Which one 60D or 1Dmk2

Morph

Morph

Suspended / Banned
Messages
465
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, im not sure wether to sell my 20 and 40d to buy either the 60d or 1dmk2. Anyone have any advice. I am into aviation photography if that helps??
Neil
 
I bought the 60D, and I found it to be excellent! I've not have much to do with the 1D but I think if you're looking for good video cover too the 60D is a good choice!

I've not done too much video with it but even without the external mic it seems great!the quality of the photographs themselves is great!

It also has the adjustable viewfinder screen. An excellent addition to the 60D
 
I personally would be going for 60D out of those two, the 1D2 like any 1D series will be build like a tank but your talking about a camera that had been around since 2001 the 60D will out perform it on virtually if not all levels IMO

Matt
MWHCVT
 
MWHCVT said:
I personally would be going for 60D out of those two, the 1D2 like any 1D series will be build like a tank but your talking about a camera that had been around since 2001 the 60D will out perform it on virtually if not all levels IMO

Matt
MWHCVT
Click to expand...

The 1Dmk2 came out in 2004, not 2001.

The 1Dmk2 has fantastic AF, but will seem slow to write to the memory cards compared to a more recent dSLR.

Also, the high ISO performance of a more recent camera will be much, much better; the highest ISO possible on a 1Dmk2 is 3200 and even that is called "H" which Canon uses as a warning that the image will be noisy.
 
I have a 1dmk2N and it's fantastic.

high ISO is rubbish, but at below about 800 its an awesome camera. Feels completely different to a xxD, I much prefer the feel of it but it is totally different.

Since I got a new 5d it's just sitting in the cupboard, so if you're anywhere near cambridge you're v. welcome to borrow it....
 
MWHCVT said:
I personally would be going for 60D out of those two, the 1D2 like any 1D series will be build like a tank but your talking about a camera that had been around since 2001 the 60D will out perform it on virtually if not all levels IMO

Matt
MWHCVT
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't agree with you

:plusone::agree: with mortimerhill the 1D MKII autofocus system would still out perform the 60D, its still streets ahead even for a camera that came out in 2004, its all to do with shutter lag and the autofocus system, forget about fps. The 60D does win probably with ISO performance, which has been one of the main camera developments and also 18MPs so you can crop into your image for aviation and wildlife photography, but putting all those MPs into a small sensor does introduce noise, so the low light capabilities although probably better than 1D not as good as the full frame camera's.

Fall back of the 1D is battery life, but personally I like the compromise of the 1.3x crop sensor, best of both worlds and if I was to upgrade, it would be the 1D MKIII or IV because of the extra MPs (although 8MPs is still very usable, just not for those extreme distance shots) and improved ISO capabilities, although still using my 20D as a second body at the moment.
 
even 7D would be a much better comparison to the 1D2, but 60D is aimed at a totally different market segment - i'd say it's for video and general prosumer snapping, not so much for high speed action photography.
 
Build quality MkII wins hands down.

AF. I think the MkII would take the honours. A lot of photographers consider it better than the MkIII.

Customisation. Again the MkII.

Would I buy one above a 60D? No. I'd save a bit more and buy a 7D.
 
thanks guys. Unfortunately I cant stretch to a 7d at the moment. I was wondering how big an effect the drop in megapixels would have, even against my 40d
Neil
 
Morph said:
thanks guys. Unfortunately I cant stretch to a 7d at the moment. I was wondering how big an effect the drop in megapixels would have, even against my 40d
Neil
Click to expand...

You'll notice no difference between the 40D (10MP) and 1D (8MP). Yes you would with the 60D at 18MPs (allowing you to crop into the image) but you have other issues with more MPs on a small sensor. As I mentioned, noise is still a major factor (improving but still noisy for low light photography).

Another factor with more MPs is that it will find flaws with the lens because of the quality of the optics. You will need better quality optics that can “resolve” the detail of the sensor as you continually increase MPs
 
hi pete, I use a 100-400L lens. Which camera do you think would suit my aviation needs. The way I look at it, if the frame isnt 2 thirds full of aircraft, chances are its not going to be good enough quality anyway, theres to much image quality lost. Im not bothered about hd video either. So do I go for more pixels on the 60 or faster focus on the 1d2?
 
daugirdas said:
From memory 100-400 is not particularly sharp at 400mm so 18mp would be practically wasted on 60d. A prime would be a different story.
Click to expand...

I've seen some sharp images from a 100-400mm, ok I know that there are issue with the 100-400mm @ 400 being soft, but step it down a few f-stops should solve that and as long as the OP not cropping to the extremes I don't see major problems, but then again I'm still using 8MPs but prime lenses, so can't comment too much on say the performance of the 60D with 100-400mm lens.

Morph As for which camera being right depends whether you want the extra crop factor 18MPs will give you over a pro autofocus system.

For me probably the next upgrade would be a camera body, probably to a 1D MKIV only because the next lens I want (500mm f4) would require me to rob a bank :D if prices weren't so high, the upgrade would be a lens rather than a body although 12 MPs does appeal, but not the extremes of 18MPs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top