1Ds Mk.II or 300 2.8 IS - business investing related

[cosworth]

I'm wanting to put some money into my business. I want to expand the gear a bit. Sure we see what do I buy threads but this isn't a what is better question.

I'm on the fence as to whether I'll go glass or body. Many always say build a glass system and worry about body later.

I have a1Ds Mk.I - a camera I love. It's my main camera. I tried a 1D Mk.II and did some image comparisons and it was really just a crop camera to me. the image quality was identical to me. But a smaller image nonetheless.

The 1Ds Mk.I only goes to ISO 1250. The 1D Mk.II I had went to 3200 and nice and clean to boot. I don't go above 800 very often and well... I'm thinking I might like to!

I need AF. The 5d isn't in the cards for me. the 1D Mk.III isn't wide enough with the 16-35 or the 17-40. If Canon made a wider non EFS lens I'd probably be lusting for a 1D Mk.III. third party lenses yes.... Maybe we'll see a "widest shot with 3rd party on a 1d Mk.IIx" thread soon.

I can use the 300 2.8 IS for my local motorsports work. I can use it for a lot of other stuff if I stay full frame.

So I'd love to pick a clear choice between the 1dsMk.II or the 300 2.8 IS. I lean towards body since I'm quite happy with my glass. I DO miss my 300 F/4L IS.

If you had decided to put some money into your business, would you go body or glass? Since I want to shoot more motorsports and more portrait, it's a tough call!

Thoughts?

[PhotoJourno]

I think the key there is that you are happy with the glass you have. Given that fact, you may very well benefit from higher ISOs while using fast fps and so on from the new camera.

On the other hand, if your camera has got you completely happy, and you just want some extra reach to the cars/bikes/etc., then the 300mm lens is for you.

I can share my opinion with you. I feel a camera is the base, from which any and all photos are taken. I agree with lenses coming a simultaneously or close second to the camera, but you do need a stable platform from which to shoot your images.

Just my .02

Oh!, and don't forget about Canon's TC x1.4 and x2 II !!... They are inexpensive, and very much worth a try. (Specially with 70-200 2.8)

[cosworth]

Well the 1Ds Mk.II doesn't have a significant FPS advantage over my current 1Ds Mk.I unfortunately. But I rarely use FPS anyway..

I'm a body man. Fast and slow glass, working feet, they seem to do the trick.

I pm'ed Ed Rader asking what he tghout would be a good UWA on a hidden 1D Mk.III option and it was apparent right away it wouldn't be a fit for me. I shoot a lot of UWA sports and would lose some wide reach if I went 1D Mk.III

The 1Ds Mk.II is winning so far.

[PhotoJourno]

Amen !...

[michael_]

you have made up your mind already and your reasons are valid so do it :)

[cdifoto]

Well the 1Ds Mk.II doesn't have a significant FPS advantage over my current 1Ds Mk.I unfortunately. But I rarely use FPS anyway..

I'm a body man. Fast and slow glass, working feet, they seem to do the trick.

I pm'ed Ed Rader asking what he tghout would be a good UWA on a hidden 1D Mk.III option and it was apparent right away it wouldn't be a fit for me. I shoot a lot of UWA sports and would lose some wide reach if I went 1D Mk.III

The 1Ds Mk.II is winning so far.

Maybe you're anti-3rd party or too critical about IQ and/or constant aperture, but the Sigma 12-24mm is available for full frame and 1.3x croppers. I actually quite like it. HSM keeps it pretty fast and quiet. Canon also has a 14mm L prime. So wider is available. Just depends what your requirements are.

A 300mm f/2.8L IS would be gorgeous regardless of the sensor.

High ISO is sometimes necessary, obviously depending upon what you shoot.

Since it's your money, only you can decide how to spend it. ;)

[Croasdail]

I don't buy expensive bodies simply because the technology is moving so fast on that front that useful life is a handfull number of years at best. And when I do buy, most of them have been second hand. If I need a high end body for a specific job, I rent. Glass on the other hand doesn't get aged out nearly as fast - I am still using some I've owned for 20 years.

