1DXMKIII - Just OK

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,577
2,124
120
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.
What would you call a comment that goes totally against all other users to date, states they did many test images and then finds (legitimate or not) reasons to not provide a single one?
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,387
657
What would you call a comment that goes totally against all other users to date, states they did many test images and then finds (legitimate or not) reasons to not provide a single one?
The original poster to the thread. I don't see any value in pasting negative labels on someone who made observations, clearly stated they were personal judgements, and then explained why he could not provide additional information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,577
2,124
120
The original poster to the thread. I don't see any value in pasting negative labels on someone who made observations, clearly stated they were personal judgements, and then explained why he could not provide additional information.
And that is your prerogative but I call that trolling, however I don't necessarily consider trolling a negative.

Without being personal to this OP or this thread my point really was a wider one, if you are going to post comments or opinions that are counter to every other then at least be prepared to back up those assertions with the images you said made you draw those conclusions or expect to be called out, I don't think it is unfair or unreasonable to ask people to illustrate their point and I don't think it is unreasonable to dismiss them if they can't.

I find it impossible to believe the noise at 800 iso, the AWB and the AF are all worse than the MkII without some kind of corroboration particularly in light of all the other reports and test images currently available. I find it very easy to believe a company doesn't see a cost effective improvement to upgrading, but that was not the initial claim.
 

Czardoom

EOS T7i
Jan 27, 2020
73
173
As usual, the thread has gone into complete exaggeration, name calling and a lack of civility. What else is new?

Not here to defend the OP - because quite frankly, they set the tone right off the bat. Without actually saying so, they insinuated the new camera was crap. Their opinion deserves the disbelief that many have shown. If the OP has just begun the conversation with the opinion that they have morphed to - that the new camera is not worth the cost of upgrading - then they become believable and we can have a civil discussion.

As has been stated by many of the more logical members of the forum over the past couple years, there has not been a big upgrade from one generation to the next since the camera companies went to on chip architecture. IQ seems to be pretty much at the maximum for all of today's sensors. Those expecting a noticeable improvement in IQ will no doubt be disappointed with this camera - as well as the R5 when it comes out. I'm sure we will see similar threads about the R5 being no better than previous cameras such as the 5D IV. Since IQ is pretty much maxed out, new cameras have concentrated on other aspects to try to lure customers - improving AF, improving FPS being the major areas.

As for noise, I seem to recall one of the testers for a major website coming on the forum when the 6D II has a slight dip in IQ from its predecessor. They explained that increasing FPS affects noise levels, if I remember correctly. Of course, other factors exist that can slightly reduce noise such as a new processor, changes to the architecture, etc. The fact that the OP seems to be the only reviewer so far (that I know of) to see an increase in noise again makes the claim somewhat dubious, but not impossible. Nor does the OP mention the aperture used - is it the same as pics form the mark II that are being compared? Aperture being the most important factor in noise.

I know people most interested in gear have trouble accepting that cameras are a mature technology. I think pros have understood this for years and are probably the least likely people to automatically upgrade. They do upgrade because in many cases, they need a new camera every few years - not because they expect any big improvement. I truly believe that camera companies do not create a new generation of camera expecting people to upgrade from a mark II to mark III for example. They are looking for people to upgrade from an earlier generation - or more likely from a different line of camera all together. Immediate upgraders are a bonus.
 
Last edited:

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,512
2,376
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...if you are going to post comments or opinions that are counter to every other then at least be prepared to back up those assertions with the images you said made you draw those conclusions or expect to be called out, I don't think it is unfair or unreasonable to ask people to illustrate their point and I don't think it is unreasonable to dismiss them if they can't.
If your "agency" doesn't allow you to post any freaking pictures, then why are you even sharing your opinion here?
I'll respond to both of these. This is a discussion forum. So long as people abide by reasonable standards of behavior, they should be able to discuss their opinions and experience freely.

No one is obligated to submit images to a panel of self-appointed pseudo-experts to pick apart. And, honestly, he could submit 1,000 images and it wouldn't change anyone's opinion on this forum. He gave valid reasons why he chose not to do so. That is more than we should reasonably expect. We need to get over ourselves.

