Why buy a $6000 camera?

The following question is asked with canon equipment as examples, because that's what I know. Nikon users should feel free to translate to their brand. The question is generic.

Most folks seem to agree that amongst current (February 2012) APS-C (1.6 crop factor) Canon cameras the 7D is the clear choice for bird photography. It's faster, has more pixels, more autofocus points, and generally outshoots any other Canon APS-C. It also costs the most. I think there's effective consensus on that.

I also notice that amongst the pros, given the choice of all Canon cameras, not just APS-C, the most common choice for a primary body is the 1D Mark IV; and I'd like to understand why. The Mark IV has three big disadvantages:

#1: It costs four times as much. Nuff said.
#2: It weighs more than a 7D.
#3: It has a much larger pixel pitch than a 7D. This means you need longer, heavier, and more expensive glass to get the same number of pixels on the bird. This vastly multiplies points #1 and #2. (Caveat: I'm assuming you're not shooting pelicans at point blank range here. If your primary location is the St. Augustine Alligator Farm or equivalent, then you may actually want a wider angle.)

Given those disadvantages, what factors lead people to choose the 1D Mark IV, and how relatively important are they? Possible advantages I can see to a 1D Mark IV are:


#1. Faster autofocus
#2. More accurate autofocus
#3. More autofocus points
#4. Ring of fire
#5. f/8 autofocus
#6. Better sensor; higher image quality*
#7. Better high ISO performance*
#8. Am I missing anything?

* Image quality has to be compared after the images are cropped to the same field of view, and one image is reduced in size to the same number of pixels as another.


What makes the 1D Mark IV worth more than $10000 more than a 7D? (after accounting for the more expensive lenses you'll need to put the same number of pixels on the bird). Why carry this camera instead of a 7D?

I can't answer your question exactly, but I'll tell you that I own the 7D and use it for bird photography primarily. I'm a little frustrated by its NOISE, which I'm sure you've heard about. Images look excellent until iso400 and quite good until iso800 (assuming you've exposed correctly) but I find the thing relatively useless beyond iso800. I was hoping for a better performance in this department, but for that perhaps you have to look to Nikon or else go to a pro body. Otherwise, the camera is a pleasure to use. It feels good and is solidly-built but not too heavy either. I hope this is at least somewhat helpful?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold

The following question is asked with canon equipment as examples, because that's what I know. Nikon users should feel free to translate to their brand. The question is generic.

Most folks seem to agree that amongst current (February 2012) APS-C (1.6 crop factor) Canon cameras the 7D is the clear choice for bird photography. It's faster, has more pixels, more autofocus points, and generally outshoots any other Canon APS-C. It also costs the most. I think there's effective consensus on that.

I also notice that amongst the pros, given the choice of all Canon cameras, not just APS-C, the most common choice for a primary body is the 1D Mark IV; and I'd like to understand why. The Mark IV has three big disadvantages:

#1: It costs four times as much. Nuff said.
#2: It weighs more than a 7D.
#3: It has a much larger pixel pitch than a 7D. This means you need longer, heavier, and more expensive glass to get the same number of pixels on the bird. This vastly multiplies points #1 and #2. (Caveat: I'm assuming you're not shooting pelicans at point blank range here. If your primary location is the St. Augustine Alligator Farm or equivalent, then you may actually want a wider angle.)

---

Hi Elliotte,
Some background. I am a scientist with a good professional job, I am fortunate to have the means to purchase some high end gear. The first high end gear I bought was a 500 f/4. Psychologically, it was tough, as it seemed like too much to spend on a lens. But it was a life changing purchase. I actually bought it for astrophotography with only a second thought for wildlife. It was life changing because it opened up so many new opportunities that were never before possible (gear does matter). That was over a decade ago. Later I boutght a 1D Mark II. Again, it was Psychologically hard to spend that much on a camera. But the responsiveness of the 1D was such a cut above other cameras of the time (I came from a 10D) after a short time using it, I saw the light. The non 1D cameras seemed like toys in comparison. Both the 500 f/4 and 1D made more life changes: now I travel the world for photography, so the cost of the camera plus 500 is small in comparison.

Fast forward to today. I'm currently using a 1DIV, 5DII, and 7D. My last African trip I took 1DIV and 5DII with a 300 f/2.8 (no 500 f/4). Next trip will be 1DIV and 7D and the 300 f/2.8. (I'll throw in the 5DII if I can swing the weight--I will be on some small planes with weight restrictions.)

