Canon bodys or Nikon bodys why the Big Bucks ?

[mercmanuk]

This is an add on to the What is your ideal kit money no object which brought out some interesting results.

Apart from the sensor ... what other reasons are there to spend £2-£4k on a camera body, when Full Frame start at £1200 for the 5D.... what are the hard and fast reality's of spending large amounts on an image capture device , apart from having the Money average Joe is is not going to notice any differance in this added expenditure, (pro togs are exempt)<why i don't know but for this they are <<<<<one rule

I am not trying to be flippant about the more expensive range or suggest anyone who has one is wrong for spending that amount,it's your money and your choice, more importantly i may have to justify this to she who must be obeyed (wife) and at the moment nothing springs to mind.

there are differences i except that, but a £2.8K differance is hard to justify in my world.

It's like Golf i had a £100 second hand set of wilson's blades, and i was bloody good at golf, but Ping would they make me play better ????---oh i miss my golf days....

If you have the money or not and choose to spend on what you want rather than need thats fine by me...

For the sake of this thread what are the bare bones differences, from a 1000D to a 1Ds MRKlll if that is top of the canon range.


I fully understand the reasons for spending on the Len's side that i am comvinced of that...but the body i'am not convinced of ATM.

Regards Mark

 

[andrewc]

Go and handle a 1D and you'll see/feel the difference. The pro bodies are designed to last!

 

[RobertP]

You pay the extra for a rugged high speed professional tool designed to be used and abused every day. There is a huge list of specs you could compare but it comes down to quality, performance and endurance.... not that I own a high end camera body

 

[Little Man]

Not sure if i'm blatently missing something here, but theres an obvious list of massive differences between the 1000D and the 1DS mk3, looking at a spec sheet will prove that.

That's like saying, whats the difference between a bottom spec Mercedes, and a top spec Mercedes...a lot? Plus, with you being a Merc man yourself i'm sure you'll understand what i'm getting at with the point i've used.

You get what you pay for, as the good old saying goes.

 

[mercmanuk]

Go and handle a 1D and you'll see/feel the difference. The pro bodies are designed to last!

Good morning Andrew, i will for research reasons i am off to the trafford center this week as my daughter is having a return to school build a bear present :bang:

So will report back on that ....but is that enough to part with the dosh????

Regards mark

 

[chuckles]

One of my favourite all-time quotes from an old camera magazine. It was at the time the Pentax SLRs first hit the streets - late 60s early seventies.

A pro was asked why he had not left Leica and 'gone over' to the new Pentax. His response?

"If I was on safari and attacked by a lion my first extinct would be to batter it to death with my camera. I know both cameras would've saved my life but, with the Leica, I could've taken pictures of the dead beast after the event!"

Reckon a lot of it is down to build quality and reliability.

 

[DiddyDave]

Am I exempt from answering then?

At the risk of being so I'll offer my 2p's worth

Many of you will know or have heard of Mark Cleghorn. He's a prolific Wedding & Portrait pro of about 20 years, who now also does lots of Seminars teaching his skills (and very open he is too)

Mark uses the 5D clearly stating when asked that it is more than good enough to capture an image sharp enough & big enough for any Wedding requirement. Mark argued well enough (at one I attended) that the 16mp Canon was 'overkill' and offered no amazing benefit over the 5D - even thought it was 3x the price

In my film days I was always a film & lens mattered most man - and I ran two (cheap by comparison) Chinon bodies for almost 19 years before they died on me

As a Pro I went for the D2Xs over the D200 mostly as I was feeling flush at the time, but for my photography there's really not a lot in them. With both I have sensor issues with low light - the answer (from Nikon) is the D3 and it's baby brother the D300

Buying the D3 would mean another £3000 camera but I'd also need to replace my lenses too costing another £4000 - clearly that's a bit daft, so I bought the D300

Putting these two together makes a fab team that I know will last many years past their replacements and still bring home the goods

In essence - I've replaced my film & lens requirements with perfectly adequate sensors & lenses; so in a roundabout way - I agree with the OP that the body is largely irrelevant, so save your money for where it matters... lenses, computers/software to use the images properly, seminars/courses/books & mags to learn from & spending some money going places worthy of using it all

There rolls my 2p...

