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

Status
Not open for further replies.
However, even if not so extreme, my opinion is more or less the same. That 1ds2 is more tolerant.
Even w/o experiencing with 1Ds2 but I agree in general that Canon spent every resource to fine tune its top line 1Ds/1D cameras to be more conservative such as relative stronger AA filter with emphasize in low ISO as most shooters with those cameras are for landscape, studio and sport, in another words "more classical approach". Therefore 1Ds3 is less vulnerable than 5D2 in banding for example. So likely true that 1Ds2 is more tolerant as you said. But bear in mind that 5Dc sensor is 1/3 stop over-sensitive so I always use -1/3 EV indoor and outdoor as the default.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough. I think we missed an obvious answer to your question though since you are entering the ranks. A working pro ALWAYS needs backup equipment. Few things are as disastrous as your only camera dying while on a paid shoot. For that reason alone I would recommend buying a pair of used 5Ds so you are covered in the event of failure. Careful shoping can get you a pair for around $1600-1700, basically the price of a 1Ds2.

I know you said cash is tight, but you're a pro now and clients will expect you to get the job done no matter what bumps in the road come along. It would be unprofessional to show up with only a single camera body, and you will look foolish in front of a client if your only body dies (I've had two bodies fail on paid shoots, backup saved my bacon). Murphy's Law is a nasty SOB that way.

In all honesty, it sounds like your current equipment is very insufficient to enter the workforce. Perhaps taking out a manageable loan to fund the necessary gear may be a necessary evil here? Building good credit is essential in business anyways. Nobody likes to borrow money of they don't have to, but this sounds like a case where it's justified. Just be responsible and get only what you need to get the ball rolling.

--

My sites:
http://www.gipperich-photography.com
http://www.pbase.com/gipper51/portraits
 
As a owner of both 1DS2 and 5D2, (also used the 5D A LOT in the past), 1DS2 easily wins over the 5D in my case. Both has great image quality but 1DS2 still have little more resolution, the main thing separates the two (FOR ME ) are the following

1DS2 has much much better built quality, very comfortable to use in the field, has built in vertical grip, fits like a glove on my hand, takes the big lens a lot better, the batter last forever, more obvious when you are using bigger lenses.

1DS2 has day and night better focusing system than the 5D2.

1DS2 has dual card slot if that is important to you, for me that's a life saving feature, it's no a fun experience after a whole day shooting on someone's wedding day and found out the memory card crapped out and you don't have a backup. it actually happened to one of my friend.

1DS2 in my experience has more accurate metering system.

1DS2 has 100% coverage View Finder 5D doesn't.

1DS2 allows to do 7 exposure bracketing and 5D can only do 3, I am a landscape shooter, so that's a handy for HDR.

1DS2 allows more custom function set up, you can program a lot of stuffs to match your personal preference.

1DS2 has better weather seal if you shoot in the less than ideal weather condition, I shoot in light rain all the time covering local events without any problem (so far) with my both 1DS2 and 1D2.

I am a big camera lover so I personally much more prefer the pro size body for everyday shooting, not a big fan of the 5 series body and always have to add vertical to the smaller bodies to make it more comfortable to use, yes, I am talking about covering events out there walking around for 6-8 hours with two camera and 3 or 4 lenses type of shooting, I still prefer the 1 series body, I hiked up Mt.Whitney and Half Dome with 1DS2 all the time, but that's personal preference thing and only you can tell what you prefer.

On the negative size, 1DS2 has the annoying two button hold/press operation for setting change, while both has crappy LCD per today's standard but the 1DS2 is even worse than the 5D.Also the buffer on the 1DS2 is pretty slow, if you do a lot of continuous shooting, that can be a pain, again, per today's standard.
 
You are already using a large bulky camera so you know what advantages and disadvantages this situation incurs on you. The classical advantage of 35mm over larger formats was its general portability in a variety of circumstances such as sports photography, photojournalism (including street photography), and I'll let you fill in the blanks for other advantages of something with a smaller footprint and reduced weight.

