I know now why I wont see any Mk3s on the sidelines. ;) (sticks tongue out) haha

Disclaimer. If my camera gets worse I here by promise to eat my shorts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldWing

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
180
137
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
I guess the question is, how much different and I think most of us are hard pressed to understand why Canon would purposely alter their sensor characteristics to be so different than the previous, i.e. how different is the 1DX and 1DX2. I guess the LP filter could have factored into this or ??

Jack
Hi Jack, For all I know and that's not a lot... Canon really optimized video here and they did a great job of it. As we say "follow the money". Canon is now in "R" world. They make much more money off glass. For now nothing beats OVF's for sports or BIF. Canon is in business to make money and to sell all new glass they need to give you a reason. Welcome to mirrorless, in body stabilization, no mirror box issues as they are perfected, us OVF "Old Sports Dogs" will take horrible abuse by the "Mirrorless Mob". Canon has 3-4 new bodies in the works and a rumored "Pro Sports Body" after the Olympics. The smart money is now waiting on their 2020 budgets. To address your question the difference between 1DX and 1DXII was substantial both are still great cameras.

The difference between MKII and MkIII is based on what you need and want. If you shoot a lot of objects that come straight at you... this is one clear area that we saw the MKIII had over the MKII. Aside from that the filters were changed but the IQ at the end of the day is the deciding factor once you've already refined focus to the point that a trained photographer can get the same results from both cameras once a few firmware tweaks are made and if applicable the MA of your lenses to the new body if needed.

Best to you!!!!!
 

GoldWing

Canon EOS 1DXMKII
Oct 19, 2013
180
137
Los Angeles, CA
en.wikipedia.org
Well I guess I poked the fire, sorry for that.
At least I know now why I wont see any Mk3s on the sidelines. ;) (sticks tongue out) haha

Disclaimer. If my camera gets worse I here by promise to eat my shorts.
You will see them. And many will be willing to exchange, chance, repair or be lucky. I wish everyone well. No matter our feelings on wanting to wait. No one ever wants a fellow photographer to have a camera failure in the middle of a shoot, it's a horrible experience.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,442
1,602
Alberta, Canada
Hi Jack, For all I know and that's not a lot... Canon really optimized video here and they did a great job of it. As we say "follow the money". Canon is now in "R" world. They make much more money off glass. For now nothing beats OVF's for sports or BIF. Canon is in business to make money and to sell all new glass they need to give you a reason. Welcome to mirrorless, in body stabilization, no mirror box issues as they are perfected, us OVF "Old Sports Dogs" will take horrible abuse by the "Mirrorless Mob". Canon has 3-4 new bodies in the works and a rumored "Pro Sports Body" after the Olympics. The smart money is now waiting on their 2020 budgets. To address your question the difference between 1DX and 1DXII was substantial both are still great cameras.

The difference between MKII and MkIII is based on what you need and want. If you shoot a lot of objects that come straight at you... this is one clear area that we saw the MKIII had over the MKII. Aside from that the filters were changed but the IQ at the end of the day is the deciding factor once you've already refined focus to the point that a trained photographer can get the same results from both cameras once a few firmware tweaks are made and if applicable the MA of your lenses to the new body if needed.

Best to you!!!!!
What I don't understand from your comments, there was not a solitary upgrade of 1DX2 firmware other than the initial issue with cards and I felt there were probably some items that could have been addressed. Are you saying that your company was responsible for suggested upgrades before it was released? In other words you handled/saw the camera before it was released?

Jack
 

arthurbikemad

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 19, 2015
474
54
UK
You will see them. And many will be willing to exchange, chance, repair or be lucky. I wish everyone well. No matter our feelings on wanting to wait. No one ever wants a fellow photographer to have a camera failure in the middle of a shoot, it's a horrible experience.
It makes perfect sense what you are saying from a business point of view, if it's not broke then why fix it. However with the miles press stack on Cameras at some point upgrades are unavoidable. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldWing

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,250
1,601
120
I think there are two clear and very different points in the thread, the first, which came about second, is that the company Goldwing works for didn't see the value in upgrading from MkII's to MkIII's, I don't think anybody could reasonably argue that somebody else should find the value in upgrading!

However the second point is the first real one that Goldwing made, and that is open to discussion and a justifiable desire for deeper analysis and images that back up such a counter viewpoint, namely that noise at 800 iso is worse on the MkIII than the MkII, something no other testers or images have shown so far, also that the AWB, a feature that is incredibly good in the MkII is not up to standard (which by implication would be the MkII) and, most alarmingly, the suggestion that the MkIII AF does not deliver where the MkII did.

As Goldwing stated he and his company did testing, it is not unreasonable to ask to see those tests to see if, for our uses, the results would be the same, just as it is not unreasonable for him to say they are company property and he can't show them. But I now see the two issues conflated after all there is a big difference between saying I/we don't see the value in upgrading and the new one doesn't perform as well as the old one, especially when nobody else is saying the same thing.

I do not feel it is unreasonable to be dismissive of somebody who says they don't think the new model is as good as the old model and reference specific issues without posting anything to back up those assertions, surely that is the very definition of trolling?
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,305
539
I do not feel it is unreasonable to be dismissive of somebody who says they don't think the new model is as good as the old model and reference specific issues without posting anything to back up those assertions, surely that is the very definition of trolling?
So, if you are unwilling or unable to back up your assertions about a new product after you use it you are trolling? We have a lot more trolls on this forum than I realized. Trolls are often provocative, but not everyone who is provocative is a troll.