EOS 1D Mk 3 vs. EOS 5D

[mfacey]

This probably seems a bit odd but I'm trying to figure out whether it would be interesting to get my dad a new SLR for his upcoming birthday. He has used and EOS A2E for many years now and has some very high quality lenses with it. Both the camera and the lenses are sitting collecting dust because he hasn't made the move to digital for his SLR shooting yet.

So yeah, it begs the question what's best. Ignoring the price difference for now, what does the top of the line EOS 1D Mk III have over the EOS 5D? What would be the better buy for, what used to be, an avid photographer? Also would all of the lenses used on the old EOS A2E still work with the EOS 5D or 1D?

I also get the impression that the EOS 5D has been around for a while (it still uses Canon's older Digic II processor), does that make it a bad choice?

Thanks for the help!

 

[Chaszmyr]

It's not an entirely fair comparison because the EOS 1D Mk III is a year newer, and so the 5D will be updated sometime soon... But it seems to be that the 5D is supposed to be a high end well rounded camera, whereas the main selling point of the 1D seems to be speed. I think if you don't need to take a bunch of photos in burst, the 1D isn't your camera.

 

[mfacey]

Alright, seems reasonalbe. The birthday (its a 50th) isn't until the end of september so that gives Canon some time to work on its refresh

 

[robbieduncan]

The 1D Mk III is primarily aimed at those shooting sports and other fast moving events. The 5D is aimed more at the very high end amateur and low end professional general purpose market.

I don't shoot sports so I'd take the 5D every time (but all I've got is a 400D ). Why? Full frame. The 1D has a 1.3 conversion factor so none of your lenses are quite as wide as they should be.

 

[juanm]

On the Nikon side, I've something similar: a D2X (nec plus ultra professional camera) and a D200 (which is supposed to be worst). Price difference is -relatively- about the same.
I take the D200 90% of the times.
If you really can afford more, just buy another 5D. Really. Half the lens swapping is worth a lot more than just another camera body price. Plus, if he's new to digital, he'll change lenses a lot, and be even more disappointend when dust happens. Resolution is not an issue nor a concern.
Or, you could just buy a good lens instead of the second body.
Me, I'll probably ending up having one body per lens. I'll refer to them, then, by the lens mounted ad vitam eternam.

 

[mfacey]

Thanks for all the replies so far. Looks like the EOS 5D makes more sense for his purposes. How about the lenses though? I've read that certain lenses don't work with DSLR cameras. Most of his lenses are either Canon or Sigma.

Ideally reusing the old lenses would be best. Some of the lenses cost more than a new EOS 5D

 

[robbieduncan]

Thanks for all the replies so far. Looks like the EOS 5D makes more sense for his purposes. How about the lenses though? I've read that certain lenses don't work with DSLR cameras. Most of his lenses are either Canon or Sigma.

Ideally reusing the old lenses would be best. Some of the lenses cost more than a new EOS 5D

In the case of Canon lenses all EF lenses ever made will work perfectly. Some older Sigma lenses need to be re-chipped to work on new bodies. The lens itself is fine, but as they are not using official Canon chips they are too far out when it comes to communicating with the body. Sigma can stick new chips in to sort it. It would appear from some Google results that not all Sigma lenses are re-chippable.