1dD Mk II or 1Ds

[martcol]

Or....

Why bother with the 1Ds (Not counting the full frame sensor) if the Mk II is so good?

Martin

[sGu]

1Ds' sensor and resolution, 1D MK II's burst and new AF system, combine these two would be perfect ... or just wait for 1Ds MK II

[martcol]

It really is a serious question for me. I am about to put my bank ballance on the line and go for the Mk II but, I could stretch (sell a child or two) and get the 1Ds....

Martin

[sGu]

well, it depends on what type of photography you do, how big do you want your prints to be.

For any action photography, sports, racing, air show etc. when object will be fast moving, i'd say 1D MK II is the one for the job; however, if your object is still, ie portrait, still life, landscape, fashion, portrait etc. 1Ds will give you better results and more desireable print, especially in size.

That's my opinion, let's see what else have to say :)

[Pekka]

1Ds does the job it is designed for extremely well: it captures high resolution images. Mark II is more versatile "as a camera" in most respects (speed, noise, features) and provides same amount of image detail if subject size is equal.

If you shoot relatively slowly, set up your shoots carefully and do them in controlled conditions 1Ds is a very good tool. In applications like landscapes, product photography and fashion photography which are traditionally done with medium format a large resolution is often a requirement (by magazines).

When you need speed, wide ISO range with low noise and fast AF then Mark II is the tool you need.

[Longwatcher]

The one thing missed so far in the difference (and a big one for me)[edit - okay I missed a line in the first post, just ignore me].

The 1Ds is a Full-Frame camera meaning you can get full use out of your wide angles. That and the higher resolution make it great for the artistic and portrait work I like to shoot.

The 1DM2 is a 1.3x field of view (FOV) crop thus I would lose some angle of my wider lenses over a 1Ds.

But Pekka hit the uses right on.
For me I am saving up for the Fall, which I hope will have Canon releasing a 1Ds M2 or (wishful) a 10D FF upgrade.

If there is an 1Ds upgrade this fall, I expect the frame rate to go up at least a little bit so it should hopefully be closer to the 1DM2 in speed.

On the flip side if you just want a general use camera and don't mind the 1DM2's FOV crop then you probably don't need the 1Ds

Just my opinion,

[KennyG]

The 'S' in 1Ds stands for 'Studio' and that is really what it was designed for. It shares the body of the 1D and 1D MK-II and that's where the similarity ends. Currently, it is the best DSLR for quality and resolution you can get, but don't try to use it for action photography as it isn't particularly hot in that area.

I had a friends 1Ds for a week (he does product shots for catalogs) and it showed up every weakness in my lenses, even some in my 'L' collection. Once you get this camera you should plan on spending the next 10 years salary buying the best quality lenses to get the best out of it.

[defordphoto]

For me I am saving up for the Fall, which I hope will have Canon releasing a 1Ds M2 or (wishful) a 10D FF upgrade.

Wishful thinking is right. Canon has already stated publicly that all the prosumer dSLR cameras will be APS-sized (1.6 FOV crop).

At this time, I'd wait for the 1Ds MKII before shelling out. Photokina is just too close. For shooters like me, I have no use for a 1Ds-type camera.

[sGu]

personally 1D MK II would be idea for me, since i stay out most of time when taking photos, besides, 1D MK II plus couple of more good quality glasses would be more practical for me

[CyberDyneSystems]

... keep in mind.. the 1Ds is still a "1" body.. it trails the MkII (and 1D) in speed only where frame rates and buffered shots are concerened...

It almost sounds like the 1Ds is a geriatric Rebel the way some compare it to a MkII :lol: :lol:

It retains however the same incredible AF and handling of the 1D.

It really is a tough call unless you KNOW you need (or even just want) that fram rate! especially if $7K alone doesn't make you choke! :shock:

That said.. for me personally. the resolution seems almost TOO much at times with the MkII... file handling seems a lot more than 2 more MP when compared to the 10D files..

Also.. the 1.3 X crop factor is a pretty dramatic change from the 10D.. but I'm not sure I would want a lot more... being a telephoto shooter most of the time.. I know I'd rather not give up any more pixel density.