What's changed? In the 1DII era (gee only about 5 to 6 years ago), it was ahuge difference between the 1D and xxD series cameras. The field has narrowed and the xD (x > 1), e.g. 7D has better performance than the 1DII in many ways. The sensors have improved, so the light recorded per pixel is similar with the 7D and 1DII using the same lens, but the 7D gets more pixels on the subjct, thus win, win, win for the 7D.

so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold

Given those disadvantages, what factors lead people to choose the 1D Mark IV, and how relatively important are they? Possible advantages I can see to a 1D Mark IV are:


#1. Faster autofocus
#2. More accurate autofocus
#3. More autofocus points
#4. Ring of fire
#5. f/8 autofocus
#6. Better sensor; higher image quality*
#7. Better high ISO performance*
#8. Am I missing anything?

* Image quality has to be compared after the images are cropped to the same field of view, and one image is reduced in size to the same number of pixels as another.

What makes the 1D Mark IV worth more than $10000 more than a 7D? (after accounting for the more expensive lenses you'll need to put the same number of pixels on the bird). Why carry this camera instead of a 7D?

---

First, it is not $10,000 more. More like $3,000 more.

I find the 1DIV AF faster and more accurate than the 7D. The 45 point AF and the interface to move the AF points is far superior in my opinion to the 7D and other xD and xxD models.

If you read my BPN Etendue thread, the 1DIV and 7D have very close to the same high ISO performance when one equalizes the exposure time, lens aperture diameter, and pixels on subject.
The trade of no f/8 AF on the 7D is small considering with the same lens you get more pixels on subject. For example, 500 + 1.4x + 7D is almost the same as 500 + 2x + 1DIV with nearly the same pixels on subject, same S/N per pixel (given same exposure time). And consider that at f/8, one only gets AF with the center point and f/8 AF is slower, so the 7D getting about the same image without f/8 and having faster AF may actually swing the advantage for this situation to the 7D. This is making the lines between the 7D and 1DIV even less.

But the build quality, weather sealing (though not perfect), user interface, 45 AF points of the 1D series are still big pluses that I feel are worth it. Given a 1D Mark V with 4.3 micron pixels (as in the 7D) having 28 megapixels would be awesome and I would buy it if similar in price to the current 1DIV. Better would be a full frame 46.7 megapixels at 10 frames/sec.

A couple of final notes. In my testing of multiple 1D sensors, they not only have better (lower) fixed pattern noise, but fewer hot pixels than non 1D sensors. So given equal pixels on subject, image quality will go to the 1D in conditions where noise is apparent in the shadows. That is also a factor in the psychology of justifying such a purchase to oneself.:w3

But in either case, one can make great images with either camera as both are very very capable.

Roger

Some good points already mentioned.

One of the main difference between those professional photographers and armatures who use the 7D is that a good photographer develops a good field craft too. Inexperienced photographers often try to photograph a far bird and crop their photos resulting in poor IQ images, so in this case the 1D4 has little advantage. Experienced photographer however learn how to approach wildlife so they don't need to carry longer lenses if they are using a FF body. The advantage of 1D4 is a larger sensor that collects more light and deliver higher IQ but you have to get a bit closer to your subject or use a longer lens to use the entire sensor area, if you plan to stand in one location and use your gear as a "telescope" and crop your files heavily then you are defeating the purpose of the large sensor. I don't shoot pelicans at point blanks, I shoot raptors mostly some of which are actually pretty skittish but I try to learn how to approach them so for me and for the accomplished photographers on this site that I personally know and shoot with, this argument is not relevant. So in terms of IQ 1D4 makes a big difference in my style of photography.

Like Roger, I personally prefer a FF camera with large number of pixels (like the 36 Mpixel D800) but there are limitation with frame rate so I hope Canon will provide a good balance of MPixels and speed in the 5D3.

The AF performance of 1D4 is also much better for flight shots. The body is much more durable. So IMO it is well worth it and that's why you see most pros prefer to use it.

