1D Mk3 or 5D for weddings

OK guys I have read lots, - but now it is getting crunch time for me.

I have to choose a new camera for weddings and must purchase next month. I know the 5Dmk2 is out there now but I want to know what wedding photogs use right now.

And as a secondary question, will the 5Ders be going 5D Mk2 soon?

Thanks,
Geoff

I own the 5D and say the mkIII for the superior AF and equal low noise performance. Plus it's bigger and you can whack the MOB in the head and not hurt the cam.

Hmmm, looking interesting!
Thanks to those who have voted so far.

As for the rest of you, please vote as the higher the No of voters, the more credible and representative the result.

Geoff

I'm willing to bet that more weddings are done with a 5D than a 1D MKIII. I'm also willing to bet that more weddings are done with a XXD (20D/30D/40D/50D) style camera than the 5D. I don't think this is driven by IQ, as it is by cost. Everyone will tell you that you need 2 cameras to shoot wedding (don't want to ruin the brides day with your camera going out). Don't buy the camera above thinking that you only need one. Factor in the cost of two.

Also, you might get more responses if you posted this question in the Wedding Forum.

I use a 40D and 1Ds Mkiii for weddings. With Sigma 18/200 & Canon 17/55 2.8 and with 1Ds Canon 24/105 and Canon, 17/40. Thes suit all my requirements, always using 2 cameras. Wherever possible using the 1Ds for close up or future cropped work. I don't always shoot in Raw finding the jPEG 21meg 1Ds ideal for little post computer work.
However once you establish you need two cameras and at least one telephoto then your budget may determine what you choose. The 40 & 50 are great cameras.

I use a 5D and a 1D classic and that does me just fine

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #6897583
I'm willing to bet that more weddings are done with a 5D than a 1D MKIII. I'm also willing to bet that more weddings are done with a XXD (20D/30D/40D/50D) style camera than the 5D. I don't think this is driven by IQ, as it is by cost. Everyone will tell you that you need 2 cameras to shoot wedding (don't want to ruin the brides day with your camera going out). Don't buy the camera above thinking that you only need one. Factor in the cost of two.

Also, you might get more responses if you posted this question in the Wedding Forum.

having owned both i'd use the mark III without hesitation.......

-- better AF in low light

-- less noise at hi ISOs

-- superior IQ

ed rader

Both.

Regards,
Eric


(elader- I find the 70-200 2.8 on my 5D to be an excellent MOB wacker!)

If the bride/groom suddenly decides to madly dash away from the altar, 1DMkIII will do much better job than 5D.

Thanks for your comments people. I appreciate what you are saying BigBlueDodge. As I am returning to photography after a few yers without a camera I know I need two bodies. I was planning on buying a 40D as the second camera and a 5D. However where I live (Cyprus) it seems the wedding photographers experience problems with humidity moving from the hot and ticky outdoors and coming inside to a cool airconditioned interior.

The weather proofing on the Mk3 "apparently" seemed to do the job and worked faultlessly whereas the 5D guys suffered some problems.

I am currently thinking about the Mk3 for the weather proofing and the reported better focusing. Maybe I am being too picky?
Geoff

I use both. I would give a slight nod to the 1DMK3. The autofocus is better and I like the feel. I usually have the 35L on the MK3 and the 85 1.2L on the 5D while my wife shoots with the 40D with a variety of lenses from the back of the church or choir loft.

I'd opt for the MKIII for weddings, and that's sayin' something since I love my 5D a lot. The MKIII is a beast though.

For the weddings I've shot with a 5D, 20D or 30D, the one thing I had a HECK of a problem with is the processional/recession​al shots. I could never get a reliable system of shooting these events down. The 5D was horrid at tracking, especially in low light. Servo mode was very unreliable. I tried one shot using centre point but it either required me to either prefocus on a spot on the aisle, or use a smaller aperture to increase the DOF. Neither worked well because people always seemed to blink at that prefocused spot, and with such low light, stopping down is usually a poor option. Recessionals were even worse as they usually move a lot faster.

Thankfully, there are absolutely no worries now about this with the mark III bodies, which can handle these events like a walk in the park. They also provide me with a MUCH higher keeper rate for dance floor shots using wide open primes. To me, focusing was always the Achilles heel of the 5D. Strangely enough, between the 40D, 5D, and mark III bodies, I found the 5D to be the least satisfying to use. Image quality was superb, but operationally it wasn't enjoyable. Which is precisely why the 5D it not in my lineup.

I'm not saying it's NOT capable... but for *my* style of shooting, and for what *I* expect out of a wedding body, the 40D and mark III bodies proved to be far superior. Many others would disagree totally.

Highlight Tone Priority, Dual Cards and Silent Shutter are the reasons I use the 1DIII.

Funny enough, I agree with Picture Crazy even though I LOVE my 5D. However, I shoot a LOT of portraits and lowlight stuff and for this it performs amazingly well! I also shoot it at weddings but the AF is not great. The keeper rate is not what I'd like it to be as far as AF. In fact, sometimes I simply turn it off and MF because that's what I did for years with my Hassy's. So I voted for the Mk III but actually have never owned a Mk III. I owned a 1D classic for a short while and loved the feel of the body but didn't shoot with it enough to give you good reasons.

I like to shoot wide, so FF works far better for me. I'm not a huge fan of the 40D but only because all of my lenses feel too long on it and makes me just want to go back to the 5D. Otherwise, it's a great camera.

SO, yes I'm planning on getting a 5D Mk II. Does anyone know if they've improved the AF on the Mk II?