Canon 1d mkIV or canon 5D mkiii?

friesianfan69

friesianfan69

Messages
769
Name
Donna
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry its me again!!
Mass coffuffled head reading review after review.
Ive decided to carry on saving a bit longer and get maybe either a Canon 1d mkIV or canon 5D mkiii? OR back to canon 6D?
Will be for hobby use for dogs and horses in action, as well as the kids , days out and holidays etc.
Ive added one of the compare reviews but i also know peoples experience is equally as important on use.
Also is there a massive negative difference in full and cropped frame?

http://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-vs-Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-IV
 
Last edited:
I have an old 1D2 and a newer 5D3, the weight difference is huge! But, the 1D is a brick outhouse that I could bang nails in with, so if you can bear the weight then the 1D is probably the way to go, although the 5 is supposed to be weatherproofed too (depending on what lens you use of course).
Crop vs FF, the 1D is a 1.3, for all practical purposes no real difference and tbh I quite like the compromise as 1.3 will "lengthen" some lenses and doesnt require a really wide lens to get a wide effect, then again I dont really do W/A photos.
All depends on price, condition and weight really.
Matt
 
The 1D Mk IV and 5D Mk III are both massively competent cameras. Either will almost certainly be more than enough for most people's needs.

Re full frame and cropped sensors: the general rule of thumb is that if you have to ask, you don't need a full frame camera.

In practice I think the most significant difference between these two cameras is the size. Have you ever used a 1D series camera? They are very big and very heavy. On the other hand, the built-in grip and second set of controls really makes a huge difference to the ergonomics, and if you also need to use your camera to hammer in tent pegs then the 1D series has no equal.
 
StewartR said:
The 1D Mk IV and 5D Mk III are both massively competent cameras. Either will almost certainly be more than enough for most people's needs.

Re full frame and cropped sensors: the general rule of thumb is that if you have to ask, you don't need a full frame camera.

In practice I think the most significant difference between these two cameras is the size. Have you ever used a 1D series camera? They are very big and very heavy. On the other hand, the built-in grip and second set of controls really makes a huge difference to the ergonomics, and if you also need to use your camera to hammer in tent pegs then the 1D series has no equal.
Click to expand...
No i havent used one before, Thankyou thats helpful :)
 
Personally I am so used to using the 1D series that anything else feels very small - I recently bought a 40D with a grip and was really glad of the grip because it made it feel like the 1D models.

Negatives are, of course, the weight, although as I said I actually like it.

Another negative with cropped sensors is increased noise levels simply due to the laws of physics - smaller photodiodes need more amplification to bring their output levels up to the voltages needed for the memory card and this increases the noise levels.

But all of this is also dependent on the camera - newer cameras have, in general, lower noise levels due to improvement to sensor architecture and also built in NR.

The Canon 6D for instance seems to employ very heavy handed NR on JPEGs even at the lowest levels which impacts on the resolution of fine objects, trees, foliage etc.

Of course if you shoot in RAW then this will not apply to the same extent.

On the other hand crop sensors give you the advantage of a reduced Field of View which in effect increases the focal length of your lenses compared to a FF camera.

For example a 300mm lens on a 7D (1.6 crop) will give the same effect as a 480mm lens on a FF camera - 300x1.6=480.

This can be very handy when photographing things like horses at a distance etc.

I have used all 3 cameras, FF, 1.3 and 1.6 crop and they all have their place - if I only had 1 camera to take with me I would probably go for my 1Ds Mk2 with its 17MP sensor, my 70-300mm L lens, my 24-105mm L lens and my Kenko 1.4 extender.

Simply because the crop cameras I have are all fairly low (by today's standards) MP and I cannot crop as much.

But I can still get good photos with all of them as long as I remember their characteristics and abilities.

And, of course, my own limitations - because that is what in the end is really what counts.
 
Last edited:
If you struggle to take good photos of your kinds and pets with a EOS 6D I truly don't believe upgrading to a 1d or 5D will help. A camera upgrade will not help in the learning the craft, techniques and creativity required to produce good results. The 6D is an awesome camera which with the appropriate knowledge and creativity will produce fantastic photos of the subjects you want to specialise in taking.
 
