Enmerkar Zedek
Posts: 65
Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines
Hi,
I have a limited budget of $1400. I've analyzed the specs on all three Cameras. I am looking to do Wedding photography and various events. My choice is on 1Ds Mark II for its dual SD, shutter life and very good AF. I am open to opinion from more experienced photographers.
I seems to me that the other two cameras are outside of your budget, so your decision is easy.
If budget was not a major concern, for the extra money I would buy the Nikon D600 because 24 Megapixels gives you (a) better crop opportunities; (b) bigger print options, which translates into $$$ when selling framed family photos.
With regard to shutter life, the 5d Mark II and Nikon D600 are identical with 150k, and the 1ds mark II = 200k. Shutter life should not be a major concern.
Note the print size difference between 16 v. 24 megapixels is about 2.5 to 3 inches at 300 ppi; and 4 to 5 inches at 200 ppi. For me, 24 megapixels is the magic number because it allows a 30x20 at 200 ppi with no re-sampling of the image.
* i'd like to be able to shoot clean at ISO 6400
* dual card slots
* locking mode dial (slipped from M into B during a walk down the aisle)
* the lens release button is easy to push accidentally
so far the AF is fine for my needs, especially when you use fast lenses.
there's also the new canon 6D to consider alongside the nikon D600. or a used nikon D700 (which some consider better than the D600).
but really hard to go wrong with a pair of 5D MK IIs (you need a 2nd/spare on everything at weddings).
1Ds2 has 1 CF slot and 1 SD slot. It's good to have dual cards. I don't think for weddings you need that many megapixels so this is fine. The AF is better than the 5D2. I've always experienced greater keepers and faster response from 1Ds2.
For disclosure I am an experienced 5D2, 1Ds2, D700, and D800 shooter. My main thing against the D600 is that it's small. A 1Ds2 doesn't have as fast a frame rate if that matters to you and it's pretty heavy but balances well with the pro zoom lenses.
If it were my choice, I'd use a D600 as I like Nikon as event camera more.
Enmerkar Zedek wrote: I am actually not that invested in lenses in either.
My current option right now is 1Ds Mark II $1400 + cost of lenses (not yet bought)
vs
Nikon D7000 + Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX + Nikon 50mm 1.8 D + Vivitar 300mm 5.6 Auto Lens + Quantaray AUTO ZOOM 80-200mm 3.8 + Green background = $1400
I sacrifice the full frame, but I get a starting kit for event photography than upgrade to D800 later and better lenses.
Thoughts?
.
If you are talking weddings you are seriously underinvested in bodies. You really need two. You can get by with some under-duplication of lenses (although its unwise) but if a body fails during a wedding (its rare but it happens) you are in trouble. I have had a body fail once in my life. An event promoter drunkenly pushed me over a wedge monitor on stage and I fell lens-first onto the stage. Once I got over my anger my first thought was "good thing this is just some stupid DJ and not a wedding" because I didnt have a 2nd body with me. Perhaps if you are certain you are doing weddings consider saving a bit more? or going for a lower priced body and an even lower priced backup?
Enmerkar Zedek
Posts: 65
Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines
AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
.
If you are talking weddings you are seriously underinvested in bodies. You really need two. You can get by with some under-duplication of lenses (although its unwise) but if a body fails during a wedding (its rare but it happens) you are in trouble. I have had a body fail once in my life. An event promoter drunkenly pushed me over a wedge monitor on stage and I fell lens-first onto the stage. Once I got over my anger my first thought was "good thing this is just some stupid DJ and not a wedding" because I didnt have a 2nd body with me. Perhaps if you are certain you are doing weddings consider saving a bit more? or going for a lower priced body and an even lower priced backup?
Enmerkar Zedek
Posts: 65
Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines
GPS Studio Services wrote: The D7000 kit you are looking at, with your lens selection, is a good bang for the buck, but certainly not high quality glass.
I noticed that. I am seeing it as more advanced starter kit. However, I am sacrificing the full frame of the 1ds Mark II. It is tempting to stick with the 1ds Mark II and buy a lense for it later.
Sadly, it is an auction and I have less than 30 minutes to make up my mind...
twoharts wrote: there's also the new canon 6D to consider alongside the nikon D600. or a used nikon D700 (which some consider better than the D600).
