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

[William Michael]

> Regarding my current Tamron 17-50, I guess it would indeed work as a 17mm on the 5D? <

 

I understand this Tamron lens throws an image circle to suit the APS-C sensor.

 

In this regard even though the Tamron 17 to 50F2.8 will mount on the 5D, the image will have a vignette, and I expect a severe vignette, at all Focal Lengths.

 

WW

[William Michael]

> You will never tell the difference between images at 11x14 from these two sensors (being the 5D and the 350D) <

 

I think one might notice a difference at ISO `H`; ISO1600 and perhaps even ISO800: granted ISO `H` is a bit unfair, but a point to consider, nonetheless.

 

WW

[Landrum Kelly]

"I'd pick the Mk2 without hesitation."

 

I would agree with this. I inadvertently put in a winning big of $4500 on eBay for a new 1Ds Mark II back in January--inadvertent only in the sense that I had no idea that my bid (the first and only one) would suffice to win a new camera--the Mark III had not been out too long. I found myself in the position of having two FF Canons, and the Mark II wins on image quality, but not by as much as one might expect:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/page28.asp

 

The differences are even less obvious when comparing RAW files, as can be seen on the same site a few pages later.

 

The Mark II does have other advantages, of course, including durability and weather-sealing, among others.

 

The question in my mind is what is going to happen with the new version of the 5D. My guess is that, at least in terms of IQ, it is going to be well ahead of both, not to mention shooting speed as well as (possibly) shooting at higher ISO.

 

In any case, the 1Ds II was announced in 2004 and the 5D in 2005. It seems almost inevitable that Canon is going to come out in 2008 with something below the 1Ds III that is going to be a significant improvement over both the 5D and the 1Ds II in terms of image quality. That is my only reason for recommending holding off on purchasing either the 5D or 1Ds II at this point.

 

As for myself, I cannot see myself hanging onto two FF Canons at this point, if only because of financial reasons. I like them both, but as an amateur who does not get to shoot as much as he wants, I simply cannot justify both: I ordered CanCount a couple of weeks back and confirmed that the 1Ds II only had about 1500 shutter actuations. It is hard to justify the expense when one is not using it.

 

--Lannie

[maylis_curie]

William, here are some answers!

 

> Regarding my current Tamron 17-50, I guess it would indeed work as a 17mm on the 5D? <

 

>I understand this Tamron lens throws an image circle to suit the APS-C sensor.

 

In this regard even though the Tamron 17 to 50F2.8 will mount on the 5D, the image will have a vignette, and I expect

a severe vignette, at all Focal Lengths. <

 

Grrrrr... that's annoying! I didn't know they weren't meant for full frame!

 

William, thank you so much for your long reply and your advice. The image you crpped was indeed taken with the kit

lens, and that sensor of mine had indeed a big spot on it that I hadn't noticed at the time (grrrr again - fortunately I

now know how to clean sensors!).

 

And to answer your questions...

 

5. What file size / quality are you capturing?

Either the largest Jpeg or raw.

 

6. What enhancing / sharpening are you doing?

I usually do "sharpen edges" in photoshop elements.

I also boost the colors and/or contrast a little, but usually just by 3 or 4%,

I also have the 350D set on a setting that enhances colors.

 

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

errrr.... yes, I do tend to do that and I know I shouldn't...

[bw1664881174]

Did not read all the above...landscape with the 5D would give you the a wider shot, so your not always using the 24mm end of the lens.

[William Michael]

Maylis:

 

You are welcome. I think it is important to make decisions for the correct reasons: the whole thread has provided you with a lot more information to work with now, and many different ways to look at things.

 

I think you would do better in resultant IQ and Post Production using RAW all the time: even if you capture RAW + JPEG. If you want a quick JPEG image, you still have the RAW to do deeper tickling latter: (I am not sure if the 350D has that option, but I assume it would, in all the Creative modes.).

 

Also that removes the repetitive JPEG saves, and, more importantly gives you the RAW as the base rather than to work from a JPEG as the original, on which has Camera has already placed enhancements: ``I also have the 350D set on a setting that enhances colors``.

 

These camera JPEG enhancements might be nice for many of your images, but it is counterproductive in my mind to assume one set of camera JPEG enhancement will fit all your work . . . there will be times when you are wanting to undo part of what the camera was doing, if you get my meaning.

 

Good luck with the final decision and take lots of pictures in Alaska: take heaps of memory or some system to store the files on.

 

WW

[yinkamd]

I just got a 5D and have absolutely NO regrets. Don't get bogged down by techno-lust. The image quality difference is simply amazing!

[mendel_leisk]

You should also consider the 24-70, as an alternate to the 24-105. Both lens have their strengths, but ultimately the 24-70 is the superior lens, imho. Don't fall into the "and I'll get the 24-105 with that" reflex, without at least thinking it over. Also, ask yourself, why are they always selling the 24-105 at a deep discount, bundled with the 5D?