[BityBabyNurse]

Canon EOS-5D Digital SLR Camera Body, 12.8 Megapix.. vs.

Canon EOS-30D Digital SLR Camera vs.

Canon EOS-1D Mark II Digital SLR Camera Kit, 8.20 Megapixels, - vs.

Canon EOS-1D MARK-III Digital SLR Camera with 10.1 Megapixel

Here's what I want to use it for: mainly portraits, indoor and outdoor, toddlers, children, and I would like a large LCD screen to see if my pics are ok, and in focus.

I'm fixing to open my own business and want to practice with a new camera.. cuz mine now has a crack in the LCD and I want a new one! Thanks to the tot! Price doesn't matter.. Any input is greatly appreciated!

[Dabhand16]

I'm not that familier with the Canon range, but it seems to me you are using the wrong criteria in considering only the number of pixels each camera has. Also, I'm not sure if a camera LCD is going to be able to enable you to check the focus to any real extent. You could output the images to a laptop - wirelessly or by a cable, or to a TV with an AV cable. I've seen LCD TV's with screens from 6" up.

For the use that you have described, do you really want to consider (and pay for) a camera that can shoot at 10 frames per second?

Is it important that you have a full frame camera?

Looking at your list, I would lean toward the 30D, but remember that there might well be a 40D out inside six months.

[stepheno]

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

Also, I'm not sure if a camera LCD is going to be able to enable you to check the focus to any real extent.

That was my first thought too. For what you intend shooting I would discount the last two and use the saved dosh for L lenses which really is the more important decision.

Either the 30D or 5D will suit your needs. If you will use the camera for other pursuits as well then get the 30D. If you will use it only for studio work then get the 5D. But as I said earlier it's the lenses you need to consider...oh...and a decent lighting rig.

[P-E]

Originally Posted by BityBabyNurse

Price doesn't matter

It would be a 1D MKIII out of the options you are looking at for me.

I agree I wouldn't rely on the LCD to check for focus etc. .......but it is good for showing blown highlights and the histogram.

As already said have a good look at investing in some quality glass......they don't come much better than the 85mm 1.2L for portraits by all accounts ....there are other recommended lenses.

Good luck with your business

[VikingPhotography]

I'd have to agree with P-E and say that the current all-rounder appears to be the 1D MK III; it's available for a decent price and has great features.

To get the best out of any pro-level camera you need to marry it to good lenses and, if you're starting out, here's what I'd suggest.

1D Mk III - $4500
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L $1100
Speedlite 580 EX II $400
Lastolite 8-in-1 tri-grip reflector kit $125
A sturdy tripod / head combo such as the Gitzo G1258 (legs) and G2180 (head) $800
A couple of 2 or 4GB fast CF cards by Sandisk or Lexar

The above represents all you really need for portrait work; the lens will give you the equivalent reach of 31 - 91mm and its f/2.8 constant aperture allows for good low or natural light shooting ability. The flash will give you more flexibility to work indoors in dim light, and the reflectors are there to help put natural sunlight onto back or sidelit subjects for wonderful results, particularly with children - take a look at this as an example:



1/40 sec, f/3, ISO 400 handheld - sunlight through window with reflector positioned to give front directional lighting to the face and dress.

So - that puts the shopping list at about $7000 or so (£3500 at current exchange rates)... not bad considering that my own first pro rig set me back about £1000 more And yeah, it's pricey - but so are many self-employed professional occupations in terms of equipment and tools.

[BityBabyNurse]

Viking, that is exactly the kind of pics that I want to take.. but, what is the difference between the mkII and mkIII?

I think some of you got the wrong idea in thinking that I only wanted a camera that would allow me to see if my photos are in focus or not. And that wasn't the kind of information I was looking for.. I just like the large screens because I like viewing my photos on the camera to see if their decent or if something needs adjusting.

I just want a stinking new camera that will be of pro- quality and really nice! (I know, I know, its not the camera, its the person behind it) but anyways, I just want some advice on what camera would be suitable for the kind of pics I like taking..

So far I have:
Canon rebel XT with a crack
Canon 420EX speedlite
canon 50 prime lens
Canon 80-200 zoom lens
Canon 28-80 zoom lens
2gig lexar pro-sd card
a couple cheap soft boxes
foam core board ~ my makeshift reflectors until I get some.
lots of props and 5 muslin backdrops
a tripod of some kind.. but probably won't be using this much when photographing the children.


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?

