1D vs 5D

Jamoke

K, I'm extremely new to the canon scene, and viewed a fairly vicious war faring between the nikonians and andy. The 1D's were said to be able to recieve 11-12 stops of dynamic lighting. Now here's my delimma.

I'm going to invest in a few canon products. My wife is the advocate so I didn't need to talk her into spending the money. I plan on buying a 5D, and a 20D as a backup body, as well as a few IS-USM lenses. Now, I would definately get the battery grip for the 5D, because I like the feel of the 1D models. Oh, yeah, my dilemma ....

I don't want to debate (here) the benefits of Nikon vs. Canon (as I am giving up the nikonian faith and going digital), but I'm wondering if it's worth the extra $700 for the 1D. I've heard that the 5D is only capable of 5 stops of Dynamic lighting. Is it true that the 1D can process twice as much range of light? I understand the price, and MP differences, but if the dynamic range is that different I might consider the price difference as being inconsequential.

Similarly, perhaps this would be an appropriate place to articulate the finer differences between the two canon models for me.

luckyrwe

I think this is a very good topic. The 5D seems to be compared to the 20D at every turn. I can sell my 1DII and get very close to the 5D price, making it a veritable swap. I have not done so yet for some reasons listed above.

The pixel sized on both cameras are 8.2 microns, which leads me to believe that, sensorwise, the cameras are the same but the 1DII is just cropped to 1.3x. If you get the 5D and crop many of your pictures you are better off getting the 1DII in order to have the build and speed the 5D lacks.

The layout of the 20D top plate reminds me of a stepped-on candy bar. I prefer the square look of the 1D series. My first LCD on a camera top was the Nikon F5. The 20D and hence 5D appear to be a little compressed.

At the same time I am not shooting for a living any more. I just snagged an Olympus C-740 new in box for $49 after $50 rebate from Office Depot. That will be my walking around camera. My 1D will not see the use it has in the past, nor will a 5D which may be fine because it does not need all the weather proofing I used to need.

So given a used 1DII in possession and the possibility of a 5D in trade, what are the gains and losses other than pixel count and full frame ability.

rutt

I have both and am still evaluating the 5D. The 1D Mark II has a much better AF system and can shoot much faster. I don't think I'll give it up, because lots of interesting shooting situations require quickness, not just sports, but also all pictures of people, wildlife, etc. But I took the 5D to a baseball game last Saturday and got some great candids.

I've very curious about the dynamic range of the 5D compared to 1D Mark II. The ball game was a real torture test in this regard. Are there any hard numbers?

Jamoke

After much reseach, I'm convinced of the following. Canon tech support pointed out that both do use the Digic II chip which limits the amount and method of light coming into the sensor. The chips vary by 0.20 mm in size which is extremely insignificant (Both are full frame). The 1D captures 16 million pixels out of all of the light that hits the censer, while the 5D only captures 3/4 of that light (12 MP). The number of pixels doesn't control or effect the dynamic range though. From the chip, both cameras handle and process the image seperately for storage but using RAW format, the original number of pixels and the dynamic range is only dependant on the chip itself. From there your talking about converting it to a picture format either 24 bit TIF, 8 bit BMP, JPG, PNG, or whatever your flavor is.

Within those file formats I've heard the dynamic range is limited based on the bit quality of the file format as well as the image mode that you use (CMYK, RGB, sRGB, aRGB, etc.) This is because RGB only provides 256 variations of red, green and blue color ranges. so your whitest white and blackest black is limited by a number between 0 and 256.

So to sum up. From what I can tell: If you use the in camera processing to 'enhance' your pictures their might be a difference. But if you shoot raw; the only difference is 3/4 the number of pixels.

If anybody knows better please let me know. Unlike the New York folks who convienantly live down the street from B&H, I'm still waiting for my local shop to get a shipment in. So I still could go either way, and would appreciate the insight anyone can provide.

luckyrwe

Hmmm now fast AF is important to me. The Nikon F5 is the best ever, no digital comes close, no way no how. It sounds like the 1DII is the way to go.

Does the 1DII and 1DsII have the same AF speed?

Jamoke

luckyrwe wrote:

Hmmm now fast AF is important to me. The Nikon F5 is the best ever, no digital comes close, no way no how. It sounds like the 1DII is the way to go.

