If you had a choice to only choose one, don't use cost as a factor, and trying to weigh in on APS-H (1.3x) vs. FF and overall camera performance, which would you choose.
I can't seem to decide.
- One is more expensive than the other, but it's a non issue for me since < $4k is my limit.
- I plan on keeping my 40D body for the 1.6x crop factor for long focal lengths.
- Weight / Size is a non-issue.
- I don't need video. I think it's wasted functionality and cost on the 5D mk II when they could have used it on better FPS or higher end SLR features. If I wanted to record video, I would have gotten a vid camera. They should have made it more like the D700.
- I shoot mostly landscape and architecture, but do a fair amount of portraits. No sports photography, but happy with the 40D's FPS for action shots when needed.
- I need low light performance and high ISO capabilities. On my recent vacation to Prague, I was very disappointed with the noise on my 40D at 800+. Lost many keepers because of it.
- I crop a lot for composition and higher resolution would help a little, but I haven't been disappointed with my current 10.1 megapixel 40D. I don't produce large prints or prints at all, and mostly just online.
- I would like to use my lenses at its intended focal length. FF is ideal, but 1.3x is like the best of both worlds.
I've been into photography for 2 years now and loving it. It's becoming an obsession and I've never worked so hard at any hobby in my life since I picked up an SLR. I want something that is versatile and can adapt to different styles of photography (sports, portraits, landscapes, etc). I don't ever want to have to say that I can't effectively take these shots because my camera is not capable of it. Sounds like the 1d mk3 is an all-around performer, but then again I have a 40D to take fast action shots. But will I sling 2 cameras on vacation? Probably not.
Digic IV vs 2x Digic III processor. One is newer technology and the other is designed for fast processing and performance in tandem. Which combo is better at IQ processing.
FF CMOS on the 5D mk II sensor vs. APS-H on the 1D MK III, which is better for IQ.
If Canon didn't include video in the 5D and had specs similar to that of the Nikon D700, this would have been a no-brainer. I've invested a lot into my lenses and have a 70-200 f/2.8L IS on order that switching is not an option. I've already gone through the Nikon Canon debate when I first picked up this hobby and the lens selection and cost helped me decide to go with Canon. What was Canon thinking when they decided to put video into a pro level camera?