Which would you go with 1D lll or 5D ll

Echo63 wrote in post #16796014
As much as i love the 1d series, the mk3 was a dog.
I would take the 5dmk2 (i would take a 1dmk2 over the mk3 too, so strong is my dislike for it)

I havent shot with a 5d2, but i cannot imagine its AF would be any worse than the 1d3 bodies i had
The 1dmk4 was a great step up, if you can stretch the budget to one, i was perfectly happy with mine, and would still be happy to continue to shoot with one (but work issued me 1DX as part of the upgrade cycle, and i wasnt going to say no)

I disagree with this. I owned both the 1D2 was a good camera but its high ISO was not very good and I would never feel comfortable taking that camera over ISO800 and the battery life cant touch the 1D3 i owned 3 1D3 and all of them never had one bit of AF issue and never let me down. I really want to ditch my 7D for another 1D3 but i really am geting into using the video alot more so I cant afford the 1D4 so i am stuck with the 7D. the 1D3 is still my favorite body I have owned so far

05Xrunner wrote in post #16796172
I disagree with this. I owned both the 1D2 was a good camera but its high ISO was not very good and I would never feel comfortable taking that camera over ISO800 and the battery life cant touch the 1D3 i owned 3 1D3 and all of them never had one bit of AF issue and never let me down. I really want to ditch my 7D for another 1D3 but i really am geting into using the video alot more so I cant afford the 1D4 so i am stuck with the 7D. the 1D3 is still my favorite body I have owned so far

Yes, the 1dmk2 was noisy, but for my uses i try and shoot longer exposures at lower ISO (still do it now with the 1DX) on a tripod - i havent yet had an image rejected due to noise (although looking back i do cringe at some of them)

Me noticing AF issues and you not, may simply be a difference in what we shoot, or how we use our cameras.
The mk3 was pretty good in the studio, as soon as i took it outside, with moving subjects it struggled.

1d3 is damn noisy at high ISO, and files don't push too well

5D2 has at least a 1 stop advantage at 1600+

1d3 has cleaner files at ISO 100-400 though

Echo63 wrote in post #16796014
As much as i love the 1d series, the mk3 was a dog.
I would take the 5dmk2 (i would take a 1dmk2 over the mk3 too, so strong is my dislike for it)

I havent shot with a 5d2, but i cannot imagine its AF would be any worse than the 1d3 bodies i had
The 1dmk4 was a great step up, if you can stretch the budget to one, i was perfectly happy with mine, and would still be happy to continue to shoot with one (but work issued me 1DX as part of the upgrade cycle, and i wasnt going to say no)

Well I didn't have to imagine it ... I still have a 1DM3 and I had a 5DM2 before I got my current 5DM3. The 1DM3 is (and was) as good as the 5DM2 at most things, and much better at AF ... MUCH.

Maxdave

PeteD wrote in post #16795816
I am looking at getting another camera body.

Sorry if I missed this, but what is your current body?

A 5D III would of course be perfect for what you want to do, but that is obviously very expensive and out of your price range.

Keep in mind a 1D III ($600) goes for around half that of a 5D II.

Also, for landscapes, the 5D II will be quite a lot better than the 1D III. However, for wildlife and airshows the 1D III will be better in 99% of situations. However, for flowers and portraiture, the 5D II will be better, but imo the 1D III is the best compromise because it is also great for pictures of flowers and for portraiture. I have had no complaints here.

I suppose it depends on which kind of shooting your prioritise. If it is fast action, you are best off with the 1D III.

Echo63 wrote in post #16796222
Yes, the 1dmk2 was noisy, but for my uses i try and shoot longer exposures at lower ISO (still do it now with the 1DX) on a tripod

If that's the case, you could have saved a pile of money and just grabbed a 5Dc or a 1Ds.

Echo63 wrote in post #16796222
Me noticing AF issues and you not, may simply be a difference in what we shoot, or how we use our cameras.
The mk3 was pretty good in the studio, as soon as i took it outside, with moving subjects it struggled.

Or, it could be either i) your 1DIIIs were part of the affected range of bodies that had faulty AF systems (anything below serial number 56XXX, I believe), or ii) you didn't configure/optimize the AF to best suit your shooting conditions and subjects.

