Canon 1DS Mark 3 or 5D?
I’m looking to buy a new cannon camera for my lab. We are using it mainly to photograph sections mounted on a slide. I need a camera and a lens that can shoot clear, crisp close up photos.
I was looking at these two cameras based on the MP. Which one do you guys think would be best? They have the same MP. Or neither of those? Also whats the best macro lens out there? Currently we use and series of adapters to get the up close.
If you are comparing the 1Ds Mark III versus a 5D Mark II, there is no noticeable difference as the 5D Mark II has a slightly newer version of the same sensor. Many professional photographers will tell you they had absolutely no reason to buy a 1Ds Mark III once the Canon introduced the 5D Mark II.
Having shot both cameras, I would say that unless you need the more advanced autofocus, controls, build quality and 1 extra frame per second in speed, the 5D Mark II will easily provide the same images for a third of the cost. I’ve rented the 1Ds Mark III and while I think it is a joyous tool and a pleasure to use, it makes no difference in image quality compared to the 5D Mark II. On the flipside, if you spend all day, every day behind the camera, the 1Ds Mark III adds value in making the process more efficient. Based on the information you’ve offered here, I’d say the 1Ds Mark III is a waste of roughly $4,000.
A cheaper option still is the original 5D, commonly called the 5D classic or 5D Mark I. You can buy these bodies for $800 to $1,200 depending on condition. While the original 5D was “only” a 12 megapixel camera, it was and is a body that offers notably sharp images. It is very much worth your consideration.
As for optics/lenses, it is not unusual to use adapters and the like because I’m assuming you are hooking the camera up to a microscope. No “normal” macro lens is going to match the magnification of a microscope. That said, Canon’s two best “macro” lenses are the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM and 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM. The 100mm L is kinda hard to justify because it replaced a non-L version that was NOT lacking in sharpness. I’m not convinced IS with a lens I almost always use on a tripod is worth the extra $450. The main advantage of the 180mm macro is the longer working distances this lens allows. Again, neither is going to match a microscope for magnification.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers