Pro explanation needed, 1Ds III vs 1D IIII
- Thread starter Recty
- Start date
Jacob D
New member
Mee three
I know you said that you've pretty much ruled out the 1DS Mark III but one thing that I didn't see mentioned about it over the 5D Mk II is that it does have a much better focus system if that's important to you.
That said, I'm very happy with my 5D Mk II. I don't often shoot above 3200 but it's nice to know it's there if I need it.
Here are a couple examples that I think I might have posted here before in another thread, I could shoot some more later this evening if they'll help you out at all.
ISO 6400
ISO 6400 (up lighting from a Lite Brite toy)
Here's one at ISO 3200
That said, I'm very happy with my 5D Mk II. I don't often shoot above 3200 but it's nice to know it's there if I need it.
Here are a couple examples that I think I might have posted here before in another thread, I could shoot some more later this evening if they'll help you out at all.
ISO 6400
ISO 6400 (up lighting from a Lite Brite toy)
Here's one at ISO 3200
Recty
New member
I think I've come around to the idea of using a 5D Mk II. I'd be better served by buying that and dumping a little money into another good lens, than buying the 1D Mk IV and not having anything left over for a new lens.
I've talked myself out of needing a sports camera. I do a lot of landscape type stuff, not to mention fish/corals and other things that dont need super fast autofocus and tons of IQ to keep tracking a target.
All in all, I think the 5D will satisfy my needs more of the time than the 1D Mk IV would, and this way I'll have a little cash left over to dump into a nice lens.
I'd really like to go with the 24-105 just so that I've got the focal range of 24-400 covered by only using two lenses. I've seen pictures taken with the 24-105, it seems like it produces some very nice pictures and I know my 100-400 is already capable of that. Then the only thing I'll need to do is get rid of my 10-22, maybe buy a new wide angle lens and most likely get one of the 100mm macros.
I've talked myself out of needing a sports camera. I do a lot of landscape type stuff, not to mention fish/corals and other things that dont need super fast autofocus and tons of IQ to keep tracking a target.
All in all, I think the 5D will satisfy my needs more of the time than the 1D Mk IV would, and this way I'll have a little cash left over to dump into a nice lens.
I'd really like to go with the 24-105 just so that I've got the focal range of 24-400 covered by only using two lenses. I've seen pictures taken with the 24-105, it seems like it produces some very nice pictures and I know my 100-400 is already capable of that. Then the only thing I'll need to do is get rid of my 10-22, maybe buy a new wide angle lens and most likely get one of the 100mm macros.
Recty
New member
Yeah, I'm not too worried about it. Like all lenses, there are probably good copies and bad copies, I hope I get a good copy
I can get the 5D Mk II with the 24-105 for $3300, leaving me with around $1500 to spend PLUS I'll sell my 10-22 and probably my 50mm, putting around $7-800 in my pocket, so really I'll have a little over $2000 to put towards another lens or lens or gear or "whatever"...
Probably a much better idea than buying just a 1D Mk IV... although that camera sure does sound sweet.
PittsburghReef
In Memoriam
Have you gave any thought to the 1D Mark III..They are going for about 2100-2300 these days for mint ones. I love mine and if you dont need the crazy amount of extra MP then you get everything you want in it. Killer AF, 10fps, Pro build, Link spot metering to AF points not just center. I have had mine for a year and I am still finding features on it to tweak. Warning though once you hold and use a 1D there is no going back to a regular camera body. High ISO i think is VERY good..I am not hesitant to use ISO6400 if I need to. ISO3200 on it is as clean as my old 30D at ISO 800
This is ISO 3200 on my 1DIII+ 24-70L
This is ISO 3200 on my 1DIII+ 24-70L
Recty
New member
That is a nice picture for sure, for ISO3200, I know my 50D would be showing more noise than that.
If the 1D MkIII was cheaper, I'd do it, but paying $3000 for a camera or almost $4000 if I wanted a new one that is 3 years old and has the older technology just doesnt do it for me. I'd really rather not buy a used camera so I'd be buying new which is around $4000, at that price point another $1000 for the 1D Mk IV seems like a much better investment to me.
Plus, and I know this doesnt matter to some but it does to me, I want my DSLR to do video and the Mk III doesnt.
