5D mk 2 or 1D mk 3/4? Need help !!

[xPAULx]

Im thinking of upgrading and im not sure on what to buy!
Opinions etc please!!
x

[Grimace]

These cameras are night & day different. For example:

1. Full frame vs. 1.3x crop
2. 3fps vs. 10fps
3. 24MP + video vs. 10.1MP or 16MP + video
4. AF designed for portraits, landscapes vs. 45-point sports/action purposed AF
5. $2700 vs. $3700 vs. $5000

What do you shoot and how would you be using this camera?

[xPAULx]

im just looking to upgrade.
more swayed towards the 5D mk 2.
also iv been told that standard 18-55 kit lens does not work on the 5d as it is full frame?

thanks!

[OceanView]

what do you like to shoot?
5D II is an excellent camera for most uses.

Honestly, people should focus on technique more than camera gear.
I know many people that have $10,000 or more of gear but their photos are average. On the other hand, I know a photographer that has an entry level DSLR and can produce terrific images.

[xPAULx]

I do alot of HDR stuff, landscape, portrait and product stuff
x

[xPAULx]

yeah, just tired of my 1000d!
iv had it almost 2 years now
x

[OreoCookie]

With all due respect, if you need to ask whether your 18-55 mm kit lens will work, I have a strong hunch all of the cameras you've proposed are not right for you.

What is your current equipment? Only the 1000D + 18-55 mm kit lens? In what ways do you find it limiting? If you only have the kit lens, updating your body is not the right thing to do. Instead, you should invest into glass and an external flash. Both will do a lot, lot more to give you more creative freedom than to take a cheap lens and put on a cheap lens.

[Grimace]

The 1D will do nothing for you. Look at good glass instead. If you really want to upgrade the body, look at a 50D, 7D or the 5DII.

[xPAULx]

With all due respect, if you need to ask whether your 18-55 mm kit lens will work, I have a strong hunch all of the cameras you've proposed are not right for you.

What is your current equipment? Only the 1000D + 18-55 mm kit lens? In what ways do you find it limiting? If you only have the kit lens, updating your body is not the right thing to do. Instead, you should invest into glass and an external flash. Both will do a lot, lot more to give you more creative freedom than to take a cheap lens and put on a cheap lens.


Im not intending on using the kit lens on such a high end camera. I was told by a friend that you can only use some of the high end lens as it is full frame.

[Phrasikleia]

If you don't know the differences between the cameras you've mentioned, then you probably don't need any of them. Someone has already asked the best question for you: what are you unable to do now that your new equipment should enable you to do? Before we can offer a solution, we need to know the problem.

[CrackedButter]

Heck even a 5d mk1 will suit your needs; when you realise what they are.

Paul, any EF lens will work on the cameras you're thinking of getting, not 'some of them. Go to wikipedia and learn the difference between EF-S and EF lenses.

Where in Wales are you?

[fiercetiger224]

Don't upgrade your current setup unless you've got an arsenal of lenses. It seems like you've only got an 18-55mm, which won't work for either of those cameras mentioned.

Good glass is really all that matters for cameras, and the photographers eye and technique is what matters the most. ;)

What I would suggest is, if you get a new camera, be it the 5DII or 1DIV (which is overkill for your needs by the way), buy a couple new lenses along with it. Get a couple general purpose lenses, or a standard zoom + prime. You haven't really stated your budget, but it sounds like you'd have enough money to spend since you've got a 1DIV mentioned. If you have enough money for that, get a 5DII instead, and grab 16-35mm and a 24-105mm. That'll cover your needs, all under the price of the 1DIV, or rather, for the same price.

Whatever you decide, get good glass.

[OreoCookie]

Im not intending on using the kit lens on such a high end camera. I was told by a friend that you can only use some of the high end lens as it is full frame.
So what's your current equipment?