Both cameras are still very good cameras, both are capable of award winning photos, you won't go wrong with either. But if your repertoire of what you shoot expands, lets say to street photography you will be happier with the 5D.

You take an already bulky and heavier camera and add on flashes and lenses like the Canon 70 - 200 f2.8 IS mk 2 (I know you don't have the money now, but you might in the future) and the total package becomes no fun. I had the money to go either way with the top Canon DSLR's and I chose the 5D 2 partly because I wanted the smaller lighter profile.

Its your call, but again both will reward you with excellence.

--
"Photography is, indeed, an inclusive language."
Ansel Adams
 
More so than weight, I'm looking more for the added versatility that a smaller camera brings. The ability to be used hand-held when needed, the ability to make quick turn-around for potential clients, to work more quickly when its needed, etc etc.

Let me throw out a few examples where I see myself making use of the digital camera.
  • There have been a handful of times where I've been walking around and something caught my eye, but was so fleeting (fading light, moving subject, etc) that by the time I set up my view camera, it would be gone. One of my favorite parts of using a view camera is how it forces you to slow down, to be very very deliberate about every part of the frame (and I also like that the image appears upside down and backwards on the ground glass, which forces your composition into a degree of abstraction), but sometimes the slowness of the tool bites.
  • I'll often take 12-18 sheets of film out with me. I make my last exposure then see something and really wish I hadn't wasted that one sheet on the subject I felt "meh" about.
  • Color sheet film is stupidly expensive, and I tend to prefer black and white anyway, so I'll usually just bring B&W film with me (Efke 25, btw, is a STUNNING film). But every so often that thing catches your eye which just HAS to be in color. Boom. Digital.
  • I'd even see myself using it to work through a composition before setting up the view camera to make the "real" exposure.
I'm not giving up on the view camera. I love that tool way too much, and I LOVE silver printing in the darkroom, but as many new possibilities as the camera opens up, it closes the door on many others.

I am also considering a Nikon system. I like the D300, but I'm hesitant on a crop sensor. I'm keeping an eye on the D700 market (and the 5DII market) with the hopes that as people get their D800/5DIII's, the used market will become saturated and pull the price down. I'm more drawn to Nikon's lens selection anyway. I see myself using a 50/1.2 AIS (maybe ultimately a 45 PC-e) for most of my work, and an af zoom for the times when versatility is needed.

I'd like to thank everyone for their feedback though, its been very helpful. The 1DsII seems like it would be an awesome tool for me. My only real hesitation now is the lack of live view, which in my use of digital cameras, I've found to be indispensable for fine focusing (I spend half the time in the f64 club and the other half in the wide open camp, but sharpness is key for the kind of work I do, even without printing massively).
 
Efke 25 is indeed AWESOME. I use the 100 as the grain is simply vintage in Rodinal. The 25 in PMK Pyro is smooth!
 
I'd like to thank everyone for their feedback though, its been very helpful. The 1DsII seems like it would be an awesome tool for me. My only real hesitation now is the lack of live view, which in my use of digital cameras, I've found to be indispensable for fine focusing (I spend half the time in the f64 club and the other half in the wide open camp, but sharpness is key for the kind of work I do, even without printing massively).
You might want to get a ViewFinder magnifier eyepiece that is relative inexpensive and you can find many in eBay for example. That can magnify view to 30%. I will get one for my 5D2 even it has LV but I think will be useful for precisely focus with 24mm TS-E II lens without having to switch between VF and LV when I shoot in hand-held.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
Hi, I have worked with the 5D (1) and own the 5dm2, I've owned the 1Dm2 and worked heavily with the 1Ds m2, and awhile ago I bought the Sony a850 as a backup (I didn't need it, but I wanted to see if it was all I was told, and it was so cheap), which is making think of you at the moment. I know this is a Canon forum, and most people think "Canon or Nikon", even from clients I've seen it, but for your uses I suggest an interesting alternative, the Sony a850. Yes it is full frame.

