Which Would you buy 5d-MarkII or 1D-MarkIII

[sremmaz]

<p>I am in the market for a new body. I currently shoot with a 1-D Mark II and have been shooting a lot of concerts with low light. Plus it is time for a new body anyways. So I have been looking at the 5D-MarkII - but have read it has a slow response focus time.</p>

<p>I shoot sports as well, so not sure if maybe I should go to the 1D-MarkII instead. I can't afford the 1Ds-MarkIII which give the 20MP comparable to the 5D-MarkII</p>

<p>Any thoughts?</p>

[catchlight]

<p>As a long-time Canon user it pains me to say this, but the best DSLR by far for your purposes is a Nikon D3.</p>

<p>The D3 gets noise-free results at ISO 3200 and beyond, and has a brilliant auto-ISO feature which means you are never shooting at a higher ISO than required to get the shutter speed you need to freeze action.</p>

<p>Canon has a lot of catching up to do, and many sports and concert shooters are getting tired of waiting, as evidenced by the growing number of long black telephotos along the sidelines of NFL, MLB, and other sports events. The ratio used to be about 10:1 white to black; now it's 50:50.</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>If you shoot sports then your only real choice is the EOS 1DMk3.<br>

If AF is your bug bear then you are going to find the 5DMk2 a backward step from a 1 series. No harm to all the happy 5DMk2 users out there.<br>

The 1D Mk3 is "only" 10MP. Which would be a marginal improvement on what you have. <br>

The interface of the 1 series is so much better than the consumer class cameras that this should also have a bearing.</p>

[2008.]

<p>I thougth the same as you Paul but i was not bothered about the movie feature on the 5d ll so i bought a canon 1d mark lll in any case i have a 5d ,the 1d is a lovely camera takes sharp photo in JPEG which i was very suprised about colours are natural , i aways take raw with the 5d ,the JPEG are superb from the 1d i l love it ,got to get down to the nature reserve to try the 10 frames per second as i love nature shots and in raw 30 frames a second also what i like about the 1d and that is if your speed is to fast for the shot in a overcast day it ups the ISO to allow you to take the shot at your chosen settings saves a lot of bother !i am very happy with it,got my camera from trade cameras limated that is in the UK ! for £2,419.98 shop about !cheers.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The 5DII works very well in low light. While my main thing is other stuff shot at lower ISOs, I do also shoot concerts and similar events and use high ISO. When I first got the 5D II (after using a 5D for several years) I was quite surprised to find that I could shoot at ISO 1600 with really good results - unless you inspect very closely (e.g. 100% on screen) you would likely not even notice the increase in noise.</p>

<p>The 5D II seems to focus more or less like the 5D in my experience. I haven't had any real issues with this, even in rather low light. (I do night photography as well.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The best bet is likely to be the 1D IV when it comes. The 5DII is not as bad for sports as is made out. For professional use get the 1DIII but for non professional consider the 5DII if you also want to shoot concerts. The AF on the 5DII is not has bad as is made out - a lot of the issues are probably slow lenses and user error. I have spent years shooting Canon from the F-1 through 1N, 1NRS and 1V before I got a 5DII. Despite all of the concern over AF I decided to buy it as I needed the high ISO for kids ice hockey games (remember I was a film shooter). Since then I have also moved to shooting ski racing with it - my kids ski race and play hockey. With a good F2.8 lens (70-200 or 300) it works very well so long as you set it up correctly. Out of over 2000 ski racing shots I have less than 20 with focus problems. For ice hockey the hit rate is lower but still about 95% and some of the arenas are in the EV 4 - 6 range. I suspect that many of the issues people have are slow lenses, using all the AF points (just use center with AF on) and setting AF Focus for a fast moving subject. In addition experience helps and I learnt to shoot sports with 300 f2.8 / 400 f2.8 often handheld on MF film bodies.<br>

I think you have three choices (beyond a Nikon D3)<br>

If you shoot professionally get a 1DIII - it has the best AF and high ISO is still good<br>

