FF advise (mainly stills)

[Mistah.vega]

You may want to check out the 7D, I am a 5DMK2 owner. I just picked up the the 7D and I like it a lot, I find myself using it more than the 5DMK2.

[mathino]

You may want to check out the 7D, I am a 5DMK2 owner. I just picked up the the 7D and I like it a lot, I find myself using it more than the 5DMK2.

I had 7D for weekend (borrowed from my friend). It's a great cam, great AF, FPS is a nice bonus - and ofc the new firmware v2. But I want to go FF because of ISO and I want my 28 f/1.8  to be 28 

[n0iZe]

I'd choose the 1Ds MkII, even over the 5D MkII, but it all boils down to what you shoot. In fact I did choose the 1Ds MkII, but I rarely go over ISO400, so the worse ISO performance isn't a problem for me.

That said, if you would be satisfied with the 5Dc, the 1Ds MkII is better than it in pretty much all areas.

The issue with going 1-series is that you don't want to go back to "prosumer" cameras anymore...

I don't find the ISO performance of the 1Ds Mark II as troubling as you say there.

I have also upgraded from a 450D to a 1Ds Mark II. At first I wanted it as a temporary camera, to get used to shooting full frame, weight etc. However, now it has a place in my heart and I know that I won't be able to kick it out of there. When compared, the 1Ds Mark II does of course kick the 450D's ass - that's the way it should be, right?

However, there are some points you have to live with if you go for the 1Ds Mark II:
- ISO, AF, MODE (all on the left of the top side) are pretty hard to setup - you'll need two hands
- Screen: it's pretty crappy. You need the feeling for the exposure (or stick with what the 1Ds Mark II tells you), because you really do not want to judge shots and their exposure from that small, reflecting display
- All the buttons and combinations: you'll have quite a time to figure out how to zoom in and move the magnifier in the picture. At least it took me some time, maybe it's just my stupidity.

Other than that rest assured it's even though discontinued a top tier camera which is capable of doing excellent shots. Here's my favorite shot (not retouched but sadly JPG only, I'll upload the RAW full size shot if someone's interested) I did with the 1Ds Mark II and the 16-35mm in a church:


If you want the camera to shoot and don't care about fancy menus, fast switching of ISO and screen, this one is for you.
If you can't live without these things, then get yourself a 5D Mark II.

Of course the camera has many pro points, but I won't take the time to list those as well. Either one is able to live with the negative points or one shall get a different camera.

By the way: I bought my 1Ds Mark II used for only $1300 at a local store with 1 year warranty. Battery is still amazing, I rarely have to charge it.

[bdunbar79]

True.  But the IQ of the 5D Mark II is better at all ISO's than the 1Ds II.  The Digic III doesn't compete in this case with the Digic IV either.  I personally would not buy a 1Ds II unless I couldn't afford a new 5D Mark II.  2004 technology vs. 2008 technology is actually a fairly large distance here.  And yes, you will notice on FF 16.7 MP vs. 21 MP.

[n0iZe]

True.  But the IQ of the 5D Mark II is better at all ISO's than the 1Ds II.  The Digic III doesn't compete in this case with the Digic IV either.  I personally would not buy a 1Ds II unless I couldn't afford a new 5D Mark II.  2004 technology vs. 2008 technology is actually a fairly large distance here.  And yes, you will notice on FF 16.7 MP vs. 21 MP.

Of course there is a difference. It would be horrible if not! 

However, if someone doesn't have the budget to afford a 5D Mk II or prefers to own the lenses instead of borrowing them from friends. Not all people have friends with nice lenses who are willing to borrow them, so I just wanted to give an option for the other people thinking about going "full in".
Always remember: it's better to own an "out-dated" body with good lenses instead of owning a newer body with only Tamron/Sigma lenses. (I know, some of them are fine. But truth is that most of them are clearly not.)

[Marsu42]

Always remember: it's better to own an "out-dated" body with good lenses instead of owning a newer body with only Tamron/Sigma lenses. (I know, some of them are fine. But truth is that most of them are clearly not.)

I wouldn't subscribe to that view, because you are not getting "most of them", but only specific ones - and many are better than their comparable Canon equivalents. For me, the body-lens combination has to make sense for the specific application. For lower light, I'd personally rather use a 5d2 with a 3rd party lens than some older sensor with an L lens... in fact that's why I'll get a Tamron 24-70vc instead of the $2000+ new Canon version. Lenses might be a more future-proof investment, but not at the expense of the present.

[RLPhoto]

Always remember: it's better to own an "out-dated" body with good lenses instead of owning a newer body with only Tamron/Sigma lenses. (I know, some of them are fine. But truth is that most of them are clearly not.)

I wouldn't subscribe to that view, because you are not getting "most of them", but only specific ones - and many are better than their comparable Canon equivalents. For me, the body-lens combination has to make sense for the specific application. For lower light, I'd personally rather use a 5d2 with a 3rd party lens than some older sensor with an L lens... in fact that's why I'll get a Tamron 24-70vc instead of the $2000+ new Canon version. Lenses might be a more future-proof investment, but not at the expense of the present.

Lenses are always more important than body's. They affect the final output of the pictures far more than the body. A 1Dx with a slow sigma will lose out to a 550D with a whole set of L lenses in terms of the final product.

[Marsu42]

A 1Dx with a slow sigma will lose out to a 550D with a whole set of L lenses in terms of the final product.

