I currently have a 20D and I am thinking of upgrading in the near future. I am pondering which camera I should choose a used 5D or a used Mark II. I mainly photograph landscape, trains, macro, portraits and flowers. Occassionally a friday night high school football game. I currently have a 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and a 100mm macro. Which camera would be a perfect fit for my style of shooting and lens lineup.
Thank you
Mark

Not counting in the football, I would say 5D.

I have both cameras and agree with Zander. The 5D is a great all around camera. I upgraded from a 20D to the 5D and it was a very nice upgrade. I added the 1DMK2 to shoot birds and action. It is a great camera for those situations, but I carry the 5D most of the time.

Agreed....If you hadn't mentioned that occasional Friday night football game, it'd be a no-brainer. And it's not the night part that's the issue, but the football . But I'd say you're better off having the camera that's perfectly suited to 90% of what you're shooting, and that's the 5D.

As noted, definitely the 5D for your style of photography...The 1DMKII is a great camera, but the 5D offers some improvement in IQ that you might find beneficial. Actually, if you don't mind spending some more then I would say the 1DMKIII would be the best of both worlds. It has similar IQ to the 5D and also offers the extra focusing speed for the occasional Friday Night football. I love my 1DMK3.

I would also get the 5d. It is a sweet camera, I have both and I use the 1D primarily for sports and fast wildlife
The 5D handles the rest
The 5D can handle sports to a certain extent, though you only get 3 fps, if your ready and can predetermine the next good action shot you'll be pleased the results from the 5D

Edited by Cliftonyte on Aug 24, 2008 at 08:11 PM GMT

You need 8 fps?

i'm in the same boat you are.
I think the only thing the 5d lacks for sport shooting besides the fps is the autofocus (from what i've gathered) But would the 1dmk2 not be just as good for portraits and everything else just like the 5d?

Here's a divergent thought... It sounds like the 40D would be a good fit. While not as good as a mkII or mkIII, it does shoot 6fps. The 10mp will provide lots of resolution for landscape work and you could buy a 40D + 10-22 wide-angle for less than the 5D.

FYI, I am currently using a 1Ds for my landscape macro work... a bargain these days. The 1Ds does not have low noise @ high ISO, but does have very low noise @ ISO 100. You can get the 1Ds (full frame, super AF, & pro build) for as low as $1250. Pair this with you 20D (crop + 5fps) for sports, and you're set.... oh, and I use a 40D w/ my 300 f2.8 IS for wildlife.

good luck,
bruce

Another divergent thought - Why not wait a little until you see the pricing for the new 50D? Also shoots at 6fps - if you beleive the leaked specs - and 15 mp.

I would say in your situation you would be happier with a 5D since it suits your main style of photography more. Sure the 1D2 or N will be great for the odd Friday night football game but equally I don't think you have the lenses for covering a football game anyway.

I ended up recently choosing the 1d2. I decided that for me the (feature set+AF+1.3x sensor)>(FF sensor+smaller body). For the same money used, I decided that the 1d offered me more value for the money since I didn't mind the extra heft.

Additionally, I had a 20d for years and was also just curious what a 1D would be like... I was ready for something different.

I enjoy the purchase a lot and it isn't as inconvenient to carry around as I thought it would be. It is heavy, but when carrying it on my shoulder with the strap, it is more comfortable than my 20d or Rebels because it stays level, even with the 85 f1.2 brick attached.

Marcus

PS. I'm pleasantly surprised with the high ISO ability of the 1d2. It is better than my 20D and if you watch exposure well enough (mine tends to underexpose a little in med-low light), iso1600-3200 is surprisingly good and usable.

I've said this before, but whilst I love the 1-series build and focusing, unless you are pretty sure you won't need to crop much you can certainly consider the 1D2, it's a fine camera.

