1D mk3 (not Ds) vs 5D Mk 2

[bill_morrow1]

<p> What are advantages of the 1D over the 5D. It seems that the 10 fps would be<br>

a biggy and for sports. The 5D is FF, twice the megapixels, greater<br>

ISO range. It almost seems like the camera upgrade of choice from crop, if one were to wish.<br>

1Ds position in the food chain is obvious, and they are certainly selling enough 1D units to justify<br>

their existance. I'd just like to know what I'm missing. <br>

Thanks</p>

[igord]

<p>10 fps can be good for fashion and portrait (aka Lindbergh style).</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The 1D3 has faster AF, a 1.3x crop and much faster frame rates, the 5D II has much better high ISO performance, a much better screen and to my eyes slightly better colours (but the difference is small). In addition the 1D3 is better built, heavier and has multi spot metering. I would chose the 5D for general use, landscapes, weddings and portraits / indoors and the 1D for sports. That said I plan to use my 5D II to shoot ski racing and see how it performs both in AF and in video. Since I can get good results with an MF Canon F1N or T90 (which have only a slightly faster frame rate than the 5D) I have high hopes for it. I suspect that a DigixIV 1D4 is on its way in the next 12 months</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>The 5D2 is being marketed as a one-size-fits-all body. Like most things marketed as such, it has quite a few "warts". Landscape and portraits, sure, a pretty good body provided your landscapes aren't too demanding and you don't need weather sealing or the robust build.<br /> <br /> For Weddings, not a great camera. The frame rate and focus are slower, and the high megapixel RAW files will fill your cards, hard drive and workflow with unnecessary data. It is very rare for brides to order prints larger than 8x10/8x12. And on the rare occasion a larger print is needed, Genuine Fractals or Blow-Up software can take the image up to 8x larger at high quality. For action pics...well, how many WA actions pics have you ever seen. The 1D is superior with it's 1.3 crop.<br /> <br /> Like most whiz-bang 'one size fits all' gadgets sold to a mass market (think of the Ginzu knife demonstration at the State Fair here), there's even a "WOW" feature - mediocre video.<br /> <br /> The 5D is a fine camera for the suburban "landscape" photograher who might shoot a dozen weddings during the year. It's not a tool for professionals who demand performance in a more defined (narrower) performance parameter. Professional photographers aren't drooling over the video capabilities of the 5D. If they are - it's because a mfr is paying them to. You will see as many "professional" film makers using the 5D2 for its video as you will see professional photographers using the 5D2 for serious (non-wedding) photography. Because of its price point, hobbyist photographers extol its virtues to a near mythical level - like the original 5D.<br /> <br /> If you don't see any difference between the 5D2 and its (professional) big brothers, you don't need to spend the extra money.</p>

[igord]

<p>Christopher - before the digital revolution I was shooting weddings with mamiya RB - with no frame rate and no auto focus....... comparing 5D to mamiya is like comparing a horse car to a spaceship. I think that 5D is more then perfect for weddings!</p>

[bill_morrow1]

<p>Thanks for the feedback. I do realize better build quality, etc. I was ammused at the comment regarding video. I wouldn't use it either frankly, any more than I use Live View.<br>

I had a 5D (1) actually, and sold it. I did like the FF, but there were some other things on it<br>

that I did not <br>

The 1D reads very well in the reviews. Perhaps a weekend rental is the ticket. By the way, it's good to see someone else is as attached to their T90 as I am.<br>

Thanks all.....</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>I wouldnt say the 5D Mark II is alot better than the 1D3 in noise department. I did a comparison today and what I discovered was that the 5D uses alot of NR as default. Once it was turned off and I compared the 5DII with my 1D3, they were very close. The 5D was a bit better. But not so much to really wow someone. Oddly, the NR defaults do extremely well do give very clean images and not wipe all the detail. Now if you are coming from a 40D or older, yes, big difference. This camera makes amazing files at 6400 ISO. Even quite usable at the HI1 HI2 setting.</p>

<p>It has tons of resolution. I thought I would be very disappointed in my 1D3 once I looked at the same files shot with it and I was shocked to find that it recorded just about as much detail. Obviously not as much as the 5DII. Hard to tell because the same shot from the 5D was larger onscreen at 100% because of image size. I dont believe in resizing an image to make them match for comparison. The resized image always looks bad whether its uprezed or down rezed. I like to move in closer or further away to match the field of view. This way, the image has the same FOV, but the image has all that the sensor actually recorded when shot.</p>

<p>I dont own any primes other than the 501.8(blah). I did the testing with the 85 f1.2L at my local dealer. OH MY GOD this lens is sharp wide open. The detail that my 1D3 recorded using this lens was something I've never seen before. While I thought I might be needing more res., I discovered I need more primes! I use a 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L IS exclusivley. While good at 2.8, they usually leave you wanting more. This 85mm f1.2L delivers.</p>

