# Canon 5D Mark ii vs. Canon EOS 1Ds Mark ii



## erphoto (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm going to buy a 
*Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras 
*

to use with whichever I get, but I really do not need the High Def video, and I do not need the 21.1 resolution.  I do mostly weddings, so I need fast & reliable auto focus and from what I've read, this is a huge issue with the 5dmark ii.

Any thoughts??:greenpbl:


----------



## Derrel (Feb 3, 2010)

I have the original EOS 5D, which has a VERY strongly center-weighted AF system, with a diamond-shaped array of 9 AF points, all clustered VERY tightly in the middle: this same,exact AF pattern and size was lifted virtually intact from the EOS 30D and plopped into the 5D. This means that the AF system is very centrally-weighted, and when doing focus-and-recompose close-range people work, the AF system is not as reliable as a camera that has a wider spread of AF points that cover a larger spread across the finder.

Canon lovers hate to hear anybody dismiss the features or quality of Canon cameras, but I own a reasonably complete 3-body Canon system and a very wide,complete Nikon system; there is NO comparison on off-center AF performance between a newer, better Nikon and a 5D-series camera. In indoor,lower-light situations, the 5D's extremely center-weighted AF pattern leaves the entire periphery outside of the centrally-located area devoid of focusing points; this is one of the main differences between the 5D series and the 1.6x bodies, which have the SAME-sized AF diamond, but the AF covers a wider area, since the frame of 1.6x is smaller. No offense to the 5D series, but it is built largely around a $350 EOS Elan-level body, with a very capable sensor and image processing system, but the "camera" part of the 5D series is quite weak and primitive in comparison to older film bodies. Even the new 7D is built upon a much more-capable body and a higher-performance AF system than the 5D series.

If you want really killer autofocusing, you need to look someplace else besides the 5D series bodies. Everything is "relative",and with high-speeed professional lenses of long focal length, like a 300/2.8 or a 70-200 at 200mm and f/2.8, the 5D can autofocus "pretty well". However, there are other cameras that can focus "superbly" with those same lenses, AND with lesser lenses. I'll come right out and say it: look at an EOS 1D-series body, or a Nikon D700 body if you want to see a an AF system that is at "the next level". People love the 5D and 5D-II, but it's like a Honda vs Porsche comparison, or a Shakespeare vs G. Loomis, or a MacDonalds vs Bertoli's Family Italian Restaurant with Papa Guido at the stove.

You pay your money and you make your choice. There *is* no comparison between a 1Ds series body and a 5D series body. One is basically a $350 body and the other is a flagship-level camera engineered to sell at a $4800 price point.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Feb 4, 2010)

I have the 5D Mk II and the 1Ds Mk III. I can't comment on the AF issue because I shoot a little clumsily, in that I just use the center AF point and then recompose. 

But I still have to say that I'm not in love with the 5D. I like the high ISO performance, so fi you're just shooting with available light you might enjoy the lighter weight of the 5D after a few hours of wedding action. However I'm doing a lot of flash and studio shooting right now, and I find the sync speed of 1/200 to be way too low, and think it's closer to 1/160th on top of that. You didn't say if you needed to flash, but be aware that I find it extremely limiting on the 5D. 

I use the 24-70mm on those bodies a lot, it is my go-to lens.


----------



## cfusionpm (Feb 4, 2010)

The higher ISO capabilities of the 5DII make it very popular, especially for weddings.  If you can afford the 1Ds, and don't need to shoot above 1600 ISO, I think the choice is clear.


----------



## erhard (Feb 4, 2010)

I have not tried the 5D or 5DMKII.
I do own the 1DsMKII and let me tell you, its a powerhouse of a camera. There is very little one cannot do with the 1DsMKII, apart from video, but I have my own thoughts about video in DSLR's 
But yes, to try and compare the 1DsMKII to a 5DMKII.....nope, even though the 1DsMKII is now what 5 years old?......Derrel's comparisons are pretty spot on!


----------



## erphoto (Feb 4, 2010)

Thanks everybody.  I had pretty much made up my mind on the 1ds mark ii and this just solidified my thoughts.  I really appreciate it.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 4, 2010)

erhard said:


> I have not tried the 5D or 5DMKII.
> I do own the 1DsMKII and let me tell you, its a powerhouse of a camera. There is very little one cannot do with the 1DsMKII, apart from video, but I have my own thoughts about video in DSLR's
> But yes, to try and compare the 1DsMKII to a 5DMKII.....nope, even though the 1DsMKII is now what 5 years old?......Derrel's comparisons are pretty spot on!


 
How does the 1Ds MKII do at 6400 ISO?


----------



## inTempus (Feb 4, 2010)

I've actually used a 5D2 at weddings so I'm not talking about theoretical benefits or detractors in using the body for such events.  I know how it performs from first hand experience.

There's a reason the 5D2 is one of the most popular wedding cameras on the market right now.  It works.

I have used both my 1D3 and 5D2 (I just got my 1D4 and wedding season hasn't started around here yet) together at weddings and honestly, I reach for my 5D2 before the 1D.

The AF system and its design simply aren't an issue for such events.  It works great and I have yet to be let down by it.  

I prefer the images my 5D2 produces as the files are big, very croppable, and it does great in low light.  And you will need low light capabilities because many churches and brides will forbid flashing at the ceremony. 

