Canon 5D vs 1D
Aside from more megapixels, what are the differences between these two bodies?
I know the 5D has a full frame sensor, but does the 1D as well? Does it have a MORE full frame? Or the same?
Thanks
I know the 5D has a full frame sensor, but does the 1D as well? Does it have a MORE full frame? Or the same?
Thanks
Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici
0
Comments
1D mark I = 4MP, 8fps, 1/16000
1D mark II = 8MP, 8fps, 1/8000 shutter
1D mark II N = more or less the same, bigger screen
1D mark III = 10MP, 10fps, 1/8000 shutter, lithium battery
The 1Ds series is full frame
1Ds mark I = 11MP
1Ds mark II = 16MP
All "1" series cameras have weather sealing, heavy duty construction and 45 point AF system optimized for lenses f/2.8 or faster.
The 5D has a 9 point AF system optimized for lenses f/4 or faster and is renowned for high ISO performance.
You can see the L series, the f/2.8 L series lenses are intended for the 1 series: 16-35/2.8 II, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS
The f/4 L series lenses are intended for the 5D: 17-40/4L, 24-105/4L, 70-200/4 IS. The smaller max aperture is made up for by the better high ISO performance of the camera.
Of course, you can use any EF lens on any EF camera. I am merely pointing out that the 45 point AF is optimized for f/2.8 lenses and the 9 point AF is optimized for f/4 lenses, that's it.
conurus - world's first independent lens mount conversion with autofocus and auto aperture
The responsiveness of the Canon 1D MKII/MKIIN/MKIII is just amazing, and only the Nikon D2X/D2Xs and D2H/D2Hs are similar high performance beasts.
The Canon 5D is a superb camera in its own right, but it does not compare in shooting responsiveness to the Canon 1D series cameras.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'm more worried about full frameedness. I have a friend with a 5D and his pictures always look better than mine, cause I don't have full frame (I have a Rebel XTi)
So lenses and technique, lighting and location, cropping and composition, subject and experience are not the problem?
The Canon 400D/XTi is a very nice camera and perfectly capable of wonderful images. It is likely that a camera change alone will not cause a noticable improvement.
I have a friend with a Pentax K100D that is doing very nice work. He's only had it a couple of weeks, and he doesn't have very expensive lenses, but he is a very competent shooter. It's not my first choice for a camera recommendation, but dang, the guy makes that camera work well. Go figure!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Carl Zeiss Makro-Sonnar 100/2.8
ISO 400, 1/200, f/5.6
Canon Rebel XTi 400D
Autofocus (one shot mode)
Metz 54 MZ-3 flash
conurus - world's first independent lens mount conversion with autofocus and auto aperture
I'm not looking to "improve" my photography, that's something that comes with time. But if you compare like images between the two of us (composition, lighting, subject, etc) his photos generally look better because he has a bigger frame.
As to cropping editting, we both work for the school paper, so editting and cropping are VERY limited due to the ethics of photojournalism.
I'm not looking to get rid of my XTi by any means. I LOVE this camera. Going from a Panasonic Lumix to the Rebel XTi was amazing. I'm more looking for expanding my options, rather than improving.
Believe me, my dad has beat into my head "It's not the camera, it's the photographer" (you may know him, he's Pathfinder here) so I'm not looking to take better pictures by getting a better camera. I'm looking to take "different" pictures.
My camera does not take bad pictures. And I know any flaw in my pics come from me, not the camera.
These are just a few of my favorite pictures I've taken this past spring with my camera (with a little minor editting in Photoshop though)
DOF is influenced by the format size - smaller formats, like P&S cameras, have significantly more DOF and full frame 35mm has less DOF than APS sensored bodies. (The larger DOF for P&S cameras can ba help in macro shooting) Full frame cameras also tend to have slightly lower noise at higher ISOs. But these differences are rather modest. The viewfinder is bigger and brighter in Canon's full frame cameras - more like manual focus SLRs from the 70s. The viewfinders of the smaller format cameras are not as bright.
But lenses play a big and maybe a bigger role here. Do you know what lenses your friend is using??
There is a thread discussing full frame advantages here I don't know if you have seen this or not.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I think his lense is like a 16 to 50? or something like that
Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L or Canon 16-35mm, f2.8L perhaps?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Another possibility exists. When we are looking for self improvement, we often see other's work for its merits, and our own work for its flaws. We become our own worst critic.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I use both a 5D and a 20D ... to be honest I see very little/no visual difference in IQ between the two cameras up to an 8x10 print. At 8x10 the difference is minimal/insignificant.
In the field I really don't see the a dif between using the FF or the APS-C ... I mentally adjust from wide frame to smaller frame ... from bright to less bright ... automatically.
As a former photo journalist, I found that FPS and fast lenses to be the most important equipment factors. If you wish to upgrade your XTi specifically for news photos ... then I would recommend the 20D/30D (if you're on a budget) or an 'N' or MKII/III is money is no object.
