Help Wanted -- 5D Mark II or 1D Mark IV? [Archive] - The-Digital-Picture.com Community

View Full Version : Help Wanted -- 5D Mark II or 1D Mark IV?

Chris White

06-04-2010, 12:32 PM

Brendan7

06-04-2010, 01:35 PM

mikehillman89

06-04-2010, 01:53 PM

If you needed a 1D Mark IV you wouldn't be asking this question.

Anyways, I suggest you buy the 7D and 5D2. The 7D does 95% of what the 1D4 does for $3000 less. Use that $3000 to buy the 5D2 and you have 2 great bodies -- a great action body and a superb portrait body. BTW, both ARE weather-sealed: I've used my 7D and a friend's 5D2 in snow and heavy rain. No problem.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Seconded.

Chris White

06-04-2010, 02:08 PM

Thanks for the opinions Brendan and Mike.

Need is best viewed in perspective. The argument could be made that I did not need the 50D. I did consider the 7D, but for me the upgrade was not worth the expense. I have the grip and extra batteries for the 50D. By the time I add those to a 7D it makes it more expensive in an apples-to-apples comparison. In my real world shooting, I do not feel that I would see enough of a difference to justify the cost of a minor upgrade to me. The 40D to 50D question some had when the 50D came out.

With that in mind, I looked at the 5D Mark II, as complementing the 50D, for studio work and darker, slower moving venues. I would be expanding my options more than duplicating them.

Chris

Brendan7

06-04-2010, 02:14 PM

but for me the upgrade was not worth the expense. I have the grip and extra batteries for the 50D. By the time I add those to a 7D it makes it more expensive in an apples-to-apples comparison. In my real world shooting, I do not feel that I would see enough of a difference to justify the cost of a minor upgrade to me.

I wouldn't call upgrading from a 50d to a 7d a minor upgrade. As peety3 said, "the 7d is light years ahead of the xxd bodies". Much better build, much better viewfinder, much better high ISO performance (1600 is actually USABLE!), much better AF, much better weather sealing, much better sharpness. Not a minor upgrade.

The 40D to 50D question some had when the 50D came out.

The 40D and 50D are almost the same camera. The 7D is nothing like the 40d or 50d. It's in a different class and costs $700 more for a reason.

However, I will notice you said it was a minor upgrade "for you" so I might think that you could sell your 50d and buy a 1D4. It might not be quite as good as a 5D2 at lowlight and high ISO photography, but it'll certainly handily outperform your 50d until a 5D2 (or 5D3) is a possible buy.

my 2¢

mikehillman89

06-04-2010, 02:14 PM

Are you located in Canada?

Brendan7

06-04-2010, 02:15 PM

And BTW, the 7D DOES do 95% of what the 1D4 does. It's all about how important that 5% is to you (are you going to dump your camera in frozen seawater, do you need 10fps instead of 8fps, etc).

Chris White

06-04-2010, 02:33 PM

Are you located in Canada?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

No, close though, Buffalo, NY

Chris White

06-04-2010, 02:49 PM

And BTW, the 7D DOES do 95% of what the 1D4 does. It's all about how important that 5% is to you (are you going to dump your camera in frozen seawater, do you need 10fps instead of 8fps, etc).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Point taken Brendan. As nice as weather sealing is, I am either inside or out in good weather. In addition the 6+fps of my 50D was one of the things that was not worth the jump to the 7D, to me. I realize the difference to the 1D MkIV is $3000, and it is the 5% I am considering.

As it stands now I am always the father with the best camera. Sometimes, I have a better camera than the pro selling the photo package, like at my daughter's dance studio. I walked in to take some photos of the girls in their show costumes with my 50D/24-70 L and the hired-by-the-studio pro had a T1i/tamron. I realize good images can be made from this combination, but until I am using a 1 series I think the guy selling the photos should have gear at or better than mine. BTW, I made a quick photo shop image of my daughter and her friend with the group in between and printed a 8x10 for each of the girls and the quality of mine is better than his. And that is not just my opinion, it is my daughter's friends mother's.

Chris

Brendan7

06-04-2010, 03:00 PM

I realize the difference to the 1D MkIV is $3000, and it is the 5% I am considering.

That's a heck of a lot of premium for 2fps and a bulkier body. Also remember, you could buy some serious glass for $3000!!!

As nice as weather sealing is, I am either inside or out in good weather. In addition the 6+fps of my 50D was one of the things that was not worth the jump to the 7D, to me.

I just mentioned weather sealing b/c many people buy 1D bodies for ruggedness. I just mentioned that the xD bodies share some of those qualities. If you want the 1D4, go for it! It's a superb camera and when you're debating between the 5D2, 1D4 and 7D you just can't go wrong. But I can tell you for a fact that the 7D is a major step up from the 50d. Nate upgraded his 40d to a 7D, maybe he could explain. Or peety3. Where are you??? (owns a 1D3, a 40d and several 7Ds).

walked in to take some photos of the girls in their show costumes with my 50D/24-70 L and the hired-by-the-studio pro had a T1i/tamron.