[flosseR]

ok just to i get this straight: I do alot of HDR stuff, landscape, portrait and product stuff
x
You currently do "a lot" of this with just the Kit lens? You know nothing of the "in between" cameras like the 50D, and 7D which would be already a huge step up for a LOT less than even the 5D MK2. You want to jump from a 300 USD camera to a 2000+ or 4000+ camera? .. for what reason? Do you have THAT much money to burn? Because the next thing , for those subjects you shoot " a lot " of, you will need a wide Angle, and a medium telephoto (like the 85mm f1.2L) lens AT LEAST. And they have to be REALLY good glass in order to bring out the quality of the camera(s). So you are looking at a grand total of about 5-8000 USD.
So you can do a LOT more of the HDR,Landscape, portrait and product stuff.... Care to show some of that in order for us to help which camera to recommend? It should be quite easy to see your shortcomings if you need that much of a jump.

[rouxeny]

If I were you, I'd wait until the 1Ds-MkIV is out.

That body will be a killer.

I'm just not sure if it will be sufficient for your needs.

[xPAULx]

Im a Bsc Hons Multimedia university student and my course is heavily based on Photography.
As I get student loans/Grants from the government this allows me to buy equipment for my course.

Im just trying to get the best camera for the money really!
Also Im just tired of my old plasticy 1000D:(

Iv just bought a Canon 50mm 1.8 II lens


Here is some of my HDR work. - let me know what you all think!
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a264/palie69/beach-export-final-edit.jpg

Thanks for the input!:apple:

[wheezy]

Do you really need video? As a multi-media student I can believe that you do. The best upgrade would be the 7D, it'll still take your kit lens until you get a solid L wide angle, and it'll do video. The 5DII will show every flaw in your lenses, and as it stands right now you don't have a worthy piece of glass to put on it. The 50 1.8 makes the cut barely. 21MP is a HUGE file, to give you an idea, a full 21MP image from the 5dII spans across TWO 30" displays with pixels to spare on the side - it picks up details you'll never see with your eyes. And if you have a cheap piece of glass in front then all those details will look like shiit.

Stay below $2K or whatever currency you're using; so that means 50D or 7D. Spend the rest on good glass. Your current lens lineup is holding you back on picture quality more than the camera is.

[xPAULx]

Do you really need video? As a multi-media student I can believe that you do. The best upgrade would be the 7D, it'll still take your kit lens until you get a solid L wide angle, and it'll do video. The 5DII will show every flaw in your lenses, and as it stands right now you don't have a worthy piece of glass to put on it. The 50 1.8 makes the cut barely. 21MP is a HUGE file, to give you an idea, a full 21MP image from the 5dII spans across TWO 30" displays with pixels to spare on the side - it picks up details you'll never see with your eyes. And if you have a cheap piece of glass in front then all those details will look like shiit.

Stay below $2K or whatever currency you're using; so that means 50D or 7D. Spend the rest on good glass. Your current lens lineup is holding you back on picture quality more than the camera is.

What lens can you recommend?
im looking for a wide angle and a good macro
Thanks!

[compuwar]

Im a Bsc Hons Multimedia university student and my course is heavily based on Photography.
As I get student loans/Grants from the government this allows me to buy equipment for my course.


1. Don't go into debt for something you're not going to recoup the cost on in a relatively short time. That's just bad financial management.

2. Any camera body you purchase will be obsoleted by a newer model inside of three years. Any lens you purchase will be good for the next 3-5 camera bodies you purchase- so a smart purchaser would pick the best glass possible for what they'll want to shoot in the future.


Im just trying to get the best camera for the money really!
Also Im just tired of my old plasticy 1000D:(


But the point is that getting the "best camera" is silly if you don't have a *requirement* for a particular feature.



Here is some of my HDR work. - let me know what you all think!
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a264/palie69/beach-export-final-edit.jpg


There's no real "subject" in the image. All of the lines in the image lead off to the sides, not to anything central. The reflections in the pools map too brightly and detract from the image- my guess is that the image is probably pretty pedestrian prior to tone mapping it-- I see a lot of people try to substitute post-processing for shooting an image well- HDR should start with a great compelling normal image that requires more exposure latitude than the camera can capture- given the backlight, I can appreciate that the exposure probably exceeded the camera's dynamic range, but I really don't see what you saw that was compelling enough to take the shot- it's a hugely busy scene that doesn't project your interest in the scene to me as a viewer. The horizon placement doesn't work well for me either- there's way too much sky and the cloud formations aren't interesting enough to support the framing. If you cut the sky off at the top of the lower cloud on the right, the composition *starts* to get more compelling, but really the image needs to be simplified- it's a busy hodgepodge of shapes and tones mapped into cartoon-land without a message. You need to use the bright parts and leading lines to draw the viewer into an image and give them something to focus on.

Paul

[fiercetiger224]

21MP is a HUGE file, to give you an idea, a full 21MP image from the 5dII spans across TWO 30" displays with pixels to spare on the side - it picks up details you'll never see with your eyes. And if you have a cheap piece of glass in front then all those details will look like shiit.

The 7D has filesizes equivalent to the 5DII. 18MP vs 21MP, not much of a difference. I know since I have both cameras :p

Anyway, I agree on picking up a midrange body, and buying awesome glass. If you're getting a 7D, you might want to pick up a 10-22mm for the ultra-wide angle, and for whatever else, do some research on. I have to warn you that if you do decide to pick up cheap glass, that these cameras won't like it. And by not liking it, I mean photos will look like crap. :rolleyes:

[El Cabong]

Im just trying to get the best camera for the money really!
Also Im just tired of my old plasticy 1000D:(

Iv just bought a Canon 50mm 1.8 II lens

Don't take this the wrong way, but the only two lenses you seem to have are a kit 18-55 and a nifty fifty. Why would you want to use "old plasticy" lenses on Canon's newest, most expensive cameras? I hope you realize that better lenses are a better investment than newer cameras, and that only one of those lenses will work with the cameras you suggest. However, as others have stated, it seems like you're just out to burn through some money, so on that note, here's my suggestion:

Buy a 1D Mark III for now, until the Mark IV is available. It can serve as your backup body when you actually have the Mark IV, although it'd probably be a better idea to buy a second Mark IV or a 1Ds Mark III (for higher resolution). Don't waste your money on a 5D; it costs less money.

[Troglodyte]

I've got a 1000D and it's not a bad little camera. It has it's weaknesses for sure (slow frame rate for starters) but still makes nice images.

As others have recommended to you here, I've spent my money on glass and now have the 10-22, 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f4L IS. You can easily see the difference better glass makes even on a 1000D. Given the choice between a 7D and better glass - the glass wins. IMO if you get a 5dII then it will show up inferior glass and you'll need the good stuff to go with it (16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 Ls)...a lot of money.

Another thing to consider is perhaps getting a grip for the 1000D. It won't change the way the camera works but it will change the handling.

[Ruahrc]

If your only complaint about the 1000D is the plasticky feel (seems to be the only thing you have mentioned about it thus far, aside from it being "old"), then perhaps a new body isn't the best choice for you at this time. Unless the plasticky construction is hampering your ability to shoot (read: dropped it and it broke, or lack of weather sealing affecting your ability to shoot in some environments) then it seems like your complaint is superficial and spending upwards of $3000-5000+ on a body to fix that "plasticky feel" using loaned money is not a very smart decision.

[El Cabong]

Unless the plasticky construction is hampering your ability to shoot (read: dropped it and it broke, or lack of weather sealing affecting your ability to shoot in some environments) then it seems like your complaint is superficial and spending upwards of $3000-5000+ on a body to fix that "plasticky feel" using loaned money is not a very smart decision.

Great. You've just convinced him to throw his camera off a building/into a tub of water just to justify spending upwards of $3000-5000+ on a body.

*splash*... *sizzle*... "I can't believe this awful weather sealing! Oh well, time to take out a loan to buy a camera!"

[Grimace]

• An $8000 camera paired with a $150 lens will take $150 shots, at best.
• A $1000 lens paired with a $350 body will take $1000 shots, at minimum.

You do the math.

______________

[wheelhot]

At this point right now, I know it might hurt u and I apologize but this is what I can say is forget your dream about getting a 5D Mark II or a 1D Mark 3/4 and instead get a real nice FF glass first before upgrading to a FF camera, get a 17-40 f/4.0 first or something and learn more about photography, your camera and the different kind of lenses and only then in a couple of years time upgrade to a FF (after you have a couple of FF lens and you feel the need of a FF camera)

Cause even if you have a 5D or even a 1D, I honestly feel that it will be too overwhelming for you cause judging by your questions, it seems you don't really understand a lot of things and getting a 5D or 1D will confuse you even more.

