-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
1 d Mark 4 v Mark 3 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter v_cowell
- Start date
avan
avan
Yes you'r right! As I have some AF issu with mine, I look at it as a whole thing. If I was not have those problem, I think I have continue to use the 1D3. Here you can found some at around $1800CDN, if you can find one with no af problem, this is a steal for such a camera and IQ quality. What make most of the difference for me are the AF, the 1D3 was so hesitant with long lens. When I start to lost a good number of shot with it (and some easy) I start to look elswhere.
Last edited:
avan
avan
This is some sample of the 1D4 camera using a 300mm f2.8 and 1.4TC. With the 1D3 you got the same (or very close) quality picture. With the deer at the rest, my AF would have fall with the 1D3. On the squirrel head I crop for a thight head to show the regard, here the 16mp help a lot. with the 10mp, I would have thing twice before done it.
Attachments
avan
avan
An other sample where the head racoon was in the shadow and the back of the animal was back lit. In the visor in see no detail, same when view directly in the back screen, tough, I have difficulty on this one to dont blow the highlight and have the racoon not too underexpose. The AF nail the detail perfectly. Some american reviewer said that the 1D3 was the perfect and better camera for low contrast subject than the 1D4. I have an opposite view. In test at home it nail the focus on very low light subject at night in the room.
Attachments
Last edited:
mr_birdman
No longer a Canon Snob.
I think the MkIV is well ahead of the MkIII. But am always at a loss when people suggest cropping as a decision factor when updating to a newer body. To get the best overall image you should still get as close to your subject as possible to fit as much onto the frame as possible and also get the best image quality at the same time. Cropping excessively certainly doesn't make good photographers who know their field craft. 
Jaff
Registered Member
I think the MkIV is well ahead of the MkIII. But am always at a loss when people suggest cropping as a decision factor when updating to a newer body. To get the best overall image you should still get as close to your subject as possible to fit as much onto the frame as possible and also get the best image quality at the same time. Cropping excessively certainly doesn't make good photographers who know their field craft.
In a perfect world yes but how often is that actually the case? So it's nice to have that little bit extra on hand for when you need it, which believe me here in the UK is like 99% of the time.
I have no doubts the Mk4 may be the better camera but for the money you're saving by getting a good used MKIII should be considered also I feel. And as for the AF I've got no complaints with my MKIII. I have found the AF to be highly intelligent and accurate when using all the AF points. The trick I think with getting the most out of any 1D body is finding the right settings in the many custom functions and being prepared o adjust them for different situations.
Last edited:
avan
avan
There is nothing bad in croping. When it's bad, it's when you have a very small bird very far away and try to make it big. Far away mean less pixel on the subject so when you make an excessive crop, you just show a badly recorded subject. I always try to fill the frame, but it's not always possible, the 16mp give you more freedom. I buy the 1D4 because my employer paid me a part of the body, as I use it a lot for the job. For myself, with no big money, I will go again with the 1D3.
I use a 1D4 and have compared it to a friend's 1D3 - now he hates me! The Mk4 is better in every respect (that we have tried) except battery life, however the Mk3 is FAR from useless! For one thing it's simpler to use, a plus for me, and you can spend the funds left over on better glass - as - if not more important IMO.
As to cropping the Mk4 is FAR better but my friend with the Mk3 often gets better shots with his 100-400 than I do with my 600 F4 because he is better at getting closer!
Only you can decide!
As to cropping the Mk4 is FAR better but my friend with the Mk3 often gets better shots with his 100-400 than I do with my 600 F4 because he is better at getting closer!
Only you can decide!
GYRob
Well-known member
I think you have made a good decision here ,i too use a mk3 and 7d but the 7d is my first birding choice out of the 2 cameras..
Rob.
