5D or used 1Ds Mk I or used 1D Mk II?

[maylis_curie]

Hello everyone,

 

I am new to this forum and I currently own a 350D (I've had it for over 2 years).

I would LOVE to see better images come out of my camera, and so have decided to upgrade. I also need to do it

soon as I'm off to Alaska in less than a month and plan on taking lots of photos there!

 

After thinking that I would go for a 5D with a 24-105 IS USM L lens, I also realised that, for about the same price, I

could get a used 1Ds Mk I or a used 1D Mk II, and buy a brand new 24-105 separately.

 

The bottom line is... which option should I go for? My goal is very sharp pics, very good color rendering, in a word

something that makes pictures that really look professional. I mostly do landscapes and candid portraits.

 

So...

-A brand new 5D with a brand new 24-105?

-A used 1Ds Mk I with a brand new 24-105?

-A used 1D Mk II with a brand new 24-105?

 

Many many thanks for your input in advance! I'm lost as to what to order!

 

May

[leopoldstotch]

<p><i>"My goal is very sharp pics, very good color rendering, in a word something that makes pictures that really look professional"</i></p>

<p>Those are all mostly a function of the lens, not so much the body. Since all 3 involve buying a 24-105, it may be best if you got the 24-105 and use it with your 30 to see if it can help you get the results you're looking for. Then after using the 24-105 for a while consider a new body.</p>

[apetty]

I was going to say pretty much the same thing as Leopold.

 

Stick with your 350d for the vacation. A new camera takes time to get used to. A month may not be enough. It

would be bad to see a good shot disappear while your trying to find the right setting.

[jonathan_b]

I went from a 350 with non-L lens to a 40D with the 24-70 L, and am extremely pleased with the improved IQ.

[apetty]

I thikn an upgrade would be great, I'm just not sure it would help on a vacation in less than a month. Unless you

spent the rest of the month learning how to use it. In which case, you get more time off then I do and I am

jealous for your trip and your time off. :)

[maylis_curie]

Ok, that's interesting! I hadn't really considered doing that...

Only problem if I buy the lens first is that the 5D I am considering is sold with the 24-105, and would cost quite a bit

more if I bought the 2 separately... :-(

[maylis_curie]

Oh, and for info, the lens I use right now is a Tamron 17-50, which I got after seeing how crap the kit lens was on the 350!

[apetty]

You could rent the lens for hte trip and see how it works. There are a few places on line you could do that as well

[maylis_curie]

Thanks a lot for the suggestions, but if you HAD to go for one of the options I am suggesting, which one would give me the best results do you think? (I know it's not an easy question in any way!)

[tdigi]

Getting better photos is probably more about you then your gear. the Tamron 17-50 is a pretty good and where it lacks is

more in the build and focus speed then its over all image quality. I think a lens upgrade to the 24-105 would not be

significant if at all in terms of photo quality. Now after saying all that I can honestly say the 24-105 is a wonderful lens, I

own it and I think for your trip it would make a great lens choice but don't feel a new body will produce amazing photos.

Its you that will make them and you can do it with your current body.

 

Why not keep your current setup and just ad the 24-105 to it? I love the 24-105 on my 40D but I also owned the Tamron

28-75 2.8 which is similar to your 17-50. The 17-50 is much smaller, lighter and faster then the 24-105.

 

Good luck

[lmwalker]

I can't offer an opinon on a 5D versus the other two options because I have never used any of the 1D models, but I can say that the 5D+24-105L is a perfect combo that I use more than anything else. And I really think that you will find the 24-105L gives the best results and most flexibility because the wide end of this lens really shines on a full frame camera. For most landscape/cityscape/travel photography the 24-105L on a 5D or a 1Ds Mk? is the perfect combination.

[photo_dark]

A better camera won't make your images more 'professional' in the truest sense of the word, however, the 5D paired with a good quality lens (such as the 24-105) will certainly give you somewhat sharper images with better color rendering, if used correctly. If you are positive you want to upgrade, for the money, you would probably be better off with the 5D instead of the 1Ds Mk I or 1Ds Mk II.

 

For walk-around candid portraits or hiking/landscape photography, i'll often just bring my rebel/350D and my 17-40 instead of my higher quality 40D just because it is so much lighter in a backpack.