Does the 1DII and 1DsII have the same AF speed?

Sounds like a nikonian being unreasonable. We weren't discussing the Nikon F5 or its superiority over the 1DII. As far as I konw the F5 only has a 8 Frames per second anyway. The 1DII claims 8.3 so that point seems insignificant anyway. Canon has the fastest DSLR and I guess I seriously fail to realize how 'no digital comes close'... Besides, and again, I was trying to better understand the differences between the 5D and the 1D models.

By the way:
1DsII - 4 fps
1D II - 8.3 fps
1D - 8.3 fps

rutt

It isn't just AF speed. It's accuracy. The 1D series cameras have a 45 AF point system that picks an a set of AF points based on some pretty sophisticated algorithm. It doesn't just pick the closest. It seems to look for groups. Anyway, it's right a lot more than it's wrong. Even when there are closer things in the way, it will find a face, for example. I don't exactly understand it. So not only is it fast, but I've learned to trust it in situations where I have to be fast. I don't want to give that up.

Andy

they're both going to produce excellent images. jamoke, i'd like to know more of what type of photography you're going to do. if you said, majority wildlife, motorbike racing, surfers, shooting in all types of weather, shooting sports, etc as the majority of your shooting, i'd recommend the 1D Mark IIN. it wins hands down in these situations - more af points, bigger buffer, faster shot-to-shot.

Andy

Jamoke wrote:

Sounds like a nikonian being unreasonable.

jamoke, luckrwe shoots now with canon gear. i'm sure he was speaking from his experience though

Jamoke

As I said before I am new to the Canon hardware (yet familiar/experienced with Nikon and Minolta). I also wanted to get all of my camera body's at once, and then build up a catalog of lenses as I go. I'm starting a business, and am still figuring out the exact scope but the way I see it, I wouldn't need some of the key benefits of the 1D. I plan on focusing on Wedding, Family, and portrait photography; however I've been contracted to take architectural and landscapes before as well. So the many and fast AF points, the rugged design, durable battery, 16 MP, etc. probably won't be utilized initially. The majority of the photos will probably be in controlled environments with known variables and a constant focal length. Of course the unexpected always happens, and the added speed or other features would come in handy, but I'm not sure it's worth the added price.

Additionally the 1D series has a variety of foriegn options. I've seen and used the 300D, 350D, 10D, and 20D; and I feel I understand the differences between all of those and the 5D. However I have begun studying the differences between the 5D, and the real pro toys.

I'm not sure if the 1DmkII (and related $700 price jump) would be worth loosing 4 MP, or if doubling my price for the 16 MP would be worth it either. My wife caries her minolta with her everywhere she goes, and I carry my Nikon. I just don't see the possibility of lugging around the 1D the way we carry our current cameras. We're committed to switching to Canon (and selling or retiring our old gear) but the portability, and price of the 20D and 5D are tempting enough to sacrifice a little bit of performance until the next generation of cameras hit the market.

I know the 20D has 8 MP but the opportunity to have a 12 MP camera seems to outweigh the added benefits of the 8 MP 1DmkII. It seems the dynamic range is the same. So the major differences are size, speed, price, and durability, but not necessarily quality. So for now the 12 MP camera will suffice until a) I can afford the 1DsmkII or b) they come out with a cheaper/smaller 16 MP camera (EOS 3D or something)

Would the 1Ds MKII qualify for 'the bleeding edge' of technology? or is it really worth twice as much as the 5D? :

Andy

Jamoke wrote:

As I said before I am new to the Canon hardware (yet familiar/experienced with Nikon and Minolta). I also wanted to get all of my camera body's at once, and then build up a catalog of lenses as I go. I'm starting a business, and am still figuring out the exact scope but the way I see it, I wouldn't need some of the key benefits of the 1D. I plan on focusing on Wedding, Family, and portrait photography; however I've been contracted to take architectural and landscapes before as well. So the many and fast AF points, the rugged design, durable battery, 16 MP, etc. probably won't be utilized initially. The majority of the photos will probably be in controlled environments with known variables and a constant focal length. Of course the unexpected always happens, and the added speed or other features would come in handy, but I'm not sure it's worth the added price.

