1D MkIV vs 5D MkII

[jaw]

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

[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]

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.

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.

[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!

[peety3]

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).

[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.