portrait/wedding camera?
 

I'm getting more into taking portraits and have done a few weeding (with more to come), currently I'm shooting a pair of 40Ds with 17-40 f4, 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4 lenses. I keep thinking about buying a better camera (not an option right now but it might be soon) but am not sure which way to go. So my options are either a 5D, 1D mk III, a used 1Ds mk II or a 5D mk II, what do others think?

The only professional wedding photog I know uses a 5D, and is very happy with it - mainly with a 24-105L and 580 flashgun. From reading various fora (forums?) it would seem full-frame is preferred, with people being about evenly split between 1DsII and 5D - a case of which feels better in the hand I guess.
With your wildlife interests, I would lean towards a 1 series body myself, mainly for the armoured/sealed body. (As you know, I use one myself - still with your old lens! - and chose it for its robustness. It has survived two falls onto rocks in water, and various other more minor knocks and scrapes which come with mountaineering with nothing more than comsetic damage)

I think the Nikon D3 is well suited for portraits and in particular weddings. Full frame is definately preferred and low noise a must for dark churches and evening wedding receptions. The D700 is also well suited although not considered a professional tool.

I own the D3 and it is the mutts nuts, but if I already had some Canon gear then it would be a no brainer - the 5D MkII. The video facility at a wedding is just too good to pass up and I would certainly use it. I wait with bated breath for a Nikon response to the 5D MkII.

Pete,

As you are a Canon man, it makes sense to stick with the system you have. For others who either aren't committed already, or have Nikon gear, the Fuji S5 has developed a real niche as the preferred tool of the wedding photographer because of it's huge dynamic range and gorgeous rendition of skin tones. I've seen the results from an S5 and they really are quite something for portrait/wedding use.

Hi Pete,
I shoot reportage style weddings using 1D MK 2 bodies,built like tanks but are very heavy with a ex580 and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 onboard,i'm still thinking of changing to 5D as i used EOS-1V film bodies for years and i miss the huge bright viewfinder full frame camera's have,with the 1D i have 8.5 fps but in reality never use it,a company called "RGB TECH" http://www.rgb-tech.co.uk/product/1679 are knocking the "5D MK 2 "out for £1799,thats £450 cheaper than anywhere i've seen,my only concern is at 21MP will i then need to go out and invest in a new computer to cope with the huge files,Mart.

Most of the portrait photographers use to see in the shop used 5D bodies. I'm guessing full frame in a body not as heavy as the 1D is a factor. I take it these will be used just for the non-birding? Full frame isn't the best for tele work.
The 1D series stuff has a massive pro following.
It's a shame you're in the Canon system (I'll prob get shot down in flames by Canon owners for that one), BUT the Nikon D3 would satisfy both full frame portrait work, and with high speed cropped mode, ideal for tele birding shots.

I use a Nikon D300 and 18 - 70mm AFS NIkor for both wedding and portrait work, looking to go for a D700 and 18 - 200mm VR Nikor next year. However to a Canon man this is not really practical unless you are serious about changing all your gear. I would say the Canon 5D

I had been looking at the S5, it seems to be an excellent camera and at under £500 is great value. But by the time I then add a couple of lenses and a flash the cost rockets! There's no way I'd want to change over to Nikon, not that I have anything against Nikon, I just love my Canon long lenses.

Generally portraits are much better with a Full Frame by virtue of versatilely it gives to you for crop etc.
Though you may like to look at 1Ds line of products, unless you are very fortunate / have a bank to sponsor you / Your firm is exceptionally wealthy / You are one one very $#@&^!* rich guy etc, you would prefer to go for 5D.
With new 5D Mk II on the horizon, the older very capable original 5D prices are to fall like avalanche. Of course if you can go for New 5DII then you have the opportunity of shooting HD video clips by the same camera and excellent L lenses you have some right now that is a big benefit but most of times, costumers go two independent professionals for still and video shooting so its upto you deciding what works best for you. Used 1Ds Mk II is a good option if you find a good deal (And there are plenty out there). Surprising to me most of 1Ds owners, have saved their gears all the time (As evident by the low auctuation count of second hand ones in the market today) and seems that back up 20D was their main house power!!! I am still seeing maximum number of pros doing their bulk work with 20D so why are you not satisfied with your 40D is another question to me.
You need 1D Mk III if you have too many Sport event coverage. Though some call this body the best ballanced machine Canon ever built.

My suggestions:
- Buy an older good 5D or 5D mk II if you can afford it. Keep in mind that the second one will keep the price for a will longer and first is a lot easier achievable these days.
- Sell your 17-40 L F/4 and buy 16-35 L F/2.8 instead
- Definitely keep your 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4. 70-200 F/2.8IS is attractive but you will have to pay alot for your disc surgeries if you want to run around a lot with it, and your other F/2.8s cover the low light.
- Buy a 50mm F 1.4 or 85mm 1.8 (Both non-L) or Sigma 105mm Macro, but I prefer the first for those especial light conditions that you are garantied to run into often.
- Sell your 40D, buy 2 20D. At about $300 each these days, you can't go wrong with this fantastic camera as your main / emergency body (Same battery, EFs capability in additon to EF etc etc).

