Full Frame on the Cheap: 1DsII vs 5D Classic

I am a photography student in Boston who does most of her work with a 4x5 view camera, shooting landscape and urban night scenes. But I'm looking to pick up a full-frame digital to (a) augment my personal work and (b) to have a camera I can actually find employment with (being broke isn't good when color film is $3/sheet). These snazzy new D800E's and 5DIII's are all fine and dandy if your toilet paper is made of money (don't take that personally, I'm just jealous), but they're way outside of my reach.

I believe I'll be able to afford one of the cameras mentioned, a 1Ds Mk II or a 5D Mk I. I'll grab a few fast prime (probably a 35 and an 85) and a Metz/Vivitar flash or two and be off.

But I'm a bit nervous. I know these cameras were kings in their day, but the technology is changing so fast I'm not sure if they can be taken seriously anymore. I'm hesitant to invest $1500~ in what will turn out to be a relic.

So, my question is twofold

(a) Should I be concerned about the age of these cameras? Would I be better off investing in a newer, small sensor camera?

(b) How would these two cameras (or others which you may suggest) stack up against one another?

Hi Michelle,

Speaking as someone who has owned both cameras I feel more than qualified to answer your question

I bought the 5D brand new when it first came out. The image quality is spectacular, and with 'only' a 12 mp sensor I have made prints up to 20x30" that look fantastic.

I also owned a 1DS2 that I bought used for $2k back in 2009. The 1DS2 is also an awesome camera with great image quality, even by today's standards (assuming you shoot at iso800 and below).

I do a lot of night photography (long exposure + tripod), and both of those cameras were awesome for that. If you are trying to choose between the two there are several things to consider:

1) Image quality between the 2 are essentially identical...4mp is really nothing
2) The AF is AWESOME on the 1DS2, pretty poor on the 5D

3) The 1Ds2 is a heavy lug of a brick to carry around...and as much as I thought that wouldn't bother me it did! It's really not the weight that is the issue either so much as the sheer size of the thing. You will know what I mean once you try to fit one in a camera bag. Also, the camera just destroys any chance of shooting discretely...people look at the camera and think you're a pro.

4) The LCD screens on both cameras are a JOKE by today's standards. Basically the LCD is only good for the histogram, you cannot check critical focus with them.

5) You should be able to pick up a good, used 5D for probably half of what you would pay for a 1DS2.

Anyway, check out my flickr stream, I have tonnes of pics taken with both cameras, especially in my 'low light' folder.

Clint
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/

You can buy the D700, goes for $1200 or about used.

Positive on the Nikon end are the new 28mm 1.8 ($700), 50mm 1.8 ($200), $85mm 1.8 ($500)?

It's a much better option than the 5d Mk1

But if you do architectural photography then it's 5d MK1 + some TS lenses.

D700 has much much better high ISO performance than the 5d MK1, has no problems with mirror breaking/falling off, no zealous dust in the VF prism (my 5d mk1 is full with dust and can't be cleaned, the dust is in the prism area), and much better build and AF and metering.

Shop around or save up for the D700, that's your best bet atm.

Being a Canon forum I know people wil disagree, but use the Nikon forums and ask there as well. I own both systems and the 5d MK1 with grip but it's old by today's standards when it comes to it's high iso performance (and you mentioned you like night shots)

Thanks Clint!

The lower price of the 5D seems to be the biggest attractor for me, means more money for glass and lights. I'm glad to hear that you're happy with prints that big off it. I rarely print larger than 16x20 anyway, so I don't imagine that being a problem (and theres alleyways my 4x5 if I know I'm gonna want to print massive).

The weight of the 1D doesn't scare me. I backpack with a monorail as it is, so anything short of a ULF camera is lightweight by my standards.

I guess what draws me in to the 1D (besides the emotional 'oooo pretty' factor) is the weather proofing and ruggedness of it. I spend a lot of time shooting outdoors and in light (sometimes not so light) rain, and I hate to say it but I'm rather rough on my gear. A teacher I had described the 1D as being designed for a "photojournalist jumping out of an exploding Humvee shooting with his finger locked on the shutter at 10fps." I try to stay clear of war zones, but this kind of quality is a big plus for me --- but I'm not sure it alone justifies the extra cost.

AF - For what I do I could care less. I shoot in MF anyway, but this could come in handy for gigs I'm shooting.

I guess the real deciding factor for me is down to the grunt of the image quality - when you put your face up to one of those 20x30 prints, does either one of these cameras pull away from the other?

Thanks for your input!