You won't need anything this extreme for what you need. Even entry level DSLRs will have AF and features that will achieve what you want (moving kids and animals).
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
You won't need anything this extreme for what you need. Even entry level DSLRs will have AF and features that will achieve what you want (moving kids and animals).
Click to expand...
This. ^
 
odd jim said:
You won't need anything this extreme for what you need. Even entry level DSLRs will have AF and features that will achieve what you want (moving kids and animals).
Click to expand...
Ya: if, as you say, you're using your camera for hobby purposes I'd say a 5D3 was too much, let alone a 1D! Way too much bulk to be carting around when you can get what you need from a lighter weight APS-C camera. Remember you can still use whichever EF lens you want on one of those, and have the bonus of being able to use lighter EF-S lenses too.
 
redsnappa said:
If you struggle to take good photos of your kinds and pets with a EOS 6D I truly don't believe upgrading to a 1d or 5D will help. A camera upgrade will not help in the learning the craft, techniques and creativity required to produce good results. The 6D is an awesome camera which with the appropriate knowledge and creativity will produce fantastic photos of the subjects you want to specialise in taking.
Click to expand...

Im not upgrading , I got some nice pics with the 6d but still had lots to learn.
I sold it to buy a horse, and now want another.
 
Last edited:
To answer the original question, I'd get the 5DIII over the 1DIV for what you've described any day of the week.
 
I heave owned most canon cameras over the years or used them when needed ,that includes two 1Dmkiii ,I consider myself to have a fair grounding on how the cameras work and interact with various lenses , a couple of months ago I found myself able to buy a 1Dmkiv and it's rather amazing in use the high ISO ability is on a different planet to anything I have used before ,but a word of warning it's a highly complex camera until it's set up to your needs .they are definetly more a pro camera than previous models and take time to learn .and I will be the first to admit I still don't fully understand it fully
 
Tbh the 5DIII beats it hands down on ISO handling. And IQ. And, I'm a bit surprised to say, the AF system.

The only place that the 1DIV beats it, in my view, is fps and build. Other than that...
 
friesianfan69 said:
I didn't I got some nice pics, but still had lots to learn.
Click to expand...
. Back in the olden days to learn about photography you would have to buy many books, sign up at an college class or join a photographic society.
Now It has never ever been easier to learn photography, there are tons of forum sites, blog sites and youtube sites dedicated to teaching photography, Because of the high quality tutorial available on the net, there is never a need to buy a photography book ever again.
The only thing that is the same as the old days however is the time it takes to learn how to do learn photography, you have to make time to watch videos or to follow online tutorials. The effort you put in will show in the images you create.
 
the black fox said:
I heave owned most canon cameras over the years or used them when needed ,that includes two 1Dmkiii ,I consider myself to have a fair grounding on how the cameras work and interact with various lenses , a couple of months ago I found myself able to buy a 1Dmkiv and it's rather amazing in use the high ISO ability is on a different planet to anything I have used before ,but a word of warning it's a highly complex camera until it's set up to your needs .they are definetly more a pro camera than previous models and take time to learn .and I will be the first to admit I still don't fully understand it fully
Click to expand...
Thankyou, if you had to choose one out of the two?
 
StewartR said:
On the other hand, the built-in grip and second set of controls really makes a huge difference to the ergonomics, and if you also need to use your camera to hammer in tent pegs then the 1D series has no equal.
Click to expand...


Thank you! We do lots of camping so you have just provided me with justification for buying a 1DX2. I am sure my husband won't mind if it saves us taking a mallet along!
 
IMHO a nice 70d or 80d will server you well if you want some weather proofing then get a 7d2.
 
friesianfan69 said:
Thankyou, if you had to choose one out of the two?
Click to expand...
Really hard to advise without knowing your own knowledge and skill levels ,plus your lenses will need to be taken into account as they will ALL need to be EF lenses or sigma/tamron full frame specs ,the 1D4 is a heavy beast to ,take that into account the 5D3 is a very good option and there's not much between either used price wise these days .
Knowledge of your lenses would help here
 
friesianfan69 said:
Thankyou, if you had to choose one out of the two?
Click to expand...

