Please advise; 1Ds vs 5D?

<p>Greetings all,<br>

Please forgive the question, I am literally a neophyte in the realm of Digital SLR's and have had my head firmly stuck in the land of film throughout the developing years of this new technology. I am a Contax 35mm, Mamiya Rb67 ProS and Crown Graphic 4x5 user in my day to day. I am now looking to move into the purchase of a modern DSLR and need some advice from people far more experienced than I - not hard at this point.</p>

<p>My requirements ... I am predominantly a Landscape photographer, with reportage, travel and architecture thrown into the mix. I'm all about the long exposures and night scapes and my process does not rely on FPS sports style shooting and nor do I have that marked as a requirement. By default and choice, I really love solidly built gear, nice weighty manual focus lenses ... all this is a reason why the EOS 1N and 1V appealed to me some years ago, but I never got around to buying those at the time. The modern Canon 1D series seem to be a logical extrapolation of the EOS film series so ...</p>

<p>I am not that fussed about auto focus and auto functions, I like plenty of manual control and I really love my wide primes ... I have probably lived the last decade relying on a sweet 24mm prime that barely comes off my Contax. What I want now though is a DSLR that gives me full frame and might allow an old luddite like me the comfort and assurance in DSLR technology, that my FILM camera's afforded. In other words I'd like to be able to still use manual lenses and do all that cave man stuff with hand held meters too ... but have the bells and whistles of a DSLR.</p>

<p>Given my requirements and my type of shooting, I have narrowed down a couple of options ... the EOS 1Ds and the 5D - this largely due to the fact that prices are very good on these and it allows me captial to still buy lenses. I am immediately drawn to the robust qualities of the 1Ds but the extra MP count of the 5D ( though small ) and the great rep has its charms also. Would the members here please be good enough to give me their thoughts about the merits, or lack thereof, of both these camera's and help me tick a few boxes that I may not have considered? My big question also is this ... how large could I expect to print from either of these camera's with good detail and how do these compete with 35mm in the 50/100 ASA category for prints the same size?</p>

<p>I am very appreciative of all comments. ( Prepared for a schooling )</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My preference would also be the 1Ds for it's build quality. The megapixel difference is negligible. My one and only concern is the buffer size. The 1Ds holds 10 RAW images the 5D holds 17 RAW images. When I am bracketing landscape shots in quickly changing light I often run out of memory. I am not sure how much memory my 14 MP full frame has but I never have this problem with my crop body at 19 RAW frames.</p>

<p>You have to adjust your expectations for image quality. You can't compare 6 to 16 MP to viewing Kodachrome 25 and Velvia 50 transparencies under 10X magnification. Traditional prints from these high quality films are beyond lower pixel count cameras. In my estimation the 1DsIII and D3X are coming very close to these films, and I think 30 MP will definitely do the trick. If you scan and print films then that equals the playing field a lot and either of the cameras you are looking at would compete extremely well.</p>

<p>Do not worry too much about image quality compared to film at this point. You cannot underestimate the power of digital for checking exposure and composition immediately and for opening up a whole realm of experimentation that always cost a lot with film. You can try many more ideas and simply "trash" the ones that don't work.</p>

<p>Your biggest challenge will be learning how to use Photoshop, and maintaining enough hard drive space!</p>

<p>One more thing, upon researching prices be sure to check out keh.com. I have been very pleased with their Bargain and Ugly lenses. Check bhphotovideo.com and adorama.com as well. These are all American stores.</p>

<p>I do see some really good deals on the 1DsII at times. If you are patient and can stretch your budget a bit the added performance of this body would be very worthwhile.</p>

<p>You know you may have started a p***ing contest. Now my suggestion to you would be to take both of these beauties out for a test drive if you can, that will either make or break it for you. There really is no other way to find out what would suit your needs until you have the tool in your hands.</p>

<p>I use the 5D, and never have touched a 1D series. I'm incredibly impressed with the 5D. My background is film since 1973, various 35mm and Medium Format (from 6x4.5 to 6x7). Use to shoot almost primarily with Panatomic-X in Microdol-X (so large prints, and/or judicial cropping and keeping fine resolution have always been of concern with me) in my nature/landscape days.....and mostly Tri-X in HC-110 in my present Street Photography. Got my first DSLR (20D) in 2004, but had scanned negatives and photoshopped since 2001.</p>