I do like the D700 a lot, but I can't find them for any less than $1800~ for a decent one. Worth saving for, perhaps, but I need a camera now so I can make money and save for a D800E

High ISO performance is meaningless to me. I'm on a tripod 90% of the time, and when I'm not I'm shooting 100-400 at 1/125+. I gave up on blurry photos due to camera shake a long time ago.

And YES I would LOVE to have a TS lens. Again, coming from the view camera, this is almost a necessity, but when I can afford it. Darn things are pricey.

Michelle Frattaroli said:

High ISO performance is meaningless to me. I'm on a tripod 90% of the time, and when I'm not I'm shooting 100-400 at 1/125+. I gave up on blurry photos due to camera shake a long time ago.

Click to expand...

You didn't mention what kind of work you plan on doing with the camera. Or is that still a question since you're just starting out? The 5D is a fine camera and highly capable for most types of professional work. Pros are still using it for all kinds of assignments. That said the camera is getting older, and for some work the 13mp may be on the low side (higher end commercial work). Also do you need a FF sensor? If not there are many capable APS sensor cameras for the same money that take fine images.

Michelle Frattaroli said:

And YES I would LOVE to have a TS lens. Again, coming from the view camera, this is almost a necessity, but when I can afford it. Darn things are pricey.

Click to expand...

The Sony NEX 7 with a TS adapter and legacy 35mm lenses may be a good option here. Mirrorless cameras now offer some compelling options for budget TS solutions.

--

On the 5D3 and D800: "The fact there is still so much to criticize with cameras this good only proves the human race can never be satisfied with anything." (Me)

My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits

Had both.1ds 2 all the way. Only drawback the lcd screen and the menus. The lcd is more than a joke, and the way you must push the buttona too zoom in your images etc.

But AF is scales better, dynamic range is significantly better as is color richness in case you edit your raw more aggressively. 5ds files were less tolerant to extreme editing and highlights. But the biggest advantage is the AF.

Noise appeared to be the same.

Of course 1ds2 ia almost double the price, so this is a personal matter. I am posting from my mobile phone maybw i will post some images at some other time

--
George Spyros,
http://www.georgespyros.com

Michelle Frattaroli said:

Michelle Frattaroli wrote:

I guess the real deciding factor for me is down to the grunt of the image quality - when you put your face up to one of those 20x30 prints, does either one of these cameras pull away from the other?

Thanks for your input!

Click to expand...

Hi Michelle,

While I have made large prints with both cameras I have never done a clinical test of using the same lens and shooting the same subject and then comparing prints. I suppose all things being equal the 1DS2 would likely have a slight edge in a 20x30 print, but like I mentioned prints from the 5D look fantastic too. I also think the 5D has a slightly less aggressive AA filter; the 1DS2 files require more sharpening right out of the camera.

Anyway you go both would be great cameras, and as someone else suggested the D700 was no slouch either...

Just to be clear - are you talking about the 5d I and 1ds II, or the 5d I and the 1d II?

Because while you mention the 5d I and the 1ds II in your OP, it seems to me that you actually mean the 1d II?

While the 5d I and the 1d II are about the same price (ie you can afford either), the 1ds II is still much more expensive used, and compares with the D700 in cost on the used market.

I'm only attempting to clarify so that people can give you the specific advice / help / opinions you may appreciate.

Take care,
--
christopher t.

ricoh gxr w/ 28 2.5 & zeiss 25/28 finder; ricoh gxr w/ 50 2.5 & evf; nikon d2hs w/ 85 1.4d
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oliverstreetphoto/

gipper51 said:

You didn't mention what kind of work you plan on doing with the camera. Or is that still a question since you're just starting out? The 5D is a fine camera and highly capable for most types of professional work. Pros are still using it for all kinds of assignments. That said the camera is getting older, and for some work the 13mp may be on the low side (higher end commercial work). Also do you need a FF sensor? If not there are many capable APS sensor cameras for the same money that take fine images.

Click to expand...

I want to use the camera for some landscape work (though my main tool will remain as my view camera). My real need for a digital is that I am looking for work right now, and most jobs call for digital capture. I have a D80 which I borrowed from my school for the summer, but I really despise that thing. The files it turns out are "meh" and the viewfinder is tiny and dark (the fact that it has a slow zoom mounted isn't helping that much either). I am no newbie to digital capture, though. I've gone through the rungs of a few Olympus 4/3 cameras and spent a while with a 50D before dumping it.

