PDA

View Full Version : What's The Best Price Around on a 1D MkIII?


Lucio Gomes
July 18th, 2007, 09:42 AM
Like the title of the post says, I'm looking to buy one and I'm a poor amateur,
so a $200 difference is huge for me!!


thanks

Asher Kelman
July 18th, 2007, 12:36 PM
Lucio,

Why would you want one? For about $2200 you can get a good used 1DMark II which will more than cover all you could possible need in the next 2 years.

I'd encourage you to take advantage working professionals and, more so, of the myriads of rich people who cannot keep their hands off the latest whizzbang toys. Unless you are really limited by the 1DII, there is absolutely no reason for any amateur to get a 1D Mark III.

In fact, the Canon Rebel XTi, if availabe 15 years ago would have been worth $10,000 to $30,000 to many professional photographers. I'd even argue that a Canon G3 Digicam, which can control several banks of Canon speedlight flashes, would serve most amateurs well except for telephoto.

The Canon Rebel Xti, however, can take all the Canon lenses and is almost at a give-away price! Here, by the way, you do not need L lenses. The EF lenses are great performers. Just pull back from wide open! At f8 there may be little difference, I promise you!

Dont worry about Chromatic Aberrations, they can be corrected. Contrast? Add an S-curve in photoshop. Distortions? So what? Vignetting? That is what I'd look for and like unless I'm doing architecture or stitching. Even then, the images can be batch cropped before stitching.

Why spend $4,500 on a flagship camera when, by the time features are needed, the new 1D Mark IV will be announced.

It is delusional that great cameras make great pictures! Great photographers make great pictures.

When a professional fashion shoot has $2,000-$40,000 or so at play, (a huge range), the camera has to be optimized. So the "best" something like the 1DsII or a MF system might be used.

When you must deliver for news the highpoint action in a sports event, the 1DIII might possibly give you an edge. However, that is not certain yet.

Trust me, Lucio, an amateur can do almost anything with a 1D or a 1DII. Heck, I'd get a 30D, if you can find one. As of yet, I haven't been more impressed with any revolutionary camera except the Pentax Spotmatic film camera with the Super Takamur 50 mm lens or the M8 Leica Rangefinder camera with the 28mm Summicron f 2.0.

Anyway, even if you had $200 off, how would that help you since you woud then "need" a whole slew of extra L lenses to go with it?

Lucio, as an honest advice, rethink about the 1D Mark III. So what? It's just this months box of electronics, heavy, ungainly, a work tool for people that work and earn money or who are enthusiasts with enough cash to ration.

Asher

Asher Kelman
July 18th, 2007, 12:39 PM
However, if anyone can find a discount, I'd love to know! :)

Asher

Paul Bestwick
July 18th, 2007, 07:24 PM
Asher that is great advice. Very wise & I agree with all your points.

Lucio, I hope you are receiving this wisdom in the spirit in which it is intended.

My advice, to hell with it........ shoot the works. Go out & get that mo fo.

Sure it is the photographer rather than the gear. Sometimes though, having that camera in your hand which represents your vision of something very special can be inspiration in itself.
The cool thing about camera gear is its' affordability. Even Lucio can come up with the bucks for the latest & greatest.
Now........ apply that same principle to a car..... Forget about it !

Go for it Lucio & get yourself a couple of L lenses while you are at it.

Enjoy,

Paul

KrisCarnmarker
July 19th, 2007, 01:19 AM
I can't say that I agree with you here Asher. How can you be so "absolute" and say that "...there is absolutely no reason for any amateur to get a 1D Mark III."? How can you possible know what reasons every single amateur in the world has?

There is a difference between "need" and "want". It could be said that nobody on earth really needs the MkIII. If they truly needed it, then how on earth did they get by last year? No, anybody who bought it wanted it.

Keeping that in mind, there could be little or no difference between an amateur and a pro. For instance, if a pro "needs" a sealed body, then an amateur shooting in the same conditions would "need" the same sealing. If a pro needs the higher IQ, then why could an amateur not need the same higher IQ? If a pro needs the extra reliability, then why wouldn't an amateur do so too? Actually, the amateur maybe needs it more, because he/she maybe only justify one such body, while a pro can justify more than one.

I just think that the idea that any and all amateurs have or should have lower quality or functional requirements than a pro is simply incorrect.