Now with that said (and this is the part where there is an exception to every rule) is I will be buying a mkIII when it ships, simply because it is required to stay competitive. I can not be submitting images to the agency from my 1d mk1 when my compitition is submitting from mk II and MK III. Being two full generations behind just will not look like I am trying to stay currrent. I can not put myself in the high ISO hole - and that will impact my credibility with sports images. The compitition being able to shoot 2 full stops darker then I can will be a huge difference. That, and the minimum file sizes are getting larger and larger. This time it will because of low light sports. On the other hand, if I only shot fashion, landscape or products, high ISO would mean absolutely nothing to me as I would never shoot any of those at higher then ISO 400. Buy from a business sense what is going to enable you to deliver a better product to the customer. My preference would be to buy glass. I just am having to go against that because my bodies are starting to get old and my competitiveness is being impacted by it.

[cosworth]

I don't buy expensive bodies simply because the technology is moving so fast on that front that useful life is a handfull number of years at best. And when I do buy, most of them have been second hand. If I need a high end body for a specific job, I rent. Glass on the other hand doesn't get aged out nearly as fast - I am still using some I've owned for 20 years.

Now with that said (and this is the part where there is an exception to every rule) is I will be buying a mkIII when it ships, simply because it is required to stay competitive. I can not be submitting images to the agency from my 1d mk1 when my compitition is submitting from mk II and MK III. Being two full generations behind just will not look like I am trying to stay currrent. I can not put myself in the high ISO hole - and that will impact my credibility with sports images. The compitition being able to shoot 2 full stops darker then I can will be a huge difference. That, and the minimum file sizes are getting larger and larger. This time it will because of low light sports. On the other hand, if I only shot fashion, landscape or products, high ISO would mean absolutely nothing to me as I would never shoot any of those at higher then ISO 400. Buy from a business sense what is going to enable you to deliver a better product to the customer. My preference would be to buy glass. I just am having to go against that because my bodies are starting to get old and my competitiveness is being impacted by it.

This is excellent advice. I am anticipating a future third gen status when the 1Ds Mk.III comes out. It doesn't affect how my existing camera takes pics, but as you mention "competition". I need to stay flexible. If I can't do XXXX and then need to shoot some indoor sports, I can't without renting.

CDI - I have a Sigma in my lineup, I take a good lens as a good lens, regardless of make.

In a perfect world I'd sit on teh sidelines and shoot sports with a 3003.8 and pack up and go home. This doesn't happen sadly. I gotta do anyting that comes my way. I am certain now that I'll get more versatility from a body.

A used 1Ds Mk.II and a 1D Mk.III are virtually the same price (taxes). So yeah, for now I'm thinking body.


Thanks everyone.

[MJPhotos24]

I went through something similar - the Mark IIn or the 300 2.8 IS. I talked to some other pro baseball togs and they all agreed so I did as they suggested - I bought the 300 2.8 IS and couldn't of been happier, actually I think that lens was the reason I bought the Mark IIn now, cuz it got me hired for some good paying jobs since it was better than the glass I had before - and that allowed me to do what I wanted all along. If I had gotten the IIn, I don't think I would have the 300 still, cuz the other glass didnt match up. So in short, go with the glass first...:)

[ssim]

What is it that you do more of, sports or portraits. I know you say you want to do more of both but realistically you must be doing one more than the other.

I wouldn't trade my 1DsMKII for anything when it comes to doing portraits or commercial work. It is just a wonderful piece of hardware. When I first started doing some work for an advertising agency all I had was the 1DMKII and found that the crop was getting in the way. I added the 5D but found that I was still wanting for the 1 series body so I added the 1DsMKII. It made doing their work a whole lot easier.

I do a couple of pro sporting events per year for one of the manufacturers. I have used the 1DsMKII but it is a fast moving event and I normally resort back to my 1DMKII. I do use the 300 f/2.8 for this and it is just a great lens on any body. Even with a 1.4 tc on this is a spectacular lens. It would serve you well but I think you have to decide how much use this would get. Out of all the sporting events that you do, how many actually require a 300mm lens.

I personally would probably go for the body. It is a great one to build off of and you can always add the glass later. Make sure that you are ready for the huge file sizes that you are going to get too.