I like the FF cameras for the usability factor, mostly. The viewfinders on crop cameras are too small for composing/focusing. I don't suppose I need one, I'd just much prefer one. That brings up an interesting question, though... I wonder how an older FF sensor would run next to a newer APS sensor. I was putting some serious thought into a D300.

gipper51 said:

The Sony NEX 7 with a TS adapter and legacy 35mm lenses may be a good option here. Mirrorless cameras now offer some compelling options for budget TS solutions.

Click to expand...

I refuse to buy a camera which functions only with live view/evf. I must have an opticial (RF or Mirror) option. I like the Fuji X100 and XPro1, which are on my short list, but I fear they won't have the versatility I need.

Clint Dunn said:

Clint Dunn said:

Michelle Frattaroli wrote:

I guess the real deciding factor for me is down to the grunt of the image quality - when you put your face up to one of those 20x30 prints, does either one of these cameras pull away from the other?

Thanks for your input!

Click to expand...

Hi Michelle,

While I have made large prints with both cameras I have never done a clinical test of using the same lens and shooting the same subject and then comparing prints. I suppose all things being equal the 1DS2 would likely have a slight edge in a 20x30 print, but like I mentioned prints from the 5D look fantastic too. I also think the 5D has a slightly less aggressive AA filter; the 1DS2 files require more sharpening right out of the camera.

Anyway you go both would be great cameras, and as someone else suggested the D700 was no slouch either...

Click to expand...

Do you shoot RAW? Its interesting that the more "professional" camera would have more aggressive aa.

Deorum said:

Had both.1ds 2 all the way. Only drawback the lcd screen and the menus. The lcd is more than a joke, and the way you must push the buttona too zoom in your images etc.

But AF is scales better, dynamic range is significantly better as is color richness in case you edit your raw more aggressively. 5ds files were less tolerant to extreme editing and highlights. But the biggest advantage is the AF.

Noise appeared to be the same.

Of course 1ds2 ia almost double the price, so this is a personal matter. I am posting from my mobile phone maybw i will post some images at some other time

--
George Spyros,
http://www.georgespyros.com

Click to expand...

hmm very helpful, thank you.

I only use the screen to confirm exposure (via histogram) and focus, not to judge the image, so thats no biggie. But having more flexibility in the RAW files in huge.

Michelle Frattaroli said:

I want to use the camera for some landscape work

Click to expand...

60d 15-85IS

Michelle Frattaroli said:

I refuse to buy a camera which functions only with live view/evf. I must have an opticial (RF or Mirror) option. I like the Fuji X100 and XPro1, which are on my short list, but I fear they won't have the versatility I need.

Click to expand...

I understand your preference, and it is certainly a valid one. I would just gently suggest that you might be missing out on something by dismissing the NEX7 and the advantages of evf. (I do not own an NEX7).

As far as image quality goes, that 24mp sensor is a top performer. It has been compared to other full frame sensors, and it equaled the quality from the Sony A900. The ability to use any legacy glass would be a huge economic advantage to you. Many of the Canon FD lenses are very affordable and very good quality. The crop factor might be an issue for you, but the extra depth of field at a given aperture might be advantageous.

Kirk Tuck has much to say about evf and the advantages to his work, such as the ability to pre-chimp the shot before actually taking the exposure, while still looking through the finder.

Still, the NEX7 may not be a good fit for you, but I would at least play with one for a bit, or look at some night time exposures from one before dismissing it due to a style preference on viewfinder. Whatever you decide will be a good choice for you.
--
Best regards,
Jonathan Kardell
'You are not what you think, you are that which allows thought to manifest.'

The rear screen on the 5D classic is MUCH better than than the 1Dsii.

The 1Dsii is only really good for histogram whilst you can use the the 5D classic to get a reasonable impression of image also.

The only reason I would favour the 1Dsii is for AF accuracy and speed. The shutter sounds amazing on 1Dsii the 5D really has clunk to it.
ISO is better on the 5D.
Personally I liked the files out of the 5D better at over 200 ISO.
I've owned both and now use a 5D classic and 5Diii.

the 5D and 1DsII can hold their own against the newest cameras in terms of overall image quality. Personally, I prefer the 1DsII image quality because I find colors a little bit truer, and at ISO 3200, none of the RF interference banding I can get with certain lenses at high ISO on the 5D. I also love the viewfinder and AF system of the 1DsII compared to the 5D. BUT, the LCD and control paradigm (press and hold a button while turning a dial) of the 1DsII are deal breakers for me , especially having gotten used to better ergonomics and superior LCDs of successive generations of cameras. I sold my 1DsII for these weaknesses. On the other hand, with no prior DSLR experience, and especially in comparison to your 4x5 view camera, you are likely to feel very differently. I just bought the 5D again because it's small and simple and its weaker AA filter gives images more bite than the 1DsII.

