pingflood
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Well, I am still tossing ideas around; moving overseas in the spring and gear isn't as cheap or available there so would like to "finalize" (hah, we all know how that works out) my setup before then.
Right now I have 1Ds II, 50D and the following glass: 400/5.6L, 300/4L, 24-105L, 85/1.8, Sigmalux 50/1.4, Sigma 15-30, and a pile of alt glass (M42 and Zuiko). The 50D serves as wildlife shooter (birding) and the 1Ds II is a general purpose / travel rig.
1Ds2 likes and dislikes: Killer image quality, shoots at 800/1600 all day with beautiful output, excellent viewfinder. Small/cruddy LCD, annoying controls sometimes (try changing ISO with a long tele handheld), no self cleaning sensor (really, it does make a big difference, the 1Ds2 and original 5D like to collect dust).
50D likes and dislikes: Lots of pixels on a bird, excellent AF performance, nice and light, fantastic LCD, responsive and quick to use. But files are nowhere near as "clean" as the 1Ds2 and never have the same pop to them.
For a while I debated an a900/a850 for full frame, but the more I think about it the more I want to stay with a single system, and Canon is what I know and like.
So the Great Gear Reshuffle of 2009/2010 can take a variety of forms.
1) I could trade the 1Ds2 for a 1DIII. At that point, is there any reason to keep the 50D? It does throw more pixels on a subject when using the same focal length, but from what I see of the 1D III the per-pixel quality is a fair bit higher, so in the resulting print would there really be much of a difference? I'd lose the higher res of the 1Ds2 but I rarely print above 11x14 and I know the 1DIII will produce an excellent 16x20 if I want to do landscapes/portraits. But what then would I use for a backup camera 
2) I could trade the 1Ds2 for a 5DII. I'd lose having a weather sealed rig (not that important most of the time), I'd gain some res, video, better LCD, self cleaning sensor, and it'd be a sweet combo with the 50D.
3) ?
Since I like the 1 so much the 1DIII is very tempting. But it would be a compromise camera that would effectively land somewhere between the 1Ds2 (landscapes, travel, general purpose) and 50D (long reach, wildlife stuff). So would it really replace both, or would I end up with one that was a slightly worse replacement in both cases? I know that the 1DIII will kick the 50D's butt all over the map from a pure AF/fps standpoint, but if we're talking about shooting distant targets with a 400/5.6 then will it really be better or even as good when we look at the final print?
Of course, I could maintain status quo too; the 1Ds2 only has around 5k shots on the new shutter (original started "bouncing" at 24k shots and Canon replaced it free of charge), and just got back from some minor maintenance (replaced rear LCD cover that was a little scratched up) and a health checkup so should be good to go for years to come. But the allure of a newer, more responsive rig with a little friendlier controls is there...
Thoughts?  (I know I've posted about this before and still can't make my damn mind up... but now I have the 1Ds2 in excellent shape ready to sell/trade if needed so it's tempting me again.)
Shooting mostly wildlife stuff, and the rest is a smattering of portraits, street, landscapes, macro and whatever else I run across.
(PS: I have a 1.4x converter so the 400/5.6 could be a 500/8 with center point AF only on a 1 series, and I don't really shoot much wide wide wide so the Sigma 15-30 should suffice even on a 1.3 crop.)
|