[cosworth]

Sheldon, I agree. My new XPS machine will handle the files, as will my external drives. Breaking to the sports scene here is tough. Realistically I'll have more chance getting my own work with portraits etc. The Olympics coming mean nothing. %50 of sportsshooter.com will be here, no work for no names like me.

I don't have the top tier sports connections. I'm better at shooting sports personally, but I need to pay the bills. Maybe down the road I'll break into the sports scene, for now studio and location stuff for whiny, unrealisitc people makes money.

I can always rent the 300.

[tim]

If you're not in a hurry you could wait for the 1DsMk3 - could be 6 months, could be a year. I'd call that a "ten year" camera, in that it'd do the job I need for ten years. I'd actually get the 1D3N for weddings and portraits, just don't need the extra pixels.

[cosworth]

No rush. I don't neccessarily need the flagship, one step back is fine.

Funny that last night I went to bed thinking the 1D Mk.III with a 12-24 wasn't a choice. Can't for the life of me think why that is now. I had a reason for that logic path but have forgotten it.

I did like the tight shutter action of the 1D Mk.II I owned for a bit. Argh. I need to commit to an upgrade and end my internal speculation about keeping up with the competition and being able to submit decent files sizes etc.

When the opportunity presents itself, I'll know.

[cdifoto]

When the opportunity presents itself, I'll know.

Based on this, here's a thought. Maybe it's what you were already implying.


Just keep an eye out and buy whichever you come across as a better deal first! :)

Example, I saw a mint-ish 300 non-IS on FM for $2K. I woulda JUMPED on that sucker if I had the funds. Compared to $3900 new to get IS, I could live without that little module for sports.

Maybe you'll find a similar or better deal on one, the other, or both.

[cosworth]

Exactly. I had a chance to nab a 300 2.8 for $3400 CDN, but the guy backed out. He has a Leica fetish.

I've said it before, if Canon made a 1D with the 5D sensor, I'd own it. A 1DsMk.III would indeed be a long term investment that I could just buy and forget about future costs for gear (for a long while). The ROI on it would be slimmer if I bought new, but still a good choice.

Really it all comes down to us feeling the ROI calculation. What will be get for our money? Will I get more work with higher ISO and pixel count, or a super fast 300 prime?

I know the answer to that - new body.

Ps - "get more" isn't the best way to describe it, but I can get more shots with the higher iso.

[weka2000]

The old glass or body question.

Well I had some spare cash. Decided to go for the 300F2.8 IS L rather than a body. As much as I want a 1D body I realised that a smart move would be glass first and then a second hand 1Dmk2n. Let the first owner take the brunt of the loss.

I will not loose any where near the amount of money buying new glass as I would a new body.

PS I want both :lol: 300F2.8 lens deserves to be on a 1D not a 5D

[michael_]

so from what i have been reading ppl dont believe the 1Dm3 is a long term investment purchase?

[weka2000]

so from what i have been reading ppl dont believe the 1Dm3 is a long term investment purchase?

I think a lot of people ask if it is worth the cost. Do I buy a brand new camera or with the same amount of money put it into glass.

Remember the MK3 is an unknown and untested camera. Everyone is waiting to see what the real results are before investing.

[ssim]

so from what i have been reading ppl dont believe the 1Dm3 is a long term investment purchase?

I see it as an investment towards the future. My 1DmkII is nearing the point where I will have to replace the shutter fairly soon. I have pre-ordered the MK3 with no inhibitions about it at all. It is a cost of doing business and I have depreciated my 1DMKII almost to the end already so it helps to keep the tax man at bay.

I don't buy into the mindset that it is an untested product. Maybe in the general ranks of consumers yes but there have been many a pro using this for awhile now. I've bought the earliest release possible every time a new body has come out that I wanted. I have yet to be disappointed by Canon. If there is a problem I have total confidence in Canon that they will stand behind it.

[weka2000]

I have total confidence in Canon that they will stand behind it.

Slightly off track but they cant fix their 50mmF1.2 L which has a focus issue. Glad I didnt buy when it first came out :lol: