# 5D Mark II or 1D Mark III



## erda (Jan 22, 2012)

So I was in the local store today and was contemplating spending some money! 
Am planning a trip through Yellowstone and Colorado by motorcycle this summer and was thinking that I'm missing an ultra-wide angle lens. Was thinking about either the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16. Then I got "squirrelled" by cameras. My simple logic was: spend money on a lens, but still have the 'old' camera, or buy a new camera that would allow my current glass to provide me the ultra-wide range. So looked at the new 5D mark ii and also a used 1D mark iii.
Any suggestions or advice?

Currently: 30D; 17-40L; 70-200L f4


----------



## GoldenEagle (Jan 22, 2012)

First of all, your current gear will work pretty well for outdoor photos.
If you are intent on parting with some $$$, then I'm not sure the 10-22 or Tokina will get you the image quality you may want, if you're used to L lenses.
The 1D Mark iii offers weatherproofing but other than that isn't a perfect fit for your outdoor needs - you would be wasting the high shutter speed and focus points.
The 5D Mark ii would be an excellent choice, and the Full Frame with your existing 17-40 would be as wide as you'd ever need.
If storage space in the cycle is an issue, another route would be to go with a 7D + 18-200 zoom only, a great pair for travel/one lens configuration.
My 2 cents.


----------



## Picsfor (Jan 22, 2012)

5D2 - no brainer, you'll never look back, honestly.
More suitable camera for travel photography, smaller and lighter to carry about, and as said, with those 2 lenses, why would you want anything else?

1D3? You expected to pay for it?


----------



## erda (Jan 22, 2012)

Should have mentioned that the 1Dmiii (used-25000 actuations) and a new 5Dmii with grip are within $100 of each other.


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm gonna throw in another vote for the 5DII! Fantastic camera - especially for landscapes!


----------



## cpsico (Jan 22, 2012)

I would really ask yourself what is it you really need from a camera. The 1d has great battery life, two memory slots, weather sealing,multi spot metering , heck way better over all metering than the 5d mkII. Now the 5d the center point focus point is golden, has great resolution and color, high ISO beats the1d by a stop. If you know how to use a histogram you can easily over come the 5 d's metering btw. The 5d has a far superior LCD , the mkIII's doesn't come close.
I find myself carrying my 5 dII the most, but when the shooting pace is fast with little time for adjustments I like my mk III better. 
It's all about your shooting needs


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 22, 2012)

I would choose the 5DII as the single camera even though I have a 1D4. 

I dont understand the mentioned metering problem - doesn't happen with mine, I do use AE lock (grass is a good reference point)


----------



## cpsico (Jan 22, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I would choose the 5DII as the single camera even though I have a 1D4.
> 
> I dont understand the mentioned metering problem - doesn't happen with mine, I do use AE lock (grass is a good reference point)


It has a tendency to over expose out doors, using AE lock works great but requires you to understand exposure and mid tones. It is a fantastic camera, just auto metering requires some adjustments in some circumstances. When canon starts using metering systems that see color it will be a non issue.


----------



## JR (Jan 22, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I would choose the 5DII as the single camera even though I have a 1D4.
> 
> I dont understand the mentioned metering problem - doesn't happen with mine, I do use AE lock (grass is a good reference point)



Interestingly when I first red this post I thought the question was comparing the 1Ds mkIII and not the 1D mkIII. Brian I beleive you now have both the 5D mkII and the 1Ds mkIII correct? I would be curious to know which of these two machine you would pick if you could only choose one? I know the 1Ds is a bit older but you posted a few pictures that seem to suggest it beats the 5DmkII for ISO below 1600?

Really curious to know this one! Thanks in advance!

Jacques


----------



## Viggo (Jan 22, 2012)

The metering on mine 5d2, and three friends of mine, always underexpose by a full stop. Really annoying. You have to constantly take one image and check and adjust. But I have come to the conclusion that a FullFrame camera is the only SLR worth owning, yes and I am serious. My 24 L II, 50 L and 85 L have been 60% wasted on the mk4 compared when used on the 5d2, my god those lenses are so much better on fullframe.....


