Is 1D Mark II a no brainer for me?

[jay_chadney]

Soon I may have the opportunity to buy a used Canon 1d Mark II for

$2500. Right now I have a full Bronica 6x6 setup, and a Sinar 4x5 with

one old lens. My current 35mm setup is an EOS 3, Canon 70-200/2.8,

300/4 and both TCs, Tokina 19-35, 28-70/2.8, and 100 macro. I scan

things with an Epson 2450 flatbed, and a Nikon Coolscan IV ED. I just

bought an Epson 1270 printer.

 

I shoot pretty much everything. I am not one to camp out and wait for

birds, although I would like to do it sometime for fun.. I have 3 kids

(1,5,9). I want to shoot them alot (growing up, soccer games, etc. I

am into landscapes, macro, travel, whatever. I have not developed a

niche yet. I have one small show right now, and my plan is to continue

to get my stuff out there in hopes of selling a print or two every

blue moon.

 

Re: selling all the 6x6 and the EOS 3 and maybe a few lenses to

finance the Mark II. Good idea? Wait? Get a 10d or 20d instead and be

just as happy? Keep the current setups and get good at scanning and

printing?

 

With the Mark II, do you have to use Neat Image or anything like that.

I use it now, and my prints look alot better for it, but they are

coming from a scanner. I do not need to print larger than the 13x19 my

printer will handle. If I want to go bigger, I will get proficient

with the 4x5.

 

Thoughts on the work involved, computer power needed, etc, in order to

get the Mark II images to best anything from 6x6 or 35mm film.

 

And, yes, I have done countless searches on the web, and have read

through tones of them.

 

Thanks for your input

[mark_chappell]

<I>With the Mark II, do you have to use Neat Image or anything like that.</i><P>

I have a Mk. II and I routinely use Neat Image. It can help a little, a lot, or not at all,

depending on the particular image and its tonality.<P>

 

<I>Thoughts on the work involved, computer power needed, etc, in order to get the Mark

II images to best anything from 6x6 or 35mm film.</i><P>

 

For any reasonably current computer, increased computer power (which I define here as

memory & processor capability) doesn't contribute much except speed (you get to the

same end point more quickly). There is definitely some work needed to process digital

images, but for a good image (well exposed, etc.) it can be done pretty much by rote

(some USM, Neat Image perhaps, and if you like, a saturation boost).<P>

 

I'd say that with the Mk. II, I've been able to 'best' any image I ever made with 35 mm slide

film (in terms of resolution, sharpness, tonal range). I would NOT expect it to 'best' what

an expert could get out of 6x6, but you can certainly make excellent 13 X 19 prints.

[basscheffers]

If you want to spend $2500 on a body, it's probably the best $2500 you can spend. Film is still great, but the results from any current 5MP and up DSLR these days are incredible - especialy compared to desktop scanning - and the workflow is so much faster and easier.

 

I just hung a 16x12" Frontier print from my E-1 on the wall. Up close of course you can tell it's digital, but from normal viewing distance you can't tell the difference between it and a similar size cibachrome from a 35mm piece of Velvia.

 

Unless you never actualy use them, I wouldn't sell any lenses if you actualy regularly use them; you'll probably just end up buying them again later.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Is 1D Mark II a no brainer for me?

 

Don't know what about you but it's certainly a no brainer for me. If I could find a used Canon 1D Mark II for $2500 and if it is in good condition, I'd get it in a heartbeat.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jbq]

If you think that the body will be in a good shape (i.e. will not have been abused), go for it. Don't forget that you are "only" paying $1000 less than you would for a new one.

[picturesque]

Get it if you can afford it without selling the Bronica system and the EOS 3. Film and digital are just different, not better than each other. You may find you prefer film for some things and may regret selling the gear.

 

As for the work involved and the computer power, depends on what you're used to now. Some people were already spending a lot of time in front of the computer before going digital so it hardly made a difference when they did. For some, it is a huge learning curve. Same with the computer--depends how old your computer system is. If it can run Photoshop CS2 without choking, you'd be OK for the time being, but know that you'll have to upgrade probably more often than if you didn't go digital.

[vivek iyer]

I have been using a D70 for a year now. It is 6.3 Mpix digicam, unlike the Canon digicam you are considering. Few weeks ago, I was looking at some of the slides from my 6x6 MF cameras and my full Bronica 645 set-up. The slides are far better compared to the digital images.

 

However, as pointed out above, the "work flow"(after you go through a routine of nosie reduction and other manipulations) is faster and it is quicker and cheaper to get the prints from a digicam as opposed to the ones from film cameras.

 

If you can buy the Canon digicam without sacrificing the MF set-up, do it. If you sell the Bronica (you will not get much for it, BTW) to finance the Mark II, you will feel very very very sorry for yourself after a few months.

[tri_tran3]

I would at least keep the EOS 3 as a backup or when you suddenly want to shoot with film. You won't get much anyway if you sell it.

Tri