Stick with Canon 50D or get a 1D MKII ?

[hashcake]

I've more or less upgraded my lenses to L series except for my 10-22.
I'm now debating as to whether a move to a 1D MKII would be a wise decision.
It's a shame that the 1D doesn't support ef-s lense as I love super wide angle of the 10-22.
So, what do you 1D users use for landscapes and has anyone moved from a 50D to a 1D MKII?

[JackMcIntyre]

Have you considered the original 5D? One of the best bodies for landscapes and they're pretty cheap second hand now - around £700 give or take a few ££.

That and a 17-40 or a 16-35 would work very nice.

[grotty]

I went form 50D to 1DIIN. They are quite different, although the menus are different, you'll more than likely never want a XXD series again if you have a 1D series. I don't really use it for landscape though, more wildlife/sports/general so can't comment on that.

As you may or may not know Darran, I have a lovely example for sale :) and you are more than welcome to come up to this neck of the woods and view/test it.

*Edit: Suppose I should say why I prefer it; focus speed, nicer images/sensor (in my opinion), build quality, handling, weather sealing, burst rate, CF and SD card slots...

[wilko]

I currently have a 50D, and was wondering whether to go for a 1d mk2, mk3, or whether to go 5d, myself, so i'll be keeping an eye on how this thread progresses.

[Impspeed]

Depends what you shoot predominantly...

I moved from a 50D to a MkIIn about 9 months ago and haven't looked back. My main type of photography is motorsport, mountain biking and events. I do some landscape work and snap shots with it and it've very capable for this, if not a little too heavy to carry around all day when out sightseeing.

The weather sealing and autofocus system is second to none - if you need a quick autofocus for sports or wildlife then this is the camera to get (if you can't afford a MkIII/IV).

If your main shooting style is landscapes and more a 'still life' genre then I would look at the 5D - more suited camera with probably better ISO capability and better pixel count (although I happily print at A2 on crops from me 1DIIn).

DB

[F3TT]

Have you considered the original 5D? One of the best bodies for landscapes and they're pretty cheap second hand now - around £700 give or take a few ££.

That and a 17-40 or a 16-35 would work very nice.

:agree:

I went from 50D (with Sigma 10-20) to the original 5D (with 17-40L) and, although it's a step backward technology wise, it's a huge jump forward picture wise....IMO ;)

[woof woof]

"It's a shame that the 1D doesn't support ef-s lense as I love super wide angle of the 10-22."

There's always the Siggy 12-24mm.

[MatBin]

I currently have both, a bought new last year 50D and a 1D (mk 2, not the best example ever, a rash decision, albeit a good one, for an e-bay bid which I surprisingly won at £500). I always pick up the 1D in preference to the 50D, in fact I'm very very tempted to sell the 50D as it never gets any use. The 1D is just a nicer camera, everything about it is better than the 50D (in my view), there's no point in listing what is beter, it all is, simple.

No contest.

Matt

[Flats]

Hi Darran

I went from a 1 year old 50D to a 5 year old 1Dmk2, and it is no contest. I am aware that people always "back their kit" but in this instance it really is true. I started taking better pictures immediately, despite dropping just under half my pixels. To change cost me £100, though I sold the 50D to a mate so probably could have made more. First of all, don't get me wrong, the 50D is a fine camera, but the 1Dmk2 is better.

There are some uncomfortable trade-offs though, where the 50D actually kicks the 1Dmk2 into touch. It is not better in all respects, despite what one above poster says.

- Poor high ISO performance. I find that 400 is about my comfortable limit with the 1dmk2. 50D much better.
- Screen size and resolution infinitely poorer on 1Dmk2. I could edit my pics easily on the 50D. On the 1Dmk2 I have to wait until I get home. I really miss the screen on the 50D.
- Poor handling, very clunky. I don't mean to hold, it's very ergonomic, I mean the buttons and menu operation. Ideally you would have third hand, as almost everything requires 2 hands to do, and you have to stop doing anything else. Even reviewing photos is painful. Basically they copied the design from the last analogue 1 series, so if you ever used one of those, this will come very naturally. But vs the 50D it is terrible. I'd go as far as to say that it is ****-poor for a (then) top-of-the-range camera. Having said that, I can now do it with my eyes closed, but it is far from intuitive.
- Weight, approaching double I'd say. Very heavy. Battery also very heavy in addition, as is the spare you will want to carry....

So why did I do it?

- Improved autofocus. This is the #1 reason I changed really. Even though 5 years old, it is amazing vs any xxD camera. 45 focus points is brilliant.
- Build quality. This has already saved me once, when I slipped on ice and fell on it. Nothing. A 50D would have been in four separate pieces.... Having used a 1n way back when, I found I couldn't treat the xxD cameras like I used to treat the EOS 1Nhs. When I moved to digital I could not afford like for like, so went with a 30D. I trashed it. I didn't learn my lesson, and upgraded to a 50D when it came out. I managed not to trash it, but the ability to drag a camera through mud and sand, and not worry about rain or bashing it on things is very important to me. It might not be for you though.
- Picture quality - although this wasn't a reason for changing, as I didn't really know about it when I swapped, the 1Dmk2 8 megapixels are substantially better than the 50D's 15 megapixels. I don't know why this is, it just is.

Also be aware that your lenses effective focal length will decrease as the 1Dmk2 is a 1.3x crop not a 1.6x crop. I found I missed the reach, but I am learning to live with it..

Although reading about (and seeing images from) the 7D has me wondering, I doubt I will ever go back to something that is not a 1 series camera. The 1Dmk3 is likely better, though when I made the change I found I could buy three 1Dmk2 bodies for the price of a second-hand mk3, which was a no-brainer. I suppose what I would really like is the 1D mk4, as it addresses all the shortcomings of the mk2, and has all the advantages of the 7D to boot, but I can't get over the price hurdle. Money goes on glass first.

Rgds
Jonathan

[grotty]

Nice summary Jonathon and I'd agree, apart from the ISO comment, I find 800 very acceptable in most cases. I'd say the noise is pretty much on par with my old 50D.

[Flats]

Is ISO Performance any different on the mk2N vs the mk2?

[JEmerson]

^
No.

Personally I find ISO 1600 fine when it's exposed properly.

[hashcake]

Thanks for the summary Jonathan, this gives be a better perspective.
I'm going to give this more thought before deciding.

[chewyuk]

I went from a 30d to a 1d late last year. The biggest change is the menu system, which is a massive change, the feel of the two bodies is miles apart. I shoot landscapes and portraits. Suffice to say the 30d hasn't really been used since.
I am now looking getting a better body and am reluctant to go to a 5d markii because I have gorwn to love the 1series feel, its just awesome.

I shoot landscapes, portraits etc happily on it. Do I need the frames per second, nope. But comes in jolly handy when I go places that will need it, like Skomer in a few months!