If you do crop 8 meg though it's evident very quickly that you're running out of pixels. The 5D image quality, by virtue of the 13 meg and the superior high ISO quality will give you better overall image quality, and a full frame for wideangles, which is also tricky on a 1.3 crop, unless you're prepared to adapt a 10-22 lens, as the 17-40 for instance becomes an effective 22-52mm.

Personally, I'd go for the 5D, or wait until Photokina

David

i have been following this thread doe a while and has not made the move...
similarly with marcus, i'm using a 20D currently. The 50D does not call for the jump.
The choice is still between 5D (because of full frame) and 1D2 (faster AF).

My current gear setup:
14L
35L
24-70L
135L
70-200IS2.8

i am into events and travel photography, and portraits.
One thing i like to experience is a better AF...

any advice? thanks!

Boxer:

(You've got a great lens line-up.) Why not pick up a 5D, try the full-frame picture quality. You can always sell it later and get a crop-frame. If a 5D successor comes at Photokina, as expected, you'd be able to get one pretty cheap.

I'd wait for Photokina. 5D mk II is dead sure to be announced, with two possible outcomes:

1) It's gonna be so amazingly good that you cannot resist it and you blow 3 grand on it. New, amazing FF camera and your'e one happy photog.

2) It's good, but does not convince you. The prices of used 5D mk I plummet and you can pick one up for 1000$ or less. Amazing FF camera and your'e one happy photog.

I shoot a 40D myself and the AF is HEAPS better than on the 5D. (And yes - I have actually used the 5D, I'm not just reciting others). But the 5D delivers AMAZING pictures. "Rich" is the word that springs to mind. Rich in detail, contrast, colors and sharpness. Hook it up with nice glass and you will not be disappointed. If a new 5D delivers the same magic look, with better AF and more pixels to crop from, It would be my dream camera come true. If not, I'll go for a used 5D mk I. Even 3 years down the line, it's a great camera.

1-series are just too huge & heavy for my tastes. And I've only tried the 1D mk III, the Mk II is heavier...

Edit: Boxer - That lineup and a 5D = Magic. Go for it.

thanks for your opinions/advice.

By the way, when is Photokina?

championboxer wrote:
thanks for your opinions/advice.

By the way, when is Photokina?

September 23-28

5D. even with the football, you dont have the lenses to justify getting a 1d2 for it.

bridow wrote:
5D. even with the football, you dont have the lenses to justify getting a 1d2 for it.

All lenses in his lineup are sharp little gems and they'll look good on the 5D as well as on a 1D mk II. But none of them would be my first pick for soccer. Both the 100mm and the 85mm have good AF, but they are simply lacking reach. But that is not what we're here to discuss

Maybe you should now take a look at the new 50D. Indications from some quarters are that the ISO may be better than the 5D, the AF is better than the 40D, and it's got twice the pixels of the MKII which will help you out a little with the "reach", so to speak, with sports, insofar as allowing for closer crops. Check out this thread:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/681040

hfillmore wrote:
Maybe you should now take a look at the new 50D. Indications from some quarters are that the ISO may be better than the 5D, the AF is better than the 40D, and it's got twice the pixels of the MKII which will help you out a little with the "reach", so to speak, with sports, insofar as allowing for closer crops. Check out this thread:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/681040

Good point. Only reason I didn't say it was that I did not want to state the obvious. Or something like that... ARGH, why didn't I think of it?

Go check out that 50D bad boy and report back. Or look at the 40D, prices are sure to plummet on those now. Good thing I'm not selling mine

I'll tell ya what....... I usually use a MKIII with a 600 for surfing shots, but for the super long distance stuff I sometimes prefer the 40D for it's additional 1.6 crop factor "reach", although I still like the files better from the MKIII. I believe I'll trade the 40D for the 50 for the super long stuff, because that extra five meg will give me a lot better crop ability. And from what I'm reading, I wouldn't be surprised if the files from the 50 look as good as the MKIII. There have also been some indications that the focusing speed on the 50 is a lot faster than the 40, as per the link I noted above.