Christian Starr wrote:
Everyone knows Nikon indoors - Canon Outdoors!  The Sony 700D indoors is pretty nice too!

Thanks...but I own Canon glass so I will be sticking to Canon bodies. This is not a thread to debate which company is better.

Thomas B wrote:
I own a Canon 40D along with the 24-70 2.8 L and 70-200 2.8 IS L. I am purchasing a new body for wedding photography.
If you had the money to buy a 1ds mark III would you purcahse that body for wedding photography OR would you buy the 5d along with the 16-35 L lens as well as some other accessories? Again...only if you were shooting weddings. I will be using the 40d for backup.
Thanks

I love my 1Ds2 for everything.
My 40D is also my wedding backup.If you can justify the ridiculous price,get the 1Ds3,personally,I went with a 1Ds2 with about 5,000 clicks for $4200 Canadian.

Thomas B wrote:
I own a Canon 40D along with the 24-70 2.8 L and 70-200 2.8 IS L. I am purchasing a new body for wedding photography.
If you had the money to buy a 1ds mark III would you purcahse that body for wedding photography OR would you buy the 5d along with the 16-35 L lens as well as some other accessories? Again...only if you were shooting weddings. I will be using the 40d for backup.
Thanks

Good luck with what ya get TB...going to shoot weddings in San Fran?   Have fun    let me know what you get!  I have the 5d...I would say use that for the nice take your time shots and the 1ds for the quick get around here and there quick shots...eventually you'll make the money to have both

Scott Kennelly wrote:
There is something nobody is addressing here. You should save your money, and get a 1D Mk III with the 16-35 f2.8 L. Yes, you can afford both of those and a nice set of Alien Bees lights for the price of a 1Ds Mk III. Plus, you won't be looked down upon by other pros for having a "lesser" camera, which you really will have if you get a 5 D. The 5 D is slow (it shoots at a maximum of 3200 ISO, and it only shoots at 3 frames per second, compared to all the other, which all shoot at 5 frames per second or above). You may find you don't use the speed yet, but when you need it, it will be there with the 1D Mk III. You have found that 10 Megapixels is enough. Ten Megapixels will look even better, when it comes from a larger sensor.

THE ONLY CANON THAT SHOOTS AT 6400 ISO IS THE 1D Mk III.

And it shoots better at 6400 ISO than my 5 D shoots at 3200 ISO (less grainy).

You may also be considering the full-frame sensor cameras, because you want better control over depth of field. Get prime lenses for this, not a bigger sensor. You may also find that you are mistaken about the level of blur that you want/need. I realized recently that I'm shooting my 5 D with my 70-200 at f5.6 and f8 much more often now. One of my best photos of a model with her hair blurred (and the tip of her nose) was taken at f5.6, not f2.8 (like you might think). Sometimes I think people overemphasize the size of their apertures. I'm one of those peolpe, who is trying to reform himself.

Another reason to avoid the 5 D is the 12 bit color. All the other cameras you would consider shoot in 14 bit color. There IS a significant difference.

The only thing you'll get by spending almost $4,000 more is 11 Megapixels. If you think that is so important, then maybe you should get a 1D s Mk III, but I don't think you would be considering a 5 D if you thought having 21 Megapixels was so important.

Here is a list of the reasons I'm switching to Nikon, when I get $5,000.

1. Weather shielding - both the D3 and the D300 have professional level weather shielding.

2. Review screen quality - both Nikon cameras that I would buy have better color and res than any of the canon cameras.

3. ISO - both the D3 and D300 shoot at 6400 ISO (and the D3 goes higher than that)

4. Frame rates - both the D3 (9/11 fps) and D300 (up to 8 fps) shoot at high frame rates (provides more flexibility and gives me the ultimate speed in a tele-crop sensor)

5. I don't believe in Megapixels anymore, so the 12 megapixels of the D3 and D300 is plenty for me (even though it would be 20% higher than what I'd have in either the 40 D or the 1D Mk III). I believe it's more about lens quality and color rendition these days (and color rendition is partially related to lens quality - as is contrast), now that we have sensors over 6 Megapixels. Think of the film that people used to use. Film debates raged for decades as the film improved. We have the same debates today about sensors, but beautiful images come from ages ago, whether they were shot with a 4x5 film camera, or a 6 megapixel Canon 10 D. Your 40 D is a super performer. Much more than adequate. I understand the desire to get a larger sensor, because of a desire for better quality. Believe me, I bought a 4x5 camera in my search for higher quality and super-high resolution images.

