Canon 5D Mark II Vs Canon 1D Mark IV? Especially in low light...

S

skital

Well-known member
I have been mostly set on the Canon T2i for its low price and high overall quality, but have always been interested in the 5D Mark II for its amazing low light capability. Then I came across the 1D Mark IV and saw "Nocturne" which was shot at night only with available light and was pretty blown away. I also like the idea of the 1.3 crop. It seems like it could be a good balance between Full Frame and 1.6 crop sensor.

I heard its low light is even superior to the 5D Mark II, but on this site the 1D Mark IV scored way lower than the 5D Mark II on Low Light ISO. What is correct? Is the 1D MKIV only better in low light when you go to that super high ISO of 100,000+ or whatever it is I saw on the specs?
 
skital said:
I have been mostly set on the Canon T2i for its low price and high overall quality, but have always been interested in the 5D Mark II for its amazing low light capability. Then I came across the 1D Mark IV and saw "Nocturne" which was shot at night only with available light and was pretty blown away. I also like the idea of the 1.3 crop. It seems like it could be a good balance between Full Frame and 1.6 crop sensor.

I heard its low light is even superior to the 5D Mark II, but on this site the 1D Mark IV scored way lower than the 5D Mark II on Low Light ISO. What is correct? Is the 1D MKIV only better in low light when you go to that super high ISO of 100,000+ or whatever it is I saw on the specs?
Click to expand...

I've been working with Mark ii 5d footage for over a year - it's great in low light. Never tried the 1D, but considering it's almost 4K more in price, I honestly can't see any reason at all to buy it - any better low light than a Mark ii 5d isn't worth 3-4K.

It's in the lenses - save your cash for that instead. Not sure how much cash you have at your disposal, but

A mark ii 5d or a t2i with 1.2 lenses > 1D with kit lenses or 2.8 glass since you broke the bank and can't afford 1.2 lenses (maybe you can , I don't know, but IMO the Lenses >>>>>>>Body)
 
Psynema said:
I've been working with Mark ii 5d footage for over a year - it's great in low light. Never tried the 1D, but considering it's almost 4K more in price, I honestly can't see any reason at all to buy it - any better low light than a Mark ii 5d isn't worth 3-4K.

It's in the lenses - save your cash for that instead. Not sure how much cash you have at your disposal, but

A mark ii 5d or a t2i with 1.2 lenses > 1D with kit lenses or 2.8 glass since you broke the bank and can't afford 1.2 lenses (maybe you can , I don't know, but IMO the Lenses >>>>>>>Body)
Click to expand...

It is actually $2,500 more for the body (compared to $2,500 for the 5D MKII Body), basically twice as much. Not almost 4k more though, but still way more expensive. I think you are right and what I was thinking all along. Lenses first. Body second.

I think I will end up sticking with the T2i, but will wait for some reviews most likely which will also give me time to save up even more for lenses. The footage looked amazing. The MKII scored 1815 on the low light ISO and T2i scored 807. I don't know how much of a difference there really will be, but with the T2i's cost I can probably afford better lenses in addition to the body at least. lol. Just wish the crop was around 1.3 instead of 1.6. I think that is a good balance between full frame and a 1.6x crop.

So, I guess now I play the waiting game. The GH2 is sounding interesting. Wonder what it will cost. Hopefully the T2i will push down the price of better future models coming out.
 
skital said:
It is actually $2,500 more for the body (compared to $2,500 for the 5D MKII Body), basically twice as much. Not almost 4k more though, but still way more expensive. I think you are right and what I was thinking all along. Lenses first. Body second.

I think I will end up sticking with the T2i, but will wait for some reviews most likely which will also give me time to save up even more for lenses. The footage looked amazing. The MKII scored 1815 on the low light ISO and T2i scored 807. I don't know how much of a difference there really will be, but with the T2i's cost I can probably afford better lenses in addition to the body at least. lol. Just wish the crop was around 1.3 instead of 1.6. I think that is a good balance between full frame and a 1.6x crop.

So, I guess now I play the waiting game. The GH2 is sounding interesting. Wonder what it will cost. Hopefully the T2i will push down the price of better future models coming out.
Click to expand...

What test was this with the scores? Not even sure what those numbers mean.

But the 1D I saw on Amazon was 6200$...damn. Most of that cost though it going towards a higher picture per second rate and it's not full frame.
 
Psynema said:
What test was this with the scores? Not even sure what those numbers mean.

But the 1D I saw on Amazon was 6200$...damn. Most of that cost though it going towards a higher picture per second rate and it's not full frame.
Click to expand...

Wow. BHPhoto has the 1D For $4,999. What a drastic price difference!

