I've been contemplating lately selling both my bodies to buy a 1DmkIII.
I don't necessarily need both bodies, nor do I shoot sports all that often. But I LOVE the AF system from the 1-Series. I'm very content with my lens-kit, I wouldn't mind adding a couple more primes and maybe a 300 f/4 IS, but other than that, I'm all set.

I don't know if it's really worth it, which is why I'm asking you guys.

If you had both the 5D and 1DmkII, but didn't necessarily need both bodies, would you sell them to get the mkIII? Or am I being ridiculous? (Which happens often on here as I'm sure you've noticed.)

I pose lots of hypothetical scenarios.

I guess I should have prefaced my post with the following.
I do a lot of street-type shooting. Daily life photojournalism type stuff. I rarely do studio portraits anymore, if ever. I love doing landscape work and shooting animals close up (hence 200mm being my longest lens.) I frequently shoot in very low light, and swear by my 35L. Every now and then I get to shoot volleyball games and other types of events.

I'm very much a photojournalist as I mentioned before. The only thing I would be missing out on by selling the 5D is having a second body (which at this time in my life is unnecessary) and having full-frame for landscapes. (the 16-35 is still decently wide on the mkII though. I'm used to it.)

Knowing this, do you think it makes sense for me to converge the bodies down to one?

I have the 5D and 1D II but I just could not bring myself to buy a 1D III unless it was a bargain. However, even if I did, I would not sell my other cameras until I had proved the 1D III had no AF issues. If you get a good copy then yes the 1D III would be an excellent camera for what you want for low light and even landscapes. My 1D II was my only camera for 2 years and I was more than happy to use it for landscape, macro, architecture, as well as sport, wildlife. The 1D III noise is superb and IQ is very close to the 5D.

Have you considered a 1Ds II in place of the 5D and 1D II. It'll be a perfect blend of 1 series AF and 5D IQ. Also they are now going for $4K or less. I have considered this option .

I have thought about that. But.. hate me all you want i LOVE the idea of that 3" LCD. hehe.
Only thing that really bugs me about my mkII is that silly little 2" screen. I've seen a few mkIIIs going for the $3500 range which, hopefully, would mean I'd be out very little if any money extra.

It really is a tough decision. I don't NEED two bodies, but it certainly is convenient, and I have a backup. But to be honest, I've never had a camera fail on my since my 10D. And I'm not shooting full-time, I will be eventually, but for now it's just my passion and my hobby and life outside of work.

I think it would be worth it, does anyone else have anything to say otherwise? Only scary thing is, I pretty much would have to sell both cameras first before I could buy the mkIII

The 2" LCD does suck a bit, but I still use my 1D II and have a 40D and 5D and don't find the screen worries me in general since it's the same resolution as the 3" and I find the screen on the 1D II better than on the 5D. The rest of the 1D II is so good I can overlook this issue.

I think you already have a great combo. I'm personally going to wait and see what the 5D replacement offers and maybe they'll announce a 1D III replacement at Photokina in September.

I would be shocked if they replaced the mkIII already. It is true that the LCD is a small thing to dislike given the rest of the abilities of the camera. I would be tempted by a 5DmkII, but I'm just too in love with the 1Series frame. I used to be a EOS3 and 1V-HS shooter back in my film days and I'm never happy with anything less than that . I know I have a great and useful combo, I just wonder if it makes more sense to consolidate. It goes both ways really. Benefits and disadvantages to both choices.

AbramG wrote:
I would be shocked if they replaced the mkIII already. It is true that the LCD is a small thing to dislike given the rest of the abilities of the camera. I would be tempted by a 5DmkII, but I'm just too in love with the 1Series frame. I used to be a EOS3 and 1V-HS shooter back in my film days and I'm never happy with anything less than that . I know I have a great and useful combo, I just wonder if it makes more sense to consolidate. It goes both ways really. Benefits and disadvantages to both choices.

I like having the 5D for when I want to travel lighter and be a bit more discreet. The IQ of the 5D is so good, I can forgive how slow it feels compared to the 1D II and for general walkabout and landscape work, speed isn't an issue anyway.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
..... The 1D III noise is superb and IQ is very close to the 5D.

Agreed, the 5d image quality is very close to the 1D3 but who's on top is important, and that would be the 1D3...

I would bet that the 1D3 is gone by PMA 2009... Not trying to start any rumors, but if Canon wants to belly up to the bar, the D3 is the one they need to address. High speed cropped cameras have probably run their course...

Besides, the 1D series is the most frequently upgraded 1 series camera Canon makes.

I wouldn't do it. Trading two excellent, functioning bodies for a MkIII is a dangerous step. Firstly, although many people have good 1DMkIII's, you run a sizable risk of getting a bad one. Buying used only makes sense if you know the person and can get your money back.

Whayne has offered some saga advice and I'm with James on this one, this camera will be replaced as soon as they possibly can and I also expect that you'll see a 5DII very soon which will give you better choices.

People are undrstandably wary of the Mark III due to the AF problems primarily of the early models. Get a late model and your chances of being disappointed are very slim. It will do it all and do it well and if high ISO performance and top AF performance is needed in a shooting situation nothing else is as good. All a matter of shooting priorities, if I were shooting landscapes only I'd get a 5D and save my money.

I have similar gear, in that I own 5D's and a 1D2N and I definitely wouldn't change your gear.

The 1D3 is clearly a fine camera, but unless you are going to use it's high ISO ability (which you already have on the 5D) or need 10 FPS or live view, what do you gain? Two meg and potential focusing issues (real or imaginary).

With the 5D you can also have a small body when you need one - and a vital backup.

The 1D2 is still a great camera and doesn't become less so because the 1D3 exists. Stick with what you have until the 1D4 comes out.

David

Tell you what, if i'm doing street potography, I certainly can think of someting more discreet than a Mark 3. A 5D!

reko wrote:
People are undrstandably wary of the Mark III due to the AF problems primarily of the early models. Get a late model and your chances of being disappointed are very slim. It will do it all and do it well and if high ISO performance and top AF performance is needed in a shooting situation nothing else is as good. All a matter of shooting priorities, if I were shooting landscapes only I'd get a 5D and save my money.


I had two late models that weren't up to par.

5D and Mark II is the great combo. If you need back up camera for what you shoot, keep them.

Otherwise it's your personal choice, and you will love the Mark III once you get your hands on it...

pj. 1d2
wedding 5d
pj weddings... 1ds3

no