1DmkII vs 5D

at 72 dpi the file is 32.44 x 48.6
at 96 dpi the file is 24.3 x 36.5
at 120 dpi the file is 19.4 x 29.2
at 240 dpi the file is 9.7 x 14.6
at 300 dpi the file is 7.7 x 11.68

so you can see that the native size at 300 dpi is barely enough for a 8x10.
If you are going to upsample, it is usally best to let the end company do it, they have great software, or if you do it, do it in stages of ~5% growth, don't just go upsample from 72 to 300 dpi, it won't look as good.

If, as you say, you shoot mostly sports the 1D is the ticket. I shoot a lot of sports, but I am also very happy with the IQ for other types of shooting. I am never without my camera.(Almost.) Get both.

Another difference I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that 1-series bodies can take teleconverters with slow lenses and still autofocus, the 5D can't.

dazzlebea wrote in post #2268985
Another difference I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that 1-series bodies can take teleconverters with slow lenses and still autofocus, the 5D can't.

One stop slower, to f/8, center point AF only. 5D maxes out at f/5.6. Good point about the TC's. For long lens users who need every mm they can get, the 1-series is the way to fly.

coreypolis wrote in post #2268837
at 72 dpi the file is 32.44 x 48.6
at 96 dpi the file is 24.3 x 36.5
at 120 dpi the file is 19.4 x 29.2
at 240 dpi the file is 9.7 x 14.6
at 300 dpi the file is 7.7 x 11.68

so you can see that the native size at 300 dpi is barely enough for a 8x10.
If you are going to upsample, it is usally best to let the end company do it, they have great software, or if you do it, do it in stages of ~5% growth, don't just go upsample from 72 to 300 dpi, it won't look as good.

yes but a native size of 300dpi is quite overkill. i know you mention it already, but the picture can be significantly upsized in dpi at one of the larger print sizes and still contain plenty enough detail for a crisp print.

Rumjungle wrote in post #2267099
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.

Although when you speak of longer lens. That's where it hurts. Fast longer lens cost a pretty penny. With the 300 2.8 IS, you'd get the FOV of about 390mm. Like having the 400 2.8 IS on the 5D.

Very true, Greg. Chalk up another one for the 1D!

Technically, rather than buying the 5D and a 400 f/2.8, you could get the 1D with 300 f/2.8 and have money left over for a 5D. It's like getting the 5D for free!:p

Getting the 5D for free....LMAO...I guess thats one way to look at it...LOL

Rumjungle wrote in post #2271393
Very true, Greg. Chalk up another one for the 1D!

Technically, rather than buying the 5D and a 400 f/2.8, you could get the 1D with 300 f/2.8 and have money left over for a 5D. It's like getting the 5D for free!:p

hhaha now theres some awesome logic

It's that same logic that's driving me to bankruptcy.

Rumjungle wrote in post #2271393
Very true, Greg. Chalk up another one for the 1D!

Technically, rather than buying the 5D and a 400 f/2.8, you could get the 1D with 300 f/2.8 and have money left over for a 5D. It's like getting the 5D for free!:p

So try explainning that to your bank account. Free camera, sure......