Wow. That's never happened to me. We hired a pro before I got a DSLR and he brought two Nikon D3X bodies with adjoining expensive nikkor lenses.

crosbyharbison

06-04-2010, 04:07 PM

The quality of the 1D series isunsurpassed. The viewfinder, thecompact flashdoor, the battery, the grip, everything is amazing about it. I go for that. Besides, everyone has a 5d or 7d these days; don't you want to feel special?

Keith B

06-04-2010, 04:10 PM

I say get the 5DmkII and hang onto the 50D.

The 5DII will work really well, especially with that 24-70. It's AF isn't the greatest but once you are use to it's slight short comings you won't really notice them. The frames per second blow but that isn't what this camera is made for.

The upgrade from a 40D (probably the 50D too) to the 7D is huge. The AF system is way more sophisticated. If you shoot in Servo a lot I'd recommend the 7D even from the 50D. Even the jump from 6+ frames to 8 is huge. I didn't think it would be that big of a difference, but it is.

Chris White

06-04-2010, 04:16 PM

That's a heck of a lot of premium for 2fps and a bulkier body. Also remember, you could buy some serious glass for $3000!!!

What can I say, I like bulk. My grip never leaves the 50D. I do have some nice glass, but we all always want more...

I just mentioned weather sealing b/c many people buy 1D bodies for ruggedness. I just mentioned that the xD bodies share some of those qualities. If you want the 1D4, go for it! It's a superb camera and when you're debating between the 5D2, 1D4 and 7D you just can't go wrong. But I can tell you for a fact that the 7D is a major step up from the 50d. Nate upgraded his 40d to a 7D, maybe he could explain. Or peety3. Where are you??? (owns a 1D3, a 40d and several 7Ds).

I must admit the ruggedness is one of the things that appeals to me. I further realize that I am sifting through some great camera bodies. I think that the 50D to the 7D is like the 40D to 50D upgrade, nice but not as great a step as the 40D to the 7D. The 7D takes the 50D and raises the bar still higher. I remember when I got my 50D there was question if the price justified the upgrade from the 40D. I am looking for their thoughts as well. It is a work day, I was just lucky enough to get off.

Wow. That's never happened to me. We hired a pro before I got a DSLR and he brought two Nikon D3X bodies with adjoining expensive nikkor lenses.

I was certainly surprised. This was not just a family friend, it was a legitimate business. Needless to say, I killed my order. And now that I have seen his pictures and mine -- 'good choice'. Which makes a point I may not have emphasized enough, I take great images with what I currently have. I am just mulling around if they could be better and at what cost. Photography has once again become my vice/addiction. It could be much worse. ;)

Chris

Chris White

06-04-2010, 04:23 PM

One other thought; this is in all honesty a "want" more than "need" situation. Similar to neuro's "wallet full of $100 bills" thread.

What can I say, the .02% intrest is less compelling than new gear.
<h1 class="CommonTitle"]
</h1>

Keith B

06-04-2010, 04:27 PM

Want is an awful thing. You should just get what you want then. Otherwise you will never really be happy with what you settle for. You will always have that itch in the back of your mind.

Chris White

06-04-2010, 04:37 PM

Want is an awful thing.

That is true, Kieth. I am still sorting though mine. Another option is to continue saving towards the 1D Mark IV and by the time I get there I can get the 5D Mark III and sell the 50D. By the time I can afford both, there could be a 5D III, not that I am waiting for one. I do realize that the best gear is what you have now.

Chris

Chris White

06-04-2010, 04:40 PM

don't you want to feel special?

Who doesn't?

I know these are both great options, that is why I am looking for experienced advice. I doubt anyone with either body regrets having purchased it.

Chris

Brendan7

06-04-2010, 04:59 PM

I think that the 50D to the 7D is like the 40D to 50D upgrade, nice but not as great a step as the 40D to the 7D.

That's wrong. The 40d and 50d are "sister cameras". Upgrading from 40d to 50d is like upgrading from a 2009 Honda Civic to a 2010 Honda Civic. Upgrading from a 50d to a 7D is like upgrading from a 2009 Honda Civic to a 2010 V8 Shelby GT500. I guess that would make the 1D4 a BMW 7 series.

The 7D is part of a whole different dang line. It is far and away better than the 50d. I'll explain why:

1. ISO 1600 on the 7D looks like ISO 800 on the 50D.

2. 6fps vs 8fps. 7D has larger buffer of larger images.

3. Weather-sealed, better ergonomics.

4. AF is SO MUCH BETTER! the 19pt crosstype really does work excellently.

5. Video mode.

6. The 7D is considered by some to be Canon's best wildlife body.

7. Where's peety3 to tell us just how good it really is?

I agree with you Chris that it isn't based on need. same old same old [|-)]

I think that buying a 5D2 and 7D not only gives you better overall picture quality, you have two superb bodies that complement each other very well. You will NEVER be limited by your gear with those two bad boys. And don't forget the benefit of having two bodies!!! I'd say that'd be the best way to go -- if you have the $.

Keith B

06-04-2010, 05:14 PM

[I think that buying a 5D2 and 7D not only gives you better overall picture quality, you have two superb bodies that complement each other very well. You will NEVER be limited by your gear with those two bad boys. And don't forget the benefit of having two bodies!!! I'd say that'd be the best way to go -- if you have the $.

