| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2005 07:12:54 AM · #1 |
I've been contemplating upgrading my camera equipment and all my research has gravitated toward a 20D. 1D series I considered well beyond my means. Now, however, I have noticed that 1D MKII can also be bought at a fairly reasonable (albeit much higher than 20D) price.
A quick comparison tells me that they have the same pixel count, but 1D MKII has a lot bigger sensor, which is a good thing. The focal length multiplication factor is 1.3, which is also a good thing for landscape photos (I'm not much of a bird watcher anyway). 1D MKII's high burst rate is rather irrelevant, as I'm not a paparazzo nor a sports photographer and you don't really need 8fps, to shoot a church door.
Can anyone who has experience with both cameras advise me, is it worthwhile to think about 1D MKII or am I climbing up the wrong tree. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 07:20:56 AM · #2 |
| Look, I've obviously not used either, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but if you have no intention of shooting sport or fast moving subjects and you don't plan on using the camera in really rough conditions (i.e wet, really dusty etc) then I can't see that the Mark II will be worth the extra money for you. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 07:26:25 AM · #3 |
What about the pixel quality? The photos I see in DPC galleries are all post-photoshop, so I can't judge fairly. Dpreview.com sample galleries show some pretty good images from 1D MKII, but then, the shots are of different objects, so I can't compare how a particular line or texture would appear on each.
Generally, I tend to agree with samtrundle (particularly when I consider the weight if 1D MKII). Just wanted to convince myself, I guess, not to buy too expensive toys. :-) |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 07:57:01 AM · #4 |
If you're an amateur, the 1D MKII is overkill. Kinda like buying a Hummer if you're only going to use it to do groceries. The 20D has all the features that a serious amateur needs. Save the difference in $$$ and buy yourself higher quality lenses. Quality glass can make all the difference.
As for pixel quality, again if you are an amateur, even a very good one, the difference in quality between the 20D and 1D MKII won't make that much difference in the end.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:02:01 AM · #5 |
I agree, good advice. Like Beagleboy said, get the 20d, and spend the difference on good glass.
A 20d will take better pictures with high quality glass infront of it than a 1dsmkII will with el cheapo super ultra variable aperture zoom.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:09:14 AM · #6 |
:-)
Thanks, your advice will be noted and followed. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:12:09 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I agree, good advice. Like Beagleboy said, get the 20d, and spend the difference on good glass.
A 20d will take better pictures with high quality glass infront of it than a 1dsmkII will with el cheapo super ultra variable aperture zoom. |
Glad I joined the discussion! I have used the 1DsMkII, 1DMkII and I own the 20D. I completely disagree with what deapee just said.
The 1DMkII will give you better photos more often than the 20D regardless of the glass you've got. The key to this is the focus system on the 1DMkII. The focus will be spot on very often with the 1DMkII, the other part is the AWB which is better on the 1DMkII.
And don't forget the sealing, bigger viewfinder, better LCD (n), less noise ISO100-400, possbility to use two cards, etc.
If you got a chance to grab the 1DMkIIn please do so, you will *never* regret it, it is the BEST camera out there in my opinion.
Signed,
Someone who have seen the light and regret his mistake. :-)
Message edited by author 2005-08-30 08:13:28. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:13:00 AM · #8 |
Save even more money and buy the Rebel XT.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:17:37 AM · #9 |
| Well, yes, 350D was a serious option. However, even though the sensors of 350D and 20D are quite similar, 20D has superior AF and metering and I've been pissed off so many times about my Finepix S5500 not finding or losing focus, that I just don't want to take any chances any more. :-) |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:21:01 AM · #10 |
Have you went and played with the 350XT?
I have only had mine for a week and haven't played with it much but I really love everything about it so far.
Message edited by author 2005-08-30 08:21:42.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:22:39 AM · #11 |
Unfortunately I happen to live in a country where you've got to pay first and play later. :-)
At least where cameras are concerned. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:24:19 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
Unfortunately I happen to live in a country where you've got to pay first and play later. :-)
At least where cameras are concerned. |
I figured that. If you have any questions about the 350D then just look at all the owners of the camera and pm some of them about your needs. Most are willing to help.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:25:57 AM · #13 |
I have to agree with Terje that the 1D MKII is a MUCH better camera and you will undoubtedly get better results using it. But most of we mere mortals only have average jobs with average salaries plus we have a myriad of financial obligations. Furthermore, it is very much a hobby, so the camera can be seen as a toy, a distraction.
