Hi Carolyn.
I'll pitch in with the 1DIII camp. I've kept my 1D and 1DII, but they get used only as back up - or to pretend to justify keeping them, since they've lost so much monetary value. The III is a substantial improvement over the II. The IQ is better in the best circumstances, and when the situation is tough or you make an exposure error, the files from the III will adjust in raw conversion and save you to a greater degree. The AF is superior in low light by at least a full f/stop. The cleaner menu system allows quicker changes of set up. Live view is useful for a lot of stuff (though it depends on your shooting style, and certainly would have no bearing on sports). The LCD and review system are a huge jump from the II, and probably a good bit nicer than the IIn.
I used the 1DII for years as my first choice money making camera, and a II or IIn would still be a fine choice if the money for a III was not to be had, or if it meant getting a suitable lens for your stuff instead of settling for a mediocre substitute.
I would simply say that a difference of $1000 used-to-used or even the greater difference for a new MkIII would be well worth it if you can manage it. There will be still greater bodies soon enough, but right now...
I just ordered the 1D Mark III today from Adorama. I went round and round about getting this camera vs. the 5D Mark II for a few months. What convinced me to get the 1D Mark III was all of the testimonies (on this blog and others) from experienced 1D Mark III users regarding versatility, better autofocus, image quality, and reliability, and overall general elation about it. I will make a post of my impressions after I spend a few weeks with it.
Thanks Kyle ~ I'm seriously considering the III most of all. It's now around $2700-$2800 used with under 10,000 clicks ... that is a very fair/real price. People are parting hard with the II series, the prices are great, but still, I think will go down sharply even more. I have to figure with the economy, people are looking hard at whether to part with that kind of money. With all I've read (especially in this thread), I think I'm going to go with the III.
I hang onto my cameras for a long time. I'm still very happy with the 5D, so much in fact, my 20D is finally being sold (just don't use it much anymore). After the reality of the 5DII, I don't even have a remote desire to upgrade the 5DII. I figure with the 5D/Mark III combo, I'd be happy for at least 3 years, maybe more.
Am I missing something, one one hand OP is using 100-400L and people are suggesting 1dmk3 over 1dmk2 and 1dmk2N. I would get 300mm f2.8 IS before getting 1dmk3, if I was shooting indoor sports with slow glass like 100-400L. If she shooting 5d at ISO1600 with 100-400L which is f5.6, moving to f2.8 glass alone will make heck of a difference in picture qualitya nd AF speed. I would try f2.8 glass with 5d before even thinking of buying a new body. Rent one to see how it works with 5d.
Good suggestion and good eye Bobby. I hadn't noticed that until now, but she did mention that a few posts ago. Carolyn, I'm amazed you're getting a useable shutter speed at all with that lens indoors. I have the same lens (and it's my most-used), but for me it's for outdoor use only. That sheds a whole new light on the subject. I can't compare the II and III since I've never shot with either (although I have a IIn on the way shortly from a fellow FMer), but if you don't have a 2.8 lens and you're shooting indoors you might want to make that your first priority. Of course, if a 200mm reach won't get you close enough to the action at the pool (i.e. 70-200 2.8 L IS @ $1,500.00), you're talking some serious lawyer-hours to pay for longer 2.8 glass. 300's and (gulp) 400's are pretty pricey (somewhere north of $3,000.00) even on the B-S forum. Then you are still faced with the new body purchase on top of that. On the other hand, if you're getting away with shooting at 5.6 now, then I suppose it's not really all that critical to upgrade that component. Sure is something you'll want to consider though ...
Hey Gary ~ Well heck, no one ever said it was a cheap hobby, especially when I'm trying to squeeze pro results out of amateur equipment (or lenses anyway). Yeah, I don't have any 2.8 lenses with reach ... my 85 is the closest prime I have. Man, and I was THRILLED when I got that 100-400 as a present. I do love that lens, but it's meant for some light.
I guess I'm proud thought that I did get quite a few useable (even good) photos with my lacking set up
Sounds like even a III with a 100-400 won't garner much better results in the pool area. But it would be good for birds, for sure.
Ah well, back to think some more. I'm so glad I posted and got all this input. Maybe I should grab back my 20D and get the lens!