The 1Ds2 only hits ISO 3200 on H (high).  That's pushing things as I routinely venture into ISO 6400 territory with the 5D2 and the images it produces are very clean.  The ISO 3200's on the 1Ds2 won't be as clean.

Weddings are about image quality and as much of your shooting with be without a flash in low light, you're better off with a camera that can deliver the goods in low light.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 4, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> The higher ISO capabilities of the 5DII make it very popular, especially for weddings.  If you can afford the 1Ds, and don't need to shoot above 1600 ISO, I think the choice is clear.


That's really the issue.  ISO 1600 often times isn't enough.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 4, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I have the original EOS 5D, which has a VERY strongly center-weighted AF system, with a diamond-shaped array of 9 AF points, all clustered VERY tightly in the middle: this same,exact AF pattern and size was lifted virtually intact from the EOS 30D and plopped into the 5D. This means that the AF system is very centrally-weighted, and when doing focus-and-recompose close-range people work, the AF system is not as reliable as a camera that has a wider spread of AF points that cover a larger spread across the finder.
> 
> Canon lovers hate to hear anybody dismiss the features or quality of Canon cameras, but I own a reasonably complete 3-body Canon system and a very wide,complete Nikon system; there is NO comparison on off-center AF performance between a newer, better Nikon and a 5D-series camera. In indoor,lower-light situations, the 5D's extremely center-weighted AF pattern leaves the entire periphery outside of the centrally-located area devoid of focusing points; this is one of the main differences between the 5D series and the 1.6x bodies, which have the SAME-sized AF diamond, but the AF covers a wider area, since the frame of 1.6x is smaller. No offense to the 5D series, but it is built largely around a $350 EOS Elan-level body, with a very capable sensor and image processing system, but the "camera" part of the 5D series is quite weak and primitive in comparison to older film bodies. Even the new 7D is built upon a much more-capable body and a higher-performance AF system than the 5D series.
> 
> ...


 
But the 5D is better at handling noise which is what you want for weddings


----------



## gsgary (Feb 4, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> erhard said:
> 
> 
> > I have not tried the 5D or 5DMKII.
> ...



Bad, no where near as good as the 5Dmk2 the 5dmk1 is better than the 1Dsmk2


----------



## inTempus (Feb 4, 2010)

gsgary said:


> But the 5D is better at handling noise which is what you want for weddings


Derrel tends to focus on the technical jargon.  If you believed what he posted, the 5D2 would produce nothing but out of focus images at weddings.  Fortunately for a huge number of wedding photographers out there, they know their 5D2's produce the goods and pay the bills.  It's not just a good tool but a great tool for the trade, hence its popularity.

You're right, image quality in demanding situations rule the day when talking about wedding photography.  The 5D2 will produce better quality images in a wider spectrum of scenarios than the 1Ds2 will.  You don't need a sports AF system for weddings.  I know, I have a 1D3/4 and have used the 1D3 at weddings, and I prefer the 5D2.  

That's not to say the 5D2 wouldn't benefit from a system similar to that found on the 7D, as I believe it would.  But to pretend the camera is incapable or perhaps the wrong tool for the job is to be unknowledgeable about the body's capabilities as a tool for wedding photography.

Again, it's one of the most popular wedding cameras out there if not the most popular.


----------



## erhard (Feb 4, 2010)

gsgary said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > erhard said:
> ...



highest ISO on the 1DsMKII is 3200, not 6400, at 3200 it is not bad for what I shoot. 
Its horses for courses, no doubt the 5DMKII is excellent for wedding etc., for outside shooting, the odd indoors that I do, sports etc. the 1DsMKII is a top performer.
It is also important to keep in mind, the 1DsMKII is 5 years old, thats a lot of technology between it and any of the current models, be it Canon, Nikon etc..


----------



## inTempus (Feb 4, 2010)

erhard said:


> highest ISO on the 1DsMKII is 3200, not 6400, at 3200 it is not bad for what I shoot.


That was his point, it can't touch 6400.

There's no way I would take a camera only capable of clean ISO 1600 (with a high setting of 3200 which pushes the limits of its capabilities) to a wedding in this day and age given my purchasing options.  Sure, 5 years ago it was the best technology had to offer... and you had to make due (use fast primes more than slower zooms, etc.).  Today you don't have to make such concessions.  

Let's not mention that the 5D2 new costs less than a factory refurb (much less new) 1Ds Mark II.


----------



## erhard (Feb 4, 2010)

inTempus said:


> erhard said:
> 
> 
> > highest ISO on the 1DsMKII is 3200, not 6400, at 3200 it is not bad for what I shoot.
> ...



could not agree more in regards to wedding shoots....since I don't shoot weddings and as long as it does what I need it to do I'm a happy shooter :mrgreen:


----------



## inTempus (Feb 4, 2010)

erhard said:


> could not agree more in regards to wedding shoots....since I don't shoot weddings and as long as it does what I need it to do I'm a happy shooter :mrgreen:


The 1DsII is a great body, even today.  For studio work and portraits with lighting, you would be hard pressed to find a more capable body even in the face of more current technology.

But this thread is about a body for wedding photography.  Unfortunately the 1DsII has fallen a bit behind the times for this type of work.

For my studio work, I would gladly shoot a 1DsII.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 4, 2010)

erhard said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


 
And people that say the 5DII's AF sucks, can...well...suck it...

I shoot bands at venues with terrible lighting and I've done action shots with BMX'ers and never had a problem with the AF keeping up. It might not be as fast as a 1D MKIV, but it's still adequate.


----------

