Hi guys,





I'm thinking of upgrading my camera and was wondering has anyone used or uses the Canon 1ds mark 2 or the canon 1d mark 3? now if I had sheds of money I would buy the 1ds mark 3, but I don't have it and to be honest I don't think I need a 21 million pix camera as I rarely print anything over 20x24, which my pervious camera canon 1d mark 2 could handle, the price of a 2nd hand 1ds mark 2 is around the same price of the canon 1d mark 3, but has 16 million pixels against the 10 million of the new mark 3, I really like the thought of having more pixels but I also hear the newer 1d mark 3 has better processing and better focus and the sensor cleaning, but does it work?






anyways, your thoughts would be appreciated.

 

cheers
Tim

From what I can see, the 1D is aimed at sports so you are paying for the speed, while the 1Ds is aimed at studio, and you are paying for the resolution.

Which do you need more fps, or mp?

A simplistic analysis I know.

I'm still interested in the much anticipated 5D mk ii, or whatever it will be called. Would love a 1Ds iii but could not justify it as this is a hobby not a living.

As a matter of intereest what is the issue with the 1D ii that makes you want to upgrade? Maybe that question will tell you which way to go.

P

Hi paul,

thanks for the reply.

I never had a problem with the 1d mark 2 with 8 million pixels, I sold it as I was given a camera from work, but now I'm not supposed to be using it for my own work, and looking at re investing the money in a new camera before I blow it lol.

Ahh makes sense. If there was nothing wrong with the 1D ii, then options would be another 1D ii or maybe even a 5D.

P

The main advantage with the 1dmk3 is the frames per second and the high ISO handling. I have shot with it at ISO 6400 and had very usable shots from it. For me that is the best thing about the camera.

I have a 1D MkIII and think it's brilliant. Yes, the majority of stuff I do would be sports, where higher fps and large buffer is brilliant.

But, recently I was away in the US on holidays. I used my 1D for landscape images. The colours were brilliant and bright, the focus was always spot on and I didn't have any sensor dust, even though I was shooting in dirty sandy conditions. I even had to have a lens left in for repair due to dirt/dust in the USM motor, but there was no dust on my sensor.

I would certainly recommend the camera. But, for studio and weddings etc, maybe the new 5D would be worth waiting for??

Bert Stephani has both in his bag:

http://bertstephani.com/blog/?p=60

You've been watching his videos too then If I recall correctly, he even tells viewers why he prefers one over the other.

Me and bert go back a long way ;)

I have the 1d Mark 3 myself and yes it is more geared towards the Sports end which can bring in good money but also i used it for a recent fashion show and it performed very well, i think id play it safe and go with the 1 d mrk3 as it will work in both enviroments very well as long as you are not hung up on the mps.....

So far i love it!

Peter