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" ^_-
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" ^_-
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.
Originally Posted by crosbyharbison
A 1Ds body for action? I don't know 'bout that. Especially for $8000. And then he needs a bunch of new lenses!
Oh, I don't know. It might do oaky. []
But yeah, a 1Ds is not cheap.
What does a kidney go for these days?
Autofocus is the same as the 1D, 5fps isn't bad at all, much better than the 5D for action...
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?
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]
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote