Hi peeps,

Need your advice...

I have a 1dmk2..a friend of mine wants to buy it from me...

I was thinking of purchasing the Canon 5d for replacement...Is this a good decision?:Thinking:



thanks in advance..

ruel

Hmmm...how much is your friend buying your mk2? Is that the N? :)

nope not the N...

my friend is buying it for Sgd 4600.

If I get to choose between the two, i would definitely stick with the 1DMKII. But it's just me :)

i'd say go for it.

from your perspective and experience, do you think you need the additional doodads that you get from the mk?

if you're not maximizing its features, i'd say go 5D :)

thanks guys for your advice..


ruel

from your perspective and experience, do you think you need the additional doodads that you get from the mk?

if you're not maximizing its features, i'd say go 5D :)

i must agree with raul. just make sure you won't miss your mark II if and when you plan to switch units.

how lucky! i wish i had problems like that! hehehe :D

think "tank" ... i'd go for the mkII as well :)

I had the MK2 before and have the 5D currently which I use for my wedding photography. Noise and IQ a plus for the 5D and I didn't like the weight of the 1D for an all day wedding. The focusing goes to the 1D, but unless you are shooting sports the 5D is more than adequate. Hope this helps

that post was more than 2 years ago :)

old thread na pala hhee, but i typed it anyway so here goes.

http://digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/showthread.php?t=20096

After considering everything, holding and using both cams extensively, and talking to some folks here in the forum, I ended up with a 40D with grip instead.

Some might not agree, but here's my take... The 1d was great, and holding it is mesmerizing, but frankly 1KG++ for the body alone will make many folks not want to bring the cam all the time, especially for a foot-walker like myself. The AF is great in good light, but in low-light the 1d tries to be as accurate as it can be and actually functions slower than the 40D as it tries to choose a specific AF point to lock onto. This was confirmed by a lot of threads around the web. 8fps was sweet, but frankly, I never found 3fps limiting the past few years even when shooting sports, assuming I understand the sport in the first place.

As for the 5D, i still love the camera, feels very much like an EOS 5 which I'm very famliar with, but the single thing that puts me off is the price. It's not expensive per-se at around 60k range, but it's still 2004 technology and technially, it's a 20D with a different sensor. With 20Ds going for around 15k average, I don't feel good paying 45K more for a full-frame sensor, larger (but lousy) LCD and larger viewfinder.

I figured, for the price of a 5D, I could get a 40D with grip with more to spare for a flash or two, or an UWA lens. The 40D was a good compromise for me in terms of resolution, speed, weight... The LCD really, really stinks, though.

the 50D was not part of the decision making process for you Sir?

Thread Necro!!!

that post was more than 2 years ago :)

yeah LOL. just thought i'd dig some threads up. the forums are slow lately. haha