Canon 1D mkIII/mkIV comparison

lukey1965

lukey1965

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,218
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Good evening all.

Hope I do not start too much of a argument but, I would appreciate some comments/views/experiences of the how wide the REAL world differences between a 1D mkIII and mkIV are please ?? (I am basing the comparison with a later mkIII that is outside of the affected AF serial number range.)

I am asking as a complete part timer with this type of body, limited to maybe 4/5 motorbike race meetings per year equating to 10-15 days shooting.

Along with a number of other members, I am thinking of going back to a 1D body and wonder if the 2.5/3x price difference of the mkIV to the mkIII is justified for my limited use ??

I suppose the $64million question is whether the mkIII is good enough for what I want to use it for or would I really notice a BIG difference with the mkIV ??

Main lenses used for this type of photography are 300 f2.8 and 100-400 mkII.

Thanks in advance for any contribution.
 
Last edited:
The words night and day come to mind
 
To be fair I never had any issues with my MkIII but the 1DIV was far superior in low light and focus capabilities. Also, to step up another generation I loved my 1D IV but again there is a huge step up from the Mk IV to the 1DX.

It's very hard to advance on all fronts at the same time but if you have the budget get a 1DIV.
 
I think that the MkIII had a superb sensor and the basic IQ had the edge over the MkIV as long as there was nothing too challenging. If you want better AF, more cropability and poor light performance then the MkIV's the one that you need.

Bob
 
One advantage for me is the ability to select any of the 45 focusing points on the 1DIV. I believe in the 1DIII you could only select a certain number of them
 
The fact that the 1D4 has held its price against the equally stacked 7D2 really does say something for it ,I borrowed a mk4 for a weekend and was impressed with it but my trusty old mk3 still turns out good stuff so the difference is around a grand for little improvement .
In your position personally I would get a 1D3 circa 500 quid ,and a 7d2 from the likes of h.dew for the same price as a used 1D4 for two cameras and have the best of both worlds
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
The fact that the 1D4 has held its price against the equally stacked 7D2 really does say something for it ,I borrowed a mk4 for a weekend and was impressed with it but my trusty old mk3 still turns out good stuff so the difference is around a grand for little improvement .
In your position personally I would get a 1D3 circa 500 quid ,and a 7d2 from the likes of h.dew for the same price as a used 1D4 for two cameras and have the best of both worlds
Click to expand...

I already have a 7d2 and, frankly, I'm unhappy with it. Previously had a mkIV and was very happy with it but thought better AF and extra "reach" of the 7D2 would be good. I have had the camera checked and there is nothing wrong with it so it must be me, although I feel I'm doing nothing different with the 7D2 as the mkIV.

As mentioned, my primary use would be motorcycle racing, so (generally) good light so ISO isn't really an issue.

Just wondered whether a £500/600 mkIII would suffice for my limited usage.
 
direct comparison 1d3 and 1d4 both with the sigma 150-600 sport ,both hand held but different days different conditions but similar distance, the bright blue sky is the 1d4 shot the other the 1d3 i honestly can't see a grand worth of difference ,slightly better on the 1d4 but till my 1d3 blows up its a keeper 1d4.jpg1d3.jpg
 
What sort of crops are these Jeff ??

They both look good and, as you say, is there really £1000 worth of difference ??
 
1dmkIV was worth the upgrade for the better ISO

If high ISO isn't a requirement then your probably alright with the mkIII
 
KIPAX said:
1dmkIV was worth the upgrade for the better ISO

If high ISO isn't a requirement then your probably alright with the mkIII
Click to expand...


Would be solely for use at WSBK and MotoGP bike races. I have a 6D for general stuff. Most of the time the light is fairly good at the bike meets so high ISO isn't really needed.
 
mk3 is a great camera still imho I have one and a 6d makers a great combo
 
had a MkIII for a couple of years and upgraded to a IV on a whim.
One thing i have noticed which might make a difference to you, is the IV clears any buffer MUCH faster. this maybe due to the fact the 1DIII isn't UDMA enabled like the IV is
 
Carlo said:
had a MkIII for a couple of years and upgraded to a IV on a whim.
One thing i have noticed which might make a difference to you, is the IV clears any buffer MUCH faster. this maybe due to the fact the 1DIII isn't UDMA enabled like the IV is
Click to expand...

Worth considering although, when using burst, I don't 'machine gun'.
 
Last edited:
blue marlin said:
Mkiv is just a better tool that the mk3 so much so that my mk3 is for back up only.
Click to expand...

No doubting that but, do you think it is 2.5/3 times better as per the price difference for my minimal use of 10-15 days motorsport a year in good light ??.That is the key question !!

If you broke your mkIV today, would YOU be happy to use your mkIII trackside tomorrow if the light was good ??
 
I'm now confused, in post #9 you say you have already had a Mk IV, so why are you asking us questions when you already know what it is like?
 
admirable said:
I'm now confused, in post #9 you say you have already had a Mk IV, so why are you asking us questions when you already know what it is like?
Click to expand...
Perhaps he's never had a MkIII?

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Perhaps he's never had a MkIII?

Bob
Click to expand...

Correct Sir !!

admirable said:
Ah, good point
Click to expand...

