Would you buy 1ds MKII or 1d mkIII?

I know lot of people have asked and we all get tired of the same thing "what should I buy" but I have done a lot of research and am having a very hard decision deciding what will better suit my needs. I have narrowed it down to either 1ds MK II and 1d MK III. I mainly shoot sports, lots of portraits and will start shooting lots of weddings.

My current lenses I have right now are canon 24-70, canon 28-70, 70-200 f2.8 is MK II, canon TC 2x MK II, canon 580 ex II and canon xsi. Which body will benefit my current setup with what I shoot? For some reason I really really wan 1ds MK II but just want to get some input from some of the users of either of the bodies and their recommendation.

Thank you and look forward to hearing some comments and suggestions.
Karim.

mk IV

canonistul wrote in post #12747326
mk IV

Only if I could . Not within my budget at this time.

1DS mkiii

Snapsort has a lot of the coverage between the featureset differences. They're both beautiful bodies.

To me, it goes:

1DsII -- Full frame (all the DoF, viewfinder, and IQ advantages thereof)
1DIII -- 1.3x, 10FPS, slightly higher pixel density (reach), new-style body (all the advantages and features thereof).

For weddings and portraits there's an obvious choice, and for sports there's an obvious choice.

I have and use both of those bodies.. If I go out for a day of shooting mainly landscapes, I usually use the 1dsII. If I think there will be wildlife around, I take along the 1dIII and a 400mmf5.6.

Either one will give you fantastic images for your needs.

The 1dsII is old school and you have a sharp learning curve to press 2 buttons at a time to change settings and it has a smaller LCD. It is also noticeably heavier if you are on a hike.. These things may mean something to you..

The 1dIII has a more modern feel and uses almost the same buttons with single press and dial functions like a 5d etc.. It also has live view and the ability to micro adjust lenses that you don't get with the 1dsII.

I would be very hard pressed if I needed to make a choice but the 1dIII usually gets the nod if any travelling distance is involved...

Looks like very bright future upon you.
Start with 1DMKIII, add what you want (or really need for weddings) once you are into lots of weddings.
Galls and guys are shooting weddings with 40D-50D and paid well once they into the wedding business.

Sp1207 wrote in post #12748592
Snapsort has a lot of the coverage between the featureset differences. They're both beautiful bodies.

To me, it goes:

1DsII -- Full frame (all the DoF, viewfinder, and IQ advantages thereof)
1DIII -- 1.3x, 10FPS, slightly higher pixel density (reach), new-style body (all the advantages and features thereof).

For weddings and portraits there's an obvious choice, and for sports there's an obvious choice.

I wish if I could get both, however I can only afford one and I wanted something which would suit both weddings/portraits and sports. I dont think this will be possible with just one body. Also, are 1ds mkII really slow compared to 1d MKIII? At least that is what I have been reading that 1DS MK II is quite slow??

qincai wrote in post #12748713
签名跟心情一样不停的修改 始终没有自己想要的

How about you elaborate on that, perhaps in English ?

Karim1980 wrote in post #12748758
I wish if I could get both, however I can only afford one and I wanted something which would suit both weddings/portraits and sports. I dont think this will be possible with just one body. Also, are 1ds mkII really slow compared to 1d MKIII? At least that is what I have been reading that 1DS MK II is quite slow??

Depends on what you mean by slow. Shutter lag and blackout is basically the same between them, but the difference between 4 and 10 FPS is significant.

It's been a while since I shot with a 1DIII, but they're not terribly different. The 1DsII is basically a fraction of a second slower at everything not directly photography related. I think changing settings is slower due to the two hand setup. Charging the batteries is a bit slower. Writing to cards is slower. Turning on is like .1 seconds slower. AF performs basically the same between them. Changing AF points is a lot slower on the 1DsII.

Sp1207 wrote in post #12749141
Depends on what you mean by slow. Shutter lag and blackout is basically the same between them, but the difference between 4 and 10 FPS is significant.

It's been a while since I shot with a 1DIII, but they're not terribly different. The 1DsII is basically a fraction of a second slower at everything not directly photography related. I think changing settings is slower due to the two hand setup. Charging the batteries is a bit slower. Writing to cards is slower. Turning on is like .1 seconds slower. AF performs basically the same between them. Changing AF points is a lot slower on the 1DsII.

Don't forget you get better, low noise performance at ISO1600 on a markIII. You also get more cross-type focus points on the markIII.

Neither because you aren't making money off it yet. If you are doing weddings you need 2 bodies and for the price of a 1D3 you can get 2 60d new in Toronto at Aden. And if I were you and sports is really important I think a 7D suits you better than popping for a 1D3 now.

