1Ds Mark II vs. 1D Mark III

If you had $4,000 to spend on a camera body what would you do? The 1Ds Mark II or the 1D mark II.

So far I haven't really shot any sports, but that doesn't mean I won't. I mainly shoot portraiture/fashion/ed​itorial/advertising.

I want to get the camera that has the best IQ for the money. Along with the most durable body as well. I like to take portraits in some harsh/wet environments. I also like using a lot of ambient light in my strobed photos.

I typically do very low light and will need the best high ISO performance I can get. Any suggestions.

I'd pick the 1D since I already have a FF and would much rather have that than the 40D.

EOS MAN1 wrote in post #5974943
If you had $4,000 to spend on a camera body what would you do? The 1Ds Mark II or the 1D mark II.

So far I haven't really shot any sports, but that doesn't mean I won't. I mainly shoot portraiture/fashion/ed​itorial/advertising.

This part screams the 1Ds, but...

This part screams 1D.

Wow, I wish I had your dilemma. I would weight the two aspects I highlighted bold above. The one with more weight wins and that is the camera I go with.

I seem to be swaying to the 1D, I just want to make sure that is the right choice for my situation. I have a little time before the money will be available, so I figured I would do as much research as possible in the meantime.

Going from your Rebel XT--- either of them are going to really be an enjoyable improvement. The Mark bodies really have fantastic sharp as tack focus.

I think I would go used 1DS MKII and pick up a 40D for the other stuff...

I've owned a couple of both, I prefer the 16MP FF sensor, but I also think the metering and high ISO of the 1Dmk3 makes it a very tough choice. I've been in your shoes twice and twice I've stuck with my 1Dsmk2. You say that you are looking for the best IQ and high ISO, that's the 1Dmk3, the 14 bit +metering+Low noise, add to that, the ergonomics are better than the 1DsmkII.
It's just that the FF, high Megapixel sensor of the Ds gives a distinct look that I happen to love. I can get similar color as the mk3 in photoshop but..... not quite the same. I also feel the 1Dsmk2 makes sharper images....and I'm a bit of a pixel peeper so this is important to me. Ergonomics suck compared to the mk3, but it doesn't take long to get used to them.
The only mk3 I'll be buying in the future is the Dsmk3, I say, unless you just love FF, get the 1Dmk3, you'll be happy you did, it's an amazing machine.

Just re-read your post....You might want to think about some wide aperture primes too, maybe a good 1DmkII or "n" and a 35L, 50L, or an 85L. Glass will give you better IQ for your buck than the bodies.

Harleypugs wrote in post #5975160
I think I would go used 1DS MKII and pick up a 40D for the other stuff...

Isn't a used 1dsmk2 about the same price as a 1dmk3? maybe $300 odd cheaper.. Spare money definitely won't get OP a 40D.

1D mkIII would be the best camera you can buy with that money. Trade-off the fullframe goodness with better ISO, handling, AF, lighter body, 10fps... a lot more worth it to me. And then if you really feel that you need to go fullframe, a 5D (assuming 5d replacement comes into the market) will be priced affordably.

However, when you understand that glass is the more important factor of IQ, then maybe you might divert that 4k into some glass and a 'normal' body.

portraiture/fashion - 50L, 85L, 135L
editorial/advertising - EFS 10-22 (UWA) / 35L / 135L / 70-200 2.8IS

Plus a 40D.. pick maybe a 70-200 2.8IS + 10-22 + 85L and you're set for everything.

Headshotzx wrote in post #5975240
Isn't a used 1dsmk2 about the same price as a 1dmk3? maybe $300 odd cheaper.. Spare money definitely won't get OP a 40D.

1D mkIII would be the best camera you can buy with that money. Trade-off the fullframe goodness with better ISO, handling, AF, lighter body, 10fps... a lot more worth it to me. And then if you really feel that you need to go fullframe, a 5D (assuming 5d replacement comes into the market) will be priced affordably.

However, when you understand that glass is the more important factor of IQ, then maybe you might divert that 4k into some glass and a 'normal' body.

portraiture/fashion - 50L, 85L, 135L
editorial/advertising - EFS 10-22 (UWA) / 35L / 135L / 70-200 2.8IS

Plus a 40D.. pick maybe a 70-200 2.8IS + 10-22 + 85L and you're set for everything.

I agree, except one thing, the mk3 does not have better AF than the Ds, if anything they are equal or the Ds is just a hair better:p

thatkatmat wrote in post #5975284
I agree, except one thing, the mk3 does not have better AF than the Ds, if anything they are equal or the Ds is just a hair better:p

It does, especially in low light like he wants it for.

I'd say go for the 1d rather than 1ds. You'll find that half your lenses seem short if you aren't prepared for it. On the 1d it's less so than 1ds (by a lot). While it doesn't have the same look as the ds, it does have the same pixel density (more or less), so the decision isn't for "reach" rather functionality.


Another thing you can look into is a 5d/40d combo, or even dual 5d. Same price, double the camera, full frame goodness.