Before it goes ignored, the viewfinder is stunning and feels so much larger and crisper than my 5dm2 (mild yellow tint, only notice it a rare occasion), it's the exact same 24mp sensor as the a900, same rugged as hell body but about the same size as the 5D. Remember Sony bought Minolta, the camera feels very Minolta (chunky, lots of neat touches, rugged, probably doubles well as a hammer)

The a850 was sorta a forgotten camera, it came out a year after the a900 and 5dm2, in their shadow, but it cost less and only suffered a slower max frame rate (you shoot view, I doubt 3 frames per second is too slow for you), and a viewfinder at 98-point-something percent instead of the full 100% (I can't see the difference, it's still stunning). Because it doesn't have the a900 title and began selling for cheaper, I bought one as a backup for $850. That's $850 for a 24mp camera, with (to my eye) equal noise control and DR (many may argue, but I think my 5dm2 holds better shadow, while my a850 picks up better highlights, the differences are small, you may not notice, and yes I only shoot raw).

Lenses, because of the Minolta mount you can of course use new Sonys, but also the gamut of used Minoltas, which are very cheap and since you seem to like manual focus I doubt the slightly slower AF rate will bother you. You want primes, so I'm thinking they'll be cheaper than Canon, Nikon I admit some of the old MF AIS lenses have proven amazing (nikkor ais 55mm 2.8 micro may be my favourite lens ever) that you can get cheap too, but being that you want to print big, 24mp does the job well. I'd use it as my main camera if I'd invested more in glass, but since I have a 1dm3 for field work I invested in fast AF canon glass, the sony a happy backup I often use when I go hiking.

Final note, the screen, I'd say it's vastly VASTLY superior to both the 5d and 1ds m2, I know you said that isn't so critical but I remember having many issues with the 1dm2 series in bright sun (like any screen of the era, not their fault at all), coming back to realize how much cranking you need to do in Raw can be depressing, even the best cameras suffer fine quality loss/distortion when pushed hard.

Anyways, you were worried about an old camera, the a850 is four years newer, it's seriously an a900 as far as you're concerned, built to compete in the era of the 5dm2. If you do have to stick Canon, you already carry a view camera so the size of the 1Ds m2 shouldn't bother you, it's excellent, though remember the weatherproofing doesn't exist without weatherproofed lenses (water straight into the mirror box with the sensor is basically the worst place it can get), so waterproofing requires a more sizeable investment. As for your comment before about the x100, own it and I do adore it, but not being able to change lenses kills it for anything other than personal fun, also the manual focus is horrendous... honestly.

Good luck!
Dimitri
 
Old FF still trump today's APS-C in landscape. DR and resolution (amount of pixels) are not everything of IQ. FF is noticeable better in color tonality and rendition, natural sharpness, fine details or SNR (signal to noise ratio) and high ISO that are more important. The extra two stop shadow noise advantage from Sony sensor doesn't popup by itself. You have to do extreme shadow pulling to leverage it but usually it will result to surreal looking. Fine detail is more important than pure resolution. APS-C sensor has noticeable more grains than FF even at base ISO that effectively eliminate 3.2mp (that is tiny anyway) resolution advantage. Photos from FF cameras still look more popup than smaller sensor APS-C and much better in portraiture. FF also has better lens' choice.

For example the newly announced 1" sensor based Sony DSC-RX100 doesn't surpass Canon 1.5" sensor based G1X. Size of sensor is still the #1 decisive factor in IQ.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx100/sony-rx100A.HTM
I want to use the camera for some landscape work
Check the Nikon D7000, the Nikon D5100 and the Pentax K5. They share the same sensor, which has amazing DR and 16MP. Best bang for the buck for ISO 100 shots.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
You are partly right. But take a look at the measurements at 100ISO (copy paste the whole link):

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/680 |0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/176|0/%28brand2%29/Canon

The OP shoots on tripod, he doesn't need high ISO.
Old FF still trump today's APS-C in landscape. DR and resolution (amount of pixels) are not everything of IQ. FF is noticeable better in color tonality and rendition, natural sharpness, fine details or SNR (signal to noise ratio) and high ISO that are more important. The extra two stop shadow noise advantage from Sony sensor doesn't popup by itself. You have to do extreme shadow pulling to leverage it but usually it will result to surreal looking. Fine detail is more important than pure resolution. APS-C sensor has noticeable more grains than FF even at base ISO that effectively eliminate 3.2mp (that is tiny anyway) resolution advantage. Photos from FF cameras still look more popup than smaller sensor APS-C and much better in portraiture. FF also has better lens' choice.