I got a friend who owns a D40 and her dad owns a D300s, she played a bit with the D300s and felt it was too overwhelming for her and ended up prefer the D40 for now.

[joelypolly]

I'd take other peoples advice in this thread and get some Glass before considering upgrading to a new body.

Using the kit lens + a 50 1.8 and looking to upgrade to a 1d or a 5d is... somewhat like getting a 60 ton tank and getting a single horse to pull it. You're not going to get very far.

No to put you down but your "HDR" photo looks just like another HDR photo generate by a HDR application.

[xPAULx]

I'd take other peoples advice in this thread and get some Glass before considering upgrading to a new body.

Using the kit lens + a 50 1.8 and looking to upgrade to a 1d or a 5d is... somewhat like getting a 60 ton tank and getting a single horse to pull it. You're not going to get very far.

No to put you down but your "HDR" photo looks just like another HDR photo generate by a HDR application.

About my HDR , what u mean?
x

[Phrasikleia]

About my HDR , what u mean?
x

I think it's safe to say he's seconding what Compuwar had to say (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8953949&postcount=19). If you missed that post, I suggest you go back and give it some consideration. His critique of your HDR photo is very constructive and is articulated quite well. HDR can amount to an empty wrapper if it's not used judiciously.

My own advice to you would echo what the others have said: lenses will advance your photography much further than a new camera body. And any gear you purchase will only ever enable what you are ready to envision and capture, so keep on studying, practicing, and seeking out critiques.

[El Cabong]

About my HDR , what u mean?
x

I think he's saying it's indistinguishable from any other run-of-the-mill HDR photo where an HDR application is used in an attempt to magically transform a mediocre photo into a decent one.

In other words: not good.

You might consider spending that loan money on some (more?) photography classes before blowing it on gear. The person with the apparently cryptic critique also made the point that putting cheap glass on a good camera would be like making a horse pull a 60 ton tank. Well, putting good gear in the hands of a person with limited ability (no offense) is like trying to make a horse operate a 60 ton tank.

[joelypolly]

And we all know what happens when horses operate 60 ton tanks.... lol.

In regards to whats "wrong" with your HDR. There isn't really anything wrong it just doesn't really have anything going for it. There doesn't really appear to be a subject or emotion the photograph is trying to bring up. What is suppose to draw my eyes? The small pond in the front or the sea in the back or maybe the rocks? With the use of HDR everything is very colourful but as a result nothing really stands out.

Personally if I was editing the photo I might have tried to make the pond area + reflection the subject in the photo and tried to tone the colours/saturation of the other areas down but that might be a little bit difficult due to the composition of the photo.

HDR is just another tool that should be used appropriately but like the old saying "when you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail". Don't fall into the trap of doing that. Always consider carefully first what it is you want the viewer to see/feel.

[peskaa]

As somebody who did a BA(Hons) Photography I can safely say that equipment is not the key to success - you can throw 10k into equipment and still take awful photographs. We shot most of our work on old film cameras, home-made pinholes and lower end digital systems.

Further, you can't just upgrade the body, you have to upgrade the whole system including the lenses. I wouldn't put anything but the best on my 5D Mark II or 1D Mark III, and I have invested far more in lenses than in the bodies themselves. Basically, if it doesn't have a red ring on it, I don't use it (with a few exceptions, obviously).

You're shooting with Canon's entry level camera, with their entry level lenses. By buying a 1D Mark IV or a 5D Mark II you're going to achieve only one thing - a hole in your wallet. You need to invest in the lenses first, and then finally move up in the body stakes - but do it in stages.

Pick up a good mid-range zoom (ie: 24-70 f/2.8L USM) first. Use it, get the best out the lens and the 1000D - you can get bloody good results out of that camera and a quality lens if you know what you're doing (I bought my partner a 1000D last year and I use it with a 50mm f/1.2L quite a lot).

Once you're doing that, add a wide angle and only then think about a new body in the mid-range series (50D, 7D).