I have had a mkIV and, looking back, was very impressed with it. Big mistake letting it go really.

Have not had a mkIII, so the point of my questioning was to see if a mkIII would be sufficient for my needs.

My requirement (without wishing to labour the point) is to photograph motorcycle racing for a maximum of 10-15 days a year, hopefully in reasonable light most of the time.

Given these conditions, I wondered if a mkIII would be good enough for me given they are 1/2 to a 1/3 of the cost of the mkIV.
 
Last edited:
I still use a Mk3 for professioanl work at the BBC - even when I output the files at 15MP via Lightroom (to get them upto the minimum TIFF size requirements), the quality is superb in anything up to 1600 ISO. And I MUCH prefer the MK3 over the 7D2 in terms of IQ. The MK3 images just have 'That' look about them, abot like the 5D Classic does. I wouldn't hesitate in buying a Mk4 over the 7D2 unless you have specific requirements that make the 7D2 more attractive to you personally. The AF is superb and it has been round the world with me many times. Sand, salt water, +45 to -30 degrees - it has never failed to get the picture. In fact, in 5 years it's never had one issue at all. 250,000+ photos and still going strong. I will still be using the Mk3 for another 5 years too, as I've just had the shutter mechanism replaced and a new mirror box after a little accident with a marble floor and a high tripod! I am currently looking to buy a Mk4 to backup the two 5D MK3's and give me slightly more resolution than the Mk3 can supply natively. Fantastic cameras.
 
lifethroughalens said:
I still use a Mk3 for professioanl work at the BBC - even when I output the files at 15MP via Lightroom (to get them upto the minimum TIFF size requirements), the quality is superb in anything up to 1600 ISO. And I MUCH prefer the MK3 over the 7D2 in terms of IQ. The MK3 images just have 'That' look about them, abot like the 5D Classic does. I wouldn't hesitate in buying a Mk4 over the 7D2 unless you have specific requirements that make the 7D2 more attractive to you personally. The AF is superb and it has been round the world with me many times. Sand, salt water, +45 to -30 degrees - it has never failed to get the picture. In fact, in 5 years it's never had one issue at all. 250,000+ photos and still going strong. I will still be using the Mk3 for another 5 years too, as I've just had the shutter mechanism replaced and a new mirror box after a little accident with a marble floor and a high tripod! I am currently looking to buy a Mk4 to backup the two 5D MK3's and give me slightly more resolution than the Mk3 can supply natively. Fantastic cameras.
Click to expand...

If you could only have 1, a mkIII for £500 or a mkIV for £1300 (for example) would you say in your experience, that for minimal use, the extra expense was justified ??
 
Last edited:
lukey1965 said:
If you had to have 1, a mkIII for £500 or a mkIV for £1300 (for example) would you say in your experience, that for minimal use, the extra expense was justified ??
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The Mk3 is a superb bit of kit. Sure, camera snobs will look at it and might say they own a 1Dx or Mk4 and that they didn't think a MK3 would cut the mustard for professional work - but that talk is nonsense. If I was a keen amatuer or just looking to save money to spend on fast glass or flash heads etc.. I would pick the MK3 everyday. The value for money is superb and the IQ is, well, good enough for any use. That includes large prints. And it will probably out-live the photographer! There's too much emphasis on MP and technology in the photography world right now, I would recommend anyone to spend more time taking photos and understanding how to get the most from the equipment they can afford whilst developing their own creativity and skills as a photographer. Teh technology is rarely the weakest link! :)
 
Agree for the limited use I'd go mk3 and put spare money towards a few days out.

I've just upgraded to a mk4 and will be testing it at the weekend. Picked it up on eBay for £999 with 50k clicks on it. Well happy so far. My mk3 is coming to the end of it's life and for the times I'm in poor light opted for the mk4.
 
The mkIII is a very capable camera, but for me it didn't cut the mustard for non league floodlight football. So I moved on to the mkIV with its improved ISO and AF. If I only shot daylight football then I would probably have stayed with the mkIII.
 
Sgt_Bilko99 said:
The mkIII is a very capable camera, but for me it didn't cut the mustard for non league floodlight football. So I moved on to the mkIV with its improved ISO and AF. If I only shot daylight football then I would probably have stayed with the mkIII.
Click to expand...

Yes - I agree with that. I use the Mk3 upto 1600 iso comfortably. The images are still brilliant. At 3200 ISO I'm not happy unless I know the images are not going to be print reproduced greater than half page. I don't even like shooting the 5D Mk3 at 3200. Probably just a hangover from the film days more than an IQ issue! I didn't notice much, if any difference in the AF capabilites when I used the Mk4. Most my lenses are 2.8 or faster (save for specialist and long lenses) and I normally shoot centre spot, recompose or AI Servo along the centre axis. 3200 ISO isn't normally enough to freeze action at floodlit football game when your looking for 250th - 1000th. I wouldn't want to use the Mk3 for this either!

I've become very adept at shooting at 1600-3200 iso at 300mm with 1/20th -1/50th at poorly lit corporate events. But my hit rate is very dodgy by the end of a 20 hour day. I'd much rather use a 1D Mk4 or 5D3 in low light.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top