Imho very likely, but not necessarily true. And 1dx vs 550d maybe is a bit drastic, don't you think (I know digitalrev's cheap lens/body comparison)? The real world questions often will concern the choice between 7d/5d2/5d3 and for example lenses like Sigma 50/1.4 and Canon 50/1.2 or Tamron 24-70/2.8 and Canon 24-70/2.8.

And only having the final product in mind is recommendable, but not the whole picture because it's no good if your af missed the shot, there were too few fps to capture the moment or your card broke because you didn't have a dual-card body, and so on...

And in my case: I'm going to get a 5d2+Tamron 24-70vc as a basic wedding setup - do you really think I'd be better off with a 7d+Canon 24-70?

[n0iZe]

Always remember: it's better to own an "out-dated" body with good lenses instead of owning a newer body with only Tamron/Sigma lenses. (I know, some of them are fine. But truth is that most of them are clearly not.)

I wouldn't subscribe to that view, because you are not getting "most of them", but only specific ones - and many are better than their comparable Canon equivalents. For me, the body-lens combination has to make sense for the specific application. For lower light, I'd personally rather use a 5d2 with a 3rd party lens than some older sensor with an L lens... in fact that's why I'll get a Tamron 24-70vc instead of the $2000+ new Canon version. Lenses might be a more future-proof investment, but not at the expense of the present.

I ask you: what is ISO worth if the image quality is bad because of the lens?

Will you be like "Oh right, the picture's not sharp, there's loads of chromatic aberration - but hey, look at that background, there's absolutely no ISO noise visible."


For me I prefer some ISO noise at 100% crops over an unsharp picture with CA.

[Marsu42]

I ask you: what is ISO worth if the image quality is bad because of the lens?

There are shades of gray between good and bad, you know - a lens might be sharp in the center, but have problems in the edges, there's no overall way to say if this is good or bad.

First: The Tamron 24-70vc at much less than half the price than the new Canon has at least the same iq as the old Canon lens.

Second: For a wedding, I won't need life-size prints with a pixel-sharp lens @21mp, but I will need higher iso capability that the aps-c sensor simply cannot deliver.

[RLPhoto]

A 1Dx with a slow sigma will lose out to a 550D with a whole set of L lenses in terms of the final product.

Imho very likely, but not necessarily true. And 1dx vs 550d maybe is a bit drastic, don't you think (I know digitalrev's cheap lens/body comparison)? The real world questions often will concern the choice between 7d/5d2/5d3 and for example lenses like Sigma 50/1.4 and Canon 50/1.2 or Tamron 24-70/2.8 and Canon 24-70/2.8.

And only having the final product in mind is recommendable, but not the whole picture because it's no good if your af missed the shot, there were too few fps to capture the moment or your card broke because you didn't have a dual-card body, and so on...

And in my case: I'm going to get a 5d2+Tamron 24-70vc as a basic wedding setup - do you really think I'd be better off with a 7d+Canon 24-70?

[n0iZe]

I ask you: what is ISO worth if the image quality is bad because of the lens?

There are shades of gray between good and bad, you know? First: The Tamron 24-70vc at much less than half the price than the new Canon has at least the same iq as the old Canon lens. Second: For a wedding, I won't need life-size prints with a pixel-sharp lens @21mp, but I will need higher iso capability that the aps-c sensor simply cannot deliver.

I'm fully aware of that. And I also know that my verdicts are pretty pithy.

However when referring to cheap Tamron and Sigma lenses, I didn't mean lenses as the 24-70VC. This wasn't one of the low-end lenses that I meant to refer to (e.g. 70-300 by Tamron or 70-300 by Sigma).
I'm sure the 24-70VC will do just fine, for it's not exactly cheap glass.

Who needs life-size prints? Very, very few people do. However, the crying was tremendous when the 1D X with ONLY 18 Megapixels was announced.

Also, I wouldn't count wedding photos into the "mainly stills" topic - there's still pretty much of a movement there, and one shot lost is one shot lost forever. While by doing stills, you can take your time.

In the end I didn't want to say that ISO is unimportant. I just wanted to say that if I had to choose between better lenses or better body, I'd go with the lenses.

Cheers,
n0iZe

[Marsu42]

facepalm.jpg

:-) I take it since you are at a loss for words, I was correct. And because you deteriorate the discussion to a level I don't want to participate in, I'll stop discussing on this with you.

I'm sure the 24-70VC will do just fine, for it's not exactly cheap glass.

I hope it will - it's about the best gear for a specific job after all.

My point is that the usual lens vs. body discussion is only focused on low-priced products, but it's much harder to decide when comparing products that are all good like the 24-70s or maybe 50 prime lenses.

I had a very hard time deciding between the 70-200/2.8L2+tc and the 70-300L because of this "get only the best glass" religion. Momentarily, I'm very happy with the 70-300L because I just got back from a day out with 60d+70-300L+600rt and nearly cannot feel my arm anymore, I really wouldn't want an even heavier lens with more torque on my wrist no matter what.

[RLPhoto]

facepalm.jpg

:-) I take it since you are at a loss for words, I was correct. And because you deteriorate the discussion to a level I don't want to participate in, I'll stop discussing on this with you.

[bdunbar79]

facepalm.jpg

:-) I take it since you are at a loss for words, I was correct. And because you deteriorate the discussion to a level I don't want to participate in, I'll stop discussing on this with you.

Fantastic.  Not to deteriote conversations with anyone, I enjoy all discussions with everyone on here; this just happened to be particularly funny.