Brent Ward wrote:
I would think that the better AF in the 1 series would come in to play even more at 1.2 or below...
This just wasn't my experience, unless sticking to focus recompose off the x-types... for some reason the outer points on the 1DsII I have are really not all that great in dim light. Some have posited this has to do with shooting style and what the orientation of the single axis sensors is in the two cameras. My mkIII is wonderful with all of those great x-types everywhere....
FYI my DsII is fresh from Canon AF calibration and wonderful otherwise.
I sold my 1D II when I bought my 5D and never looked back. Well, maybe for a week or so. I am just not heading into the Amazon soon, and despite the fact that it looks very cool and very pro I really don't need it. Maybe (or possibly even likely) if I was doing studio work with the lights and the works the 1D II or 1Ds II would make sense. But for my purposes as an amateur who shoots a reception or party now and then the 5D works wonderfully, and since I favor low light it really is quite nice.
Now, don't everyone jump on my back because for the year plus I had my 1D II as my sole body I really did get to like the feel and everything intrinsic about it. But I wanted something light I can toss in my bike bag and take a ride, or walk down to the park and shoot. I just did not want a three or four thousand dollar trophy sitting in my drawer that I was using maybe five percent of the time. For the average high end amateur the 5D is a winner, no doubt. Which is better? Call it a tie. Given that they are in reality very different bodies it's difficult to intelligently argue the point. Horses for courses...And now that I have sold my 5D I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of the 5D II, and am biding my time with my new 40D, which is also IMHO a very underrated gem.
Brent Ward wrote:
I would think that the better AF in the 1 series would come in to play even more at 1.2 or below...
Brent is right. I frequently do burst mode wide open with 35/50/85/135 to catch the face expression and 1Ds2 has never failed me to nail the eyes. No doubt, 5D is a capable camera but its AF can't keep up with my type of shooting specially when camera and it's subject are both moving
* 2X cost
* size/weight
* tiny (20D-like) LCD --- can't really use it to check critical focus
* clunkier (but safer) user interface: most functions require two hands
* I often get hand checked at airport security with 1Ds II, almost never with 5D
The upsides to the 1Ds II that I notice include
* built-in vertical grip (when comparing prices, factor this in)
* 1.33X better resolution (providing one step up in feasible print size)
* dramatically longer battery life between charges
* noticeably better AF performance
* 1.33X faster frame rate
* somewhat improved dynamic range
* more flexible bracketing
* improved end-user customizability (e.g., can remember different sets of settings)
* build/durability
I love the 5D in general, but its AF - especially with the 50/1.2L just gives me fits. The center point is pretty good, but the outer points are so twitchy that I cant reliably use them.
Unless you NEED the 1 series body or 1 series AF, I would actually stick with the 5D, and wait for the 5D's replacement, or consider the 1DsIII. The 5D has newer image processing technology than the 1DsII. I've found that it meant the 1DsII has more noise in the shadow regions even at low ISO.
How much different is the AF system on the 1dSMK2 and the 1DMK2? The reason I ask is am seeing a lot of the comments that the 1D AF is much better than the 5D. However when I compare my 5D to the 1DMK2 am not seeing that much of a difference. In fact, in low light I think the 5D focuses better for most of my subjects.
jerrykur wrote:
How much different is the AF system on the 1dSMK2 and the 1DMK2? The reason I ask is am seeing a lot of the comments that the 1D AF is much better than the 5D. However when I compare my 5D to the 1DMK2 am not seeing that much of a difference. In fact, in low light I think the 5D focuses better for most of my subjects.
jerry
These comments are in reference to action situations, and sports --- this is what the 1 series is made for. The 1Dmark II, and 1Ds mark II have the same AF system.
Ben Horne wrote:
Unless you NEED the 1 series body or 1 series AF, I would actually stick with the 5D, and wait for the 5D's replacement, or consider the 1DsIII. The 5D has newer image processing technology than the 1DsII. I've found that it meant the 1DsII has more noise in the shadow regions even at low ISO.
The 1ds II has more shadow noise than the 5D because it doesn't have as heavy of a noise reduction built in.
Brent Ward wrote:
The 1ds II has more shadow noise than the 5D because it doesn't have as heavy of a noise reduction built in.
It also maintains more shadow detail then the 5D.
I only shoot with them in the RAW mode, so the noise reduction really should not be a concern there. I just found that the shadow areas of the 1DsII were quite gritty compared to the 5D. Both are very good cameras though.
