Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/06/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina and feli-- Thanks for your sage counsel. I had come to approximately the same conclusion after working with a 20D for awhile. The weight of the 1D mark II doesn't bother me, having worked for several years with Kodak 520/560's, which are built on Canon 1N bodies In fact, once you add the battery base/grip to the 20D, it's not significantly lighter. And, at least for me, the 20D feels unbalanced without the battery base/grip, especially with a moderately long and heavy lens. The point you make about "too much" data from the 16MP 1DS Mk II is very interesting. It also underlines another significant difference among all of these cameras, in that all pixels are not created equal. Even the 2MP 520 (1.6 factor) produces beautiful images and handles nicely. With some work larger prints are still possible. And for candid work, the digital noise and image softness are not always bad. See, for example, some of the striking work currently on display in poster sizes at the Corcoran from the White House News Photographers. The 6MP 560 (1.3 factor) on the other hand doesn't add quite enough to make the difference. And it's not as fast handling because of the image size and old technology. So the 1D Mark II seems to be the best possible compromise, and a bargain at today's prices. Best of luck on your adventure, Tina. And may you bring home (as usual) a carload (cardloads) of beautiful images. Dave. On Thursday, June 9, 2005 at 8:34 PM images@InfoAve.Net (Tina Manley) wrote: |At 08:03 PM 6/9/2005, you wrote: |>Tina -- |> |>Before you disappear for a while, can you enlighten us as to to the |>specific advantages you see in the 1D Mark II vs. both the 20D (with |>or without battery/grip) and the 1Ds Mark II? |> |>Thanks, |> |>Dave. | |Hi, Dave - | |Very quickly because I haven't packed my underwear ;-) : I like the |file size of the Mark II - the IDs is almost too big. For most of my |photos the 8.2 MBs are fine. Larger would mean more CF cards and more |storage space on the hard drives. As far as the full frame vs 1:3 goes |- most digital cameras are weakest at the edges so a camera that |excludes the edges is not really a disadvantage. The ID Mark II is |1:3 and the 20D is 1:6 which may not seem very different until you do |the multiplications. The ID Mark II compared to the 20D is comparing |a pro camera to a consumer camera - and that doesn't mean that people |who use the 20D are not professionals! The ID Mark II has seals that |will withstand a rainstorm or dust storm. The body is heavy-duty |metal instead of plastic; but that means that it is much heavier, so |you would have to decide if the extra durability is worth the extra |weight. I think it is. I love the 14 point focusing of the ID Mark |II. It took me a few days to get used to it and to learn how to |program the dial to use it, but now I wouldn't use anything else. I'm |not sure what other programs that I'm taking for granted on the Mark |II are not available on the 20D because I haven't used the 20D. | |Here is a comparison: http://tinyurl.com/7nb9z | |The wonderful high ISO's of the Mark II are the main reason that I use |it whenever possible instead of my 10D. I'm not sure about the higher |ISO's on the 20D, but they aren't that great on the 10D. They are |fantastic on the Mark II and the white balance is very, very good. | |I think you would have to try both to decide which would be best, but |maybe the dpreview comparison chart will help. | |Tina | |Tina Manley, ASMP www.tinamanley.com | | |http://www.pdiphotos.com http://www.workbookstock.com |http://www.newscom.com http://www.americanphotojournalist.com | | |_______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See |http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information