5DmkII to 7D: "You complete me."

7D to 5DmkII: "You had me at hello."

Canon said: "Show Me the Money!"

Mark Elberson

06-04-2010, 05:43 PM

5DmkII to 7D: "You complete me."

7D to 5DmkII: "You had me at hello."

Canon said: "Show Me the Money!"

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

Chris White

06-04-2010, 05:45 PM

Brendan, please do not think I am selling the 7D short. to quote Bryan the 7D is:

"best APS-C sensor-sized DSLR Canon has ever produced"

Although I may come to embrace it, video is not a priority for me. I get very usable images at 1600 ISO, so an improvement -- which all three will do -- would be an asset. I cannot speak to the ergonomics, other than to say I am very pleased with my gripped 50D. I am one who wants the grip, so my first purchase for the 7D (5D also) would be a grip and second battery, which chips a little into the $3000.

I agree with you Chris that it isn't based on need. same old same old /emoticons/emotion-20.gif

The best take-away is that I can even entertain these thoughts.

5DmkII to 7D: "You complete me."

7D to 5DmkII: "You had me at hello."

Canon said: "Show Me the Money!"

How happy do you think the 5D Mark II and the 1D Mark IV would be together??

Just wondering...

Keith B

06-04-2010, 05:58 PM

How happy do you think the 5D Mark II and the 1D Mark IV would be together??

Just wondering...

I don't know never saw that movie. But I suspect pretty well. Of course Canon will expect you to show them a lot more money.

5DmkII and 7D playing in my Pelican case daily. Dinner (meat and potatoes) and a show.

Chris White

06-04-2010, 06:04 PM

How happy do you think the 5D Mark II and the 1D Mark IV would be together??

Just wondering...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I don't know never saw that movie. But I suspect pretty well. Of course Canon will expect you to show them a lot more money.

5DmkII and 7D playing in my Pelican case daily. Dinner (meat and potatoes) and a show.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Who does not want money from me these days?

Do you ever try to use your 5DmkII for slower action, such as a school play?

Jon Ruyle

06-04-2010, 06:15 PM

Chris-

I faced a similar choice long ago- but it was between the 1DIIN and the 5D (original). There was no 7D option back then, of course.

I went with the 1DIIN, and while I'm not exactly sorry I got it (especially now that I have a 5DII and the 1DIIN compliments it far better than a 5D would), I don't think I made the correct choice. I wanted mostly to take macro pictures and pictures of the kids. I reasoned that the kids move quickly and that I needed the best autofocus I could get. In my case, however, it turned out that most of my best pictures were of still kids (portraits) rather than action photos. In addition, I took a lot of pictures in low light, and the 5DII would have given me better high ISO performance.

As to your specific questions:

Does anyone have an opinion on how the 1D Mark IV
does in low light compared to the 5D Mark II?

Plenty of people do. Instead of an opinion, though, I'll give you some numbers. DXOMark gives the 5DII a score of 1815 and the 1DIV a score of 1320. Basically this means (if you believe the folks at DXOMark, and I haven't met anyone who doesn't) that the 5DII sensor at ISO1815 has about as much noise as the 1DIV sensor at ISO1320 (in other words, it will give you the same image in 2/3 the light). The 5DII probably has more pattern noise at very high ISO (or in very dark areas at moderately high ISO). 5DII pattern noise is an issue for some, but hasn't been a big deal for me under ISO 6400.

<span style="font-family: Symbol;"]<span><span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"]
I know the 1D Mark IV has the better AF system
in general, but how is it in low light?

The 1DIV af will work better in low light. It is rated to work in 1/2 stop lower light, and has more af points (which makes it easier for one to lock on).

This said, I've been very happy with the 5DII af performance in low light (I was not happy with how the 1DIIN worked in low light... it is rated a full stop worse in this regard than the 1DIV, though, with the 5DII halfway between the two)

<span style="font-family: Symbol;"]<span><span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"]
How do images from the 1.3 H sensor compare to
the full frame, especially cropped?

The effect of sensor size on image quality has been long and bitterly debated on this site and elsewhere (maybe not so bitterly, but it sounds dramatic so what the heck). My opinion based on experience using the 1DIIN and the 5DII is that the larger sensor gives significantly better image quality. Either will give better IQ than the 50D. We all know from experience how much impact cropping has on IQ. (Of course, it isn't quite that simple: there are other differences besides sensor size. For one thing, the 1DIV has a higher pixel density than the 5DII).

Basically, IMO, it just comes down to better low light performance and thinner DOF with the full frame camera, vs. a better tracking autofocus on the 1DIV. (You haven't mentioned desire for wide angle performance, but both the 7D and 5DII (and your 50D for that matter) have the edge here over the 1DIV)

I've never used the 1DIV, but I would definitely choose the 5DII for non-moving subjects. I would choose the 1DIV for sports or other photography involving fast moving objects.

In your position, I would buy a 5DII first, then a 7D (instead of a 1DIV). That way you get the absolute best canon has to offer for non moving subjects, and something very very good for moving subjects. And the combination is far more versatile than the 1DIV alone.