Having some time on my hands today, weather sunny and found an old barn type building with lots of detailed areas. I was mainly trying to compare my 17-40 against my sigma 20mm 1.8 on my 1ds and mk2 bodies but things went on a bit from there and I landed up throwing in the 1dsmk3 and Contax 35-70.
I never wanted anything more in my life than to see the mk3 put up a superb performance. I knew the 17-40 and Sigma 20 weren`t going to shine on the mk3 from previous tests and that wasn`t the object of the test anyway but always rested back on the Contax with the 1dsmk3 where performance was very good.
On the 1ds the 17-40 and sigma 20 are good(very good in fact )but you still have the 11 million pixels that have to be upsized for stock work and that levels out the playing field somewhat.
The 17-40 and Sigma 20 do not shine on the mk3 (I`ve got to do some more tests to define for sure whether it is AF or just the chip out resolving the lenses) but from what I`m seeing and shooting at F10 @17mm I`m erring away from the AF.(BTW weather hot 27 degrees and bright sun)
My findings today are as I have said on other threads that the 1dsmk2 is still the best compromise, 17-40 and sigma 20 work fine on the 1dsmk2 and having never actually tried the Contax on the mk2 till today I was surprised by just how well that lens performed on the mk2. The image file size is just at the stock library minimum size so with careful composition you can use all of the res. OK, the mk2 isn`t a patch on the mk3 with regards features and lcd, live view etc but from what I`m seeing the 1dsmk2 is the camera that I can trust knowing that if I do my bit I should land up with a high keeper rate.
I say again that if Canon(and others) are going to start producing res starting to approach 30 million pixels then IMHO something has got to change.
These are just my findings and your mileage may differ but I can only go by what my eyes are seeing. (I`ve recently laid out for new spectacles so that side is sorted
I think you can get the 5D mkII by the end of Oct. The IQ probably will be superior on the new 5D. At a minimum, it will be equal. The newer canon tech. is superior to what you would get in a used 1DsII. Complex colors (landscapes) are truer.
I currently have the 5D and the 1DIII. I really don't like the big form factor of the 1 series, except with big lenses. So I'm a little biased against the 1DsII/III.
dcmiller wrote:
I think you can get the 5D mkII by the end of Oct. The IQ probably will be superior on the new 5D. At a minimum, it will be equal. The newer canon tech. is superior to what you would get in a used 1DsII. Complex colors (landscapes) are truer.
Just as the 5D wasn't necessarily better in "most" aspects than the 1Ds, the 5D2 will not necessarily be better in "most" aspects than the 1Ds2. You won't know until you see, and even then it's not clear how obvious it will be.
stanj wrote:
Just as the 5D wasn't necessarily better in "most" aspects than the 1Ds, the 5D2 will not necessarily be better in "most" aspects than the 1Ds2. You won't know until you see, and even then it's not clear how obvious it will be.
John Power wrote:
I guess that's why so many accomplished and highly skilled professional photographers use the 1DSMK2.
The 1DS2 was the best among a long collection starting with the d30...I finally sold everything as my health went out the window...but I look at the 1Ds2 prints and smile every time. Quite a camera!
I find the 5D's strength is the size and portability. The 5D with the 35L, no hood, is a perfect walkaround combo.. but I'm always in low light situations and I find that both my 35L and 85L will lock AF quicker and more accurately on my 1Ds II vs. the 5D.
Servo performance on the 1Ds II appeared to trump the 5D the other day when I was shooting with the 300 2.8.
The screen on the 5D is bigger, however it's very dependant on the amount of ambient light - your images might look over/under exposed so watch that histogram or you might be in for a surprise when you get the files on the PC. For low ISO shots, I find that they're roughly on-par as far as a full image goes but the 5D has the edge for lower noise on a per-pixel basis.
There are a few newer features on the 5D such as the ISO setting shown in viewfinder when changing (which is why I prefer this cam in low light), the ability to tell my 580EX not to fire but still use the AF assist (I can't find the CF on the 1Ds II - can someone enlighten me here?), the user interface...
But the reduced shutter lag, build quality and ruggedness of the 1Ds II are why for any situation I don't need something smaller, it's always my camera of choice... and sometimes the extra cropping latitude is worth it.
If you're just after some higher ISO sensitivity, wait for the next Canon. We might actually see an improvement with metering, too, which would be very nice given that Canon are several years behind Nikon here....
EvilZardoz wrote:
There are a few newer features on the 5D such as the ISO setting shown in viewfinder when changing (which is why I prefer this cam in low light)
