Congrats on your acquisition, Paul. The 1Ds2 is just about all the camera most of us would ever need. I intend to keep using mine for a long time.
One advantage of that 1.5 kg, magnesium alloy, weather sealed 1Danything pro body that hardly anyone ever mentions is that after you've been shooting with it for a few months, if anyone tries to forcibly take it away from you, you'll have the arm strength to settle the argument favorably. Additionally, having a 1.5 kg, magnesium alloy, weather sealed bludgeon at the end of your strong right arm will certainly reinforce your side of the discussion. Yes, the camera will hold up just fine. I don't believe you could say the same for a 5Danything.
bobbytan wrote:
Well ... then the 1Ds III and 5D II would do even better with the high pixel count. And you will need a high-resolution prime lens too.
if i remember correctly, someone has reported Ds3's DR is almost .7 stop less than Ds2. So for the high contrast shots, i believe 1Ds2 is better but other than that Ds3 still a champ. Surely 14bits colors is better
edwardkaraa wrote:
I said this before and I will repeat it again. No matter what Canon says, it will never share the same sensor technology of the 1Ds series with a cheaper camera, period. I've owned 2 5D bodies, an original 1Ds, and currently a 1Ds2 (that I've used for 6 months with a 5D back up). To my eyes, the 1Ds2 sensor even with more mp is incomparable to the 5D, especially in shadow noise and color depth. Heck, even the original 1Ds files (at lower iso) were better.
I would agree, the 5D despite slightly few pixels has higher IQ, although the difference isn't much. Both are very good cameras, and the 1DsII is really solidly built.
The 1Ds Mark 3 ... that's a different story. What a magnificent camera.
The images are superb but has been said that guy could make an instamatic sing.
Having said all that, I held back on selling my 1dsmk2 when I got my 1dsmk3 and it was one of the best things I`ve done in 35 years of photography. The 17million pixels on FF is IMHO the sweet spot. You can just about get away with decent copies of most lenses on the mk2 but it`s a different story on the mk3. The feature set of the mk3 leaves nothing to be desired and was a jump up from the mk2 but lets not get confused with the jump from 1dsmk1 to 1dsmk2 that was really huge and gave us a camera in the mk2 that really is usable without tears.
That might be hard to choose between them for this type of work, I did mention in another thread (can`t find it at present) that in my studio and for portrait images the mk 3 does a great job, I notice the difference in landscape images with winter trees in the far distance, helped a lot using MF lenses.
dave chilvers wrote:
That might be hard to choose between them for this type of work, I did mention in another thread (can`t find it at present) that in my studio and for portrait images the mk 3 does a great job, I notice the difference in landscape images with winter trees in the far distance, helped a lot using MF lenses.
I keep ds2 as well - ds3 highlight is much better for sure
I've noticed that my files from 1dsMkII has more film-like characteristic than the 5D.
Is it just just my fault observation by an amateur or is there some scientific logic to this?
I'm in the same boat as the OP. Bought yesterday a perfect condition 1Ds MkII !
Reliable AF and built quality are most important for me.
i had a bad experience last weekend, shooting my 85 1.2L between 1.2 and 2.0. First with my 1D MkII : 90% of keepers. As I have a battery problem with it (battery is too old and don't last anymore than 100 shots) I used the same lens on my 40D : 90% of "trashers" !!!!
So there is a definite advantage to the 1D AF !!!!!!!!
Paul Yi wrote:
I've noticed that my files from 1dsMkII has more film-like characteristic than the 5D.
Is it just just my fault observation by an amateur or is there some scientific logic to this?
Some fine noises of 2004/5 1DxY sensor(s) justifies your "film" observation. I believe older version is a better tool for B/W application. Just look at above images, most ds2 b/w images has more details than ds3 one. I prefer to revserve the noise and clean it up in post rather than use camera NR things. New sensor body seem to work better in lower contrast scenes
That's not a fair response John. We ALL loved the images from silver halide emulsion film .... like we all loved the "warm and musical" sound of vinyl records played through a valve amp. But those days are well behind us, even though some still own film cameras and turntables.
Digital images can look a little "hard and edgy" compared to film images. A bit like comparing continuous-tone photo printing to offset lithography. So let's cut Paul Yi some slack, as a lot of us know exactly what he means.
John Power wrote:
There it is again. The "F" word. If ya want a print to look like film, use film.
mttran wrote:
Ds3 sensor is really a studio killer - do you think? i guess, below image justifies the $$$$.
The 5D II's sensor is supposed to be at least as good as the 1Ds3 .... so that makes the 5D II INCREDIBLE value at just $2,700 don't you think? And that's probably the reason why most of the major stores have stopped taking any more pre-orders - they simply cannot cope with the unprecedented high demand for this camera.
so another plus for 1ds2
Comparing apples to oranges.