Best of luck.

Keith B

06-04-2010, 06:20 PM

Do you ever try to use your 5DmkII for slower action, such as a school play?

I use my 5DII for 90% of what I do. The 7D is a second/backup/sports camera. My new favorite thing with events (when I can move around freely anyway) is 5DII/35 1.4L and 7D/85 1.2L.

I've shot my son's Jazz band concerts with 5DII. That would be similar to school play it does really well, although the outer AF points will search a bit. Usually you are far enough away that the center point and recompose will work well enough.The 70-200 2.8 IS left a little something (faster aperture) to be desired. I wish I had got to shoot one with the 85 1.2II this year but I'll have to wait until next year.

Alan

06-04-2010, 07:00 PM

mikehillman89

06-04-2010, 09:43 PM

I'm coming late to this party, but as an owner of the 7D and 5D2.....

Thirded.../emoticons/emotion-1.gif

Is there such a word?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

There is now apparently... Wow so my BB has been off the hook all day today! I'm gone for a few hours and all these posts happen that I want to reply to!!! For all you Canadian folks out there get a 7D now for only $1850 with a grip and extra battery!

Chris White

06-05-2010, 12:33 AM

Alan thanks for thirding, according to the spell check it is not a word, but I will accept it.

Jon, thank you for your real world experience and your point by point reply.

I did not put a poll up but if I had I think the order of recommendation thus far would be:

5DII
7D
1DIV

I thought the 1DIV would be higher. I do know that the people with 5DII's always rave about them. The 7D seems equally loved. I do see the logic in the 5DII and 7D combo. I could add grips and extra batteries and still have a good deposit towards another L lens for the 1DIV cost. And selling the 50D would pretty much close any remaining glass deficit. On the other hand, junior is already eying up the 50D.

I am going to monitor this thread through the weekend as I weigh the options. I am leaning towards the 5DII right now, which is what I was thinking when I started this thread. Right now the 5DII is $400 less than a year ago and even if a 5DIII came out next month, it would most likely be priced back at the original 5DII price or higher. Only Canon and the Good Lord know that plan. Moreover the 5DII would still be a great camera and I could have it in my hands in time to shoot my daughter's dance recital, not insignificant to me.

Chris

Chris White

06-05-2010, 12:39 AM

Jon, also, what did you use for your butterfly photos in the what did you shoot this week forum? I am guessing the 5DII, but what lens? They are great! It is the kind of thing I am looking to do with my kids. When I look back at the images I have of them from my 50D, I have to say what ever I do going forward, that body is worth every nickel I paid for it.

Chris

Jon Ruyle

06-05-2010, 01:29 AM

Correct, all three were shot with the 5DII. The first two were shot with the 100mm macro (non-IS), both at f/8 and
ISO800. The other was done with the 24-105 f/4, 105mm @ f/5, ISO 200.

I know how you feel about the 50D... it's a good feeling when a piece of equipment has been used enough that one thinks it is already worth the price. After that the rest is gravy :)

Steven23

06-05-2010, 01:55 AM

Its not about the gear or glass, daddy just wants some nice fkin toys to play with, sell the kid(s), house, tell the wife a second job is needed, "I needz more toys" ^_-

crosbyharbison

06-05-2010, 02:22 AM

I would save up and wait for the 1Ds IV (probably september). It will be the best of everything... Your 50d is fine until then.

Brendan7

06-05-2010, 08:58 AM

I would save up and wait for the 1Ds IV (probably september). It will be the best of everything... Your 50d is fine until then.

A 1Ds body for action? I don't know 'bout that. Especially for $8000. And then he needs a bunch of new lenses!

Jon Ruyle

06-05-2010, 12:27 PM

A 1Ds body for action?

Oh, I don't know. It might do oaky. [;)]

But yeah, a 1Ds is not cheap.

Keith B

06-05-2010, 01:05 PM

But yeah, a 1Ds is not cheap.

What does a kidney go for these days?

crosbyharbison

06-05-2010, 01:11 PM

A 1Ds body for action? I don't know 'bout that. Especially for $8000. And then he needs a bunch of new lenses!

Autofocus is the same as the 1D, 5fps isn't bad at all, much better than the 5D for action...

HiFiGuy1

06-05-2010, 01:15 PM

This is a very interesting thread to me. I have been thinking for a while that what I would like is basically a 7D built like a 1 series with the integrated grip. I have held/played with a 1D Mk. II, and really like it. All the Canon bodies I have held with grips attached, including a 5D, a 40D and I think a 30D, left something to be desired in the solidity and of-a-piece feeling departments. Even the shape of the combo in hand is much less agreeable than that of the 1 series.

I really like the FOV of my 40D because I love shooting wildlife/sports/airshows, etc., but I would also like to have the DOF and overall, undefinable "rightness" of the images I've seen shot with 5D, 5DII and 1DsIII bodies. I can't really explain how, but I can almost always pick those shots out of a group, and they just look, again, "right". So that leads me to wonder if the APS-H will be the best of both worlds, or a total compromise that doesn't excel at either. I have seen both comments before. The perspective could be that the APS-H improves available DOF over the APS-C and improves FOVCF over FF, or the argument could also be framed that APS-H has neither the FOVCF of APS-C nor the DOF of FF. Kind of a glass half full/half empty discussion, I guess.

