MK II vs. MK IIn

[ChristopherPike]

hey there,

I know we all don't need another this vs. that thread, but here is my question:

I'm a news paper photog and currently shoot with (2) 1D cameras, I am upgrading as I have had them for 3 years and just time to do so.

I pretty much have 3 options,

1. buy (2) MKII and sell my (2) 1D to offset the cost
2. buy (1) MKIIn keep one of the 1D as a back up and sell the other
3. buy (1) MKII and (1) 5D and sell my (2) 1D to offset the cost

my problems with each of the three are

1. I've read many things about soft focus problems with the MKII, is it really that bad, if at all? I definatley do not want to spend that much money for cameras that have problems with them
2. if I go for the 'N' will I ever really want to use my 1D, effectively turning it into a lens holder and defeating the purpose of having 2 bodies
3. this would be a good set up as you have the speed with the MKII and the full frame with the 5D, but after years of using the 1D series I am used to the weight and durabilty of that series, so I'm afriad that I would trash it, and the fact that it has different batteries bothers me.


well there it is . . . any thoughts from people would be great, as I am about to spend a whack of cash


thanks for your time



-c.pike-

[John_Cornicello]

I went with your #1 option. I don't find the original 1DIIs to be overly soft if you are careful with technique (tripod, high enough shutter speeds, good lenses, etc.).

I considered #3, but wanted two bodies with the same control layout and batteries.

John

[PaulSharpe]

The 5D is very easy on batteries. It is a non issue. You can adjust the sharpen levels for jpg's in the 1D2 to levels similar to the 1D. The larger screen (N) is nice but the 1D2 screen is also an improvement from the 1D.

[Lyle_Aspinall]

I'd also suggest option one. Regardless of the Mk II's minor soft-focus issue, you won't regret ditching the 1D in favour of a Mk II. Until four months ago, I shot a 1D as my main body and used a D60 as a back-up (lens holder, basically). Then I got my hands on a Mk II and was blown away. It's easier on batteries, it's faster, it has better colour, it has a CMOS (Canon-made) sensor as opposed to a CCD (non-Canon), it uses E-TTL 2 flash (better than 1D's first-generation E-TTL), etc., etc. As for the soft-focus issue, it's really not a big deal: as Paul said, you can adjust sharpness in the camera's settings, and remember that a little bit of unsharp mask can go a long way after that. I love my Mk II. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ChristopherPike]

John, Paul and Lyle

thanks for your feedback, the wheels are turning, when you get down to it . . . its a lot of money either way!

-pike-

[PaulBoothroyd]

[ QUOTE ]
I went with your #1 option. I don't find the original 1DIIs to be overly soft if you are careful with technique (tripod, high enough shutter speeds, good lenses, etc.).

John

[/ QUOTE ]

As a newspaper photographer I doubt that Christopher has the time for tripods!
Anyway the 1DMk2 isn't "soft" - do you mean "soft" as in not being able to focus or not bitingly sharp images straight out of the camera? The first would be a problem, the second is easilly fixed by in-camera settings or post-processing anyway. My 1DMk2 gives bitingly sharp images after a minimum of post-processing work.

[BillFaulkner]

Does this article affect your thinking?

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1490

--bill

[Pro Photo Store]

Visit the B&H Pro Photo Store for the best Gear Prices and regular specials!

Brilliant Color for any Digital SLR
White Balance Cap
The Pros Agree on ColorRight
What People Are Saying