Hi everyone!
I can buy the used 1Ds Mark II about $2800, it's like to pay New 5D Mark II. I know 1Ds is the top camera in Canon, but the new 5D II is with new tech., I have no idea which one should I to buy?
Thanks!
I recently had a similar decision. I ended up going with the 1DsMkII. (I got mine for $2500). My reasons for the 1Ds were:
1) Better weather sealing.
2) Better build quality
3) Longer shutter life.
4) The 1Ds is a known entity. IMHO Canon QC has not been the best in the world recently and their new cameras seem to have more than their fair share of issues.
5) I already had a 1DMkII so the move between the 2 cameras for me was easy.
Its not that I think the 5dMkII will be a bad camera but I would rather go with what I know.
I would go with the new 5dm2 and I have one on order to go along my 1dsm3.
Its well built but not on par with the 1 series but still really good.
Video is a nice thing to play with
Image quality is better even better than the 1dsm3
High iso this is the one huge thing that makes the 5Dm2 worth the money.
The only reason I could see to buy a 1dsm2 is if you could get it cheap or really need the weather sealing and hard build.
For the following:
1. IQ
2. light weight
3. high ISO noise
4. 14 bit vs 12 bit
5. Digic 4 vs Digic 2
6. 3" LCD vs 2"
7. LiveView
8. Video mode... if you care
9. UDMA cf card support
10. more support in Canon's software
5Dmk2 is a clear winner.
I would rather have a newer 1Dmk3 (late blue dot or yellow dot and newer) for the same price (but already have one)... but obvioulsy not possible for a new one now. It is a much better camera than 1Dsmk2 and it is still a fastest body out there.
The 5Dmk1 never break on me either... so the build quality might not be all that important.
Digital cameras is like laptop, once outdated then it is not really worth paying for it.
If the 1Dsmk2 is $1800 then I would say go for it.
Why go back to 2004 technology when you can move foward with 2009?
Here we go again with this "much better" hyperbole. Nowadays no new release is "much better" than the predecessor. It is an incremental improvement and many of the improvements have zero impact in IQ or real life functionality.
AF should be at the top of the list, 45 points to choose from, and they all work. I plan to pick up the 5Dm2, and give it a thorough test, and if it doesn't perform as advertised, it's going back and I will be looking for a 1dsm2.
Why is everyone saying IQ is better than the 1Dsm3(did Westfall not say the IQ difference applied to jpgs)?
The camera is still an unknown entity at this point.
It's really gonna come down to what you mainly shoot... and your taste. Do you need weather sealing and pro AF points? Do you need super noise control in high ISO, or live view? The original 5D is a revolutionary camera, and now a days, they are going quite cheap. Pair one up with a 24L, 35L, 85L, and/or 135L, and you got a clear winner. I'm assuming you're not planning to shoot a lot of sports since you're getting FF. As a wedding photographer myself, the biggest factor for me is the high ISO performance in very low light. The 5D does wonderful in this field, especially with great lenses like the ones mentioned above. The 1DSmkII is a great camera, but it's quite big and heavy. Pair it up with a 70-200 2.8 IS, and you got a tank to carry around. The pro AF is nice, but not really necessary for general shooting. The 5D II seems promising as well. However, if you are not shooting events in very low light majority of the time, then I see no reason to upgrade from the original 5D to the new one. I am looking forward to the new 5D II, especially if it delivers on it's ISO settings... but I will not get it until there are some proof of solid performance from the general public... or until I can test it out myself.
John Power wrote:
Here we go again with this "much better" hyperbole. Nowadays no new release is "much better" than the predecessor. It is an incremental improvement and many of the improvements have zero impact in IQ or real life functionality.
I agree. Except for somewhat improved high ISO performance, most new cameras these days aren't at all noticeably better than their predecessors ... and, in some cases, can be a small step backwards, ie the Canon 50D vs. the 40D.
As far as the 1Ds II vs 5D II goes, the advice I give people who aren't fully informed about the differences between these two cameras is:
Buy either one. Unless the 5D II proves to be lacking in a vitally important way (which isn't likely), you really can't go wrong with either camera. Faced with the same decision recently, I selected the 1Ds II.
John64 wrote:
Hi everyone!
I can buy the used 1Ds Mark II about $2800, it's like to pay New 5D Mark II. I know 1Ds is the top camera in Canon, but the new 5D II is with new tech., I have no idea which one should I to buy?
Thanks!
I went through the same process and ended up with a 1Ds2, but for different reasons from those mentioned above.
For the 1Ds2: I had the 1D2 and liked the camera and its balance
The Ds looks exactly like the D to inquisitive eyes (very important)
Going on a trip to Europe Sunday (23rd) so not sure the 5D2 would be here in time
I don't think I'd notice the difference in mp
All of my money shooting is with strobes so the high ISO matters not
Would I like the big screen, you bet, and all the other new goodies as well. If the 5D2 were in the stores a few weeks ago thats probably what I would have and perhaps 6 months down the road I'll get one. Were I you I would see if your local shop will have a new 5 to play with before you make the decision
John64 wrote:
Hi everyone!
I can buy the used 1Ds Mark II about $2800, it's like to pay New 5D Mark II. I know 1Ds is the top camera in Canon, but the new 5D II is with new tech., I have no idea which one should I to buy?
Thanks!
I have been contemplating this decision for a while and determined that to me it depends mostly on how you shoot and your priorities. To me, shooting street, travel, and landscape, IQ is most important. So I am going with the 5dMK2, which Canon says matches or exceed the IQ of the 1DMK3. If focusing of rapidly moving objects with non center point was more important I would consider a 1DSMK3 (I have a 1dMK2 for sport).
The 1DsMKII will be a much more responsive camera and give you some fantastic images. If you can put up with a sluggish shutter/blackout and weaker autofocus, the 5DMKII is probably a better choice. Plus, the 5DMKII will have live view and sensor cleaning, which will help you do things the 1DsMII won't do.
I have a 5D and a 1DsMKII and a 50D. From an event photography standpoint, I'm dumping the 5D and using the 50D for a backup body. So, what that means to me is that I don't see a reason to have a 5DMKII in my kit. The 1DsMKII would be my main body even if I did have a 5DMKII. The extra megapixels aren't going to add up to anything significant, and the performance of the 5DMKII isn't going to be noticeably better than the 5D on the job.
remember, the AF is an important factor. what good is a 22 megapixel fullframe sensor image if you're subject is out of focus? the 5D2 may give you better images, but the 1Ds2 will give you more keepers...
s23chang wrote:
For the following:
1. IQ
2. light weight
3. high ISO noise
4. 14 bit vs 12 bit
5. Digic 4 vs Digic 2
6. 3" LCD vs 2"
7. LiveView
8. Video mode... if you care
9. UDMA cf card support
10. more support in Canon's software
5Dmk2 is a clear winner.
I would rather have a newer 1Dmk3 (late blue dot or yellow dot and newer) for the same price (but already have one)... but obvioulsy not possible for a new one now. It is a much better camera than 1Dsmk2 and it is still a fastest body out there.
The 5Dmk1 never break on me either... so the build quality might not be all that important.
Digital cameras is like laptop, once outdated then it is not really worth paying for it.
If the 1Dsmk2 is $1800 then I would say go for it.
Why go back to 2004 technology when you can move foward with 2009? ...Show more →
