5D or 1D MkIIN

[julian_page]

I will be looking at a new purchase early 2006. I have looked

through these forums and others most of which have been a great

help. One particular thread was on the very same subject, but did

not really answer my questions. I have spent a lot of time

researching these two cameras and what they have to offer. I have

also approached it from a bottom up perspective, What sort of

Photography? etc. Trouble is I want it ALL. After great deliberation

it appears to come down to quality so. Is there anywhere I can get

two identical test images taken with the 5D and the 1D MkII N, using

the same lens in the same conditions (Equivelant Focal length). So I

can have them printed at A1 and make my mind up.

[conraderb]

Julian - do you normally print at large sizes? Unless you print at large size - and I mean larger than 20x30 inches - I suggest that choosing these cameras is not goign to be a matter of print quality. The 20D can make a lovely print at 20x30, from what I have seen.

[barry_books]

I'm trying to decide between these two also. A1 is pretty big so the 5D might have an advantage. I only print to A3. I'm assuming the 1D has better auto focus so my question is would 8meg sharp pixels beat out 12 meg of slighty fuzzy pixels. My guess is the 5d is better on a tripod and the 1d is better hand held. I'd welcome any comments on that.

 

The 5d is nice because it's smaller.

[james_symington1]

I have both a 5D and 1Ds MkII (sorry, no experience with the 1D)and I cannot tell the difference between A3 prints made with these cameras i.e. pretty amazing. If you want image quality above all than the 5D will obviously win; you will simply be able to print bigger using that than the 1D. However if printing to A3 is as big as you will print then you may find a 20D is all the camera you need. Depends what you want to shoot as well - if speed is important then the 1D has a huge advantage. The robustness of the 1 series is also an advantage but it does also mean that you have to lug around a huge camera too. It really depends what sort of shooting you do.

[james_symington1]

Barry,

 

One thing I might add is that I am sure both the 5D and the 1D focus as accurately as each other (I've had no problems whatsoever with the 5D) it's just that the 1D, I am sure based on its intended customers, focusses faster. Slight distinction I'll grant you but an important one.

 

All the best,

 

James

[digitmstr]

Congratulations! You are the 1000nd poster this month to ask this question. You win a free SEARCH to the countless previous posts on this subject.

<p>

Here are a few:

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EWd4&tag=>1</a>

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DlIF&tag=>2</a>

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DgaH&tag=>3</a>

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DdDK&tag=>4</a>

<p>

[mike_smith2]

Mercedes 250 SLK or Mercedes 300CDi saloon - both same price........ both same manufacturer, different purposes and market

[mark_chappell]

<I>. Is there anywhere I can get two identical test images taken with the 5D and the 1D

MkII N, using the same lens in the same conditions (Equivelant Focal length). So I can have

them printed at A1 and make my mind up.</i><P>

 

This is silly, frankly. Using equivalent focal lengths you will get two different fields of view

-- the 5D image will show about 70% more area. If you shoot at equivalent fields of view

(so the pictures look the same), the 5D image will have 70% more pixels and therefore will

be better (assuming you're using good lenses on both).<P>

 

These are two very different beasts. Get the 5D if you want maximum detail, are a little

careful about using the camera in wet or otherwise unfriendly environmental conditions,

and are willing to work slowly -- at least, slowly

relative to the 1DII, whose purpose in life is very fast AF, rapid responsiveness, very high

frame rates (about 8

frames/second instead of about 3 frames/second on the 5D), and very rugged

construction.

[barry_books]

James,

 

I shoot for fun but pay for my equipment with photo shoots for my wifes graphic design business. Most of that is environmental portraits. Currently I use a D30 which has all the resolution I need but does not auto focus well most places I shoot. Also the 1.6 crop factor gives me more DOF than I would like even with a 24-70 2.8. Fast primes are not an option because there is not really time to swap lenses. The DOF issue make me think a 20D would not be an upgrade. I'd prefer the 5d because it's smaller, cheaper and FF (even less DOF), but in the end I'd give that up if the 1D MKII gives me more in focus frames. I would just rent one but that does not really seem to be an option. I guess my question is since you have both does the 5D handle well enough compared to the 1DMII.

[grant g]

Since you have a D30, and presumably the dual charger that came with it...I'd throw in compatability with the 511 style batteries a plus for the 5D.

 

Regardless, I think that unless you primarily shoot sports or birds in flight that the 5D is the obvious choice.

[snakeroot]

Just sold my 20D on photo.net to another subscriber, and considered upgrading to the 5D. Instead I'm going with the 1Ds MarkII, mainly because of weather-proofing and rugged build. L Series lens combos with the MarkII just too appealing for me.

 

A little worried about the heft, but I'll deal with it. The camera arrives tomorrow with the 24-105 mm F4/L Series lens....hope the damn tracking number turns out correct!

[rwhillman]

"Regardless, I think that unless you primarily shoot sports or birds in flight that the 5D is the obvious choice."

