gordon_kraeger1 Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Disregarding variables (price, condition, etc.) which camera would serve the needs for usual needs of photographer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_brenizer Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 They're totally different cameras with very different advantages. One will be better for some, one for others, and many would best be served by having both. A similar question would be, "Which is a better tool, a hammer or a screwdriver?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernando lopez Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 "which camera would serve the needs for usual needs of photographer?" A photographer in essence takes a picture of something. Well, a cheap instant camera does that. So there you have your answer. If you ask these questions, I'm not sure if you'd merit a 5D or EOS 1D MkII.... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernando lopez Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Go choose another hobby...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingnut Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 It sure is nice that all photographer's aren't elitist blow hards. No judgemental 'artists' with waver-thin egos here. Gordan, IMO (and let everyone rain derision down on me) both cameras have merit. To be sure, the cost alone assumes that you are either serious, or a professional. The 1D is definately a 'professional' level camera - and by that I mean it is ruggedly built and sealed fairly well against the elements. However, it does not have a full-frame sensor, and the resolution is 'only' 8meg. The 5D (which I have not actually used, to be fair), does have full frame, and shoots at 12 meg I believe. But, it does not have the same degree of toughness as the 1D. Both would do the job of course, but you have to think about how and where you shoot. I have the 1D and use it extensively. It is a great camera, but I cannot vouch personally for the 5D. There have been some hands-on threads around I think. Just make sure that you bow especially low if you meet Leon on the street, he'll be the one with the crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Both will serve the usual needs of a photographer quite well. which is better for you will depend on what you are photographing and the way you like to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Like I said, "If you can find a used (4MP and Sept. 2001) 1D for under $500 then go for it; otherwise there is no comparison between it and the high-ISO, noise-free 12MP 5D. You are comparing apples and oranges." Or else, do more homework and this is a silly ultra-basic question that ULIMATELY cannot be answered (until you do some basic homework and then re-ask the question). However the 1DMkII and the 5D are closer -- have more in common, e.g., the same sensor *pixel* size. The 1D is not even worth considering. Canon 1-series are FULLY PRO bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socke Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Gordon, I own a D60 myself and have access to 1D MkI and MkII as well as 10d and 20d and EOS 3 and EOS 1. I bought the D60 for that reason, lots of accessories I can borrow from my professional friends :-) So what do I want/need? First of all, I want a big and bright viewfinder as that in my Contax RTS and not worse than the one in my Contax 167MT. In this regard the two digit Canon bodys fail, but it is not that bad as long as you don't use a 1 digit Canon or any old film SLR. Believe it or not, six megapixels are good enough for me, eight would be nice and more won't make a difference. When I first tried the 20d I was amazed by the AF speed especialy in low light, without AF assist it beats my D60 with the AF assist from the flash. Then I got a 1D MkII in my hands and the viewfinder is so much better than that of the 20d that I couldn't get it out of my head :-) I don't care for 45 focus points or 8.5 fps, but the viewfinder! So at the moment I saved nearly enough for a 1D MkII and the 5D appears on the scene. Big viewfinder with exchangeable screens and suitable to use my manual Zeiss Glass, the 28 Distagon is a wideangle and the 35 is a medium wide and my Planar 50 is a normal. So the 5d is what I want. But I seldom shoot anything longer than 85mm and very seldom do I want more than 3fps. And if needed I can borrow a 1D MkII with a 400/2.8 plus TC 1.4 and TC 2 as long as there is not a motorsports event :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxdonny Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Like many people have said those are two different cameras. My wild guess is if you DO NOT know the differences between them, I think you'd be better off with 5D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now