Roger's point on the psychological adjustment is most salient...
I was with Nikon and shot happily for a year with the D90 and 70-300VR. My skills improved and soon I began to see the limits of my gear. For me, my big leap was switching to Canon and buying the 7D and two L-series lenses. The differences are enormous. A talented but somewhat misguided photographer I know once scoffed at my low-end Nikon equipment and said: "Gear makes the photographer." Of course that's not true, but gear certainly is of vital importance when it comes to IMPROVING one's art/craft, so long as you know how to use the gear, to get the most out of it. Back to the psychological hurdle. I don't make much money in my profession and was quite sickened at the thought of putting about $3500 into camera gear (7D, low-end L-series lenses, pro UV filters, CF cards etc) but at this point (only 6 months later) I actually regret not having spent MORE. I can already see the improvement in my photography, and perhaps more importantly, I enjoy shooting so much more with the better gear. I realize that I am far less experienced than the above contributors, but I shoot constantly and photography is a big part of my lifestyle. Here's a vote for buying the best gear you can possibly afford. Gear does not make the photographer, but it certainly helps. A lot! Anyhow, I hope this is of some help?

I enjoyed reading the post-very interesting and enlighting. I came from a 350D to a 20D that came with a Canon specialised optical product and had a Sigma 170-500. Then came the 100-400 and then the 40D. Since I live in South Africa and I am in no way a professioal photographer but enjoyed photography imensely I was in the same position as the OP. What do I do to improve my equipment and ultimately my photographs and ejoyment of my hobby? Many of the suggestions people made were fantastic but clearly not financially nor practically viable for me. I had different problems than people living in the developed world:

1. The cost of Camera gear is substantially more than in the US-sometimes 40% more
2. Most of the affordable game reserves that I visit does not allow off road driving, I are severely "reach" limited in some situations.
3. In some of concession areas in Botswana one can get out of the vehicle but that is really dangerous-hippo, elephant, predators etc.
4. I was and is still happy with the 40D and 100-400, but since I am "reach" limited I landed up cropping many photographs and the result was a decrease in IQ as mentionend above.
5. After lots of saving and procrastination-I bought a 500 F4 and a 1.4x converter. That made a huge difference, especially in the more wooded reserves. This is the purchase that I never would regret.
6. In the Kgalagadi or arrid parks a 600mm would have been a better choice but financially that was out of the question.
7. That's where the 7D helped a lot. The photograhs handled cropping much better than the 40D
8. A 1D M1V would be fantastic for all the reasons mentioned in the above posts, but in my case the extra "reach" of the 7D is more important.
9. In the ideal world the combination of a 7D and the 1D1V would be fantastic but the financial "reach" is the limiting factor.
10.My answer is to purchase the best you can afford and make the most of it.
11.Many people would give you answers based on no budget restraints and without taking your local and personal circumstances in consideration.
12.All the technical data should help you to make the best decision based on your needs, but IMO you should not be a slave of the technical data and specs.

Ben

Roger, while the jump from 7D to 1D4 is about $3,000, the jump to the 1DX may be closer to $5,000. Feel the same way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay Gould

Roger, while the jump from 7D to 1D4 is about $3,000, the jump to the 1DX may be closer to $5,000. Feel the same way?

---

Hi Jay,
No. In my opinion, such large pixels are not the way I want to go. The 1DX will be a great camera for those 30 second night sky images where one needs every photon. I would rather have the reach of smaller pixels for more general applications, from more detail in landscapes to the reach on a distant subject. So I will not be buying a 1DX. It will score very high in DX0Mark's benchmarks.

Roger

I think in the case 1DX the real limitation was the readout bandwidth, 18 Mpixel was the maximum they could do if they wanted 11fps (200 Mpixel/sec).

The D4 is 11 fps, the 1Dx will be 12 fps and 14 fps jpeg with the mirror up.

On the subject of the thread, My thinking in getting the 1D4 was partly to commit to a body for a significant period, say 5 years, rather than buying a more affordable body and upgrading much more often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

The D4 is 11 fps, the 1Dx will be 12 fps and 14 fps jpeg with the mirror up.

On the subject of the thread, My thinking in getting the 1D4 was partly to commit to a body for a significant period, say 5 years, rather than buying a more affordable body and upgrading much more often.

---

Thanks for the correction, so the sensor is electrically capable of 14 fps. in this case Canon chose the wrong path IMO. 18Mpixel*14fps=252 Mpixel/sec. If they had kept 10fps (I don't think any of us really needs 12fps RAW or 14 fps JPEGs over 10fps RAW) it would be 25 Mpixels. I take those extra 7 mpixels for printing and cropping any day.

