I believe, finally, that the Canon Mark III ds is a rival to 35mm film. Would you agree?

Question

I think I need to get one. My bank said it would only be $155 a month for 60 months.

Ah yes, quite right.

Canon EOS 1DS Mark III

Thank You.

I was refering to the resolution of the camera. It seems like one of the first ones that can rival film. I spend about $75 a month on film. Why not a little extra and get an excellent digital camera.

I guesss it depends on how you look at it. It is a Canon EOS-1. Model Mark III. Version DS.

It is the first small format digital that can rival 35mm that I have seen.

Answer 1

Film and film camera=$150, starters.

Canon EOS 1Ds, Mark III, a mouthful, and $8,000.

By the 3rd year of payments, and still having more to go, you'll be saying, 'Why do I need this again?'

I'll continue to shoot film before I drop the better part of 10K for a Camera. Besides, I'd get the Nikon D3 and a few great lenses.

Answer 2

Lets just clarify, few, if any, professionals at sporting events will be shooting the 1Ds. They are all shooting the 1D which is a very different camera.

The Canon 1Ds MK III is the highest resolution 35mm equivalent camera on the market, does that mean its the best? No. I'm not sure of the numbers but a very large percentage of the 1Ds's were recalled due to autofocus problems and other things. It slogs along at 5fps and starts looking bad over ISO 1,600. At the same time, 35mm SLR lenses cant keep up. You cant get a really sharp picture with this at 100% beacuse there are so many pixels.

I would personally get a D3, which, in my opinion, is the best 35mm SLR on the planet.

If I need resolution. I would by the 45mp phase one digital back and a hassalblad and zeiss lenses. That is what I would do. Antoni, I got my simple math down 45>21 simple as that. (or not)

Answer 3

Its close, the issue is film and digital shoots look different, some like one some like the other and some don't understand there is a difference.

The mark iii is clearly the leading DSLR in the market - unless Leica etc is considered. So if you want the best DSLR body you can get, get one. From a purely intellectual/professional angle not brand loyalty which is unprofessional then the D3 isnt even in the same ball park. Goto a sports event and count the Canon 1ds mark 3's - they are the ones with the big white canon lenses on them, then see if you can spot any other brands.

People seem to be unable to understand that brand loyalty is pointless and stupid, if one was a professional race car driver and their car was 12mp and a 21mp came along would they say things like no I will stick to the brand I have? It's exactly the same in my line of work - sports shooting - those without 600 or 800mm white lenses just arent in the race.

So brand loyalty is childish and silly, the Mark 3 is the leader in the market, unless your doing sport then any brand will do.

I had nikons but they just don't have the tools canon do in my area of work. If nikon catch up then I will consider them again like any professional should.

Answer 4

What?

I think you need to learn more about what cameras do before you go and spend $8,000 on one you obviously know nothing about simply because you can make payments on it. If you only "think" you need one, chances are you shouldn't get it. And before you get all indignant on me, that's Canon 1Ds Mark III. And I wouldn't exactly call it a rival to 35mm film like that's a new revalation or something, there have been many digital SLR's out there that have rivaled film for years now. This one just happens to be new.

Answer 5

I am an old school-er here. I still use my F-1's and just convert everything. Troublesome I know, but I still get the exact results I want .Plus I know the camera inside out. I just can't justify the cost of the digital stuff. It's ridiculous. I will be using my current setup until the film runs dry. I still get just as great results. I do own two point and shoot digitals that were pretty expensive and are "fun" cameras. But for anything important....I still go with what works. But the new Cannon your looking at is simply put....incredible! But I think if I can do what I'm doing for a couple more years, I will save HUGE dollars. These are only going to get better. I never even jumped into auto-focus cameras when they came out. Too much to fail . But congrats if you get one. I would def. get insurance on that one as well.

Answer 6

In answer to your question, yes I think it would rival film. I have only seen Canon ads and no real world results, though.

One thing I wish I knew was, how long is it going to last? You might be going topheavy by financing for 5 years if it's going to last for 4.5 years. I am sure the shutter is good for 250-300,000 or so, but I don't know if you will use this to make a living or not.

Then again, you might be just like me and love to dream about new equipment with no intentions of actually buying it.

Answer 7

Let me think here.

On Nov. 17 my daughter celebrated her 30th. birthday at a Japanese steakhouse. I photographed the festivities with a 30 yr. old Minolta XG-9 loaded with Kodak Portra ISO 160 Natural Color film, a 35-70mm f3.5 zoom (at f5.6) and a 31 yr. old Vivitar 283 flash. I used bounce flash off a 12' white ceiling. The 8x10 prints I've had printed look really nice.

Unless I hit the Powerball I'll stay with what I have.

Answer 8

Theres no better DSLR on the market - thats fact everything else above is opinion. D3 12mp, mark 3 21mp - why cant people do the maths? Rival film sure yes it does.

a