Also, as usual when someone say they want to shoot a lot of this and that and sounding like a bright eyed new photographer I always search their posts. 4 days ago you posted your first, on POTN, 2 shots for people to critique. I am not sure how much time you have had to use your gear but everyone in Toronto who has a DSLR seems to think they can be a wedding photographer. Do a quick google search and you'll be overwhelmed at the endless websites of people who are trying to make it as professional photographers.

Now that being said here's why I think you should think 60D or 7D.

Cost is lower even if you get the 1D3 used. You can use that for other things. You have 1 flash right now it's likely if you do any weddings you'll want more and light stands, soft boxes, umbrellas etc. All that costs money. Now in your experience you might not think it's needed but my sister hired a photo who, in my mind was a complete amateur, who came into the church rocking a 5D classic and a 480EX flash on top. The church had high wood ceilings shaped like the inside of the roof. The photo didn't seem to know how to expose correctly either. End result was a epic fail. The photos from the church were so noisy due to her having to add exposure in post process that the in laws looked like they were 70 years old and every black suit turned into a technicolor noise dream coat. Flip to my photos on the 7D they were clean where I didn't use flash. Where I did I used lighting gear cause I know I cannot bounce flash in that church. They ended up sending my photos to the relatives who cannot make it to the wedding.

In a nut shell wedding photography is expensive in gear investment. Any money you have left can be invested for other stuff you might need for your "business". The 18 mp APS-C sensors that canon has right now is an amazing piece of engineering. It gives you performance similar to what full frame sensors were doing a few years ago. And in the case of the 7D there are technical advances in that camera that canon hasn't put in even the new mk4 (like color sensitive metering).

Also finally, it's bloody hard to make money in Toronto as a photographer. Unless you do it full time and knows how to market yourself. Just putting your website up isn't useful as everyone and their cousin wants to be a photographer in Toronto. Do a google search and you'll be overwhelmed by the number of hits. Everyone thinks they can make money cause the full timers are charging $3000 per wedding. Flip side is there are hundreds of part timers who do it for 1/4 of that price.

If the 5D photos were worse than the 7D's in terms of noise that's the photographer's fault. The 18MP crop sensor is good, but not great compared to what else is on the market/other sensor formats. You pay a steep price for smaller sensor formats.

And to keep things 100% factual, the 1DsII is better at high-ISO performance assuming you're not focal length limited. If you have to crop every 1DsII shot 1.3x to 8 megapixels to match the 1DIII field of view it is worse. If you can fill the (larger) frame then the 1DsII is better.

http://snapsort.com …_Mark_III-vs-Canon_EOS_7D is a fantastic website for quick comparisons, even though it's missing some info on the older cameras (for example, the viewfinder on the Mark II is a lot larger because it's a higher magnification and a larger sensor).

i'd buy the 1dsII

Sp1207 wrote in post #12749508
If the 5D photos were worse than the 7D's in terms of noise that's the photographer's fault. The 18MP crop sensor is good, but not great compared to what else is on the market/other sensor formats. You pay a steep price for smaller sensor formats.

And to keep things 100% factual, the 1DsII is better at high-ISO performance assuming you're not focal length limited. If you have to crop every 1DsII shot 1.3x to 8 megapixels to match the 1DIII field of view it is worse. If you can fill the (larger) frame then the 1DsII is better.

http://snapsort.com …_Mark_III-vs-Canon_EOS_7D is a fantastic website for quick comparisons, even though it's missing some info on the older cameras (for example, the viewfinder on the Mark II is a lot larger because it's a higher magnification and a larger sensor).

Completely the photographer's fault which was my point. You can talk high ISO all week long but at the end of the day unless we are talking about picking up a D3s everyone grabs a flash eventually for indoor photography. There isn't any camera that doesn't lose details and color at higher ISO settings. While it's great to have a 1D3. The money you saved can go towards other things that might be useful. And having a single 1D3 is going to make you less able to get the shots you need as a wedding photographer. As even the 1D cameras are slow to change lenses. 2 60Ds might actually allow you to catch more shots.

Good equipment is one pillar of the photography tripod. The other is the photographer's experience and skills in making the right choice of technique and what gear to use. The third is serendipity (as in being at right place at the right time). Putting a 1D3 in the hands of a person who doesn't understand exposure is useless. Having a 1D3 with the wrong focal length lens on for a split second moment is useless. And that's why I recommend neither 1D3 nor 1Ds2.