A Word of advise from the experts - Canon EOS Full Frame.

<p>I thinking of buying a second has Full Frame DSLR....moving on from APC Cropped :) </p>

<p>Which of the following would you recommend? The price range is more or less the same.</p>

<p>Canon EOS 1D II <br>

Canon EOS 1D II N <br>

Canon EOS 1Ds<br>

Canon EOS 5D Mark I</p>

<p>Would you be kind enough to give reasons as to why and why not? Advantages and disadvantages?</p>

<p>Thanking in advance.</p>

 

<p>The 1D 2N is a crop sensor camera, I think.<br>

I've got a 5D Mk 1 and it's still giving excellent results at ~7 years old (but it has been rebuilt and got a new mirror).</p>

What are your intended uses? Budget?

 

I suspect 5DIII is out of the question due to cost, but what about a 6D, refurbished form Canon? The 1D series is a brick, I think, which may or may not bother you. The 6D may be dumbed down but it is compact, and has new technology.

<p>I would guess the budget is probably ~$5-600, and for that price you can certainly get a heckuva camera these days. - Although I wouldn't try for a 6D/5D3/5D2 at that price...</p>

<p>I can't give you an answer because I don't know what or how you shoot. Personally, I would go for the 5D - assuming it's had a mirror already put in. While not the quickest out of the box, of those listed, it's got the best IQ, far lighter, and cheapest peripherals. Of course the 1D II /1D II N are NOT full frame units, they are APS-H. </p>

<p>If like to capture fast moving things, then the 1D2/1D2N wold probably be a better choice. Better AF, 8.5FPS...</p>

<p>I've heard people say Mega Pixels does not make a difference....is that true? I'm very low on budget; hence the reason.</p>

<p>I had a 40D before and absolutely loved it! Here are some examples: http://www.viewbug.com/member/Cubikated</p>

<p>I love photography, but can't afford an expensive camera....it's simple as that :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>moving on from APC-C</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether this is a "up-grade" very much depends on what you are wanting to do. Low noise, wider angle lenses available; then so-called "full-frame" is a reasonable step.<br /> If you do lots of long-reach photography with telephotos, then an APS-C camera can give you more reach with telephoto lenses because of the higher pixel density and cropping from the center of the lens coverage on lenses made to cover the 24x36mm "35mm" frame size.<br /> If you have a number of EF-S lenses or "digital" lenses from other makers, then be aware that they will not cover the field, and may not even mount, on a 35mm-sensor camera. Then you will do just fine with a higher-powered APS-C body.</p>

<p>Many of us use both formats -- and that is what they are, two <em>different</em> formats. There is a place for both in a shooting kit.</p>

<p>I had a 5D, loved it, passed it on to my daughter who still loves it. Because of the way the sensor on that particular model is built, it does tend to be a little sensitive to dust on the sensor -- more than other Canon models in my experience. Other than that, 12MP is really very acceptable and usable.<br /> Keep your APS-C camera too, if you can. It is usually smaller and lighter and can function well, for example, as a "street" shooting camera with one of the smaller lenses made for it.</p>

<p>Personally I think the menu system of the 1D cameras you've listed will drive you up the wall. They are very antiquated and operate in a completely different way to that of your 40D and the more modern cameras. I have the 1D MkII and the menus drive me crazy when switching to it from my 5D MkII. They must have been designed by a deranged monkey.</p>

<p>Out of the 1D cameras, only the 1D MkIIN has what I would call a halfway decent screen. The screens on the other two are small and very poor for reviewing images.</p>

<p>If I had to choose between those 4 cameras I would go for the 5D Mk1. It has the best image quality, is true full frame (unlike the 1D Mk2 and 1D MkIIN), is lighter, smaller, uses cheaper batteries and has a reasonable LCD screen. The AF isn't a patch on that of the 1D cameras but it is similar to that of your 40D so the transition will be easy.</p>

<p>I've been also contemplating on the EOS 50D which is a tad cheaper. </p>

<p>Canon EOS 1D II N</p>

<p>As others noted, the 1D II and 1D II N are both crop-frame cameras. Just a different crop from normal (1.3x rather than 1.6x). In the 1D series, only the 1Ds and 1DX are full frame.</p>

<p>I've never used the 1D series. Some people love them. They're huge and heavy, which are not perks for my use. It might be hard to find batteries for the older models, so keep that in mind.</p>

<p>I used a 5D mk I for years. It's a fine camera, though the feature set is lacking compared to modern ones - no video, no live view, no focus adjustment, moderately low frame rate, smallish buffer, doesn't write to CF cards very fast, lacks automatic sensor cleaning. None of that mattered much for my use.</p>

