Reading mode: Light Dark

5D Vs 1Ds

Go to last post
If it helps,

I moved from a 350D to a 5D about a year ago when the price was right, the 5D is a great camera at the latest prices. I'd love a 1Ds, but the budget (with lenses) doesn't go there, so I'm making the most of the 5D with 24-105L, 50 1.8, 100 2.8 and 100-400L. I've been using the Epson 4800 for 3 years with great results with INNOVA papers.

The only draw back with the 4800 is having to plan ahead for black ink changes (costly) but I can't yet justify purchasing the 4880 replacement just for that issue.

Good luck
 
Good info on lens, thanks. I will be investing in good quality glass for sure as I have read that time and time again. However, I will have to pace myself. The 5D comes with a 24-105 L lens so thats good, I was thinking of getting one other lens, should I go for something like a 70-200 or then a fixed lens like the ones J.Pringle you have? BTW great pics on the website, esp. the bride ones.
--
Subzy
 
Sylvain, great website. Some fab DOF on the portraits and you even got one groom to get up a tree, fantastic! I'll have to think of great motivation techniques for my clients to do some daring poses too! I'm guessing you are a true pro and have gear worth as much as my house!
Any tips for the big day would be greatly appreciated!
--
Subzy
 
Cameras don't produce stunning photographs, photographers do.

I would probably check out the 40D as a step up, and the most often overlooked upgrade would be to the person behind the camera. Read, learn, try new things.

Happy shooting,
Jon
sabahussain said:
I am entering the world of wedding photography and studio portraits
and need some opinions on which camera to upgrade to. I currently own
a 400D, which for what it is, produces decent results.

I have read a lot about the features of the 2 cameras but still do
not understand which would suit my situation best. I know I'll need
to upgrade lenses etc and understand the whole full frame sensor
feature too. I have even looked at galleries of photos but its
difficult to tell differences online.

I want a camera that is going to produce sufficiently stunning
results in print, what do you think?

--
Subzy
Click to expand...
 
sabahussain said:
Good info on lens, thanks. I will be investing in good quality glass
for sure as I have read that time and time again. However, I will
have to pace myself. The 5D comes with a 24-105 L lens so thats good,
I was thinking of getting one other lens, should I go for something
like a 70-200 or then a fixed lens like the ones J.Pringle you have?
BTW great pics on the website, esp. the bride ones.
--
Subzy
Click to expand...
--For best AF performance and especially any action shooting in less than bright light, use a f/2.8 or faster lense.
If you use a tripod a lot the IS is worthless.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS lense is the natural compliment to the 24-70 L, and both have pleasing boken. A well cared for L lense will last many years so think it over and try them on the cam if you can to get a feel for them.

-Fortune favors the bold-
 
sabahussain said:
I am entering the world of wedding photography and studio portraits
and need some opinions on which camera to upgrade to. I currently own
a 400D, which for what it is, produces decent results.

I have read a lot about the features of the 2 cameras but still do
not understand which would suit my situation best. I know I'll need
to upgrade lenses etc and understand the whole full frame sensor
feature too. I have even looked at galleries of photos but its
difficult to tell differences online.

I want a camera that is going to produce sufficiently stunning
results in print, what do you think?

--
Subzy
Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com
 
There are some really good examples here of why mastering fill in flash is a must for a wedding photographer, and also why not to shoot with your models in direct sunlight. There is also some good lessons on why not to consistently underexpose here too....
 
Kabe Luna

I was comparing the 5D with the 1Ds MKIII. From all the posts here it seems that 5D is worth going for, I don't want to go for the 40D beacuse I want to get a full frame sensor camera.
--
Subzy
 
I have a 5D and have used a 1ds III recently. If you can afford it go for the 1ds, there are a lot more functions on the 1Ds & the AF is much better & spread out in the viewfinder. And of course if it rains regularly where you do weddings the 1ds is waterproof (with L lenses). My feeling having played about with the 1Ds raw files is that there is a little bit more dynamic range in them than the 5d, so this would be useful at weddings. The view screen is also bigger, but dont forget if you get the 1Ds you will need the computer and storage infrastructure to go with it. Fast PC chips & plenty of larger storage cards & of course plenty of hard disk space (DVD's) to store the huge files.
 
sabahussain said:
Sylvain, great website. Some fab DOF on the portraits and you even
got one groom to get up a tree, fantastic! I'll have to think of
great motivation techniques for my clients to do some daring poses
too! I'm guessing you are a true pro and have gear worth as much as
my house!
Any tips for the big day would be greatly appreciated!
--
Subzy
Click to expand...
Thanks Subzy, The first wedding galleries are 35mm photos. The 2 last ones have digital pictures and a few from films. The corporate galleries are all digitals.

