Bud wrote re: the 1D Mark II versus the 1D: > It's hard to imagine there is any huge benefit for portrait work.
Ummm...wrong (my opinion). And you're somewhat contradicting yourself (by your later statements). The image quality difference between an original 1D and a 1D Mark II seems significant. I use a 20D, and the difference in image quality from the 1D I use and the 20D is very significant to me. Now, the 20D as far as camera construction quality is a cheap camera (in terms of durability/build) compared to the 1D (or 1D Mark II). But, I'm guessing that the 1D Mark II will show the same significant quality difference, *especially* when cropping is needed and in general terms of image quality. > If it had a built in wireless transmitter .... but people use blurry > (...soft...) lenses to avoid sharp images ! LOL But seriously, the > one thing that more pixels does allow is shooting a larger area for > easier cropping later. I'm learning to back out a bit in my portraits > to allow 4x5 or 5x7 cropping later. The other day I did some full > length portraits and have enough resolution to crop to a medium close > up with no problem. The 1DsMKII would allow greater flexibility in > that manner but that alone isn't worth the cost. I can't afford both > the 1DMKII and the 1Ds and I need the speed for sports so it's the > MKII for me for a while at least. > -- > Bud Kuenzli * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
