I will have to get another body in the following months and I can't really decide which way to go.
My current setup (regarding cameras and bodies) is:
- one 1Ds III, one 1D III
- prime lenses: 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.4, 85 1.2L II, 100 2.8 Macro, 135 2.0L
- zoom lenses: 16-35 2.8L II, 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 4L IS
I am mainly a prime shooter and I only shoot weddings (together with my wife). We need 3 bodies and the third one can be a 1D with keeping all the lenses, or can be a 1Ds. Buying the 1Ds would mean selling the 24-70 and 70-200 zooms.
At weddings the 70-200 is rather useless (due to the f/4). I like the lens, but I have three other very good primes in that range anyway.
The 24-70 is used most of the time at 2.8 (and on the 1Ds it does not really shine in terms of sharpness at that aperture). I'm not a big fan of it because it is heavy an only 2.8. Of couse, the convenience of the zoom range is useful sometimes.
I like the 1Ds because it is full-frame and because of the resolution (this means more croppability and working with primes usually requires more cropping than working with zooms). My ideal setup would be 2 x 1Ds and 1 x 1D. So, would you trade the lenses for getting a better body?
I'm in the same situation as you regarding two shooters and lenses... And here's what I'd do...
-Sell the 24-70 and 70-200 4L (I hate the 24-70).
-Keep the 16-35 and buy a 70-200 2.8IS (that's the only hole I see in your lineup)
-Buy a 1DIII or 5D2. Spend the money you'll save on the 1Ds on the 70-200.
I don't like the 70-200 2.8. It's too big and too obvious. Not really suitable for my style of shooting. I use rarely the 135, so a 70-200 2.8 would not be of too much use for me. I shoot 95% of the images with FLs between 16 an 85 mm.
adimage wrote:
I don't like the 70-200 2.8. It's too big and too obvious. Not really suitable for my style of shooting. I use rarely the 135, so a 70-200 2.8 would not be of too much use for me. I shoot 95% of the images with FLs between 16 an 85 mm.
Ok cool. Well I still feel the same about the other points.
adimage wrote:
I don't like the 70-200 2.8. It's too big and too obvious. Not really suitable for my style of shooting. I use rarely the 135, so a 70-200 2.8 would not be of too much use for me. I shoot 95% of the images with FLs between 16 an 85 mm.
Kind of answered your own question don't you think?
Here in Romania the 135 is too long. We can move around as we like in general and in the church my longest FL is 85. The 135 can be used to get some candid shots of the people attending (and on the 1D or 1Ds + some crop you can get even a bit closer to an 180-200 equivalent).
@PhotosByRDD: I am leaning towards the 1Ds indeed, but I want some other oppinions as well to balance the decision.
I will have to get another body in the following months and I can't really decide which way to go.
My current setup (regarding cameras and bodies) is:
- one 1Ds III, one 1D III
- prime lenses: 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.4, 85 1.2L II, 100 2.8 Macro, 135 2.0L
- zoom lenses: 16-35 2.8L II, 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 4L IS
I am mainly a prime shooter and I only shoot weddings (together with my wife). We need 3 bodies and the third one can be a 1D with keeping all the lenses, or can be a 1Ds. Buying the 1Ds would mean selling the 24-70 and 70-200 zooms.
At weddings the 70-200 is rather useless (due to the f/4). I like the lens, but I have three other very good primes in that range anyway.
The 24-70 is used most of the time at 2.8 (and on the 1Ds it does not really shine in terms of sharpness at that aperture). I'm not a big fan of it because it is heavy an only 2.8. Of couse, the convenience of the zoom range is useful sometimes.
I like the 1Ds because it is full-frame and because of the resolution (this means more croppability and working with primes usually requires more cropping than working with zooms). My ideal setup would be 2 x 1Ds and 1 x 1D. So, would you trade the lenses for getting a better body? ...Show more →
Since you said you only shoot weddings, another 1D3 is the obvious choice. The 1D3 is superior to the 1Ds3 for weddings due mostly to the more appropriate file sizes. The 1Ds3's files are better suited to landscape and commercial work, but are very inefficient for wedding work. 10mp is ideal, which makes it the smarter, more efficient choice. I would also recommend upgrading your 70-200 to the 2.8IS version, which is a very, very effective and useful wedding lens.
Tony Hoffer wrote:
I'm in the same situation as you regarding two shooters and lenses... And here's what I'd do...
-Sell the 24-70 and 70-200 4L (I hate the 24-70).
-Keep the 16-35 and buy a 70-200 2.8IS (that's the only hole I see in your lineup)
-Buy a 1DIII or 5D2. Spend the money you'll save on the 1Ds on the 70-200.
Ok. Looks like most of you say to get the 1D (5D II is out of the question due to the AF system which I hated on the 5D).
Since I have both cameras, I can say that the differences in filesize are not killing me. I have about 170 Gb storage space on cards (I use CFs to record the RAW files and the SDs to record the JPG files so that I can have a backup of my shots - one of the reasons for owning a 1 series camera). Also I have a quad core computer with enough RAM and 10.000 rpm HDDs. While processing the files from 1D is obviously faster, I would not say that storage and processing power are an issue if I have to deal with the 1Ds files.
Regarding 70-200, as I said, I do not need something like that. I have an 85 1.2 and a 135 2.0. I would not see myself putting the 70-200 2.8 on the camera and keep these lenses in the bag because first of all, it is one-two stops slower. I usually find myself shooting at ISO 1600, f/2 and 1/80 - 1/100 which would be the slowest speeds to keep the people sharp enough. So a 70-200 2.8 would give me a very hand-holdable 1/40 (due to the IS, but unappropriate for shooting people). So, I am really not interested in the 70-200 2.8 IS.
I am doing only matted albums so the prints do not exceed 11x14". Of course the 10mp is really enough for this. But if you start cropping heavily from the 10mp, the resolution drops quickly. Then there is the 1.3 crop factor which while it is not too much, it it still there and is very visible with the wide lenses. These are my main concerns about the 1D, otherwise it is a very good camera (esp. given the fact that it goes to ISO 6400 which I find preety usable in prints).
So, until now I am still undecided which way to go...
If you don't like those lenses that you are thinking of trading in...I would say definitely YES, to answer your question. Trade those lenses in for a better body. You know what lenses best suit you.
BTW I'm with you on the 70-200 2.8. I hired it once and I absolutely hated it.
louloulou wrote:
If you don't like those lenses that you are thinking of trading in...I would say definitely YES, to answer your question. Trade those lenses in for a better body. You know what lenses best suit you.
BTW I'm with you on the 70-200 2.8. I hired it once and I absolutely hated it.
Please, don't recommend anymore the 70-200 2.8. I am totally aware that for the type of ceremony that most of you shoot it is a really valuable tool and also for the receptions. Here the churches are rather small, so they require wide to normal lenses in general.
Also, most of the parties are held indoor (this means that the space is not very large and most of the time I find myself using wide lenses more than tele lenses). I am a fan of available light shooting, and in the conditions I normally encounter, sometimes even 1.4 is not enough to freeze motion on people dancing. So 2.8 is really out of question.
The getting ready part usually takes place is small appartments or hotel rooms. There, something like a 70-200 is totally useless.
I kept the 70-200 f/4 for trips mostly, but I can't really justify owning it only for that. I did not use the 70-200 at weddings except for maybe 2-3 weddings out of 25 this year to get some outdoor candids (that was before I had the 85 and 135).
Sorry for insisting on this, but it looks like most people keep telling me to get a 70-200 2.8 when that lens was not even in the discussion. The question is actually about 1Ds and 1D. Selling the zooms is part of the equation for getting the funds if I go the 1Ds route.
I'd get a used 1Ds2. Appropriate file sizes allowing for some cropping. Full frame. Card slots and controls of a 1 series. Only downside is the pathetic LCD.
Although the 1Ds II is a good camera, for me it has some downsides:
- the controls/menus are different than on the 1Ds III and 1D III that I already have.
- High ISO is also not shining.
- The AF system is not as good as on the IIIs (esp. on the outer points)
ChrisDM wrote:
Since you said you only shoot weddings, another 1D3 is the obvious choice. The 1D3 is superior to the 1Ds3 for weddings due mostly to the more appropriate file sizes. The 1Ds3's files are better suited to landscape and commercial work, but are very inefficient for wedding work. 10mp is ideal, which makes it the smarter, more efficient choice.
***in your opinion only***
I love the 21mp files for wedding work. CF cards and hard drives are cheap - give me FF and huge files over small 1.3x crop files any day of the week thanks.
I love the 21mp files for wedding work. CF cards and hard drives are cheap - give me FF and huge files over small 1.3x crop files any day of the week thanks.
I love the 21mp files too, I just found my processing time really went up when shooting weddings with my 1Ds3. And when I look at the final output shoting weddings with the 1D3 and 1Ds3 side by side, an expert couln't tell the difference which print came from which camera. Therefore the smarter, more efficient choice for me is t ouse the 1D3 as my wedding tool and use my 1Ds3/5D2 for commercial/landscape work, where quantities are lower but where print sizes are much bigger (where 21mp really makes a difference).
I can tell! one of my guys uses 1D3's and believe me in a 14x14 or 18x14 album I can tell! The 1Ds3 is great for weddings.
My processing time hasn't changed, though that may belong in the mac vs pc thread it takes longer to export the raws out to jpegs of course but I don't need to sit at the computer when it does that. actual editing of the files is fine in aperture.
sejanus wrote:
I can tell! one of my guys uses 1D3's and believe me in a 14x14 or 18x14 album I can tell! The 1Ds3 is great for weddings.
My processing time hasn't changed, though that may belong in the mac vs pc thread it takes longer to export the raws out to jpegs of course but I don't need to sit at the computer when it does that. actual editing of the files is fine in aperture.
At 18x14 I might be able to tell too, but my clients can't...That print size is about where 21mp starts to make a difference, but 99% of wedding photos end up as 4x6 prints, so for me its about working efficiently. Once again why I choose it as my landscape/commercial camera, but not for weddings.
it takes longer to export the raws out to jpegs of course but I don't need to sit at the computer when it does that. actual editing of the files is fine in aperture.