Former D700 owner and current D600 owner... and HELL NO... although the D700 is an impressive camera... it doesn't hold a candle to the low noise and high resolution performance of the D600. And even the D700 bested those two Canon offerings you mentioned in low noise performance...
for 1400$? A pair of T3i ? or used, a 7D and a T2i as a backup? honestly I'm guessing here. It appears you are feeling under time pressure because of an auction on eBay. I suggest not worrying about the auction. there will always be another deal. Figure out what your friends have and what can be borrowed in emergencies until you get yourself enough kit. If its Canon go with canon and get a body and a backup body. If it's Nilon, same thing. I'm just not familiar enough with Nikon to name names other than the D600 and the D800 which are out of your range, especially if you buy one and need to buy another body as a backup.
Enmerkar Zedek
Posts: 65
Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines
AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
for 1400$? A pair of T3i ? or used, a 7D and a T2i as a backup? honestly I'm guessing here. It appears you are feeling under time pressure because of an auction on eBay. I suggest not worrying about the auction. there will always be another deal. Figure out what your friends have and what can be borrowed in emergencies until you get yourself enough kit. If its Canon go with canon and get a body and a backup body. If it's Nilon, same thing. I'm just not familiar enough with Nikon to name names other than the D600 and the D800 which are out of your range, especially if you buy one and need to buy another body as a backup.
Shooting a wedding with a T2i??? I would feel a bit awkward using an entry level dslr for a paid job, no matter how good my final product is. People expect the best equipment, no?
R_Marquez
Posts: 4,574
San Francisco, California, US
I wouldn't go for that D7000 kit due to the lens selection.
If you really want a wedding kit, a 5D1 with a 20mm f/2.8, and a 20D with a 85mm f/1.8 would give you wide and mild telephoto. It also gives you decent low light performance.
Used, the bodies should run you about $800 for both. The 85mm can be found for about $300, and the 20mm for about the same, if not a little more.
I wouldn't recommend any lens with slow motors. I'd rather get cheaper bodies than cheaper lenses.
Enmerkar Zedek
Posts: 65
Manila, National Capital Region, Philippines
R_Marquez wrote: I wouldn't go for that D7000 kit due to the lens selection.
If you really want a wedding kit, a 5D1 with a 20mm f/2.8, and a 20D with a 85mm f/1.8 would give you wide and mild telephoto. It also gives you decent low light performance.
Used, the bodies should run you about $800 for both. The 85mm can be found for about $300, and the 20mm for about the same, if not a little more.
I wouldn't recommend any lens with slow motors. I'd rather get cheaper bodies than cheaper lenses.
I actually already own a 550D. I was considering the 1DS Mark II for its rugged build and dual card support as backup. It is the same reason I was looking at the D7000.
My option a) 1Ds Mark II main and 550D back up. Extra $$$ needed for lenses
My option b) D7000 kit with lenses, flash, tripod, etc. Upgrade lenses later. Sacrifice the FF for the extra kit.
However, what you are recommending here is 5D1 as main, which would leave enough money for nice lens. I would then use the 550D as back up.
Thanks. This might actually work. My only concern is the lower level of MP in the 5D1 compared to the 1DS. However, I suspect that could be gotten around with specialized software.
the 5DII had a lot of improvements over the 5DI. i keep a 15mmf2.8 fisheye on my 5DI for fisheye shots of the church and reception where ISO1600 isn't too much of a limitation.
definitely get the MKII If you can afford it. the MKI still takes great pictures but it's getting old now in terms of low light and ergonomics (particularly the LCD). plus the MKII has the sensor dust shaker.
i could see getting a MKII as primary and MKI as backup. but i'd much rather have MKIII-class as primary and MKII as backup or just two MKIIs.
R_Marquez wrote: If you really want a wedding kit, a 5D1 with a 20mm f/2.8, and a 20D with a 85mm f/1.8 would give you wide and mild telephoto. It also gives you decent low light performance.
R_Marquez
Posts: 4,574
San Francisco, California, US
For formals and large groups in outdoor areas, the t2i's 18mp will do the trick. For indoors in tight spaces, you'd likely be close enough to where the 12mp will do.
The 1DsII is an attractive body due to AF and overall performance. Pro bodies just handle a lot better. They feel better, faster, etc... I can see the appeal with them. But if you want a kit that you can use now, then I'd go for a 5D and you'd have a budget for lenses. If you'd be getting paid for a wedding (and you should be, if you're shooting one) then you can get a 1DsII and rent lenses in the meantime.
Edit: I agree with the 5D1 getting long in the tooth. But it will still do the job at a budget price.
i don't have any experience with the "pro" bodies. i just remember getting photos from 24 Hours of Le Mans taken by a guy with a 1 series and those photos looked like crap (flat and lifeless). but maybe that was the photographer's lack of post skills more than the camera.
Enmerkar Zedek wrote: I notice no one is actually recommending the 1Ds Mark II. I find it interesting since a few years back it was worth 8,000+.
