1D MKii vs 550D and vs 70D

[mhhenn]

Hi everyone,

For about one year I have been using a 550D with a 24-105 L 4 is and with a 70-200 L 2.8 lenses and I have to say I have been happy with my IQ.

Recently though I bought a used 1D MKii to try for the first time a xD body, and I loved it! Loved the body quality, the 45 af points and the extra customization, but when comparing the jpg images that both produced I have the impression that the 550D delivers a better image.
I didn't compare the raw images yet, but I have the feeling the 550D would come out victorious from this fight.

So I ask, leaving aside all the other differences between them, would you say that any of the cameras have a much better IQ then the other?
Please add on this comparison the 70D as well to be able to compare to a new digic5 as well OBS: I understand the differences between them, my questions here is about IQ only!

I am asking because I am not sure if I should keep both 550D and 1D MKii or sell both and get a 70D that seems to be a good upgrade from the 550D and not that far from the 45af points quality from the 1D.

Any light on the question will be very appreciated! Thanks!

[peety3]

Ignore the CPU that's inside the camera, period. Putting a Digic99 into a camera instead of a Digic.001 just means that there's more computational power to execute the task of building the image files. If there was a way to remove the Digic5 from a 70D and drop in a Digic3, I'd bet you'd see a significant frame rate decrease. Likewise, if a CPU upgrade was possible, you'd probably see a more consistent frame rate at high ISO speeds.

The 1-series is going to have a higher quality sensor and a higher-capability A/D converter on the back end of the sensor. However, generational improvements have led to better sensor manufacturing techniques that provide a better image quality. If you're truly talking about a 1D2, you're talking about 2004 technology, which would be second-generation 1D vintage. The 550D is 2010 vintage, while the 70D is 2013 vintage. I would simply expect better image quality every two years, so the 70D is probably the winner there.

[mhhenn]

Hi peety3,

Thanks for your answer.

I understand your point about Digic5 and makes perfect sense, but about the IQ rather have you ever tried to compare?
Even if the 70D would be the winner would be interesting to know by how much. How much better can it be?
I think is a really interesting question, since many people could benefit from the information considering that older secondhand models cameras have a price tag considerably lower and this information would be welcomed by people with a low budget but that want to keep the IQ high...

[DavidEccleston]

It really depends on which part of image quality you're looking at. My 1DsII will blow away my 7D in terms of high ISO noise, despite the age. Aside from the recent full frames, I haven't seen much noise improvements over the years. All the crop bodies have been pretty similar in terms of noise, I think. If the 70D has similar noise levels to the 7D, you should see less noise on the 1D until ISO1600.The larger pixels on the full-frame means slightly soft glass will appear sharper on the 1D. Chromatic aberrations on the 85mm f/1.8 will appear thinner and be less noticable. Your 1D, being a 1.3x crop should see some benefit from all these areas, but not as much as a full-frame camera. But high-quaility full-frame compatible glass is expensive. A lens that appears fine on a 1.6x crop body may have sharpness and distortion issues near the edge of the frame when used on a 1.3x or full-frame body.

[clemmb]

but when comparing the jpg images that both produced I have the impression that the 550D delivers a better image.

First of all, welcome to the forum.
I shoot with a 1DmkIIn and a 5D.
If you examine your images I think you will find the 550D is sharper due to the higher pixel count but the 1D will have lower noise at higher ISO, better contrast, better color, etc... Bottom line they all return great IQ. I love my 1DmkIIn. I do not think I would like a 7D or 70D but I do find myself wanting more pixels

[DavidEccleston]

Mark, I keep forgetting that the 1DmkII is significantly lower-resolution, which, yes, will affect how much detail you can capture. My T1i, 7D, and 1DsmkII have all been about the same (15 to 18 MP).

[mhhenn]

Hi David, thanks for your answer and you have a good point. I forgot to mention that I meant the IQ for ISO 800 or lower. The lenses in my case shouldn't be a problem, as I do most of my shooting with L lenses.

[mhhenn]

One suggestion would be to shoot in raw formats to compare bodies and convert/process using the same software outputting the results to your largest expected print size, or other output device. If you don't see a noticeable difference based on what you use the camera for then don't fret over pixel peeping differences.

That is probably the best idea. I tried doing that yesterday, and I had the impression that the 1D MKii had softer images, but I will have to test it again, as I don't think I got 2 fair images to compare since the crop and max resolution are different. I will have to spend a little more time and do it again in a more controlled situation.

Has anyone else tried that as well?

[mhhenn]

First of all, welcome to the forum.
I shoot with a 1DmkIIn and a 5D.
If you examine your images I think you will find the 550D is sharper due to the higher pixel count but the 1D will have lower noise at higher ISO, better contrast, better color, etc... Bottom line they all return great IQ. I love my 1DmkIIn. I do not think I would like a 7D or 70D but I do find myself wanting more pixels

Thanks I feel welcomed already

I am relatively new to photography, so I don't have much knowledge about older systems. As soon as I haven't been shooting for too long with the 1D MKii I think I am being just extra sensitive about using such an "old" technology.

I do miss as well some more pixels and a bigger screen do review the photos on the 1D mkii

[mhhenn]

Can not recommend using the camera LCD screen to review images. Old screens weren't that great to begin with. The image on the screen is not the same image as the camera captured. It is a reduced resolution low quality preview JPEG.

I think that with a bigger and with more dots screen from now days is possible to have an idea if the image is more or less good, what I cannot say about the 2" 230,000 dots from the 1D MKii, so a good LCD screen in my opinion is very useful to do the first filter on the photos taken.

Number of pixels needed depends on what you are doing with your images. Only takes a few MP to share online or make small prints. This is why I recommend outputting to the largest size that you are likely to use when trying to compare bodies to see if there is a difference based on your actual usage of the images.

This makes perfect sense, but I think is valid to know how they compare on their biggest output as well.

I know that the number of pixels just matters depending in what you do with your images, but I fell good when I open the photo in its maximum size and it make my 24" screen look small, so I rather spend a bit more and keep this useless pleasure