5D vs Mark II N?

[alexis_scherl]

hi all-

 

i have been shooting the 20D with the old 30D as a back-up. i'm upgrading to use the

20D as a backup. i'm sure this discussion has been posted already somewhere - is so, can

anyone point me to the relevant links? my search was not fruitful (dead links came up).

 

so, i'm having trouble deciding between the FF 5D and the Mark IIN. they are nearly

comparable in price, especially when you factor in the fact that you need to buy the battery

grip as an accessory to the 5D. so 5D = more pixels, full-frame. Mark IIN = solid metal

body, battery grip built in, only 1.3X conversion factor (so already better than 1.6X on

20D) plus it's faster and i understand you get more AF points.

 

i'm sure this is an involved philosophical discussion. any thoughts? has anyone shot both?

i do a lot of low-light photography so i'm especially interested in evalutation of this

feature. i hear the 5D is great at 1600 ISO (my normal shooting conditions).

 

i've seen comparsions between the 20D and 5D but none between the 5D and Mark IIN.

again, links would be appreciated!

 

 

thanks,

alexis scherl

 

flybutterphoto.com

[beauh44]

Hi Alexis, I would think it would just boil down to your priorites and shooting style. If your needs of a FF sensor (gets your wide-angle lenses back) and higher resolution outweigh the faster, 1.x crop and weather sealed 1DIIN. Of course there are a few other factors here and there (i.e. viewfinder differences, media supported etc, etc)

 

Do you like to print big? Seems like the 5D wins. Are you frustrated your wide lenses aren't all that wide on your 20D? Again, 5D. Or perhaps you like to shoot sports? 1DIIN. Or you're out in the elements a lot? Again, 1DIIN's weather sealing's nice and it's built like a tank. If you're a bird shooter with a long lens, the "crop factor" of the 1DIIN could be an advantage giving longer lenses a bit more "reach".

 

As for noise, I haven't compared anything but I'm sure the 1DIIN is no slouch at ISO 1600... I think both cameras have DigicII and products like Noise Ninja could level that playing field if there's a big difference. So the answer is it'll likely be a personal thing and will depend on what you're doing with your photography.

 

If it was me, I'd probably make a list of pros and cons of each and what might be a pro or con for one might be the opposite for another. Either way you'll get a nice camera though! ;-)

[mark_chappell]

Beau sums it up quite nicely, I think. They are very different cameras designed for very

different purposes.

[digitmstr]

>>i'm sure this is an involved philosophical discussion.<<

 

No, it's not! They are two totally different cameras (tools) desgined for different jobs. Only YOU and no one else, knows which of the two serves YOUR (unknown to us) purposes.

 

The only clue you have given us is that you do a lot of low-light photography. For that, ALL three cameras perform the same as far as noise is concerned. The 20, 1DII and 5D all have the same imaging engine and noise reduction alghorhythms therefore, their noise levels are virtually the same.

 

My suggestion would be that since you already have an 8mp 1.6 sensor your logical addition would be the 5D with a 13mp, FF sensor. If that makes sense to YOUR logic, it's up to you.

[chiswick_john]

"For that, ALL three cameras perform the same as far as noise is concerned. The 20, 1DII and 5D all have the same imaging engine and noise reduction alghorhythms therefore, their noise levels are virtually the same." - No way - the 5D is vastly better than the others at high ISO. Agree with you and Mark on the other point - they are not directly comparable.

[john_stark]

Alexis,

 

Shooting in low light is not a problem for the 1DMKII N, and from my experiance after shooting with a 5D one night the 1D MKII N was better noise wise at 1600 using the same lens on both bodies (Canon 70-200 USM IS f2.8). The guy who owned the 5D retuned it the next day and bought the MKII N after our real world test at a football game. The 5D is nice, but it is out performed in many areas by the 1D MKII N. If you need speed and a sealed body, go with the 1D MKII N. If you do a lot of work with flash, then go with the 1D MKII N and a 580EX, they are unbeatable! I do not know how long the 5D battery lasts but I can shoot forever on the MKII N with a single battery (generally I get a week out of one battery). The 580EX also uses batteries very sparingly.....fantastic combo there!

