1DS MK3 V 5DMK2

[Mickw]

I had a 5D mk1 and thought it was unbeatable. The tones, the colours from those big pixels was amazing. So when it came time to upgrade due to a nice increase in income, i had a choice. The new 5D at £2200 or a second hand 1DS MK3 at £2850 on EBAY. It was £600 more but was it worth the extra. Well i had a thought. Its shutter life was 3 times longer, its fully weather sealed, tough as boots and pros use them. Then again the 5D would be new and i loved the old one. So i took a chance and bought the one from EBAY. Turned out it has less than 10,000 on the clock and was in mint condition. As with an earlier post my first pics were not inspirting. ISO 1600 noise what had i done. So i reset all the settings to factory spec and practiced. Can i say i am totally blown away by the results. My pics are at least %50 better. The detail, the colours, the tones are utterly stunning. I dont need to sharpen either. Even %100 crops are bang on. Im utterly amazed that a camera could be better than my old 5D but this thing just kills it. So, if you are in the market to upgrade to the new 5D think on. For a few $'s more you could get one of the most stunning bits of technology ive ever laid my hands on. Then again, i am using L glass.


Canon, i love you!!!!! Id even sell my wife before id loose this baby. Well, maybe.





Mick

[Jon Ruyle]

Keep in mind, though, you're comparing an old generation camera to a new one.


I had almost the reverse experience you did: I had a 1DIIN and loved it, then upgraded to a 5DII. The 1DIIN still has a faster autofocus and more frames per second, but for what I want (low noise at high iso, narrow dof, high image quality, accurate autofocus in low light), the 5DII is ahead of the 1DIIN- far ahead in some ways.


5DII vs 1DIIN or 1DIII vs 5D classic aren't fair comparisons, though.


As to the question of 1DIII vs. 5DII, I think the advantages of each over the other are obvious, and preference will just come down to priorities. I would never trade my 5DII for a 1DIII, though if someone else prefers the 1DIII, I can understand why.

[Dallasphotog]

The guys over at Head-2-Head Reviews took the Canon 5D MKII up against a Canon 1Ds MKIII. When I got my 5D MKII, I expected it to be pretty fantastic, but it really does better the 1Ds MKIII I use everyday at work. When I have an important shoot, I now bring the 5D MKII from home; it's just that good.
<p mergenum="3" class="textsize_plus" style="padding-left: 30px;"]<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"]Value Assessment
<p mergenum="3" class="textsize_plus" style="padding-left: 30px;"]The Canon 5D Mark II has a list price of $2699, compared to the Canon 1Ds Mark III at $7999. The fact that the files and performance are so comparable, the question of value is a fairly simple assessment. Clearly the 5D Mark II is not only rising to the bar set by its big brother - and in many cases surpassing that bar - but because it is less than half the price and significantly more versatile with the inclusion of HD video, it is clearly the better value. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"](We can only wonder if Canon will consider accelerating development of their flagship camera to include the recent technology improvements; the product life of most high-end Canon DSLRs is around three years, and the 1Ds Mark III has had a run of about two years now. If you want some fun, search &ldquo;Canon 1Ds Mark IV release&rdquo; for all the latest rumors.)
<p mergenum="3" class="textsize_plus" style="padding-left: 30px;"]
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"]Conclusion
<p mergenum="3" class="textsize_plus" style="padding-left: 30px;"]Even without considering the inclusion of the HD video feature of the 5D Mark II, the camera seems to be a calculated risk by Canon. By effectively forcing the obsolescence of their flagship camera, it either challenges the product development team to release a new generation 1Ds to set a new, even more impressive standard, or it simply sacrifices the legendary 1Ds models to the fates of digital technology development. In any case, for the working photographer or the dedicated amateur looking for the best camera for the money, the winner is the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, hands down.


You can read the whole review at the following link...


http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Head-2-Head-Review-Canon-1Ds-Mark-III-vs-Canon-5D-Mark-II.html ("http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Head-2-Head-Review-Canon-1Ds-Mark-III-vs-Canon-5D-Mark-II.html)

[crosbyharbison]

As far as refurbished prices go, I've seen $2400 for the 5d and $4500 for the 1D. The build quality, autofocus, dual memory card slots, voice memos is not worth $2100 extra to me.


I'd be happy to use either camera as my main system.

[Julius]

If I could afford a NEW 1Ds Mark III...I would get one but I am quite happy with my 5D Mark II

[Benjamin]

5DII vs 1DIIN or 1DIII vs 5D classic aren't fair comparisons, though.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





True. The 1Ds III is still the current top of the line camera. The technology used is different between these two cameras, and they're positioned differently in Canon's lineup. It's not a fair comparison, but... is th 1Ds III better, sure!


