|
|
  | 27 July 2012 02:35 |
| GlobalEye Photographer  Location United Kingdom Devon Poole Dorset | I've been using the 1DsMK2 for about 3 years now. It was a massive jump from my old 20D lol. If you go down the route of the MK2 I'd play around with it a fair bit before taking it on a modeling shot. The interface is a tad of a pain and completely different to the 20/40D so it takes a bit of getting used to and will slow you down at first especially if you can operate the 40D blind folded. Also, hope you got back up storage because the file size is a heck of a lot bigger. Plus sides for me - I do a heck of a lot of traveling and the solid build and enviromental sealing is a big plus. Going from a D series to a full frame you wont go back. Focus is super quick and so is the burst rate which is handy when I'm trying to catch a breeching great white but not so important on most modeling shoots. Down Sides - Damn heavy! Especially when combined with L series lenses. Ok, if you are in a studio but out and about and you will notice the difference. Batteries dont seem to last that long but I bought a couple extra pretty cheap off ebay. Interface isnt brilliant as others have mentioned. Screen is small now compared to newer models. All in all though, I'm happy with the money I spent at the time and its still going strong. |
| 27 July 2012 03:23 |
| MG Photographer  Location United Kingdom Warwickshire | Another option is 1d mk3. Its a 1.3 crop factor as opposed to a 1.6 of the x0 and x00d's large screen, fast good iso. A little more modern than the1dsii and not far off the price.... The advantage of the 1 series is you can use them all day long in heavy rain and bad weather... |
  | 27 July 2012 04:00 |
|
| RedChecker Photographer  Location United Kingdom Buckinghamshire Stoke Mandeville |  Quote from MGAnother option is 1d mk3. Its a 1.3 crop factor as opposed to a 1.6 of the x0 and x00d's large screen, fast good iso. A little more modern than the1dsii and not far off the price.... The advantage of the 1 series is you can use them all day long in heavy rain and bad weather... 10 megapixel vs the 1Ds 16.6 megapixel Anthony has already mentioned this camera and as I said in my last post - for studio work the 1Ds II is the strongest camera in terms of image quality. |
|
| If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit | ||
| 27 July 2012 05:58 |
| MG Photographer Location United Kingdom Warwickshire | Quote from RedChecker 10 megapixel vs the 1Ds 16.6 megapixel . The old megapixel battkle again! The camera is still widely used today by an awful lot of press photographers. |
| 27 July 2012 06:28 |
|
| RedChecker Photographer Location United Kingdom Buckinghamshire Stoke Mandeville | Quote from MG The old megapixel battkle again! The camera is still widely used today by an awful lot of press photographers. As a press photographer you indeed may find it useful. I get the impression Anthony is more at home in the studio and has already made reference to wanting to produce A3 prints (which obviously would require more pixels for better quality) |
|
| If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit | ||
 | 27 July 2012 08:54 |
| anthonyh Photographer Location United Kingdom Essex | I am after ultimate image quality in the studio and am looking for the best DSLR in my price range to achieve this....more up to date technology would be nice but isn't the priority. I am equally happy using film.....and part of my reason for keeping digital costs down is that I would like to get a MF rangefinder sometime soon as well (landscape work)...and possibly upgrade my G10 as a take anywhere camera (although I tested the G1X and Fuji X10 a couple of hours ago in town and having looked at the results am tempted to keep the G10....maybe I was doing something wrong!). I appreciate all the input...  |
| 28 July 2012 02:24 |
| markwalden Photographer  Location United Kingdom Staffordshire BURNTWOOD | I had a play with the 1DS mkIII on Thursday night and compared to my 1DS mkII it is well worth the extra cash so if it was my money I would wait until I could buy a 1DS mkIII. |
| 30 July 2012 16:40 |
| anthonyh Photographer Location United Kingdom Essex | I have a few votes for the 5Dmk2......this is the camera with rubbish AF by all accounts. I am happy with the AF on my 40D ( a good 95% hit rate and I am a bit slap happy nowadays) and I don't want to regress on the AF front. Are the reports true? Or is this a good studio camera? Personally...I tend to use outer focus points for 99% of the time...as that is where the model's eyes tend to be. Apparently this is the weak point for the 5D mk2. |
| 30 July 2012 22:27 |
|
| Hugh Photographer  Location United Kingdom Dyfed Aberystwyth | For studio use, the 5D2 would be my first choice. Shooting tethered to a laptop and using liveview is great. Focusing is ok - maybe not the first choice for sports in heavy rain, but fine for most other uses. I'll upgrade from the 5D2 to the 5D3 someday, but I'm not in a big rush. |
|
| It's not Fine Art just because it's in Black and White. | ||
| 30 July 2012 23:20 |
|
| RedChecker Photographer Location United Kingdom Buckinghamshire Stoke Mandeville | The focussing on the 1DsII isn't anything special, in fact, I actually prefer my 5D to the 1DsII when shooting (say) photosets, but for slower pace considered studio work it'll be fine. The 1DsIII was massively improved over the II with focussing as it was f2.8 sensitive on the outer points (the II is f5.6 IIRC). One thing to be aware of is that both the 5DI and 1DsII have older generation AF which is susceptible to focus errors when flourescent lighting is present (standard frequency). As I understand the 1DsIII and 5D2 and later cameras have been somewhat improved in this respect but are by no means perfect. I'd have to say, I've never used a 5DII but I'd opt for one of those over the 1DsII if I were given the choice (the original question was regarding the 5Dmk1 vs 1DsII), mainly due to the archaic 1DsII interface can be a pain at times (esp. focus point selection when working fast) and since I shoot natural light work I need all the ISO I get get. If it were purely for studio work however (low ISO) it isn't so clear. And just out of interest, a friend of mine swears I get sharper images using my 1DsII than he does on his 1DsIII. One reason could be the 16.6mpix of the 1DsII is pretty much optimum for the lens sharpness of Canon's lenses wheras the 21.1mpix of the 1DsIII will reveal the 'softness' of lenses, and as I've already mentioned the 1DsII seems to have a very weak AA filter. A good reason to believe this little theory of mine is to look at Canon's decision to make the 1Dx 18mpix. |
|
| If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit | ||
|