Here is the test:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...305|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon

The 7D scored 854 vs 807 for the T2i, so they are pretty close at least.
 
i been using the 5DmkII for quite awhile. when the 7D came out i bought it becuase i wanted its 720p 60fps mode. i returned it though because i thought its low light capabilities was nowhere near as good as the 5DmkII. i also do a lot of photography using the D3, mkIII & mkIIn. using the 7D was not in the class of even my oldest canon for as far as IQ goes. way too many pixels hurt IQ from 800 ISO and up.

so...

my suggestion would be that i would not invest in the 7D. i suspect that the IQ of the T2i would be basically the same. it has all the same frame rates as the 7D and both have way too many pixels for that size of sensor so IMO why spend all the money on the 7D when for video purposes there is no real gain than i can see over the T2i. buy the T2i and take the money and run.

i think Psynema's advice about accumulating good glass is a good idea and a way to get you better low light capabilites for the time being. maybe in the future you could upgrade to a 5DmkII or whatever new great camera Canon might have that is keeping with the best IQ.

if you have the cash though the 5DmkII's IQ and low light shooting ability is still the best choice from what is currently available.

from what i have seen the mkIV wouldnt be any better than the 5DmkII...*except* the mkIV seems to do a better job of controlling *banding* that sometimes can show up a little on the 5DmkII @ 6400 and can be more apparent @ 12,800 iso.

the mkIV could have been a lot better than it is if they would have kept the pixel count lower as well.

although this review is commenting a lot on the mkIV's AF capabilities he does comment quite a bit about his disapointment with the mkIV's noise @ even as low as 2000 ISO.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=34580712

i think that the mkIV would be a waste of money for video purposes compared to the 5DmkII. for photography and performance...thats a different story though.

you could take the extra $2,500 and buy a few great lenses.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=135mm+2.0&N=0&InitialSearch=yes
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-USA/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html

both these lenses are fast, sharp and have a gorgeous bokeh.

good luck!
david
www.davidprobst.com
 
I have been saying the the 5d is focusable at 4-5.6 for some time

which is why I generally just use the 24-105 to save lens changes

the 7d is good at 2

lets guess the 1ds is good at 2.8

that means

the 5d needs way better performance to be usable in low light and that the lens budget will be lower for that camera than the others

others agree..

http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/12/the-power-of-focus/

So the 5d is the bargiain because its great with cheap glass but not the night time option

S
 
morgan_moore said:
I have been saying the the 5d is focusable at 4-5.6 for some time

which is why I generally just use the 24-105 to save lens changes

the 7d is good at 2

lets guess the 1ds is good at 2.8

that means

the 5d needs way better performance to be usable in low light and that the lens budget will be lower for that camera than the others

others agree..

http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/12/the-power-of-focus/

So the 5d is the bargiain because its great with cheap glass but not the night time option

S
Click to expand...

Yep, I was thinking the same thing. Hurlbut has saved me alot of time and money with his tests. He's been the most valuable contributer in the VDSLR arena. As long as you're not concerned with projecting on to a 40 ft screen, I think the 24 to 105L 4.0 will do you at least from what I see on my 52" Samsung. Just no point in putting a 1.2 lens on the 5DII for video work.

I was thinking of getting the 70-200 2.8L II IS for the 550D however.
 
I was thinking of getting the 70-200 2.8L II IS for the 550D however.[/QUOTE]

That's a $2400 lens! For just a few hundred more you could buy a used 70-200 2.8L (non IS) and a used 5D2 body.
 
I've used the 1D, 5D, 7D and t2i and I settled on the 7D as my favorite among them all. Granted, I ONLY shoot video so still mode was of no concern (and my D90 shoots better than my 7D and I like Nikon's colors better).

The difference between the t2i and 7D for me was the controls. The 7D has a much better layout and usability to me. Also, I like the output stays the same on the HDMI when recording as none of the others (or 60D) do and I use an external monitor for crane shots and other special purpose shots.

The 1D was too expensive to me for what you got from a video perspective. Compared to the 7D and 5D, it wasn't that much better, if at all, in most circumstances. Also, I did not like the button usage on it. Again, the 7D still has the best button settings to me. Also, I do not want that large of a camera, I don't use the extra battery.

The 5D Full Frame is just not what I like. I prefer S35 size and the 7D was the closest to that. I spent some time with quite a few lens on the 5D and 7D and for shooting narrative work, I prefer the 7D sensor size. This is absolutely a personal preference. If you want FF, then 5D is the way to go.

However, all that said, the biggest test to me was low light, and I'll be honest, after this test we did with two 7D's, I was MORE than happy with the low light performance:

http://vimeo.com/8391499

My biggest complain with my 7D is the moire/aliasing, and ALL the models have this same issue. If you *really* want to spend that kind of cash for a 5D or 1D I would really suggest you wait for their next generation where they've possibly improved their moire/aliasing and rolling shutter. I'd stick with your t2i for now.
 
I've used them both many times in low light situations. I find the 1D Mark IV to be better, especially with higher ISO images - much cleaner. I say rent the 1D Mark IV for when you need it. Don't buy it. You'll be kicking yourself when the 5D Mark III comes out (rumored to be March 2011) - which will be full-frame, and supposedly have the sensitivity of a 1D Mark IV and a Digic V processor to boot (just rumors for now of course). Regardless, rent the 1D Mark IV, don't buy it. Buy full frame glass and just rent bodies - glass never ages - will last you 20 years+.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top