[Phrasikleia]

Regarding the "feel" of your 1000D: one easy upgrade you might consider would be the purchase of a battery grip. The BG-E5 grip will make the camera feel more substantial and easier to grip onto. It makes taking verticals handheld much easier (no need to jack one elbow up in the air), and it gives you faster access to settings when shooting in that orientation. Best of all, it's a relatively inexpensive upgrade to your kit.

One more thought: if you're in the buying mood, you should also consider the purchase of a sturdy tripod, if you don't have one already.

[fiercetiger224]

Try buying some L glass first. The 17-40mm f4L should be your first thing to get, since it's fairly wide on a crop body for shooting architecture, HDR, etc. If you want to go wider, the 10-22mm will be your best bet, although the problem lies in that it'll only work on EF-S bodies. You'll be surprised at that quality that you'll be getting vs your kit lens, and even your 50mm f1.8. The 50mm that you've got is a POS, since it's an entry line 50mm.

Don't buy a new body until you've grasped photography to its fullest.

[Troglodyte]

Try buying some L glass first. The 17-40mm f4L should be your first thing to get, since it's fairly wide on a crop body for shooting architecture, HDR, etc.
The 17-40 is a good lens and very reasonably priced - you can pick it up for around £400-£450 second hand and there's quite a few to choose from. Combined with the 70-200 f4L you'd have a pair of lenses with excellent IQ for relatively little money. I went for the 17-55 f2.8 though which is more expensive and won't work on full frame cameras. It is however sharper, faster, has IS and a better range. In any event should you want to go full frame you can sell it.

[Edge100]

I agree; I started on a 10D with a 17-40 ƒ/4L, and I learned a lot on that combo. Note that the 17-40 is 27-64 on a crop sensor body, which is pretty close to 24-70 zoom, which to me is the perfect focal length for a walkaround zoom.

Once I had outgrown the 10D, I moved up to a used 1DmkII, which is my current body. I'm looking to add a second body just because I need one for event and portrait photography, but, to be honest, I could live with the 1DmkII for a long time, especially when coupled to the good glass I've invested in (17-40, 24-70, 70-200 f/4, 50/1.4).

[CrackedButter]

As somebody who did a BA(Hons) Photography I can safely say that equipment is not the key to success - you can throw 10k into equipment and still take awful photographs. We shot most of our work on old film cameras, home-made pinholes and lower end digital systems.

Further, you can't just upgrade the body, you have to upgrade the whole system including the lenses. I wouldn't put anything but the best on my 5D Mark II or 1D Mark III, and I have invested far more in lenses than in the bodies themselves. Basically, if it doesn't have a red ring on it, I don't use it (with a few exceptions, obviously).

You're shooting with Canon's entry level camera, with their entry level lenses. By buying a 1D Mark IV or a 5D Mark II you're going to achieve only one thing - a hole in your wallet. You need to invest in the lenses first, and then finally move up in the body stakes - but do it in stages.

Pick up a good mid-range zoom (ie: 24-70 f/2.8L USM) first. Use it, get the best out the lens and the 1000D - you can get bloody good results out of that camera and a quality lens if you know what you're doing (I bought my partner a 1000D last year and I use it with a 50mm f/1.2L quite a lot).

Once you're doing that, add a wide angle and only then think about a new body in the mid-range series (50D, 7D).

My friend just graduated with a First for his BA and for his major project he shot with a Holga and a Mamiya 67. His best images came from the £30 Holga while his Mamiya setup cost £1000. He admitted it too, so I then suggested he sell the Mamiya and body a second Holga body instead! :p

His website is here: http://conoroleary.com/splash the project is titled "Out of Sight out of Mind." Knock yourself out. :)

[epicwelshman]

OP - you've been given a lot of fantastic advice, yet I notice that you only seem to reply to those posts that critique your work.

Obviously you're under no obligation to take any of this advice. If you're dead set on blowing $3,000 - $5,000 purely because you don't like your 1000D, fine. But at least thank your fellow forum members for taking the time to listen to you, to try to help you, and to try to help you understand exactly what you might need.

[RedDragon870503]

OP - Check out a refurb 40D and save the rest for some glass. You will be blown away by the difference between the 1000D and the 40D.

IMHO, the 50D is not worth the extra cash and the 5D and 1D something you only buy when you feel limited by the xxD series not the xxxD or xxxxD series.