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 22, 2012)

I have the 1d4, 1ds3 and a 5dII

The 1d4 (1.3 crop) is the best all round by a long way, particularly for fps, AF and high iso

The 1ds3 (ff) is the best for lower iso, more static items - but has good AF (about the same as the 7D). Gives better IQ and lower noise than the 5DII

The 5D2 is the best all round for landscapes and portraits

I bought the 1ds3 as a poor mans 1dx which I am glad it is doing at them moment

With the OP's requirements I would choose the 5DII which I find a good all rounder for me as I seem to be OK with the limitations of the AF


----------



## cfargo (Jan 22, 2012)

5D MK II and forget the grip as space on the bike is limited.


----------



## JR (Jan 22, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I have the 1d4, 1ds3 and a 5dII
> 
> The 1d4 (1.3 crop) is the best all round by a long way, particularly for fps, AF and high iso
> 
> ...



So would you say the 1Ds mkIII is better then the 5D mkII for ISO below 1600?


----------



## cpsico (Jan 22, 2012)

Viggo said:


> The metering on mine 5d2, and three friends of mine, always underexpose by a full stop. Really annoying. You have to constantly take one image and check and adjust. But I have come to the conclusion that a FullFrame camera is the only SLR worth owning, yes and I am serious. My 24 L II, 50 L and 85 L have been 60% wasted on the mk4 compared when used on the 5d2, my god those lenses are so much better on fullframe.....


It's funny outdoors the 5dII is over exposed by 2/3 of a stop, and high ISO (3200 and up') it is indeed about one stop under in dim lit conditions. Would it be fair to say its a superb sensor wrapped in a mediocre shell? Metering is a weak point of the camera but the LCD and histogram do let you know you are off on exposure. The LCD on this camera is wonderful compareded to older models(I have never used a mark IV) I could never use my LCD on my mark III for much other than composition. I think the 5d II is a wonderful camera for landscapes and slow to non moving subjects, after all it's really designed as a studio/ landscape camera. Btw it is fantastic in regards to image quality. One thing no one has mentioned is the 5 d has auto iso, thats a great feature worth mentioning.


----------



## tron (Jan 22, 2012)

Although the Canon 10-22 is an excellent lens I would suggest to invest on a 5DII instead.
As you have 17-40L you will not need a wider lens. The real cost will be the cost of the 5DII minus the
cost of the UW zoom you would buy instead. If you buy the UW zoom now and wish to upgrade to full frame later you will have paid more in the long term and you will have missed the full frame pictures too. Also you can sell your 30D and get some money back.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 22, 2012)

GoldenEagle said:


> If you are intent on parting with some $$$, then I'm not sure the 10-22 or Tokina will get you the image quality you may want, if you're used to L lenses.



The 10-22 is at least as good as the 17-40L. The Tokina 11-16 is better, the crop equivalent of the 16-35L II in terms of IQ.



> The 5D Mark ii would be an excellent choice, and the Full Frame with your existing 17-40 would be as wide as you'd ever need.



The 5D2 is a great camera. However, a 60D or 7D + Tokina 11-16 will out perform the 5D2 + 17-40L at low to mid ISO. I have both those lenses and have done this comparison. On FF the 17-40L doesn't have the edge to edge sharpness / fine detail of the Tokina on crop.

That said, this is almost splitting hairs. You can make good large prints with either combo. But the 60D + Tokina is cheaper than the 5D2 by itself, yet will actually edge it out in landscapes given the 17-40L on FF.


----------



## motorhead (Jan 22, 2012)

I would not dream of comparing the 5D mk2 with the ID, they are too different. Now ask about how the 5D mk2 compares with the 1Ds3 and we might be able to have a conversation.

The 5D2 as a number of strengths and weaknesses and these mainly revolve around whether its used in a photojournalists/sports tog role or in a studio/landscapist/fine art role. For the second it is a natural born winner, but it does struggle in the former role. Depends on the individuals style of photography mainly, or so it seems.

Given a well cared for used 1Ds3, then thats what I would personally choose, but I was very recently offered a "well-worn" example and decided to buy a new 5D2 instead. Financially they were about the same.


