canon 1d mark iii 21.1 mp or the 5d mark ii

<p>I am considering purchasing another canon body and I am interested in a full frame sensor. I see that the canon 1d mark iii 21.1 mp and the 5d mark ii come with a full frame sensors. However, there are some differences in their autofocus points, ISO range and frames per second. I currently own a canon 7d body and some sigma lens (24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 & 120-300mm f/2.8). I am leaning more toward the canon 1d mark iii but one of my concerns is the ISO range. The ISO range is lower than the 7d and 5d. Your suggestions and options would greatly be appreciated. </p>

<p>Jose, it's the 1Ds Mark III that has the full frame, 21.1 mp sensor.</p>

<p>I use a 5DII but have never used the 1Ds III, but have heard that the 5DII is better at high ISO's and the 1Ds III is better in most other respects (AF system, burst rate, durability, weather sealing, etc.).</p>

<p>What will you photograph and what are the circumstances of your photography?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I will be photographing my kids when they play sports, wildlife, family photos and some landscape photography.</p>

<p>I've used a 5D MkII for three years at up to 3200 ISO, and think it is a great camera. It's selling at a big discount now, enabling you to afford an excellent "L" series lens with the difference in price between it and the Mark III. </p>

<p>The MkII is often bundled with the EF24-105 f4 IS lens at a bargain price, too. There might even be some Black Friday bargains online or in stores today. Pay the extra for the new body if you like, but the MkII will do an excellent job of all the types of shooting you describe.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No need for a 1Ds body at all for what you have in mind, and the image quality of the 5D2 is equal to that of the more expensive camera. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I faced exactly the same decision before the 5D3 was available. If it had been, that is probably what I would have bought, just because the 1Ds iii is such a brick. As it was, the relatively poor AF performance of the 5D2 put me off. For sports and anything else where you want to be able to select an AF point that isn't dead centre, the word was/remains that the 5D2 is not a patch on the 1Ds - so that is what I bought.<br /> <br /> I do not regret my decision at all, but subtle and light it ain't. You can pick up a second hand 1Ds iii for a pretty reasonable price now, so the choice boils down to the relative merits of AF performance + weather sealing vs weight + bulk + ISO limited to 3200.</p>

<p>1ds3 is a more complete camera in all regards, IQ is about the same but everything else is better for the photography you ask it for. It has no video (wasn't mentioned), if you care. It's heavy, what is good for some but mybe a limitation for "holiday's use". And I suppose it is always much more pricey than an used 5d2. But intensive sport photography apart, there's nothing you can't do with an eos 5d2, which is a splendid camera. If wildlife is not occasional but a real photographic passion, then better AF is needed. I've been happly using an eos 1Ds2 for long, excellent camera in all respects, it costs as much as an eos 5d (used). No LiveView, no sensor cleaning, etc. but fantastic IQ upto ISO1600 (ISO3200 very usable) and great AF.</p>

<p>Yes, the 1Ds is a "more complete camera" and yes, it has a better AF system and yes, it has more weather sealing.</p>

<p>But think about the context of our poster: <em>"I will be photographing my kids when they play sports, wildlife, family photos and some landscape photography." </em>And <em>"...I currently own a canon 7d body..."</em><br /> <br /> The 7D body is arguably <em>better than either the 1Ds or 5D style cameras</em> for "photographing kids... sports, wildlife, family photos...," so that is already covered quite well and neither the 1Ds nor the 5D2 will improve on that. The thing that one might argue that the 7D doesn't do quite as well (presuming, ahem, that our OP is a very serious, tripod-using landscape photographer with a sophisticated post-processing workflow who frequently produces very large fine art prints) is the "landscape photography" item in the list. For this there is basically no real advantage for our OP in getting the very expensive and very big 1Ds.</p>

<p>It would also be interesting to have a conversation with our OP about where and how the 7D has failed to perform well enough. It should do <em>very, very well</em> for almost all of the uses he mentions. And it can also do a very fine job for landscape work. Is there an actual problem with the 7D? If so, what? Is if falling short of kids sports, wildlife, and family event photography? In what ways? Is it the camera or something else? Or perhaps the OP has heard - in forum threads like this one - that "the 1Ds series cameras are the best that Canon makes," and therefore he has simply decided that he needs "the best..." even though his current camera is quite good.<br /> <br /> Listen to what the OPs are telling us. The biggest, baddest, most expensive solution is not always the "best" solution for everyone who mentions such a thing in their list.<br /> <br /> Dan</p>

