lee_anderson Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I use a 1D Print and Slide Film and love it, I will continue shooting slide and print film (primarily slide), Provia 400X is my film of choice. Indoors however, and just general use I need digital, as I like having both choices. So with that said, I need a digital to do it all: sports, landscapes, family pics. Etc. Is the Mark II worth the money? Is it that much better than 5D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lad_lueck Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 The 1Ds will have the AF to handle sports, but not the frame rate (neither will the 5D). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwaks Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 "general use"? Maybe you should consider the 40D. It sounds like you want to stick with film for your most serious projects. The 5D will soon be replaced by an upgrade soon. If money is a consideration I think the new 40D would probably serve you well. Otherwise wait for the reviews on the new 5D. Judging by the wording of your post the Mark II would be extreme overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 I agree with the suggestion above. Also, you could buy the 40D for sports and the 5D for landscape and still be well under the price of a 1DsII. If your preference is for 400 ISO films then the 1DsII would certainly be overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 "Is the Mark II worth the money?" Very much so. "Is it that much better than 5D?" It's professional quality - it's a hard thing to articulate and have that articulation come across as meaningful - you really have to spend some time with both to feel the difference (it's a bit like trying to compare a Toyota with a Lexus - both have an engine, 4* (or more doors) (* excluding 2 door coupe and 3 door hatchbacks - offer not available in all countries) and 4 wheels - and may appear equal on the surface - it's when you get to drive it you get to appreciate all the little things (like heated seats and rearward facing camera etc). Can't comment on which you need too much, but from what you've said, I'd be more inclined to look at the 1D3 or 40D (for speed, image quality, and 1D series advantages for the 1D3). Cheers, Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_s.3 Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 "it's a bit like trying to compare a Toyota with a Lexus" Colin - its easy to comapre a Toyota to a Lexus because a Lexus IS a Toyota. Lexus = Toyota just like Acura = Honda etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 "Colin - its easy to comapre a Toyota to a Lexus because a Lexus IS a Toyota. Lexus = Toyota just like Acura = Honda etc..." I probably chose a bad example. Although (I understand) that Lexus is the "luxury division" of Toyota, here in New Zealand we tend to think of them as being - more or less - different animals. For example, we'd call one a "Toyota Camry" and the other a Lexus LS430" - we wouldn't call it a "Toyota Lexus". Regardless, hopefully my point still got across. Cheers, Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_britt1 Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 "frame rate"... I've been shooting with a 5d and find that if you are shooting at the moment of peak action (as you should) then the frame rate is no big deal. i don't believe I've missed a shot and even when shooting continuous of a friends golf swing managed to get a good representation. Depends on what sport you are shooting. Exposing in a machine gun manner is really not the way to shoot sports... the moments after the peak action are the ones for the follow up motor drive. the 5d is a very good camera and exceptional for it's price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anson_ko Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 For general purpose, 5D is good enough and no focal length converison on your EF lenses. If you want 3+ frames per second, weather sealed, willing to spend 6-8k and weight is not an issue, get the 1ds2. To me weight is a big issue becase I carry the gears 8+ hours a day. One thing for sure is ppl admire you when you are using 1d series bodies because it looks pro. That feeling is priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Well, I now have both, as of two hours ago. Someone was selling a 1Ds Mark II on eBay BRAND NEW IN THE BOX, and I was poking around last week to find the reserve and wound up buying it for $4500! Nobody came in behind me and outbid me! Later I figured out the reason: the seller was selling from two states (CA and OH), only had seven feedbacks at the time, was selling it on a one-day listing, had only been on eBay since mid-November, had sold nothing of any real value, could have been in Singapore, and so nobody but this idiot wanted to risk bidding on it. Turns out the two addresses shipped from are in two states and are for two sisters, honest as the day is long. The camera is perfect, although I have yet to shoot it, but it clearly is brand new. Anybody want it? There are no scratches on the base for a tripod, and no sign that a lens has been mounted on it. It was packed well, and I have looked at it and it sparkles. It is definitely new, although I haven't tried it so I cannot absolutely verify the EXIF data as zero actuations of the shutter. The serial number is over 343,000, so I presume it is near the end of the run. (Okay, she gouged me on the shipping on overnight FedEx insured, but it still came in under $4700.) Is the IDs II better than the 5D? I haven't tried it yet, but, yes, the specs are definitely better. Do I need it? Not really. I will say that, unless you are going to be shooting in rainy or dusty conditions, the lack of weather-sealing on the 5D is not a big problem. Image quality is great. I love that camera. I have done quite well in fast action situations with 4 fps, and the noise level is way down at high ISO. How do I justify keeping both these cameras? I'm not a pro, just an amateur who loves to shoot. Which one would you guys get rid of? I could have started a new thread on this one, but the issue is really the same, so I will put these comments here. The issue is this: all things considered (including price), which one is better? (No simple answers, please.) --Lannie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Sorry. I think that the 5D shoots at only 3 fps, not 4. Still, that is not a problem with the work I do. --Lannie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Here's an image quality comparison: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-DSLR-Review-Comparison-Crops.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_s.3 Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Colin - of course your point got across. Just giving you a hard time :) 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