 

JS

[mendel_leisk]

The battery grip addition to the 5D is by no means mandatory.

[grant g]

And just to add to your decision making process, the 5D is now $2999.95 at B&H.

 

But like mentioned above, these are two totally different cameras and deciding which one is right for you should be easy. That's the 5D for me.

[alfarmer]

I own both bodies and agree that it really does depend on what you want/need to do. Unless you're going to shoot a lot of fast-moving subjects or shoot in rain, wind, or snow, I think the 5D is the way to go. But if any of those apply to you, you'll want the 1DM2-N.

 

ALF

[KenPapai]

<i>"Again, 1DIIN's weather sealing's nice and it's built like a tank. If you're a bird shooter with a long lens, the "crop factor" of the 1DIIN could be an advantage giving longer lenses a bit more "reach"."</i><p>

That's a moot point. The center 8MP of the 12.5 MP 5D frame is essentially the entire 1DM2 sensor. Crop factor is rendered meaningless in the comparision between these two bodies. Plus the 5D body is also an all metal one, just like the 10D.<p>

5D = wedding photogs and advanced amateurs with cash;<br>

1D = fulltime rugged sports and fashion photogs.

[steve_crist]

I think we're nearing the point of diminishing returns. Years ago I shot with medium format because it was better for enlargments than 35mm. And many years before that, the guys shooting sheet film would tell you medium format couldn't hold a candle to the larger format. I have a Canon 20D with 4 L lenses and a Canon Powershot G6 (a quality 7mp point and shoot). I've also been considering going to a 5D but every time I look at the 16x20's hanging on my wall shot hand-held with the G6 I have to stop and re-think (particularly when I compare shots taken with my 20D with other 16x20's on my wall shot with medium format years ago). Ego would say get the 1 series camera, but reality says if you're just a serious hobbyiest, the 20D will do just fine.

[john_jovic]

Apples and Oranges. Other than price and the Canon logo on the front, these camera are completely different. Decide what you want to do then look for the camera to suit.

 

JJ

[louie]

I agree with the others that this isn't a philosophical discussion at all - this is a very practical decision. My reason for choosing the 5D vs. any of the 1-series bodies is weight. Without the grip, the 5D is much lighter than the 1D Mark II and certainly more inconspicuous. If I had a need for a rugged, weather-sealed body with fast autofocus and a great frame rate, then I would have gone with the 1D Mark II.

 

From your website, it looks like your focus is Concert Photography - so lots of low light work. In general, I don't think there's a big difference between the two for your particular application. The weather sealing and ruggedness of the 1D Mark IIN isn't a big advantage for this sort of work. Although, I would still probably go with the 1D Mark IIN in your case simply because the autofocus is better and the high ISO performance of the 1D Mark IIN is pretty good.

[digitmstr]

>>No way - the 5D is vastly better than the others at high ISO.<<

 

I showed some pix taken at 3200 ISO and 1600 and was told that the 20D and 1DII had the same reponse. I only have the 5D so, I can't directly compare noise performance. IMO, my pictures were much less noisy than equivalent pix taken with the other two cameras.

 

So, that's another point in favor of the 5D.

 

With regard to noise, here's a host taken with the 5D set at ISO 3200 in a very dimly lit museum...<div></div>

[alexis_scherl]

wow, everyone, thanks so much for your responses. valuable points all around. it is

true that as i am not a sports/fashion photographer, the speed and heft of the MarkII

is not really the big concern (very much overkill for my purposes). i guess the biggest

sticking point for me is the 45-point autofocus versus the 6+9, and i presume this

would help me focus quickly in low light. is that correct?

 

the main focus of my work at the moment is party photography, but not the typical

flash photography that the 20D already does so well. i shoot with ambient light in

dance clubs where the strobe lights change every split second, so i routinely try to

focus in rapidly changing light (or very low ambient light), then shoot a series of 9

captures in order to get one where the lights are actually flashing on the subject. you

can see some examples of this at the link below if you're curious (these images are

mostly shot with the 20D, and a few even with the 30D - which was incredibly

frustrating! the 20D was such a major improvement in that it had the light-up focus

boxes). i guess the 5D is a major improvement already versus the 6-AF points of the

20D, since your getting the 9 'invisible' focus points, though i'm not really sure what

that means.