[VinnyP]

If money was no object for a Canon SLR for portrait work I'd vote none of the above and get a full frame 1Ds Mk II. But for a full time pro you'll probably need a backup as well.

But if there is a budget then spend it on the glass.

[VikingPhotography]

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

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.

[Sonsey]

Personally, with the type of photography you'll be doing I would seriously consider the 5D over the 1d mkII/III - 1ds mkII, the quality of images from it's full frame sensor are excellent (easily on par with the others) and it is significantly cheaper, you can then spend the difference on some quality glass.

I would only go for a 1D if you intend to get into wildlife or sports photography and/or think you'd be shooting in tough weather conditions where it's weather sealed body would come into it's own.

The 1Ds mkII while being an excellent camera is VERY expensive and is also due for a replacement soon (most likely within a year), the new model would definitely be one to look at in the future when you've built your business up, leaving your 5D as a great back up camera.

Just my 2p worth

[VikingPhotography]

Originally Posted by Sonsey

I would only go for a 1D if you intend to get into wildlife or sports photography and/or think you'd be shooting in tough weather conditions where it's weather sealed body would come into it's own.

Sonsey, have you ever done a shoot with multiple little munchkins present? Believe me, an environmentally sealed, pro grade body comes into its own when dealing with a group of tiny terrorists! Think photographing a water-fight in the height of summer etc., not to mention inquisitive, messy fingers doing their best to leave their mark on your kit

All kidding aside - there's also a growing call from parents to shoot their little 'uns at things like school sports days and whilst playing outdoors - a 1D series camera (particularly the 1D Mk III) could shine in such situations where a less rugged 5D might fear to tread.

[Sonsey]

Originally Posted by VikingPhotography

Sonsey, have you ever done a shoot with multiple little munchkins present? Believe me, an environmentally sealed, pro grade body comes into its own when dealing with a group of tiny terrorists! Think photographing a water-fight in the height of summer etc., not to mention inquisitive, messy fingers doing their best to leave their mark on your kit

Lol, I have actually (just a couple of times admitedly) and I get your meaning but I personally made sure all food and drink (and anything else sticky I could think of) was kept out of reach of the area I was taking the shots, something the parents were more than happy to help enforce so to speak as getting the best shots possible of their pride and joy was what they wanted most, worked well enough for me

Originally Posted by VikingPhotography

All kidding aside - there's also a growing call from parents to shoot their little 'uns at things like school sports days and whilst playing outdoors - a 1D series camera (particularly the 1D Mk III) could shine in such situations where a less rugged 5D might fear to tread.

Definitely agree with you here, any type of fast moving action outdoors is were this camera excels, but if the camera's task is "mainly portraits" as Bitty originally stated I would still recommend the 5D to be seriously looked at and added to the shortlist for the reasons I first mentioned.

[BityBabyNurse]

viking, have you tried the Canon EF 24 - 105 mm F4.0L ? Which one is better, that one has image stabilization vs. the Canon 24-70 F2.8L ? Of course for what I'm using it for, mostly squirmy kiddies.



Thanks for all the inputs, it has greatly helped a lot. I'm going to go with the 5D after much research and spend the rest of the money on better lens.. since I'm just getting started and when I build up customers maybe upgrading at a later time.

[VikingPhotography]

[quote=BityBabyNurse;128729]viking, have you tried the Canon EF 24 - 105 mm F4.0L ? Which one is better, that one has image stabilization vs. the Canon 24-70 F2.8L ? Of course for what I'm using it for, mostly squirmy kiddies.[quote]

I've not tried any Canon lens - I'm a Nikon user

Not that that is relevant: for your intended subjects, I'd choose the 24-70 f/2.8L instead of the 24-105 f/4... VR only becomes useful to steady shaking hands when shutter speeds drop below the reciprocal of the focal length - so on a FF dSLR such as the Canon 5D, the shutter speed would need to be below 1/105 second when fully extended, and below 1/24 second at the other end.

This would be counter-intuitive to the typical shutter speeds needed to freeze the motion of kids at play where you'd want to set 1/125 or faster.

The 24-70 also allows you to shoot and focus in much lower lighting conditions, and the image in the viewfinder will be brighter as well from that extra stop of light vs. the 24-105. Another benefit is the added control over depth-of-field and, reportedly, the 24-70 lens is quite sharp even when shot wide open at f/2.8.

Then again, you're asking a lens whore whose entire kit comprises of f/2.8 and f/1.4 glass with one exception - an ultrawide f/4 for landscapes, so naturally I'm going to be biased towards the higher end products