----------



## jwong (Jan 22, 2012)

erda said:


> So I was in the local store today and was contemplating spending some money!
> Am planning a trip through Yellowstone and Colorado by motorcycle this summer and was thinking that I'm missing an ultra-wide angle lens. Was thinking about either the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16. Then I got "squirrelled" by cameras. My simple logic was: spend money on a lens, but still have the 'old' camera, or buy a new camera that would allow my current glass to provide me the ultra-wide range. So looked at the new 5D mark ii and also a used 1D mark iii.
> Any suggestions or advice?
> 
> Currently: 30D; 17-40L; 70-200L f4



I'd suggest holding off on a new body and buying a used 10-22 or the 11-16. I have a 20D, and I'm waiting to move to the 5DIII when it comes out. There were some great deals on the 5DII during the holiday season, but I decided to get lenses first. I picked up the 10-22 when Canon had a sale on refurbished lenses, and I plan on selling it when I upgrade FF. I see the 10-22 going for about 600 on Ebay, and if you sell it, you might lose 100 max based on sales fees etc, and then buy the body that you want for the next few years. That will be $100 "rental" to preserve your shooting range. If you tend to use 200mm with the 30D a lot, then you'd have to consider getting a $400+ 1.4x extender.

The 10-22 loses a little corner sharpness to the 16-35L II, but the difference is not worth the 800 in price. The 10-22 should also provide better performance on a ASP-C than the 17-40 does on a FF.

I've been waiting for the 5DII to come out for months, but now with the 10-22 at a good price, I have the entire range I need covered. It makes waiting to upgrade FF much easier.


----------



## Robert Welch (Jan 22, 2012)

I have a 5D (original version) and a 1Dm3, these two cameras are pretty close in IQ. The 5Dm2 would probably be significantly better IQ I presume, but I've never had one. I've heard others say they still liked the old version, though, I would guess this would be more for lower ISO usage though, as the new version certainly must have better high ISO performance by all accounts.

I also have a Tokina 10-17, not sure how much it's like the 11-16, but what I find with this lens is it's very sharp but has a lot of CA. I do wedding photographer mainly, where this isn't such a problem, but for landscapes I would be much more bothered by it.

I guess I would suggest getting the 5Dm2, as it would probably give you the most quality for landscapes in the smallest package. The 1Dm3 is very heavy, wouldn't give you as much focal range for landscapes (the 17-40 would be 22mm on the wide end, although I love using this lens on the 1Dm3). The image quality for landscapes wouldn't be as great an increase from the 30D to the 1Dm3 as it would be to the 5D2 (although the 1Dm3 does give amazing quality for a 10mp file, on a per pixel basis it's one of the best ever).


----------



## cpsico (Jan 22, 2012)

Here are a few examples of pictures taken with a 1D mark III if that helps. I took these pictures with L lenses and I think it is a wonderful camera still to this day for image quality and durability. 
Picture 1 is an in camera jpg, I used multi spot metering
picture 2 a converted raw again using multi spot metering
picture 3 used a 580 ex II flash manual settings and a tiffen enhancing filter.


----------



## Aditya (Jan 22, 2012)

Just thought I'd mention that I was considering grabbing a 5D MKII during the winter price drops and wanted to trade in my 40D (I bought a refurb 7D last year but wanted to get in on the FF fun). The $2000 avg sale price was still a bit much for me and so I mailed my 40D into Adorama to trade-in (despite the $ loss) and was able to buy a demo 5DMKII w/full warranty for just under $1700 with the trade in. Jack, in the used dept. was the guy I worked with. Perhaps this may be an option if you decide to go with a new body. 

By the way, the new 5D is great in so many ways...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 22, 2012)

I've had the 1D MK III, 5D MK II, and 7D. The best for wide vistas is the 5D MK II. My 1D MK III was wonderful, not enough MP for high detail, and there are no wide lenses for it. You need a 13mm lens to be the equivalent of 17mm with the 5D MK II. I bought a 14mm Samyang to try with the 1D MK III, but that lens was a piece of junk, and the 1D MK III did not work right with it except in full manual. 

The 10-22 sounds like a good way to go, otherwise, I'd get a FF body. 

Since you are on a motorcycle, why not look at smaller cameras? There are a number of small mirrorless cameras on the market that would be a lot easier to take on a cycle.

I took this image in Yellowstone with my 17-40L and 5D MK II at 28mm. I was on a boardwalk and could not move back, so a wide, but not superwide was needed.







Old Faithful at 70mm /5D MK II. I had to back way off with my 70-200mm f/4 L, a wider lens should have been used.


----------



## DianeK (Jan 22, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> GoldenEagle said:
> 
> 
> > If you are intent on parting with some $$$, then I'm not sure the 10-22 or Tokina will get you the image quality you may want, if you're used to L lenses.
> ...