<p>Depending on your lens set, you might have to upgrade several lenses to switch to full frame, so bear that cost in mind as well.</p>

<p>In your case, if you had a 40D and loved it, you could just get another 40D. It's still the same camera it was.</p>

<p> The EOS 1D MkII and EOS 1D MkII are both APS-H format. I wouldn't choose either (assuming that you are keeping the 40D). APS-H and APS-C as a DUAL FORMAT Kit just do not sync for my taste, technique and temperament.</p>

<p>Between the EOS 5D and the EOS 1Ds I would choose a second hand 5D. The reasons are various, but in general terms: I am suspect buying a 1 Series camera second hand, I’d expect them to be “well used”; the 5D has a release date about three years later than the 1Ds; I also do not particularly like the menus on the 1Series when using a 1 Series as part of a DUAL Format Kit (I use 5D’s and APS-C and I like the similarity that I have in the menu functionality with that); the same batteries as a 40D; the 5D is quite OK at ISO1600; I don’t need super fast AF or the additional weight of a 1Series – I like choosing whether or not to use a battery grip . . .</p>

<p>But this is not really a <em>‘thanks in advance’</em> type of question, because a lot depends on:<br>

<em><strong>1. What lenses do you have?</strong></em><br>

<em><strong>2. What are the intended uses for this new body?</strong></em><br>

<strong><em>3. Are you keeping the 40D?</em></strong><br>

Could you please answer those three specific questions, thanks.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Following up on 2 other responses: I believe only the 5D uses lithium batteries; the others rely on NIMH. For me the NIMH would be a deal-breaker; these are an older generation battery that go flat when not used. Try a search engine; you'll find websites telling you how to replace the older NIMH batteries inside a Canon battery back with Eneloops.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've heard people say Mega Pixels does not make a difference....is that true?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. No it's not. MP make a <em>huge</em> difference - within reason. More pixels on the sensor allow for a finer differentiation of the incoming light - which, depending on your lenses, can permit an image capable of being blown up larger without significant degradation. OTOH, Larger size pixels make for a better s/n ratio, and less noisy images (compare the ISO3200 5D raw @ 100% to one from your 40D or a 50D (or even a 7D) and you'll see what I mean in about 0.5 sec) . OTOH, more pixels allows more effective use of noise reduction software and algorithms permitting a noisy image to get cleaned up better without significant (noticeable) degradation. There seems to be a constantly evolving balance as the technology advances.</p>

<p>After reviewing your images, I think that a FF camera would serve you for everything other than the wildlife shooting. For that, an APS-C (or -H) unit will do better. For this mix, you may be better served by a 1D2N. I'm thinking that, coming from a 40D, you'll enjoy the decrease in crop, and the increase in shooting performance. You may not appreciate the step back in time (and image quality)... but life is about compromises!</p>

<p>Crop sensor cameras have come a long way since these cameras were current. I have had the 5D and liked it very much. I would not be thrilled about going back to it. In many respects, my 550D (Rebel T2i) outperforms it. On the other hand, if you could get the 5D in very good shape, you could get some very good shots out of it.</p>

<p>I think that I would decide on the basis of which lenses I currently have. That is where the cost is likely to be.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I would not assume that a 1Ds has been "well used". Many have lived a sheltered life in a studio, or even as a backup studio camera with very little use at all. Similarly, the 5D can have problems such as a dirty sensor (anecdotally, it seems more prone to this than the 1Ds) but you shouldn't assume they will all be like that.</p>

<p>The 1Ds does have a better viewfinder than the 5D and better autofocus. (Neither body has Live View.) Image quality is basically the same between the two, I believe. The size and weight difference is a subjective matter. I would look out for either model on sale locally and try it out before buying. If you are considering a 1D II or 1D IIN, handling one of these will give you a good idea of what the 1Ds is like and vice versa. (The main differences being the slower frame rate of the 1Ds and the better screen on the 1D II N.)</p>

<p>How can you want to "upgrade" to FF and also contemplate the 50D at the same time? This does not make any sense. It's also not clear what your budget really is (the 50D at this point can be hand for $200-250 in good condition).</p>

<p>Personally I love the ergonomics and weight of the 1d series. I use 1ds2 and 5D in full frame and a pair of 1d2 for sports. </p>