It is a good question for Peety3, since I think he has used them all (FF, APS-H, APS-C) extensively. I see that he hasn't chimed in here yet. Oh Peety3, where are you?

HiFiGuy1

06-05-2010, 01:23 PM

The rub lies in the FOVCF. If you are doing action sports with an APS-C body, let's say a 7d, and using a 135mm/f2.0 for perfect framing, you'd need a 200mm/f2.0 on the 1DsIII or eventual 1DsIV for the same performance. So now you have spent roughly $13,000 to capture the similar shot as the APS-C combo which costs about $3000 including a grip.

I guess because of the DOF advantage, you could get away with a 200mm/f2.8 on the FF, which would reduce the expenditure on that combo to only about $9000. Much cheaper. [:P]

Jon Ruyle

06-05-2010, 01:39 PM

I guess because of the DOF advantage, you could get away with a 200mm/f2.8 on the FF

Yes, if by performance you mean framing and DOF. But then, the 200mm f/2.8 has much better IQ wide open than the cropped 135 f/2. So with the 1DsIII you're getting a lens with better IQ for less money.

Once you have the body, that is. I'm not suggesting that one should buy a 1Ds to save $$$. Besides, if you sell one kidney to get the 1DsIII, you're kind of stuck when the 1DsIV comes out.

HiFiGuy1

06-05-2010, 03:36 PM

Just so we're clear, I was making the comparison between comparable effective FOVCF. In that case, the 135mm+APS-C = 216mm EFL and 200mm + FF = 200mm EFL. That is the closest I could come in an indoor/outdoor sports lens/body combo for the real world. So actually, you'd be slightly cropping the FF image, not the APS-C, in order to have the same framing with the same distance from subject. The uncropped 18MP 7D might even have a slight resolution advantage over the mildly cropped 21MP 1DsIII.

My assumption also was that the 135mm f/2 was an exceptional lens optically, and comparable to the 200/2.8 if not exactly as good as the supernatural 200/2.

Obviously if performance includes frame rate, the 7D leaves the 1Ds in the dust.

Jon Ruyle

06-05-2010, 05:19 PM

Just so we're clear, I was making the comparison between comparable effective FOVCF.

Both clear and valid. [:)]

My assumption also was that the 135mm f/2 was an exceptional lens optically, and comparable to the 200/2.8 if not exactly as good as the supernatural 200/2.

Sure, the 135 is nice. But if you use it wide open and crop it, it won't compare with the uncropped 200 f/2.8 used wide open. I'm just saying you don't pay all that money for full frame and get nothing in return.

Obviously if performance includes frame rate, the 7D leaves the 1Ds in the dust.

Well, if performance = frame rate, then yes. Those who require FF with 7D+ frame rate need not consider canon.

HiFiGuy1

06-05-2010, 07:18 PM

Just so we're clear, I was making the comparison between comparable effective FOVCF.

Both clear and valid. /emoticons/emotion-1.gif

My assumption also was that the 135mm f/2 was an exceptional lens optically, and comparable to the 200/2.8 if not exactly as good as the supernatural 200/2.

Sure, the 135 is nice. But if you use it wide open and crop it, it won't compare with the uncropped 200 f/2.8 used wide open. I'm just saying you don't pay all that money for full frame and get nothing in return.

Obviously if performance includes frame rate, the 7D leaves the 1Ds in the dust.

Well, if performance = frame rate, then yes. Those who require FF with 7D+ frame rate need not consider canon.

Re: 135 vs 200/2.8 IQ, I didn't get that same impression from Bryan's reviews, though he did say that the 135 sharpens up slightly stopped down. I do agree with the FF thing, though, and I don't even know why, to be honest. There just seems to be something about the images that is special. Kind of like Peety3 said recently about the 24-70, there's some magic air in it or something.

I am not trying to limit the discussion of performance to a single metric, but consider them in totality, with a bias towards the things that I feel are important to my shooting objectives. This was a way to simply point out one (frame rate) in isolation. Considering each on its own merits individually is at least a start towards some hopefully rational conclusion for my situation. Ultimately, I would like the best single body for my needs, if nothing else for the ability to learn it better and for cost reasons as well, even though I know a recent 1-series would be expensive all by itself. The 1DIV may well be that camera, but I don't have the experience to say that the APS-H sensor is a good or bad compromise for me. I have no doubt that is a better body than my 40D regardless.

Jon Ruyle

06-05-2010, 08:00 PM

Re: 135 vs 200/2.8 IQ, I didn't get that same impression from Bryan's reviews, though he did say that the 135 sharpens up slightly stopped down.

The 135 is sharper, I think, in a "fair" comparison, if you can make one with lenses of different focal lengths.

But the 135 f/2 + 7D will not be as sharp as 200 f/2.8 + 1DsIII if both lenses are used wide open (so as to get similar DOF).

I do agree with the FF thing, though, and I don't even know why, to be honest.

It's 'cause cropping (what you do with crop body) makes IQ worse, and stopping down (what you do to get the same DOF on a ff body) makes IQ better.