Are you both shooting in the same format ... both shooting RAW or both shooting JPEG with similar parameters? Make sure your comparisons are apples to apples ... another difference may be post processing skills.
Once again ... I have found no real IQ difference between shooting the 20D and the 5D. I have discovered that attention to detail ... at every step ... will improve IQ, especially in exposure. Like most things in life ... the more practice ... the more you shoot ... the better you will become.
Are you in HS or college?
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Where is the bottleneck? Unfortunately there is no simple answer without first understanding your needs. e.g. I am a lighting guy, so I would rather have the original Rebel + kit lens but with a really good flash, than the other way around.
conurus - world's first independent lens mount conversion with autofocus and auto aperture
16-35 sounds right.
When we are looking for self improvement, we often see other's work for its merits, and our own work for its flaws. We become our own worst critic.
As a former psychology major, I know
As I said, I'm not trying to get a "better" camera, just a different one.
As to the 20D vs 5D, I have the 400D, so it's a little bit different.
As I said, I'm just interested in the fuller frame versus what I have now, and if it has pratical advantages, or is a full frame something I can imitate with my camera?
I think of the full frame cameras more like 2 1/4 square and the APS sensor cameras more like 35mm. The larger cameras are bigger, heavier, more expensive, and their main advantage is a bigger file that will tolerate more enlargement. I take both with me frequently, and find my better images have nothing to do with which camera I have used. The difference has to do with lighting and technique. And sometimes a little luck as well.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
To the question, "... I'm just interested in the fuller frame versus what I have now, and if it has pratical advantages, or is a full frame something I can imitate with my camera?", the answer is largely "Yes" and your father alluded to the difference.
The camera you have has a smaller sensor, of which you are aware. As your father mentioned, this has two effects in practical application:
1) The practical and effective focal length of any lens mounted on your camera is multiplied by 1.6x, so that a 50mm lens, for example, yields the same "Field Of View" (FOV) as an 80mm lens would on a full-frame 35mm format camera.
2) The "Depth Of Field" is similarly affected and increases on your camera at any given aperture, versus a full-frame camera. For a hint at how that increase affects your camera, see this link:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
What this means, in simple terms, is that you should use a slightly larger aperture on your camera to achieve a similar DOF effect, versus a full-frame camera. The amount depends at least in part on the focal length of the lens in question.
Is that kinda what you were looking for?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
DOF and stuff I wasn't so concerned about. I like Shallow depth of fields, and try to incorporate them as much as possible.
The Canon 5D has almost 13MPix versus your camera of 10MPix. The practical or working advantage of one over the other is marginal. At best, the 5D offers a little more cropping ability in an image editor, but when it comes to print size, the larger determinant is the method of printing followed by the viewing environment.
The thing the 5D has over the XTi that interests me is the ability of the 5D to shoot in low-light and high ISO situations. The 5D is a much better choice for many of those situations, but my personal preference is still more towards a Canon 1D series camera because of increased focusing accuracy, especially important in low light.
The 5D is also creamy smooth in fine tonal gradations like young skin tones and blue skies. It manages this trick without losing edge definition, which affects our sense of sharpness in an image.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Hmmm, sounds like the 1D and 5D would both be better when I shoot at the Auditorium. I usually end up shooting in 800 - 1600 ISO, F2.8, 1/100 - 1/30 of a second, and they still come out dark
The Canon 5D has almost 13MPix versus your camera of 10MPix
10.1
The visual difference between 10MP and 13MP is insignificant. In fact the XTi does more poorly noise wise at higher ISOs and in the shadows than the XT/20D/30D. I have a friend that I shoot with every week who had an N and presently uses a 30D and an XTi ... he won't shoot over 800 ISO with the XTi due to the noise. (To be honest I really could figure out why/how Pathfinder concluded that the XTi was better than the 20D... the 20D has much better IQ at higher ISO than the XTi, the 20D has 5 FPS which is a significant increase over the 3 FPS of the XTi ... the 2 FPS difference is like night and day for fast moving photo journalism and sports, the 20D has a much better build quality.)
One of the reasons , as best as I can figure for the lower noise of the 1D series and the 5D is pixel density and pixel size ... apparently the greater the density ... ala XTi and the smaller the pixels the more noise and a lowering of IQ.
I shoot a ton of low light and I found it better to shoot properly exposed at 1600 and (sometimes 3200) than under exposed at 800 and/or 1600.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
I'm using a Nikon D80 with basic 3.5/f - 5.6/f lenses. Since buying it, I wish I could shoot in low light better and I really like the DOF advantages with wider aperture lenses. I am starting to do photoshoots and I don't want other photographers to have an advantage over me in terms of picture quality. I am not afraid to spend $2500 on a camera (and I would probably switch over to Canon) but is the D80 good enough (it's the photographer not the camera) and I just need faster lenses for better low light and DOF?
