comparison of 10d and 1dmk2 images

[Red Squirrel]

Hi,
I'm considering upgrading to the mk2, but don't seem to be able to find images of the same subject taken with both cameras to compare.
I'd like to see how the mkII's 1.3 crop improves upon the 10d, especially on landscape shots.

There seems to be plenty of reviews of 1d vs 1dMkII vs 1ds etc, but I'd like to see what I'm getting for my extra £2000.

thanks!

[IncompletePete]

I dont have any to hand, but what are you shooting? I'm guessing wildlife, itf that's the case then why go for a 1DS MkII, you can pick one up for only £4850! http://www.cameramarts.co.uk/index.php?category_id=4&rm=search&fc=browse

What you're paying for in the 1D MkII is the speed, nothign beats it in that respect! Awesome AF and FPS make this a great camera for sports, but for picture quality and noise reduction then why not consider the 20D? Lot less expensive and decent picture quality, but then again if you have a 10D it wont make much difference!

[Red Squirrel]

I've seen the 1dmkII for £2700 and that's pushing me so there's no way I could afford ( or justify ) £4850 for the 1ds.

So what you're saying is the 1dmkII's picture quality is similar to the 10d?

Is that right?

[Pekka]

Mark II has better image quality - more DR room to tweak, less noise, more "solid" images.

About choosing Mark II or not please read http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=330275#330275 and the message below that.

[chris.bailey]

For a few days I had a D30 a D60 a 10D and a 1dMkII (dont ask!). I used each for a half dozen "test" shots of inaminate objects around the house with the same lens and same lighting conditions and printed each out at 8x10 after making similar albeit qualatative photoshop adjustments. Could I see a huge improvement from the D30 to the Mk II, just! D30 to D60 and 10D to MkII, not really though there are differences! If I mixed the shots and tried to pick out which was which, no chance! This was not measurebating by any stretch of the imagination it was merely trying to justify (to myself) the money I have spent in terms of output quality on a typical range of shots at typical print sizes. I failed to do that. What I do know is that the MkII is much more usable, it is faster, more responsive and the 1.3 crop suits what I shoot a lot of the time much better. If I get a bad shot I can only blame myself for it. Those are things you cant judge by comparing side by side prints or worse still 72dpi web images. Is it worth £2,000 more? Only you can really answer that, personally I would say that it was only worth it if you need that speed and/or are prepared to spend the extra for a 1.3 crop.

[Red Squirrel]

thanks for the help everyone,
when ( if ) my mkII arrives I'll only have myself to blame if the pics go wrong.

With regard to increased dynamic range, I'd like to see if it can handle not blowing out the sky while retaining detail in darker areas.

I followed Pekka's link to the FM forum and the sound of that 8fps shooting rate is absolutely incredible!

[DeeplyDigital]

www.cameramarts.co.uk

The best price I have seen so far -

Have you ordered from that shop before?

Julia
-

[Red Squirrel]

wow! that's even cheaper than nomatica.co.uk (3928 EUROS) They did offer 3% discount last week but that offer's expired now.
Think I'll try cameramarts as I think Nomatica may supply any manuals in French.

[GenEOS]

A friend of mine shot side by side with me at a HS football game. Me with a 1DmkII and him with a 20D. I was shooting a 300 f2.8 and he was shooting a 70-200 f2.8.

Page 6-8 of these galleries are all 20D, cropped and sharpened.
Any image prefixed with "S" is with the 20D combo.

http://www.tunstall.cc/galleries/102904-FHS/index.htm