You don't need either! My old 400d and kit lens combined with a 55-250 back in 2006 was good enough to capture my dogs and o/h's horses in action. The 5d3 and 1d series bodies are overkill for what you need, it's more about learning how to use them to their strengths, that's what you should be concentrating on :)
 
Last edited:
In a post by you back in August last year, you were looking to sell your 6d because you wanted something smaller and more compact (fair enough). The two camera's you are trying to decide between are anything but small and compact. I understand you probably regret selling your 6d because you have now found the limitations of a small compact camera. The way I see it (i could be wrong of course) you will again find a big heavy camera a chore to use. If it was me, I would go crop sensor or mirrorless. I don't know how much of your original canon gear you have left, but if it's not much and you want ff then look at a Sony mirrorless.
I'll add that, apart from taking photos of kids, I photo all that you listed, I too only do it as a hobby so have no pressure to get every photo right. I am the limiting factor not my camera (well apart from it's high iso abilities), I use a Canon 50d, quite old technology and I'm not suggesting you should get one, just the I don't think you need to go pro grade camera.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
You don't need either! My old 400d and kit lens combined with a 55-250 back in 2006 was good enough to capture my dogs and o/h's horses in action. The 5d3 and 1d series bodies are overkill for what you need, it's more about learning how to use them to their strengths, that's what you should be concentrating on :)
Click to expand...

Ok thanks Jim might go with the 6d
 
Whilst a basic camera like a 400d etc will be able to capture kids, and animals, there's no denying it's easier and you'll get more keepers with the tracking and higher burst rate of a more pro level camera.
When I'm using any technology, I like to know that the flaw is me, not the thing I'm using and too many times with compacts and lower spec cameras I've seen me losing a great shot because the camera was too slow.

The good thing is, nowadays there are loads of cameras that have great specs for a very good price. Again, I'd go back to the Canon 7d or Nikon D7000. Both offer great value and will give great pictures. Will they blow up to A3 prints as well as the latest and greatest? Of course not, but then you're paying around £300 for them, not £1000+.

I recently bought the original RX100 for £170 in mint condition. It's a great compact and for when I go out with my kids, it gets the job done. However, anything fast moving and unpredictable I wouldn't dream of using it.

Out of the two listed though I'd go for the 5diii.
 
Last edited:
draiman said:
Whilst a basic camera like a 400d etc will be able to capture kids, and animals, there's no denying it's easier and you'll get more keepers with the tracking and higher burst rate of a more pro level camera.
When I'm using any technology, I like to know that the flaw is me, not the thing I'm using and too many times with compacts and lower spec cameras I've seen me losing a great shot because the camera was too slow.

The good thing is, nowadays there are loads of cameras that have great specs for a very good price. Again, I'd go back to the Canon 7d or Nikon D7000. Both offer great value and will give great pictures. Will they blow up to A3 prints as well as the latest and greatest? Of course not, but then you're paying around £300 for them, not £1000+.

I recently bought the original RX100 for £170 in mint condition. It's a great compact and for when I go out with my kids, it gets the job done. However, anything fast moving and unpredictable I wouldn't dream of using it.

Out of the two listed though I'd go for the 5diii.
Click to expand...
Yes they will. In fact they'd produce excellent prints bigger than A3.
 
draiman said:
Whilst a basic camera like a 400d etc will be able to capture kids, and animals, there's no denying it's easier and you'll get more keepers with the tracking and higher burst rate of a more pro level camera.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference in every respect, performance-wise, between a 11-year old 400D and recent entry level models like 700/750/760/800D, all of which, in terms of AF performance, burst rate and resolution are on a par with, if not better than, a 5D mark II, for example.
 