[OreoCookie]

Basically, if it doesn't have a red ring on it, I don't use it (with a few exceptions, obviously).
That contradicts what you've said earlier. A red or golden ring on a lens is not at all necessary for good pictures. Very often there are lenses from third-party manufacturers that offer similar or in some cases better optical and mechanical quality than the `original.' And there are lenses that cannot get a red ring regardless of the quality of the optics (e. g. Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8, crop lenses cannot be professional). And there are quite a few cases where `normal' lenses might be better suited, e. g. because they are smaller or lighter.

[peskaa]

That contradicts what you've said earlier. A red or golden ring on a lens is not at all necessary for good pictures. Very often there are lenses from third-party manufacturers that offer similar or in some cases better optical and mechanical quality than the `original.' And there are lenses that cannot get a red ring regardless of the quality of the optics (e. g. Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8, crop lenses cannot be professional). And there are quite a few cases where `normal' lenses might be better suited, e. g. because they are smaller or lighter.

Hence I said with a few exceptions, which you even quoted.

[mahood]

As somebody who did a BA(Hons) Photography I can safely say that equipment is not the key to success - you can throw 10k into equipment and still take awful photographs. We shot most of our work on old film cameras, home-made pinholes and lower end digital systems.

Seconded. The best upgrade I made to my camera was the component behind the viewfinder (me). Take more photos, join a local club and get some experience in different styles, lighting, and just some honest feedback. My photos are many times better since I started talking to people about what I was doing right and wrong.

Further, you can't just upgrade the body, you have to upgrade the whole system including the lenses. I wouldn't put anything but the best on my 5D Mark II or 1D Mark III, and I have invested far more in lenses than in the bodies themselves. Basically, if it doesn't have a red ring on it, I don't use it (with a few exceptions, obviously).

Maybe overkill, but a fair point - glass makes more difference, and the limiting factor in my setup is the lens, not the body. When I am shooting in a studio with my 400D and kit lens, I can see I am now taking MUCH better pictures than I was the first time out - and no hardware has changed. That said, my friend with the 1DmkIII and 25-105 F/4L may take 'crisper' pictures, but until you blow them up to the size of a house you really can't tell. The limiting factor in the quality of my photos is still me.

You're shooting with Canon's entry level camera, with their entry level lenses. By buying a 1D Mark IV or a 5D Mark II you're going to achieve only one thing - a hole in your wallet. You need to invest in the lenses first, and then finally move up in the body stakes - but do it in stages.

Pick up a good mid-range zoom (ie: 24-70 f/2.8L USM) first. Use it, get the best out the lens and the 1000D - you can get bloody good results out of that camera and a quality lens if you know what you're doing (I bought my partner a 1000D last year and I use it with a 50mm f/1.2L quite a lot).

Next on my wish list is the 24-105 F/4L IS - I am at the stage where it'll be worthwhile. But I've been shooting for two years with the kit lens (plus a cheap EF-S 55-250 zoom, and the nifty fifty) and a year with regular exposure to a team of pros, and I'm only just learning where the physical limits to my hardware are.

Mark

[turugara]

Seconded. The best upgrade I made to my camera was the component behind the viewfinder (me). Take more photos, join a local club and get some experience in different styles, lighting, and just some honest feedback. My photos are many times better since I started talking to people about what I was doing right and wrong.
Mark

This is easily the best upgrade ever. I'm a fine arts student at my university and because most of my prints are usually 43" x 28" or larger, I saw the kit lens limitation to my 500D in a hurry. Unless you print at a very large size, there's really no rush to upgrade until you believe you are ready.

[CrackedButter]

I was listening to Scott Bourne today on TWiP and he said something like this:

"99% of all lenses are better than 98% of all photographers."

[pdxflint]

Some of you have offered some decent advice, but is it necessary to be as condescending as some of you guys are being? Remember, we've all been there one way or another, at one time or another, and fellow photographers can either encourage... or easily discourage. Maybe lighten up just a bit, and take a slightly "friendlier" tone with a fairly inexperienced photographer... :)
-It's just a thought...

No offense meant to anyone... just expressing what I picked up on while reading this thread.