Canon 1D Mark III vs Mark IV
I am a Nikon shooter, but have been considering a switch to Canon for my 2nd body, which I want pretty much for my wildlife photography needs.
The Nikon bodies that have the specs I am after are way beyond my budget. Not to mention that I will not be able to buy the AFS telephoto lenses in this lifetime.
I started looking at Canon and lo and behold I found the 1D Mark III, which seems like a fantastic camera, especially given the price at which I can get it today (a bit above $1000). I am aware of its AF issues, but I guess Canon offers a fix for that.
My question is: does the Mark IV version offer a significant improvement over the Mark III? It costs close to $1.5K-$2K more and I'd rather save the money and get the Mark III and use the savings on the Canon 600mm.
I think I am OK with the 10MP since I rarely print beyond 11x14. The main things I am looking for:
1. Good and accurate AF, especially whilst tracking birds in flight etc.
2. Decent high ISO performance so I can always use shutter speeds in excess of 1/1000th (can't afford IS lenses)
I was hoping to get your opinions on this. Coming from Nikon, I have next to no idea about Canons, especially never having handled one.
The lenses I would possibly get would be the 300 f4 and the 600 f4.
Read responses in photo.net