robekert
26th of March 2004 (Fri), 19:36
Happened to check out that "other" photography board. Ran across a lively exchange by a lad named Pekka S.... I guess he likes to roll up his sleeves and duke it out every once and a while. Pekka, hope you don't mind the cut and paste. This answer encompasses my feelings and justification for getting a 1D-MkII......Bottom line, it just works.
Ben St*******r wrote:
> the image is better but not at 3 times the cost of the 10D. The
> only thing that dissappointes me about the 1D-MkII is the price,
> the value is just not there.
(Pekka's reply)
Value is not there?
I have asked this elsewhere, but here goes again: how much value do you put on each of these advantages you get when moving from 10D to Mark II?
- trouble-free flash exposures in any situation
- low noise in all ISO's
- great post-processing latitude (e.g. simple USM sharpening without edge-sharpening tools does not result to artifacts) with ISO 1600, too.
- battery life which holds for days, not hours.
- 45-point fast and intelligent AF
- weather protection
- operational speed
- 8mp
- bigger dynamic range
- reliablilty (rugged construction, double-card system)
- bigger viewfinder
- better WB
- interchangeable focusing screens
- faster image transfers
- larger sensor with smaller crop factor.
- ability to save all settings on flash card and transfer them between cameras
- ability to autofocus at f/8 (300, 400, 500, or 600 f/4 with 2x teleconverter)
- integrated vertical grip
- higher resolution LCD
- free RAW conversion software
I personally would happily for example pay 2500 dollars for being able to concentrate on shooting and not on flash usage and problems, ever. I'd also pay 500 for 45 point AF, 2000 bucks for ACCURATE AF, pay 500 for weather sealing, pay 2000 for being able to use ISO 1600 _and_ post process it without need of external NR to avoid artifacts.
For me the Mark II is very inexpensive for all it gives in return.
And also, the image quality is great. Acutance is great, Dynamic range is good, WB is good, saturation is good ,curves are good, histograms look great. Better lenses are visibly sharper, faster shutter speeds make a difference. You have to see EXIF to make sure if its ISO 200 or 1200.
I just wonder what more can you ask from camera upgrade?
--
Pekka
Ben St*******r wrote:
> the image is better but not at 3 times the cost of the 10D. The
> only thing that dissappointes me about the 1D-MkII is the price,
> the value is just not there.
(Pekka's reply)
Value is not there?
I have asked this elsewhere, but here goes again: how much value do you put on each of these advantages you get when moving from 10D to Mark II?
- trouble-free flash exposures in any situation
- low noise in all ISO's
- great post-processing latitude (e.g. simple USM sharpening without edge-sharpening tools does not result to artifacts) with ISO 1600, too.
- battery life which holds for days, not hours.
- 45-point fast and intelligent AF
- weather protection
- operational speed
- 8mp
- bigger dynamic range
- reliablilty (rugged construction, double-card system)
- bigger viewfinder
- better WB
- interchangeable focusing screens
- faster image transfers
- larger sensor with smaller crop factor.
- ability to save all settings on flash card and transfer them between cameras
- ability to autofocus at f/8 (300, 400, 500, or 600 f/4 with 2x teleconverter)
- integrated vertical grip
- higher resolution LCD
- free RAW conversion software
I personally would happily for example pay 2500 dollars for being able to concentrate on shooting and not on flash usage and problems, ever. I'd also pay 500 for 45 point AF, 2000 bucks for ACCURATE AF, pay 500 for weather sealing, pay 2000 for being able to use ISO 1600 _and_ post process it without need of external NR to avoid artifacts.
For me the Mark II is very inexpensive for all it gives in return.
And also, the image quality is great. Acutance is great, Dynamic range is good, WB is good, saturation is good ,curves are good, histograms look great. Better lenses are visibly sharper, faster shutter speeds make a difference. You have to see EXIF to make sure if its ISO 200 or 1200.
I just wonder what more can you ask from camera upgrade?
--
Pekka