(Of course, if errors get worse linearly or faster as you move away from the center of the frame, cropping might actually improve IQ. I don't think many lenses have this property but maybe some do. And, of course, if aperture is small, stopping down might make IQ worse because of diffraction. But that is beside the point... :) )

It's probably also because ff gives other IQ advantages besides
sharpness (like dynamic range).

Chris White

06-05-2010, 10:47 PM

HiFiGuy1

06-05-2010, 11:21 PM

Jon,

Okay, so I may have chosen a lens in the 135/2 that needs to be a click or three off MA to be its sharpest, but that wasn't the point of the comparison. With Brian's ISO crops, the 135 at 2.8 or larger f number is visibly sharper than the 200/2.8 if not dramatically so. Let's say for this discussion that we're using the 135 at 2.8 and the 200 at 4.5. Let's also agree that the effective DOF is the same, because I don't know how to calculate it but it should be close at that point.

Why do you think that the 1DsIII + 200 at f4.5 would outperform the 7D + 135 @ f2.8? Also, why do you say "cropping", based on your definition of "what you do with crop body" (which to me just alters the FOV) makes IQ worse? It seems like if the lenses + FOVCF of the bodies offer the same FOV and DOF that the IQ would be unrelated to sensor format. Is that incorrect? In my previous example, where the FF ended up slightly wider at 200 vs 216, the FF would actually be the one that was slightly cropped. Wouldn't that compromise the IQ of that image instead, since you would be working with effectively less pixels than the original on the FF, and the APS-C would have all 18MP?

I understand that generally sharpness is improved by stopping down to the point of DLA, and with a few exceptions. DLA seems kind of a wash with comparable pixel density per sensor area, regardless of APS-C, APS-H or FF. An APS-C body that reaches DLA around f10 (30D) would have the same DOF and other properties as a FF at about f16, right? Heck, the APS-C might even be the better choice in this example, since the FF body that has the same pixel size and DLA number is the 5D. If it holds true that DOF @ f10 on an APS-C is roughly equal to DOF @ f16 on a FF, then the sharpness of the APS-C is probably going to be slightly better.

I feel like I am spiraling into minutiae here, and even though I enjoy it, and enjoy learning about all this, I really want to know whether choosing an APS-H like the 1DIII or 1DIV will be better for me than having an APS-C. I love my 40D, and I am used to the framing with my lenses on it, but I'd like to get more from my 17-40L on the wide end and from a sharpness standpoint. I have been told that the 17-40L thrives on a FF, and is strangled on an APS-C, cruelly never allowed to blossom to its full potential. [:'(]I have noticed that it isn't uber-sharp, at least on my camera. It may just be that it needs AF Microadjust to match the body better, and it would be fine for me. In that case, a 50D or better would do the trick. Maybe it only needs APS-H to find happiness? [:)]

HiFiGuy1

06-05-2010, 11:30 PM

I would save up and wait for the
1Ds IV (probably september). It will be the best of everything... Your
50d is fine until then.

That may be a bridge too far.... I would need to find other living arrangements.

A 1Ds body for action? I don't know 'bout that.
Especially for $8000. And then he needs a bunch of new lenses!

I already have a 23-70 and 70-200 2.8 IS I, which is what helps make one of these bodies a viable choice.Open the box, put on a L lens, familiarize myself with the new body and then good-to-go.

This is a very interesting thread to me. I have been thinking for a while that what I would like is basically a 7D built like a 1 series with the integrated grip. I have held/played with a 1D Mk. II, and really like it. All the Canon bodies I have held with grips attached, including a 5D, a 40D and I think a 30D, left something to be desired in the solidity and of-a-piece feeling departments. Even the shape of the combo in hand is much less agreeable than that of the 1 series.

I have heard similar comments before. Once I used a 1 series would I want to use something else? As of now, the gripped 50D feels very natural.

It is a good question for Peety3, since I think he has used them all (FF, APS-H, APS-C) extensively. I see that he hasn't chimed in here yet. Oh Peety3, where are you?

I would like his opinion as well. It seems to me I saw in one thread that while waiting for the 1DIV to become available he ordered a 7D, liked it so well he ordered another one and nixed the 1DIV. In addition, he has a lot of experience with all three formats.

Chris

Chris,

First sorry for sort of hijacking.

Don't jeopardize the relationship over a camera. It probably isn't worth it. Unless the 1DsIV has a square sensor ("http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/05/the-cmos-sensor-squared-cr2/), electronic shutter, 10fps and costs only $4000. Then, ....

I hope Peety3 does chime in soon. I would like to know why he decided toforegothe 1DIV after owning a 1DIII, but using the 7D. Everyone including Bryan that has had 1-series seems to share the consensus that once you use one you never want anything else, and this seems counter to what he did this time. Even if his usage doesn't parallel mine, I'd still like to hear his reasoning. I have sought his advice before a couple of times and he's not steered me wrong yet.

Jon Ruyle

06-05-2010, 11:45 PM

First sorry for sort of hijacking.

Me, too. Sometimes I can't help myself :) I may start a new thread to continue our diversion when I get a few moments...