I actually already own a 550D. I was considering the 1DS Mark II for its rugged build and dual card support as backup. It is the same reason I was looking at the D7000.
My option a) 1Ds Mark II main and 550D back up. Extra $$$ needed for lenses
My option b) D7000 kit with lenses, flash, tripod, etc. Upgrade lenses later. Sacrifice the FF for the extra kit.
However, what you are recommending here is 5D1 as main, which would leave enough money for nice lens. I would then use the 550D as back up.
Thanks. This might actually work. My only concern is the lower level of MP in the 5D1 compared to the 1DS. However, I suspect that could be gotten around with specialized software.
The 1Ds II is not a good for low light as compared to any of the newer camera today.
and almost everything i get paid to shoot on location is in bad light. anywhere from ISO1600-6400 and sometimes i wish i could go beyond that. when it's dark out and they turn off the overhead lights in the reception hall to improve the mood then there's not a ton of light. and i'd rather not have to shoot everything with a 50f1.4 wide open.
at xmas my family surprised me into taking family photos with my stepmom's present which was a used canon 40D. i had that thing at ISO1600 and the noise was awful. i missed my 5DMKII.
ChanStudio wrote: The 1Ds II is not a good for low light as compared to any of the newer camera today.
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,231
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
None of them are ideal really... D600 is great quality sensor but lacks really snappy AF in low light. 1d will have great focussing and built like a tank but high ISO isn't great. 5d2is pretty good for high ISO but focussing is only adequate. Of those cameras if choose the d600 or 5d2.
What about the 6d? Great high ISO (about the same as the 1dx it seems), fantastic AF with centre point only (out points are ok in good light) although it only has a single sd card slot.
Sure you can't push your budget to a 5d3? It's amazing for weddings!
I recommend the 5DI. IMO it is the best bang for the buck. Amazing IQ. I definitely wouldn't worry about it having too few megapixels. It is capable of printing A1 and even larger. Not many clients are going to print that large anyway. I use it for all my professional gigs even though I also have the 5DII and 5DIII. Unless I am going to be photographing on the fly or am worried I might need to do A LOT of cropping, I reach for the 5DI. I like working with the files. The major issue I have is the LCD doesn't compare to the II or III. But I also don't rely on it, so it isn't a big issue.
I don't buy into the whole megapixel war that some companies are trying to pump. I am grateful Canon has not focused on megapixels and instead has focused on creating camera's that perform and are well rounded as well as practical.
for a lot of shots in the studio in order to keep my camera level i wind up with a lot of wasted space. so after cropping my MKII files i wind up with essentially a MKI file. whereas if i cropped the MKI file ...
also at events i can do picture within a picture more easily with the MKII.
i agree that pixels aren't everything but i have found the resolution on the MKII useful and wouldn't really want to go back to MKI resolution.
MKI takes great pictures (wasn't it the best pixel pitch of the bunch?) but LCD sucks, no blinkies in full size review mode, it eats dust for breakfast and i like having the extra pixels for cropping and the occasional 16x20 canvas.
LUNA_PHOTOGRAPHY wrote: I definitely wouldn't worry about it having too few megapixels.
twoharts wrote: for a lot of shots in the studio in order to keep my camera level i wind up with a lot of wasted space. so after cropping my MKII files i wind up with essentially a MKI file. whereas if i cropped the MKI file ...
also at events i can do picture within a picture more easily with the MKII.
i agree that pixels aren't everything but i have found the resolution on the MKII useful and wouldn't really want to go back to MKI resolution.
MKI takes great pictures (wasn't it the best pixel pitch of the bunch?) but LCD sucks, no blinkies in full size review mode, it eats dust for breakfast and i like having the extra pixels for cropping and the occasional 16x20 canvas.
I love the 5DI. Yes, more MP's is useful if you need to do some serious cropping. I agree that the LCD isn't great on the original 5D and yes, the sensor needs to be cleaned somewhat frequently... I clean mine once or twice a year. The only time dust seems to be apparent is if I am shooting in the studio shooting f/8 and beyond, which for me, isn't that often. Even in the studio I use ND filters so I can shoot at 2.8 or wider. I tend to prefer shallow DOF so dust on the sensor (if present) isn't an issue very often. .
Carl Edwards
Posts: 166
Lake Elsinore, California, US
Newcomb Photography wrote: I seems to me that the other two cameras are outside of your budget, so your decision is easy.
If budget was not a major concern, for the extra money I would buy the Nikon D600 because 24 Megapixels gives you (a) better crop opportunities; (b) bigger print options, which translates into $$$ when selling framed family photos.
With regard to shutter life, the 5d Mark II and Nikon D600 are identical with 150k, and the 1ds mark II = 200k. Shutter life should not be a major concern.