I am very happy with my 40D but I'd really like to get a full frame camera for portrait work. The 5D is extremely tempting, I'm just looking around for a good deal on one. I'd love to use a 1Ds mkII (or even a mkIII) but I don't see any way I can afford one. I like the fact that the 5D layout is similar to the 40D so it should be easy to get used to using.

I must confess that a 16-35 f2.8 would be nice, but I think the 17-40 f4 would have to do for a while at least. I love the 28-70 f2.8 and wouldn't get rid of it, it's an amazing lens. I'm also a big fan of the 70-200 f4, it's so nice to shot with handheld, the f2.8 IS version is just to much of a beast. I've just got a 300 f4 IS which I think could be fun for portraits. The 50 f1.4 is a definite possibility (I already have the Sigma 105 f2.8 macro) another one for the future.

I definitely won't be selling the 40D (well I have two so I guess one could go), I like the speed and high ISO performance for bird photography.

And surely you have at least two of EX580 or are they in wish list too?
IMO a body from two digits D (i.e. 20,30,40,50) or 5D plus 28-70 f2.8 L and an EX580 II (or if budget is tight, EX550) are all that any Canophilic photographer needs to complete his art of showing the best pictures to others and especially covering a wedding or likewise.

A 300 f4 IS is absolutely not needed for portrait unless you are talking of some sort of candid shooting. Well for birding etc, Please do yourself a favor and don't settle for anything less than a 100-400L even thought this L has the nasty fame of being a dirt sucker! If too serious and then with fat wallet, then you may want to consider 300 L 2.8 plus a TC 2x.

I have one EX580II and use an old Sigma as a second flash (plan to change this in the future), for me two bodies are a must. I've done a few weddings and found that keeping the 28-70 f2.8 bolted to one body and a 70-200 f4 on the other was ideal (I liked the extra reach for candid shots). For birding I love shooting with two bodies, one on the long lens (500 f4) and another on a short lens for flight shots (400 f5.6) or the macro.

I bought the 300 f4 for photographing butterflies and using at a local feeding station, it's also good for candid shots of my kids. I did have a 100-400 for a while but let it go and got the 400 f5.6 instead, for some reason I never got on with the zoom.

To carry on the thread,i'd go with 2 new 5d MK 1 bodies/bg-e4 grips,ef 17-40L,Sigma 24-70 EX,one of the sharpest lens about,i have one,if you dont believe how sharp they are look at some of my portraits,and finally a sigma 70-200 ex,for candids,if you send me your email i'll forward wedding material taken with both Sigma's,i've recently been using ex580 mk2 but i'm going to get my hammerhead Metz cl-4's out of the loft as they blow away any flagship Canon,ATB,Mart.

Thanks for all the advice. I'd just about decided that I was going to go for a 5D but have just been offered a good deal on an excellent condition, low use 1Ds mkII. The mkII will cost ~£500 more than a 5D, so I'd have to sell a couple of bits to get it...

I really want to go for the mkII (I've always fancied using one) but am just not sure that my use will justify the extra spend. I guess what I want to know, is if money wasn't an issue would you go for a 5D or a 1Ds mkII?

I dont think you'll be disappointed with the quality of the 1DsII Peter - I wouldnt be parted from mine. The handling may take a bit of getting used to, after the lighter smaller bodies you have been using, but I find the size and weight work well for me when hand-holding, even with the big lenses.

Well by trading in an old lens the deal on the mkII was irresistable... and you're right I wasn't disapointed. It's a big solid camera which delivers amazing images, feels odd when using the 40D now. The controls are less straight forward that the 40Ds that I am used to, but I'm starting to get to grips with it.

I do weddings as well, presently I am working with a 30D and Rebel XSi as backup. I am looking at getting the 5D Mk II as I have all FF lenses. I personaly think the glass you use is the most important thing to consider; you can have the best camera with a bad lens and your images are sure to be poor and I am sure you aer well aware of this fact. the lenses you have are fine, I use the 17-40 and love it, I also have a 85mm f/1.8 which I can't recomend as I am very disapointed with this lens performance in every respect (slow and inacurate focus, soft images) I use a Sigma 70mm f/2.8 prime which is perfect; see what Popular Photography Magazine has to say about the Sigma.....

See the link to see what Popular Photography Magazine has to say......."CONCLUSION: With a lens like this, Sigma makes it difficult for us to sound objective. In practical terms, it's faultless"

Get one!!!

You can see the link here..... http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...-macro-af.html