I just find that getting the 1D MKII over the 20D is still throwing money away if you're an amateur taking pictures for yourself, family and friends. Terje has an excellent point, but he shoots semi-professionally/professionally, and as such he needs the best equipment he can get to get those money shots that his clients want. Not saying that Terje is wrong, just that he is relating his experience from a user point that may be completely different to yours.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:28:56 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by terje:
I completely disagree with what deapee just said.
The 1DMkII will give you better photos more often than the 20D regardless of the glass you've got. |
That statement is seriously misleading to someone just getting into things. You couldn't be more wrong.
Go take a 1dmkII and a 75-300 f/4-5.6...and I'll take a 20d with a 70-200 f/2.8L and I GUARANTEE that EVERY picture I take ... will look better than EVERY picture that you take...this is not a guessing game...this is fact dude. Stop misleading the new folks that are just trying to learn.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:40:25 AM · #15 |
I'm in agreement with terje, there is much that is superior about the 1DMkII. The larger sensor (somewhat lower pixel density) results in naturally cleaner images. The 45-point AF is quite superior to that in the 20D, though the 20D is no slouch. The body is built like a brick sh!thouse, and is weather sealed. The shutter delay and mirror blackout times are second to none. I nearly bought one earlier this year when the $500 rebate was going on. Now, however, you can get the body for about the same price as you could after the rebate. You may have a lot of trouble finding the MkII, stock seems to be drying up a bit. The IIn will cost a little more.
If you're more of a WA kind of guy, and don't need frame rate of the 1DMkII, you might consider the 5D (available early October). You get a full-frame sensor, 12.8Mpx resolution and a smaller package (about the size/weight of the 10D) for a bit less than the 1DMkII was going for. Max frame rate is only 3fps, but shutter delay is very comparable to the 20D, at 75ms (nearly twice as good as my current 10D). The noise levels will be as good or better than the 1DMkII, even ISO 3200 is very clean (!!) Can you tell I have one on order?
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:46:47 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by terje:
I completely disagree with what deapee just said.
The 1DMkII will give you better photos more often than the 20D regardless of the glass you've got. |
That statement is seriously misleading to someone just getting into things. You couldn't be more wrong.
Go take a 1dmkII and a 75-300 f/4-5.6...and I'll take a 20d with a 70-200 f/2.8L and I GUARANTEE that EVERY picture I take ... will look better than EVERY picture that you take...this is not a guessing game...this is fact dude. Stop misleading the new folks that are just trying to learn. |
You're wrong deepea. I've own all the equipment you lists (except 1DMkII which I have borrowed a lot), and I tell you: You're wrong! :-)
I used to think the glass was the most important factor, so I got all the fancy glass I needed, now I've changed my mind. It's not the glass that makes the great photos, it's the camera. (Blah blah photographer etc of course. But camera has more to do about a great photo than the glass.)
Amature or Pro, if you're new in this game get the 350D, than replace it once you can afford the 1DMkII. But DON'T consider 20D if you *might* have the dollars to get the 1DMkIIn (which has dropped in price as of late).
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:51:47 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
If you're more of a WA kind of guy, and don't need frame rate of the 1DMkII, - - - |
You can see some of my shots (made with my compact) at
//web.starman.ee/tarmoamer/fotki/
Sorry, no gallery yet, just the files, but representative of what I see and shoot.
Yes, I'm a beginner, but I don't intend to remain one for very long and I can't afford to buy new equipment every six months, so whatever I'm going to buy now, will have to last for several years.
As for 5D, I have no doubt that it's a great piece of equipment, but FF cancels the multiplication factor and, pricewise, there's quite a difference between 300mm L and 400mm L lenses.
/edit: besides, I really want a camera that I won't be able to blame for a shot gone wrong. I want to be sure that when there's something wrong with the picture, it's me, not the camera. The camera must leave room for me to grow - for quite some time, as I explained. :-)
Message edited by author 2005-08-30 08:56:14. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:54:36 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
Originally posted by kirbic:
If you're more of a WA kind of guy, and don't need frame rate of the 1DMkII, - - - |
You can see some of my shots (made with my compact) at
//web.starman.ee/tarmoamer/fotki/
Sorry, no gallery yet, just the files, but representative of what I see and shoot.
