1Ds Mark II (used) vs. 7D

<p>I currently have a canon 7D, which is a great camera but at some point I will be looking at upgrading to full-frame. At this point I could sell my 7D and be able to afford a 1Ds Mark II (used), my question is; how much of a better camera would I be getting over my current 7D?</p>

<p>The only thing you will miss is the Video on the 7D , IMHO.</p>

<p>While I agree w/ Harry in part, if you are used to the machine gun capability of the 7D, (8FPS) you will definetly miss the speed. The 5d2 is only slightly slower than the 1Ds2 (3.9FPS vs. 4FPS), but going from the 50D it, I def. missed the 6.3FPS. The 7D is more in the same respect. </p>

<p>J,</p>

<p>It depends 100% on your images (and lenses) and their output. What do you shoot and what do you do with your images? I won't be trite and roll out the uninformed "if you print big get the ff" or "the 7D is the best camera in the world you just need to process the files right", it is far more nuanced than that. But without further details any recommendation will be opinion based on guesses or bias.</p>

<p>Personally I think the 7D is the best crop camera in the world, by far, and I think the 1Ds MkII is the best value FF camera in the world.</p>

<p>Define better ... the 1D series are more different than they are better. What improvements are you looking for?</p>

<p>Scott: My current lens' are, ef-s 17-55mm 2.8 (which obviously i would have to sell), EF 70-200mm 4 is, and EF 50mm 1.4. I am currently doing a photojournalism degree with the view to pursuing a career as a press photographer, so I mainly only display my images on screen, but I do sometimes like to print.</p>

<p>Michael, The only improvements i'm looking for are FF and durability.</p>

<p>Keep the 7D. </p>

<p>Keep doing what you are until you get enough to get a 1Ds MkIII, it is a vastly better camera than the 1Ds MkII, and then move the 7D to backup.</p>

<p>Alternatively look at the 1D MkIII, it is a press tool of choice, far better suited to the roll than the 1Ds MkII or MkIII, then sell the 17-55 EFs and get a 16-35 MkI or MkII. If I were a press shooter I would be using a 1D MkIII or MkIV.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>at some point I will be looking at upgrading to full-frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why's that an "upgrade" for photojournalism?</p>

<p>http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS-1Ds_Mark_II-vs-Canon_EOS_7D</p>

<p>The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II will trump the Canon EOS 7D in image quality. I own the former and have tested it against my friend's 7D. Image quality is what you want. Image quality is what you will get with the 1Ds II.</p>

<p>Why not look at a used Canon EOS 5D Mark II? The full frame sensor will be better than the 7D's.</p>

I agree with Peter on IQ. I have a 7D and 1DIIN and the 7D is better than the 1D but not by as much as you would

expect. At ISO 1600 and 3200 there is almost nothing to choose between the noisier high pixel 7D images and the low

pixel but cleaner 1DIIN images. Thus I cannot see how the 1DsII would not be better for IQ. In terms of controls the

1 series has the 7D beaten but the display and menu system on the 7D is much better. I would however suggest that

you keep the 7D as it is new, you know it's history and you have a good EFS zoom. Many used 1DsIIs will have had

hard use and you do not know the history. While I have not used the 17-55 F2.8 it will cost a lot for you to upgrade to

the 24-70 or 16-35 II. If you do go for the 16-35 I would spend the extra on the mkII as I did not buy the mkI as I

found it's edge performance about the same as the much cheaper 17-40 ( the Mk II is an improvement on my 17-40).

In terms of a 1 D body you should think very carefully. I have the 1DIIn and while I was tempted by the 1DIV I decided

not to buy one as I find the 1.3x crop a pain. If I was a professional sports shooter this would not bother me but for

general use I find the lack of wide angle a real pain.

<p> There is no doubt, in my mind, that the outright image quality of the 1Ds MkII in most circumstances would trump the IQ from the 7D, but to be honest, in a web reproduction based photojournalism situation the 7D is a much more practical camera. If for nothing else than for the run and gun situations so often encountered nowadays in that field. My last published pj image was emailed on speck at 78kb, they ran it. At that size, and most sizes required for newsprint and even local glossies, there is no need for the 1Ds image quality advantage, it is not visible. The lowly 4 fps of the 1Ds MkII however would prove too much of a hindrance on too many pj occasions, unless you are just shooting editorial set-ups.</p>

<p> As a general purpose pj tool the 7D is a far more practical camera body than the 1Ds MkII (or indeed any 1Ds) for their work. The 1D MkIV is the current dream camera for many pj's, the 1D MkIII is much more affordable and nearly as good. For most pj's 16-35 on a 1.3 crop works well enough, any wider and the subjects, which nine times out of ten are people, get too easily distorted.</p>

<p>If you need full frame, is there a reason that the 5D2 won't work for you? It is a more capable camera in the ways that might incline you towards full frame.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I think the 7D is the best crop camera in the world, by far, and I think the 1Ds MkII is the best value FF camera in the world</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>wow, biased much?</p>

<p>if you have traditional sized 135 format lenses, then the only real difference you will see is the field of view in your lenses. your photography will not improve, no camera can really accomplish that task. The term "full frame" is an erroneous one; all cameras have a full frame, and I think some feel as though the equipment they have is sub standard unless they have the "full" works. the way a camera works, or the physical size of your camera can impact your results, but the size of the sensor in you r digicam does not. I am confident that my Olympus EP-2 can produce better results than my Nikon D3 in certain situations, but that has nothing to do with the size of the sensor.</p>

