john clark

"<i>I found the 10D to be a toy compared to the 1 series cameras</i>"<br><br>

Hmmmm... certainly not in a build-quality sense - sure, the 1Ds mkII has weather sealing but there's no significant and obvious differences in the actual quality of the construction and materials as one would expect based on what people write. Yes, the 1 series may be more durable in terms of long-term use, but the 10D is (as far as I've always found) a very well put together camera, solid, reliable and certainly the difference in construction is nowhere close to being enough to classify it as a 'toy' in comparison.<br><br>

One thing that strikes me (and always has) is that people have a tendency to exaggerate the small differences in things on specialist forums and sites- take high-end audio as a case point. The same appears to be true of things like the build quality comments. Anyway, take this with the caveat that it is based on a small play with a 1Ds mkII rather than a long working relationship (as I have with the 10D).

...which is a VERY long take indeed. Even a single 5 minute take is extremely unusual, so the 5D mkII ought to be able to fulfil the task quite well indeed (based upon the HD video I watched from Vincent LaForet).

"<i>flash exposure is a desaster in all cameras using 35 zone metering system</i>"<br><br>

Works fine for me* on my 10D and my EOS 3, which are both prehistoric compared to the 5D mkII I'd say. <br>What's not working for you in a flash exposure sense? <br><br>* this said, I almost always set the camera to M for flash work, but it seems to work well...

This is all good news. To continue my thoughts on the 1Ds mkII, the most surprising things for me were (a) how comfortable it felt (as a bigger camera than the 10D), (b) the awkward positioning of the viewfinder when held using the built-in vertical grip (it's too low for my liking) and aside from the difficulty of the UI as previously mentioned, © the fact that it doesn't appear to be noticeably better constructed than the 10D - I expected it to be obviously sturdier but then I never found the 10D wanting in that regard. Sure, weather sealing and all is very nice, but I expected a bit more.

 

All this said, the viewfinder was better (but, again, only marginally - it's bigger and a tad brighter but not by anything like the margin some people had led me to believe) and it's a much more responsive beastie - no undue delays on startup and its RAW shooting speed was more than enough for my needs. In fact, it feels almost as responsive as my EOS 3, but not quite (despite allegedly being much more so - bizarre!)

 

So, in a way I have enormously high hopes for the 5D mkII - I've established that the build-quality thing is (for me) not really an issue, as I expect the 5D mkII to be no worse than the 10D which is in turn very close to the 1Ds mkII based on feel, at least - and people are telling me great things about its IQ...

 

Well, there you have it: my first 'road test' with a 1Ds mkII. I liked it, but with some reservations, and I'm now much more confident that the 5D mkII (or even a discounted/used mkI) is the next camera for me.

 

On that subject, how does the 5D mkI compare to the 1Ds mkII in IQ and handling terms?

Tonight my wife brought home one of the 1Ds mkIIs from work, and I thought I'd have a play. I wanted to see how

much of a gap there is between the 6 year old 10D and the 3 year old-ish 1Ds mkII. AF performance is something

I'm keen to improve on in my next camera and I wanted to see if the 1Ds mkII was noticeably better than the 10D

for indoors handheld shots of my 2 year old son in lowish light levels. It was a bit better but not the night

and day difference I expected. Also, I found the interface a bit confusing compared to the relatively

straightforward 10D controls. Would I pay the extra for a 1Ds mkII over a 5D? Probably not, all things

considered, but that's just me...

 

Anyway, one of the things that struck me was how much more usable ISO 800 and above was on the 1Ds mkII than the

10D. What I'd like to know is whether I can expect this performance or more from the forthcoming 5D mkII. IQ on

the 1Ds mkII was very very good, by 10D standards, so I have high hopes of the 5D mkII.

 

Thanks,

 

John

Bill- I don't think anyone can say as DPReview didn't test a production model. I'd expect there to be small improvements perhaps between the pre-production 'first look' sample and the release model, but nothing major.

Quiet day, Rashed? Maybe you should go out and take some photos... ;-)

Good question, and one that I often wonder about. Me, I'm still making do with my 10D, which is now approaching 5.5 years old. Yes, it works, and in fairness in sheer IQ terms I don't think it lacks too badly. However, in comparison to a 'current' dSLR, AF is slow, writing to the card is slow, startup is sluggish. Also, high ISO capability lags somewhat behind the state-of-the-art. What makes me wonder is just how *little* I'd have to spend to get a camera which would give me what I want... there's going to come a time when the advancement of technology means that I can 'move up' for buttons - but still I lust after a full frame.

 

If I'm being honest, there's a lot of appeal in the prospect of buying a used 40D as a 'stand-in' until FF becomes cheaper still...

"The Canon 70-200mm L non-IS is not as sharp as the IS version.

The 70-300mm IS is every bit as good optically as the 70-200mm non-IS."

 

Interesting - you're the only person I've ever heard of claiming such a thing. I was under the impression that the 70-200/4L and IS variant were optically the same...

 

I have read the same things written of the 50/1.8 mkI versus mkII and know it to be misinformation so I shall assume the same here...

