Canon 5d vs. Canon 1D Mark III

[mmrphoto]

Hi all,

So I am upgrading big time from my rebel to a whole new class of Canon. I have done quite a bit of research and I have narrowed it down between the 5D and ID Mark III. Money is not so much the problem (although I could still not afford the 1Ds MarkIII) but both have their pros and cons:

Things l like about the 5D:
Smaller and lighter
12+ megapixels vs. 1D's 10
Set up like the camera I currently have so I don't have to re-learn anything
The price- while I can afford both - I could buy more photo stuff with the leftovers


Things I like about the 1D:
Super fast auto focus
Ability to shoot to 2 cards at once
very durable body, especially compared to the 5D (I am outside a lot)
Bigger LCD screen
Rapid fire is very impressive
Better battery life

It's hard to weigh the pros and cons. I'm not really
crazy about carrying around a huge camera because I hike a lot and sometimes weight is an issue. But I also don't know if it is worth getting a smaller megapixel camera than is already out on a lower model since things are only getting bigger. I think it's weird that the newer, more luxury camera, the 1D, has fewer megapixels. At the same time, how big of files do I want to store? I realize megapixels aren't everything, but I hate to spend so much money for it to be obsolete in a year (although I guess those are the breaks with digital). At the same time the super fast autofocus and rapid fire is a huge plus.

Does anyone have any insight? I'd be especially interested to hear from people who have switched from one camera to another.

THANKS!

[jdryan3]

You say you hike a lot. So do you do landscapes? I ask because the 5D is a full frame camera - then 1D MkIII is a 1.3x crop
You are outside a lot. Do you shoot sports? I ask because the 1D MkIII doesn't have just a faster 'rapid fire' (or fps) but 10 fps vs the 5D's 3 fps. More than 3 times as fast. Burn through those cards! :wow

Personally, the pixel count at that level is irrelevant. Someone else can do the math but they are really almost the same relative to the sensor size. I have had the 5D for almost 2 years and love it. I bought it to replace a 300D because I wanted something FF, and the price dipped below $3K. If you don't need FF, have you considered the 40D? I have, as a back up, for telephoto situations, and because the fps, while not 10, is twice that of the 5D.

[JETA]

I have the mark III and IIn. They are essential for sports.

If I was going to go a step down I'd be looking at the 40D. That's one great camera.

[mmrphoto]

I do a pretty good range of things. I do weddings, and corporate events. But I also do a lot of landscapes, candid city shots, some headshots, ski/snowboard competitions and an occasional sporting event. Of all the stuff I do, I do corporate events the most. So my logic is that really the only reason I would absolutely need the Mark III is for my ski shots, but is that worth and extra $2000? Of course there are other benefits as well. I just can't make up my mind!!!:dunno

[cmason]

Well, how important is full frame

5D is full frame, 1DMarkIII is still a crop camera: 1.3

[mmrphoto]

It somewht important because I do occasional headshots, but the camera I'm working with now crops too, so I'm not sure how much it really matters.

[cmason]

Unless you really value the 5Ds full frame, or the 1D's pro features, perhaps you should also consider the 40D, since it is a great offering that fits many of your pros for each:


Smaller and lighter
10 megapixels like 1D
Set up like the camera you currently have so you don't have to re-learn anything
The price- you could buy more photo stuff with the leftovers
Similar body to 5D, but bit more weather proofing
Bigger LCD screen
Rapid fire is very impressive
Better battery life

[CatOne]

The 1D has fewer megapixels because it's a sports/action camera. It is designed to be FAST FAST FAST for action. FAST is what it's about. Lots of megapixels doesn't matter for squat if you can't get the shot you want. So it's fast; it's brutally fast (10.5 fps fast).

Do you shoot any action stuff that requires the speed? If not, then you're mainly getting the waterproofness and other things you mentioned. And you're not getting full frame.

Note that 12 MP versus 10.3 MP is essentially the same -- it's not that big of a difference in what you can do in terms of enlargement. The crop difference (1x versus 1.3x) is more significant.

[photobug]

It somewhat important because I do occasional headshots, but the camera I'm working with now crops too, so I'm not sure how much it really matters. But your Rebel crops at 1.6x, while the 1D MkIII crops at 1.3x (5D is full-frame, so is 1x). So the MkIII is still a big step up in terms of sensor size and the 5D is yet another step up from there.

If you're doing headshots and outdoor/landscape photography, then a 5D or maybe 40D sound like a better fit than the 1D MkIII. The 1D is certainly a camera to drool over(!), but as CatOne pointed out, with the 1D you're mostly paying for speed-speed-speed and you haven't mentioned that that's very important for your work. I'd suggest either saving your $$ and going for a 40D or investing them where they'll pay off for headshots and outdoor work -- in the 5D's full-frame sensor.

Note that you can get a 5D for welllll under $2K now ... check out Canon's rebates, esp when combined with a Pro9000 or Pro9500 printer. See Bob Atkin's 11/18/07 news entry/commentary on this web page (http://bobatkins.com/photography/digital/rumors.html) for more info.

[evoryware]

Why not wait for the 5D replacement? I'm guessing it has to be around the corner and better than the 40D.

[Tee Why]

If your focus is more on weddings, portraits, landscapes, and weight is an issue, then I'd go for the 5D and put the rest of the money into lenses.

If you must have the faster AF, weather sealing/ruggedness, or the faster fps, then 1DMiii.