1D Mark II

Isn't that like asking is it worth purchasing a Lamboghini as a upgrade from a Volkswagen? Are all the extras really going to make that much of a difference in the photographs you take? Why not look at 5 or 7D before spending all that cash?

Ofcourse it all depends on how much you can get the 1D for.
 
Depends on what aspect of your photography you're hoping to upgrade. If you're after better image quality, any of the current 18MP bodies *might* be better, particularly at higher ISO. If it's anything else - ruggedness, AF, better controls, speed - then yes, it's an upgrade in every way.
 
Fudzy said:
What is the likelihood of component failure
Click to expand...

Much less than on a entry-level body. The 1D bodies are built to last and to sustain enormous abuse. The only thing I recommend in that regard is to have a look at what the shutter count is. It's rated for 300,000, IIRC.
 
What's a bargain?
Isn't the 7D about R10,000.00 now and also pretty decent?
 
I'm not sure, but I reckon bwana is right. Right off the bat, the 1d mk2 has much older tech, so ISO is going to to suffer compared to the 550D.
 
I have used DxoMark previously simply to look at camera review not to compare them. I understand the general rating system but not too certain about the Low-Light ISO rating and the dynamic range ratings, would someone be so kind as to explain to me what exactly these to mean. I understand low light means you may need to up the ISO level, but don't quite understand a rating like 854 ISO for the 7D. What exactly does that mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X