 

Also, based on a full frame camera and portrait/landscape work being your primary subjects, you may want to consider another lens combination such as the 17-40L / 85 1.8 . the 17-40L gives you a true ultra-wide angle lens for sweeping landscape shots, and the 85 1.8 is a fantastic portrait lens. You can probably pick up that combination for less than $1000 quite easily.

 

Also, you may want to consider holding off until the 5D replacement is announced. Not only is it another option, but there will probably be a flood of used 5D's on the market shortly after, dropping the prices somewhat which will give you a little more wiggle room when choosing a suitable lens.

[maylis_curie]

Yes, maybe I should indeed buy the 24-105 first and see if it improves things. I just thought that a full size sensor may give me some extra quality?

My photos are actually pretty good with the Tamron, but I feel that an extra 'boost' (whether coming from a new lens, or a new body, or both) would make them look really pro, if you see what I mean.

I actually have a site with quite a few images, most of them taken with the Tamron lens and my 350D:

http://maylisphotography.my-expressions.com

I just want them to look even better than that!

[tdigi]

I agree with holding off on the 5D. I know you save a bit on the lens with the camera but in the long run that camera will go

down in price since a replacement is on the way. Having a 40D thats what I did. Now keep in mind its not that wide on a

350D so that is something you may want to consider as well.

[maylis_curie]

Or, what about I buy the lens now, and the new 5D when it comes out? That could be an option worth exploring... Surely they're going to have it out before Christmas?

[aubreyp]

I think your work is really solid. I don't see a 5D being the missing piece. The 5D and 24-105 wouldn't necessarily give you a different perspective or more speed than what you already have, since effectively you're using a 27-80mm with the Tamron.

 

I would suggest getting a lens that is a little more interesting and forces you to think in a different way. Perhaps the 85mm f1.8 or maybe a 45 TS-E or Lens Baby. Anything that causes you have to revisit your process and change your assumptions on how to make photographs.

 

All that said, the 5D is a stellar camera and a pleasure to use. I think I would give myself more than a month with a new body to get used to it, though.

[peter_langfelder]

5D or used 1Ds Mk I or used 1D Mk II? For a trip to Alaska, of those 3 definitely the 5D, unless you plan to shoot in a lot of rain. It has arguably the best image quality and is lightest and smallest. As others have said though, professional looking pictures take more than just a professional camera; the most important factors are lens, technique and postprocessing.

[digitmstr]

5D is THE answer. No sense in getting any of the other bodies unless you plan in shooting in very inclement weather most of the time.

 

But, a 5D without lenses to match won't give you better pictures thus, if you have a limited budget, get BETTER lenses and keep the camera you have.

[John Crowe]

I recommend the 5D. It will be faster and easier to use than the 1Ds. The sensor of the 1DII cannot compete with newer cheaper cameras. You could also consider a used 5D since a new one will lose much more value when the replacement comes out.

 

 

If you are happy with the 17-50 then I would skip the 24-105. It overlaps too much with your current lens and you can get better image quality. I suggest the Canon EF 70-200/4 L or Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L. The f4 L will be much lighter if you don't need the extra speed of the f2.8. You will not miss the focal lengths between 50 and 70.

 

 

You can learn enough about the camera in one week-end to get you through the trip. Worry about the extra abilities that the camera has later on. Don't forget that you will need more memory as well since the files are larger than your current camera.

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

We all talk about lens and body and almost forgot your trip to Alaska.

 

I'd go for newer techno and suggest the 40D and the 17-40 f4.

The 17-40 is a "bit" shorter than the 24-105 but is still a very good lens for general purpose on a 1.6x sensor.

 

The 40D is said to have the sam IQ as the 5D with newer techno.

The 40D will allow you to use your EF-S lenses that you may already have.

[William Michael]

> I'm off to Alaska in less than a month and plan on taking lots of photos there. . . after thinking that I would go for a

5D with a 24-105 IS USM L lens <

 

 

and

 

> My goal is very sharp pics, very good color rendering, in a word something that makes pictures that really look

professional. I mostly do landscapes and candid portraits. <

 

Well I think there are TWO distinct questions and they need to be separated. . . because IMO two issues are being

confused and you are looking for a same answer solution to solve both, and IMO that is heading for sorry and

pain . . .

