Canon EOS 1D Mark III from Canon 20D user (Canon EOS 1D Mark III)

Member Name: dbank

Product:	Canon EOS 1D Mark III
Date:	02/09/07 (146 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Fast, solid and great images

Disadvantages: Few, maybe price for non pro use

This review is written from the perspective of someone who has upgraded from a Canon 20D, in case you're thinking of doing the same.

What do I use a camera for?
As an amateur to shoot, landscape, sports, portrait, drama, performance, panoramics, day and night architecture, printing single frames up to 30' X 20'. All shot RAW occasional print/image sales, but mostly for the fun of it.

What previous cameras have I used over the last 30 years?
35mm SLRs>APS>various digital P&S>Sony F828>20D>1DMark III

What Lens do I use?
EF50 F1.4, TS-E24, EF24-70L F2.8, EF70-200L F2.8 IS (Canon 1.4 Extender)

Why upgrade?
Well I've thoroughly enjoyed my 20D over the last couple of years, I've learnt loads and feel I know the camera and its limitations. Inevitably one discovers some weaknesses / gripes, which for me have been:-
1) AI servo not brilliant on 70-200 f2.8 IS
2) Battery grip works loose, and feels cheap (but isn't)
3) Noise at high ISO, (but still amazing compared to my previous Sony F828)
4) RAW buffer too small.
5) 8.2 MP isn't always enough
6) Small screen
7) The VF surround falls off.



I thought it was time to try something more advanced, I considered a 5D, but 3 FPS and similar build quality to 20D concerned me, if I was going to upgrade I wanted it to be a significant improvement.

The 1D Mark III seemed to resolve all of my concerns, apart from maybe resolution, the only way to really know would be to buy one...


So what are the most noticeable differences? (vaguely in order)

Price...
£3,000 is roughly 3 X what I paid for the 20D, If I was earning money with it I wouldn't consider it a issue, but I'm not and we could do with a new bathroom!

Build quality...
As you would expect, the Mark III immediately feels far more solid and better built than the 20D, slight heaver than a 20D with 2 batteries in the grip.

Frame rate...
10 FPS is totally insane, feels more like a machine gun than a camera. Buffer capacity seems massive and I've yet to fill it in real use. Nice not to be worried about how many frames your shooting which I did on the 20D.

Image quality...
Early days but I have had some great looking images, generally cleaner, more believable colour especially skin tones. Initially I thought the RAWs were a bit soft, but I have compared them to some 20D RAWs and they seem much the same (but cleaner).

Crop 1.3
As the Mark III uses a bigger sensor than the 20D, all lenses appear slightly wider.
(A 50mm on a 20D effectively becomes 80mm, on the Mark III it will appear like 65mm, a reduction of 18%)
This hasn't caused me any problems as yet, if anything it seems to make the 70-200 a little more useful as a "people lens".
If you have some poor performing lenses they will probably look worse on the Mark III, I don't have any EFS lenses but be aware they can't be used on the Mark III


High ISO noise...
Much improved from the 20D, makes shooting in available light much more feasible, very good at 3200, but a bit nasty at 6400.


Screen... (Now updated to FW 1.1.0)
Looks huge compared to the 20D, as far as I can tell, when shooting RAW the image on the screen is derived from the embedded JPEG (1936px X 1288px), so it will always be softer than the real image,(not too sure what the image is when shooting JPEG but it looks the same) either way it's clear and sharp enough to check composition and general content, you can certainly tell if a shot is significantly out of focus.

Ergonomics...
VF brighter and bigger, more info such as ISO
The vertical grip is slightly smaller than the 20D/30D grip, but feels solid.
The mode dial is now a button, not much difference to me
Battery and card door much improved.
Feels like a tool, not a toy

Metering...
Exposure is generally much better than the 20D, less need to adjust EV.

AF Micro-Adjustment...
Great idea and works well if you spend enough time with it. (i.e. set it up wrong = world of pain)

Live View...
Only use for me has been setting up the AF Micro-Adjustment.

Auto Focus.
There has been much talk of poor AF performance, from my experience there is no issue. This could be due :-
1) The longest lens I have is "only" 70-200mm 2.8 IS
2) It's not that hot / sunny in the UK
3) The subjects I've been using (cricket / dogs / cars) are not as demanding as "birds in flight"
4) If I had used a Mark II I would know what to expect.

At the end of the day, for me the AF works and I'm a happy bunny.

Auto White Balance...
Not noticed any dramatic difference from the 20D, but I don't use AWB much as I shoot RAW and tweak, occasionally use grey card if it's critical.

Menus CF...
Very configurable, so takes a bit of getting use to, similar layout to 20D helped by big screen.

Battery.
Life seems similar to 20D, just not an issue.
I welcome the better information, I have a spare on order as a back-up.


Will I really take any better photographs with a series 1 body?....
Yes I'm sure I'm getting shots that wouldn't get with the 20D, but I'm also enjoying using a better tool with less frustrations than I had with the 20D. (which seemed perfect when I first got it...)

Summary...
The 1D Mark III is a huge improvement from the 20D, faster and better built, but it comes at a price..personally I feel it was well worth it, even if I still need a new bathroom!

Update ...July 2008
Send the camera in for the "Sub Mirror fix" and there was an improvement in the AF. Not that I was having any big problem with it anyway. Having had the camera 12+ I'm totally happy, only problem I have is using my 20D as a 2nd body is a bit painful, if I had the money I would buy a second one.

Summary: Speed and quality but at a price.

Processing/Quality:
Reliability:
Ease of use:
Features:
Picture quality: