Quote:
Originally Posted by BityBabyNurse
Viking, that is exactly the kind of pics that I want to take.. but, what is the difference between the mkII and mkIII?
|
The 1Ds Mk II has a 16MP full frame sensor measuring 36 x 24mm - exactly the same size as 35mm film. This means that when you mount a lens on the 1Ds Mk II there is no crop/magnification factor - a 28mm lens gives you a 28mm field of view.
The 1D Mk III, on the other hand, has a 10.1MP 1.3x crop sensor measuring 28.7 x 18.7 mm - this means that a 28mm lens actually has a field of view equivalent to mounting a 36mm lens on a film camera (28 x 1.3 = 36).
For many this is a good half-way house between the very expensive 1Ds Mk II, insofar that it's close to full-frame image quality but at a significantly lower price.
For the technical minutae of the differences between the cameras, take a look here
Digital Cameras Side-by-Side, 2 cameras: Digital Photography Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by BityBabyNurse
But, if I can save some money and use it for better lens that will give me the same results with one of the cheaper cameras, then I will settle for a smaller screen..
Now, which camera would be best for me?
|
The 1D Mk III will save you a considerable amount of money vs. the 1Ds Mk II - money that could be put towards better lenses or other accessories. You could go so far as to purchase two 1D Mk III cameras for not much more than the cost of a single 1Ds Mk II - many working pro photographers do just that so they can either use both cameras at the same time (different lenses mounted) or have a main and backup body.
What you decide to do is really a matter of budget, but I'd strongly recommend the 1D Mk III at this point in time.