p.1 #1 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
Hi all,
After reading the reviews on both of these cameras IQ and features are a wash for me. Meaning that price for value I should go with the 5D MKII.
HOWEVER, I'm a 1DS MKII user since it came out. To pay the bills I shoot mostly weddings and events. Most of wich are in low light ballrooms and at dusk outdoors (Palm Springs resorts).
My shoot and focus style is center point with auto expand on. So essentially focus and reframe.
As you can imagine fast focus and nailing the shot immediately is critical to the success to the money making side of my business.
So my question is: based on my shooting conditions, style and focus style will the 1Ds mkIII be significantly better than the 5D mkII?
Yes, it's worth it to me to pay 2X-3X just for better AF.
Lastly, I do enough studio, portrait and architecture work that I need full frame.
p.1 #2 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
The 5D2 will not give you nearly the same focus accuracy as the 1Ds2 or especially 1Ds3. While I love the 5D2 for what it is, it is not in the same league as the 1Ds series when it comes to the "going to work" feeling, if you know what I mean.
p.1 #4 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
Ok, this is what I thought. Do you believe this is true for center point focus style shooting too? I know that there's no competition using multipoint etc.
p.1 #5 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
i find the center point focusing on the 5d2 extremely fast and accurate...i have not compared the focus acquisition of the two cameras... i do have to say that i prefer the 1ds3 metering and metering options.
p.1 #7 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
I used 5D I (and since there is word that the AF is the same on 5D II) and I now have a 1Ds III, I would say that even the center point is much more accurate and faster on 1Ds (in low light). For instance, with my 85 L II, the focusing speed is noticeably faster when used on the 1Ds (in the way that the lens elements travel faster throughout the range). Additionally, I noticed much less hunting with the 1Ds.
I was also a "center point & refocus" shooter (due to the 5D limitations). I switched very quickly from that style to using the other AF points as well. They really work and I did not notice any difference yet between those points and the center one. Now my framings are better and I crop less (I was not always able to focus-recompose with the 5D due to the very thin DOF and I was framing a bit wider knowing that I will recompose in PP by cropping). 1Ds is not the same as 5D (be it I or II). It's not really about the sensor.
Here is another perspective. I was planning to get 2 1Ds IIIs and keep one of the 5Ds (I had three of those). After 1-2 weeks of using 1Ds, I sold all the 5Ds and decided to buy 2 1D IIIs (just because the 1D(s) series bodies offer more than just a sensor when compared to XXD or 5D).
So, of you have the money, go for the 1Ds and you won't look back.
If I had to make a choice now between 1D III and 5D II, I would choose 1D despite the smaller sensor and the "only" 10mp sensor. Of course 1Ds is even better.
p.1 #8 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
Scott Campbell wrote:
Ok, this is what I thought. Do you believe this is true for center point focus style shooting too? I know that there's no competition using multipoint etc.
Great way to put it, "going to work" feeling.
I think the irony is that the newer body (5D2) has all this high ISO capabilities that no other model before had, and then can't focus in the conditions that actually call for such high ISO. In other words, without any doubt or hesitation, the 1Ds2 will beat the socks off a 5D2 when it comes to AF (and most other things, too). I'd say that the "going to work" feeling gets more and more distinct the more adverse the conditions get - darkness included, but also movement, etc.
One of the most bothersome things about the 5D2, to me at least, is the insanely long viewfinder blackout. Not to be confused with frame rate; just the length of time that you are staring into a dark tunnel when you press the clicker. Granted the sound effects that come with it aren't really enticing either, but I realize that's just cosmetics, and let's face it, the 1Ds and 1Ds2 don't have the most pleasingly sounding mirror mechanism.
As for "if you have the money" - doesn't a 1Ds2 go for about the same as the 5D2? In my opinion, there's no question which I'd get. Again, there are only a few areas where the 5D2 is more useful. The 1Ds2 will get you the shot. The 5D2, should it actually get the shot, may give it a wee bit better. It's a consideration between yield / reliability and "goodness". Throw in the 1Ds3 and you're golden in all contests.
p.1 #11 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
I also found that my 5D focused better than the 1D2n in low light, using the centre point. The non-centre points were another story. I heard that the Mark3 generation bodies have better low light than the 5D original though.
stanj wrote:
In that case, you should send in your 1D2 for calibration / service, or donate your 5D2 to DNA research because it's super-human, er, super-camera
p.1 #12 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
I think that the OP was asking about 1ds III (3). I have also read that the 5D's center point was having about the same performance as the mk II series. I can not tell about that, but the mk III bodies (and I have both the 1Ds and 1D) are a completely different story when compared to 5D. I don't know about 5D II, but if it's the same AF as the original 5D, there is really no contest. The 1 series wins hands down.