But then, maybe I'm just justifying my own MkIII :)

Lucio Gomes
July 19th, 2007, 10:06 AM
Hi guys,

I already own a MkIIn, a 30D, a 500mm f4L IS, a 300mmf2.8L, 70-200mm f2.8L, 17-40mm f4L, etc... And I don't even make a living from photography! :-}
I thought of the MkIII because I like to photograph birds. I also shoot women and products sometimes, outside of my day job as a guitar tech.
Having just made $500.00 shooting a line of guitars for a friend, I was so happy that I made some money from my hobby that I thought I could justify
getting a MkIII and use it to make some more money.
I totally understand Asher's advice; I think my Brazilian soul has been caught-up in the consumerism craze!
I sold my MkII early this year to buy the MkIII, which I assumed would sell for under $4K. When the price was finally advertised, I gave up the idea and bought a MkIIn
off eBay instead.
It was all the talk about uber fast AF, live view, sensor cleaner, etc... that got me interested. Turns out I can't use live view the way I thought it would be possible;
2 extra megapixels isn't a big jump; I can clean my sensor fairly easily; and I never shoot at high ISOs.
I honestly can't say I have a good reason to own this new camera.
I think I'm gonna wait a couple more years until the new 1 series comes out and then get a MkIII for a more reasonable price!



thank you all for the input!


Lucio www.photosbylucio.com

Asher Kelman
July 19th, 2007, 12:54 PM
I can't say that I agree with you here Asher. How can you be so "absolute" and say that "...there is absolutely no reason for any amateur to get a 1D Mark III."? How can you possible know what reasons every single amateur in the world has?


Well, I must admit, Kris, so I am opinionated and to a fault! There's no reason, I could think of for someone cash-strapped to get the 1DIII. My admoniton serves more of a "pre-flight check list" for going for the latest "must have" camera gear dreamed up my marketing departments. For that, it is worth reading.

On reflection I can find at least two very good reasons.


Larger buffer for prolonged rapid shooting action sequences like


a murder

a lion chasing down a wildebeest and having fight off vultures, wild dogs

a lioness returning to find a marauding pack of Hyenas raiding the crib of her cubs in the shade of some bushes and rocks.

Photographing in the street with available light.


This would deal with buffer limitations at peak action that limits actions sequences and the frustration of not being able to grab decent available light pictures, as it gets dark.

So thinking about it, there are some good reasons for such exceptional uses and for these there are few alternatives. There are probably more.

However, he's already in the golden league of camera gear. He doesn’t need low light and there's no murder's I guess on the horizon. Still it's good to be ready, I guess.

...And yes, sometimes I am a rather dogmatic, something I'm against in everyone else. It's perhaps my strict upbringing and my academic background. However, I can always reflect on it! At least, then, there is a foil for someone else to challenge!

Asher

Joseph A. Kurkjian
July 19th, 2007, 02:43 PM
Being an life long fussy amateur photographer I can speak with considerable authority on the subject. BTW, some of what follows below is very tongue-in-cheek.

When I shoot sports there is no payment for nailing the action at key times that tell the story of a dramatic goal (or whatever the action happens to be). My wife pays off in hugs and kisses ONLY if I capture the grandchildren in the scene (doesn't matter where the ball is); anything less than a great shot of the grandkids, and well, it's off to the dog house for me.

Try shooting one person surrounded by twenty or so other kids running amok in front of you all the time and you get an idea of how difficult "my" assignment can be. AFAIC those SI photographers have it made; all they have to do is get a few great action shots of the "action."

In the film days all I needed was great lenses, the camera wasn't too important unless I needed a motor drive. Today, the low noise high ISO performance of a 1DmkII close to perfect but why not go for something better. If the grandchildren played in an indoor field the m3 would be way to go BECAUSE I can get a better shot of the grandchild and "maybe" two kisses and prolonged hug from my wife (you never know what this sort of positive reaction can lead to).

When I take the grandchildren to the zoo and visit an indoor exhibit with incredibly low illumination and the kids want a picture (of a small member in the monkey world that NEVER sits still for a moment) I get rewarded with a "yea grandpa" and hugs when I'm successful (cold silence when I'm not). In the film days all I needed was the right film, a 35 pound tripod, and a lot of patience; problem was the "right" film didn't exist back then. Just last week they (the grandkids) were with me and I used a 1DmkII at ISO-1600 and REALLY could have used the m3's higher ISO capabilities at the exhibit we were visiting.

IMO, if you are shooting digital and want/demand a "really good" or "exceptional" picture under conditions of challenging illumination then the equipment matters, no matter what your skill level is.

That said, Asher's comments are right on the mark for 99.999 percent of the amateurs; in fact, they were ABSOLUTELY right on the mark to the OP for whom $200 was deemed important (yea, right). If OP had started out with his equipment list and then made the "$200" comment he probably would have been laughed off the board. :-) Obviously, based on the additional information he provided, OP is a fussy amateur with demanding needs and obviously should get an m3 (at the very least to improve on noise levels for his high ISO shots). In fact, if I was OP, I would have my name on a list at several stores for the up-coming m4 (one needs to be proactive in these matters of top notch equipment "if" you want great pictures).

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian

Asher Kelman
July 19th, 2007, 03:59 PM
We c an still ask, "what's the best price around", even if you have money enough, why pay more than the best price?