As for the claim that his disappointment in the Mark III are "counter to every other," that's not even true. Another person started a thread on this very forum expressing disappointment, and the Mark III is far too new to know if these concerns are legitimate or not.

GoldWing has not been shy about expressing his opinion for months now. I don't necessarily agree with his perspective or his tone, but if we start driving away everyone who is a bit problematic, none of us would be left on this forum, including me and both of you.

This whole thread proves one point only; that there are not enough new rumours to keep us engaged!:sleep:
That sums it all up.
 

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
574
95
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?

In my opinion, after shooting the mk3 in some of the WORST indoor and outdoor lighting conditions around, the KEY issue is that MANY photographers on our team are BOOSTING their ISO and shutter speeds because the Canon 1Dx Mk3 ALLOWS IT which will ALWAYS get you more noise. This is NOT the fault of the camera. It the result of photographers "Taking More Risks" because 20 fps IS FANTASTIC TO HAVE and that no-run-out buffer IS great so we can just blast away in burst mode to get "cool shots" which means we tend to bump up our ISO to 6400 and our shutter speeds from 1/200th up to as fast as 1/2000th of a second. WHY do I do that?

Because I can then get shots such a hockey player framed right within bright arena lights and I STILL GET THE SHOT clear and bright on the player themselves! ...OR.... that skier with the dark blue tights, I can shoot against the really dark green forest at 1/1000th and I STILL GET THE SHOT because the 1Dx3 CAN do that at 20 fps at ISO 6400! My mk2 could NOT do that without the highlights being totally blown out or the shadows/dark areas turning to splotchy mud!

My most recent one was a concert with that horrid RGB LED lighting and smoke effects. The 1Dx mk3 did more than just OK !!! Since the singer tended to jump around a lot, I had boosted my ISO to 12,800 and shot at 1/400th of a second in a dark fog-filled club which in any other camera would be a noisy mess! BUT ... after resizing my final images down to one-half the pixel resolution on each axis using Lanczos-3 resize algorithm and then using an UNSHARP MASK and then a LIGHT AMOUNT of de-noise, I was THOROUGHLY IMPRESSED with the final results. The images were then blasted over to the band's publicity department who were actually quite amazed that I was able to capture details that normally were a muddy, shadowy and noisy mess on other camera systems!

And on another internal-to-work job, I was able to take images of a turbojet engine with a nice bright beautiful clear blue flame coming out the back in perfect contrast AND some the interior turbine blades being perfectly exposed and SHARP with me able to see the details of the blades perfectly at 1/4000th (we match the rotation speed exactly!).

For a full-frame camera the Canon 1Dx3 is DEFINITELY doing it's job !!! What you DO NEED to be aware of is your ISO settings and your Shutter speeds. You tend to boost them because you can BUT the end result is more noise. BUT SINCE YOU DO get the shot because 20 fps burst rate IS the reason I got it in the first place, we use the photos anyways noisy or not!

I do recommend to shoot FULL RAW and not with HEIF!

The extra editing time is worth it when you find you can recover your shadow and highlight details quite easily and do some fancy contrast manipulation to get SUPER SHARP object edges and eye details. I do must commend Canon on making the 1Dx3 a very capable camera. 20 fps IS the absolute huuuuugest "Big Kahuna Burger" feature for Canon 1Dx Mk3-based Sports, Action and Wildlife photography!

I find the Sony A9 too small and clunky for me so I went over to the 1Dx3 for the bigger grip and the MUCH BETTER better ISO and Shutter Speed handling.

The ONLY camera system that comes even close is our internal DCI 8K/50.3 megapixel MF camera but that is a whole 'nother ball-o-wax all-together!

Oh.... that and the Fuji GFX-100 which is ANOTHER great camera we shoot on ... AND the Canon C700 GS and FF for video!

...
 
Last edited:

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
574
95
I have only had a chance to shoot one event (HS basketball) since my 1DX III arrived but it is certainly a bit cleaner than my already clean 1DX II (I also have an original 1DX). Photo is one of several I took the first event with the new camera. EOS 1DX III, EF 300 F2.8 captured at 1/640, F2.8, ISO 5000 under typically poor HS gym lighting. This is cropped to roughly 30% of the captured image.


