Posts
78
Joined
1/2/2009
Location
Bellingham, WA
US
Edited Date/Time
1/25/2012 8:34am
Right now I am shooting with a canon 40D. As some of you know from my previous posts, I have been annoyed with some noise issues while shooting indoor events such as inside domes and stadiums. I realize most of it is the limitiations on my 40D with it's 1.6 crop factor sensor.
So, I want to set a goal to work toward a new body. I have been looking at the Mk II 5D, MkIII 1D, MkIII 1Ds.
I like the MkIII 1D for its 10fps continuous shooting and the High ISO with lower noise. I have heard this body deamed as the "Action Camera". But I don't like it for it's 1.3 crop factor and it's only 10.1 Megapixel. Maybe it is not as big a deal as I think? But if I invest that kind of money, I want maximum noise reduction and I want to be able to print really big at 300 DPI.
I like the MkIII 1Ds for it's full frame sensor and its even more improved high ISO and low noise due to the full frame sensor. Also I like it's 21.1 megapixal for bigger prints or the better ability to "crop in" on a subject that I was not able to get as close as I may have wanted to and still have a descent size print at 300 dpi. The only downside I see is it's only 5fps (which I feel would almost be good enough?? it's only 1.5 less than my 40D which I find sufficient). One of my questions is, do all you pro's that shoot regularly on the circuit use that option of 10fps if your shooting with the 1D?
Then there is the new 5D MKII. The magazines are saying the 5D surpasses even the 1Ds in image quality. It has the full frame sensor, it has the 21.1 megapixels and even better low noise. But it just doesn't seem as "professional" as the MKIIIs. I know the MKIIIs are better built as far as the body goes. Also a Longer shutter life and dual processors.
I also know there is a lot of $$$$ that seperates them all. The way I look at it, is that it is an investment. If I am going to put thousands of dollars into any body no matter which on I go with, I might as well save for the better fit body for what I want to get out of it. I hear people say: "$7,999 for a body? You gotta be crazy." But just because you put that money into a body doesn't mean that you waisted that money. I see people selling used 1Ds' for damn good money. So even if one were to use it for a year, I would imagine they could turn around and sell it for a good amount.
I have just always had my eye on the MKIII and always dreamed of owning one. I want to really just take a poll of all you pro shooters out there and see what you guys are shooting with and what you see others using. Let me know what you think on this issue.
So, I want to set a goal to work toward a new body. I have been looking at the Mk II 5D, MkIII 1D, MkIII 1Ds.
I like the MkIII 1D for its 10fps continuous shooting and the High ISO with lower noise. I have heard this body deamed as the "Action Camera". But I don't like it for it's 1.3 crop factor and it's only 10.1 Megapixel. Maybe it is not as big a deal as I think? But if I invest that kind of money, I want maximum noise reduction and I want to be able to print really big at 300 DPI.
I like the MkIII 1Ds for it's full frame sensor and its even more improved high ISO and low noise due to the full frame sensor. Also I like it's 21.1 megapixal for bigger prints or the better ability to "crop in" on a subject that I was not able to get as close as I may have wanted to and still have a descent size print at 300 dpi. The only downside I see is it's only 5fps (which I feel would almost be good enough?? it's only 1.5 less than my 40D which I find sufficient). One of my questions is, do all you pro's that shoot regularly on the circuit use that option of 10fps if your shooting with the 1D?
Then there is the new 5D MKII. The magazines are saying the 5D surpasses even the 1Ds in image quality. It has the full frame sensor, it has the 21.1 megapixels and even better low noise. But it just doesn't seem as "professional" as the MKIIIs. I know the MKIIIs are better built as far as the body goes. Also a Longer shutter life and dual processors.
I also know there is a lot of $$$$ that seperates them all. The way I look at it, is that it is an investment. If I am going to put thousands of dollars into any body no matter which on I go with, I might as well save for the better fit body for what I want to get out of it. I hear people say: "$7,999 for a body? You gotta be crazy." But just because you put that money into a body doesn't mean that you waisted that money. I see people selling used 1Ds' for damn good money. So even if one were to use it for a year, I would imagine they could turn around and sell it for a good amount.
I have just always had my eye on the MKIII and always dreamed of owning one. I want to really just take a poll of all you pro shooters out there and see what you guys are shooting with and what you see others using. Let me know what you think on this issue.