<p>The image quality from any DSLR produced in the last five years is more than enough to exceed 95% of people requirements for photography, especially if you are an amatuer. The 7D is a brilliant camera, I can confidently say that without ever owning, seeing or touching one. Spend your money on where it really counts - good fast lenses, and then go out and shoot.</p>

<p>Way to take a comment out of context Ty, the words are not even in the same paragraph!</p>

<p>But tell me, <em>"without ever owning, seeing or touching one"</em> can you tell me why your input is relevant?</p>

<p>With regards your opinion that the phrase "full frame" is erroneous, again your opinion matters little, in entymological terms the phrase full frame has come to be understood as a 135 sensor sized digital camera. I grew up using the word "gay" to mean somebody who was happy and carefree, it had absolutely zero sexual connotation, I miss the word but it was never mine in the first place.</p>

<p>Scott Ferris is correct, about the 7D and 1DsII positions in the marketplace. I own a D2X and 1Ds and can be reasonably objective with respect to Nikon/Canon and other manufacturers. I chose brands based on the tools that fit my requirements.</p>

<p>Full frame is best for capturing details in wideangle landscape/architecture, and crop bodies are best for keeping up with the speed and distance of sports/action. So depending on where your photojournalism goes either system may be more appropriate. For general shooting topics I know I would prefer the crop body for it's speed and much lighter weight. I was shocked by the added weight of the 1Ds over the already heavy D2X and the 7D is not even close to this league. Be sure to go out and hold a 7D and a 1DsII, you will be dumbfounded!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But tell me, "without ever owning, seeing or touching one" can you tell me why your input is relevant?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Name me a DSLR that has been produced in the last five years by Canon, Nikon, Pentax et al, that is <em>more than</em> suitable for a serious amatuer. I don't need to see the camera to know that it'll do the job - unless Canon decided to produce a worst camera than they did five years ago. Maybe my input <strong>may</strong> be considered by the OP, because it may start (at least) to give him the impression that this pixel peeping and upgraditus, a condition that so many small format digital SLR shooters seem to be afflicted with, is completely irrelevant to what he's trying to achieve. All of this is completely irrelevant if he's a just a camera enthusiast rather than someone who just enjoys the craft.</p>

<p>To get that message across you need to sound sympathetic, interested and/or informed. Funny because we both said the same thing, (keep the 7D) just in completely different ways..............</p>

<p>One is full frame, the other one isn't. One has arguably better dust sealing and a more robust body. One has video, the other one doesn't. What do YOU need the most?</p>

<p>I have a 1DS MK II, in its time is was, and is a great camera, but its not much better, or even at all, better than your 7D. A better full frame choice would be a 5D MK II, or its equivalent at that time. The only adavantage to the 1DS series is the built in drive, and weather sealing, if you need it. $$$$ permitting, I feel the best canon body at the moment is the 1D MK Iv.</p>

<p>In spite of the lesser build of the 5D II, as well as slower frames per second and so forth, I sold my 1Ds II to get the 5D II. I have not been disappointed. It is not merely a matter of the extra megapixels. There is also the much enhanced low light/high ISO capabilities of the 5D II.</p>

<p>So I guess that I would say that the real choice before you is or ought to be "7D v. 5D II"--unless you need the speed and weatherproofing, etc., of the 1Ds II.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I agree with Lannie. The 1DS II is five years older than the 7D, and the 7D and 5DII are roughly contemporary. While this consideration would have been largely irrelevant in the film era, it is more significant in the "digital age." Sensor technology improves in many respects (high ISO performance being one) over the course of five years. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why's that an "upgrade" for photojournalism?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><em>Hmmm...</em></p>

<p>I'll answer my own question, then.</p>

<p><strong>It isn't.</strong></p>

<p>In terms of build quality the 1DsII is better built that the 5DII or 7D but on a digital body this is generally not as big a deal as on a film body. The film bodys had a much longer lifetime than the digital bodys - especially the older ones. The digital 1 series bodies are very large and heavy - my 1DIIN is massive compared to my 7D but does not really have any more capability although I do prefer the buttons to the rotating mode dial. With the old film based 1 series bodies (except the 1NRS) you did not need to carry the same mass around when you did not need high speed shooting capability. My 1V (even with the HS motor) is about the same size and weight as my 1DII but I can remove the motor form the 1V and end up with a 3.5 fps body that is only slightly bigger and heavier than the 5DII or 7D.The additional build quality over the 7D is probably not worth paying for in most circumstances. The fact is that the digital 1 series bodys will be obsolete long before you need the better build quality. My 1DIIN is obsolete (the 7D is a better all around package - I just wish it had multi spot metering and a viewfinder blind) but it will last for years. However, as the electronics gets obsolete the used value falls rapidly - the 1D is selling for about $500 - about the same as a 1V and not dramatically more than the 1970s F1. <br>

So unless you plan to shoot landscapes / wide angles stay with the 7D.</p>

<p>I am not a big fan of the 1Ds MK II. The mirror lock-up system on the 1Ds MK II is needlessly complex, you have a wiggly plastic door under your thumb when you shoot, and the screen on the back of the 1Ds MK II is very small, making reviewing pictures is an imprecise chore. The 1Ds MK II is heavy for what it gives you. </p>

<p>I would prefer the 7D as the 7D has a much more advanced sensor and electronics and the 7D has live view for macro photography and very precise manual focusing. The 5D II would have the live view as well.</p>