For example the newly announced 1" sensor based Sony DSC-RX100 doesn't surpass Canon 1.5" sensor based G1X. Size of sensor is still the #1 decisive factor in IQ.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx100/sony-rx100A.HTM
I want to use the camera for some landscape work
Check the Nikon D7000, the Nikon D5100 and the Pentax K5. They share the same sensor, which has amazing DR and 16MP. Best bang for the buck for ISO 100 shots.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
My advice is to go Nikon D700. Much better camera in build and features than 5D.
The 1Dsii IMHO is a bit of a dinosoar and yes i have owned one.

Cheapest way though I suppose is 5D. and yes i still own one and shoot paid work with it.
You will want to change the focus screen for MF.
 
You are partly right. But take a look at the measurements at 100ISO (copy paste the whole link):

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/680 |0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/176|0/%28brand2%29/Canon

The OP shoots on tripod, he doesn't need high ISO.
Exactly. In fact, at base iso, the lastest APS-C sensors from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc, easily beat the resolution of the old 5D....as confirmed by tests here at DPReview, The Imaging Resource, Steves Digicams, etc. The resolution of the D7000, 7D, Pentax K5, etc, all exceed the old 5D for landscape work. And in many cases, these new APS-C can beat the dynamic range of the 5D by a couple of stops.

If it is primarily landscape, the 5D no longer holds any advantage....in fact, in many ways it would hinder. I'd still give the thumbs up to the 1Ds2 over the 5D.
Old FF still trump today's APS-C in landscape. DR and resolution (amount of pixels) are not everything of IQ. FF is noticeable better in color tonality and rendition, natural sharpness, fine details or SNR (signal to noise ratio) and high ISO that are more important. The extra two stop shadow noise advantage from Sony sensor doesn't popup by itself. You have to do extreme shadow pulling to leverage it but usually it will result to surreal looking. Fine detail is more important than pure resolution. APS-C sensor has noticeable more grains than FF even at base ISO that effectively eliminate 3.2mp (that is tiny anyway) resolution advantage. Photos from FF cameras still look more popup than smaller sensor APS-C and much better in portraiture. FF also has better lens' choice.

For example the newly announced 1" sensor based Sony DSC-RX100 doesn't surpass Canon 1.5" sensor based G1X. Size of sensor is still the #1 decisive factor in IQ.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx100/sony-rx100A.HTM
I want to use the camera for some landscape work
Check the Nikon D7000, the Nikon D5100 and the Pentax K5. They share the same sensor, which has amazing DR and 16MP. Best bang for the buck for ISO 100 shots.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
My advice is to go Nikon D700. Much better camera in build and features than 5D.
The 1Dsii IMHO is a bit of a dinosoar and yes i have owned one.

Cheapest way though I suppose is 5D. and yes i still own one and shoot paid work with it.
You will want to change the focus screen for MF.
I still have a place in my heart for the old 1Ds2. That said, the D700 trumps it in many ways, except resolution. And yes, I'd go for the D700 over a 5D anyday. Far better AF, better dynamic range, better high iso, pretty much equal resolution, better LCD, better weather sealing, etc, etc.
 
Sure D7000 has much modern sensor than the ones in 5D and 1Ds2. DXO score is heavily weighted on DR. But you can see 5Dc and 1Ds2 still slightly better in SNR score in DXO test. In addition D7000 has 1.5x penalty in many aspects of IQ such as natural sharpness. Although Sony DX sensor is better than Canon's APS-C I still can see grains at base ISO 100 in close-up portrait and dark blue sky when viewed at 100% cropped from D7000/D5100.

