Sayeret18 wrote:
I was able to use a 1DMkII, and was so taken with the AF and the file quality that I have decided to do something with my 30D - though I'm not sure what, exactly. Should I keep it and wait to see what Canon might have to offer with its newer technology? (The 40D is not a significant upgrade in AF or file quality, IMO.) Jump to Nikon for the (by all accounts) outstanding D300? Opt for the proven, older technology in the 5D? Or buy a used IDmkII (though it is a bit large and heavy for "recreational" use)? For the next year or so, I really need high ISO/high AF performance because I will be shooting my kids' high school hockey and volleyball. Once they graduate, my demands on the camera will decrease significantly - then it will be just vacations, family events, graduations, etc. Was leaning first toward the 5D as the best compromise, then the Nikon, and now I'm just confused. Your thoughts? Thanks in advance. ...Show more →
I would look at a 5D. I have both the 5D and 1DMK2 and take the 5D 80% of the time. It is just lighter and I don't need the faster AF and frame rate of the 1D very often. Also, the image quality of the 5D is quite a bit better and even at high ISOs (1600 or 3200) show very little noise. I see the same noise in my 1DMK2 at about ISO 400.
BTW, once you go to FF a crop factor is tough to take. It is like looking through a tube.
i find the 5D has more precise autofocus in one-shot, especially in low-light. i also find it's more reliable than the autofocus on the mkIIn. (i've owned both cameras)
Mark Peters wrote:
Is the AF of the 5d in AI-Servo as good as the ID mkIIN?
No. The 5D can focus a little better in very low light, but assuming you have good light, AI-Servo on the 1D series is in a completely different league.
moondigger wrote:
No. The 5D can focus a little better in very low light, but assuming you have good light, AI-Servo on the 1D series is in a completely different league.
Generally, I disagree here. At least on the 1D2, it really depends what you are doing.
For example, I prefer the 5D for AI Servo when compared to the 1D2 and an "expanded" single point. 1D2 is better in the all points vs. all points senario in general. And even then, it depends on the relative size of the objects you are tracking and the non-subject matter in the frame.
I think people are too quick to say a 1D is better when all the posts above from those who regularly use both suggest otherwise.
Grant808 wrote:
I think people are too quick to say a 1D is better when all the posts above from those who regularly use both suggest otherwise.
I'll defer to those with more experience with the 1D2. It seemed to focus track very well for me when I tried it -- better than with my 20D (which is what I owned at the time) and better than my 5D (which I acquired later, and couldn't try out side-by-side with the 1D2). I have never owned a 1D2, though, so if you say the 5D is better at focus tracking, I'm surprised (astonished, actually) but won't argue.
I prefer the 5D for AI Servo when compared to the 1D2 and an "expanded" single point. 1D2 is better in the all points vs. all points senario in general. And even then, it depends on the relative size of the objects you are tracking and the non-subject matter in the frame.
When I shoot hockey and volleyball, I always set the AF for single center point. Under these circumstances, the 5D would be the way to go, correct?
I prefer the 5D for AI Servo when compared to the 1D2 and an "expanded" single point. 1D2 is better in the all points vs. all points senario in general. And even then, it depends on the relative size of the objects you are tracking and the non-subject matter in the frame.
When I shoot hockey and volleyball, I always set the AF for single center point. Under these circumstances, the 5D would be the way to go, correct?
From all the tests I could find and many user reports it has the fastest low light AF of ANY DSLR.
And low light AF is what you're mainly inquiring about. Add to that the best high ISO noise performance in Canon's line up, and the nicety of having 10FPS if/when you need it and the superior battery life and.......
IMO there is little reason to get any other Canon body if sports and low light shooting is a priority.
From all the tests I could find and many user reports it has the fastest low light AF of ANY DSLR.
And low light AF is what you're mainly inquiring about. Add to that the best high ISO noise performance in Canon's line up, and the nicety of having 10FPS if/when you need it and the superior battery life and.......
IMO there is little reason to get any other Canon body if sports and low light shooting is a priority.
I know I'd buy one if I could afford it.
Gene
I believe you just provided a reason why many people don't get the 1D3.
If you don't have alot of gear, then I would really look into the Nikon D300. I personaly went with the 1D mark II, but with the specs of the D300 it sounds like a really good all around body.
I have both a 40D and A 5D. Low light files with the 5D are amazing ( but the 40D has surprised me at times in low light situations ). The 5D has a certain " magic".
I get more keepers with the 5D. In fact sometimes photos that I think can't possibly be used are fine with a little tweaking. For the money, you will not be disappointed with a 5D.
While the 5d may not be the best choice for sports, I don't see any reason why it "couldn't" do sports.
If you want to take pictures at the kids games, you don't need a 1dmkeh2hy934s or whatever. I'm not knocking the camera, but you can do the job with lesser equipment.
