1D MkIV vs 5D MkII

Hi all:


This is my first post on the forum, and probably a pretty challenging first-up question! I am about to upgrade my camera body and am wondering whether to buy the 5D MkII or wait for the new 1D MkIV...... I shoot predominantly wildlife and landscapes, so I guess the extra fps of the MkIV would be more advantageous....but I am also impressed by the full frame resolution of the 5D MkII. Would most people here agree that the extra responsiveness of the 1D MkIV outweighs its 1.3x sensor?


Thanks in advance!


John

Absolutely. The 1.3x is helpful for wildlife (turning my 400 f/5.6 into a 520mm lens) but does not destroy wide-angle capability, either.


For example, a 10-22mm lens becomes a 13-29mm lens. That IMHO is not bad.


I doubt you would notice the difference in angle, unless you HAVE to shoot 10mm landscapes.


The 1D4 is more expensive for a reason: better weather sealing, better-rated shutter, better ISO performance, ridiculously better AF (45 pt. vs. 9 pt.), and a whopping TEN frames per second. The 5D2 doesn't come close. IMHO, despite the 1.3x crop factor, if you can afford the 1D4 (I can't), don't think twice about buying it. The resolution of the 5D2, well, doesn't matter. You could do just fine with a 8mpix full frame camera. Megapixels, to a certain extent are marketing tools that deceive customers. oh well.[H]





Hope this helps...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaw

I shoot predominantly wildlife and landscapes, so I guess the extra fps of the MkIV would be more advantageous....but I am also impressed by the full frame resolution of the 5D MkII.

---

My neck hurts from that whiplash. Wildlife (where folks are usually clamoring for long, long focal lengths, and in some cases they want FPS) and landscape (where folks usually want wide angle, and rarely want FPS) seem like two totally different goals, to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaw

Would most people here agree that the extra responsiveness of the 1D MkIV outweighs its 1.3x sensor?

---

The pixel density on the 1D4 is higher than on the 5D2/1Ds3. If you could take the shot using a particular lens on the 1D4, you'll have more pixels to work with than if you took the shot from the same location, same lens, but with the 5D2.


If you don't need the resolution of the 5D2, can afford the 1D4, and can stand to wait about six months to hear if the 1D4 really works as advertised, I'd go for the 1D4. If you 'need' to buy a camera quickly, I would strongly advise that you avoid the 1D4; think back to the AF problems of the 1D3, the spots problem on the 5D2, or the ghosting problem on the 7D as examples of why latest is not always the greatest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Absolutely. The 1.3x is helpful for wildlife (turning my 400 f/5.6 into a 520mm lens) but does not destroy wide-angle capability, either.


For example, a 10-22mm lens becomes a 13-29mm lens. That IMHO is not bad.


I doubt you would notice the difference in angle, unless you HAVE to shoot 10mm landscapes.

---

I disagree. 1.3x limits wide-angle capability, period. Full-frame can get a 14/2.8 rectilinear prime or a 16-35/2.8 zoom. 1.3x can get a 14/2.8 prime (EFL is 18.2mm) or 16-35/2.8 zoom (EFL is 20.8-45.5mm). 1.6x can get an EF-S 10-22 zoom (EFL is 16-35mm). As a result, a really expensive prime lens on 1.3x is not as wide as the widest primes or zooms on FF or the widest zooms on 1.6x.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

The 1D4 is more expensive for a reason: better weather sealing, better-rated shutter, better ISO performance, ridiculously better AF (45 pt. vs. 9 pt.), and a whopping TEN frames per second. The 5D2 doesn't come close. IMHO, despite the 1.3x crop factor, if you can afford the 1D4 (I can't), don't think twice about buying it. The resolution of the 5D2, well, doesn't matter.

---

As I said before, if you can afford the 1D4 (and widest of angles isn't of concern, and the camera performs as advertised), you'll be a very happy user. The 1-series is simply a very responsive camera in so many ways, and built like a brick. You can feel it the moment you pick it up. You can hear it the moment you press the button (listen to the 1Ds3/1Ds2/5D comparison at http://media.the-digital-picture.com...I-5D-Burst.mp3, and the 1D3 bursting at http://media.the-digital-picture.com...0fps-Burst.mp3). You'll probably be corrupted like the rest of us who have one or more 1-series bodies, and never go back to a >=2-series again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

I disagree. 1.3x limits wide-angle capability, period.

---

IMO I would rather get a much newer, better-performing and no-doubt superior camera body at the expense of having 21mm instead of 16mm.


The 5D2 is, simply put, NOT a wildlife camera. The 7D is better in this regard. the 1D4 combines the capabilities of both 1.6x and 1.0x SLRs.


Because of this, IMO the 1.3x FOVCF is a small compromise.


Agree/Disagree [:D] ?

Actually, I have been thinking about the 7D as an alternative - much cheaper and with the money saved I can get that 300/2.8 I've been dreaming about!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

IMO I would rather get a much newer, better-performing and no-doubt superior camera body at the expense of having 21mm instead of 16mm.