Everyone including Bryan that has had 1-series seems to share the consensus that once you use one you never want anything else

Well, not quite everyone. I went from a 1DIIN to the 5DII. Thought I'd use the 5DII just to compliment the 1DIIN, but I hardly ever use the 1 anymore.

Yes, the 1D feels wonderful when I pick it up. Yes, it is beautiful. Yes, it is super fast, super responsive, and fun. But I just find that the 5DII suits my needs better. I love the low light performance, narrow DOF, and IQ.

I know the 1DIIN isn't the same as a 1DIV, and I've never used a 1DIV. But I can't imagine giving up my 5DII for anything but another full frame camera.

greggf

06-06-2010, 01:58 PM

Having used both...the 5D2 and the 1D4, I have to go along with some of the comments that once you've used a 1 series, the other cameras just can't match the balance, feel, or ergonomics. My 5D2 has a battery grip on it, but still doesn't feel the same. They(the 1 series)just feel, well,...right!! Hard to put into words.

As far as image quality goes; I love my 5D2 for portraits, landscapes, low light performance. I have to admit, though, the 9 point system lacks, as far as I am concerned. It works, and I very rarely use the center point, but have the 45 on the 1 series, puts it to shame. I have never used the 7D, so I can't comment there...The focus points themselves, work just fine, and like I said, I typically only use the 8 outer points, and have never had a problem. My concern is using them to focus on what I want...not what the camera wants!! And I don't focus recompose, either.

Back to the quality...I would be hard pressed to find that much difference between the two. The FF 5D2 has a very slight advantage in low light. Other that, the image quality is very similar, with more DR going to the Mark IV. I can push the files much more(not that I do often, but if needed)with the 1DIV, than I can with the 5D2( and my assumption would be even less so with the 7D). The 1D4 just has a quality to the files that the other cameras just can't quite compete with, IMHO.

As far as Bokeh goes, if you look at DOFmaster.com ("/forums/AddPost.aspx/), and compare the 3 cameras, you'll find that the difference isn't all that much, really. For example, I put in 200mm at 2.8 on each respective camera, and the results at 10' were minuscule, as far as paper goes. I know the difference is more noticeable in the field, I'm sure, but between my 2 cameras, in the field, it is not huge. I can take a portrait at 200 2.8 on both FF and 1.3, and they both make the background go buh-bye!!!

I have to admit, though, I really grab the 1D4 more often than I do the 5D2, except when shooting a session, where I employ both! In that instance, I put the 70-200 on the FF, and my 16-35II, on the 1.3. that being said, I really like the 16-35II on the 1.3 more than I like it on FF. Especially for landscapes, or HDR's. Something the 5D2 really lacks, is in the bracketing! I can do a 5 shot HDR hand held with 1D4, faster and better, than I can do a 3 shot with 5D2!!! Granted, it is not as wide, but the corner degradation on the 16-35II is much more prevalent on the FF, than it is on the 1.3. I have actually thought about getting 16-9.com Nikon G adapter, so I can use Nikons 14-24 2.8. But that is a whole different story, altogether.

Jon Ruyle

06-06-2010, 02:58 PM

Other that, the image quality is very similar, with more DR going to the Mark IV.

I've never used the 1DIV, but according to DXOMark, they're almost exactly the same: 12 stops for the IV, 11.9 for the 5DII.

(Okay, sure, the 1DIV has more. [:)])

Probably this has something to do with the fact that the 1DIV has less pattern noise. So in some situations it probably has noticeably more DR than the 5DII, in some situations it probably has less.

I'm surprised. Other things being equal, the larger sensor will have more DR, so the 1DIV was able to make up a lot of ground. Hopefully the 5DIII (if/when) will have some of these same read noise improvements...

Chris White

06-06-2010, 09:52 PM

Don't jeopardize the relationship over a camera.
It probably isn't worth it.

Agreed. As much as I enjoy photography, I also have become accustomed to evening dinner and a warm bed.

First sorry for
sort of hijacking.

Me, too. Sometimes I can't help myself :) I may start a new thread
to continue our diversion when I get a few moments...

No problem. It is adding to my education. In fact, I have followed you over to "Advantages of full frame?".

Having used both...the 5D2 and the 1D4, I have to go along with some of the comments that once you've used a 1 series, the other cameras just can't match the balance, feel, or ergonomics. My 5D2 has a battery grip on it, but still doesn't feel the same. They(the 1 series)just feel, well,...right!! Hard to put into words.

As far as image quality goes; I love my 5D2 for portraits, landscapes, low light performance.

Thanks for joining in greggf, I was hoping to hear from those who have used both. If you were shooting a dance recital using available light, which body would you take if you could only take one?

Chris

greggf

06-07-2010, 04:02 AM

Hi Chris.

Depending on the venue and available light, and of course which lens would you be using? I have taken some great shots using the 5D2 in AI hi-speed(wouldn't really call it hi-speed though!!), but your keeper rate won't be that fantastic because the frame rate being so slow, you jump a little too much between shots. Of course, if you're tracking, and anticipating, and are good at it, you can get some decent shots. The center point does work really well, too. There is a guy on DPreview forums, who swears his 5D2 center locks better than his 1D4 center point in low light....