Nifkin said:
There's a big difference in every respect, performance-wise, between a 11-year old 400D and recent entry level models like 700/750/760/800D, all of which, in terms of AF performance, burst rate and resolution are on a par with, if not better than, a 5D mark II, for example.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Look at a simple 700d. All cross type AF points 5 fps, much faster processor etc. If you can't do it with this, time to give up :)
 
Hands up with the a3 print! I've got a 1diii print in my Hall which is a3 and looks stunning. I'll amend that to "pixel peeping screen monkey". My point though is that for most people there won't be much difference unless they print massive sizes or zoom in an insane amount.

The 7d and 700d are about the same price. They have ups and downs but I'd still choose the 6d over the 700d for build and usability.
 
friesianfan69 said:
Ok thanks Jim might go with the 6d
Click to expand...

I appreciate for some reason you've fallen into a trap of believing you need FF , but honestly an 80d or even one of the newer 760d or 800ds is a better tool for what you plan to shoot.

I'd go 80d personally.

I've been carrying pro cameras and lenses all my adult life (including medium format) and I have no desire to lug around a 1 series camera, I simply don't think the performance and cost is worthwhile for my needs (shooting people for profit and sports for fun).
 
I suppose I'm just thinking I want the best camera for my money.
My friend has the canon 5d mkiii as hobby and is learning with it and loves it.
 
friesianfan69 said:
I suppose I'm just thinking I want the best camera for my money.
My friend has the canon 5d mkiii as hobby and is learning with it and loves it.
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as 'best camera for your money' it's always about the 'best camera for the job, for the money'. The 6d would never be my first choice for moving subjects, though some get decent results. I'd rather have a clean sharp image from an 80d than a missed shot from a 6d that I could pixelpeep better.

Though if you really want the best camera for the money, buy a Nikon D750 as the best value 'all rounder', no Canon comes close (and I currently own 5 Canon DSLRs)
 
Phil V said:
There's no such thing as 'best camera for your money' it's always about the 'best camera for the job, for the money'. The 6d would never be my first choice for moving subjects, though some get decent results. I'd rather have a clean sharp image from an 80d than a missed shot from a 6d that I could pixelpeep better.

Though if you really want the best camera for the money, buy a Nikon D750 as the best value 'all rounder', no Canon comes close (and I currently own 5 Canon DSLRs)
Click to expand...
Thats it confuse me more Lol
Ill have a read up though thanks,
 
Phil V said:
There's no such thing as 'best camera for your money' it's always about the 'best camera for the job, for the money'. The 6d would never be my first choice for moving subjects, though some get decent results. I'd rather have a clean sharp image from an 80d than a missed shot from a 6d that I could pixelpeep better.

Though if you really want the best camera for the money, buy a Nikon D750 as the best value 'all rounder', no Canon comes close (and I currently own 5 Canon DSLRs)
Click to expand...

Steady on Phil, you'll be recommending Sony next. However if I was starting again or had lots of spare cash, I would be very tempted by the D750.
 
Archie747 said:
Steady on Phil, you'll be recommending Sony next. However if I was starting again or had lots of spare cash, I would be very tempted by the D750.
Click to expand...
Having never handled a Sony, and being unconvinced by their over expensive lenses, I can't see it happening.

I do regularly recommend the D750 though, and Fujis

Though I am about to sell my Fuji, its with a heavy heart :(
 
Phil V said:
Though if you really want the best camera for the money, buy a Nikon D750 as the best value 'all rounder', no Canon comes close (and I currently own 5 Canon DSLRs)
Click to expand...
I'm sure I once saw somebody here say something like "Beginners think it's all about the camera". Any idea who that might have been, Phil? ;)

Seriously though, I'm not going to disagree with your assessment of the D750 as the best value all-rounder. But if you were to compare the Nikon ecosystem with the Canon ecosystem, instead of concentrating on just the cameras, I don't think the answer would be so clear cut. For example, off the top of my head I would suggest that compared to Canon, the Nikon ecosystem has:
* significantly slower autofocus
* poorer ergonomics and user interface
* poorer connectivity (WiFi, SnapBridge, etc)
* more incompatibility issues
* more expensive lenses, like-for-like
* significantly less reliable lenses
* poorer quality control
* significantly worse customer support

Obviously many of these won't be important to any given person. But some might be. I just think it's not necessarily right to focus on the cameras to the detriment of the other issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top