For example show me a D7000 close-up portrait in 100% cropped size that will tell differences clearly.

Here are two 5Dc 100% close-up face photos. I know my 60D cannot match and probably D7000 is better but let's see if it can match to 5Dc fine detail.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1573239/canon-eos-5d_img_0119?inalbum=5dvsothers

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7843305573/photos/1573238/canon-eos-5d_img_3308?inalbum=5dvsothers

For landscape photos, the color tonality and rendition and natural sharpness are more important to me. 5Dc photos are clean in shadow (than my 60D) before lifting and still good in 2 stops lifting and sure D7000 can do 4 stop lifting but usually I don't find I need to do 4-stop shadow pulling.

5Dc is well-known for natural sharpness due to weak AA filter (and FF sensor), creamy color rendition that especial noticeable in cloudy days on my experience.












You are partly right. But take a look at the measurements at 100ISO (copy paste the whole link):

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/680 |0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/176|0/%28brand2%29/Canon

The OP shoots on tripod, he doesn't need high ISO.
Old FF still trump today's APS-C in landscape. DR and resolution (amount of pixels) are not everything of IQ. FF is noticeable better in color tonality and rendition, natural sharpness, fine details or SNR (signal to noise ratio) and high ISO that are more important. The extra two stop shadow noise advantage from Sony sensor doesn't popup by itself. You have to do extreme shadow pulling to leverage it but usually it will result to surreal looking. Fine detail is more important than pure resolution. APS-C sensor has noticeable more grains than FF even at base ISO that effectively eliminate 3.2mp (that is tiny anyway) resolution advantage. Photos from FF cameras still look more popup than smaller sensor APS-C and much better in portraiture. FF also has better lens' choice.

For example the newly announced 1" sensor based Sony DSC-RX100 doesn't surpass Canon 1.5" sensor based G1X. Size of sensor is still the #1 decisive factor in IQ.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx100/sony-rx100A.HTM
I want to use the camera for some landscape work
Check the Nikon D7000, the Nikon D5100 and the Pentax K5. They share the same sensor, which has amazing DR and 16MP. Best bang for the buck for ISO 100 shots.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
With that price, it makes much more senses to get a used 5D2 that is better in every aspect on OP needs as she doesn't need beef-up AF in her types of shots and 5D2 AF (with center-point only) is also very good.
My advice is to go Nikon D700. Much better camera in build and features than 5D.
The 1Dsii IMHO is a bit of a dinosoar and yes i have owned one.

Cheapest way though I suppose is 5D. and yes i still own one and shoot paid work with it.
You will want to change the focus screen for MF.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
In addition sensor/body itself cannot take photos so you need to test from the perspective of entire camera system where the difference is clear.

Any lenses that can be used on both FF and APS-C perform better on FF. Even the same lens. DXO lens resolution chart clearly show that. That's why I doubt your D7000 close-up portrait shot can match to 5Dc when viewed at 100% size.

You can see 5Dc+24-105L walk-around zoom clearly out-resolves D7000 + 17-55/2.8 or D7000 + 24-120/4.0 VR. Also added DXO chart when compared to Canon APS-C with similar walk-around lens or the same lens. Anyway what I tried to say that one particular factor in sensor such as DR doesn't determine entire IQ that consists of many factors. Sensor size is still overwhelming #1 factor in IQ. Otherwise you will come to a conclusion that 20mp Sony RX100 will have better IQ than 12mp Nikon D700 that you know it's not true at all.

















--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
I still own, and shoot both the 5D an 1Ds2 (I never sell a camera) along with my more modern bodies.

I love the 5D but the 1Ds2 is in a different class. Other than the build and AF the files that it produces can stand a lot more manipulation.

I have to wonder about all the noise (pun intended) about how well you can push the images from some cameras. I own a D800E and yes, I can push it maybe 1 stop more than my 5D3, BUT, and this is a big but for me as a landscape photographer, I can recover highlights far better on the Canon than the Nikon (Yes, look at the DXO tests).