Additionally the 1D series has a variety of foriegn options. I've seen and used the 300D, 350D, 10D, and 20D; and I feel I understand the differences between all of those and the 5D. However I have begun studying the differences between the 5D, and the real pro toys.

I'm not sure if the 1DmkII (and related $700 price jump) would be worth loosing 4 MP, or if doubling my price for the 16 MP would be worth it either. My wife caries her minolta with her everywhere she goes, and I carry my Nikon. I just don't see the possibility of lugging around the 1D the way we carry our current cameras. We're committed to switching to Canon (and selling or retiring our old gear) but the portability, and price of the 20D and 5D are tempting enough to sacrifice a little bit of performance until the next generation of cameras hit the market.

I know the 20D has 8 MP but the opportunity to have a 12 MP camera seems to outweigh the added benefits of the 8 MP 1DmkII. It seems the dynamic range is the same. So the major differences are size, speed, price, and durability, but not necessarily quality. So for now the 12 MP camera will suffice until a) I can afford the 1DsmkII or b) they come out with a cheaper/smaller 16 MP camera (EOS 3D or something)

Would the 1Ds MKII qualify for 'the bleeding edge' of technology? or is it really worth twice as much as the 5D? :

ahh now we are getting somewhere, information is key my recommendation would be: 5D + 20D for backup. the cameras are very similar, ergonomically (menus, buttons, etc). they use the same battery system. like you said, you don't need the weathersealing, 45pt af, and fast shot-to-shot (though 5fps on 20d is fairly fast!)... you'll need some expensive wide-angle glass for the architecture & landscape stuff (think canon tilt-shift, or zeiss/zuiko 18s or 21s + adapters). you'll need some great portrait glass (think canon 85 - f/1.8 [value] or f/1.2 [one of the best!]). and you'll need a good zoom (imo, a good zoom for the weddings would be the 24-105L or the 24-70L, some also like the 70-200L)....

nothing in your posts indicate to me a need for the 1Ds Mark II.

Jamoke

andy wrote:

ahh now we are getting somewhere, information is key my recommendation would be: 5D + 20D for backup. the cameras are very similar, ergonomically (menus, buttons, etc). they use the same battery system. like you said, you don't need the weathersealing, 45pt af, and fast shot-to-shot (though 5fps on 20d is fairly fast!)... you'll need some expensive wide-angle glass for the architecture & landscape stuff (think canon tilt-shift, or zeiss/zuiko 18s or 21s + adapters). you'll need some great portrait glass (think canon 85 - f/1.8 [value] or f/1.2 [one of the best!]). and you'll need a good zoom (imo, a good zoom for the weddings would be the 24-105L or the 24-70L, some also like the 70-200L)....

nothing in your posts indicate to me a need for the 1Ds Mark II.

Thanks, We were looking at the 28-135 IS USM for the zoom, the 85mm f1.2 for portraits, and because the architecture contracts are fairly sparse I was going to hold off. (with the 3x Rebates that's about $400) I have a Nikon 9mm-89mm that works well for architecture, but I will need to switch. Thanks for your input (all).

Andy

Jamoke wrote:

I have a Nikon 9mm-89mm that works well for architecture, but I will need to switch. Thanks for your input (all).

try cameraquest they have nikon to eos adapters

Matthew Saville

It is interesting that there are no D200 threads here at Dgrin... I think the D200 might be a camera that gives some of these cameras we're speaking of now quite a run for their money! Or so I hear. 12 MP in an F6 body? Sounds good to me...

-Matt-

luckyrwe

When I mentioned AF speed I meant thier speed to focus on an object, not the number of frames per second. When it comes to film I use the Nikon F5, hands down. Sure in a few years this will all be old, but in the meantime....

Chase

Jamoke wrote:

Thanks, We were looking at the 28-135 IS USM for the zoom, the 85mm f1.2 for portraits, and because the architecture contracts are fairly sparse I was going to hold off. (with the 3x Rebates that's about $400) I have a Nikon 9mm-89mm that works well for architecture, but I will need to switch. Thanks for your input (all).

If i were doing wedding work, f2.8 or bust. You will really need the speed and bokeh. The 28-135 aint bad, but it isnt anythign special, or particularly fast. I would even rather have my sigma 24-70 f2.8 than that, especially if i needed to get shots in all sorts of lighting conditions.