<p>My interest in a second body is because I normally used by 70-200mm or 120-300mm on my 7d and would like to a second body with a short lens when photographying. </p>

<blockquote> <em>"I will be photographing my kids when they play sports, wildlife, family photos and some landscape photography." </em>And <em>"...I currently own a canon 7d body..."</em><br /><br /></blockquote>

<p>Yes, let's think about the context.... shooting kids playing sports, & wildlife, and owns a 7D already.<br>

Given that context, assuming the cost difference isn't a huge impact, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the 1Ds3 over the 5D2. I own and shoot w/ 5D2s, and for me they work very well, but I think it's likely that going from the 7d's AF capabilities to a 5D2s will dissapoint the OP. The 1Ds3 is an improvement in nearly every respect over the 7D (except video of course), but the 5D2 is <em>merely</em> an improvement in IQ, but a step backwards in AF speed and function. Since the OP spends time doing sports and wildlife, the 1Ds3 will present a tangible improvement over the 5D2 in actual function.</p>

<p>I'd use Marcus's reasoning to argue for the opposite conclusion. Since you already have the superior AF of the 7D, I'd opt for the superior IQ of the 5DII. That way, you'd have the best of both worlds.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00b3di"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=7313285">jose perez jr</a>, Nov 23, 2012; 04:57 p.m. <br />My interest in a second body is because I normally used by 70-200mm or 120-300mm on my 7d and would like to a second body with a short lens when photographying.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Since you're keeping the 7D for telephoto and action... I think there is little doubt that the 5DII would be an excellent second camera for you. </p>

 

<p>I recommend keeping the 7D and adding the 5D2, for the reasons I outlined above. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd use Marcus's reasoning to argue for the opposite conclusion. Since you already have the superior AF of the 7D, I'd opt for the superior IQ of the 5DII. That way, you'd have the best of both worlds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL, yeah, I guess if the OP's goal is to use the 'new' camera in situations <em>merely</em> to 'cover the holes' in his 7D's capability, then the 5D2 would certainly be adequate... <br>

OTOH, if a) price isn't a factor, and b) he wants the 'new camera' to do <em>everything</em> his 7D <em>already</em> does well <strong><em>and</em></strong> provide better IQ w/ a FF FOV, then there is no question that the 1Ds3 is going to make him happier. </p>

 

<p>For my money, there is really no comparison. As a former owner of the 1d mk2 and current owner of the 5d mk2, even though I love the image quality of the 5d m2, unless I can set the 5d mk 2 on a tripod or only shoot in broad daylight standing still, the 1d mk 2--heck, the 20d--is a much more user friendly camera than the 5d mk2, for which even the most benign hand shake produces remarkably blurry images, So, if you plan to shoot ANYTHING that moves under conditions where you yourself MIGHT move, then you would be a fool to rely on the 5d mk 2. But, this is just my opinion. Others may disagree.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"So, if you plan to shoot ANYTHING that moves under conditions where you yourself MIGHT move, then you would be a fool to rely on the 5d mk 2"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hyperbole alert!<br>

<br>

<img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2685-2/ArmstrongTimeTrial20090214.jpg" alt="" width="422" height="640" /><br>

<br>

<img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/521-4/BlueAngelsCloseBW20081011.jpg" alt="" width="377" height="578" /><br>

<br>

<img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/1457-3/ThreePelicansInFlight20080824.jpg" alt="" width="612" height="640" /><br>

<br>

Signed, <br>

<br>

A "fool"</p>

<p>Good post, Dan. Hyperbole, indeed!</p>

<p>I shoot dance and sports with a 5DMkII and a 1DMkII, and with proper technique they will both focus accurately and freeze action well. The 5D's better IQ and high ISO performance usually make it my preferred body, while the 1D's higher fps rate and weathersealing make it the better choice on other occasions.<br /> Signed,<br />"A greater fool".</p>

<p>I held out on digital until the 20D, then got a 50D for second camera. Both were slow compared to the 8FPS film camera's I had been using. In July I got a 5DMarkIII and I am in Heaven. I got rid of the 20D, I keep my 300mm f4 on the 50D, and mostly just pack my 5DMarkIII with 17-40 and 70-200 f4. I suggest look at the 6D and 50DMarkIII. Get the best technology you can afford.</p>