Canon EOS 5D or EOS-1D Mark II N

[Jerry Raia]

If you had the 5D as I do, would you get the 1D Mark II N if you could and sell the 5D?

[Bob12]

I think it depends on several issues. I have the 1D Mk II and if I was considering a replacement (I'm not,) it would be the Mk IIn. I like the feel of the larger body and would want to have the battery grip on the 5D - that brings the two very close in price. I'm also not bothered by the 1D's 1.3 focal length factor so the 5D's full size imager wouldn't mean that much to me. I like the all out throughput speed of the 1D (8.5 fps for 40/48 frames in jpg.) The added 4 megapixels is also of little relevance to me. I have a picture I took with the 1D printed 20x30 inches and it takes an 8x loupe to see any pixelization and at that, it's extremely tiny and visible only along high contrast areas.

[Jerry Raia]

Yeah that is kind of the way I was thinking. I do have the battery grip for the 5D. I also doubt I'd miss the extra MP's and the increased performance is substantial. Of course I'm not a pro or anything close. I do like having the best I can get though. As I am getting back into photography I have taken a rather "learn as I go approach" so I got the 30D 3 months ago, sold it on eBay last week. Got the 5D and now I'm already thinking about the 1D. The resale on these cameras is so good on eBay its almost a no loss proposition to use one a few months then get the next one up.

[Jason Dunn]

My own personal theory of camera buying: you keep the camera you have until you outgrow it. Meaning, the limitations of the camera are holding you back as a photographer. I find it hard to believe that the 5D is holding you back Jerry. ;-)

[Jerry Raia]

Oh a Kodak Instamatic wouldn't hold me back. Ansel Adams I will never be. I just love the technology and the gadetry and the beauty of it all. :mrgreen:

[cameron]

Jerry - congrats on the 5D.

If I may suggest - stop buying cameras. Looking at your lens choices in another thread, you are not going to be getting optimal results from either the 30D, 5D (especially the 5D), or the Mark II N with those lenses. They are all adequate for the job, but you'll find that Canon's higher end L lenses will give much better results. Plus, if you keep buying, you'll eventually get to a 1Ds - then what will you do?! :P

When I bought my first L lens (the 70-200 f4) - I compared some shots taken at 200mm against that same 75-300 I think you have. Comparing the shots side by side really opened my eyes - the resolution and color rendition just blew me away (I wish I still had the comparisons - I'll have to see if I can find them).

On the 5D this is especially true because it's full frame. All lenses have flaws on the outside of the imaging circle, be it vignetting, distortion, etc. With a smaller sensor, the outside of the image circle falls way outside the sensor so these flaws are hidden. With the full frame sensor - those flaws are going to come out. The higher the lens quality, the less apparent these issues are going to be. You always have them, no matter how good a lens you have though - it's just a matter of how noticeable they are.

All that being said - the 1 series cameras are a blast to shoot with. I rented a 1Ds MarkII a couple of months ago to shoot the Champ Car race here in Denver. The view through the viewfinder, the focusing speed, the level of control all made me wish I was actually turning a profit on this little photography hobby so I could justify buying one.

[Jerry Raia]

Careful now, you almost made a case for the 1D as it is not full frame and I could hide some of my lens flaws. :lol:

OK I'm twisting it a bit but I get your point. I did get a better zoom telephoto so here is my current line up:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=11922

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=152&modelid=7307

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7337

None are L models of course. I do have my eye on a couple of them. At anyrate I enjoy the 5D so much I will have to keep it for a while. I still have a lot to learn and it is a fun camera to do that on. :D

[cameron]

The 50 1.4 is a fantastic lens - it's personally one of my favorites (and would be on my camera more if I had full frame).

My recommendations to someone with money to burn - ditch the 75-300 and get a 70-200L. You can get the F4 at good prices these days (I have one right now I'm going to be putting up for sale shortly) - probably between 400-500. You of course lose the IS - which is a factor for some - but you gain a constant aperture throughout the range (which is very important to me) and a non-rotating front element (if you shoot with a polarizer this also becomes very important). Of course if you have money to burn - the 70-200 2.8L IS is supposed to be a fantastic lens. As far as the extra reach is concerned - I use a Canon 1.4x Teleconverter when I need to get a bit farther. Reduces the aperture by one stop - but the image quality is almost 100% as with no teleconverter (just a bit softer).

I'd also replace the 28-135 with either the 24-70 L2.8 or the 24-105 L4 IS. Personally I'd take the 24-70 (it's my next lens purchase) because I want the extra stop - but the 24-105 does have IS. The 28-135 is a notoriously soft lens.

Just my thoughts - I happen to believe that lenses are the most important piece of kit for photography (was 100% true in the days of film, now maybe it's 75% true as sensors do dictate quality). So much so that I shoot with a very inferior camera body (a Mamiya 7 - build quality sucks, feels like a plastic toy) that has a selection of some of the sharpest lenses made.

[Jerry Raia]

Good information there, these are the things I need to learn about. I was almost going to get this lens:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=9802

The problem was i sling the camera around my neck and would have needed a link chain with that lens. it is HUGE.

Thanks for the info!