<p>Now, the 5D in RAW format, and exposure designed to be manipulated in the RAW processor (ie Expose to the Right theories), and a fairly advanced knowledge of RAW and normal Photoshop techniques have allowed this full frame DSLR to come pretty close to Medium Format (in my hands anyhow).</p>

<p>The choice between your two cams in your landscapes would definitely be minimal....probably exactly the same with image quality. And the real boon to the 1Ds would be it's weather seals in case you shoot in adverse conditions. From what I have read on the web, the 5D at long exposures might just be a tad better than the 1Ds.</p>

<p>Although, I personally think that at the level you are talking about, your exposure and post processing abilities would be the most important consideration of all. Remember all those darkroom wizzes that could do amazing things in the darkroom (at those high priced labs)?....well in digital, YOU gotta be that photoshop wiz now yourself. In my honest opinion...that is.</p>

<p>5D = better at high ISO. 1Ds = better camera overall.<br>

With today's prices you can probably swing a 1Ds Mk. II: it'll blow your socks off in terms of image quality for your purposes.</p>

<p>Great responses all, thank you. For further clarification ...<br>

# - I am not new to Photoshop and have been playing with images in that program for quite a few years, so no issues with learning to deal with post processing in the digital dark room for me.</p>

<p># - I know some will say, you just need to try them - well right now I can't so this is why I value the feedback from the membership. It is this feedback that serves as a kind of virtual test drive for me, so feedback is important to me for this very reason.</p>

<p># - I am well familiar with KEH, B&H and Adorama and will be checking those sites periodically for deals.</p>

<p># - I could possibly stretch my budget to the 1Ds MkII but I was under the impression that this camera is not full frame?</p>

<p># - What about the 1D ( non S ) MkII as another option? A 1D MkII is available locally but I am not familiar with this camera vs the two listed above. One would assume the 1D MkII was superior to the 1Ds?</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p>Delete ... posting error.</p>

<p>Great responses all, thank you. For further clarification ...<br>

# - I am not new to Photoshop and have been playing with images in that program for quite a few years, so no issues with learning to deal with post processing in the digital dark room for me.</p>

<p># - I know some will say, you just need to try them - well right now I can't so this is why I value the feedback from the membership. It is this feedback that serves as a kind of virtual test drive for me, so feedback is important to me for this very reason.</p>

<p># - I am well familiar with KEH, B&H and Adorama and will be checking those sites periodically for deals.</p>

<p># - I could possibly stretch my budget to the 1Ds MkII but I was under the impression that this camera is not full frame?</p>

<p># - What about the 1D ( non S ) MkII as another option? A 1D MkII is available locally but I am not familiar with this camera vs the two listed above. One would assume the 1D MkII was superior to the 1Ds?</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

I would probably get the 5DII and buy better lenses. I used to always buy 1 series (or equivalent ) bodies and still have a collection that includes an F1, two New F1s, two T90s, An EOS 1 NRS and two EOS 1Vs. In digital I bought an EOS 1DIIN but have since added a 5DII and a 7D. For build quality the 1D is better than the 5DII or 7D but these bodies are quite close. The 1D is built like the 1VHS and is physically very similar (except for the screen and card slot). However the 5DII feels like a 1V without the winder. The 5DII has some obvious inferior build items, namely:

 

The card door is plastic and feels weak although I have had no problem with mine

The selection dial for exposure mode is not as good as the 1 series button system and can get accidentally moved

There is no multi spot metering capability (standard on top of the range Canons since the T90)

There is no viewfinder blind

The camera only takes a single CF card (again I have had no issues with this)

 

In terms of images you will not find a difference between the 5DII and the 1DsIII. Unless you want to pay for the additional build quality or minor functional changes I would suggest the 5DII. The Af system on the 1DsIII is significantly better than that of the 5DII but this should not be an issue for you. Despite it's bad press the 5DII AF is as good as the AF on my 1NRS which was a pro sports body. I have shot ice hockey and ski racing with the 5DII so it is still pretty good.

 

The thing to remember with digital bodies is that they have a limited shelf life as software compatibility and other issues come along. They also lose resale value quite quickly - KEH has the New F1 for $525 and the 1D for $525 a 1981 camera and a 2002 camera at the same used price!