 

***

 

> I'm off to Alaska in less than a month and plan on taking lots of photos there. . . after thinking that I would go for a

5D with a 24-105 IS USM L lens <

 

IMO that combination is an excellent light weight comprehensive choice for an Alaskan Trip: I have not been to

Alaska, but I have been to Antarctica and I would expect the conditions and the light to be similar.

 

I would also take a fast 50mm, for the budget`s sake perhaps you could squeeze the EF50mmF1.8MkII: I suggest

this

because you can use this lens at F2 and get two more stops (than the zoom) and it will be very useful for

lightscapes, (mentioned

also below) and also for low light candid portrait capture, which you mention you like.

 

***

 

However I sincerely believe the core issue of the question is addressed here:

 

> My goal is very sharp pics, very good color rendering, in a word something that makes pictures that really look

professional. I mostly do landscapes and candid portraits. <

 

Have you mastered the digital medium?

 

I do not think that simply getting another lens and / or camera is a very wise first step to get to your goal and I advise

against it i think you should first think the following points through and take a good look, from the outside, at what is

going on.

 

Reports on that Tamron Lens are good in those technical; aspects you mention: and these reports are in field from

those who use the lens for professional output and whose opinion I respect, search the Wedding Forum, you will find

the Tamron is used quite a bit by those held in some esteem..

 

 

AlsoTake a look at this:

 

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QC7m

 

Note my comments Jul 16, 2008; 10:46 p.m. and I especially suggest you apply my points below to your situation:

 

5. What file size / quality are you capturing?

 

6. What enhancing / sharpening are you doing?

 

7. Are you doing recurring JPEG saves of the files?

 

***

 

Then after addressing the above points look at you portfolio: I just did and I agree 100% with this comment: `` I think

your work is really solid.`` (AP)

 

Moreover I think Aubrey has the answer in the bag: ``I would suggest getting a lens that is a little more interesting

and forces you to think in a different way.``

 

***

 

I took a very early picture of yours (perhaps one that was made with the `kit lens` you discarded; and revisited the

thought of it and I came up with what is below.

 

All I did was crop it and increase the dynamic of tone a bit and add a touch of red to bring out the desert sand. The

crop got rid of three of the four spots too.

 

Now I know you didn`t ask for a critique, as such but I think, with your permission, this simple example goes to

make my point and to reinforce the point Aubrey was making . . . IMO the simple crop makes your image ``more

professional`` it has more dynamic to it.

 

It is very difficult to tell how sharp etc your image actually is, but what I can say the original of this:

 

[ http://www.photo.net/photo/7276581 ] is pretty bloody sharp and has good contrast and saturation

and was shot H.H. with the EF-S18 to 55F3.5 / F.5.6: 1/50 @ F3.5 @ 18mm on a 20D.

 

That image (of mine) was accurately exposed and then caressed in digital post production, and Post Production is

not something at which I am an expert.

 

***

 

I think your quest will be achieved by three steps:

 

. . The first, as Aubrey points out, revisit the way you think and see things and the way you approach your

photography. To do that a different TYPE of lens might FORCE you to do things differently, as an example: ``Using

(limiting oneself) to a Prime on when on Holiday does make one think about `how to` when faced with the wide not

being available`` here (Jul 21, 2008; 09:29 a.m.) http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QEPr And the

discussion on that thread should be of interest to you, also.

 

. . The second thing is to look at the post production, and if you are already expert in that area of sharpening,

tonality, dynamic etc (as mentioned difficult to tell on web size), then I do recommend you look at your framing /

cropping: with respect, and as an unsolicited comment, I think your portfolio would benefit by a bit of contrast `pump`

in some of the images and a creative cropping of many.

 

. . The third step to achieve your goal, IMO, is to address your use of light: I think you should step out and try more

adventurous lightscapes. I scanned many of the folders and only noticed one lightscape which popped out, the

Tunisian Sunset . . . all the rest of the images whilst showing diversity in subject and some diversity in approach, not

very many actually played with the light.

