Having an argument with my-self's and need the Pro's advice.. Currently have the 1D IIn, and 1Ds II.. With the recent drop in 1D IV prices I find myself wanting (not needing) one.. Primarily looking at the live-view for better manual focusing, better LCD with exposure simulation, speed, buffer, and AF improvements.. Why --- I am getting older, eyes not as good, and want to photo grandchildren's sports as well as landscape.. I could wait on the 1Dx, but do not think I will ever have that much to spent on a camera, without going into debt... Thank you
Im in the same spot. If you can sell your gears and find a good deal one one, buy it. You don't need justification from us has to how you spend your money.
3catsinky wrote:
Im in the same spot. If you can sell your gears and find a good deal one one, buy it. You don't need justification from us has to how you spend your money.
Thank you.. Justification is not what I need.. I need someone to blame if my wife goes spastic.. Really, just wanted to see if the 1D IV could / would replace both camera in IQ, etc...
Hard to say about the IQ. And you can blame whoever you want.
I bought a new Mk IV in November and the images were soft. Thought it was the 70-200 but after testing it is the camera. Two trips to cps in Irvine got it looking better but it appears that the focus in AI Servo is off and inconsistent. Back to Irvine on Monday.
I must had gotten the one and only Mk IV that doesn't focus. Unless, of course, I'm doing something wrong. My Mk IIn was never a source of concern for me, right out of the box.
I'd say stay with the II N ... add an angle finder for your FF landscape/non-AF work and and put the $$$ into the 24L TS-E II ... i.e glass rules.
Oh wait, that's what I did do.
Take a spin with the 24L TS-E II (rental) and compare it with your 17-40L or your Sigma 24-60 and you'll likely no longer question the need for a new camera. Same goes for better AF performance ... double check your glass lineup before thinking that your answer for better is in a new camera.
StevenF wrote:
Hard to say about the IQ. And you can blame whoever you want.
I bought a new Mk IV in November and the images were soft. Thought it was the 70-200 but after testing it is the camera. Two trips to cps in Irvine got it looking better but it appears that the focus in AI Servo is off and inconsistent. Back to Irvine on Monday.
I must had gotten the one and only Mk IV that doesn't focus. Unless, of course, I'm doing something wrong. My Mk IIn was never a source of concern for me, right out of the box....Show more →
RustyBug wrote:
I'd say stay with the II N ... add an angle finder for your FF landscape/non-AF work and and put the $$$ into the 24L TS-E II ... i.e glass rules.
Oh wait, that's what I did do.
Take a spin with the 24L TS-E II (rental) and compare it with your 17-40L or your Sigma 24-60 and you'll likely no longer question the need for a new camera. Same goes for better AF performance ... double check your glass lineup before thinking that your answer for better is in a new camera.
Thank you, Kent.. I was hoping you would stop by as I know you have comparable camera's and the expertise to use it.. Thank you
The 1DIV will not quite replace the 1DsII for landscapes, primarily for reasons of color depth and the fact that almost all the great landscape lenses are wides and are 'compromised' on crop.
I would suggest waiting for the 1DX to launch/prices on the 1DIV to drop, and then move from the IIn to it.
While I am not the end all expert, I would disagree with Sp12, the MKIV is 1.3 crop and IMHO not that big of a factor in "comprimising" a lens wide ability.. that much.
I have had no issue with colors or focus with mine... wait for the DX if you want but the MKIV is close to the "swiss army knife" of a camera as I have found...
So you can blame me if you want... MKIV is awesome IMHO...
By compromised I don't mean in ability (though they are stressed to produce a higher LP/mm figure on smaller sensors to deliver the same overall IQ), but in AoV. Look at the best landscape lenses for Canon -- arguably the ZE 21, Distagon 40, C/Y 35-70, TSE24 and TSE17, Samyang 14, and 70-200/2.8 II.
Now, where are the equivalent AoVs on crop? And are they performing at the same (or really, 1.3^2) optical level? There just aren't as many high quality options sub 20mm (saving the Samyang 14, which doesn't accept filters) for smaller than FF bodies for landscape.
jetmutant wrote:
not that big of a factor in "comprimising" a lens wide ability.. that much.
The MK II N is also a 1.3 crop, while the 1Ds II is FF ...
Here's the thing about the 1.3 crop factor ... there are no "crop lenses" that will work on it in the the WA/UWA realm because they are all designed with too small of an image circle ... SO, you must use FF glass if you are concerned at all about edges/corners.
So, as long as you are shooting with FF glass, that 24mm yields an AOV of roughly 30-31 via the 1.3x crop factor ... if you think there is little difference between a 24mm AOV vs. a 31mm AOV, I'd suggest otherwise. The 1.3x crop might seem small compared to regular 1.6 crop factor bodies, but in the realm of WA/UWA it is more than you'd think until you've used both the 1.3 and FF.
Likewise, a 17mm on a 1.3x crop yields a 22mm. In order to get a an eq 17mm AOV on a 1.3x crop, you'd need a FF 13mm rectilinear lens of exceptional quality (which doesn't exist). So, to give up your FF and 1.3x for just a 1.3x would definitely not be a marginal decision.
NO WAY I trade two great cameras (FF & 1.3x) for one (1.3X) camera that would further restrict my options (i.e. a 1.3x crop) if I like shooting wides. Kinda like trading a table saw and a circular saw for just a circular saw ... something about "cows & magic beans" or a "dirty nickel" for a "shiny penny".
Add in the fact that you can mount your long glass on your 1.3X and your wide on your FF, you can reduce your need for lens changes for shooting the sports, etc.
Here's another thing to consider, even in those instances where you can mount say a 24mm to get a 30mm AOV ... the ability to design a 24mm that performs as well as a 30mm for the same weight / money is not even remotely close ... the wider you go the tougher (weight, $$$, vignetting, distortion, mustache design, etc.) it gets. The physics of optics are always a series of compromises and there is no such thing as a "free lunch" and nowhere is this more problematic than in the WA/UWA camp.
Moving from a FF capability to a 1.3x capability ONLY ... IS A BIG DEAL ... in the WA/UWA realm (assuming that your goals are primarily about WA/UWA IQ).
My .02
HTH
P.S. I picked up a D700 about a year ago and as good as it is ... higher ISO, Live View, etc. ... I thought it would let me consolidate fps/AF performance and FF for my WA ... sold it and stayed with my 1D II N & 5D 1-2 punch. Playing with Live View was kinda neat, but I find using the angle finder with it's multiplier much more intuitive for helping with my "tired eyes". But, hey, I'm an old school dinosaur anyway.
Best advice ... www.lensrentals.com ... grab a 1D MK IV for a week and see how much difference the IQ is from your 1D MK II N & 1Ds II. Then you'll know if it's worth it to you.
Sp12 wrote:
The 1DIV will not quite replace the 1DsII for landscapes, primarily for reasons of color depth and the fact that almost all the great landscape lenses are wides and are 'compromised' on crop.
I would suggest waiting for the 1DX to launch/prices on the 1DIV to drop, and then move from the IIn to it.
jetmutant wrote:
While I am not the end all expert, I would disagree with Sp12, the MKIV is 1.3 crop and IMHO not that big of a factor in "comprimising" a lens wide ability.. that much.
I have had no issue with colors or focus with mine... wait for the DX if you want but the MKIV is close to the "swiss army knife" of a camera as I have found...
So you can blame me if you want... MKIV is awesome IMHO...
I never had a "Swiss army knife" But I always wanted one.. Already told my wife about you.. Thanks, I appreciate the help
Sp12 wrote:
By compromised I don't mean in ability (though they are stressed to produce a higher LP/mm figure on smaller sensors to deliver the same overall IQ), but in AoV. Look at the best landscape lenses for Canon -- arguably the ZE 21, Distagon 40, C/Y 35-70, TSE24 and TSE17, Samyang 14, and 70-200/2.8 II.
Now, where are the equivalent AoVs on crop? And are they performing at the same (or really, 1.3^2) optical level? There just aren't as many high quality options sub 20mm (saving the Samyang 14, which doesn't accept filters) for smaller than FF bodies for landscape.
RustyBug wrote:
The MK II N is also a 1.3 crop, while the 1Ds II is FF ...
Here's the thing about the 1.3 crop factor ... there are no "crop lenses" that will work on it in the the WA/UWA realm because they are all designed with too small of an image circle ... SO, you must use FF glass if you are concerned at all about edges/corners.
So, as long as you are shooting with FF glass, that 24mm yields an AOV of roughly 30-31 via the 1.3x crop factor ... if you think there is little difference between a 24mm AOV vs. a 31mm AOV, I'd suggest otherwise. The 1.3x crop might seem small compared to regular 1.6 crop factor bodies, but in the realm of WA/UWA it is more than you'd think until you've used both the 1.3 and FF.