 

The 20D might be an even better choice for sports and birds because of the 1.6x crop factor, not to mention the price. Bob

[mark_chappell]

<I>The 20D might be an even better choice for sports and birds because of the 1.6x crop

factor, not to mention the price. Bob</i><P>

 

The 1.6X crop factor is a help, but the frame rate and AF performance -- both very important

for fast-moving sports and flying birds -- are not up to 1DII standards.

[rwhillman]

"The 1.6X crop factor is a help, but the frame rate and AF performance -- both very important for fast-moving sports and flying birds -- are not up to 1DII standards."

 

Mark -- Yes, but I was responding to John's comment on the 5D. As between the IDII and the 20D for bird work, I would take the IDII. But not the 5D. Bob

[julian_page]

Thank you all for your contributions. My wish to print at A1 would be only for reason of comparison. As I am old school, normally I would be sticking to 20X16 (inches that is)but would need to allow for some croping etc.

 

Giampi

 

Thank you for the links to the other threads, a couple I have already been to, but nowhere can I find links to images of a test chart taken by these cameras.

 

Mark

 

Good point about equivelance in focal length and field of view, (and I though I had though of everything). However, have you seen such a comparison made or do you know where i might find such information, would going to Canon direct help?

 

Michael,

 

Enjoy your Xmas present. Hope it arrives OK. Thanks for your input.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Good point about equivelance in focal length and field of view, (and I though I had

though of everything). However, have you seen such a comparison made or do you know

where i might find such information, would going to Canon direct help?</i><P>

 

At equivalent FOV for the 5D and the 1DII, you would have to use different focal lengths,

or to get an equal-sized image of a subject, change position with respect to the target. So

it's not ever going to be a perfectly direct

comparison. And there are other things to consider, such as the fact that unlike the 5D,

the 1DII effectively crops out the outer edge of the image circle where most lenses are not

performing at their best. But assuming you used an excellent lens at one of its better

apertures, and you matched the image size of your subject on the two cameras by moving

farther away with the 1DII, you'll end up with roughly 65% more pixels in the 5D image.

Hence, the 5D would give better results (I'm assuming good exposure for both, and rough

equivalence of digital noise, etc.).<P>

 

But the larger number of pixels in a 5D image is not useful if a fast-moving subject isn't in

focus, or your couldn't shoot fast enough to get the desired sequence, or you have to work

in a dripping wet environment that dampens and ruins the camera. Under those

challenging conditions, the higher frame rate, greater ruggedness and weather-sealing,

and better AF of the 1DII would produce the

'better' image. Which is the most appropriate camera is <B>HIGHLY</b> dependent on

how you

intend to use it.

[barry_books]

Just discoverd I can rent a 5D and 1Ds here in Austin. I suspect the 1Ds is not quite the same as the 1DMII but I think the comparison will be good enough.

[fxdonny]

I don't think I ever saw comparison prints from both cameras, however, you might consider asking help from some folks here or other forums who have both cameras to shoot with both cameras and email/send those hi-res files to you, and you can print them yourself to see their differences.

 

My opinion is, unless you need a weather sealing body 8 fps, you'd be most likely better off with 5D. People who buy 1D usually know what they're getting or they feel they need those features that is available on 1D series. Me? I got turned off by the bulky size of 1D series.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Just discoverd I can rent a 5D and 1Ds here in Austin. I suspect the 1Ds is not quite the

same as the 1DMII but I think the comparison will be good enough.</i><P>

 

No, the 1Ds and the 1DMII are <B>completely</b> different in many ways:<P>

 

1DII: 8.2 megapixels in a 1.3 crop factor sensor, > 8 frames/second<BR>

1Ds: 11 megapixels (or 16.7 in a 1DsII) in a full-frame sensor, 4 frames/second

[barry_books]

The only feature that interests me is the 45 point auto focus. The current crop of 1 series cameras have it and the rest don't. I do a lot of selective focus with groups of 3 or 4 people indoors. The D30 has too many things working against it to have a high hit rate. The 20D does not improve on the D30 enough to be an upgrade for me and I was about the get a 1DMKII when the 5D came out. If the 5D had 45 focus points the choice would be easy. I know a good shot with the 5D will be better since it's full frame and I'm stuck with f2.8, but will I get the good shot often enough.

 

Maybe it's time to haul out the manual focus Nikon, push some color neg file, scan it and call it art. Nay I think there is a photoshop filter that does that.

[mark_chappell]

<I>If the 5D had 45 focus points the choice would be easy</i><P>

 

Keep in mind where those 45 points are on a 1-series camera: in a rather tight cluster in the

middle of the frame. I have a 1DII and very, very rarely do I fine-tune my AF point to the

extent that's possible. For shooting a roomful of people, I think you'd do about as well with a

20D or a 5D, at least in terms of selecting useful AF points.

[digitmstr]

I do miss the 45 point AF of my old EOS 3 and 1v but, mainly because they worked great with ECF on he EOS3. That's the feature I'd like to see back, ECF!

 

And, the one thing I EALLY do NOT like on the 5D is that it is NO longer possible to assign a CUSTOM FEL button! Also, I would prefer if the joystick could be used for BOTH selecting AND activating AF.

 

But, I am still very, very happy about the camera and the image quality is outstanding!