<p>Yes the 5D MarkII would be a very ideal camera and recorded huge amounts of detail, but unless you are going to regularly print above 16x20 you dont need it. You need good primes. I was shocked at how much res I loose because of my zooms. That said, the 5D mark II is 1/2 the price of the 1D3 so unless you need fast AF and fast fps, the 5DII is the camera to scratch your every itch. I also compared it to the D3. Not even close. The D3 looks out of focus theres such a difference in these cameras. I used the 70-200 f2.8 from both systems to compare the two. I just might get a 5d2 for anything other than sport shooting. If you are a wedding photog, this thing is the ticket. The bride can get huge prints and the dress will have all the detail she paid for...even at ISO 6400 if needed.</p>

 

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Igor D, yes, in the "pre-digital" days a wedding photographer could shoot 40 MF prints and make a bride happy.<br /> <br /> The 'standard of practice' these days however is that 1500 to 2000 images is not uncommon for a wedding day shoot. Try doing that with your Mamiya. Or advertise that you shoot only 100 images for a wedding day and you'll achieve zero business at light speed.<br>

Coming from a Mamiya point of view for weddings, the 5D2 must seem like trading in old Nell for a horseless carriage...but check around, there are better alternatives in these modern times.</p>

[colin_james]

<p>"I would chose the 5D for general use, landscapes, weddings and portraits / indoors"</p>

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>Regardless of whether or not card failure has happened to you yet, it HAS happened to a LOT of photographers (myself included) - and it can happen to anyone at any time, no matter what precaution they may take to lessen the odds). One may argue that the chances of failure are small (and they'd of course be correct) - but the consequences if/when it does happen are darn serious. In light of this I would suggest that using a dual media camera - such as the 1D3 or 1Ds3 - is now "best practice" for these failure-is-not-an-option type events. For this reason alone I would suggest that anybody using a single-media camera - like a 5D2 - for weddings is playing russian roulette with their clients day and their reputation.</p>

<p>On another note, the AF for the 1D3 / 1Ds3 series is in a different league to that of the 5D2; 45 point -v- 15 point, not to mention that the 1D series actually have no less than 2 processors dedicated to autofocus (one to do the calculations and one to do the lens drive). The processors on the 1D3 series process 3 times as much information as the 1D2 series, and the 1D2 series is still streets ahead of the 5D2. What this means in low-light situations (eg most church weddings) is that the 1D3 series will probably be on it's 3rd accurately focused shot whilst the 5D2 is still trying to lock on to it's first.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to run down the 5D2, but people have to understand it's position in the Canon lineup. It's currently the undisputed king of the pro-sumer / advanced amateur line up - it's NOT a "superior replacement for the 1Ds3" - far from it.</p>

 

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em>"That said, the 5D mark II is 1/2 the price of the 1D3"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

<em>Visit us in the UK. They are both the same price here (the 5D2 is ridiculously expensive and the 1D3 is ridiculously cheap, but both are around £2100 GBP / $3000 USD each)</em></p>

[mvw photo]

<p>What Colin said.<br>

<br /> Also - I have a 5D and a 1D3 (and will get a 5D II as well) but in my opinion the 1D3 is the professional camera and the 5Ds are backup. Dual media, fast shutter, more focus points, better/more custom options: I will go with my 1D every time. 10 Mpixel is enough.<br>

<br /> (Small note: 10 fps is over-rated btw. I just got back from shooting two hockey games for the local newspaper. Great, so now I have 800 frames to look at (to select 20 to submit). Groan. :-) )<br>

<br /> Michael</p>

[terry_smith2]

<p>I saw the 1D3 on several price comparison websites in the UK with the lowest price being GBP 2235, so about USD 400 less than at B&H.<br>

I also found the 1D3 on the Golden Arrow Electronics website in the UK for USD 950 with a 1Ds3 at USD 1350! The name of the place is Golden Arrow Electronics in Poole. The problem is that the real Golden Arrow Electronics in Poole only deals with marine installations and has nothing to do with consumer electronics. The one selling non-existant cameras is a fraud.</p>

[mvw photo]

<p>I know someone will say it so I will.. if it <em>sounds</em> too good to be true it <em>is</em> too good to be true. I did a double take when I saw those prices and then within a millisecond knew "fraud" (or "broken rubbish", etc).. sham, as I would like another 1D3 or 1D23...</p>