Yes, I'm a beginner, but I don't intend to remain beginning for very long time and I can't afford to buy new equipment every six months, so whatever I'm going to buy now, will have to last for several years.
As for 5D, I have no doubt that it's a great piece of equipment, but FF cancels the multiplication factor and, pricewise, there's quite a difference between 300mm L and 400mm L lenses. |
Hmm, you're not a beginner in my book. :-) That's a lot of great photos!
If you can afford the 1DMkIIn, I recommend you to buy it. You will not regret this, I promise you. *ever*
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:58:43 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by terje:
If you can afford the 1DMkIIn, I recommend you to buy it. You will not regret this, I promise you. *ever* |
Well, whether or not I can afford it, I can tell you next Monday.
On Sunday I will be in the 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' game.
What wouldn't a man do for his camera ...
:-)
Message edited by author 2005-08-30 09:16:53. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 08:59:42 AM · #20 |
hi...
Message edited by author 2005-08-30 09:00:02.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 09:11:16 AM · #21 |
| I think what deapee is saying is that if you have soft glass even if your camera exactly duplicates the light, you will have soft pictures. Thats pretty hard to argue with but I see some of you trying. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 09:28:53 AM · #22 |
Niten, I don't consider any new canon lens to be "soft" glass.
Here is an example of he 18-55mm kit lens, which is probably considered "soft" in deepea's opinion.. I don't consider any of his shots soft, cause they're properly executed. Do you? 70-300mm isn't soft either.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 09:41:13 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Niten:
I think what deapee is saying is that if you have soft glass even if your camera exactly duplicates the light, you will have soft pictures. Thats pretty hard to argue with but I see some of you trying. |
Yes, that's true. Mediocre glass will always result in mediocre images. However, remember that the 1DMkII takes advantage of more of the image circle of the lens, and therefore is capable of capturing more of the total detail that the lens can render. This does in fact mean that the 1DMkII can produce a more detailed image from the same lens. It will not be an incredible difference, but it will be apparent. I still wouldn't stick a 75-300 on a 1DMkII :-P
In addition to the sensor difference, the 1DMkII has a superior AF system which will nail focus more often under difficult conditions than a non-1-series cam. Bottom line, there si support for the idea that the 1DMkII will produce a better image more often, given the same glass.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 10:24:55 AM · #24 |
There's a huge difference between the two cameras. But mostly you won't find it in the pictures. The difference is in the handling, at the extreme ends. At the extremes of light, or response time, or weather.
You could probably take most shots with either cameras, but the 1DII will let you capture more images in those extremes than a 20D. But if you aren't ever going to be stretching the capabilities, but needing rapid response, or weather sealing, or really low light, or the various other areas where the 1DII exceeds the 20D, then the difference is just a waste of money. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 10:40:46 AM · #25 |
You wouldn't stick a 75-300 on a 1D Mk IIn? I would!
Heh. These boys who talk bigger sensors and bigger pixels don't speak nonsense. After having done a great deal of review myself, I have come to the conclusion that if I have an extra couple grand in six months, I will go for a 2nd hand 1D MkII (sorry no N) if the price is right.
*1.3x still favors the sweet spot in the lens.
*1.3x still multiplies nicely with a 1.4x converter to boost the famous 70-200 F2.8L to around 364mm compared to 448. Neither are good enough for seriously long shots for nature, but 364mm isn't anything to sneeze at.
*AF on the 1D rocks socks.
*Availability of REALLY good, affordable lenses is increasing. Sure, it is easy to spend a lot of money on super long telephotos, but that's a given. However, medium range lenses in the "L" league are out there at prices between 350 and 600 dollars... Not to mention the famous thrifty fifty.
*Aperture. Taken from information given me from someone else on Cambridge in Colour website, the 20D will begin to lose fine detail beyond F11. The 1D MkII will begin to lose detail above F22. This is splitting hairs level on the 1D, but not insignficant on the 20D. Read up on diffraction principles there.
For a landscape or architecture photographer, this may be significant.
On the other hand, it may not be. The truth is, if you get great results with a compact, it is likely you will get stunning results with either the 20D or the 1D.
You will do pretty well with even mediocre lenses. You should be able to get a decent spread to start for a few hundred bucks and get a simply awesome lens spread for a couple grand.
Personally, I view my lens purchases as being separate from my body purchase. I want the lenses I want and I want the body I want. The problem with my is that I don't really know what lenses or body I want :).
|
|
