1D MkIV vs 5D MkII

[Brendan7]

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...

[peety3]

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.

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.

[Brendan7]

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 [] ?

[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!

[Brendan7]

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

[jaw]

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

[HiFiGuy1]

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.

[Fast Glass]

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

[Brendan7]

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!

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

[SupraSonic]

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