It is a thought though and I considered it briefly but it just isnt the direction I want to head. It seems to me like the 5D Mk II offers everything the 1D Mk III does and more, besides the fast FPS and sports oriented autofocus. I can do without that in order to get all the other benefits the 5D Mk II brings to the table.
Recty
New member
You'd prefer the 1D Mk III over the 5D Mk II? For me, it doesnt seem to be much of an upgrade, basically just better AF and FPS, but otherwise the 5D Mk II seems better. I guess you get the weather shielding with the 1D but I dont need that, I'd rather have more MP and higher ISO ability.
IPT
Active member
LOL - must be from that snowstorm yesterday!! I thought it was spring for crying out loud. WHo the heck has to shovel the driveway in late April!!!
Anyway, I was saying that I have the original 5D. If I didn't have access to a 1DsMK3 I'd probably be upgrading my 5D to the newer version. The one thing that would be cool to have would be the HD vid. Priorities right now dictate that I am keeping what I have and that's that
. Not that I should complan, I have access to pretty good setup!
FWIW - even the 1Ds sometimes frustrates me with the focusing. I seriously wonder who many throw aways the pro's get. I had a white snowshoe Hare in my yard a few weeks ago and the 1DsMK3 hunted and couldn't focus on it (tried over the eye, and the ears to look for a high contrast area) with an F4 lens (L). Sigh, I guess it still comes down to taking tons of images to get two or three tack sharp and with the right composition.
Anyway, I was saying that I have the original 5D. If I didn't have access to a 1DsMK3 I'd probably be upgrading my 5D to the newer version. The one thing that would be cool to have would be the HD vid. Priorities right now dictate that I am keeping what I have and that's that
. Not that I should complan, I have access to pretty good setup!FWIW - even the 1Ds sometimes frustrates me with the focusing. I seriously wonder who many throw aways the pro's get. I had a white snowshoe Hare in my yard a few weeks ago and the 1DsMK3 hunted and couldn't focus on it (tried over the eye, and the ears to look for a high contrast area) with an F4 lens (L). Sigh, I guess it still comes down to taking tons of images to get two or three tack sharp and with the right composition.
Recty
New member
LOL - must be from that snowstorm yesterday!! I thought it was spring for crying out loud. WHo the heck has to shovel the driveway in late April!!!
Anyway, I was saying that I have the original 5D. If I didn't have access to a 1DsMK3 I'd probably be upgrading my 5D to the newer version. The one thing that would be cool to have would be the HD vid. Priorities right now dictate that I am keeping what I have and that's that
FWIW - even the 1Ds sometimes frustrates me with the focusing. I seriously wonder who many throw aways the pro's get. I had a white snowshoe Hare in my yard a few weeks ago and the 1DsMK3 hunted and couldn't focus on it (tried over the eye, and the ears to look for a high contrast area) with an F4 lens (L). Sigh, I guess it still comes down to taking tons of images to get two or three tack sharp and with the right composition.
That snow yesterday was crazy
I understand what you're saying now about which camera you would choose. I'm basing all my preference off what I've read about camera specs, but to me the 5D Mk II is better than the 1D Mk III in almost every way, even price. It's nice to get some personal opinions on the subject.
As far as you having a lot of throw aways, that is probably user error
IPT
Active member
Recty
New member
I'm 99% sure I'm going to go with the 5D Mk II. It seems like the best camera to handle the blend of what I want to do. If I wanted to spend $5000 I'd go with the 1D Mk IV for sure, but if I go with the 5D Mk II, I can get a couple lenses.
So now I'm trying to decide between the new 100mm macro Canon made or the 135mm F/2. I've shot with the old macro and know it takes great pictures plus it lets me do macro. However, I read RAVE reviews on the 135mm, how great it is especially on the full frame camera.
The thing is, I need a macro, so if I get the 135mm I'd still have to buy the 100mm, I'm just trying to decide if the 135mm is really as amazing as it sounds, worth having it even though it's very similar in length as the 100mm macro.
Any inputs?
So now I'm trying to decide between the new 100mm macro Canon made or the 135mm F/2. I've shot with the old macro and know it takes great pictures plus it lets me do macro. However, I read RAVE reviews on the 135mm, how great it is especially on the full frame camera.
The thing is, I need a macro, so if I get the 135mm I'd still have to buy the 100mm, I'm just trying to decide if the 135mm is really as amazing as it sounds, worth having it even though it's very similar in length as the 100mm macro.
Any inputs?
