Starting to feel like I would be better off with a 5D over my 1DMK2. Here are the reasons.
8 mega pixels is killing me on bigger enlargements and album spreads.
Full frame seems to be the way to go for best IQ.
5D has better noise control.
I know the focusing system on the 1DMK2 is superior, especially for fast moving brides! But am I really going to miss that and the 8fps for what I am doing? I really could do with those 12mp. Anyone feel me?
I don't think anyone would notice the difference between 8mp vs 12mp when printed.
If I had to choose, I'd go with 5D without hesitation. Better noise handling and IQ is superior. I am yet to match the IQ of the 5D with anything else I've tried (Canon 1D Mark2, Mark3, Nikon D700, D3). No scientific evidence to any of that, just my personal observation. Good luck with your choice!
Weren't people doing spreads with 10/20D's and a 1D just a few years back?
I would switch to a 5D for better overall IQ and high ISO performance, but I wouldn't switch based on MP's. This business doesn't call for a lot of MP's. Besides, there are a few extremely good upresing actions out there from the "Big people" if you really feel you don't have enough there to work with.
It's funny how on other threads people are talking about the fact that file sizes are getting too big for this business.
I know how you feel about your Mark II though. I have a 1D, had a Mark II, but sold it because I didn't see the reason in it. The focusing and handling are a whole 'nother topic when compared to the 5D. I often cook dinner, dim the lights, fill the glasses full with some great red wine, and seat my 5D and 1D original at the table, throw on some Barry White, and exit. My hopes are that my 1D will throw all of it's 4 megapixels of love into the FF of the 12 megapixel 5D, and a REAL, new body would emerge as the King of all camera bodies.
MP matters to me, but high ISO noise matters more. However, AF matters a whole lot too and it is for that reason that last year I bought two lenses instead of a 5D II. If they had put a better AF system in that camera I would've gotten it instead of the lenses.
i was using the 1d2n for a while for full page spreads of 12x12 albums and ran into no problems and a lot of those shots were shot at iso 1600.
look at it this way, 1d2 is how many years old vs. the 5d which is much newer. better iso performance (crucial for us wedding photogs), higher mp (your concern) and it is full frame.
if you're concerned about the bride moving too fast, i don't think it will be an issue with the 5d, i've never had that problem, but how fast can a bride in heels run anyways?
I don't think I would concentrate on full frame per se, the XSi is nearly identical to the 5D in terms of IQ. There is no comparison in IQ between the 5d and mk2 imo, the 5d is a solid leap ahead. You will definitely miss the af on the mk2, unless your subject are always stationary, and you will also miss the sync speed. What you won't miss is the size/weight of that beast, maybe the battery life and/or size, definitely that confounded battery charger that teases you with the false notion that it can charge two batteries at once, limited crop ability, lesser iso abilities, smaller lcd unless you have the n, two button adjustments, and probably more stuff. Really it's up to you to put all those things on a scale, and see which way it tips for you.
I wish both of these cameras could be molded into a single unit!
Thanks for your opinions everyone! Some of you have said that an extra 4mp don't really matter. But doesn't it give you much better possibilities when it comes to cropping your image? Sometimes I have a shot that I have had to crop into quite a bit. When you enlarge it up to 11x14 for example it looks terrible.
Oh man, I just hit my 1000 post! Congratulate me someone!!
mpaul73 wrote:
Thanks for your opinions everyone! Some of you have said that an extra 4mp don't really matter. But doesn't it give you much better possibilities when it comes to cropping your image?
Just about to say that, especially when making albums and shooting loose in the first place to accomodate album design as well as 8X10 orders as well as asthetic choices, etc, more megapixels just does not hurt. Personally I find though that with all of the above, the incredibly sharp 12.7 megapixels of my 5D's are a wonderful wedding sweet point for megapixel needs.
mpaul73 wrote:
Thanks for your opinions everyone! Some of you have said that an extra 4mp don't really matter. But doesn't it give you much better possibilities when it comes to cropping your image? Sometimes I have a shot that I have had to crop into quite a bit. When you enlarge it up to 11x14 for example it looks terrible.
Oh man, I just hit my 1000 post! Congratulate me someone!!
Congrats
I have to ask a serious question (not to knock you or anything). Have you actually printed a cropped file from your 8mp digicam? Wedding photography and albums with digicams were here several years before 8mp and printed with pretty darn good results. I still have several 11x16 prints that are as clear and sharp as could be from my old D60. I've printed several clean large images and 10x20 album spreads from the 20D I still have....and I know several are cropped because I used to make much more room for cropping in the past.
It's always been said that a jump in a few megapixel don't yield as much as you might think. This is why the megapixel "war" has died down quite a bit over the past couple of years. There are other factors that affect the image more so than MP.
tcamper wrote:
This business doesn't call for a lot of MP's. Besides, there are a few extremely good upresing actions out there from the "Big people" if you really feel you don't have enough there to work with.
It's funny how on other threads people are talking about the fact that file sizes are getting too big for this business.
I think it depends on your market. I would say that 90% of our clients get bridal portraits for their home or their mother's. The most common sizes they get are 16x24 and 20x30. Yes, our lab does some up-res on the files, but starting with a better file is... well, better. A little while back, we had a bride purchase a 40x60 of a bridal party shot for her breakfast nook!
Yes, there is a balance somewhere, though. The large RAW files that the newer cams produce these days are overkill for most things. Space gets gobbled up and processing gets slowed down. That's why I want a good medium RAW option. The 5DmkII, for example, is 21MP (which we would use for portraits and shots likely to be printed large), but the medium RAW is around 10MP (which we would like to be just a smidge bigger... maybe in the 12-15 range)
While we're near the subject, we have the same issue with ISO. So many people on here talk about "useable 1600" or higher. Some of those people never get an order for anything larger than an 8x10, either. Clients in some of those areas just aren't looking for that, but here in the south it's fairly standard. When you start blowing things up, that "barely noticeable" grain in the 4x6 size shot someone posted online becomes something else entirely.
