Any Canon 5D2 + 1Ds3 users ?

G

gary43

Messages
2,679
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I appreciate that the 5D2 v 1Ds3 debate has been going on for some time but was wondering what actual users of both thought of their relative merits or demerits.

For information I currently use 5D2 and 60D and have recently had 1DIII and 1Ds2 bodies. I LOVED the 1Ds2 in every respect apart from its useless screen.

However, I constantly get frustrated with the awful low light AF capabilities of my current 5D2 and find the AF points clustered around the centre of the viewfinder a bit restrictive in terms of giving me the composition that I want. So, I am considering a change of bodies from 5D2 to 1Ds3.

Before I finally decide whether the upgrade (cost !) though is worthwhile, I would really appreciate users' opinions on:

whether the low light AF of the 1Ds3 really is any better than the 5D2 ?, and;

how the high iso capabilities of these bodies stack up ?

Look forward to opinions from members here on the above.

Thanks for looking.

Gary
 
Last edited:
I've had two 5DMk2s and a 1DsMk3.

The only things that the 5DMk2 excels at compared to the 1DsMk3 is weight, high ISO, the rear screen and video.

The 1DsMk3 on the other hand. build quality, ISOs up to 3200, AF speed and accuracy, FPS, battery life, some of the custom options and I suspect more but can't think of them off the top of my head.
 
EdBray said:
I've had two 5DMk2s and a 1DsMk3.

The only things that the 5DMk2 excels at compared to the 1DsMk3 is weight, high ISO, the rear screen and video.

The 1DsMk3 on the other hand. build quality, ISOs up to 3200, AF speed and accuracy, FPS, battery life, some of the custom options and I suspect more but can't think of them off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

Ed, thanks for the prompt reply.

Not too fussed about build quality as I tend to baby my gear.

Would you consider iso 3200 to be comparable on both bodies ? I rarely go above 4000 on the 5D2 and can live with 3200 if that is the case.

AF speed and accuracy are the standout requirements for me. Would you consider the 1ds3 to be demonstrably better in these regards or is it marginal ?

For example, I tried to shoot the mother of a B&G a couple of weeks ago in dim laplight and the 5d2 would just not focus AT ALL on this occasion. I could obviously use MF but in the hurley burley of weddings and gigs that is not always an option.

Regards.

Gary
 
In my opinion the AF was considerably better on the 1DsMk3, perhaps a PM to Canon Bob may help.
 
Dear Ed

Thanks for the additional comment.

+1 forthe 1Ds3 then.

Best regards.

Gary
 
Hi Gary

I've owned a 1DS3 and 3 5D2's and have to agree with what Ed has already said.The 1DS3 is certainly the better camera but so it should be.
The 1DS3 produces much nicer files at low isos.Can't compete with the 5D2 at high iso's though.The Af is much better on the 1DS3 but the center focus point on the 5DMK2 is also very very good.
The poor screen was the only downside to the 1DS3 for me.It's just a shame that I also owned a 1D4 at the same time as the 1DS3.That camera really spoiled me and eventually led me to get rid of the 1DS3.

Cheers
Gary
 
Daugirdas

Thanks for the comments above. To answer the "why would it be important ?" question. I found the screen on the 1Ds2 useful for compositions but tend to obsesivelly chimp to determine the exposure/sharpness of images. I could (and did) rely on the histogram but during gigs and weddings found the whole reviewing images on the fly process a bit of a pain in fast moving situations. Hence the move to 5D2, which is in some ways a worse camera but is much more user-friendly.

Thanks again for the comment on AF.

Regards

Gary
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top