Yeah, I just went back and every one of those swim shots is at 400mm (1SO 1250, 5.6, cannot recall what the shutter speed was, sadly, I think 200) so with that 5D, I'll need the reach. So maybe it really wouldn't be a bad idea to use the 20D (or pick up a cheap 30 or 40D) and save for the lens ... with a crop frame I could do with 300mm. So many decisions when you're trying to save a buck.
Carolyn1250 wrote:
Yeah, I just went back and every one of those swim shots is at 400mm (1SO 1250, 5.6, cannot recall what the shutter speed was, sadly, I think 200) so with that 5D, I'll need the reach. So maybe it really wouldn't be a bad idea to use the 20D (or pick up a cheap 30 or 40D) and save for the lens ... with a crop frame I could do with 300mm. So many decisions when you're trying to save a buck.
That's why it is good to have someone like parsimonious PetKal on your team.
If we lower the camera budget to $1,100-1,200, you should be able to sqeeze a nice 1DMkII out of it. For AF capability and frame rate alone, no prosumer body (i.e., 5D's, and XXD's) can match it.
Now, you also seem to need 400mm FL in a fast lens.
The best I can think of would be a good condition EF 300mm f/2.8L USM (non-IS). With a 1.4xTC that becomes 420mm f/4 combo. Very respectable and well performing. You'd just need a bit of a support there because the lens doesn't have IS and it is fairly heavy.
Now, for a fairly good condition lens like that you may have to pay $2.2-2.3k, but you probably have to spend some time looking.
In the end, the total damage would come to about $3,500 (not counting the TC) which is really a very inexpensive way to get a rig with such high performance capability.
An intermediate approach would be to go all the way with a lens now and buy a near-new 300 f/2.8 IS with that money, and try to make do with whatever body you have at the moment, until you can upgrade the camera as well. However, for action/sports photography, high shutter speeds are only as good as the number of shots which are in focus. Which is to say that fast lens alone doesn't cut it.
I didn't catch that either. I found it tough shooting indoor diving with a 135L @ f2 and Mark IIN at ISO 1600. ISO 3200 was just too noisy on the Mark II. If you can get in fairly close the 135mm works well. 300mm might be a bit long for you? Maybe not for swim? With a TC the 135L is a f2.8 189mm.
Some people get into macro shots and it has a real application there.
For wildlife - if you shoot dragonflies early in the AM it helps with the focus and composition.
For sure - studio work is more applicable and convenient.
I use it on florals with good results for me.
I would have to agree that sports would not be the place for live view. Live view is only a couple of years old and many people have the option and aren't aware of it.
Some people get into macro shots and it has a real application there.
For wildlife - if you shoot dragonflies early in the AM it helps with the focus and composition.
For sure - studio work is more applicable and convenient.
I use it on florals with good results for me.
I would have to agree that sports would not be the place for live view. Live view is only a couple of years old and many people have the option and aren't aware of it.
I don't find it of much use yet without AF. It would be much more useful if it had contrast AF like the newer models. And you have to have a very still subject when you magnify enough to get a good focus (I only tried Live view on a 40D I had briefly - not on the 1D Mark III).
Well this is what I would do. Go with the Mark II, on which 1600 is not bad, 3200 is pushing it a bit. And then grab a 300 2.8 non-IS. Combined you get ~400mm FL and a pro body, and fast glass. There is a MkII on sportsshooter for $1000 right now and 300 2.8 non-IS's pop up for $2000-2300, so you could be looking at $3000-3500, just a bit more than a Mark III by itself. Admittedly, this doesn't provide the cleanest high ISO abilities, but I would rather take an in-focus, non-blurry photo with some noise than a clean, noise-free but blurry photo.
I moved from a MkII to a MkIII last May and wouldn't look back. The IQ difference in the files is wonderful, and that's not to dog the MkII, which is a terrific camera. I have had no issues whatsoever with my copy, largely shooting soccer and motorsports AF Servo. My MkII was great, and my MkIII is better enough that I never regret ditching the MkII.
I would still say try some fast glass with your 5d before spending money on 1 series. Swimming doesn't seem to be that hard to shoot AF wise. No I have't done any but the swimmers move pretty much is straight line so I assume AF on 5d should be more than enough. And on top of it 5d has really nice high ISOs.