I was also frustrated by using fast L primes and ISO 1600 in conditions where I COULD get the shot, IF I COULD GET THE 5D TO FOCUS. Many times I missed shots because of the AF system. Too many times I found that when I was tired after 10-12 hours of shooting, my focus & recompose technique was becoming more focus and shoot, so I had a lot of badly framed images due to using this technique. Not anymore.
I gave up on resolution, full-frame and some money to get 1D bodies instead of 5D IIs. I said: A 10mp image which is in focus is anyway much better than a 21mp image that is blurry or slightly soft due to the focusing performance (or better said, lack of). Well, I already had the 1Ds to have FF and 21mp when the need would call for it.
p.1 #13 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
Nonsense. Both the 5D II and the 5D focus fine in low light using center-point AF. That's one of the best features of the cameras, in fact.
I owned both the 1D Mark II and 1Ds Mark II before acquiring two 5D bodies, and I've never felt that focus was a limitation with the 5D. I own 24L, 35L, 50 1.4, 85L and 135L and shoot them all successfully with these cameras in available darkness. In fact, the 5D performed better in very low light conditions than either of my 1-series Mark IIs.
Is the AF in the 1-series Mark III models better? Yes, particularly the outer AF points (I also shoot a 1D Mark III). But all cameras are a compromise. To suggest that the 5D II is weak in low light shooting is simply not true, and to dismiss this camera out of hand because of its AF system just doesn't match my experience.
p.1 #15 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
Maybe I was not clear enough. The 5D's outer points are unusable in low light. The center point is ok, but the mk III series bodies are focusing faster with any of the 19 points (esp. with the 85 1.2L II).
So if one is happy with a camera that basically has one reliable AF point in the center, then yes, 5D is OK. And when you use prime lenses wide open or almost wide open, the AF precision is critical. Focus and recompose often throws your subject out-of-focus, so you have to choose between a) having slightly OOF shots (due to focus-recompose using the center point) and b) use an "outer" point, shoot and pray to get the shot in focus. I did put "outer" in quotes, because those AF points on the 5D are too crowded in the center to be called really outer points.
Besides, it really is a pitty to have the AF of the 30D improved with the 6 invisible points into a 2008 camera.
I'm a Canon user, but in this regard, I respect Nikon for the fact that their D700 has the same AF as the top of the range cameras. Canon should have done the same, but this would have killed some part of the sales of the 1D(s) series, so in the end, we are some victims of the marketing strategies that the manufacturers have.
p.1 #17 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
stanj wrote:
In that case, you should send in your 1D2 for calibration / service, or donate your 5D2 to DNA research because it's super-human, er, super-camera
Sorry Stan,
I think you need to send your 5D back.
I test this several times immediately before I posted it. The 1DMK2 hunts and the 5DMK2 locks, same lenses, same tripod, same dim room. I tested with a Canon 24-105 f4L, Tamron 28-75, and Canon 50 1.4. In all cases the results were the same.
p.1 #18 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
Don't forget, 1Dsx AF system implementation is not the same as 1Dx. Take a close look that the area of 9 cross sensors of 1Dx is much wider & less precise than 1DsX.
p.1 #19 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
It's refreshing to see that we all disagree about 5D2 vs. 1Ds2
Anyone here want to say that the 5D2 has better AF than the 1Ds3, which is what the original question was? If so, maybe I should invite you to my house for a shoot-out, as I have both. Granted, I have shot only 3000 frames with the 5D2 so far, but I think I have a good feeling for it now. Guess which camera I take with me when the light gets bad
p.1 #20 · 1Ds mkIII VS 5D mkII Low light, center point focus
You know, on the 5D I tended not to use the outer AF points much (on this point, I agree with the critics). But on the Mark II I have so far been impressed by the accuracy with all points. The outer points are slower and do hunt at times, but when they lock they have proven to be quite accurate.
While the AF hardware is apparently carried forward from the 5D, it is likely that Canon has tweaked the AF algorithms on the Mark II, and the camera is almost certainly benefiting from a faster CPU.