I am not sure if this camera will stay for 5 years, after all 1D4 came out early 2010 and it's on its way out. So 2-3 years at most, $6900 is a very steep for a camera that will depreciate rapidly in a few years...but it depends on whether it will help you take better shots or not. For me personally it all comes down to AF, if the AF is really significantly better I will get one but if it turns out to be identical to MK4 I will pass for sure, not going to waste my money :bg3:

I am hoping Canon makes the right balance between speed and resolution in 5D3.

While I don't want to pay 6k for a camera and probably won't, the biggest feature I am looking for to upgrade is low light/high ISO capability.
To me, that is worth the money. For all the time I spend photographing and as much as I enjoy it, the low iso of the D7000 is a real drawback.
I will look seriously at the D800 at 3k, only if it has good low light capability.
The pixel quantity and fps take a back seat for me to that.
I am more than happy with the IQ of the D7000, I just need something I can shoot above iso400 to get a nice image!
The D4 advertises it delivers in that regard but it is the same sensor as the D7000, so I guess I don't what the extra 5k is getting you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dankearl

While I don't want to pay 6k for a camera and probably won't, the biggest feature I am looking for to upgrade is low light/high ISO capability.
To me, that is worth the money. For all the time I spend photographing and as much as I enjoy it, the low iso of the D7000 is a real drawback.
I will look seriously at the D800 at 3k, only if it has good low light capability.
The pixel quantity and fps take a back seat for me to that.
I am more than happy with the IQ of the D7000, I just need something I can shoot above iso400 to get a nice image!
The D4 advertises it delivers in that regard but it is the same sensor as the D7000, so I guess I don't what the extra 5k is getting you.

---

This would be my reason also, Dan!

One subject that I believe has been overlooked when comparing camera bodies is the FOV. My ideal camera body (be it professional or not) would be a full-frame with adequate resolution, excellent/accurate autofocus and at least 6-8 fps. Having a full-frame sensor that can do action/wildlife photography gives you an advantage over cropped sensors in that there is less of a chance clipping a wing out-of-frame. Right now there are two cameras that seem (not yet tested) to fill the bill: The Canon 1DX and the Nikon D4. These of course are flagship cameras and are quite expensive but there's an advantage using these vs cropped-sensor bodies.

The New Nikon D800 has the FF sensor with plenty of resolution and autofocus, but fps are too slow.

Rumors abound about the replacement for the 5DM2. Some rumors have it pegged at 22MP, better autofocus and fps of 6-8. If this is truly the case, I'd certainly be giving it a try once it is available.

Alan Stankevitz
www.iwishicouldfly.com

BTW, don't ever feel that to be a "professional" photographer you need to buy a professional camera body. I had a nice chat a few weeks ago while attending a regional photography conference with a Canon Explorer of Light photographer who leads workshops around the world, including Antarctica who travels with only 5dMark II and 7D bodies. He was the keynote speaker of the conference and certainly knew his craft.

Alan Stankevitz
www.iwishicouldfly.com

I'll add something I have said before in other threads. Some comments above suggest that we think Canon (and Nikon for that matter) makes cameras for us- "us" being wildlife/nature photographers. This may come as a surprise to your egos, but they don't. We are a minute part of their market. Who are they producing high-fps, relatively low-res cameras, and long, fast lenses for? The answer should be plain. It's the guys and gals producing images of the latest football, baseball, tennis or hockey match, F1 race, Olympic event, royalty or "Hollywood" star sighting, and publishing a low-res half-tone in tomorrow's newspaper or the web, that is the market. And they don't need 21 or 36 mp. They do need speed and small, high quality files to upload to their editors. Nature photographers sit on the sidelines and pick up the technological crumbs that are left behind in this process and for this we should be most grateful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

I'll add something I have said before in other threads. Some comments above suggest that we think Canon (and Nikon for that matter) makes cameras for us- "us" being wildlife/nature photographers. This may come as a surprise to your egos, but they don't. We are a minute part of their market. Who are they producing high-fps, relatively low-res cameras, and long, fast lenses for? The answer should be plain. It's the guys and gals producing images of the latest football, baseball, tennis or hockey match, F1 race, Olympic event, royalty or "Hollywood" star sighting, and publishing a low-res half-tone in tomorrow's newspaper or the web, that is the market. And they don't need 21 or 36 mp. They do need speed and small, high quality files to upload to their editors. Nature photographers sit on the sidelines and pick up the technological crumbs that are left behind in this process and for this we should be most grateful.

