1D mk3 vs 1DS mk3 iso6400 ?

combat squirrel

combat squirrel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,201
Edit My Images
No
Here is a question, after reading around it seems the 1dsmk3 doesnt have iso 6400 where as the 1dmk3 does, that doesnt make sense to me ? Id be all over a 1Ds if it had the 6400iso also, it being full frame would surely offset the pixel increase? :shrug:

Basically I want a full frame camera with much better AF than my current 5D MK1, (of course the 5dmk2 has full frame and silly ISO options) but with a really good AF system, for the price the 1DSmk3 looked spot on,

Maybe im looking into ISO to much ? Whats the shutter speed difference between ISO 3200 and 6400 ?

Any info is great, thanks

PS:Yes i know the Nikon D700 is mega with ace AF (apparently?), but iv got a bag full of canon glass, so its a no go, thanks :)
 
it makes sense if you're using the studio S version of a camera for low noise, pixel perfect images where you control the studio lighting rather than high speed low light shots.
if you want both, I think nikon is a good way to go, but the new mkIV might do it.

having read your PS then, what are you shooting out of curiosity?
 
yep only goes up to 3200 and 3200 on the 1DS is awful compared to 3200 on the 1D
 
combat squirrel said:
Here is a question, after reading around it seems the 1dsmk3 doesnt have iso 6400 where as the 1dmk3 does, that doesnt make sense to me ? Id be all over a 1Ds if it had the 6400iso also, it being full frame would surely offset the pixel increase? :shrug:

Basically I want a full frame camera with much better AF than my current 5D MK1, (of course the 5dmk2 has full frame and silly ISO options) but with a really good AF system, for the price the 1DSmk3 looked spot on,

Maybe im looking into ISO to much ? Whats the shutter speed difference between ISO 3200 and 6400 ?
Any info is great, thanks

PS:Yes i know the Nikon D700 is mega with ace AF (apparently?), but iv got a bag full of canon glass, so its a no go, thanks :)
Click to expand...

I'm assuming this isn't tongue in cheek? 3200 - 6400 ISO is a doubling i.e one stop, the difference between 1/125 and 1/250 or f5.6 and f8.
 
A quick check on mine gave f9 at 3200iso & f13 on 6400iso.
Both at 125th.
Just pointing at my screen.
 
Gerods said:
It's there alright. and f10
Just saying that the difference is more than one stop.
Click to expand...

No you are not, the difference between f9 and f13 is one stop! :bang:
 
Gerods said:
It's there alright. and f10
Just saying that the difference is more than one stop.
Click to expand...
In the menu you can choose for the camera to set 1/2 or 1/3 stops for the ISO which is probably where the confusion is coming from.
 
Right well back on track, my main need for ff and high iso/af is I shoot alot of events photography, night clubs, gigs etc and have found the af on 5d, 40d(now sold) really starting to struggle at times. The noise I find is much better on ff and I prefer the viewfinder. Also my other main use is landscape and occasionally wedding, aside from landscape I want as fast as can af, at mo I switch between auto and manual focus, but if I had fast responsive af it may help me get crucial shots (I do pretty good now but I want more 'keepers'. So yeah high iso also important due to faster shutter speeds. Am sure u can figure out the rest of the reasons why the 1ds fits the bill as it does it all aside from 6400 for some reason.
 
combat squirrel said:
Right well back on track, my main need for ff and high iso/af is I shoot alot of events photography, night clubs, gigs etc and have found the af on 5d, 40d(now sold) really starting to struggle at times. The noise I find is much better on ff and I prefer the viewfinder. Also my other main use is landscape and occasionally wedding, aside from landscape I want as fast as can af, at mo I switch between auto and manual focus, but if I had fast responsive af it may help me get crucial shots (I do pretty good now but I want more 'keepers'. So yeah high iso also important due to faster shutter speeds. Am sure u can figure out the rest of the reasons why the 1ds fits the bill as it does it all aside from 6400 for some reason.
Click to expand...
Just a thought, not sure if you have a 5D mkI or mkII, but the mkII is supposed to have a better AF and it has ISO 6400 so it could possibly be worth you trying to borrow or hire one to try it out. I have not used one so no personal experience to offer of it!
 
If you want ISO 6400 the 1Dslll is out of the question. Also the extended 3200 option is really an underexposed and reprocessed 1600. You can get the same effect shooting RAW underexposing by 1 stop and pulling it back in processing. Works OK (ish) depending on the subject. Problem is you are underexposing and pulling the data back, that increases noise.

You may be better off with the 1D Mk4. same price as the 1Dslll and a better exposure range. Not seen any images at 6400 so can't comment on quality
 
susie said:
Just a thought, not sure if you have a 5D mkI or mkII, but the mkII is supposed to have a better AF and it has ISO 6400 so it could possibly be worth you trying to borrow or hire one to try it out. I have not used one so no personal experience to offer of it!
Click to expand...

Yeah its the mk1 I currently have, is it a new design of the same AF focus system on the mk2 ? or is it litterally the mk1 AF matrix with a digic 4 attached ?
 
combat squirrel said:
Yeah its the mk1 I currently have, is it a new design of the same AF focus system on the mk2 ? or is it litterally the mk1 AF matrix with a digic 4 attached ?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Not much change to the AF system betwen the 5D and 5D Mk2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top