rabbitmountain Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Hi Jason!
Thank you so much for tuning in. And yes I really value your opinions, I notice you have my best interest in mind while writing and I appreciate that. I'll try to respond to the best of my abilities.
You obviously speak from experience with 1D bodies. I have owned 2 of them, each for about 2 weeks. I bought both for their AF abilities but ironically they both had serious AF issues. The 1D3 had a delicious feel in my hand and it was a pure joy to use. However, it would not get in focus shots consistently even with the centre AF point and one shot AF. Because I had read from various FM members who I respect highly, who own this body and say they got it working very well after studyiing the manual and calibrating lenses, I gave it a week of fiddling but I could not get it to work, even in good light, so I sent it back. I tried a 1Ds2 2 years later, convinced of getting a more than decent AF system. This sample had a faulty AF system too, although very different. It would focus 99% sharp with centre point but any other AF point would give inconsistent results. I'm pretty sure both bodies could have been OK after a visit to CPS but I was afraid of the hassle so I sent the 1Ds2 back too. I almost thought it was me because I could not seem to focus well with two 1D series bodies. Then I shot a portrait session with my trusted 5Dclassic + 70-200ii and I got fabulous AF results so I was convinced it wasn't me.
Then shortly after I met a guy who was shooting a 1D4 at the time and asked him if I could use it for a day. I got excellent results with the same lenses that gave me so much trouble on the 1D3 and 1Ds2. I really really liked the ergonomics of the body (almost identical to the 1D3 I had) and even though I had owned the 1D3 for just a week, it felt like coming home.
I've wanted a 1D4 ever since.
But they were out of my price range (3000 used) and I knew I didn't really need it for my business, which was 95% portrait photography at the time. I must admit that I did not try this 1D4 in low light so it's true I have no experience with that. And yes I base my idea of the 1D4 being (at least a bit) less capable in low light than a 5D3 solely on other people's judgement. But among those are some photographers that have a good deal of experience with that body.
Now as you say moving on, yes I've made up my mind on getting the 5D3+85L but I haven't ordered yet so nothing's written in stone. I must clarify that I don't think the 1D4 is a bad camera in low light at all. I really liked it for its image quality and ISO capabilities, although I was spoiled by my 5D2. I'm merely convinced that the 5D3 is at least as good and probably a little better in low light focusing. There is no question in my mind that a 1D4 can be used for a wedding and get the job done. However if you add the 5D3 silent shutter and the FF sensor, it should be the most sensible thing for me to get at least one 5D3 first.
So I will shoot a 5D3 and a 5D2 for a while. What comes after that is another thing. If I keep digging shooting 2 FF bodies for the wedding stuff and I would feel limited by the 5D2 AF, I could sell the 5D2 and get another camera. As far as I am now I think that should be a second 5D3 but your contribution has made me reconsider. When shooting the 1D3 I felt quite comfortable using the 1.3 crop format, especially on my 70-200 but also on the 16-35. However, I did not have weddings in mind at the time. I am aware that there is a versatility in using FF and 1.3 crop, but that is mainly when shooting with one body at a time and have the ability to choose from two formats according to your needs for a certain session. But at weddings I typically shoot two bodies simultaneously because at some key moments there is no time to change lenses. For instance a 50 and a 85. Or a 35 and 85. Mounting the 35 on FF and 85 on 1.3 crop makes the 85 a 110. I guess only trying that out in the real will tell me if it's beneficial or just plain complicating.
Your remark on the best part of the glass can be relevant too. I will give that some thought.
Finally, 85/1.8 or 85L. I have used the 85/1.8 at one occasion and was impressed by the AF speed. However, when it comes to image quality I liked the results from my 70-200/2.8ii better. And that lens zoom range covers the 85mm. I feel comfortable shooting a wedding with the 70-200 although it is bulky but the IQ is so good. The 85L I had on loan for 5 days (the original, not the mkII) and I noticed rightaway that its images have something very special that the 70-200 doesn't have. Kind of the same thing as shooting a 50L wide open instead of a 24-70 at 2.8. I still shoot portraits mainly and weddings whenever I can but that is really still a developing area for me. I am aware of the fact that I can put an 85L to good use for portrait photography. I mostly shoot portraits with my trusted 70-200/2.8ii (in my studio and outside) and that lens really delivers time after time. It's my most reliable lens, even on my old 5Dclassic. But I really like the touch of the 85L.
This reply went longer than I intended but I hope you will recognise some of my thinking. I would appreciate your impression and - if you care to - your reply.
Stay good,
Ralph
|