Don't blow a bunch of money in one place though, when you don't have to. Get the 1D Mk III, and wait until you are ready for the Hasselblad H3 D39 to get that really big sensor. You really won't see much difference between the quality of the image produced by the 1:1.3 size sensor of the 1D Mk III and the 1:1 size sensor of the 1D Mk III.

"If you can't afford to buy the boat AND the jet, then maybe you shouldn't be buying either." This is what you might want to think about before you drop $8,000 on a really really expensive piece of equipment that might get stolen.

Also, have you ever used a prime lens? If you haven't, you should seriously consider it. You could afford to get a really nice 85mm or 50mm f1.2 L with the money you save by getting the 1D Mk III. You might even find yourself wanting to get another 1D Mk III, so you can quickly switch between the 50mm f1.2 and the 70-200 f28 L IS (which I also have - wonderful lens).

My Canon 50mm f1.4 lens, which only cost me $350 produces better clarity photos than my $1,800 Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS (at any shutter speed and any aperture setting - with image stabilization turned off or on).

Thats a mouth full

Digital Soup wrote:

Thats a mouth full

...and a nikon sales rep...

FleenorFilms Photo wrote:

...and a nikon sales rep...

??

Jeremy Lips Photography wrote:
get the 1D III......The 1Ds is built for image quality and the need for higher resolutions. The 5D is built for those who want a full frame camera. If you were going to get the 5D you may as well wait a couple of months and get the new version when it hits the market.

I would get the 1D III...They are built for speed and are great in low light.

The 5d was built for image quality too...not for speed...its older just doesn't mean its lower IQ than the mkIII

StephenEastwood wrote:
1ds3
Stephen Eastwood

1ds3 ..is the way to go and not just for what it can do for your work if you do your part   ..You don’t want to be confused as being just one of the guest with the 5d do you ?

ChanStudio wrote:
If it was me, I would just shoot with the 5D or wait for the 5D replacement.  Why get a another 10MP for 3 (almost 4) times the price when the 40D is already 10MP?

Because a 1D Mark III is rather more than just "another 10Mp". Ever used one?

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
I have the 5D, the 1D Mark III, and the 1Ds Mark III - all are superb cameras, but the 5D's age is showing a little.

I have to agree with most of the reasons given for suggesting the 1D Mark III - it is a sensible option. It has highlight tone priority (a feature specifically intended for shooting wedding dresses) - the 1Ds has this, the 5D does not. It has ISO 6400 - neither the 5D nor the 1Ds does. It has the ultra-long life batteries; 1Ds has, 5D (even with the battery grip) does not. And it has the option of shooting to two cards at once - for weddings, that's good insurance - the 1Ds has that, the 5D does not.

It wouldn't hurt to shoot the tossing of the bouquet at 10 frames / second, either.

All up, if you are budget-constrained, the 1D Mark III might be the best choice.

At the same time, the 1Ds Mark III is awesome. You can crop a 6 megapixel head shot from a full-length image - gives you lots more cropping options.

I doubt I'd recommend the 16-35 as the next lens, though - I'd consider getting two primes for about the same dollars. One would be the 135mm f2L - very useful for candids and for shooting couples across a table. The other would be large aperture - a 1.2 or 1.4 - the 35mm f1.4L, the 50mm f1.2L, or the 85mm f1.2L II (not cheap, but possibly the best wedding lens Canon has ever made).

I have the 35 and the 135...LOVE them...hey TB ya listening?!  haha

Thomas B wrote:
I own a Canon 40D along with the 24-70 2.8 L and 70-200 2.8 IS L. I am purchasing a new body for wedding photography.
If you had the money to buy a 1ds mark III would you purcahse that body for wedding photography OR would you buy the 5d along with the 16-35 L lens as well as some other accessories? Again...only if you were shooting weddings. I will be using the 40d for backup.
Thanks

After 700 weddings I'd say this, buy another 40-D, put the 24-70 on 1 and the 70-200 on the other, you're good to go

I've shot them with a Canon AE-1, a Mamiya 645 1000s, an RB 67, a Canon 10-D, and a 40-D.

To misquote The Beatles, "40-D is all you need!"