---

Hi John,

Are there really that many sports photographers out there? There sure are a lot of hobby photographers. I read recently (I do not remember where) that the most popular hobby in the US is bird watching. Now most bird watchers are not photographers, but when it comes to the masses (of which we are a part), that seems like a lot of lenses and cameras sold. I would think Nikon would be chasing the same market, so why then bring out the 36 megapixel body?

That being said, I think part of Canon's 1DX response is in part to do better on the DXOmark test results. DXO doesn't seem to know about Etendue and ranks the 1DIV pretty low in comparison to the Nikon D3 series with large pixels. Hopefully they ( both Canon and DXO) will see the value in other end of pixel pitch too. Nikon is leading one end of the pixel pitch spectrum with the D3 series, and now Nikon will be leading with the D800, maybe Canon will catch on and not become another Kodak. Now if Nikon could just learn not to clip the low end in the raw file....(nothing's perfect):w3

Roger

Roger- I'm thinking about all the pro sports events everyday around the world, the celebrities, press conferences and the like- essentially anything and everything that makes news and appears in the newspapers, magazines and web pages everyday. This is a big constituency. Granted not all pros shooting these events need a 500mm lens but most of them do need a fast and not particularly high-res camera- hence the 1Dx IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Roger- I'm thinking about all the pro sports events everyday around the world, the celebrities, press conferences and the like- essentially anything and everything that makes news and appears in the newspapers, magazines and web pages everyday. This is a big constituency. Granted not all pros shooting these events need a 500mm lens but most of them do need a fast and not particularly high-res camera- hence the 1Dx IMO.

---

Hi John,

I did a little web searching and found this at the US Dept of Labor and Statistics:

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos264.htm

In 2008 there were 152,000 photographer jobs in the US. That includes all photographers and includes freelance photographers. "Most salaried photographers work in portrait or commercial photography studios; most of the others work for newspapers, magazines, and advertising agencies." So sports is probably a relatively small fraction of the 152,000 total.

So the next question is how many hobbyist wildlife photographers spending on high end gear? That's a harder question.

Roger

Interesting Roger. Of course I am think more than just sports photographers- basically anyone who is producing images on a daily basis for the news and magazine industries. That will be a lot of people world-wide.

Arash, for me it was high ISO and image quality. Being a full-time professional rainforest photographer, the ability to shoot at higher ISOs is the most important criterion for me in a camera body. I had the chance to subjectively compare the Mark IV with the other Canon bodies and the Nikon D3s and decided that the Mark IV was quite a good performer in this regard. And again, after comparing with other bodies, I really liked the way the Mark IV handles tones and colors. The RAW files have a richness to them that I just didn't see with RAW files from the other bodies (not that the others were bad mind you!).

I'm probably not a typical case given my location and specialty. Also, I got mine for a very good price. Had I had to pay full price I'm not sure if I would have spent the money on a Mark IV.

As for the 1Dx, I'm waiting to see if the high ISO performance really improves substantially in the RAW files. If not, I won't see any need to switch and paying the price for a 1Dx would be a tough pill to swallow. I would really have to decide that the better ISO (if it's there) would be worth the extra money as a business investment.

Cheers,
Greg

When your shooting for money you need the advantage that high priced equipment can give you to compete. That being said it's the person behind the camera and not the camera that makes a good photography.
For an interesting self assignment , go out and shoot with a simple point and shoot camera and see how you do.
Bill

Alan, if you want to avoid cropping wings, it's a lot easier to use a shorter (and cheaper, and lighter) lens than to switch to a heavier and more expensive camera.

Summing up, here's what I see:

1. The 1D Mark IV has noticeably better autofocus.
2. The 1D Mark IV has better weather sealing (though imperfect, as Artie recently discovered in South Georgia)
3. Perhaps better image quality (though this does not seem to be universally acknowledged.)

High ISO performance does not seem to vary measurably. The real selling point of the more expensive camera is the autofocus.

A weather-sealed 7D with the 1D Mark IV's autofocus would be a killer combination. Alternatively an APS-H with ~35 MP at 10fps, or a full frame with 45 MP/10 FPS would be the best of all possible worlds (except, likely, price).