Being a 'pro' at anything has meaning in many contexts, as others have said. Strictly, it is a measure of whether ones sole income is derived from an activity, but is often taken as a measure of competency and adherence to certain standards. Fact is, there are lousy pros and great amateurs, and as a 'badge of trade' being a professional at anything means nothing in a qualitative sense. If the individual in question is serving the needs of their customers and making money at it, then good on them...

I, too, sometimes wonder about a switch but there is truth to the saying that the grass always appears greener on the other side of the fence. My wife always sings the praises of the Nikon bodies she has tried, and I must admit they feel ergonomically superior to the Canon bodies, but the end objective is good photos and both systems are better than me and so if anything needs to change it is ME.... :-)

A lot boils down to how much you would have to pay extra in order to get the IS. I had a chance of a 70-200/4L for £300, which compared to roughly £700 for the IS version. In my mind, the IS *isn't* worth more than doubling the cost, so I went with the cheaper lens, but then I tend to shoot moving subjects with it (i.e. my son, pets) rather than static subjects and the IS wouldn't really help me there... so take into account your own shooting preferences also...

You might be interested to hear that you can make good money selling excess K25 on Ebay - I had around 20 rolls, process paid, and I made quite a profit when I decided I didn't need them*. Which only goes to show that film is not dead, just less mainstream than before... enjoy your film!

 

* on account of rarely shooting slides anyway, and having gone largely digital at the time...

I flew a fortnight ago with a 17-40/4L and a 50/1.4 but that's not exactly in the category of 'large'. That said, we were visiting friends who had bought some large-ish toys for our 2 year old son, and we managed to get them back in hand-luggage without any difficulty, and I'd guess that the dimensions of the toys in total would be greater than that of a 500mm lens. Your biggest concern probably is whether you have it packed properly.

 

"you also tends to travel with the riffraffs!"

 

Spoken by a snob and no mistake :-) Actually, I know several extremely successful business people who earn enormous sums who fly EasyJet if they have to - depends on flight availability. Just because it's cheap and no frills doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of non 'riffraff' (sic) travellers. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant it in a tongue-in-cheek sense.

James hits it on the head: grain is not always desirable but is better than no image at all...

I am - after a long period away. APart from the fact that my film SLR (EOS 3) is much better than my dSLR (10D) and therefore much more pleasant to use from an AF perspective, I loved the fact that I didn't know how my photos would turn out until I got them back from the lab. So there was that sense of anticipation, and (this time) pleasant surprise...

If you're concerned about how long film will last, buy film now. If we all continue to buy film we will show that there is still a market for it and it may prolong its life.

 

I shot a roll of 35mm 400-speed Fuji colour neg a week back and got the results back. I must say, after a while of 'digital only' shooting it was quite exciting not knowing how my shots had turned out and getting some pleasant surprises.

 

I plan to order more film real soon now :-)

What Patrick said about getting down on the dog's level makes sense to me too - also, with a short DOF you can end up with some really neat shots. I'm no expert but our new kitten makes for a nice photo:<br><br><img src="http://www.oktapod.com/uploads/Daisy_70-210.jpg"><br>

My wife is the pro photographer in my house. I'm the hobbyist. She is completely non-tech though - just likes a camera that 'fits' her style and doesn't get in the way... very sensible shoes.

I have held the 2.8 and have a 4.0 (non IS) zoom here - and I'd say that the weight and size of the 2.8 would certainly be a concern to me, as it's a big brute and I'd hate to have to lug that thing around all day.

 

I've been pleasantly impressed with the 70-200/4L, but I am wondering whether I will actually use it very much on account of what I shoot. It's not really long enough to shoot birds, say, nor is it wide enough at the wide end to make it a suitable close-range portrait lens. It IS, however, bitingly sharp and the AF is great.

I don't think it counts for much but I have owned both the 50/1.8 (both revisions) and the 50/1.4, and though I quite like having the extra speed in the 1.4, optically I don't think it is any better than the 1.8 (either version - they're optically identical). If I were in your position but knowing what I do now, I'd go 35 & 50/1.8 rather than the 1.4.

 

As to the 85/1.8 - well, I have one of those too and I find it a difficult lens to use properly on account of its very shallow DOF. It is a good lens but not so much use indoors if you are shooting on a crop-body (as I am). On my EOS 3 it is a much nicer lens to use, but then it has far better AF than my dSLR.

Count me in on this - I'm a happy 8x32 BN owner who wouldn't be without them (even though they don't actually get used all that much)...

I love my G2. It is a unique little camera with superb optics and though I agree that the viewfinder is a little small, I am far quicker and more accurate with the G2 and (say) the 45/2 than I'd ever be with a manual rangefinder. In pure image quality terms, I have yet to see a more consistent and high quality output from any other camera I've owned.

 

I have little but praise for the G2!

Failing that, do you have the original manual? You might have some strange combination of custom functions or even something as fundamental as shooting the 50/1.4 wide open (whereby it has extremely shallow depth of field, which might make some shots appear soft if they're slightly behind or in front of the focus point). Peter's recommendation makes a lot of sense to me though...

Joseph, that's an interesting way of thinking about it. To everyone else, thanks again.

 

John

 

PS. I am sitting here with my 10D and my 3, and I am certain that the build quality is superior in the 10D. Which makes me a bit confused about the couple of people who suggested that more recent EOS dSLRs fall some way behind the 3 in build quality..... most confusing...