1D and MKII owners

[Groundworxs]

To any one who has owned both models, is there any difference between the two as far as picture quality is concerned? I know there is a difference with the sensor size. I am just talking about image quality CCD compared to CMOS. I am considering an upgrade from the 10D and I would like to know what to expect.

Thanks

[Persian-Rice]

I have used both regularly, It is hard to say because of the image size differnce. Obviously an 8 mpx sensor will produce much more detail. The 1D I also produces more noise then the 1D II. To the naked eye on a standard print, there is not much a big differnce.

Both are very very good, I would say both are above the D series.

[RGorrill]

You asked the question about the quality of the pictures between the high end Canon digitals and your 10D. You also indicated that you were just talking about the image quality CCD compared to CMOS. The high end Canons - 1D, 1D MkII, 1DS, 1DS MkII, all use CMOS sensors and, of course, your 10D uses a CMOS sensor.

Where the difference lies is that the MkII versions, as in the 20D, the processor is the upgraded Digic 2 which improves on color and a host of other elements in the recording of the image.

Bob

[PaulB]

The 1D IS a CCD!

[booggerg]

Where the difference lies is that the MkII versions, as in the 20D, the processor is the upgraded Digic 2 which improves on color and a host of other elements in the recording of the image.
Bob

You're also blatanly leaving out the fact that there is performance improvements with every new generation of imaging sensor(higher sensitivity, lower noise etc...). Regardless of whether they're all CMOS or CCD types. the "Digic 2" chip IMHO is pure marketing...

[sGu]

To any one who has owned both models, is there any difference between the two as far as picture quality is concerned? I know there is a difference with the sensor size. I am just talking about image quality CCD compared to CMOS. I am considering an upgrade from the 10D and I would like to know what to expect.

Thanks

First a correction, there is no difference with sensor sizes between 1D and 1D MK II.

If you are upgrading from 10D, then 1D alone produces better images, even at 2mp less. I came from 10D and I now own 2x1D bodies.

Also it entirely depends on what you shoot, if anything requires quick response from camera, 1D or MK II is the way to go. If money is no object, go with 1D MK II

[timmyquest]

I admit i haven't shot an MKII but i have shot CMOS and the differences i see between the two are typical of what i see from other people.

CCD images look slightly more natural to me. Some people dont like that, it's grown on me.

That said, the MKII produces some fantastic looking pictures and i would much rather own one i think (aside from sync speed perhaps)

[booggerg]

sGu: Please clarify that the 1D is no good for night time, long expsosure photography. One should not get the 1D for exposure photography up wards of 30sec.

[CyberDyneSystems]

A few contradictory facts going on in this thread... :)
And differing opinions of course.. but thats different.. :wink:

I have owned 1D, and 10D,. and I currently shoot 1DMkII.

Both 1d and 1dMkII have the same sized sensor,.. obviously the differences in sensor are number of photosites (roughly double for the MkII) and type, (MkII is CMOS, 1D is CCD)

Your questions were restricted to image quality differences,.

the primary question regarding image quality of 1D Vs. MkII:
The MkII has clearly visible resolution advantages as well as better noise handling, more dynamic range and more accurate color.

The 1D has the advantage of better out of camera jpegs IMHO.. but to me that is the only advantage. The MkII was the clear winner.. thus I sold the 1D.

Your second question was how deos the 10D stack up to the 1D cameras.

MkII blows the 10D out of the water on most accounts as well.

10D Vs. 1D... again 1D had much better out of camera jpegs.. but whith raw files I thought the two were a lot closer. 1D still has a more saturated look and more contrasty out of camera... but I felt the 10D had more leeway in post processing due probably to it's higher resolution.. you could push the images farther as far as color and sharpening changes before it started to look "manipulated".

I did not feel that the 1D was more "natural" looking.. to the contrary.. the 1D files look more "film like" or more like what we have grown accustomed to seeing from highly saturated films like Velvia, Provia etc...

This is the look that we are now used to and expect from prints.. but what we are used to in print does not translate to what is more natural in the real world.

Thus it is the undersaturated,. lower contrast of the 10D and MkII that are "more natural" ... one must do more post processing to these camera's images to get that high contrast saturated print look that we have grown accustomed to.

[sGu]

sGu: Please clarify that the 1D is no good for night time, long expsosure photography. One should not get the 1D for exposure photography up wards of 30sec.

If noise is what you worry about, you can see the noise test (http://gu.smugmug.com/gallery/243992) I did with 1D, no, it's not night photography and I haven't done any with 1D, but I did see a 10D high ISO shot compare with 1D, both taken at 1600, 10D produced MORE noise than 1D. Can't remember which site I saw it, either Rob Galbraith, FM or dpreview, one of those three.

If you mostly shoot night time photography, get a 1D MK II or even a 20D, since nothing will be coming towards you at high speed, nor do they require 8fps

[booggerg]

Sorry, but that test you performed in broad daylight is not conclusive as far as how good/bad the noise is on the 1D.

Image here is the 1D with the lens cap on and with a 25s exposure... Scary ain't it?
http://www.fredmiranda.com/1D_review/magenta.jpg

Full review of the 1D vs. D60 can be found here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/1D_review/

[KennyG]

I have both and use both.

The 1D has better out-of-the-camera images that need less processing. This is due in part to it using a CCD rather than a CMOS sensor, but mainly due to the less agressive AA filter.

Is the 1D better than the 10D? It depends on what you are looking for. If a bullet-proof focus system, minimal post-processing, fast operation and weather sealing are a priority, then yes it is better. If you spend your life in dark caverns or nightclubs photographing bands, then the 10D has a lower noise floor and would be better. Overall, my vote would be in the 1D camp.

Is the MK-II better than the MK-I? It certainly does not focus any quicker despite Canon's claims about Digic-2 and the weather sealing is just the same. The preview zoom isn't worth having, but the dual CF/SD slots are a must-have. ETTL-II has my vote and the MK-II is ahead of the MK-I when it comes to flash photography. It has lower noise than the 10D or MK-I at high ISO's, but I shoot mainly in good light and use the ISO as a DOF control so noise does not bother me too much. Images need more post-processing than either the 10D or 1D to get the best from them. It certainly needs more sharpening than either (the MK-I hardly needs any) but the end results are simply spectacular once you get the workflow right.

Used 1D's are a good step up from a 10D if you are a sports shooter and don't mind lugging around the extra weight. The MK-II is a step up again with the advantage that it is more flexible for low-light work, The 10D has not had its day, it is still a fine camera.

I have had customers print my 1D shots up to 6ft x 4ft and I regularly print at 16x11 for framing. I have had shots published in magazines from all three cameras and lots of prints at 16x11. I shoot 100% RAW and use the same software to process all cameras (C1) and at the end of the day, for a magazine print, you would be hard pushed to tell the difference between them.

[KennyG]

Image here is the 1D with the lens cap on and with a 25s exposure... Scary ain't it?

The bright corners on long exposures are due to heat, just in case anyone is worried about it. The 1D was never designed for very long exposures in the dark, it was meant as an action/sports/PJ camera where speed was essential and the niceties of a noise free image are an afterthought.

[CyberDyneSystems]

booggerg

Please check your PMs.

CDS

[Groundworxs]

Awesome thanks to all for responding. As CDS pointed out I was asking strictly about image quality. You have given me lots to chew on.

Cheers

[nosquare2003]

ETTL-II has my vote and the MK-II is ahead of the MK-I when it comes to flash photography.

Yes, I'm too slow to use the ETTL flash on a speedy 1D1. But it's been solved after I've got the Metz 54MZ3.