 

I disagree withJohn Crowe on image quality as I find my 5DII beats 35mm Velvia 50 by a considerable margin and produces results comperable to my Mamiya 645. Today it is still significantly below my Fuji GX680 system in quality. That said once you go above 100 ISo the digital performance blows film away - even at ISO 3200 the 5DII image quality exceeds 400 ISO colour film. By the way John - what camera is your 14 MP full frame (Canon has only made 11.1, 12.8, 16.7 and 21.1MP (excluding the Old Kodak backs) Nikon has made 12.1 and 24.5 to my knowledge. I am still not really happy with digital B&W and prefer to do this wet with film but I think part of this is due to my lack of digital post processing skills which appear to be more difficult in B&W. Having just damned 35mm film I still shoot quite a lot of it - mainly Velvia and usually digitize my images with a Nikon Scanner (for various reasons I have both the 5000 and 9000 and they are both great machines)

 

The advice of software from Thomas is spot on. This is the big issue for film users going digital as you need practice and a subtle approach to work with digital images. For best quality you need to shoot RAW and the files usually need some port processing - even if it is just sharpening the image (the anti Alias filter in a DSLR reduces sharpness). As a minimum if you want to print and control print quality you need a high quality monitor, a good printer (e.g. Epson 2880) and a colour calibration system. For software Photoshop Elements is a good starting point.

 

In terms of print size you can make very large high quality prints form either of these two canon bodies - with interpolation software 60 inches by 40 inches is quite acceptable (this is the largest i have gone). In terms of IQ here are some crops<div></div>

<p>Edit ... forget my question re the 1D MkII, I was not previously aware of the order in this series and the lower MP rate of the MkII.</p>

 

Here is a crop from this image<div></div>

Here is a big scanned film negative (taken slightly earlier with a GX 680 and Velvia 50. As you can see the quality beats the 5DII.<div></div>

Now here is 35mm (unfortunately not the same scene)<div></div>

Crop from film<div></div>

5DII same crop<div></div>

Simon

1D is not full frame - they are APs-H (approx 1.3 times effective focal length increase) and are designed for sports use. I have the 1DIIN (updated model) and it is a good camera but nowhere near the performance of the 5DII. The 1Ds series are full frame cameras but are slow frame rates and not great for action sports. I would not suggest an older camera as theLCD screens are very small and the menus difficult to work with. The earliest 1 series body I would suggest is the 1Ds II which is 16.7 MP. Even this body has a 2 inch 230,000 dot display and lower high ISO performance than the 5DII or 1DsIII. The new bodys have 3 inch 920,000 dot displays and live view. While this is not of obvious use when you come from film the ability to use a tripod and live view is very useful for landscapes. in essence you can compose the image on the screen with the mirror locked up then shoot - this is possible on the 1DsIII or 5DII but not older bodies. The 1DsIII is probably the next Canon to be replaced so if you want one wit until the 1DsIV is announced and the prices of the 1DsIII will fall a lot. My suggestion is to get the 5DII and spend what you save on lenses as these high resolution cameras are hard on lens performance.

<p>Phillip, Thank you for your time and considered response, it has been very instructive. You bring to the table another nagging concern of mine and that is precisely the issue of wide lens aberration. It seems that the grass is not always greener ... and I spend 90% of my camera time working with wides. The knowledge that DSLR's censors are not kind with regard to wides is enough to make my heart sink because this is an area where you want some give in my area of shooting. Apparently even with the very best L series lenses these problems are glaring, so what is a bloke to do?</p>

<p>Right now I must make budget a primary consideration of my choice of purchase, I am simply looking for the best bang for buck camera, that gives full frame and high quality resolution for Landscapes. This budget needs to allow for buying high quality lenses it seems which does seriously dampen ones spirits in the knowledge that L series lenses are not immune from aberration via the DSLR medium. How big a deal is this and how far does one freak out about it?</p>

<p>It would seem at this point that the 1Ds MkII would be the furthest I can stretch currently ... the MkIII's are just way beyond my budget right now and for the foreseeable future, anyway.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

 

<p>Hi Simon. My vote would be to find a 5DmkII. I have a couple of 4x5 systems, a Horseman 6x9 system and a Pentax 645n system and lots of primes for all of them. I still shoot some film and I have a frige full of Velvia in various sizes but the majority of my shooting is with digital with the 5DmkII. My shooting is almost all landscape and occasional travel/cityscapes/architecture.</p>

<p>It is a pretty amazing camera for the money, still reasonably robust and will probably become my backup to a Pentax 645D, assuming the Pentax lives up to the hopes of many of us. I've been using some of my Pentax MF primes with an adapter on the 5D. You might consider similar options with some of your MF primes. I also recently sold my 617 as I find I can pretty much accomplish the same results by stitching 5-6 frames shot vertically with the 5D.</p>

<p>I recently spoke with a Canon person at the wedding photographer trade show and he strongly hinted that we'll see something well beyond 21 megs from Canon in the not to distant future. If you want to stay close to 645 mf film quality I think the 5D mkII is a good way to go. They are starting to show up on the used market and their new price has dropped significantly since they were introduced.</p>

<p>You bring to the table another nagging concern of mine and that is precisely the issue of wide lens aberration.<br>

Digital cameras don't change lens performance such as aberrations. It's just that it is much easier to pixel peep with digital and as a result people are noticing aberrations that were always pressent in the lens. If you do a detailed test with one lens using film and digital you would see the same aberations. People today are simply see aberration that were always there.</p>

<p>I personnally have a 5D (the original version) and a 17-40L. The lens is very good. Yes it is a little soft in the corners at F4 but that problem would also be present on pictures taken with a film camera. Stopped down it performes much better. But for me F4 performance is not an issue, I enjoy taking landscapes and most of the time I am stopping down the lens to get the depth of field I want. </p>

<p>I think you would be happy with the 5D. with regard to manual focusing you might find that more difficult in DSLSRs. Since most cameras sold today are auto focus camera manufactures no longer include manual focus aids such as split prisms or micro prisms. Whithout these focus aids it can be more difficult to manually focus the camera. Because of this some people refer to use live view for manual focusing since you can magnify the image. However if you wish there are companies that sell focus screens with slit prisms and micro prisms. If you do a lot of manual focusing you might want to purchase a different focus screen.</p>

<p>Simon, I'm a long-time film user (and landscape shooter), having used a Pentax 67 and Mamiya 7II in the past (along with Nikon 35mm), and I'm currently using a Pentax 645NII and Hasselblad 501cm. However, the majority of my photography is done with a Canon 1DsMkIII. If I were in your shoes today, I would get the Canon 5DII, use the saved money for one or more quality lenses, and then start saving for the 1DsMkIV when it is released. The 5DII is one of the best value purchases you can make right now (IMO, and staying within the Canon system), and the future 1DsMkIV will hopefully more fully bridge the gap between digital and scanned film. At the same time, I'm waiting for the digital Pentax 645 to be released in the U.S. (been waiting for 5 years), hoping it will be a good camera and that my current Pentax lenses will make good use of it.</p>

Simon - the 5DII shot of Moraine lake was not taken at the optimal lens settings. The 16-35 II is best at about F5.6 to F8. the reason I have both shots was simply that I use the 5DII like a polaroid for the Fuji GX680. In this case the crop shows that at the edge of the frame with the 16-35 at F2.8 things are not great. Lens performance is a big problem with the high resolution DSLRs in my opinion. Here is perhaps a crop that shows the system in a better light.<div></div>

Here is a crop - remember this is ISO 500 and that this is about 0.7% of the image or about 5 inches by 3 inches on a 60 inch by 40 inch print. You can see why I say you need to use interpolation software to go this big.<div></div>

longer lenses help the situation as they tend to suffer less performance issues. Here is an image of Ha Ling peak taken with the 5DII<div></div>

<p>Here is a crop taken form the top of Ha Ling peak - so from the center. As you can see this is much sharper. If you are happy with 35mm film then the 5DII will give you better quality. If you look at the film crop (ignore the colour as this can be changed in post) you can see how much more detail the 5DII captures. I think film is about a 10-12 MP equivalent which appears consistant with most tests that fall in the 8 - 16 MP range.<br></p><div></div>

Finally to compare film here is a similar shot (taken a couple of years earlier) with a Contax G2 and the 90mm f2.8 lens which is possibly one of the best 35mm lenses made (certainly a very strong contender). The image was shot on Portra 160 NC.<div></div>