Asher

Lucio Gomes
July 19th, 2007, 04:20 PM
A $200 discount translates into half a tank of gas to go someplace to photograph!! :-)
Or maybe one of them fancy Wimberley flash brackets or a nice new monopod.
Paying full retail for an already overpriced camera is not for me!

Joe

You have no idea how much money I make or how long it has taken me to get (and pay for)
all this equipment and no idea what I have to sell or go without in order to get new equipment.
I'm the only "poor" photographer I know of, and believe me, If I didn't absolutely love photography
I wouldn't be spending more money on a lens than I ever did on a car!
You just get caught up in the gear talk sometimes and it's hard not to give in to the
urge to get the latest, "best ever" camera.
The supposed MkIII's "much improved AF" performance was probably the main reason
I even considered spending an extra $2K to get one.
Those on this forum who shoot tiny creatures in flight know what I'm talking about.
Of course, now there are lots of people out there bitching about the inaccuracies
of the new camera's AI Servo, so I'm glad I didn't max out my card to get the very first camera
off the production line. I'm gonna wait for the MkIV, as per Joe's suggestion. ;-)


Again, the original question remains unanswered:

Has anyone bought a MkIII for less than $4500???


Fussy Amateur

Joseph A. Kurkjian
July 19th, 2007, 08:17 PM
A $200 discount translates into half a tank of gas to go someplace to photograph!! :-)
Or maybe one of them fancy Wimberley flash brackets or a nice new monopod.
Paying full retail for an already overpriced camera is not for me!

Joe

You have no idea how much money I make or how long it has taken me to get (and pay for)
all this equipment and no idea what I have to sell or go without in order to get new equipment.
I'm the only "poor" photographer I know of, and believe me, If I didn't absolutely love photography
I wouldn't be spending more money on a lens than I ever did on a car!
You just get caught up in the gear talk sometimes and it's hard not to give in to the
urge to get the latest, "best ever" camera.
The supposed MkIII's "much improved AF" performance was probably the main reason
I even considered spending an extra $2K to get one.
Those on this forum who shoot tiny creatures in flight know what I'm talking about.
Of course, now there are lots of people out there bitching about the inaccuracies
of the new camera's AI Servo, so I'm glad I didn't max out my card to get the very first camera
off the production line. I'm gonna wait for the MkIV, as per Joe's suggestion. ;-)


Again, the original question remains unanswered:

Has anyone bought a MkIII for less than $4500???


Fussy Amateur

Hello fellow Fussy Amateur! It is amazing how we get ourselves into these situations where the hobby almost becomes our very being. :-) Thank goodness I play a lot of golf; it never fails to take my mind off photography in general, sensor noise, AF issues, RAW converters, WB, and weather patterns necessary to support my next photography trip (I like clouds in my pictures).

This is more than a little OT but what bothers me about buying something I absolutely don't need is I would rather give the money to my children (and grandchildren); it bothers me in the gut to spend $5,000 on a lens when the kids can really use the money to live a little more comfortably.

Regarding your m3 purchase, try Roberts Imaging (800-726-5544) and talk (a necessary ingredient) to Christie. I suspect you can get the m3 for around $4,200. Let me know if this works out for you money wise. Like you I also "absolutely need" an m3 but have decided to wait about six months or so until Canon gets on top of whatever may, or may not be wrong with the AF. When the smoke clears I'll be talking to the folks at Roberts Imaging.

Joe

Yamil R. Sued
July 22nd, 2007, 05:23 PM
Regarding your m3 purchase, try Roberts Imaging (800-726-5544) and talk (a necessary ingredient) to Christie. I suspect you can get the m3 for around $4,200. Let me know if this works out for you money wise. Like you I also "absolutely need" an m3 but have decided to wait about six months or so until Canon gets on top of whatever may, or may not be wrong with the AF. When the smoke clears I'll be talking to the folks at Roberts Imaging.

Joe


Joe,

Don't get too comfy with Christy, she's my girlfriend!! ;)

I second what Joe said, Roberts is the greatest place to buy!!

call Christy, Ed or Jody!!


Y

Joseph A. Kurkjian
July 22nd, 2007, 08:42 PM
Joe,

Don't get too comfy with Christy, she's my girlfriend!! ;)

I second what Joe said, Roberts is the greatest place to buy!!

call Christy, Ed or Jody!!


Y

Yamil, it's a darn good thing you seconded Roberts as a good source for the lowest price; you are the guy that gave me the tip on Roberts in the first place. :-)

Joe

Yamil R. Sued
July 22nd, 2007, 08:44 PM
Yamil, it's a darn good thing you seconded Roberts as a good source for the lowest price; you are the guy that gave me the tip on Roberts in the first place. :-)

Joe

Yeah, I know and now you are hitting on my gal!!;)

Christy's the best!!