M Lucca wrote:
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.
Thank you for th e suggestion.. My wife currently has a 7D and on occasion I have used it.. Nothing wrong with it but once I used the 1D series camera's I have been hooked. Nothing seems to render as sweet as a 1D.. Jim
The 5D MkII has a sensor with pixels .75 microns larger than the 1D Mk IV (slightly more clarity), same 14 bit depth and live-view exposure simulation. It also has slower Autofocus response, slightly inferior build quality, a 98% viewfinder (opposed to the 1"s 100%), and the add-on battery grip. Since you're asking Pro's for their opinions, I know many that shoot with the 5D MkII as their 'first' body, with no regrets.
I sold my 1Ds MkIII for a 5D MkII. The only things I miss are some of the 1D's sync capabilities with studio strobes. I manually focus (tabletop still life), so the 5D's Autofocus isn't a legitimate concern for me.
Skarkowtsky wrote:
The 5D MkII has a sensor with pixels .75 microns larger than the 1D Mk IV (slightly more clarity), same 14 bit depth and live-view exposure simulation. It also has slower Autofocus response, slightly inferior build quality, a 98% viewfinder (opposed to the 1"s 100%), and the add-on battery grip. Since you're asking Pro's for their opinions, I know many that shoot with the 5D MkII as their 'first' body, with no regrets.
I sold my 1Ds MkIII for a 5D MkII. The only things I miss are some of the 1D's sync capabilities with studio strobes. I manually focus (tabletop still life), so the 5D's Autofocus isn't a legitimate concern for me.
It's an option, and in no way a sacrifice. ...Show more →
Thank you very much.. You have some excellent points echoed by a number of others.. Jim
Skarkowtsky wrote:
The 5D MkII has a sensor with pixels .75 microns larger than the 1D Mk IV (slightly more clarity), same 14 bit depth and live-view exposure simulation. It also has slower Autofocus response, slightly inferior build quality, a 98% viewfinder (opposed to the 1"s 100%), and the add-on battery grip. Since you're asking Pro's for their opinions, I know many that shoot with the 5D MkII as their 'first' body, with no regrets.
I sold my 1Ds MkIII for a 5D MkII. The only things I miss are some of the 1D's sync capabilities with studio strobes. I manually focus (tabletop still life), so the 5D's Autofocus isn't a legitimate concern for me.
It's an option, and in no way a sacrifice. ...Show more →
It's worth noting that 14-bit depth means basically nothing. You're right that the 5DII's sensor is capable of ~23 bits of info at ISO 100, compared with ~22 for the 1DIV, but the bit-depth referenced in the RAWs means nothing relevant to photographers. Sony has the best color of any manufacturer and uses 12-bit raws exclusively.
I wouldn't say noting color fidelity means nothing to photographers. In fact, it's incredibly important to any photographer that's printing on a 4 color or digital press. Of course, this won't pertain to all photographers, but don't generalize and say it isn't relevant.
If we're talking best color, Sony pales in comparison to Phase and Leaf systems.
Who said anything about color fidelity meaning nothing? My comment was with regards to advertised RAW bit-depth. The implication is that 12-bit RAWs (in my opinion, 8-bit) are more than sufficient for the highest of standards. The DMR has 16-bit raws and worse color than most modern P&S cameras.
Digital MF is obviously in another realm entirely, but not because of their raw bit-depth. My comment towards you was more directed at your insinuation that "the same 14 bit-depth" had any real meaning with regards to the two cameras color performance.
My initial post was an attempt to share whatever info I thought was necessary for the OP to understand how similar both camera's capabilities are in regards to imaging. I didn't inject what I personally believe, might assume or don't understand about 14-bit depth. On the other hand, you sure did with all your rambling about 8, and 12 bit depth. I was simply listing facts, with no bias. You're also the one that 'insinuated' that I was implying anything about my so-called beliefs about 14-bit depth. Relax, and move on.
John & SP-12 You both have been helpful and I appreciate it.. I am not knowledgeable enough to understand bit depth, color rendition or any of that technical stuff.. I believe both of you feel confident in your positions, but personally see no reason to be going after one another.. As the old Chinese - Irish wise man use to say, Can not we get along.. Thank you both..
