Why no one wanna go for a used EOS 1DS?

Personally, I would say a 40D + lotsa L lenses.

To me, unless you are planning to be a photo journalist or something , there is no need to get a 5D or 1D (but that's just me, maybe .

I believe you would have more fun with a 40D and lotsa lens at your disposal, rather than a 5D with one lens or 1D with no lens.

The choice is yours and sorry for not voting for 5D or 1D .

Shooting around KL at 4 am? Low light photography?

Mat skodeng? In that case, I support your cause for virtue.

JAKIM would reward you well for better low-light photos.

My advise is, if you have $1500 for a camera. Spend $1000 on the lens and $500 for the body. Not $1500 for the whole kit. It's quality glass that defines the image quality, not mega pixels.

---

Added on September 30, 2007, 9:10 pm[quote=danielyeap,Sep 28 2007, 03:09 PM]Personally, I would say a 40D + lotsa L lenses.

To me, unless you are planning to be a photo journalist or something , there is no need to get a 5D or 1D (but that's just me, maybe .

I believe you would have more fun with a 40D and lotsa lens at your disposal, rather than a 5D with one lens or 1D with no lens.

The choice is yours and sorry for not voting for 5D or 1D .

[/quote]

I believe a photojournalist needs a 40D or a 1D series. It's completely pointless for a photojournalist to own a 1Ds series or 5D. They should go for the crop factor, not full frame.

Btw, if you own a 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM II, it will be completely useless to mount it on a 40D, because you just can't get the exact 16mm, and you can't shoot nuts when it comes to architecture and landscapes. That is why i sold my 350D and jump right to 5D because I need a full frame. I tried the EF-S 10-22mm on my 350D, the quality produce verses the 17-40mm f/4 is such a huge difference.

---

Added on September 30, 2007, 10:48 pmUSD 24,000 - Have word with your parents, if you're interested I can ask the exact price for you in Ringgit.

[/quote]

I think there is need to own a 22-39mp super camera if you do not work as a professional commercial photographer. Oh yes, you also need some extreme CPU to run those files.

This post has been edited by couleur: Sep 30 2007, 10:48 PM

EOS 5D because you get a lens and camera for the same price as 1D. In addition 1D Mark III AF issues still have NOT been addressed

Personally I wouldn't spend that much on a camera unless its to be used for income generation. As a lot of others here and elsewhere have already said, bodies go obsolete after a few years. People have taken fantastic photos with lower end bodies, its more about the skill of the photographer and his/her ability to put to good use what they have and work around the limitations of his/her equipment. 5D and 1D are very different cameras built for very different purposes; if you're happy with 3FPS from a 5D then IMO even a 400D would be sufficient for you. The only reason to go FF would be for the ability to use existing EF lenses, but seeing that you currently have none and have to start from scratch I'd say that it's a very high price to pay.

you want to sell yours? LOL

---

Added on October 9, 2007, 2:40 pmI think this is a show off thread, look at the photo TS posted...
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=337616
I doubt he need anything more then a D40 class

This post has been edited by pwk1983: Oct 9 2007, 02:40 PM

what the heck, just buy the mkIII. why think so much. long term mah.

---

Added on October 9, 2007, 7:32 pmdun forget 16-35 2.8L mkII and 70-200 2.8L IS USM. also 50 1.2L and you're all set to cover everything under heaven.

This post has been edited by gold3knight: Oct 9 2007, 07:32 PM

so i suppose he got the 5D since he has a lens to shoot with

This post has been edited by vincent_audio: Oct 10 2007, 12:07 AM

Closed.

You guys are making it out of hand. insults and the likes of it will not be tolerated