When the 5D and 1DsII where current, they set a high benchmark for image quality, and truth be told, except at high ISO values and in dynamic range, very little progress has been made in 35mm and smaller DSLRs. Both these cameras are more than up to the task of creating world-class images.

Michelle Frattaroli said:

I am a photography student in Boston who does most of her work with a 4x5 view camera, shooting landscape and urban night scenes. But I'm looking to pick up a full-frame digital to (a) augment my personal work and (b) to have a camera I can actually find employment with (being broke isn't good when color film is $3/sheet). These snazzy new D800E's and 5DIII's are all fine and dandy if your toilet paper is made of money (don't take that personally, I'm just jealous), but they're way outside of my reach.

I believe I'll be able to afford one of the cameras mentioned, a 1Ds Mk II or a 5D Mk I. I'll grab a few fast prime (probably a 35 and an 85) and a Metz/Vivitar flash or two and be off.

But I'm a bit nervous. I know these cameras were kings in their day, but the technology is changing so fast I'm not sure if they can be taken seriously anymore. I'm hesitant to invest $1500~ in what will turn out to be a relic.

So, my question is twofold

(a) Should I be concerned about the age of these cameras? Would I be better off investing in a newer, small sensor camera?

(b) How would these two cameras (or others which you may suggest) stack up against one another?

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

...if you're ultimate desire is a D800E, shouldn't you be focused on the Nikon system? If you can't afford a second-hand D700, look into the D300. Clean, used examples are about the same as a 5D. Image quality is much better than you might think, especially in the ISO range you're going to be shooting from a tripod. Nikon's 12-24DX and 10-24DX zooms are greater performers for wide fields of view on the DX sensor, and it'd be the only lens you'd need to replace once you move up to an FX camera. The rest of your lenses (normal to tele) will be FX lenses already. And the D300 meters with AI-S lenses, so a world of inexpensive, optically excellent manual focus Nikkors and Nikon-mount lenses are open to you.

If you plan to end up with a D800E, this only makes sense to me.

Michelle Frattaroli said:

I do like the D700 a lot, but I can't find them for any less than $1800~ for a decent one. Worth saving for, perhaps, but I need a camera now so I can make money and save for a D800E

High ISO performance is meaningless to me. I'm on a tripod 90% of the time, and when I'm not I'm shooting 100-400 at 1/125+. I gave up on blurry photos due to camera shake a long time ago.

And YES I would LOVE to have a TS lens. Again, coming from the view camera, this is almost a necessity, but when I can afford it. Darn things are pricey.

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

is that it results in files with less moire and color aliasing. Pros know how to sharpen to get back the crispness while enjoying the freedom from artifacts and interpolations errors that come from a weaker AA filter.

Michelle Frattaroli said:

Clint Dunn said:

Michelle Frattaroli said:

Michelle Frattaroli wrote:

I guess the real deciding factor for me is down to the grunt of the image quality - when you put your face up to one of those 20x30 prints, does either one of these cameras pull away from the other?

Thanks for your input!

Click to expand...

Hi Michelle,

While I have made large prints with both cameras I have never done a clinical test of using the same lens and shooting the same subject and then comparing prints. I suppose all things being equal the 1DS2 would likely have a slight edge in a 20x30 print, but like I mentioned prints from the 5D look fantastic too. I also think the 5D has a slightly less aggressive AA filter; the 1DS2 files require more sharpening right out of the camera.

Anyway you go both would be great cameras, and as someone else suggested the D700 was no slouch either...

Click to expand...

Do you shoot RAW? Its interesting that the more "professional" camera would have more aggressive aa.

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

I agree about the press and hold a button idiocy!

Kabe Luna said:

the 5D and 1DsII can hold their own against the newest cameras in terms of overall image quality. Personally, I prefer the 1DsII image quality because I find colors a little bit truer, and at ISO 3200, none of the RF interference banding I can get with certain lenses at high ISO on the 5D. I also love the viewfinder and AF system of the 1DsII compared to the 5D. BUT, the LCD and control paradigm (press and hold a button while turning a dial) of the 1DsII are deal breakers for me , especially having gotten used to better ergonomics and superior LCDs of successive generations of cameras. I sold my 1DsII for these weaknesses. On the other hand, with no prior DSLR experience, and especially in comparison to your 4x5 view camera, you are likely to feel very differently. I just bought the 5D again because it's small and simple and its weaker AA filter gives images more bite than the 1DsII.