DD

 

[mercmanuk]

Not sure if i'm blatently missing something here, but theres an obvious list of massive differences between the 1000D and the 1DS mk3, looking at a spec sheet will prove that.

That's like saying, whats the difference between a bottom spec Mercedes, and a top spec Mercedes...a lot? Plus, with you being a Merc man yourself i'm sure you'll understand what i'm getting at with the point i've used.

You get what you pay for, as the good old saying goes.

i do understand , its bell and whistles for Mercs but my 10 years old E 300 TD is a match for today's mercs, ok differance in spec, yes you can request a basic spec Merc and pay £22 grand for a c class or you can pay £62,000 for a C63 AMG the differance is lighting fast, you still get the car only with a 6.3 lit engine.... wow,


so for know i will read the posts i canot reply to eveyone but still some good points are being raised.

Regards Mark.

 

[AliB]

Yep, as above. I feel (slightly) able to comment owning a 5D and a 1DsMKII. What, honestly, are the differences.

Well, I have to say that the 1 series are worth it for the autofocus alone. I'm getting shots with the 1Ds that I just could not get with the 5D. Don't get me wrong I still love the 5D and for those static objects it's still a fab camera but the 1d on alservo with a Canon lens is just superb. I took a burst of shots of our puppy running downhill and of the four shots it nailed every one. I'd have been lucky to get one with the 5D.

Creatively the 5D is just as good so you are absolutely right to question the expense. There is not a lot the 1d does significantly better. In a studio I'd happily shoot with the 5D and other than slightly (The 1Ds produces 50Mb uncompressed TIFFs) higher file sizes, you are not going to notice a lot of difference. Take the 1d's out of that environment however and they really do fly.

It's kind of comparing my work Toyota Avensis to my own Merc. Yes the Avensis gets me there but the Merc just does everything that little bit better.

 

[mercmanuk]

Am I exempt from answering then?

At the risk of being so I'll offer my 2p's worth

Many of you will know or have heard of Mark Cleghorn. He's a prolific Wedding & Portrait pro of about 20 years, who now also does lots of Seminars teaching his skills (and very open he is too)

Mark uses the 5D clearly stating when asked that it is more than good enough to capture an image sharp enough & big enough for any Wedding requirement. Mark argued well enough (at one I attended) that the 16mp Canon was 'overkill' and offered no amazing benefit over the 5D - even thought it was 3x the price

In my film days I was always a film & lens mattered most man - and I ran two (cheap by comparison) Chinon bodies for almost 19 years before they died on me

As a Pro I went for the D2Xs over the D200 mostly as I was feeling flush at the time, but for my photography there's really not a lot in them. With both I have sensor issues with low light - the answer (from Nikon) is the D3 and it's baby brother the D300

Buying the D3 would mean another £3000 camera but I'd also need to replace my lenses too costing another £4000 - clearly that's a bit daft, so I bought the D300

Putting these two together makes a fab team that I know will last many years past their replacements and still bring home the goods

In essence - I've replaced my film & lens requirements with perfectly adequate sensors & lenses; so in a roundabout way - I agree with the OP that the body is largely irrelevant, so save your money for where it matters... lenses, computers/software to use the images properly, seminars/courses/books & mags to learn from & spending some money going places worthy of using it all

There rolls my 2p...

DD

That is one hell of a 2 penneth worth, pro togs are not exempt from answering they can have whatever set up they need, it's there job so the best is required for consistent contracts and repeat or ongoing business, so your reply was very valuable indeed many thanks.

Regards Mark

 

[andrewc]

i do understand , its bell and whistles for Mercs but my 10 years old E 300 TD is a match for today's mercs, ok differance in spec, yes you can request a basic spec Merc and pay £22 grand for a c class or you can pay £62,000 for a C63 AMG the differance is lighting fast, you still get the car only with a 6.3 lit engine.... wow,


so for know i will read the posts i canot reply to eveyone but still some good points are being raised.

Regards Mark.