<p> </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em>"I saw the 1D3 on several price comparison websites in the UK with the lowest price being GBP 2235, so about USD 400 less than at B&H."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I think this is the first time in history that something in the UK is cheaper than the identical item in the USA. Heaven knows why. We are so used to getting ripped off over here that a genuine bargain is often treated as a mistake. It is true, the 1D3 can be had for just over £2000 GBP in the UK. Having said that, the profit Canon are missing out on with the 1D3 will more than be recuperated with the ludicrous price of the 5D2. It doesn't seem too bad now that the British Pound has gone into freefall but when the 5D2 prices were first announced it was unbelievable. £2300 GBP over here and just $2600 USD over the pond at a time when the British Pound was worth nearly 2 dollars (which made the 5D2 almost $5000 to buy here). Now our pound is only worth about 1.4 dollars so it doesn't seem as bad.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Colin - i would not disagree with you on the single card issue. I do not shoot professionally these days and almost never did weddings. I was trying to point out the pros and cons. When asked to shoot freinds weddings I always take two bodies - one with the 24-70 and the other for either the 16-35 or 70-200. Since i had no idea if Bill was a wedding photographer I merely suggested the 5DII had a role in this area. The high ISO is phenomenal (although I am not happy to use either H1 or H2) and is useful indoors. I have now tried the video function in real life and it is quite good (better than a HD camcorder) but is time consuming as you need to pre-focus on a fixed point before you shoot as it is very difficult to use the live view screen and focus in real time. I do not think the focus issue is due to my ineptitude as I can shoot ski racing with Canon FD cameras. the real issue is that ergonomically it is hard to focus on a small screen with the camera in front of you and a moving target.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Just a thought on durability - how much do you really need on a digital camera with a 5 year life? This is not meant to denigrate the 1 series but more to question how much we really pay for and what do we get. In the days oof film we all used the F1 and may have had an A1 as a backup. My 1983 A1 still works perfectly, as do both of my T90s. If these cameras were digital they would have been obsolete long ago. While a film camera does not have the shutter release count of a digital camera mine have been subjected to hard use. I live in the Canadian rockies and mountaineer and ski with my cameras on a regular basis. While the 1 series will take more punishment the screen and electronics appear to be weak points. I have had an old F1N kicked about 800 feet down a scree slope and while cosmetically scarred it still works fine today. I am sure that my 1Vs or 1Ns will take similar punishment but are much more sensitive to water (especially condensation which seal cannot solve). I look at the digital bodies and while they are built like the 1VHS (indeed they are almost identical apart from the screen) I wonder how long we need them to last. Remember the 1D is only 7 years old and the 1DII is only 4.5 years old.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Film bodies of the later 20th century had a fairly long life cycle because the technology had matured to a point where the new innovations didn't add that much to the attractiveness of new bodies.<br /> <br /> I suggest that we are getting to that point with digital. I shoot both 1D3 and Ds3, but I'm still thrilled with the performance of my 1D2N and 1Ds2 and have no plans of putting them out to pasture anytime soon. No matter what new bodies are developed, they won't make the pics from these last generation bodies any worse.</p>

[colin_james]

<p>"When asked to shoot freinds weddings I always take two bodies - one with the 24-70 and the other for either the 16-35 or 70-200. "</p>

<p>Hi Philip,</p>

<p>Please don't think I was aiming anything at you - I just thought that that portion of your original post presented a good opportunity to raise the dual-card issue.</p>

<p>Whilst on the subject though, I do have to say that often people think that they're mitigating the need for a dual media camera by virtue of the fact that they carry 2 cameras, but it really doesn't help that much for 2 reasons (1) it's impossible to capture many wedding shots on 2 cameras (eg are you going to change cameras for each and every formal shot?), and (2) if you're happily blazing away with one camera feeling safe and secure in the knowledge that you have a spare close at hand it does NOT mean that the images are able to be safely written to the card (even if you can see the small embedded version on the screen) - nor does it give you any protection against the card failing when it comes time to transfer the images (which is often when the issues are first noticed).</p>

<p>Personally, I don't have a problem with folks taking the risk so long as they spell out to the client (client, not customer - a client being "one that is under your care") that this the equipment that you choose to use then this is the small risk assocuated with it - and if they're happy to proceed on that basis then "fill yer boots" as the expression goes.</p>

<p>In my opinion it's a risk management exercise - sure it's a small risk, but the consequences can be huge - and like it or not it DOES happen far too often. In some ways I like to parallel it to having surgery in an operating theatre that's not equipped with a defibrillator; the chances of arresting during surgery are small - but many would have died regardless had not those in charge chosen to adopt best practice and have all appropriate equipment at hand.</p>

<p>For some reason people don't accept surgery without the theatre being fully equiped to handle any complication - and they'd refuse to accept transcontinental air travel on aircraft with only a single engine - and we still wear our seatbelts even though we've been driving for 40 years and never had a serious accident - and yet we call ourselves professionals, but feel at ease putting all our eggs in one basket when it comes to our clients once-in-a lifetime never to be repeated moments.</p>

<p>Personally, I just don't get it.</p>

<p> </p>

[guy_howard]

<p>Bill - Live View is the greatest thing since sliced bread when it comes to critical focusing in a static setup. It was a godsend for me with the 40D, and the 5D2 should be much easier with the higher res. LCD. I'm sure Canon is counting on this given the AF design of the 5D2.</p>