Talk:Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

I read it somewhere that the 21.1 MP one costs about $80,000

who in the world can afford that... Gunnaraztek 11:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would believe $8,000 not $80,000. Cburnett 13:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The current cost of the camera is (on average) $7,999. So, basically $8K. Not $80K. Christophore 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I googled around and found some pictures of this camera, is it not allowed to use those ? Gunnaraztek 11:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The copyright status of the image must be known and free images are preferred. You're more than welcome to search for images but you must know the copyright status before you can upload them to wikipedia. Cburnett 13:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mind that "fair use" must be used appropriately. One cannot upload images on Wikipedia just because it's nicer with an image and we don't have one. Rama 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's what was written "The 3.0” LCD monitor provides 230K pixels resolution for precise framing and reviewing", making it look like a Canon ad, not an informative Wikipedia article. So I just added the word "enough" before and it's like this now:

"The 3.0” LCD monitor provides 230K pixels resolution, enough for precise framing and reviewing" Now people know that this camera has a decent LCD, and not that Canon has the most precise LCDs on the market. Impagliazzo 00:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed two sentences regarding autofocus problems, one of which says the 1D Mark II has AF problems (something that it's easily possible to find citations for, but which is by itself irrelevant), and a second which says that similar problems are "not prevalent" on the 1Ds3, and gives a reason why. The premise of the second point is that the 1Ds3 has demonstrated the problem at all, I've been unable to find any clear citation stating it has--which makes the explanation of why the (alleged) 1Ds3 problem even more groundless, as well as alleging that the problem exists implicitly when there isn't a good citation that it does. (By groundless, I mean "ungrounded in citations and references."). --Joe Decker (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've added back text describing AF problems on the 1Ds III, as I now have a good reference documenting said problems. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Somebody added back the 1D MK III AF problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.153.20 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

What kind of lens is shown on the foto? --212.23.104.78 (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Google 1Ds III for images and you will soon find out. And the lens looks strange too. -132.234.251.222 (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

From the line on the top part it seems to be a Mk 3 (1st and 2nd generation of 1Ds have soft curve surface on the top). However the picture looks weird and the lens is not easily recognizable.

That user has a habit of uploading godawful images taken in a local camera shot and badly cut-out. For the record the lens is an 85mm f/1.8. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

On Oct 18, 2011, with the introduction of Canon EOS 1D X, both 1D (as of Mark IV) and 1Ds (as of Mark III) are now discontinued, according to http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/18/canon-announces-eos-1d-x-full-frame-18mp-sensor-14-fps-204-80/ . Wolf0403 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is not happening till next year. They are scheduled to be replaced in March 2012 with the introduction of the Canon EOS 1D X according to http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11101810canoneos1dx.asp . Racklever (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply