which camera???

i know i'm asking question that probably many people asked before, but...

i'm in the middle of setting up my "small photography business"; my main areas

will be weddings, portraiture, fashion. at the moment i have 2 Canons 30D.

within next two months i would like to upgrade my gear; here's my question:

i'm looking at two cameras 5D or 1D MK III, which one will suit me better??? i

just heard different opinions and advice. some people tell me "go for 1D

because it's tougher camera and will survive everything" and others say "go

for 5D because you will need all resoulution that it can offer you". will i

really need tank build 1D or 12mpx from 5D??? as about prints, it's not gonna

be bigger than A3 size, so would that 10 mpx would do the right job (so far i

was quite happy with prints from my 30D - maybe except those photos where

i/camera missfocused)? would 5D surrvived little shower (or rather a few

droplets of water)? i know they're silly questions, but i'm wondering what

people who are actually in that kind of business think about that???

almost forgot - i don't mind the size of the 1D series as i'll be getting

vertical grip for 5D if it's choosen, so size doesn't matter to me. as a

matter of fact i preffer when camera is heavier... i know i'm strange :)

thanks in advance for your answer/s

regards. greg

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LliQ

The 5D can survive light rain. Which one suits you? Only you can answer.

Jerome, Nadine thank you for your answers...

Jerome,

i didn't think about that yet :) "younger" goes to my brother... the other one is a little over a year old, has probably around 8-10 thousands photos taken, has a vertical grip and i'll be trying to sell it with EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS... so i'd say we're talking about over 2000 euros... i need to do some research on it yet...

Nadine,

thanks for that link; i see that i'm not alone over there :) and definitely you're right - only i can answer... it's just good to read/see something that you're not always aware of...

regards. greg

The practical difference in resolution is next to non existent.

The MKIII has a gaggle of new features none of the other Canons have. I'm sure the 5D

replacement will have them also, and then some. It's a game of leap-frog. Only you can

determine if those features have value to you.

I value the security of simultaneous dual card shooting, others don't. I value a fast acting

camera to capture the moment, and the MKIII is the fastest I've ever used. Others don't

need that kind of speed. I personally like a sealed camera for shooting on beaches and

near the water as well as in the snow or rain. I like the sensor cleaning feature of the MKIII

because I swap prime lenses frequently, others leave their zoom lens on the camera. But

most of all I'll take any amount of high ISO advantage I can get because of the way I like to

shoot ... and the MKIII is the best high ISO camera I've yet used.

So, it's all a matter of matching the camera to you, not the other way around. Best of luck

in your choice. Either one makes excellent images.

I like to use a car analogy:

"The 5D is like a BMW M6 or an Aston Martin Vanquish - but the 1D Mk. 3 is like a Formula 1 Car"

I've recently traded up from a 20D to the 1D Mk3 and all I can say is "it's the best move I've made in a long time" - it's responsiveness is un-freaking-believeable. With my EF 24-70 F2.8L USM, initital focus is about as fast as I can blink - and 10 frames per second is mind-blowing. As others have pointed out the ability to write to 2 cards at once is cheap insurance (especially considering the number of people who have been duped into buying fake flash cards recently, and High ISO performance of the 1D3 is at least a stop better than the 5D.

In terms of resolution there is nothing between the two - I regularly print A1 images from 8MB files - so A3 just isn't going to be an issue for you at 10 or 12 MP.

Biggest difference between the two is the fact that the 5D is full frame, and the 1D3 is 1.3 crop factor. For some, FF is a blessing - for others (myself included) it's a curse - it all depends on your requirements and lenses. Personally, I NEVER find myself needing more width than a 16mm lens on the 1D3 - but I'm always needing more reach - so for me, full frame is a curse, but your mileage may vary!

Cheers,

Colin

There are a huge number of photographers that do fantastic weddings on 30D & lower. If you are not going to larger sizes, I see no reason to switch other than ego.

Doug

Greg - what is it about the 30Ds that make them unsuitable for what you intend to do? If you can answer that, it will make the decision of if an upgrade is needed and to what camera easier. Also consider if the extra investment will make you more money, or if that cash would be better to have on hand while starting out or spent on other expenses or marketing.

I don't do photography as a business now, but I do run a small business and that's the measure I use to evaluate equipment purchases/upgrades. I remember that having cash-on-hand at the start was immensely beneficial. BTW, the reasons that previous posters wrote about their choice of cameras are definitely very valid, but answering 'what's wrong with the current gear?' is a good reality check to make sure you don't have camera buying addiction. :-)

Again thank you all for taking a time and answering;

Doug i believe that there are many photographers that take great photos even with Nikon D70 that i had some time ago... the reason why i went for Canon was because of its high ISO performance... It's not that i "have camera buying addiction" that Nathan mentioned. Again i started seeing some limitations that my 30D has. I have taken some photos recently for 2 DJs; it was realy dark venue (and i doubt that any church is that dark), so i used ISO 800 for most of them, most of them were taken with flash and in manual mode, and what i noticed is a lot of reddish grain and what's strange i missed focus on plenty of photos (that surprised me because i rarely missfocus when using ISO 100 in normal conditions); i know that when it's really dark any camera will have similar problem but it kind of put me off. and for the end i noticed some kind of banding on half of the photos (you can have a look in my portfolio at folder "homework - DJs"). i know it was reported with 5D also... so i believe i'm looking for better AF performance which i heard/read that both cameras have and better high ISO performance. i really don't mind 10 fps - 5 fps from 30D is plenty for me as i don't do sport photography. now when i think about that, saving photos to two cards simultaneously is nice feature as well and as Colin said it's cheap insurance... so i think i'll be buying 1D...

thanks guys for help.

regards. greg

Greg, I think you will find that either camera will give you marginal performance boost in both higher speed, less grain and better focs. Actually, there are some valid focus tests showing real problems with the MK3 focus at 2.8 under different lighting situations.

A lot depends upon what lens you were using. Perhaps (not knowing what you own) you may be better investing in better glass.

Doug

"If you are not going to larger sizes, I see no reason to switch other than ego."

I agree that many fine images have been made on a broad range of cameras. Selecting

features against personal criteria doesn't seem to be ego, it seems to be intelligent choice.

Greg appears to have determined his criteria and is seeking an intelligent solution.

"I think you will find that either camera will give you marginal performance boost in both

higher speed, less grain and better focus."

Depends on what you define as "marginal". I don't find it marginal at all, but that's just

based on having used both. Greg seems to have a handle on his expanded requirements

based on actual shooting situations. That should be his guide.

"Actually, there are some valid focus tests showing real problems with the MK3 focus at

2.8 under different lighting situations."

For some, but not all... including mine. But it's best to test any gear when you first get it.

Doug, i'm fully aware of the focusing problem on 1D MK III, but it's not a first time that i'm buying camera, and honestly i wouldn't buy camera without testing that before - especially when it has to be something i'll be using almost every day for next couple of years. I know as well that not all the cameras on the market have the problem and what's more, most of the people that reported the problem are sport photogs. As you can see above Marc is really happy with his 1D...

You say i should invest in better glass, but i already have good glass - just so you know now, that's full list of that:

EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS,

EF 17-40mm f4.0,

EF 50mm f1.4,

EF 85mm f1.8,

EF 135mm f2.0L,

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG Macro (i don't really like it, but for the price it serves me well)...

and i'm gonna get either EF 16-35mm f2.8 MK II, or EF 24-70mm f2.8 when i'll be buying new camera...

So as you can see i don't really need anything else for the job i'll be doing...

as for those shots of the "homework" djs, i used 17-55mm and 85mm.

for now i'm thinkin it's gonna be 1D...

Doug anyway thanks a lot for your help; it looks like you know what it's all about and i do respect your approach.

Marc thank you as well for that "defence" :) i like a lot photos in your folder, and it's great finally to see someone who has real life experience with hasselblad h3d... and "no" i don't wanna go for it :)