You know there is more to a C63 than just the engine. I have a C43 AMG and although much is based upon the standard car, the brakes, suspension, wheels, tyres, exhaust, gearbox and steering are different to the standard C class, along with different interior

 

[mercmanuk]

Yep, as above. I feel (slightly) able to comment owning a 5D and a 1DsMKII. What, honestly, are the differences.

Well, I have to say that the 1 series are worth it for the autofocus alone. I'm getting shots with the 1Ds that I just could not get with the 5D. Don't get me wrong I still love the 5D and for those static objects it's still a fab camera but the 1d on alservo with a Canon lens is just superb. I took a burst of shots of our puppy running downhill and of the four shots it nailed every one. I'd have been lucky to get one with the 5D.

Creatively the 5D is just as good so you are absolutely right to question the expense. There is not a lot the 1d does significantly better. In a studio I'd happily shoot with the 5D and other than slightly (The 1Ds produces 50Mb uncompressed TIFFs) higher file sizes, you are not going to notice a lot of difference. Take the 1d's out of that environment however and they really do fly.

It's kind of comparing my work Toyota Avensis to my own Merc. Yes the Avensis gets me there but the Merc just does everything that little bit better.

But Toyota come near the top of the customer satisfaction league, on reliabilty and service, while Merc sit at or near the bottom.

Regards Mark.

 

[mercmanuk]

You know there is more to a C63 than just the engine. I have a C43 AMG and although much is based upon the standard car, the brakes, suspension, wheels, tyres, exhaust, gearbox and steering are different to the standard C class, along with different interior

Do not post things like that, it makes me jealous C43 and your engine is signed by the maker of the AMG engine, Agreed but put that differance in context with camera body terms

Regards Mark.


i am going to let this thread flow for a while with out replying to each one.

 

[andrewc]

Do not post things like that, it makes me jealous C43 and your engine is signed by the maker of the AMG engine, Agreed but put that differance in context with camera body terms

Regards Mark.


i am going to let this thread flow for a while with out replying to each one.

My engine isn't signed... (at least nowhere visible)

If you think that the 1D body is an AMG - everything is rock solid and does the job reliably with stunning performance - with superior AF, faster buffers, tank like build quality, weather sealed buttons and flaps, higher duty shutters and much more...

In a studio enviroment a 5D is probably just as good, but for professional photographers who are out and about they may want a camera built to survive.

Mercedes partly due to the tie up with Chrysler (since divorced) decided they were making cars too good and they weren't making enough profit. They've recognised this and quality is going back up again.

 

[nowler]

it's easy to argue that images from a 1Ds mk3 are not 3 times as good as images from a 5D, despite the body costing 3 times the price. but for me, the 1 series bodies will work in conditions that a 5D will not, and they offer functions and features that are desirable enough to justify having them over a 5D etc. etc.

if what you have just now is working fine for you, then maybe you don't need anything else? i got mine because i needed the weather sealing, AF, and bomb proof construction.

 

[grumpybadger]

I always find this subject an interesting one. I think you can almost disregard the sensor (although FF vs. APS-C always gets people heated).

In the old days you could put Velvia in an EOS 1000 or an EOS1V-HS and get exactly the same image capture. The 1 was more money for the build quality, AF, more accurate metering, weather sealing, etc and I think the same argument holds.

I am a happy amateur but run a 1D Mk II and a 1Ds Mk II having also tried a 10D and a 5D. I do over 90% of my photography outdoors in somewhat inclement conditions and for that, I think the 1-series fits my needs best.

For me, the bigger question is whether moving to a 1D Mk III and a 1Ds Mk III would really give me £4000 worth of benefit. I reckon not and am firmly committed to the philosopy of last generation pro kit bought second hand. I would like slightly better performance at high ISO but not enough to buy a 1D III

Paul

 

[mercmanuk]

My engine isn't signed... (at least nowhere visible)

If you think that the 1D body is an AMG - everything is rock solid and does the job reliably with stunning performance - with superior AF, faster buffers, tank like build quality, weather sealed buttons and flaps, higher duty shutters and much more...

In a studio enviroment a 5D is probably just as good, but for professional photographers who are out and about they may want a camera built to survive.

