1Ds II or 1D III?

What do you think would be best for a primary camera? I currently have 1Ds II, 1DIIN, and 1DII but I see a lot of people wanting to trade 1D III for 1Ds II and it is tempting. What do you think would be best for a primary camera at weddings?

I never have liked the MKIII. I prefer my 1DsMKII as my primary. Full-frame perspective is more important to me than railgun fps. My 24-70 is my main lens so it makes sense to stick with 35mm equivalent framing. My 1DMKIIn gets the 70-200 or tilt shift.

I'm saving up for the 1DsMKIII however. I am missing a lot from high ISO performance, and the 5DMKII does not cut it in terms of AF and build quality.

dche5390 wrote in post #11158777
I never have liked the MKIII. I prefer my 1DsMKII as my primary. Full-frame perspective is more important to me than railgun fps. My 24-70 is my main lens so it makes sense to stick with 35mm equivalent framing. My 1DMKIIn gets the 70-200 or tilt shift.

I'm saving up for the 1DsMKIII however. I am missing a lot from high ISO performance, and the 5DMKII does not cut it in terms of AF and build quality.

That is what i'm thinking but the 1D III was intriguing because of the dual digic III for better low light performance but I just saw some test that didn't show it being much better and I know it has had some AI Focus Issues. That is the exact same set up I use...1Ds II with 24-70 and 1DIIN with 70-200. My other 1DII gets the fisheye. Thanks for the input. I know the 1Ds II makes more sense but the newer technology catches my eye sometimes.

I used a 1D3, it worked well for me, but I didn't like the crop factor in a pro body. 1D2 is pretty old now.

From those options, 1D3.

I was never impressed with the image output of the 1D3. And it has absolutely nothing to boast in the ISO department. As a main body, the closest lens was 17-35L/16-35L and I didn't like it one bit. The 1D3 AF issues is overhyped by people who have never even held one. I've owned three. Not once have there ever been an issue.

The original 5D and 1DsMKII output some amazing colours. Nothing close to Fuji but makes my processing life a lot easier.

tim wrote in post #11159538
I used a 1D3, it worked well for me, but I didn't like the crop factor in a pro body. 1D2 is pretty old now.

From those options, 1D3.

Tim,

What do you like better about the 1D III over the 1Ds II? Is it reqlly worth t to give up full frame and the higher resolution?

I never used a 1D2, but it's old and high iso improves over time. I liked the 1D3 fine, but not enough to buy one.

I have both and use both at weddings. They have their advantages and disadvantages.