As blown highlights (clouds during the day and lights at night) is a far larger problem than shadows (expose to the right!!) I find the files from my Canons better suited to landscape work than the Nikon's. The Sony's are even worse (overall) than the Nikons.

I find that I can "Pull" recover highlights better on my old 1Ds2 than just about any other camera, the 5D is not quite as good but still ok.

As far as the complaints go about the user interface on the 1Ds2, it was designed like that for a reason, in the heat of the moment a pro shooter cannot afford to loose a shot because a setting was changed by a bumped button. I shot pro motor sport for a few years and fell in love with the 1 series bodies, I never missed a shot due to the camera, they are responsive, have great AF, you never bump a button, the batteries last very long (I often get more than 4000 shots on a charge on the 1Ds2) and if you get the exposure wrong (no time!!) the files can stand a huge amount of manipulation.

So, for me the 1Ds2 would be the choice without any question!
 
Wow, first time heard about that 5D3 highlight recovery is better than D800E but you own both and experienced that is creditable.

From my perspective I find highlight recovery is more important than shadow pulling. On paper D7000 has better DR than 60D mainly in shadow noise but also slightly better in highlight. However Nikon traditional approach of "subdued" highlight is not my taste that causes entire photo look a bit of "dull", just my opinion. In real world photos I don't see D7000/D5100 take better photos than 60D/600D.

Regarding 1DsII yes it's absolutely better than 5Dc in IQ. As a matter of fact, I have read some claims they prefer the look from 1DsII than from 5D2 in low ISO
I still own, and shoot both the 5D an 1Ds2 (I never sell a camera) along with my more modern bodies.

I love the 5D but the 1Ds2 is in a different class. Other than the build and AF the files that it produces can stand a lot more manipulation.

I have to wonder about all the noise (pun intended) about how well you can push the images from some cameras. I own a D800E and yes, I can push it maybe 1 stop more than my 5D3, BUT, and this is a big but for me as a landscape photographer, I can recover highlights far better on the Canon than the Nikon (Yes, look at the DXO tests).

As blown highlights (clouds during the day and lights at night) is a far larger problem than shadows (expose to the right!!) I find the files from my Canons better suited to landscape work than the Nikon's. The Sony's are even worse (overall) than the Nikons.

I find that I can "Pull" recover highlights better on my old 1Ds2 than just about any other camera, the 5D is not quite as good but still ok.

As far as the complaints go about the user interface on the 1Ds2, it was designed like that for a reason, in the heat of the moment a pro shooter cannot afford to loose a shot because a setting was changed by a bumped button. I shot pro motor sport for a few years and fell in love with the 1 series bodies, I never missed a shot due to the camera, they are responsive, have great AF, you never bump a button, the batteries last very long (I often get more than 4000 shots on a charge on the 1Ds2) and if you get the exposure wrong (no time!!) the files can stand a huge amount of manipulation.

So, for me the 1Ds2 would be the choice without any question!
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
Wow, first time heard about that 5D3 highlight recovery is better than D800E but you own both and experienced that is creditable.

From my perspective I find highlight recovery is more important than shadow pulling. On paper D7000 has better DR than 60D mainly in shadow noise but also slightly better in highlight. However Nikon traditional approach of "subdued" highlight is not my taste that causes entire photo look a bit of "dull", just my opinion. In real world photos I don't see D7000/D5100 take better photos than 60D/600D.

Regarding 1DsII yes it's absolutely better than 5Dc in IQ. As a matter of fact, I have read some claims they prefer the look from 1DsII than from 5D2 in low ISO
If you look at the DPreview review of the 5D3 you will see that where they compared DR the DR "window" of the 5D3 goes further right (high light) than the D800E.

When looking at real files I also see less noise at ISO 100 on the 5D3 (and 1Ds2) than on the D800 (I can also see it on the DPreview samples)

I have noticed (like some other people like Michael Reichmann) that real world results to not always relate to DXO results, he even stated that even though he was involved with DXO in the beginning he no longer thinks the results are relevant to real word shooting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top