Mercedes partly due to the tie up with Chrysler (since divorced) decided they were making cars too good and they weren't making enough profit. They've recognised this and quality is going back up again.

All AMG engines are hand built, using a "one man, one engine" philosophy at the current AMG plant in Affalterbach, Germany. To signify this, each AMG engine builder stamps the engines they produce with an engraved plaque depicting their signature.

As part of the official Mercedes product line, the AMG models are sold side-by-side with regular production models, unlike those offered by other Mercedes tuning firms such as Brabus.

it will be there somwhere Regards mark.

 

[grumpybadger]

Hmmm. I thought this was a thread about cameras?

 

[mercmanuk]

hi yes it went off topic there, i think the op is trying to draw a analogy with the cars V's camera,

So apart from weatherproofing and a solid build quality, being protected against the rigour's of nature, button functions shutter speeds, a host of similarities between the 5D and 1D but as was said it's easy to argue that images from a 1Ds mk3 are not 3 times as good as images from a 5D, but the 1D's offer functions and features that are desirable enough to justify having them over a 5D? but are they worth the extra £2.8k (new).

I am in diddydaves camp at the moment and with a post like that it's hard to beat, i am just not sold on the price differance, i will ask a salesperson in jessops if they can shed any light on this.

Regards Mark.

 

[gingerjon]

i will ask a salesperson in jessops if they can shed any light on this.

Couldn't you ask somebody who might know something about cameras?

 

[andrewc]

Like cars and computers, technology and features introduced in the professional line trickle down towards the consumer end of the market.

For a working photographer, the camera is merely a tool and they have to choose the best tool for the requirements they need.

Some photographers may also lease their camera or have a monthly payment so they are offsetting paying for the camera whilst it earns its keep.

 

[a1ex2001]

go out and use one, only you can decide if it's worth the extra money in the situations you will be using it, nobody else can really help you.

 

[grumpybadger]

So apart from weatherproofing and a solid build quality, being protected against the rigour's of nature, button functions shutter speeds, a host of similarities between the 5D and 1D but as was said it's easy to argue that images from a 1Ds mk3 are not 3 times as good as images from a 5D, but the 1D's offer functions and features that are desirable enough to justify having them over a 5D? but are they worth the extra £2.8k (new).

That's hit the nail on the head. But actually, high end photography has always been about diminishing returns. Is a 40D with a 24-70/2.8 really 10 times better than a point and shoot? Depends what you want.

I chose to sacrifice image quality from the 5D and move to the 1DII as I found the 5D to not be that usable under pressure (I found the selector wheel often moved in my bag and so grabbing a camera and taking the shot led to the wrong settings). At that point, the quality of the picture is down to getting the camera to do what you want and not the technical quality of the sensor.

If you are planning to use it mainly for studio or landscape, then I would actually question whether a 5D will give you twice the picture quality of the 40D...

 

[Little Man]

i do understand , its bell and whistles for Mercs but my 10 years old E 300 TD is a match for today's mercs, ok differance in spec, yes you can request a basic spec Merc and pay £22 grand for a c class or you can pay £62,000 for a C63 AMG the differance is lighting fast, you still get the car only with a 6.3 lit engine.... wow,


so for know i will read the posts i canot reply to eveyone but still some good points are being raised.

Regards Mark.

I can see where you're coming from fella, just that i'm struggling to put my point across.

I shal get back to you.

 

[nowler]

a vacheron-constantin watch may not tell the time any better than a timex, but people who own them prefer them.

go try one out and see for yourself.

 

[dazzajl]

high end photography has always been about diminishing returns.

That's exactly where it's at. As each and every frame out of the camera becomes more important, the value you can place on the tools creating the frame increases.

Your shots might be important because it pays the mortgage or it might just be important because you enjoy your hobby by placing pressure on yourself to get the shot every time you fire the shutter.

When I'm out shooting for work, I use the best tool I can for the job and cost is a secondary consideration against reliability and quality. When I'm out shooting just because I want to, I'm more likely to use my little p&s or even my phone. If I get the shot, great. If not, it's no biggie, I had fun trying it anyway.