If you want to shoot a range of subjects and are not professional consider the 5DII - the AF is good enough for most applications (but not as good as the 1DIII) and High ISO, LCD screen and resolution is better than the 1DIII. It is a smaller lighter body (but less durable) but probably more versitile. With my 1V's I keep one with the motor on (essentially this is an identical physical size to the 1D) and the other without. For general use I almost always carry this body as 3.5 fps is enough for most applications. With the 1D you carry around a lot of camera for most uses - this said it is a great camera. Remember you lose wide angle with the 1DIII as it is APS-H sized (1.3x)<br>

If you can wait - the 1DIV is probably a good option. I suspect that it will be about 16 MP and will probably be full frame. The 5DIII is great at 1600 ISO and very good at ISO 3200 so I suspect that the 1dIV will add a extra stop to this. If it is full frame it removes my main concern (beyond weight) with the 1DIII -beyond the extra $1200 when I made the choice. As I no longer sell my shots I need a general purpose body and thus the 1.3 x sensor does not work as i also shoot landscape.</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>It's one thing having stupidly high ISO's its quite another resorting to using them.<br>

Dial in +1EV, spot meter off a highlight. You should still be in the sensible range and the tones will all fall in.<br>

Bunging up the ISO in a dark environment will just burn out where the lighting engineer has intended there to be detail and turn the rest to mushy charcoal.</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p>I have never had trouble shooting sports with a 5D or the 5D Mark II. I find the cameras also focus accurately and quickly in low light as well. (I find Nikon's D3/D700 do a better job at focusing when an object is moving directly or almost directly towards or away from the camera.)</p>

<p><em>"The D3 gets noise-free results at ISO 3200 and beyond" </em> The 5d and 5D Mark II are equally good (with post processing) at ISO 3200.</p>

<p> </p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p><em>"The D3 gets noise-free results at ISO 3200 and beyond" not !</em></p>

[sremmaz]

<p>Thanks for the comments so far guys. For most sports I would probably keep my 1DMII as my primary, just for the fps aspect.<br>

But it will mainly get pushed as my backup camera, and I will sell my 1Ds body (my current backup)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>A bit of context on my perhaps-incomplete response - I completely missed the part about you shooting sports. Sorry.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>How often do you really need/use 8.5 fps? Would you really use 10 fps? Successful sports images really are about the original timing, not just blasting away. I have 5 fps and 8 fps if I need it. I think for the most part the 4 fps of the 5DII would be fine, especially when considering the resulting image quality. I can not speak to the difference in autofocus between the various bodies in question.</p>

<p>For me the 1DIII was growing long in the tooth 18 months ago! Yes, it still has the fastest frame rate available, of any camera, but that is only because of it's outdated 10 MP sensor.</p>

[catchlight]

<p>I use 8.5 fps every time I shoot sports, in bursts of three or so frames, because one of the shots is always either slightly or dramatically better than the others, raising the percentage of saleable photographs. </p>

<p>Sometimes I will use a longer burst if one competitor is passing another in a race, or five racers arrive at a tight corner simultaneously in a Nordic ski sprint, or there is a spectacular fall in an event.</p>

<p>The short burst technique still requires good positioning and accurate anticipation and timing, but improves the chances that there won't be a hand in front of the player's face in basketball, or that the shot will capture the instant of impact in hockey or football, or nail the peak action in any sport. The speed of subjects in motorsports and airshows, etc. require a high frame rate even more.</p>

<p>At 4 fps, there is simply too much time between shots for bursts to be very useful.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>There is absolutely no right and no wrong answer here, it depends on your personal feelings and what is comfortable for you to use.</p>

<p>For me, I have a lifelong "thing" about build quality, I am rarely satisfied with how something is constructed. The camera is a tool and I only get the most rugged tools, so even if a 5dII would never break on me, and it probably would not, I'll only get 1 series cameras. 1DIII would be it for me. My comfort level with the more robust construction and weather sealing makes me forget about the camera, and that results in better images. </p>

<p>It's like a baseball glove for a pro player: the best one is the one that makes him forget about the glove. There is no right answer available from anyone else. Either of those cameras are technically good enough to let you take great images, so get the one that makes you happy. </p>