 

In this regard, if you wish to buy another tool, consider a fast prime, for example if people / portraiture is your bag

then look at a fast 50mm, (like the Canon F1.4 or F1.8) or on the other hand if you want a more a more `normal` view

have a look at the Sigma 30mm / f1.4.

 

With a fast lens you can wander through darker and dimmer areas without dropping into the noise of the higher ISO

like 800 and 1600 which are (more) noticeable on your 350D.

 

Also a good, fast prime lens from 30mm to 85mm will allow very good quality at F2 and allow you to play (creatively)

with Shallow Depth of Field, something also I noted was not abundant in you work.

 

 

***

 

The 5D is a great camera I own one: the 24 to 105 is a great lens, I have used one, and to take those to on your trip

would be a great idea.

 

But to address the real question you are asking the answer is NOT going to be got, by simply buying either or both,

IMO.

 

WW <div></div>

[maylis_curie]

Thank you so much everyone, the discussion has been really useful! And I am very very impressed with how quick your replies were!

Regarding my current Tamron 17-50, I guess it would indeed work as a 17mm on the 5D? I don't know what that 17mm translates as on my 350D actually... is it about 28mm?

[trebor_navilluso]

Maylis:

 

I think that extra "boost" you're looking for really comes from proper lighting and technique. The sensor on the 5D is larger than the one on the 350 but that only comes into play if you make huge enlargements. You will never tell the difference between images at 11x14 from these two sensors.

 

And the tamron lens you have has equal IQ to the 24-105. I've used both lenses and can say that with confidence. The main difference is AF speed, FTM focus and build quality/feel.

 

You don't need any more geer. Maybe a prime like the 50 1.8 or 50 1.4 for portraits. But other than that you'd be wasting money.

 

Instead, spend the next month learning about light, exposure, direct vs polarized reflection, diffuse light, fill flash ect. This will give you that boost more than throwing more gear at the situation.

[Landrum Kelly]

It sounds like you are quite open as to how much money you are ready to lay out. I should emphasize up front that, as far as lenses go, I like very wide angle for landscape shots--or at least a good wide angle zoom that gives you such an option.

 

As much as I like the 5D, I would perhaps (and I emphasize "perhaps") hold off until I saw what the next version of it is going to be. I would not buy the IDs II at this point unless you can get one with both moderately low shutter actuations and a low price (and getting both those in the same package is still difficult). The reason is that it came out four years ago and could be leap-frogged soon by cheaper, lighter cameras with new technology. It is also a heavy camera. (It is, however, a very good camera.)

 

If you are sure that you are going to go with a camera with a full-frame sensor, I would plan accordingly on lens selection. Getting really wide angle shots with the 350 is going to be a problem unless you buy an EF-S wide angle zoom, which I would definitely not recommend if you plan to move to full-frame.

 

I will say this for the 5D: it is light, it is relatively simple to operate, and it does give great image quality. I just hate to see people saying, "Gosh, if I had just waited two or three more months."

 

So. . . I would probably enjoy what I have for now in terms of the camera. Cameras will always get better, and good lenses will always be available. Although no one knows when the replacement for the 5D is coming, most persons think that it will be soon.

 

There is, however, one overarching fact that might tip the decision toward the 5D: you are going to Alaska and you want to shoot landscapes. That means that you do want something that can shoot wide--perhaps even wider than 24mm.

 

Maybe you might want to at least consider a really wide angle zoom that can be used on both the 350 as well as a full-frame camera. The Canon 16-35 f/2.8L is a great lens that could be used on the 350 and could then be used on whatever FF camera you choose to buy. So, if I were in your shoes, I would buy a good wide angle zoom that would work on both the 350 as well as full-frame. That means that I would probably hold off on a new camera right now--unless you have $8k and are willing to spring for the 1Ds III, which they say is darned near like shooting medium format.

 

I hope you get a lot of good pictures, in any case, and that the camera does not become the albatross that becomes a real burden to haul around when you should be having fun.

 

--Lannie

[christopher hartt dallas]

You can probably pick up a decent Mk 1 for $2K, but I'd be suspicious of a used Mk2 at that price. They're still hovering around $4K for reasonably good bodies. So, used Mk1 v new 5D - 5D wins. "midlife" Mk2 v new 5D - I'd pick the Mk2 without hesitation.