I use a 30D with a 17-40L, 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-200 f/4 IS. Most of the portraits are with the 50mm or the 70-200. Also, I have a 580ex and a vertical grip. The vertical grip is really useful.

The 70-200 f/4 IS is an awesome lens and is really sharp. And you can gain 4 stops with the IS. It will allow you to use it with the flash at 1/60 for fill in outside or inside. F/4 is enough for nice booke when taking portraits. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is better to stop action in dim light. But it's also a lot heavier. The f/4 is about the weight of the 24-105mm, while the f/2.8 is two times the weight.

--
Sylvain

http://www.primeaumedias.com
 
The 1DsIII is a great studio tool. Lots of MP's for those images that you hope to sell big prints of. Use it with carefully crafted studio light (or controlled daylight) at low iso and produce some amazing images.

The 5D comes into it's own, in the dimly lit church where strobe is not allowed or limited. It's autofocus is poor however at low light, which you can help out a little bit by feeding the camera a diet of very fast primes, pouring more light on the AF sensor (not to mention the image sensor).

Both cameras offer nice DR (dynamic range) though frankly, there is still a place for the Fuji S5 - basically an amazing specialty camera that seems designed from the ground up to photograph white dresses, next to black tuxes.

I've heard tell that the 1DIII (non s version) offers superior high iso, and excellent DR, beating the 1DsIII there, though of course at the cost of pixels. I wouldn't rule it out, as a "church camera" despite the reported AF issues
 
John W Peterson said:
The 1DsIII is a great studio tool. Lots of MP's for those images that
you hope to sell big prints of. Use it with carefully crafted studio
light (or controlled daylight) at low iso and produce some amazing
images.
The 5D comes into it's own, in the dimly lit church where strobe is
not allowed or limited. It's autofocus is poor however at low light,
which you can help out a little bit by feeding the camera a diet of
very fast primes, pouring more light on the AF sensor (not to mention
the image sensor).
Both cameras offer nice DR (dynamic range) though frankly, there is
still a place for the Fuji S5 - basically an amazing specialty
camera that seems designed from the ground up to photograph white
dresses, next to black tuxes.
I've heard tell that the 1DIII (non s version) offers superior high
iso, and excellent DR, beating the 1DsIII there, though of course at
the cost of pixels. I wouldn't rule it out, as a "church camera"
despite the reported AF issues
Click to expand...
--AF issues are resolved with the 1dMK-3 as best I can tell with my body, #517,XXX. It has 2 silly bits more dynamic range than the 5D, and you can see it. For stills the 5D is a great cam. The MK-3 thumps it after ISO 1200 or so though.
I like them both, but for action shots the MK-3 is the one.

-Fortune favors the bold-
 
John W Peterson said:
I've heard tell that the 1DIII (non s version) offers superior high
iso, and excellent DR, beating the 1DsIII there, though of course at
the cost of pixels. I wouldn't rule it out, as a "church camera"
despite the reported AF issues
Click to expand...
It might seem that way if you look at 100% pixel view, or use some lower zoom that uses bad math, but the image-level read noise is lower in the 1Dsmk3, even if the pixel-level read noise at ISO 1600 is higher. And, of course, the bigger sensor collects more photons.

--
John

 
blackhawk13 said:
It has 2 silly bits more dynamic range than the 5D,
and you can see it.
Click to expand...
Bits are not dynamic range. The dynamic range of a pixel is determined by noise in current cameras. The 1Dsmk3 collects more photons, and has less amplifier and ADC noise. A 1Dsmk3 RAW quantized to 11 bits still has as good or better DR than the 5D.

--
John

 
NorthLight said:
I agree. We used to produce stunning results using the 20D. I have
both the 1D3 and 1Ds3. I would recommend you get the 5D, or a 1Ds2.
Click to expand...
I have been using the 30D, and had the same dilemma a few months ago.. I decided to look for a mint condition 1DSmk2, and found one at B&H (had 1000 shutter uses). I am SOOO happy with it, (I already had 24-70L and 70-200L IS) and now enjoy the added resolution with the most fabulous colors.