<p>the biggest negative in my user opinion is the batteries, as others have mentioned. Hard to get new ones, always "backordered" at B&H....The used Npe3s that come with typical used 1d series cameras are generally poor. I go through a lot of them with my 1d2 cameras at soccer games. Sometimes I go through 3 "fully charged" but used npe-3s for 250 shots at a soccer game...sad. I looked into the eneloop refurb exercise a while back, as mentioned above, but at the time it didnt seem elementary unless you have electronic tech skills. Perhaps I should look again. Just too bad Canon never made the 8xAA battery insert for the npe3 as they did for the pbe2/npe2 for 1v/eos3 etc...</p>

<p>see some discussion of the 50D at<br /> http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00czwo<br>

The 50D is a real bargain in the used Canon camera lineup right now.</p>

<p><br /> There's nothing insane about either going to the 35mm sensors or staying with APS-C -- it just depends on what you WANT to do.</p>

<p>The batteries for the old 1D series are indeed annoying. I will say that the 1Ds Mark II has much better battery life than the original 1Ds (but may be out of budget for the original poster, unless you happen to spot a bargain). The 1D Mark II seems okay too, but the higher frame rate means it burns through batteries quicker.</p>

<p>I have used and owed 5D Mk2, 60d,70d and 6D. In normal use there is little difference in IQ between any of them. However for low light the Full frame 5D2 and 6D are better. if you go to a newer cam with Digic 5 processor like the 70d, 3200 ISO gives acceptable results in light levels unthinkable a few years ago. The 60d is fine up to 1600ISO. All 4 cameras take the same batteries; so If you are on a budget a 60d would be a good compromise.</p>

<p>+1 to all above comments concerning how progress<br>

over a relatively short time puts newer 1.6X sensors<br>

ahead of even slightly older FF sensors. Noisewise my<br>

SL1 is at least 1EV better than my 5DII, and both are<br>

similar as to pixel count [18 vs 20 mp]. <br>

<br>

We are rapidly approaching a situation where the only<br>

real need of FF sensors is to get full use of existing<br>

hoards of FF lenses. Technically, there will always be<br>

some kinda IQ advantage to a bigger sensor, but that<br>

advantage will soon be of use only to those who can<br>

make, frame, and display print sizes measured in<br>

feet rather than inches ! <br>

</p>

<p>The 5D MI would be a good choice as a low cost but great camera. The sensor is very nice. The autofocus is a bit out of date but its actually the same as the 5DMKII. I see them on eBay at around $400. That said how much wear and tear have they been through? Who knows. I see 5D MK IIs at around $800. Better ISO, same old AF than the MK1. Usually with eBay I let the bidding play out and try to come in right before it closes. A lot of people do it that way, it becomes a battle in the last 15 minutes. </p>

<p>Hi everyone, thanks for all your comments and recommendations. Much appreciated.</p>

<p>Like I mentioned earlier, I was also contemplating on a 50D and eventually settled for one. Now this will sound a bit bizarre, but this 50D is like BRAND NEW! only 150 shots taken and even the Firmware that was in it was 1.0.6 which I updated to 1.0.9. It also came with a 17-85mm IS USM, which again is in immaculate condition. I'm over the moon with this purchase as I paid only 350 quid for both the camera and the lens.</p>

<p>Now here's the next question :) I've always wanted a 24-105 L and I've given it a wee bit of thought, maybe if I sell the 17-85mm that came with the camera, the same (17-85mm) I already own and my BG-E2N original battery grip, add a few extra quid, I almost can afford the 24-105mm. I know in reality it's going to be 38-168mm, but the question is, will the 24-105mm make a significant difference as oppose to the 17-85mm? I'm really not bothered about wide angle, I just like sharper images, which I can play around with later. </p>

<p>Thought you might also want to know that I own the 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm L f/4 (non IS).....will the 24-105mm make a happy addition to the family or I should rather stick with the 17-85mm? Thanks.</p>

<p>I would use the 17 to 85 and see if you are unhappy with it. There will be plenty of 24 to 105 in a few months time, not as if they are scarce.<br>

You might say you don't use 17 to 23 all that much, but it will cost you nothing to try it for a while.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Personally Ive never liked the 24-105 F4; it has a lot of wide angle distortion and disappointing bokeh. Although expensive; Sigmas 18-35 F1.8 is exceptionally well built and fast as well as being the sharpest zoom lens I own. Not only that; the bokeh is delicious; as good as a 24-70 f2.8 L on FF.<br>

A Cheaper APS lens is Sigmas 17-70 F2.8 F4, it has the same relative field of view as 24-105 has IS and better bokeh as it has a 9 bladed diaphragm. I Used one with Nikon for a few years and really liked it as IQ was virtually as good as my Nikon 17-55 which broke.</p>