When the 5D and 1DsII where current, they set a high benchmark for image quality, and truth be told, except at high ISO values and in dynamic range, very little progress has been made in 35mm and smaller DSLRs. Both these cameras are more than up to the task of creating world-class images.

Michelle Frattaroli said:

I am a photography student in Boston who does most of her work with a 4x5 view camera, shooting landscape and urban night scenes. But I'm looking to pick up a full-frame digital to (a) augment my personal work and (b) to have a camera I can actually find employment with (being broke isn't good when color film is $3/sheet). These snazzy new D800E's and 5DIII's are all fine and dandy if your toilet paper is made of money (don't take that personally, I'm just jealous), but they're way outside of my reach.

I believe I'll be able to afford one of the cameras mentioned, a 1Ds Mk II or a 5D Mk I. I'll grab a few fast prime (probably a 35 and an 85) and a Metz/Vivitar flash or two and be off.

But I'm a bit nervous. I know these cameras were kings in their day, but the technology is changing so fast I'm not sure if they can be taken seriously anymore. I'm hesitant to invest $1500~ in what will turn out to be a relic.

So, my question is twofold

(a) Should I be concerned about the age of these cameras? Would I be better off investing in a newer, small sensor camera?

(b) How would these two cameras (or others which you may suggest) stack up against one another?

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

Click to expand...

+1000

Ι had the 1ds2 5months, and even in the end, i couldnt get to use the menus, and the way you have to check the images, or zoom in and scroll through them. More than an idiocy, it seems it was on purpose to break your nerve system.

In 1ds2 You shot, without actually checking the image, like old film days (ok I exaggerate a bit). You just hope it was good. Of course, when you get the files to your computer, you realize that what your hopes are true, and files are brilliand, mainly thanks to the very good AF that rarely misses. (most of the bad photos are not critically focused, a small exposure problem is easily fixed).

The LCD screen, you might judge the histogram but you cannot judge for example if the image is sharp-focused. This is not a problem for 5d.

Image quality is better however than 5d. 5d, for my taste, had a limited DR.
I was astounded by how much information I could pull from 1ds2 files.

Maybe the would come up with some noise, but seriously, nothing nothing to be troubled about. It was completely non-distracting, and in "fit-to-view" sizes, non-existent. up to iso 800 for sure, and in 1600 very good too, and usuable, though a bit (just a bit) grainy.

thelensmeister said:

Kabe Luna said:

the 5D and 1DsII can hold their own against the newest cameras in terms of overall image quality. Personally, I prefer the 1DsII image quality because I find colors a little bit truer, and at ISO 3200, none of the RF interference banding I can get with certain lenses at high ISO on the 5D. I also love the viewfinder and AF system of the 1DsII compared to the 5D. BUT, the LCD and control paradigm (press and hold a button while turning a dial) of the 1DsII are deal breakers for me , especially having gotten used to better ergonomics and superior LCDs of successive generations of cameras. I sold my 1DsII for these weaknesses. On the other hand, with no prior DSLR experience, and especially in comparison to your 4x5 view camera, you are likely to feel very differently. I just bought the 5D again because it's small and simple and its weaker AA filter gives images more bite than the 1DsII.

When the 5D and 1DsII where current, they set a high benchmark for image quality, and truth be told, except at high ISO values and in dynamic range, very little progress has been made in 35mm and smaller DSLRs. Both these cameras are more than up to the task of creating world-class images.

Michelle Frattaroli said:

I am a photography student in Boston who does most of her work with a 4x5 view camera, shooting landscape and urban night scenes. But I'm looking to pick up a full-frame digital to (a) augment my personal work and (b) to have a camera I can actually find employment with (being broke isn't good when color film is $3/sheet). These snazzy new D800E's and 5DIII's are all fine and dandy if your toilet paper is made of money (don't take that personally, I'm just jealous), but they're way outside of my reach.

I believe I'll be able to afford one of the cameras mentioned, a 1Ds Mk II or a 5D Mk I. I'll grab a few fast prime (probably a 35 and an 85) and a Metz/Vivitar flash or two and be off.

But I'm a bit nervous. I know these cameras were kings in their day, but the technology is changing so fast I'm not sure if they can be taken seriously anymore. I'm hesitant to invest $1500~ in what will turn out to be a relic.

So, my question is twofold

(a) Should I be concerned about the age of these cameras? Would I be better off investing in a newer, small sensor camera?

(b) How would these two cameras (or others which you may suggest) stack up against one another?

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
George Spyros,
http://www.georgespyros.com