View attachment 188938

To show you what I mean by POPPING the image with a resolution downsample and UNSHARP mask, take a look at the comparison between the previous photo and "My Photo Fix" below -- with apologies to RBS! :) :) -- Some extra processing makes this shot ABSOLUTELY PERFECT for online and PDF distribution to the "Big Boys" of Sports Broadcast Website and Even Sports News! There isn't an editor alive who wouldn't put that shot on their front page!

Boom! You just earned your daily keep because 20 fps, a resolution downsample and an unsharp mask GOT YOU THAT PERFECT SHOT!

Why? Because there is a tad LESS NOISE because of the downsample and the UNSHARP mask adds a tiny amount of extra edge detail on hairs, eyes, facial details that while very subtle DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE !!! I also notice the uniform has more details in the highlights. It's a small barely noticeble difference BUT it does hold up to pixel peeping scrutiny and it somehow makes you FEEL that something is a tad better in the photo!

The 1Dx2 would be more problematic in this scenario versus the 1Dx3 because the 1Dx2 is a SLOWER camera and has not as great ISO/SHutter speed handling, so if you already have a Canon 1Dx2 then I say YES it makes it worth your while to upgrade to the 1Dx3 simply because of the 20 fps and no-run-out-buffer and quite a bit better ISO/Shutter speed handling under the same or worse lighting conditions !!!

I shoot RAW anyways so I don't worry since my best work is done in post production anyways. I'm mostly a bit-above-average pro photographer but my EDITING skills is what gets me work! I can make an IMAGE SING in any image editor!

ANYWAYS .... what the Canon 1Dx Mark-3 camera does VERY WELL is to ALLOW YOU TO TAKE MORE RISKS when getting shots made in terrible lighting conditions and ever-faster-action scenarios. That 20 fps and high shutter speeds at high ISO is what makes the difference between letting an opportunity slide versus actually getting ANY TYPE of usable shot! Will that "Cool Photo" be noisy? YUP! it will BUT YOU GOT THE SHOT and THAT is what counts!

Why? Because you shot at ISO 6400 at 1/1000th against terrible late afternoon gloomy clouds and drizzle? OR you shot 1/2000th against glaring LED arena lights on the fastest player in the rink!

AND WHY WAS THAT???

Because your 20 fps Canon 1Dx3 camera with the EF f/2L IS 200 mm LET ME do that at ISO 6400 at 1/1000th in the rain !!!
..

See the below "Slight Fix" of RBS's photo of a basketball player by doing a one-half on each axis image resolution reduction, an Unsharp Mask and a slight boost in saturation. My editor would "Print This" as a keeper shot with NO PROBLEMO !!!
..
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RBS

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
574
95
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.

===

"....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...."

WE DO !!!

We actually buy new gear BECAUSE it's new! (mind you, we ARE a multi-billion dollar+ aerospace firm!)

Which is WHY we bought 60 of the 1Dx3's and have like 40 of the C700 GS's and FF's and who know how many multiple Fuji GFX-100's, C300 mk2's, 5ds/r's Red Monstros, Sony F55/F65/Venices, Arri Alexa FF's, Phantom Visions and the odd 10 or so Arri-65 film cameras and aother $10 million+ in lenses!

..

Sometimes buying gear, just because it's new IS a Good Enough Reason to buy it !!!

SO YES my boss is an idiot BUT OMG I love that guy for BEING enough of one that we JUST DO IT ANYWAYS !!!
.
 

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
574
95
This must be why so many others are stuck on back order and can't get one! :giggle:

Ours are still trickling in! We only have a few in our actual hands but the rest will come in by April/May two or three at a time!

We've technically actually bought MORE cameras from Sony than Canon BUT those were broadcast television/cinema-oriented gear!

Sometimes it's NICE to have some sales clout! Our lenses TEND to be Sigma, Arri/Zeiss (Master Primes and FF series, etc), Leica (Summilux-C) and Schneider-Kreuznach (Xenar-3) and the "weirder" lenses such as tilt-shift or Super-telephoto primes (600mm L-series) from Canon. Anything else we can build in-house (i.e. 4000mm or 8000mm Prime Scopes for Space applications)
.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StoicalEtcher