I'm curious regarding your opinion of the Tokina. I trialed 4 different copies of this lens and all 4 had terrible CA. I ended up with the Canon 10-22mm which has very little CA.
Diane


----------



## thure1982 (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm in the same line of thoughts.
What about a second hand 1D IV for just a little more?
Or a 1Ds III for the same cash as the IV?
That and the 16-35 = win


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 22, 2012)

On my bike tour in France last summer I took the 5DII, 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 + 1.4. Fitted easily in the top box.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 22, 2012)

erda said:


> So I was in the local store today and was contemplating spending some money!
> Am planning a trip through Yellowstone and Colorado by motorcycle this summer and was thinking that I'm missing an ultra-wide angle lens. Was thinking about either the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16. Then I got "squirrelled" by cameras. My simple logic was: spend money on a lens, but still have the 'old' camera, or buy a new camera that would allow my current glass to provide me the ultra-wide range. So looked at the new 5D mark ii and also a used 1D mark iii.
> Any suggestions or advice?
> 
> Currently: 30D; 17-40L; 70-200L f4




My 2 cents for what it's worth: I first saw the header and didn't realize you were not talking about the 1DsIII in which case I'd have said that they are almost the same camera in different form factors according to different use. But a 1DIII? Nah, not really. And it's my personal philosophy that I don't buy used camera gear from the digital age. People are way too trigger happy these days and things are a lot more sensitive and flimsy than they used to be.

So now what? I have a 5DII and love it. But I won't buy any replacement for it until it falls apart. More or better lenses? Flashes? Gizmos? Sure. But cameras only as a replacement when the old stuff doesn't work anymore (or if you really need a backup or so). As long as your 30D still works I see no reason for a change.

But that being said: the 5DII is probably -and will remain- one of the best cameras ever. Perfect balance between quality, features, price, etc. I have yet to see any replacement (5DIII or whatever it's going to be) that would be better or even as good. By looking at the 1Dx as a replacement for the 1DsIII I am concerned that the future may not be quite as bright and that I'll be kicking myself for not buying a second 5DII as a new and (relatively) affordable camera at the moment just to put one away for later. Yes, I find it that good (I didn't say absolutely perfect; no such thing).


----------



## erda (Jan 23, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Since you are on a motorcycle, why not look at smaller cameras? There are a number of small mirrorless cameras on the market that would be a lot easier to take on a cycle.


Not sure that what I've seen so far in that category really impresses too much-sensor size and IQ. Are there any ultra-wides available?
Great photos! Can't wait to have a go myself.


----------



## erda (Jan 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> On my bike tour in France last summer I took the 5DII, 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 + 1.4. Fitted easily in the top box.


Any photos on how you had it packed? Did you use a camera bag/case inside?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 23, 2012)

i would say take the 5d mk2 over the 1d mk3 for the following reasons

smaller form factor
Full frame benefits
if you crop the 5d mk2 image to 1.3 crop you get 10mp anyway so same res as the 1dmk3
about a stop better high iso

the only thing better in the 1dmk3 is weather sealing and good AF (assuming you get a late model that didnt have AF problems)


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 23, 2012)

erda said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > On my bike tour in France last summer I took the 5DII, 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 + 1.4. Fitted easily in the top box.
> ...



My camera bag was put in the top box on top of the T shirts laid flat underneath (to stop vibration getting through. Top box is a 50l Givi. Means that when the camera bag is taken out there is room for my full face in the box.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 23, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> i would say take the 5d mk2 over the 1d mk3 for the following reasons
> 
> smaller form factor
> Full frame benefits
> ...



..and more than twice the framerate, plus all the good stuff to customize. Can't remember if the mkIII had it, but one function I can't live without in the mk4 is the ability to set upper and lower limit of shutterspeed. The only way to shoot concerts.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 23, 2012)

Viggo said:


> .... but one function I can't live without in the mk4 is the ability to set upper and lower limit of shutterspeed. The only way to shoot concerts.



Manual mode plus auto iso is another way to do this - not possible on the 5DII due to the iso locking at 400


----------



## Viggo (Jan 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > .... but one function I can't live without in the mk4 is the ability to set upper and lower limit of shutterspeed. The only way to shoot concerts.
> ...



That doesn't get you any faster shutterspeeds... That just gives you the set speed with different noise.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 23, 2012)

Viggo said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...




I was putting this as an advantage for the mkIII

The shutterspeed is down to you this way, the camera will expose accordingly


----------