[cameron]

That thing is a beast :wink:

The issue with that lens, besides the size, is that it's wide-angle performance isn't that good. You really do compromise with the larger zoom range. Plus, for the price - you could almost buy a 17-40, 24-70, and 100-400 -- all of which will give you better performance.

[Jerry Raia]

Yeah but then you need a Winnebago to hall them all around! I was hoping for a good one or two lens solution. Now I'm up to 3 and they are pretty lite weight.

[cameron]

Yeah but then you need a Winnebago to hall them all around! I was hoping for a good one or two lens solution. Now I'm up to 3 and they are pretty lite weight.

Another alternative would be the 17-40 and 100-400 (if you feel you need the reach).

Equipment is all about compromises. There's no magic bullet, sharp, lightweight, high-quality, 15-500 lens out there (although some people end up with the Sigma 50-500 - the "Bigma" - but the thing's a tank). You also don't need to lug every piece of equipment to every shoot. As a gadget guy - you should be happy about this though - it gives you more lenses to buy!

I guess I started out on the wrong foot - what do you want to shoot? The keys to photography are 1) putting yourself in the right place at the right time, 2) having the technical skills to capture the shot (understand aperture, shutter speed, composition, etc.), and 3) having the right equipment that supports 1 & 2 (a rangefinder with a wide lens isn't going to capture the action of basketball - while a 20D with a 400mm prime isn't ideal for nature). Of all of these - 3 is the least important. Of course this depends on your perspective - but in most situations it holds true. Digital photography has put us in this situation where, for the right amount of money, anyone can buy a camera that takes fantastic snapshots - the key is then understanding how to convert those snapshots into art.

Just getting into photography - you probably don't know the answer to that question yet. I've been shooting seriously for 3 years now and I still don't know the answer to that question (I just know that I'll never shoot kids or weddings). Here's what I've learned so far:

- Sports/Events. I end up going wide and tight - but hardly spend any time in the middle. For me the 17-40 and then something at 300 or 400 (I end up renting the Canon 2.8 primes a lot).
- People/Family/Street. Wide to middle. Having something in the 100 range allows you to get in tight without being right in someone's face while still giving a decent depth of field. For me with the 20D it's the 17-40 and the 50 (80 with the crop factor) for that extra bit of reach.
- Nature. This is always hard. If you are shooting near your car you can take everything. If hiking, I'll take the 17-40 on the body and then the 70-200 in a pouch. I'll typically also have a medium format with a 90 (50mm equivalent) on the body and a 37mm fisheye in the pouch.
- Travel. Also hard. I'll take the 17-40 on the body, the 70-200 in the backpack, and then the Mamiya 7 with an 80 (about 45mm equiv).

I prefer shooting wide - so my lens selection is skewed that direction. Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that your equipment should support you as the photographer, you as the photographer shouldn't adapt to fit the equipment.

[Jerry Raia]

You are right I have no idea yet. I hate weddings and my kids are all grown up so no kid pics for me either. Right now I am taking pictures of anything, http://photos.jerryraia.com just to see how the camera works. Playing with the settings, experimenting and even working with RAW which I am finding very enjoyable learning about. As you know the 5D will shoot both at the same time so I look at the jpegs, see what is interesting then use the RAW to mess with it. So far I find the 28-135 the most useful. Next the 50mm, lastly the 70-300. So at this point the 70-200L IS is looking like that might be one of my choices.

[cameron]

Ah - ducks. The universal standby for testing photo equipment (I prefer pigeons - you can find them everywhere).

http://www.c-gphotos.com/fm/pigeon1.jpg

Who do you fly for?

[Jerry Raia]

Yeah what is it about ducks? :lol:

American Eagle. Not all of those pictures were taken with the 5D as you might have noticed. I'll have to go find some pigeons now!

[cameron]

I travel almost 100% of the time - I'm in Denver so its pretty much United for me.

The beauty of pigeons is that they are everywhere. Every photographer is supposed to figure out what they want their "life's work" to be about. Meaning what, over the course of your photographic life, would you want to be known for. I've decided mine is going to be pigeons because you always have subjects :D

[Jerry Raia]

OK then since you have cornered the pigeon market, I will go with the ducks and perhaps sea gulls as well since I live pretty close Malibu Beach. :lol:

[Bob12]

Getting back to lenses, I'd echo pretty much all of what Cameron said except I use a different set of lenses. I carry my EOS gear in a Pelican case (a 1610) and generally have all four of my lenses fairly close at hand. My general, all around lens is the 24-105 IS. For long stuff, it's almost always the 100-400 IS. Both are L lenses. My other two are also L lenses, the 17-40, and the 35-350. I was considering selling both when I got the two IS lenses but couldn't quite bring myself to do so. On the rare occasion that I can only take one lens and I expect to want a telephoto, I usually take the 35-350.

Plus, a suggestion, since you have the battery grip. With the weight involved in some of these lenses, if you havent already done so, you might consider the Canon Hand Strap. It attaches to the right side of the camera and has a large pad that sets on the back of the hand. You can carry the camera much easier and under more control than with a neck strap. I can't imagine hanging the weight of the 1D with either of my longer lenses around my neck.

[Jerry Raia]

I was wondering what that loop thing on the bottom of the battery pack was for! :D

[Jerry Raia]

Well I did get my first L, the 17-40mm f/4. Very nice. :)