Note the print size difference between 16 v. 24 megapixels is about 2.5 to 3 inches at 300 ppi; and 4 to 5 inches at 200 ppi. For me, 24 megapixels is the magic number because it allows a 30x20 at 200 ppi with no re-sampling of the image.
It's the old PC vs Mac argument. Whichever the person uses is his favorite but I think Newcomb Photography says it well. For me, it's about my existing lenses, accessories. All Nikon so... But, I've said it a million times to the million times I've been asked this very question...
"a great shoot is really about the guy pushing the button"
Give the same talented guy both cameras and it's my bet no one can tell the difference. As far as features, pretty much the same but few pros use more than 10% of them anyway. Gimmics. Make your shoots about creativity and not about the camera(given a certain level of quality).
i can tell the difference just between my 5D MK I and MK II. and it does seem like there is a difference between canon and nikon (canon maybe tends more red and nikon more yellow/green). my fuji tends to head yellow. of course it depends on which raw converter you are using or if you are shooting jpegs and after you're done processing maybe it's less apparent. or maybe it's the lenses. i remember people saying sigma glass made things yellow.
but i do think each camera has a signature look, at least based on the defaults. now whether the average consumer cares or can tell is another story.
in researching new cameras i've seen some truly hideous shots from the D600 and D800 (over-exposed, flat and lifeless). i'm hoping that's operator error and not the cameras.
Carl Edwards wrote: Give the same talented guy both cameras and it's my bet no one can tell the difference.
Carl Edwards
Posts: 166
Lake Elsinore, California, US
twoharts wrote: i can tell the difference just between my 5D MK I and MK II. and it does seem like there is a difference between canon and nikon (canon maybe tends more red and nikon more yellow/green). my fuji tends to head yellow. of course it depends on which raw converter you are using or if you are shooting jpegs and after you're done processing maybe it's less apparent. or maybe it's the lenses. i remember people saying sigma glass made things yellow.
but i do think each camera has a signature look, at least based on the defaults. now whether the average consumer cares or can tell is another story.
in researching new cameras i've seen some truly hideous shots from the D600 and D800 (over-exposed, flat and lifeless). i'm hoping that's operator error and not the cameras.
sorry, I guess I left out a few what I thought to be unnecessary details as I felt they weren't important. Yes, sensors may render color differently. That may be an issue for your first few shoots then after you correct the profile... As far as:
"in researching new cameras i've seen some truly hideous shots from the D600 and D800 (over-exposed, flat and lifeless"
I saw a shot from a Canon 5D MK I where the guy dropped his camera on the floor and it fired. The shot was terrible. Out of focus, motion, exposure off...
Hoping you made a typo, I strongly recommend that you NOT get the EOS 1Ds II . Not that I think it's a bad camera as I use one in studio for product photography. But with your interest in weddings and talk of high iso, this camera with let you down BIG TIME!!! As someone already posted, it does have a dual card slot but it's 1 CF and 1 SD. Not much of a big deal but it should be noted. The auto focus is not what you'll be hoping for and it's a 16mp sensor. Again, I'm not bashing the camera, but for your intentions, it's slow, big, and not up to the performance of your other choices.
Hope this helped or at least didn't piss anyone off.
in my research it just seems like i've seen more nasty shots from those new nikons than from the new canons (and i always thought nikons were designed to protect highlights more than canons). but it's not something i've been able to test based on personal experience. just subjective from looking at places like dpreview and other reviews of the new cameras. i did see one person say that the D800 files were intentionally flat to allow for more aggressive post work. and sometimes more dynamic range can cause a flatter looking image? partly you have to understand the thought process that went into how they set up the cameras.
but obviously working pros do just fine with nikon or canon or sony or whatever. the gear is only part of it.
Carl Edwards wrote: I saw a shot from a Canon 5D MK I where the guy dropped his camera on the floor and it fired. The shot was terrible. Out of focus, motion, exposure off...
Carl Edwards
Posts: 166
Lake Elsinore, California, US
✓
twoharts wrote: lol.
in my research it just seems like i've seen more nasty shots from those new nikons than from the new canons (and i always thought nikons were designed to protect highlights more than canons). but it's not something i've been able to test based on personal experience. just subjective from looking at places like dpreview and other reviews of the new cameras. i did see one person say that the D800 files were intentionally flat to allow for more aggressive post work. and sometimes more dynamic range can cause a flatter looking image? partly you have to understand the thought process that went into how they set up the cameras.
but obviously working pros do just fine with nikon or canon or sony or whatever. the gear is only part of it.
| 
| 
| edu