350D vs 1Ds Mk2

[mike_88]

I would like to convert from Fuji GX617 to 1DS Mk2 for landscape work. However, before buying 1DS want to try digital camera and lens which would give me an indication of results to expect from 1DS. So, considering either 20D or 350D with Sigma 12-24mm. Will the APS-C size CCD in the cameras give me similar quality to the same size section of the full frame CCD of the 1DS? Quality of Sigma 12-24mm vs L series optics?

[reggie]

Mike,

If I understand your question correctly the only way to get a feel for what the 1Ds2 can output would be to stitch together more than a couple of shots from an APS-C camera and then "crop" out what you may determine to be the equivalent of full frame ( ??).
As for the quality of the Sigma 12-24, I've tried 2 copies and wasn't thrilled by either on a 1D2 but I've also seen quite brilliant copies from other peoples shots so I guess it's the luck of the draw.
This also applies to L glass too but if you get a good copy of a 17-40L on a FF, you will be quite pleased I'm sure.
Hope that helps some

Greg

[eosster]

Sorry, are you trying to flame everyone here?

[Jesper]

Why don't you find a place where you can rent a 1Ds Mark II, so that you can try it out and see what results you can get out of it.

The 350D and 1Ds Mark II are two completely different beasts. The first one is the cheapest consumer DSLR that Canon sells, the 1Ds Mark II is all the way on the other side of the spectrum, it's the top professional DSLR.

I don't think you can experience what the 1Ds Mark II is like by using the 350D.

[ScottE]

You are comparing an 8 megapixel camera with a 16 megapixel. Not only that, but because the sensor is much smaller, the size per pixel sensor is much smaller on the 350D. The difference is going to be visible if you make big enlargements, say 16x24 inches. If you make 8x10 inch pictures the increased resolution is not going to be visible so it will be difficult to see any difference.

As for lenses, you are comparing a lens with one that costs twice as much. If it was just as good Canon would not be able to sell many L lenses. Advertising hype can only go so far. Again, size of your print is going to show the difference. You are not going to get the same corner to corner sharpness on a big print shot with a 12-24 Sigma on a 350D that you can get with a 16-35 L on a 1DsMk2. On a smaller print it would again be hard to spot the difference.

If you are just shooting for the web, either camera would be more than acceptable.

Scott

[Mike H]

I would like to convert from Fuji GX617 to 1DS Mk2 for landscape work. However, before buying 1DS want to try digital camera and lens which would give me an indication of results to expect from 1DS. So, considering either 20D or 350D with Sigma 12-24mm. Will the APS-C size CCD in the cameras give me similar quality to the same size section of the full frame CCD of the 1DS? Quality of Sigma 12-24mm vs L series optics?

I *think* that I can see what you're trying to do--shoot with a small sensor camera and stitch it together to get an idea of what the larger sensor camera will give without spending the big bucks for the 1DsM2. I don't think that will tell you what you want to know. The two cameras will have a different tonal range for one thing.

It's a nice idea, but you really can't get the feel for how it would be to use the high end camera that way. I agree with the person that suggested renting the camera as a better test. Also, I concur with the notion of using an L lens for your tryout period. If you're going to spend that kind of money, you're going to want to use the best lens possible to see how much the system can really do. There are a couple of lenses that perform optically as well as the L lenses (the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, for example), but in general the L lenses would be better for people that are concerned with ultimate quality.

I hope that helps.

Mike H

[k2kv]

Mike_88,

What you are suggesting is the same as saying that you are thinking about buying a Ferrari, but before you do, you would like to drive a Fiat to see if you will like it. Doesn't work this way.

If you really are considering the 1DS Mk2, you must have good reason to think it will satisfy your needs when other cameras will not. I suggest either renting or borrowing the camera for a weekend, or just trying it out in a good camera shop. Then you can make an informed decision.

Cheers,

[AJSJones]

I think mike_88's question is specifically about the film to digital transition and whether the digital sensor (regardless of size) is as much better than film as he's been led to believe. Coming down from 6cm by 17 cm to 2.4 x 3.6 cm it's a very relevant question. I not long ago bought a 4x5 (inches) film set-up to capture large detailed landscapes and I estimate it is equivalent to around 80MP, because the current digitals don't capture enough.

To the question, though, the pixels in the 20D are slightly closer together than in the 1Ds MkII so "per sensor area section" it can actually resolve slightly more. It's like a finer-grained film than in the 1DsII but a smaller piece - both have very good range and freedom from noise.