For my use I could not justify the $8K needed for the 1DSmk3.

Cannot describe the feeling when shooting with this camera.. I am pretty confident I have all the camera technology I need for a few years down the road.
 
You make an interesting point, and I hadn't thought about it in that way between these two cameras.

You are saying (?) that viewed at 100% (on a monitor) the apparent overall image (really - per pixel) noise of the 1DsIII is higher then the 1DIII, however, looking at the image at same size (ie the 1DsIII image is less "blown up" given it's greater # of MP), the 1DsIII has lesser overall image noise at any iso.

If that's the case, then really the only thing to recomend the 1DIII over the 1DsIII would seem to be the faster frame rate (and of course smaller files and lower cost).

Is there a way to evaluate overall image noise that is not subjective ? I assume that looking at the histogram of an image of an evenly lit gray card would give one an idea, since all pixels (in a perfectly lit image of a flat gray card) should read the same value). One could measure, for example the standard deviation of such a histogram and compare one SD vs two SD for different cameras.
 
John W Peterson said:
Is there a way to evaluate overall image noise that is not subjective
? I assume that looking at the histogram of an image of an evenly lit
gray card would give one an idea, since all pixels (in a perfectly
lit image of a flat gray card) should read the same value). One could
measure, for example the standard deviation of such a histogram and
compare one SD vs two SD for different cameras.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if you want to compare the RAW performances, you need to use a conversion that treats all cameras equally. You can do this with programs like IRIS and Adobe's DNG confirmation tool (from the SDK; I forgot its actual name), or with certain command line options in DCRAW.

Standard deviation only works when you are at the original resolution, or have downsampled. You can't upsample one image to match the size of the other and use standard deviation to measure noise, because the standard deviation doesn't increase when you upsample, so you must do a visual/subjective evaluation for that. For downsampling one to meet the smaller size, then noise can be gaged by standard deviation.

There really should be a standard for noise that includes noise grain magnification; most of the scientific work on noise seems to be myopically pixel-centric, treating noise as if it only had one dimension.

--
John

 
the 5d seems like the right choice.

Before you get a printer I would take a long hard look at getting your prints done through a specialist printer.

Making prints for weddings is more complicated than just buying a printer. You have to factor in monitor and printer calibration, paper and inks, and time to get it right.

Considering that you will then be selling the prints, it might make life simpler, cheaper and more professional to farm that bit out and add your usual mark up.

Of course a printer for quick, cheap-ish (and inaccurate) proofs makes sense it this is how your clients will select images.
 
I agree with everything you said regarding printing. I use a pro lab on everything I sell commercially as they print on tried & tested photographic paper using time tested printing methods, which will last 100+ years etc in albums. Printers still are untested technology as far as print life goes, (even with all the simulations) I have seen ultrachrome prints go after a few months even behind a glass frame.

Printers tend to be a pain in the @ss, and printing out pictures commercially is time consuming also, when it can be done probably probably more cheaply & effectively by a good lab.
 
John W Peterson said:
Is there a way to evaluate overall image noise that is not subjective
? I assume that looking at the histogram of an image of an evenly lit
gray card would give one an idea, since all pixels (in a perfectly
lit image of a flat gray card) should read the same value). One could
measure, for example the standard deviation of such a histogram and
compare one SD vs two SD for different cameras.
Click to expand...
That will give you a good idea of the noise in midtones at the pixel level (the gray card should be evenly lit and OOF so that surface texture does not contribute to the SD). It's somewhat better to measure the noise directly in the raw file, but after conversion is probably OK for this purpose. Over- or under-exposing the gray card will give an idea of the noise in highlights/shadows.

Then to compare noise at the image level, one must resample the images to the same pixel dimensions. Under an ideal downsampling of the 1Ds3 to the pixel dimensions of the 1Ds2, noise will scale as the inverse of the change in linear size in pixels. For instance, downsampling by the factor 1.125 that takes the 1Ds3 pixel dimensions to those of the 1Ds2, decreases the noise at the pixel level by a factor 1.125. That is with an ideal resampling; not all resampling methods in practice do as well.

--
emil
--



http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top