My personal preference is the 1D4. I try to frame the way I see the shot, thus not having to crop too much. Having 45 points that, once again, as far as I'm concerned, lock all as good as the center point, lends to that task(framing). Plus, the auto-focus is blazing fast on the 4. Especially coupled with the new 70-200 2.8ll(rarely leaves either camera, by the way!!). With the 4 and 10 frames, you could burn shots, trying to get the perfect one....digital is sssoooooo nice!!

Both have great hi ISO, and with today's noise reduction software( I use Nik Dfine 2.0...but looking forward to LR 3 for comparison), I think you have more play in the 1D4 files(especially raw, the only way to shoot, BTW). The 1D4 files just have a LOOK to them, even at hi ISO, with a really good film grain feel.

I think you could survive with the 5D2 if that was you're budget...especially with a couple of fast primes. but the 1D4 would be my choice for that particular situation. Then again, not having used a 7D, that might work, too. I've just read that anything above 1600 or 3200 on the 7D, you really start to push your luck...

GreggF

Chris White

06-07-2010, 08:20 AM

Hi Gregg,

Depending on the venue and available light, and of course which lens would you be using?

The light is low at my daughters recital at times. I currently have the 24-70 2.8 L and the 70-200 2.8 for use right away with either body.

I think you could survive with the 5D2 if that was you're budget...especially with a couple of fast primes. but the 1D4 would be my choice for that particular situation. Then again, not having used a 7D, that might work, too.

I realize that the 7D is certainly a step up from my 50D, but the 1D IV is a giant (huge, dare I say) step up. My decision between those two already favors the 1D IV, no offense to the 7D people. It is just that I have a very usable body in the 50D. When I add a second body I want to upgrade as much as possible. The 5D II intrigues me since it is a great full frame sensor at a good price. The trade as Bryan mentions in the review is the slower frame rate and shutter lag. I think with slower action I could work with it. As it is now, I usually shoot at the lower continuous speed on my 50D, which is probably close to the 5D II highest rate.

I am half-way towards the 1D IV so I could pick up the 5D II now, but that would push the 1D IV way back on the acquisition list. I do see the merit in the 5D II and some good prime glass. It is a harder choice when it comes time to pull the trigger than I first thought. I was all 'hot' for the 1D IV when it came out, and certainly covet a 1 series.

Chris

Chris White

06-08-2010, 10:58 AM

I want to thank everyone for their thoughts/opinions/experience.

After considering everything I am pleased to report that a 5D Mark II should be in my hands by tomorrow.[:D]

Chris

Jon Ruyle

06-08-2010, 11:09 AM

Awesome! I think you'll love it.

Chris White

06-12-2010, 06:10 PM

Awesome! I think you'll love it.

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

In a word WOW! Me Likey!

I see why <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]you us 5D II owners love them. This is a center crop from a group photo taken from halfway in the theater with existing lighting. As I crop, obviously I lose some quality, but this is my daughter. I do not have permission from any other parents to put their daughters on a web site and do not know most of them well enough to chance it. But they were moving, my daughter is going up, if you notice her feet are off the ground and skirt drawing down. And this is one of the first of a couple hundred I took, I am sure I will have better as I sort through them.

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.60/IMG_5F00_0023crop.JPG

5D Mark II/EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM 2.8 aperture / 1/400 / 95mm /3200 ISO

Thanks again for your advice. This is going to be a great companion to my 50D. I will have some saving to do before I contemplate the 7D VS. 1D IV question. In the mean time as I get closer, I may stop for a 100-400 L zoom. I can see where it would mount quite nicely to the 5D II.

Chris

scalesusa

06-12-2010, 09:30 PM

I sold my 40D and bought a 7D. (I already had a 5D MK II). The 7d just did not get used, so I returned it. I still needed a 2nd body so I found a deal on a used 1d MK III. It gets plenty of use, Its much better for my use than the 7D. I do not have the 1d MK IV, I was planning to get one, but the 1D MK III works well for me, except in the ultra high ISO area, I do not use it beyond ISO 3200.

The 1D low light appears to be just a tad better than the 5D MK II, the sensor has the same pixel density.

I have dropped my plans to upgrade from the 1D MK III to the MK IV due to the problems with AF in low light, its something I use a lot on my 5D MK II.

Images from the sensor should crop very well, its the same density as the 5d MK II, and the 5D crops extremely well.

I'd suggest the 5D MK II, but be aware that it is a bit of a shock going to a FF from a 1.6 crop. You will want longer lenses to get the same field of view, unless you are sticking to wide.

Chris White

06-13-2010, 02:58 PM

I'd suggest the 5D MK II, but be aware that it is a bit of a shock going to a FF from a 1.6 crop. You will want longer lenses to get the same field of view, unless you are sticking to wide.

That is why I am going to take a look at the 100-400 L. But, the upside is that my 70-200 2.8 IS will get more use since it now falls in a real sweet spot for me. A lot of times it was a not wide enough, but I wanted more reach that the 17-55 or 24-70 afforded me. Since 70 is now really 70 and not 112, I will be using it a lot where I could not with the 1.6 crop.

Chris