| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
7d, 5d Mk II, 1d Mk III?
Doug Strickland, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Danville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:00 PM on 12.06.09 |
->> So I'm approaching graduation in the spring rapidly, and one of the first things that I'm going to need to do after I graduate (or before, even) is upgrade my camera body from a 30d. My dilemma is, which camera body I should buy.
The 7d springs to mind as an obvious choice because of the price, the ISO, the video, and the shutter speed/focus. In fact, it's at the head of the pack. After graduation, however, I'm not sure that I will be shooting much sports, if any. It will likely just be high school sports as a freelancer and when I have no other assignments with the hopes of selling some prints to parents (yeah I know, good luck with that one?).
Then there's the 5d Mk II. I've heard that because of the resolution and the full frame, the photos this camera produces are beyond compare, plus it has nearly the same ISO capability of the 7d. My question is a) is there really such a noticeable difference between what this camera can do and what the 7d can do and b) is that difference worth $1000, particularly if I plan to shoot primarily news, magazine, and wedding work instead of sports? I've also heard of a vignetting issue, but that has supposedly been resolved. The fact that my wide angles would be true wide angles is appealing but not absolutely necessary.
Finally we have the 1d Mk III. It's the in-between, of sorts. Focus (yeah, I know...) and FPS of the 7d, aspect ratio of a full frame and 1.3 sensor, middle of the road ISO, and right in between the two as far as price (used). Do I really get any benefit over the 7d from this one, though? Does increased sensor size and aspect ratio make a big difference from what the 7d does? Is it the fact that it's the only one that has a voice memo button that really attracts me to this camera anyway?! The no-video is a big minus for the Mk III, too.
Ultimately price will probably dictate what I can and cannot afford here, I'd just like get all the input I can. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:32 PM on 12.06.09 |
->> 1D II (~900) 1DIIN (~1100), IDsII (~2000), 5D (~1100), 50D (~850) are all significant upgrades from your 30D and cheaper than what you are considering (the 1DsII is more than the 7D but less than the other two.)
You could get a 5D and IIN for about the same as either a mkIII or 5DII. |
|
Greg Foster, Photographer
|
Atlanta | GA | | Posted: 12:54 PM on 12.06.09 |
| ->> Other than the high iso capability, I'm curious why you don't feel you can shoot news, magazine, and wedding work with the 30D. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 1:20 PM on 12.06.09 |
->> Doug,
Do you even have a business model? You're contemplating the purchase of tools based on mechanical criteria but you really need to nail down what you're going to photograph to make money.
If you're shooting high school sports, the 5D series cameras are unacceptable. Neither of those bodies follow focus. They can shoot action in profile but not straight on.
They are best used for weddings, portraiture and commercial photogrpahy as they produce fantastic files, but the closest they should ever come to sports is T&I.
The 1D Mark III is a gamble. If someone is trying to sell one to you, insist on a test drive first.
Your best option is to spend the least amount of money so that you have profit left over so you can pay your rent and eat. Buy a camera that is proven. Buy a camera that costs the least. The original 5D or a 1D Mark II or IIn are the best cameras you should buy at this stage in the game.
By the time you have a viable business, the most expensive cameras will have improved and the ones you covet now will be cheaper. Graduation isn't justification for a business decision.
While the camera you have may come up short in many areas, can you make photos that sell with it? And what kind of photos can you make that sell? And what kind of photos are completely out of reach for that camera?
If the limitations of the camera keep you from making money, then you have a partial justification for a purchase. If your freelance pays $1,000, you can't spend all of that on equipment or you will starve.
And BTW, the 30D is a great camera for starting a business. It's not nearly as crippled a camera as some of the low-end Nikon bodies.
Your sense of vision is far more important than the camera. These days you're competing with soccer moms and dads for photo sales. You cannot justify a 1D body if the customers are shopping for the lowest priced reprint. The other thing you have to offer is some sort of innovative photo products that soccer moms and dads cannot produce. If your customers already get free or cheap photos, why would they buy yours? So address that before you buy equipment. If you do, you should be able to buy the camera of your dreams. Figure out the business first, but the camera second. |
|
Doug Strickland, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Danville | KY | USA | Posted: 1:33 PM on 12.06.09 |
->> Greg, it's not that I don't think that I can shoot them with my 30D (I can and have for the last year) I just think that it is time for an upgraded body. Maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking that a newer body will offer me more versatility or better image quality, but at the very least I DO need a second body as I plan on keeping the 30d to accompany whatever camera I end up buying.
Mark, I've considered the IIN, and particularly the 5D and 1DsII, and I really think I'm attracted to the idea of having a full frame body. As I said in my original post, having my wide angles be true wide angles would be nice but having better defined depth of field seems to the be real advantage to full frame over a cropped sensor. |
|
Doug Strickland, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Danville | KY | USA | Posted: 1:39 PM on 12.06.09 |
| ->> Thanks Darren, I appreciate the input. These are all issues that I've been wrestling with but hearing it from someone else makes it all the more real. This isn't a decision I plan on making lightly and like you said, whatever I do I've got to be able to eat and have a roof over my head. |
|
Greg Foster, Photographer
|
Atlanta | GA | | Posted: 1:51 PM on 12.06.09 |
->> Backup body - I definitely agree with that, that's essential. More versatility - maybe the full frame body would help with that - I like the suggestion of a used 5D. Image quality, I don't know - I used to shoot covers and double page spreads with 20Ds, never had anybody complain or ask me what kind of camera it was. I'm sure that it didn't look as impressive to people at the shoots as if I was holding a 1Ds, but I couldn't care less about that sort of thing.
Bottom line is, if, as a student you've got the money in hand to go out and buy the new camera without flinching or taking out a loan, I think I'd get the 5D Mk II. If you are not in that sort of position, I think I'd set my sights lower. Just remember, it's not the camera that makes the photo good... |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 4:58 PM on 12.06.09 |
->> I don't shoot any sports action and any comments I make are based on the feature and portrait work that I do...
The 5D MkII is a very good camera. I have had two of them since they came out and I am very happy with them. Image quality is great and the only real drawback is the lack of a lock on the mode dial which moves all on its own when carried against your body.
I now have a 7D as well and the AF and flash performance are much better than the 5D MkII. The crop isn't too much of an issue for me. The video is superior but the the low light performance is inferior to the 5D MkII. I really like the 7D and would never tell anyone not to get one.
The 50D is a decent camera but it is behind both the 5D MkII and the 7D at high ISOs and of course it has no video. The image quality is surprisingly good on the 50D and I am a fan of the ergonomics too.
The 5D MkII is my favourite Canon but the 7D isn't far behind.
Neil |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 9:27 PM on 12.06.09 |
->> well not to start a N v C debate...but many are/have switched camps lately that were much more heavily invested than are you in canon equip. I would strongly urge you to check out the other side of the fence...and see where the best investment lies. You can pick up d700's used for 2k....and that is simply hard to beat on any measure. Again, not trying to spark a debate, but you asked for advice on purchase...thats the best advice I could give anyone. Check it out....at least that way if you stay in the canon camp, you do so well informed and confident.
bb
(I switched back 14 months ago...actually the day they announced the 5d2 specs is the day I put my canon gear up for sale) |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 11:21 PM on 12.06.09 |
| ->> I'm a switcher. I chose the D700. I thought I'd buy two, but there's no urgency so I'm waiting for either a lower price on a used D700 or whatever Nikon comes up with next. In the meantime, I'm chipping away at the kit of lenses. |
|
Chris Large, Photographer
|
Okotoks | AB | Canada | Posted: 1:41 AM on 12.07.09 |
->> I've got a 1ds Mk111, a 50d, 7d, 5dmk2, and for where you seem to be in your career, the 7d has the most bang for your buck. Very good af, clean files, great high iso performance all at a reasonable price. If you can pick up a 5d used at a good price it would make a really good back up.
C |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|