I have a 1dMarkII and shot at 1600 for a lot of my photo's at the Houston SX. I tried shooting at 3200 and THAT is not acceptable, but 1600 is to me.
My photo thread is on the main board, here
Pro's are using the 1dMarkIII's or whatever Nikon equivalent is. I'd like the Mark3 too and will be looking this summer for a good used one.
EOS 1D Mark III 3724.95
EOS 1Ds Mark III 6559.95
You can try a 50D but it won't last like a 1
EOS 50D 1069.95
The Shop
And with all due respect, BUCKLEY, last I checked that's what you were using!
Are you shooting professionally? Then getting a better camera to increase revenue should not be an issue. You should get the best. But if you are like most of us who are not professional you have to deal with budget. So then you have to balance cost with enjoyment. Do you print out images or do you post them on the web? Web images are cropped and reduced to 72dpi and most sites have size restrictions so why worry about mega pixels.
As for autofocus, obviously the pro cameras are going to be faster but how fast to you need for supercross?
All these shots were shot from a Rebel XT (I dumped my 40d while I could get a good price for it). They may not be the best or compete with those posted this site but they are respectable and people enjoy them as did I taking them
http://www.rmxa.com/...e=topic&topicID=2395
It has the most pitiful AF compared to the others but I was able to get a large number of keepers. Which is the difference between AF systems speed..
As for noise, again if you are posting them on the web, it is pretty hard to see because your images have to be resampled down. I shot all of these at shutter speed 800 but I under exposed everyone of them by 2 stops, then had to correct it in raw. You can see the noise but again for web pics, is it really that important? (only you can answer that question yourself)
http://www.rmxa.com/...e=topic&topicID=2390
If you were professional, this would be unacceptable, but that is the question are you a pro and how often do you shoot supercross and how many pics do you sell of SX?
I was going to upgrade my canon camera (I shoot Nikon as well) with the 5d2 but after seeing all the problems with it (black dot.. etc) and the autofocus was not upgraded and is not in the same league as the D700 I will stick with what I have and wait for the next generation that hopefully competes with Nikon next go around.
The other option like mentioned is 1dmk2 used, Rob Galbraith would argue it has better AF than the mk3 and you can pick them up at a good price. I considered this as well but technology and competition with Nikon is moving so fast, I am going to wait and use what I have now unless I start generating a lot more revenue from motocross events I shoot. Good luck to you.
To me camera bodies are not an investment, they have huge depreciation every time a new body comes out. If I were generating a lot of revenue from them, I would use them as a tax write off. Investements to me increase in value or generate money, and unless you are a pro selling enough pics to cover the camera cost and generate income, no camera body does that.
Nothing in the 5D series or the 50d and back series are going to touch an old MkII. They are great deals if you get a relatively low shutter count (say, s starting at $2500.
BTW, with all due respect to Rob Galbraith and the hard work he put into chasing down the initial AF issues with the MkIII, working MkIII's available now that work as well as mine are better AF units than the MkII. It's a different AF system, different custom functions, and very sensitive. Like complex modern MX suspension with a lot of adjustments, I think it's easy to set something up that doesn't work well for a particular purpose and get frustrated.
But for FTE I also use the 5D as my backup body and for a 2nd lens at the track. The 5D, well at least mine, focuses fast and accurate. Its not a 1 series but it is a lot better than the 40D.
If you learn how to use it the 5D if a fine camera.. Good luck getting one for a reasonable price though.
The 5D is going for around $1500 for a good used one. Not sure about the 1d 2 or 2N.
The new 5D M2 is only $2600. So a $900 break on a camera with half the resolution and doesn't shoot vid is a huge difference to me. So think a good deal on the 5D would be $1000 or less..
Of course I will not sell mine so don't ask..
Maybe my definition of a good deal is jaded.
There are a lot of great options available to people up and down the price range; you almost have to work at it to make a buying mistake.
Just purchased the new (08) Canon 200 F2 L IS lens ..It will work nice on the Mark II N since it will be close to 300mm (1.3)..But I do want a FF 1ds soon..There are some good deals on them on FM and canon photo forums but they go quick like in minutes..You go the money in hand sit on those boards alot and you will find a great deal on one..
I would not rule out a 1 D II N or even the 1D II there great cameras and you can het them for 2k or less.
Post a reply to: Which camera body for shooting moto.