Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Going from Mark 2s to Mark 3-4s, any tips
Robert Scheer, Photographer
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 8:00 PM on 02.02.10
->> I should probably dig through the pages, but thought I'd ask here. I've been using Canon Mark 2s for several years (one 2, one 2N), and it looks like I'll be lucky enough to get an upgrade to a Mark IV and a hand-me-down Mark III in the very near future. I have next to no experience with either of these rigs. I've normally kept hands off of new cameras coming through my department, unless they're going to be mine (hate going back to old gear).

I've read that the III and IV are fairly similar to each other, in layout and such.

I'll read the manuals front to back, but what are the biggest adjustments you've had to make in going to the newer generation cameras?

Thanks in advance,

-Bob
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ric Tapia, Photographer, Photo Editor
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 02.02.10
->> "If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball!" - Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

Robert, You will be fine. Its a new camera once you get your hands on it and start playing around it will be like you never left your mk IIs.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 9:30 PM on 02.02.10
->> The III's screen was insanely soft when I used one - everything always looked out of focus to me (though I'm one of those people who can count leaves on far away trees). It seemed like they changed something about how the histograms acted too...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Russ Isabella, Photographer
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 12:49 AM on 02.03.10
->> Bob: There are a bunch of differences, some small (placement of back AF button [though there's a CF you can set to use the same button as on the DII], moving through images as you view them, setting ISO) and some with greater implications (AF microadjustments, live view). For the new features (most in the latter category), it's just a matter of learning how to use them. For the more minor differences, lots of minor changes and virtually all of them simplify use of the camera (for example, you don't have to hold down one button while you turn a wheel to move through images--you just turn the wheel; you don't have to hold down two buttons to change ISO, just one). As Ric said, you won't have any problems figuring it all out and it's a better system to work with (which becomes most obvious if you use both a DIII or DIV along with a MKII/N.)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ron Scheffler, Photographer
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 1:22 AM on 02.03.10
->> Actually you don't have to even hold down a button when changing functions on the III/IV, you just press the button once and can release it, then make your changes, then hit the shutter release or any other button to set the changes.

The new UI took me a little while to get used to when I moved from the II to the III, but you'll get used to it and it will quickly become intuitive. At first I didn't like it, but now I will agree with others that it is better than the II and earlier 1D cameras.

The custom function settings for some of the autofocus variables are a bit more involved/complicated than the II. My advice would be to start off pretty much at the default settings then make one or two adjustments at a time and see how it goes. I don't have the links off hand, but after the AF controversy with the III, Canon published a couple AF user guides that are written in plain English and better explain the various settings than the somewhat lacking descriptions in the manual.

Turning on high ISO noise reduction in the III has an affect on buffer capacity. It's more of an issue if you shoot RAW. In the IV it has no affect on the buffer unless you set it to the strongest setting.

IV files are double the pixel count of the II. I hope you have a decent computer if you plan to shoot at full rez and/or edit video. And due to the higher rez of the camera, be prepared to see ugly details that were masked by the II's more forgiving lower resolution, like camera/subject motion, slight focusing issues and lens softness. Just remember that at full rez, you're effectively looking at a 16" long print at 300 ppi.

I also found live view a very useful function, though it's implementation is better on the IV (with AF capability, though not as fast as normal AF) and the much higher resolution LCD display, which made checking focus manually easier than with the III.

The battery is the same for both cameras but will last longer in the III. It's not unheard of to get thousands of frames per charge (or even just to 50%) depending on how much you chimp. So far I've found the IV eats through the battery somewhat faster, but it's much more so if shooting RAW (or so it seems so far).

Available AF points is different on the III vs. the II and IV. There are only 19 user selectable points vs. 45 on the others. The III and IV have many more cross type sensors, which I found have been much more reliable for accurate AF than those on the II. I've slowly gotten away from being a center point only AF user to one who trusts the peripheral points just about as much for both static and moving subjects.

High ISO is great. No worries about ISO 1600 or 3200. 6400 is usable on the III if needed, and not a problem on the IV.

That's about all I can think of right now...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Philip Johnson, Photographer
Garland | TX | USA | Posted: 2:03 PM on 02.03.10
->> Robert,

I am also testing a MKIII from a fellow photograpgher here in Dallas. He provided me with information on setup up the custom functions for the AF. The web address is:
cpn.canon-europe.com/content/technical/mark_iii_af.do

I couldn't find anything similar on the USA Canon site. These instructions are a little more helpful then what is in the manual.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Scheer, Photographer
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 6:49 PM on 02.05.10
->> Ron (thanks for the well thought out reply), and everyone else, some excellent information. I'll be at the "Big Game" on Sunday, and will give them a shakedown on the morning of. :-)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Going from Mark 2s to Mark 3-4s, any tips
Thread Started By: Robert Scheer
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Copyright 2023, SportsShooter.com