Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III – Field Test Run
by Jeff Salvage
I just got back from 1 month of hiking in the Alps with the Eos 1Ds Mark III and a 40 D as a backup. I used to use a 1Ds Mark II and a 1D Mark II, but the 1Ds Mark II was stolen (it was insured) and I didn’t want to lug the extra weight of a separate Mark II body without the compatibility of battery systems. Buying a 2nd Mark III wasn’t in the budget, thus the lighter 40D. My primary purpose of shooting is for a book I am researching on the best treks in the world. I have a report on the treks (not edited yet) and some small photos on http://www.greattreks.com/greattreks/TopTen/TopTen01.asp. Go to Tour de Mont Blanc and the Haute Route for the photostory. Pics are small, I will provide slightly large images on links below. My photographs were more documantarian than usual, but I was focused on my book rather than straight artistic style.
I was very interested to see how the Mark III would stack up to the Mark II and if the 40D sacrifice was a mistake. Here’s my anecdotal report.
The Mark III was a tank. I hike almost 400 kilometers and climbed a total of 20,000 vertical meters. It was 23 days of hiking of which 4 were horrific weather wise. I would say I had the Mark III out of my bag 95% of the time. The exceptions being one time during really hard rain and a few times where I was concerned for my wife or my own safety. It was a tank. With that said I had 0 dust on the sensor problems. This is a huge advantage over my previous experience with the Mark II. When trekking one doesn’t have the luxury to check how clean one’s images are. I was amazed that I had no issues whatsoever.
As far as picture quality goes. Much has been previously said about the marginal improvements. I found my experience to be consistent with previous posts. Sure it’s improved, but probably not worth the upgrade price just for that. One nice benefit of the extra resolution is the crop factor. While trekking it’s not always possible to have the right lens and even if you do have it, to pull it out and use it while you are trying to make time of the trail. Therefore, there were many times I took a shot, knowingly with the wrong lens, and relied on cropping to get the framing I desired.
The slightly lighter weight of the camera is a huge bonus, as weight when trekking is always an issue. I typically carry 3 batteries, so this weight difference is multiplied and I found a nice bonus.
I do like to night shoot, using 1 hr exposures. There is still way too much noise when shooting this way. I haven’t had time to compare to the 1Ds Mark II, but it feels just as noisy as before. Which means, very noisy. OK for printing small as the resolution will diminish the noise’s effect, but I would like to see better.
Dynamic Range, is the single biggest issue in the mountains. One always needs more. I had to replace my graduated neutral density filter when my old camera was stolen and I don’t think I replaced it with a strong enough filter. The one I had was too weak to help significantly. Therefore, I struggled with early morning light. IMHO this is the most important area to improve. Most of us do not need more megapixels and the obsession over low light high ISO shooting is really only helpful to a few people. I typically flipped from 200 ISO to 800 ISO to get my shot and found the noise levels in this range great.
The battery life was great. I shot RAW to the CF card and large least compressed JPG to the other. I never killed a battery. I was averaging an estimated 1500 shots per charge, but only drained one battery to 1/2 charge. I believe people have reported close to 2000 shots under ideal conditions, but the backup in camera was a great option. No laptop required! Also, the 1 hour shot I did barely drained the battery. I remember shooting 1 hours before with significant battery drain. However, I don’t have a Mark II to compare. If anyone can verify this, that would be nice.
As for the 40D, there is no question the autofocus and body integrity are inferior to the 1D series. However, the 40D was mainly for a backup and for larger zoom lens shots. I typically had a 300m F 4 lens on it. So when I needed the reach the extra reach from the crop factor was nice. The lighter body was a huge help to my back as I was carrying between 25 and 30 kilos (60-65 lbs).
