Looking to buy a new 1d Mk2 or 1ds Mk2 but have concerns

Please excuse me if this has been addressed previously. I am looking

to purchase a new EOS 1d Mk2 or 1ds Mk2 but have concerns regarding

which one would be best for my application. I am coming from a 10D

and need to output larger (poster size prints in the area of ~40")

the problem is I shoot sports and have come to depend on the extra

magnification of the sub-frame chip of the 10D (x1.6).

 

My problem is if I go with the 1d Mk2 everything like with the 10D

has to be spot on with my composition in order to avoid cropping

later... If I go with the 1ds Mk2, I would loose the magnification

associated with the sub-frame chip, get back the use of my wide angle

lenses, and have the ability to crop later if my composition was off.

 

My question therefore is if I needed a tighter shot would I be better

off with the extra focal length of the 1d Mk2 (x1.6) or spending the

extra money and cropping later?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks.

The 1D II is between the 10D and 1Ds II with a 1.3x crop. If you want 1D II resolution with

a 1.6x crop, buy a 20d and save a bunch of money!

Interesting dillemma. In any case, I'd wait a couple weeks and find out what Canon is going to

announce in that time period. We may be getting a new body called the 1D Mk2 N. No idea

what that means.

The 1Ds Mk2 is a 17.2 Mp camera and the an APS sized region on its sensor contains nearly 12Mp so will offer the best resolution whatever the crop. However, at 3fps shooting rate is not best designed for sports applications.

 

I would wait a it before spending that much dosh

There are rumors that they are coming out with a new 5d that is almost 13 megapixels with a full size sensor and will run about $3500.00. I have read several places that is will be anounced officially at the end of the month (august 26th) and should be available by early october. If I were spending the bucks I would atleast wait a couple more weeks to find out. If it turns out to be accurate it would certainly have to be in the running.

I rarely if ever use for lack of a better description the motor drive so speed isn't a factor and as far as the 20D goes the AF system isn't fast enough. My only option, as I need the camera for an assignment in 2 weeks, is to choose between the two.

Cliff

 

How did you come up with that calculation. My maths suggest that the 1Ds Mark II should only have a bit less than 8 megapixels when cropped to APS size. (area of APS/area of FF) x 16.7

For sports I would use either a 1DmkII or 20D hands down. I'd never shoot with plans to crop later... what a post processing nightmare that would be. Plus there are budget considerations. You could get 2 1DmkII's for the price of 1 1DsmkII. Or you could buy a longer lens. A good lab should be able to get you 40" prints from your 10D, btw. They might not be razor sharp.. but this is sports, not studio portraiture.. right?

If shooting rate is not an issue then the 1Ds Mk2 is the best choice bar none in terms of resolution but as I'm sure you know it ain't cheap. Compared to your 10D it will give you approx 2x the resolution in the equivalent sensor area.

You are hitting the nail on the head... but I am a little picky a I am selling my prints and don't want to see pixellation regardless of the subject matter and edit only a few shots per outting for output so having to crop later isn't that big of an issue. I guess to boil it down, I am concerned with the end result quality of a native 8.2mp image vs a cropped 16.7mp image. I know there are a lot of variables such as how much I will be cropping and such, but you had a good point of being able to get more for my money if I were to go with the 1DMk2 such as another lens or backup body.

If I were to shoot the same subject, say a Formula 1 car, with both cameras and output them to a 13 x 19" print.. Would the image from the 1ds be not only sharper but show more detail? My gut says yes but I am not entirely sure. That is the big question. If I print the same image from the 1DMk2 (untouched) and then due to the loss of the x1.3 crop the same image from the 1DsMk2 (cropped) will the image from the 1Ds be sharper and yield more detail?

I would say the 1DsMKII would be my choice followed by the aquisition of whatever lens you need to get the shot without having to think about cropping. For example, if you were getting the shot with a 70-200 2.8 on your 10D then something like a 300 2.8IS and possibly a Canon 1.4TC are in your future.

Norman,

 

If you need it in two weeks and can't decide, why not rent one (or both) of them? If you

can, I would rent both for a couple of days during the week of the event you are shooting,

play with them beforehand, then use the one that really is best suited for your purpose.

Either buy that one, or just keep renting for a while.

 

With the rental costs in my area, I could rent a 1D II 15-20 times before I came close to

paying the cost of buying one. If you will use it often, many places will credit the cost of

the rental toward the purchase of the body you rented.

Geoff

 

Oopps, my mistake! It's late here. Delete the above b***ks, your estimation is right.

Hi Norman, Using telephoto lenses on a 1.6x (or 1.3x) camera should give you (theoretically) a sharper picture than the same lens on a 1Ds2 *if you're cropping the 1Ds2 image* to get to the same size. Whether you'd notice it in a million years making 13X19 inch prints is debateable.

 

From "Resolution Roulette" by Michael J. McNamara, Popular Photography, June 2005:

 

"Cropping an image lowers the number of megapixels and affects its maximum photo-quality print size... For example, an image from Canon's 1DS2 that is cropped to give the same FOV as Canon's 20D... will contain 6.5MP in the cropped area."

 

There is also the speed issue to contend with - a 1D2 should be a much more responsive camera for sports shooting than the 1Ds2.

 

Having said all that, I recently sold a lot of crack (kidding!) and bought myself a 1Ds2 and it blows me away how much of the image I can crop away and still have a great shot. You can take almost 2/3rds of a shot away and still have around 6MP to play with! I think it's good advice to see if all these rumors are true about new Canon cameras that are just around the corner. I would think you could always rent something if necessary. Just my .02 cent's worth - good luck!

What Beau said.

 

cropping a 17 megapixel file to give a 1.6 crop, gives you about a 6.6 megapixle file - 17/(1.6x1.6). For most practical purposes you will not be able to see the difference between 6.6 and 8 megapixels.

 

I am not sure how Cliff does his maths.

Apoligies cliff, just saw you other post.

I would try printing your sharpest image at a lightjet house like fototime.com . I use them for my large prints. I have printed 8-10 images at 24x36. The continuous tone of the lightjet increases the percieved resolution of the print. The sharp ones taken with a great lens look great to me. Printing this large is a gamble. Some will be acceptable and some will not.

Will I see a difference from the 10D if I go to the 1DMk2?

Going from the 10D to the 1D II will give you a 14% wider image at the same resolution (or

1.4 inches at 300dpi).

 

That's not very much.

The 10D to the 1Ds II will give you a 62.5% increase in width.

 

That is a lot!

My guess is probably not for most purposes and at an 8x10 print size. The differences between 8 and 6 megapixels is not that much. If cropping to get the equivalent field of view then you will be left with 4.8 megapixels 8/(1.3x1.3). Again there is not much difference between 4.8 and 6 megapixels.

 

I think the only way to find out at larger print sizes is to test it out.

1.4X teleconvertor?

"The 10D to the 1Ds II will give you a 62.5% increase in width.

That is a lot!"

 

Not if cropping to give a 1.6 fov (actually going backwards). Even a doubling in megapixels is not that big a deal. Assuming a 8 megapixel image is at its limits at 12x18 (which it may not be) then a 16 megapixel image is at its limits at about 18x24.

 

Norman if you want to really improve the resolution of your pictures what you need is the 1Ds Mark II and a longer lens.

Geoff,

 

My number was for uncropped full-frame. I agree that he can't really get what he wants

(high resolution and magnification) without both a new camera AND a new lens.