StephenEastwood wrote:
1ds3

Scott Kennelly wrote:
There is something nobody is addressing here. You should save your money, and get a 1D Mk III with the 16-35 f2.8 L. Yes, you can afford both of those and a nice set of Alien Bees lights for the price of a 1Ds Mk III. Plus, you won't be looked down upon by other pros for having a "lesser" camera, which you really will have if you get a 5 D. The 5 D is slow (it shoots at a maximum of 3200 ISO, and it only shoots at 3 frames per second, compared to all the other, which all shoot at 5 frames per second or above). You may find you don't use the speed yet, but when you need it, it will be there with the 1D Mk III. You have found that 10 Megapixels is enough. Ten Megapixels will look even better, when it comes from a larger sensor.

THE ONLY CANON THAT SHOOTS AT 6400 ISO IS THE 1D Mk III.

And it shoots better at 6400 ISO than my 5 D shoots at 3200 ISO (less grainy).

You may also be considering the full-frame sensor cameras, because you want better control over depth of field. Get prime lenses for this, not a bigger sensor. You may also find that you are mistaken about the level of blur that you want/need. I realized recently that I'm shooting my 5 D with my 70-200 at f5.6 and f8 much more often now. One of my best photos of a model with her hair blurred (and the tip of her nose) was taken at f5.6, not f2.8 (like you might think). Sometimes I think people overemphasize the size of their apertures. I'm one of those peolpe, who is trying to reform himself.

Another reason to avoid the 5 D is the 12 bit color. All the other cameras you would consider shoot in 14 bit color. There IS a significant difference.

The only thing you'll get by spending almost $4,000 more is 11 Megapixels. If you think that is so important, then maybe you should get a 1D s Mk III, but I don't think you would be considering a 5 D if you thought having 21 Megapixels was so important.

Here is a list of the reasons I'm switching to Nikon, when I get $5,000.

1. Weather shielding - both the D3 and the D300 have professional level weather shielding.

2. Review screen quality - both Nikon cameras that I would buy have better color and res than any of the canon cameras.

3. ISO - both the D3 and D300 shoot at 6400 ISO (and the D3 goes higher than that)

4. Frame rates - both the D3 (9/11 fps) and D300 (up to 8 fps) shoot at high frame rates (provides more flexibility and gives me the ultimate speed in a tele-crop sensor)

5. I don't believe in Megapixels anymore, so the 12 megapixels of the D3 and D300 is plenty for me (even though it would be 20% higher than what I'd have in either the 40 D or the 1D Mk III). I believe it's more about lens quality and color rendition these days (and color rendition is partially related to lens quality - as is contrast), now that we have sensors over 6 Megapixels. Think of the film that people used to use. Film debates raged for decades as the film improved. We have the same debates today about sensors, but beautiful images come from ages ago, whether they were shot with a 4x5 film camera, or a 6 megapixel Canon 10 D. Your 40 D is a super performer. Much more than adequate. I understand the desire to get a larger sensor, because of a desire for better quality. Believe me, I bought a 4x5 camera in my search for higher quality and super-high resolution images.

Don't blow a bunch of money in one place though, when you don't have to. Get the 1D Mk III, and wait until you are ready for the Hasselblad H3 D39 to get that really big sensor. You really won't see much difference between the quality of the image produced by the 1:1.3 size sensor of the 1D Mk III and the 1:1 size sensor of the 1D Mk III.

"If you can't afford to buy the boat AND the jet, then maybe you shouldn't be buying either." This is what you might want to think about before you drop $8,000 on a really really expensive piece of equipment that might get stolen.

Also, have you ever used a prime lens? If you haven't, you should seriously consider it. You could afford to get a really nice 85mm or 50mm f1.2 L with the money you save by getting the 1D Mk III. You might even find yourself wanting to get another 1D Mk III, so you can quickly switch between the 50mm f1.2 and the 70-200 f28 L IS (which I also have - wonderful lens).

My Canon 50mm f1.4 lens, which only cost me $350 produces better clarity photos than my $1,800 Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS (at any shutter speed and any aperture setting - with image stabilization turned off or on).

I'd go with the short answer.