Likewise, a 17mm on a 1.3x crop yields a 22mm. In order to get a an eq 17mm AOV on a 1.3x crop, you'd need a FF 13mm rectilinear lens of exceptional quality (which doesn't exist). So, to give up your FF and 1.3x for just a 1.3x would definitely not be a marginal decision.
NO WAY I trade two great cameras (FF & 1.3x) for one (1.3X) camera that would further restrict my options (i.e. a 1.3x crop) if I like shooting wides. Kinda like trading a table saw and a circular saw for just a circular saw ... something about "cows & magic beans" or a "dirty nickel" for a "shiny penny".
Add in the fact that you can mount your long glass on your 1.3X and your wide on your FF, you can reduce your need for lens changes for shooting the sports, etc.
Here's another thing to consider, even in those instances where you can mount say a 24mm to get a 30mm AOV ... the ability to design a 24mm that performs as well as a 30mm for the same weight / money is not even remotely close ... the wider you go the tougher (weight, $$$, vignetting, distortion, mustache design, etc.) it gets. The physics of optics are always a series of compromises and there is no such thing as a "free lunch" and nowhere is this more problematic than in the WA/UWA camp.
Moving from a FF capability to a 1.3x capability ONLY ... IS A BIG DEAL ... in the WA/UWA realm (assuming that your goals are primarily about WA/UWA IQ).
My .02
HTH
P.S. I picked up a D700 about a year ago and as good as it is ... higher ISO, Live View, etc. ... I thought it would let me consolidate fps/AF performance and FF for my WA ... sold it and stayed with my 1D II N & 5D 1-2 punch. Playing with Live View was kinda neat, but I find using the angle finder with it's multiplier much more intuitive for helping with my "tired eyes". But, hey, I'm an old school dinosaur anyway.
Best advice ... www.lensrentals.com ... grab a 1D MK IV for a week and see how much difference the IQ is from your 1D MK II N & 1Ds II. Then you'll know if it's worth it to you....Show more →
I really like mine, it's the best camera I have had since my 1ds II. I am very picky and have sent many bodies and lenses back to Canon for calibration. I bought the 1D IV with the new 70-200 2.8 IS II and this is the first Canon camera ( and lens) of all that I have owned except the 1ds II that need nothing done to it.
It works great with all of my lenses, seems to expose better in AV mode, the files are beautiful and I have no focusing problems. Now I did skip the entire 1D mark III series because I got to in a row that had problemes.
So I am hoping that the 1DX will be all that I hope for and I think it may just be the last camera I will ever need (that's what I tell my wife hehe). Seriously, using the 1D IV and having a full frame with better ISO than my 1ds II will fill the bill for me.
Just handling the camera you can feel the quality.
teebat wrote:
I really like mine, it's the best camera I have had since my 1ds II. I am very picky and have sent many bodies and lenses back to Canon for calibration. I bought the 1D IV with the new 70-200 2.8 IS II and this is the first Canon camera ( and lens) of all that I have owned except the 1ds II that need nothing done to it.
It works great with all of my lenses, seems to expose better in AV mode, the files are beautiful and I have no focusing problems. Now I did skip the entire 1D mark III series because I got to in a row that had problemes.
So I am hoping that the 1DX will be all that I hope for and I think it may just be the last camera I will ever need (that's what I tell my wife hehe). Seriously, using the 1D IV and having a full frame with better ISO than my 1ds II will fill the bill for me.
Just handling the camera you can feel the quality.
Thanks Tom.. I would love to have the 1Dx if I had the money.. For now I am shooting for the 1D IV then when my home sells get the 1Dx.. I do not believe I will live long enough to wear those two out..
oldrattler wrote:
Having an argument with my-self's and need the Pro's advice.. Currently have the 1D IIn, and 1Ds II.. With the recent drop in 1D IV prices I find myself wanting (not needing) one.. Primarily looking at the live-view for better manual focusing, better LCD with exposure simulation, speed, buffer, and AF improvements.. Why --- I am getting older, eyes not as good, and want to photo grandchildren's sports as well as landscape.. I could wait on the 1Dx, but do not think I will ever have that much to spent on a camera, without going into debt... Thank you
Just to toss in a "out of the box" suggestion. Based on your criteria and the fact that all you want is to shoot your grandkid's sports and landscape. Just get the 1dIV baby brother - 7D. It's lighter so great to carry around. Add a grip if you like. In a pinch you can start video-ing your grandkids right at the arena/pitch.
MKIV is awesome IMHO...