I've never had my 1DIII not lock onto anything. It focused very quickly, and tracked very accurately. Certainly far better than the archaic AF systems in the 5D/5DII ever could.

I don't own any of the cameras, but from reading what your interests are, I would say the 6D fits the bill nicely. I've looked at the 1DIII and the 5DII, and the 6D is as good as either of these(except the 1DIII AF speed), and the low light capabilities of the 6D, are better than both.
I've shot air shows as well with a 20D and even that did the job very well, so the 6D which is much newer technology should do the job very well.
Yes lenses will be more expensive, but a 24-105, and 100-400 should take care of anything you should need.
The 6D I think is impressing a lot of people, including me as you can probably tell.

I would also urge you to make your decision between the 6D and 1DIII, forget about the 5DII. Even though the IQ was great on the 5DII, I found the AF less than agreeable and reminiscent of the original 5D I had before it. No, it was not unuseable but it had glaring shortcomings compared to the new bodies - especially low light indoors or with AI Servo or with anything but the center point.

The 6D on the other hand, gets a bad rap as being the "consumer" FF camera but it is actually built very welll and has slighty better high ISO (and low ISO) performance than even the 5DIII. And, it's center AF point is more sensitive than any of those on the 5DIII as well.

Unless you really think you'll need the build/frame rate of the 1DIII, you sound like someone in desperate need of a 6D. It's actually where I was headed until I found a great deal on a new 5DIII for $2500 after selling the kit lens.

I've owned both, here are some thoughts:

AF: The 1D3 is a much more complex system. Off center focus points on the 1D3 are much much better than on the 5D2, AF in general is quicker, tracking off center objects or erratically objects is possible. When shooting concerts, I had some trouble with the 1D3 trying to focus on the mic stand instead of singer's faces...the mic stand was often of higher contrast, and the 1D3 would latch onto it. The 5D2 center point seemed to be more precise, but with the 5D2, you're often limited to using the center point and focusing and recomposing. That said, the center point on the 5D2 is quite capable of tracking moving objects. Lots of focus and recompose with the 5D2 for me.

IQ: The 5D2 is slightly superior for detail shots like landscapes as long as your lenses perform well edge to edge on a FF sensor. IQ at high ISOs did not have much practical difference in my opinion. I thought the 1D3 raw files were slightly superior to those of the 5D2 based on less of a tendency for banding in deep shadows.

If I were reach limited and shooting birds, airplanes or wildlife, I'd want the 1D3.
For portraits, it's basically a wash...maybe a slight edge to the 5D2 for the FF sensor.
For landscapes, I'd want the 5D2.

Other significant considerations would be build the quality of the 1D3 and video mode in the 5D2.

I voted 1D3, assuming you won't miss the video capability of the 5D2.

Thank you all very much for all the info. I should have given a little more detail as to what I have. I currently have a 7D, 24-105 L,70-200 2.8 L, 70-200 f4 L, 400 5.6L. I left out the info so as to not let that info get in the way as I know a lot of people swear by the 7D. And yes, I really like it. But always looking at other/better options.

1D isn't going to get you much of an improvement over the 7D.

6D (or the 5DII) matches up VERY well with the 7D. With that combination you are well covered for everything you list.

Well that changes everything, as predicted. This is why I did not vote. A FF camera is a much better option then if you keep the 7D. 7D is fantastic for wildlife and airshows and the 5D II is fantastic for portraits and the like. The 1D III is the best compromise of the two so if you want one camera, the 1D III is it (unless you want to go 1D IV, 5D III etc which are much more costly).

I would definitely recommend getting the 6D over thed 5D II if possible, however. I got mine brand new for $1450 with canon 2 year warranty and haven't looked back! The only option out there currently that would make me think twice about it is the A7R. If you can the 5D II for a steal, however (~$1000) I would recommend that instead.

I had both, but my go to camera was always my 5D2. I mostly used the 1D3 for sports and rarely used it. It sat around for a year and eventually I traded it for a lens. The 5D2 goes with me everywhere. I feel like the 1D3 shines in the AF, fps, and build department but the 5D2 does everything else better. For me at least. Landscapes are my main type of shooting and I love the 5D2 for it.

The 5D2 is the perfect complement to the 7D.

AF ability rules!

Any photo oof is a photo that may just as well have not been shot.