1Dmk3 or 1Dmkiv

I'm looking to buy a second camera. my current one is the 5Dmk2.

but for some things I want better AF, more FPS and better sealing.

I can have a good deal on a 1Dmk3 but I feel like I will not use it that much... I'm used to shooting at ISO3200 alot.. and I'm used to having clean files in that iso region..

I'm also planning to use it on some weddings

I fear with the 1Dmk3 there won't be much room to crop and the high iso will be a bit of a let down..

Is it worth to spend 2000+ euro extra on a 1Dmkiv is my question...

I guess it all depends :s

germinal wrote in post #11534139
I guess it all depends :s

I guess that's about right...

I feel the MK3 is pretty clean at 3200 if you expose correctly, just like your 5D MK2 I'd imagine. In fact, I don't always feel I need to use noise reduction software at 3200. Really depends on the shooting conditions and subject. I feel it's clean based on what I've used in the past; 10D, 1D MK2, 40D and High ISO film. The MK3 trumps them all. Simple enough, really. If you can fund the MK4, why wouldn’t you? If it would be a stretch for the MK4, then the MK3 is an excellent camera. Best I've ever used, not having used the MK4. As far as cropping, again based on what I’ve used, it holds up pretty well without getting crazy. If you’re cropping enough for it to be an issue, maybe look at longer lenses first…

I sold my Mk3 for a Mk4 for the reasons your mentioned - needed higher ISO and wanted more room for cropping (spoiled with my 5DII). My keeper rate also increased, which I really didn't expect. I would suggest if you can swing the Mk4, go for it. If you can't, the Mk3 is a great camera and are an excellent value.

1Dm4!

Based on the way you phrased you question I don't think the MkIII will suit your needs or at least it will leave you with some level of buyers remorse. So therefore . . .

But, if I could have only one camera and the choice was between a 5DII and a MKIII, I'd take the MKIII.

Get the 1D MKIV, maybe not the best value, but the best camera to go with your 5D MKII.

If you decide you would like to go the mk3 route, I'm strongly considering selling mine to get a 5Dm2. PM me if interested and I'll send along details. Body is pristine w/very low usage.

Regards,
Scott

merp wrote in post #11534350
1Dm4!

I second that motion! auto iso and the lcd screen are almost worth it. I also find myself shooting a lot of video as well. Sell another gadget and get the mk4

You leave out a glaring amount of information in your post, and you throw in shooting weddings as an afterthought, leaving us with no real idea of what you shoot or what your needs are. Its hard to really say much to be helpful with what you've posted. The 1D4 is obviously a better body, it replaced the 1D3, but whether its worth the price for you and your needs.... there isn't enough info here to really say.

If you feel a need to crop all the time, you might be better served with additional glass instead of another body.

It sounds like you already have your mind made up, but it might be worth seeing if you can borrow a 1D3 from a friend or associate, or take some shots with one in a store. See if your fears are legit, or if it would work for your needs.

Good luck, they are both great cameras.

Stickman wrote in post #11535562
You leave out a glaring amount of information in your post, and you throw in shooting weddings as an afterthought, leaving us with no real idea of what you shoot or what your needs are. Its hard to really say much to be helpful with what you've posted. The 1D4 is obviously a better body, it replaced the 1D3, but whether its worth the price for you and your needs.... there isn't enough info here to really say.

If you feel a need to crop all the time, you might be better served with additional glass instead of another body.

It sounds like you already have your mind made up, but it might be worth seeing if you can borrow a 1D3 from a friend or associate, or take some shots with one in a store. See if your fears are legit, or if it would work for your needs.

Good luck, they are both great cameras.

I'm no pro photograph, just a serious amateur..

mostly shoot concerts and events.. but when there is alot of action I need to focus with the center point of my 5D on my moving subject.. (focus recompose is not an option) this means I need to crop to have a good composition because the 5D lacks a good AF and I don't trust the outer points, certainly not in bad light..

I think with a 1D I will be able to track a subject far better with off center points.. so I don't need to crop.

the 1D also has a smaller sensor thus the focus points are also closer to the sides than a FF cam.. making it better for compositions with the subject to the sides?

I don't feel the need to crop all the time but sometimes the ability to crop comes in handy

I think you have to ask yourself, is the 3200 ISO worth the extra $2000, or can you make due with 1600 ISO. I know the 1D3 has to be pretty good at 1600 ISO because I shoot my 1D2 at 1600 ISO a lot and the results are very good (when exposure is correct). I don't ever find myself needing more than 1600 ISO, so my next body will be the 1D3. However, a person that needs 3200 ISO on a regular basis should probably just spend the extra money and get it.

With that said, isn't the 7D capable of handling 3200 ISO? If so, you get 8 fps and high ISO performance. Just a thought.

I routinely use off-center points in AI Servo with my MK3 when shooting sports. It helps, in my case, to get better focus on the face if have a point on the upper body. Since I am always at f/2.8, if I used the center point I'd end up with a lot on in-focus midsections and OOF faces. Hockey players, especially, don't spend a lot of time standing upright! Also, like you said it aides in compo if the focus point in play is where you need it to focus properly “and” fill the frame as needed. So, short answer is any of the 45 point 1D series cameras will do that for you. It was the same with my old MK2. I fully trust the outer points of the MK3.

TGrundvig wrote in post #11536543
I think you have to ask yourself, is the 3200 ISO worth the extra $2000, or can you make due with 1600 ISO. I know the 1D3 has to be pretty good at 1600 ISO because I shoot my 1D2 at 1600 ISO a lot and the results are very good (when exposure is correct). I don't ever find myself needing more than 1600 ISO, so my next body will be the 1D3. However, a person that needs 3200 ISO on a regular basis should probably just spend the extra money and get it.

3200 ISO is native on the MK3 and a little cleaner than I was seeing with 1600 on the MK2. 6400 ISO is the "H" mode and is pretty comparable to 3200 on the MK2. I use 6400 a lot, but know that I will be using noise reduction software and exposing to the right.

I have no problem getting good prints at 3200 ISO or decent enlargements with my 1D3.