Indirectly related to this I also have to learn studio lighting still. My passion is portrait and wedding photography. My favorite photographer is Jeff Ascough and he says the Canon model he uses gives him the best low-lighting shots possible because he prefers available light. So I'm thinking even if I get faster lenses, I still may need a camera upgrade that has better ISO.
What do you think?
If you're not afraid to spend $2500 on a camera, I say don't do it; spend $2500 on lenses ;~). If you want to get better at portraits and weddings, then you definitely NEED more lenses. But first, you need to decide on bodies.
Is the D80's high-ISO performance not good enough for you? Honestly I'm thinking the D700 would be perfect for you, but that costs $2500 and leaves no room for lenses
Canon vs Nikon. It depends on who you ask. Canon fanboys will tell you Canon, and same on the Nikon side. (Not saying Mr. Ascough is a fanboy.) The 5DII (I assume he's talking about that) has about the same ISO performance as the D700. They're both good cameras, capable of taking excellent portraits and wedding photos. You need to go into your camera store, hold a Canon and a Nikon, and decide which you like better. It's not a matter of "the latest Canon has much higher rez than Nikon" or "the Nikon D3s just destroys the Canon 1DIV." It's which camera feels better in your hand. Canon and Nikon will always leapfrog each other. The 5D Mark III is supposed to have 28mp when it's released. I bet the Nikon D800 will have that many. It'll have stunning low-light performance, like the 5D. Both brands have a bright future. Both have excellent lenses. So do you like the feel of your D80 compared to Canon?
Let's say you decide to stick with Nikon. If you can afford a D700 plus another $2K on lenses, go for it. Keep the D80. If you can't afford to do that, you can either keep the D80, or get a D7000.... both capable cameras. You need to figure out how your D80 is limiting you. If that's in low light, both the D700 and the D7000 will be an improvement (not to mention better IQ).
Lenses. For weddings, a 70-200 would be useful. Or, you can get a 85mm, 100mm or 135mm (does Nikon make one?) prime (or a combination of those). Those primes will be useful for portraits also. You should also get a wide, for weddings, like a 35mm or 24mm.
Does this help? OK, more info please! (how the D80 limits you, which brand feels better in your hand, your budget, etc.)
But if you have a limited budget of ~$2500 and you would consider Canon, my advice, with your needs in mind, is to get a 5DII. For low light portraiture, and events such as weddings, this camera is the best available atm, bar none. It's a comparatively small, but absolutely solid and longterm, investment for unbeaten results. When you start to get bookings, or for a really important shoot, you can rent the best lens to put on it while you are deciding about and saving for lens purchases.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Canon and Nikon both make very competent and complete systems. I wouldn't be afraid to recommend either brand. Staying Nikon for a bit might allow you to "ease into" a new system with a new camera now and lenses later as the budget allows.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'm not sure why I went with Nikon in the first place. Probably because they are equals and I had a feel about Nikon. And I wouldn't mind trying out a Fuji SLR for weddings, I hear they are great wedding and portrait cameras and of course the lenses for Nikon and Fuji work together.
But now that I've been involved in photography for a couple years, I wish I would have gone with Canon. Not sure why. I guess a lot of accumulated impressions I've received along the way.
One more question for you all. My Nikon D80 doesn't let me see the ISO changing in the viewfinder when I'm turning the knob. In terms of knobs or features, that's the most annoying thing to me. Is that true for all Nikons or just the D80? So far the three things I care most about are the Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO. Does the 5D Mark II let you see all of them inside the viewfinder as you adjust them? Do other high end Nikons as well?
Other then that, I like all most of the functioning of the Nikon D80. It's a great camera. Are there any major drawbacks or things missing (along those same lines) with the 5D Mark II that I should know about? And the Nikon 700D and 7000D?
Another question. Do you all know how good the HD video is on the 5D Mark II? Can I hook up some sort of external audio to improve sound? I've heard the Nikon D90 video isn't all that great. A lot of photographers seem to poo-poo that availability but I'd think I'd love it especially if I could use it with a tripod if necessary.
My 1D2 doesn't have that either... I think the Mark IIn does. The IIn was the "perfect" Mark II--bigger screen, changing ISO in viewfinder, etc. I think newer cams have that, but you'd have to ask others here.
You know what I do? Take my eye away and look at the top:D Hey, it works. It can cost you a moment, so I see what you're saying. I try to memorize the ISO steps on my camera; maybe something you should try.
I'm no video freak, but I think you can hook up ext. mics to the 5DII. The D90 was the first DSLR with video, so of course it's not gonna be the best. Just remember that you're buying a stills camera, for sports, and that sports features should come before video features. And, most SLRs don't do AF during video.