1DmkII vs 5D

How do these two cameras compare, other then FF and the fater fps of the mkII...

I want to upgrade this next year or so and shoot mostly sports, but I also live in beautiful SE Alaska and shoot alot of animals and scenery...

full resolution, small body, full frame

high burst rate, weather sealed, 1.3x, better AF, better layout, better body, heavier.

They are completely different cameras in every way, both great, but share nothing but quality images with each other.

https://photography-on-the.net …arch.php?search​id=1738873

sports= 1DmkII. its also a great camera for nature shoots and with its 1.3x crop its wide enough to do landscapes and long enough to do nature photos. the added FPS, 45AF points, faster focus and tracking all should be great for your purposes. living in alaska weather sealing definitly wouldnt hurt either. as long as weight isnt a really big issue (not that the 5d is light either) 1dmkII all the way.

As for the FF vs. Crop issue, can always just use a wider lens on the 1D or a longer lens on the 5D to negate the differences. If I were in your shoes, the first question I would ask myself would be whether or not the additional resolution of the 5D is necessary. If you don't regularly make prints beyond 13x19, 8mp will be just fine. If you do, then you'll appreciate the 12mp. Upconverted RAW images from the 5D can make for some very large prints.

Then, I'd factor in AF performance. For mostly sports and wildlife, the 1D's AF system clearly has the edge.

This is the type of info I am looking for..keep it coming...

I am leaning towards a 1D, but like the ability to print off large prints with the 5d. Although I have printed off some very nice large prints from the XT so far...

superdiver wrote in post #2267543
This is the type of info I am looking for..keep it coming...

I am leaning towards a 1D, but like the ability to print off large prints with the 5d. Although I have printed off some very nice large prints from the XT so far...

just how large of prints are you looking to print. the 8MP sensor on the 1D is plenty large enough to make quite large prints (especially if your current XT is making large prints you are happy with).

wouldn't the 8mp sensor allow for prints of up to 30x20 inches, without any upsizing?

infinite012 wrote in post #2268129
wouldn't the 8mp sensor allow for prints of up to 30x20 inches, without any upsizing?

at a very low dpi. I print 16x24 with no probalem, but it is a lower dpi and no cropping

coreypolis wrote in post #2266952
full resolution, small body, full frame

high burst rate, weather sealed, 1.3x, better AF, better layout, better body, heavier.

They are completely different cameras in every way, both great, but share nothing but quality images with each other.

Best description of the pair that I've ever heard

There is a reason why both found their way into my gear bag, although mine is a classic 1D (4MP).

The 1-series most certainly has a huge edge in AF performance. It really is the be all end all AF system (at least, that exists in Canon's lineup today). Wide however is not really that wide unless you go 3rd-party lenses. 1.3X crop factor turns my 17-40 into 22-56, although one can get around this using 3rd party lenses. Sigma has a 12-24 that is FF compatible, I've shot it on my 5D and it is sick crazy wide . For me, I'm a big UW fanatic, so life begins at 17mm (FF equiv) or less.

Wildlife, at least for larger wildlife, 5D is fine. The six expanded AI Servo points are very very useful and help bridge the gap between the 5D and the 1D, though it doesn't make them equal.

For fast action sports - 1D, no other way to fly. When you need 8fps, you need 8fps. (and I don't 'chain gun' it either, I burst fire at 8fps rate in groups of 2-3 shots - particularly to save my buffer!). AF is king here.

So it depends on your priority.. the 5D is more "me" since it fills a larger spectrum of roles that I need it to do, but the 1D is very useful too.

The only time I have had pictures turn out bad are when I have printed off large pictures that were cropped significantly...assumi​ng the picture was good to start with of course...

Hello,

superdiver wrote in post #2267543
This is the type of info I am looking for..keep it coming...

I am leaning towards a 1D, but like the ability to print off large prints with the 5d. Although I have printed off some very nice large prints from the XT so far...

I would not sweat the pixel count difference. The 1D Mark II will give you 13x19" prints at about 185 ppi. At the same ppi, the 5D gives you roughly a 16x24" print. Not as big of a difference as folks make this out to be.

If you scale the 1D shot to 16x24, you drop to 146 ppi, so the print will look slightly softer (with proper scaling). On the other hand, with all but the very best lenses shot at f/8, the same print from a 5D will be softer at the edges of the frame and show more CA and vignetting in the corners.

The important differences between these two bodies, as many others have highlighted, have nothing to do with pixel count. It's full frame v.s. crop, sophisitication of auto focus, frame rate, weight/size, ruggedness, etc.

If you can, I'd recommend purchasing one of each!

infinite012 wrote in post #2268129
wouldn't the 8mp sensor allow for prints of up to 30x20 inches, without any upsizing?

coreypolis wrote in post #2268144
at a very low dpi. I print 16x24 with no probalem, but it is a lower dpi and no cropping

I've printed a few 24x30's at 300 dpi through www.whcc.com and they turned out great (in my opinion). But at 8 MP, I'm not sure how much larger you could get without sacrificing print quality.

justincase724 wrote in post #2268731
I've printed a few 24x30's at 300 dpi through www.whcc.com and they turned out great (in my opinion). But at 8 MP, I'm not sure how much larger you could get without sacrificing print quality.

thats upsizing though, it does work, but if you don't have to then you're generally better off

coreypolis wrote in post #2268751
thats upsizing though, it does work, but if you don't have to then you're generally better off

Maybe you can help me (and some other's) with this. I sent the files for printing at 300 dpi only because that is what the printing company specified. What would the dpi be if it were to go unchanged? Is there a different way to setup a file for printing that would produce a better image? (I'm all for better).