Thomas B wrote:
I own a Canon 40D along with the 24-70 2.8 L and 70-200 2.8 IS L. I am purchasing a new body for wedding photography.
If you had the money to buy a 1ds mark III would you purcahse that body for wedding photography OR would you buy the 5d along with the 16-35 L lens as well as some other accessories? Again...only if you were shooting weddings. I will be using the 40d for backup.
Thanks

You can buy two 5Ds for less than the price of one 1Ds MkIII.  Or you could buy the 16-35, and three 5Ds for nearly the price of one 1DsMkIII and never have to change lenses and introduce dust into the mirror chamber ever.

Personality Imaging wrote:
I do windows but not weddings

cool....thanks for the help

Perry Oki wrote:
5D for weddings.  1Ds is not that good, I should've gotten a Mamiya.

What? Maybe I need to start a new thread on that. I was thing of getting that 1d mark III body. :-/

Thomas B wrote:
I own a Canon 40D along with the 24-70 2.8 L and 70-200 2.8 IS L. I am purchasing a new body for wedding photography.
If you had the money to buy a 1ds mark III would you purcahse that body for wedding photography OR would you buy the 5d along with the 16-35 L lens as well as some other accessories? Again...only if you were shooting weddings. I will be using the 40d for backup.
Thanks

Apples and oranges.  Pro equipment vs. 3 year old technology pro-sumer equipment.  The 5D is sufficient but the 1Ds will blow it away.

Faze1 photography wrote:

What? Maybe I need to start a new thread on that. I was thing of getting that 1d mark III body. :-/

The 1Ds is an excellent body.  I have to question someone who says, " 1Ds is not that good". 

Michael Longeneker wrote:
Get the 5d. None of your customers will complain about the image quality. Get the other goodies you want and go make money.

The people who tell you it is not good enough because it is not the latest and the greatest will drop their !ds Mk III and flock to the new 1ds Mk IV when it comes out. "The Mk III is not good enough" they will complain.

That is when you should buy a Mk III, not now.

Now is when they are saying that about the 5d.

I hear you but what you say isn't necessarily true.  People who have expensive weddings have expensive toys.  Imagine showing up with a Rebel when the father of the bride (the guy paying for the wedding, including you) has a 1Ds Mark III in his closet for special occasions.  He may frown on it.

This world on MM is very different than the real world and in high end wedding photography (or just high end photography), what you shoot is very important to the client.

Marc Grant wrote:

I hear you but what you say isn't necessarily true.  People who have expensive weddings have expensive toys.  Imagine showing up with a Rebel when the father of the bride (the guy paying for the wedding, including you) has a 1Ds Mark III in his closet for special occasions.  He may frown on it.

This world on MM is very different than the real world and in high end wedding photography (or just high end photography), what you shoot is very important to the client.

I occasionally shoot a wedding for friends of mine.  I show up with my old school film gear and run into some doc or lawyer with money to burn who has a fancy digital camera or even a 'blad.  Chances are good that they don't know how to use 10% of the features of their cameras.  They just buy it because someone told them in a camera store that it was the best.  They are usually amazed that I know some feature on the camera that they were not aware of - and so the guy with the old school gear (and the RIT education and years of assisting experience in NYC) actually comes off looking like the pro that I am in the eyes of even the uncle of the bride who is a doc, a CEO of some bio-med company, drove up in a Bentley and shoots with a 1DsMkIII or a 'blad.

That being said, that does not mean that I could show up with something less than a top of the line film camera and get that respect.  If I tried to shoot a wedding with a Holga or some crappy old 35mm camera, I wouldn't get that respect.

Telephoto Studio wrote:

I occasionally shoot a wedding for friends of mine.  I show up with my old school film gear and run into some doc or lawyer with money to burn who has a fancy digital camera or even a 'blad.  Chances are good that they don't know how to use 10% of the features of their cameras.  They just buy it because someone told them in a camera store that it was the best.  They are usually amazed that I know some feature on the camera that they were not aware of - and so the guy with the old school gear (and the RIT education and years of assisting experience in NYC) actually comes off looking like the pro that I am in the eyes of even the uncle of the bride who is a doc, a CEO of some bio-med company, drove up in a Bentley and shoots with a 1DsMkIII or a 'blad.

That being said, that does not mean that I could show up with something less than a top of the line film camera and get that respect.  If I tried to shoot a wedding with a Holga or some crappy old 35mm camera, I wouldn't get that respect.

You get it.  There are so many on here that don't and think it's just about the work produced.  In a perfect world, that would be right but this is far from a perfect world.