I don't think I'll upgrade to any camera before I graduate, which will not happen in 3 years of time... My 50D is good for 3 years, and if not I don't think my Velvia RVP 50 or the Ilford Delta 100 will cease production within short time.[:)]

[Jon Ruyle]

5DII vs 1DIIN or 1DIII vs 5D classic aren't fair comparisons, though.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





True. The 1Ds III is still the current top of the line camera. The technology used is different between these two cameras, and they're positioned differently in Canon's lineup. It's not a fair comparison, but... is th 1Ds III better, sure!





Oops. I misread the post. I was comparing 1DIII to 5DII and said I prefer 5DII because full frame is important to me. I agree I would rather have 1DsIII than 5DII... by how much, I'm not sure- but it is a moot point. I've vowed never to spend that kind of money on a body... (a lens is different matter [:)])

[Mickw]

I agree that the picture quality of the two may indeed be very similar and spending the extra &pound;800 on a 1DS 111 may seem rarther stupid if picture quality alone was what i was looking at per &pound; per picture. Remember, the 1DS has a shutter life three times that of the 5D11 and i will be keeping this camera for a very long time. So by the time i send it off to the shop to be repaired, the quotes i got from Canon are another &pound;500 would be needed to be added to the price of the 5D11 before i have reached the service interval of my 1DS 111. Also i dont need to buy the BG battery grip which will add another &pound;180. So by the time i get my first service a 5D11 with a grip, is about the same price as my 1DS111. I will also be able to go out in any weather including rain i get a lot of and not carry an unbreller, plastic bag, whatever to cover my camera as its weather sealed. Its also tougher.


But using the price v picture quality argument, why buy a &pound;2200 5D11 when you could have bought a 5D MK1 which i did for a thousand pound less. Yes the new models pics are better, but they are not &pound;1000 or getting nearly double the price better. So i spent &pound;800 more which by the time of its first service will be as near as dammit the same as a 5D11 and a grip when you could have saved more buying a 5DMK1 when you get a bit better pic. A pic hat we mere mortals printing A2 max wont see that much differance in. Im not knocking any of the cameras mentioned, all are excellent ones, just for what i do and looking at the whole lifetime costs and pic quality, i still come down on the 1DS11. Especially when i take pics in rainy Scotland.


Mick

[Jon Ruyle]

spending the extra &pound;800 on a 1DS 111


Isn't it more like $4000 more? I dunno the exchange rate, but I would have thought more like &pound;2500.



the 1DS has a shutter life three times that of the 5D11


Two times (300,000 vs 150,000). But point taken.



i will be keeping this camera for a very long time.


You may keep it for a long time, but you're paying to use it for the next few years, after which it will cost less than the 5DII.



But using the price v picture quality argument, why buy a &pound;2200 5D11 when you could have bought a 5D MK1 which i did for a thousand pound less. Yes the new models pics are better, but they are not &pound;1000 or getting nearly double the price better.


Why? Because the difference between 5DII and 5D is dramatic, both in terms of resolution and noise. It is easy for me to understand why someone would pay extra for the 5DII over the 5D. (In fact, I don't have to imagine, because I myself did [:)])



Im not knocking any of the cameras mentioned, all are excellent ones, just for what i do and looking at the whole lifetime costs and pic quality, i still come down on the 1DS11.


Hold on. Did you buy a 1DsII or 1DsIII? Or both?

[Mickw]

I paid &pound;800 more for my 1DS 3. I got an almost new very low usage one for &pound;2800. It didnt even have any marks on the flash shoe or where the lens gets changed. So yes it was &pound;800 more. Some rich guy got bored with his toy. I got lucky.


You got a 5D2 paid the extra &pound;1000/&pound;800 and get better pictures. I paid an extra &pound;800 and get all that plus weather sealing and a longer life camera.


I cant see how at A4, A3 which is what most prints are done at you can see such a massive differance. Ill do a few comparisons of my own when i start printing. I hope your right though so i can really make mine jump. I wonder if the colours and tones are better also in the smaller pixel full frames? The pixels in the 5D1 are bigger so thats something i have wondered about myself. Must do some printing.





Mick

[Jon Ruyle]

I paid &pound;800 more for my 1DS 3. I got an almost new very low usage one for &pound;2800.


Wow. You got a good deal. 1DsIIIs are not generally available for that price, I don't think. I would have been willing to pay that for one, though it wouldn't have been for weather sealing and longer life, but instead for the autofocus.



I cant see how at A4, A3 which is what most prints are done at you can see such a massive differance.


For me noise is the main issue, not resolution. The 5DII seems to me to have a big advantage here over the 5D.


The 5DII was easily worth the extra over the 5D to me. The screen alone is worth the difference. The high iso difference alone is worth it. Live view alone is worth it. Not to mention all the other improvements (video, af microadjustment, etc, etc).