Whether or when Canon or Nikon will make any of these cameras, I have no idea. The fast readout's a problem, but I see no reason other than market differentiation why APS-C should be limited to less than the best possible autofocus performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold

Summing up, here's what I see:

1. The 1D Mark IV has noticeably better autofocus.
2. The 1D Mark IV has better weather sealing (though imperfect, as Artie recently discovered in South Georgia)
3. Perhaps better image quality (though this does not seem to be universally acknowledged.)

High ISO performance does not seem to vary measurably. The real selling point of the more expensive camera is the autofocus.

A weather-sealed 7D with the 1D Mark IV's autofocus would be a killer combination. Alternatively an APS-H with ~35 MP at 10fps, or a full frame with 45 MP/10 FPS would be the best of all possible worlds (except, likely, price).

Whether or when Canon or Nikon will make any of these cameras, I have no idea. The fast readout's a problem, but I see no reason other than market differentiation why APS-C should be limited to less than the best possible autofocus performance.

---

I have to disagree with your assessments, as Greg pointed out high ISO in 1D4 makes a significant difference if you use it correctly (w/o cropping your files) so for me personally that is a huge plus. Here is an image I made in WA last month, http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...-early-morning it is nearly a full frame image and clearly shows the advantages of the MK4 in high ISO/low light. By using high ISO I was able to shoot hand-held without needing a tripod. I had a significant advantage compared to photographers who were using a tripod and was able to make more photos in the same conditions. I believe this is significant advantage.

APS-H is discontinued so we will have to see if Canon will make a high resolution FF camera, my guess is it will but just like the Nikon it will be slow. Speaking with Doug Brown Chuck Westfall himself pointed out that what limits 1DX pixels count was the readout bandwidth

http://www.dougbrownphotography.com/blog/

"DB: How did Canon decide upon an 18 megapixel sensor for the 1D x?
CW: The Canon engineers felt that 18 megapixels struck the best balance between image quality and speed. Also they wanted the body to achieve 12 fps shooting, and that helped guide the decision on megapixels."

I have both the 1D4 and 7D. I see why you would want either. For me, my time to go birding is very limited so I want to bring the most reliable gear one can buy. What you do not want to happen is that you go to a remote location and your camera does not produce results you expect.

Working photogs that cover World Cup, Olympics, Premier League, etc use $6,000 so who are we argue with them?

Yes, they're that good for following the 10,000 hour rule and gear helps a lot.

Folks,

Greetings. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the shutter lifetime 400,000 clicks for the 1DX & D4, 200,000 clicks for the D800 ? for 5DMkIII (or whatever). Sports & other pros can shoot 100,000 clicks or more a year. While it's not completely the case that if the shutter goes, the camera goes, it does give an indication of the relative builds between the pro 1DX, D4 and the lesser build versions. Features are meaningful (I/O ports, battery charge, memory slots & speed, buffer sizes).

With my non-pro use of a D3, over the past 4 years there have only been a handful of occasions that I've needed to change batteries or cards on a shoot (<1000 clicks, mostly).

The high end D3 changed my world. The $5K (at the time) was down right cheap for that. Hot for the D4 at only $6K. (All the other stuff, but for a giggle the ipad controlled remote (can you say hummingbirds or feeder set ups?), the direct to HD timelapse video, and only 2 MPs but 24 frames/sec completely silently at 1.2, 1.5 or 2.7 crops :bg3: ) Did I say the features matter?

Exciting times.

Cheers,

-Michael-

Hi Elliotte

I am not blessed with a high salary or wealth from any source. I had the opportunity to buy some high end gear about a year ago when I decided to sell a homebuilt aircraft I had. I knew at the time it would be a 'one off' opportunity to buy something that I could never justify again further down the track. After doing my research and consulting with many (On BPN) I had two choices, go with the 7D and 5Dmk2 or spend a little more and get the 1D4. I opted for the 1Dmk4 and I have never regretted it. I have never used a 7D or a 5Dmk2 but I have never questioned the value in the cost of the MK4. I have in my bag a 50D and the MK4. The 50D is lucky to see the light of day... I simply love the weight, construction, speed of focus, the ergonomics, its ability to customise setting and may other little things... oh yes, the photos are pretty good also, if they are not its my fault, not the camera...


DON