tonylong wrote in post #4107798
Hmmm...it seems like going from the full-frame 5D to the 1.3x cropped 1D is, well, an interesting choice. Part of the 5D outstanding image quality is directly related to the larger pixel wells that it uses and I wonder if the 1D can match that, and of course full frame is, well, full frame
Why not wait a little bit and save some bucks for the 1Ds MkIII? Spendy, but it sound truly awesome, and if you were to have only one camera for any occasion, that may be the pot of gold! 'Course the 5D update will undoubtably be awesome in its own class...
Tony
---------------
Several Canon cameras, too many lenses and stuff to list
Tony Long Photos on PBase
Full frame is full frame - I agree with that. I just was hoping that with the "newer" technology, the 1D Mark III would have caught up with 5D somewhat. I know a lot of people argue 2.8MP isn't a big deal, but I love large prints and I love to look at my pics at 100%.
If money was absoluutely no object, I'd get the 1Ds Mark III. The problem is, I've just started back into SLRs less than a year ago and spent more than I want to think about. At this point, it's not an "ability" thing as much as it's a guilt thing. Also, I brought up the 1Ds Mark III to my wife and for the first time ever, she thought it was a lot of money for a camera toy. She's never complained about other stuff I've bought (and I've bought way more toys more expensive) so I'm taking it as a hint.
I was thinking the 1D Mark III would be a good compromise because if I have kids, I figure this thing will AF on the fastest and naughtiest.
Also, I was incorrectly under the assumption that highlight priority was exclusive to the 1D Mark III. Finally, at $4500, I can do the 1D Mark III under the radar. I think my wife is likely to notice a $10K expense. 