Skarkowtsky wrote:
My initial post was an attempt to share whatever info I thought was necessary for the OP to understand how similar both camera's capabilities are in regards to imaging. I didn't inject what I personally believe, might assume or don't understand about 14-bit depth. On the other hand, you sure did with all your rambling about 8, and 12 bit depth. I was simply listing facts, with no bias. You're also the one that 'insinuated' that I was implying anything about my so-called beliefs about 14-bit depth. Relax, and move on.
Awesome, I always appreciate other helpful members. I was simply clarifying that 14-bit depth was meaningless. For future reference "14-bit depth" is something that's been on almost every Canon since the Xsi -- it's as useful for comparison as saying that two cameras both have shutter buttons.
Why can't you do sports with your current cameras It's what the 1d mark IIn was designed for. Folks use them all the time professionally around here. Heck, one fellow still uses the Nikon d1h.
Awasos23 wrote:
Why can't you do sports with your current cameras It's what the 1d mark IIn was designed for. Folks use them all the time professionally around here. Heck, one fellow still uses the Nikon d1h. Awasos23 wrote:
Thanks Eric for stopping by.. You are correct that the 1D II is a sports camera, and a very good one..I do not take a lot of sports but want to become more involved due to grandchildren playing.. My original question indicated that I wanted a 1D IV, not that I needed one.. As I get older I find my reflexes slowing, eye site failing, an my desire to take images increasing.. My belief is that the 1D IV would allow me more latitude in cropping and enlarging, thereby compensating for weakening senses.. Could be just a presumptive justification for spending as the 1D IIn is a great camera.. Jim...Show more →
I'll agree the new one is better in high ISO and cropping. enlarging; how big do you go? I've made very nice 20x30 prints from 8-10 megapixel cameras. If you want a new camera, get a new camera. But if you're looking for a justification - what shots (if any) are you missing due to equipment related issues?
Awasos23 wrote:
I'll agree the new one is better in high ISO and cropping. enlarging; how big do you go? I've made very nice 20x30 prints from 8-10 megapixel cameras. If you want a new camera, get a new camera. But if you're looking for a justification - what shots (if any) are you missing due to equipment related issues?
You are a very logical and persuasive person.. I have several friends that say the same thing.. I have been debating the Mk IV or some newer glass, like the 70-200 2.8II.. Now I am leaning toward Glass.. Thank you, Jim
I'd invest in sharp lenses, with reputations for great color and contrast abilities, from whichever manufacturer provides the best product for a specific focal length. I don't recall what it is that you shoot, so I won't make recommendations.
Glass Rules
especially more true since mfr's started putting responsiveness related engineering (gearing/motor/IS/etc.) in the lens as well as better corrected/faster optics.
Skarkowtsky wrote:
I'd invest in sharp lenses, with reputations for great color and contrast abilities, from whichever manufacturer provides the best product for a specific focal length. I don't recall what it is that you shoot, so I won't make recommendations.
For me, I'm after the Zeiss 100mm Macro.
I have wanted the Zeiss 21 for landscape since I was a wee-wee tot.. I understand the 100 is an amazing lens.. Thank you, Jim
Glass Rules
especially more true since mfr's started putting responsiveness related engineering (gearing/motor/IS/etc.) in the lens as well as better corrected/faster optics.
Nothing wrong with "Old School".. I was in their first graduate class back in '65.. You have a nice selection of lens.. I really just want 2 - 3 really great lens.. Maybe the Zeiss 21, or ??.. I will be in your area in late May - early June maybe we can get together for a little photo time? Thank you, Jim
lesgage wrote:
Keep the 1Ds2 for landscapes, etc....and get the 1D4 for birds and other moving things...
Les
Thanks Les.. At this point in time I will be keeping both cameras until the anticipated arrival of the 5DIIIIIIII.. or what ever they call it.. For now I will buy Glass and wait and see.. If you have any sweet glass for sale let me know.. Jim
It's what the 1d mark IIn was designed for. Folks use them all the time professionally around here. Heck, one fellow still uses the Nikon d1h. 