Rather than an ultrawide, like the Sigma, I'd recommend considering a Canon T/S lens such as the 24 on the 1DsII to get closer to the FoV of the Fuji. (Or even a Zeiss PC if there are enough $) This would give you a 24 x 50+ mm frame with no stitching required (only pasting, which is much easier!) and up to 24+ MP. Nonetheless, the other suggestions are spot-on - rent a 1DsII with the kind of lens you would be using with it - shoot in every conceivable way you might want, and see. Much cheaper than buying (and then selling??) the 20D and Sigma... The 1DSII IS probably the camera for you but you might need better lenses than Canon's wide-angle offerings, even the L series.

[Kennymc]

The sensor on the 1Ds MKII compared to the 350D is like comparing a consumer zoom lens to a prime 'L' class lens, there is just no comparison... The price of one is 6 times more than the other for a very good reason... Rent one, as already been suggested is the way to go but make sure it has good glass with it like a 50mm f/1.4... Good bodies will produce poorer images if bad glass is used and many people complain about soft lenses because they have a cheap UV stuck on the end...

[godfrey]

Bottom line. Using the 350D will not give you a true picture of film to digital (especially with your Fuji GX617). To truly compare, you will need to compare images from from the 1DS (not even the MkII) to your images from Fuji GX617. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself

Godfrey

[Lesmac]

I agree, it would be difficult assessing a 1DS MKII performance based upon a 350D sample, however I understand your hesitation, 5 grand is a lot to part with without knowing if the camera will cut the mustard.I bought the 1DS MKII a few months ago, and have been extremely impressed with it's resolution power, printing A3+ prints that are crisp and clear.
I use it mainly with a 17-40 F4L lens, and it's an excellent combination, although I have had to invest in some LEE filters as the cokin ones I was using caused vignetting if you tried to stack.
Does it compare with the results from the Fuji, I'm not sure on that, but it will be pretty close.
Some examples of landscapes using this combination in my gallery.
Les
http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[AJSJones]

... Will the APS-C size CCD in the cameras give me similar quality to the
*
*
*
same size section
*
*
*
of the full frame CCD of the 1DS? Quality of Sigma 12-24mm vs L series optics?

No-one, except maybe Reggie, has answered this guy's question!

He WILL be able to compare, for the APS area at least, a 12-24 with an L lens using this sensor (in terms of linear resolution performance, it will be a more stringent test) to see if the 12-24 is adequate or if an L lens is needed, (or even if a Zeiss is needed) to produce images of the kind of quality he is used to from his 6x17. And he knows (as his post indicated) that the 8MP of the 20D or 350 is NOT the same size as the 1DsII's sensor. I've not seen anything that the 8MP in the center of the 1DsII's sensor are much different from the 8MP's in the 20D, given the DigicII and some decent raw processing knowhow.
He won't be able to see how lenses perform out to the edge of a FF sensor, however.

[KennyG]

There are certain fundamental differences you can not assess using anything else but the real thing. Resolution, dynamic range and post-processing requirements, to mention three. Add to that how the smaller sensor does not strech lens performance as much, and I could go on. Save your time/money and see if you can rent one from somewhere like Lehmans in Stoke. There are 1Ds MK-II users who post here and also live in/near Manchester that may be able to help you.

[tim]

I bought the 1DS MKII a few months ago, and have been extremely impressed with it's resolution power, printing A3+ prints that are crisp and clear.

I printed a few photos A1 from my 300D, and they look great so long as you're a meter or so back from the photo - which you have to be with a photo that size really. A3 on a 1Ds Mk II is well below what it can do.

To the original poster: rent one and try it out, it'll give you a much better idea than a 350D.

[rg-tom]

http://neo-fusion.co.uk/gallery/gallery/Camera_Stuff/Others/1DSvs350XT.jpg

To me, that picture says it all.

[radar-eclipse]

The only thing I can add different here, is to use the "L" prime glass instead of the popular 16-35 L zoom. I would use a 14mm 2.8 L, 24mm 1.4 L, and others that peak your interest. These are really sharp. The Sigma glass doesn't compete at that focal length. A 20d with a 10-22mm Canon EF-S lens will give you a feel for things, but the noise quality and color accuracy of the 1DSMII will still be better.
Are you looking to sell the Fuji?

That 350 looks Mickey Moose in comparison. Nice job on the quick photo.