I am looking to spend $2000-$2500 on a used 1D-series body. Should I get a 1Ds mkII for its megapixels and full-frame sensor or 1D mkIII for newer AF system and live view?
Based on your Flickr samples, you would be very well served by the 1DsMII.
If you get one and find that you don't like it, you wont have any trouble unloading it.
XsigmaSD wrote:
Based on your Flickr samples, you would be very well served by the 1DsMII.
If you get one and find that you don't like it, you wont have any trouble unloading it.
JMO
Wow! What do my flickr samples tell you then? I'm totally intrigued
You are showing lot of runway work, and a fair amount of "environment" portraits. The 1DsMkII would excel at both, you would see an IQ improvement over your current 40D, and the focus system will knock your socks off. There is no debate on this forum that the 1DsMkII still holds its own and even excels the IQ of the current cameras in some ways. There's nothing in your gallery that would require 10fps, and nothing that would even come close to taxing the focus system of the DsMkII.
Easy choice. Get one, shoot some of that exact same stuff you are showing now.
Seriously, AF is not an issue when you do landscaping or anything is from standing still to slow moving subjects. If you shoot people moving quickly like models on the runway then you see faster AF tracking which 1Ds2 will win. Otherwise 5D2 should do with the rest. One thing I really don't like about 5D2 is the AWB with fair skin people. It put in too reds. I have to white-balance and shoot raw to correct later. Other than that I really like 5D2. The bonus is the video capability with 1080p. It gets my creativity moving!
I'm debating this as well. I would like better high ISO than the 5D I currently use, but also better AF. I'm guessing the D700 would fit me a like a glove, but my wallet doesn't agree.
I had a 1DsmkII, went with a 1DmkIII, and I'm still happy with the decision. I love the files straight out of the 1DmkIII. The 1DsmkII took a bit more post work to satisfy.
5D AF ain't that bad like what you've describe.
I have 1DmkII and yes it's faster than 5D for sports amd fast moving subjects.
5D and 5D2 AF are good for studio and landscaping and slow moving subjects.
I'm not even considering the 5D as I just like the 1D-series look and feel. Normally I shoot with my 40D, but I've borrowed a 1D mk III for some runway work and was very impressed.
I shoot a1DII and a 1DsII and while I know the 1DIII is supposed to have much better AF (and I think it probably finally does) for anything other that high speed action work, I use the 1DsII. Don't get me wrong, the whole 1D series are great cameras but these are different tools for different types of work. With what you are shooting I think you will love the 1DsII. The IQ is astounding and remarks about "having to work with it" not withstanding, there is so much room in the RAW image that one can do most anything.
RobertLynn wrote:
I've used an original 5d in ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/200 underexposed by a stop, and it didn't do too bad in servo.
i just had the chance to use the 1dsmkII in good light with Af servo and 45 AF points. Holy Moly. Servo with 45 points is a whole different ting from servo with 9.
I find the 1DMK3 a bit easier to handle. I suspect this is due to the lighter weight. I also prefer the controls on the MK3 (and later) 1 series bodies. On the MK2 I had a hard time remember which two buttons had to be pressed to change a setting. Also, I like having Live View and Microsoft Adjustment.
How is the resolution in the 1DsMkII compared to the 1DMkIII. I have a 1DMkII N and the 8mb limits me somewhat in big prints yet gives me the speed I need in BIF and Wildlife that I would get with the 1DMkIII, even though it is only 2mb bigger. I would like of course the 1DMkIV, but price range Is the 1DMkIII the cross between the 1DsMkII and the 1DMkII N
! It ain't that bad. HAHAHAHA!
Is the 1DMkIII the cross between the 1DsMkII and the 1DMkII N