 

http://flybutterphoto.com/mofo_01.html

 

i'm gearing up for some serious shooting as i'm working on a documentary about this

particular party this year (hence the impetus - and $ - to get a much-needed second

body, as my 20D broke TWICE last year).

 

thanks again to everyone for your thoughful input!

 

alexis scherl

[grant g]

Seems for what you do...the 5D would be the obvious choice.

[wingell]

While I have had no experience with the MarkIIN, I have had a fair amount with the 10D and have had the 5D for about two months, using both on photojournalism jobs. The 5D's ease of handling is a big improvement over the 10D, and its performance at 1600 is superb. Check the photo of the child with her electronic toys on the front page of today's NYTimes. That image was shot at 1600 in difficult lighting with a 16-35 2.8. I had the 24-70 2.8 on the 10D and found it much more difficult to use in the low light.

[alexis_scherl]

bill-

 

that's very encouraging to hear! i think the low noise on the 5D will outweigh my

concerns about fewer AF points. plus, i'm very excited to have TWO bodies to shoot

with, meaning, no switching lenses and flash units anymore! i think i will keep my

slower zoom lens on the 20D with the flash unit + battery grip (which is the lens i

always use for flash anyway) and use my 50mm f/1.4 on the 5D for ambient light

photography. this will make my life so much easier - switching back and forth

between both setups was ridiculous, especially when shooting in unpredictable and

dynamic situations.

 

also, i have to admit that the new lower price on the 5D is too tempting to pass up!

 

thanks,

alexis

[jim_larson1]

The 5D sounds like an obvious choice. More MP. Newer. Cheaper.

 

The 1D-IIn is built for serious speed. It even sports two CPU units to speed up the AF system.

 

Besides speed, the "1" series has the "1" series AF system. Radically different from the 5D. Not just more AF points, but more High Precision AF points. That is a factor if you shoot fast (F2.8) glass.

 

Another factor is that the "1" series AF zones are smaller (I suspect). This could be important (I suspect) if you are working with truely fast (say, 85/1.2L) glass, glass where your subjects pupil is in the DOF, but the eyebrow is not.

[alexis_scherl]

yes, i would love the AF of the 1-series. i do in fact shoot only fast lenses - 2.8 and

1.4. so yeah, focus is an issue. but in any case truth be told, the light is so low often

that i'm shooting wide open with long exposures, so blur is going to happen, whether

it's from motion or from soft focus. fortunately it's an 'arty' enough project that blur

is part of my medium, i suppose. i just can't justify the markIIn just for the AF at this

time. maybe next upgrade.

[stewart_ross]

::: �From your website, it looks like your focus is Concert Photography - so lots of low light work. In general, I don't think there's a big difference between the two for your particular application. The weather sealing and ruggedness of the 1D Mark IIN isn't a big advantage for this sort of work. Although, I would still probably go with the 1D Mark IIN in your case simply because the autofocus is better and the high ISO performance of the 1D Mark IIN is pretty good.� :::

 

I�m sorry, I can�t help agreeing with the above statement. And disagreeing the fact that every keeps saying the 5D is the obvious choice! It�s not the obvious choice at all. The 5D has no AF assist unless you have an EX flash mounted. Also, Canon does not classed the 5D as a professional camera for three very good reasons; it�s an upgrade of the 20D (and anyone who has owned a 20D will know that they are not a professional camera! How many times did yours break down again!?!?), the lack of weather seals and the shutter has not been tested at all for durability and longevity. The 1Dn has be shutter tested to 200,000 cycles. I also use a 20D as a backup camera, and I�ve found the 1D Mark II to be vastly better with high ISO�s.

 

Cheers

Stew

[jim_larson1]

Even though I had early stated that the 5D was an obvious choice. . . .three monthes later I would be inclined to retract that statement.

 

The 5D is very nice. . .but it is essentially a 30D with a different sensor.

 

As stated above, the 1D-IIn sensor is an 8mp version of the 5D sensor (ie, same pixel spacing), but the body of the camera is completely different. Autofocus and weather sealing are vastly superior in the 1D-IIn. . .and that is what you pay for.