---

I concur. Hence the reason I suggested that the OP wait until the reviews come out - to me there's doubt as to whether the 1D4 will be 'better-performing'. A 5D2 with spots would be preferable to a 1D3 that won't shoot (the 'abnormal mirror operation' bug that affected some cameras, including mine).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaw

Actually, I have been thinking about the 7D as an alternative - much cheaper and with the money saved I can get that 300/2.8 I've been dreaming about!

---

Why? You said you shoot landscape and wildlife. The 300/2.8 is not meant for either of those uses. the 1.6x crop of the 7d will affect your wide angle shooting a lot (a 24mm lens becomes a not-so-wide 38mm). IF you shoot sports, by all means, get the 300/2.8. If you shoot wildlife like large mammals, etc. the 300mm f/2.8 might make sense. But for smaller mammals and birds, the 2.8's focus distance of 8ft will not do you any favors...


One last tip... If you have a budget, prioritize the GLASS, NOT THE BODY. I would rather have a Rebel XSi and 500mm f/4 than 1D Mark IV and 300mm f/4.





hope this helps...


Brendan

Thanks Brendan:


Yes, the 500/4 would be nice, but if I go with the 1.6x body then the 300/2.8 would effectively be a 480/2.8 with the option of extending that out to 672/4 with a 1.4x TC. I am stuck in Japan at the moment and most critters are very skittish and you are usually forced to shoot at distance, so 8ft minimum focusing distance is not as bad as it seems....plus I have a 70-200/4 for that. I should have mentioned that my priority is more on wildlife, particularly birds, than landscapes, but I enjoy capturing landscapes as well when I come across a nice scene.


Cheers,


John

In that case, I'd steer you towards a 50D or 7D (1.6x FOVCF), and get yourself some good long glass. If you already have a 70-200 f/4, why not look at the 500 f/4, or the 300 f/2.8 and a 1.4x teleconverter? That would cover most of your needs, it seems, and be close to the budget for the 1D Mark IV. As far as landscape, I have a 40D and a 17-40 f/4, and it does a nice job with landscape for my needs so far.

I would get the longest lens you can afford for wildlife. You simplycannot haveenough focal length.Check this picture out, it was taken with my Minolta 600mm f/6.3 with a 2X extender and cropped about 25% and on a XTi!


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/_5F00_MG_5F00_4038-reduced.JPG[/img]


If you think you can shoot wildlife with a 1D IV or a 5D II without a long lens you will be GREATLY disopointed.


Johnl

I have nothing but praise for the 5DMII, however, there is a shutter lag that would not be good for wildlife photography. I guess it just depends if you are taking action shots or not in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaw

but if I go with the 1.6x body then the 300/2.8 would effectively be a 480/2.8 with the option of extending that out to 672/4 with a 1.4x TC.

---

True, but if and when you upgrade to full frame you will have a plain 300/2.8 or 420/4. IF that is good enough for you, then run out tomorrow and get the 7D and 300/2.8. Many users have taken beautiful wildlife photographs with that lens. Combine that with the 70-200 you have and a 16-35, 24-105 or 10-22 and you are set!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaw

Yes, the 500/4 would be nice

---

No. The 500/4 would be AWESOME![H]. When it comes to bird photography, the buck stops at the 500/f4. As a rule, get a longer, slower lens over a faster, shorter one. the 500 is much more expensive, so don't set your goals too high. But in general, the 7d and 300/2.8 will be a great combo for sports and wildlife. However, as shown by Fast Glass, you will want more focal length. If you get the 300/2.8 and upgrade to a full frame body, you will find yourself wanting a.... 500 f/4. (which BTW I can't afford)


[:)]brendan

Thanks guys! I already have the 17-40/4, 24-105/4, 70-200/4, all L series. If I went for the 500/4 I suppose I should get the 300/4 to round out the kit! But in all seriousness, if I got the 7D I think the lower light capabilities of the 300/2.8 would be nice to have, plus it gives me the equivalent reach of a 500/4 on a FF. If in the future I can afford a 1Ds, I would probably also be in a position to afford some big glass like the 500/4 as well.....having the option of a 300/2.8 and 500/4 in the future sounds good [H]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaw

I think the lower light capabilities of the 300/2.8 would be nice to have

---

Great! that solves that. Get the 7D and the 300/2.8. You will be SO happy with that.


brendan[:D]

jaw,


BTW, I didn't notice where you said what body you already have. What are you shooting now?

Thanks everyone for making my decision easier. This morning I bought the 7D body for the equivalent of $1600, and also ordered the 300/2.8, but have to wait 2 - 3 months for that apparently. [:D]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaw

Thanks everyone for making my decision easier. This morning I bought the 7D body for the equivalent of $1600, and also ordered the 300/2.8, but have to wait 2 - 3 months for that apparently. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

---

Congratulations! Good luck with that stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaw

Thanks everyone for making my decision easier. This morning I bought the 7D body for the equivalent of $1600, and also ordered the 300/2.8

---

Excellent! I think you made the best choice. I'm sure you will be stunned by the photos.

Have Xtra $$$ invest 1Ds MKIII/IV instead.