1d mk2 and 5d

[MarkKay]

I agree with Terry you cannot make a determination just based on the number of megapixels. Also remember, the 5D is FF and the 1Dmk2 is a 1.3x crop so you are fitting 8million of them on a smaller sensor. This has been discussed over and over again for years. Mark

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that even with the raw files, the 1DMarkII images have a bit more detail but a substantially better dynamic range. Remember not all pixels are created equal

[/ QUOTE ]


You are actually saying that the 8.2 meg 1D2 has MORE detail than the 12.8 meg 5D?

Really?


Leigh

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't even seen a 5D image, so I'm not commenting on the performance of that camera...but pixel count doesn't tell the entire story; there are other considerations. There was a lot more detail in images from my 4 MP 1D than from my 6 MP D60, that's for sure. (That was a comparison that wasn't even close!) I'm sure the 5D and Mark II are much closer in performance, but then again, the 5D isn't a camera well-suited for action photography/photographers. I would consider one for weddings and maybe other non-action stuff, but I worry I couldn't get past the cheap (by comparison) feel.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TerryZorich]

[ QUOTE ]
Yup, I think we've got that now

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad you understand.

BTW - please add your location and, if you have one, a URL for your website to your profile. Consider it a professional courtesy to your fellow forum members. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Darren_Cardinal]

Have you guys read this...just another perspective:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news_story.html?id=1504

[KenPhillips]

Gosh, shooting RAW and using RSP is by definition post processing! ;-}
I guess you mean LESS post processing. I an a tweaker, by nature, so
it doesn't matter to me unless I have 500 to process in a short time,
in which case I'll batch 'em and go with it.
Ken