Speed and Handling (1DS vs. 1DMKII)

[johnellisphotography]

I have an opporitunity to swap my 1DMKII with a fellows 1DS. He needs quicker shots. I'd like Full Frame.

Was wondering if anyone has any hands on time with both that could offer their insight. I shoot mostly planned studio stuff and general portfolio type work. Sounds like it would work but I'm really concerned about the small buffer and slow write times. I tend to fire quickly in the studio and outdoors when shooting people.

So, the question is... Is the 1DS so much slower than the 1DMKII that it would really suck to make the switch once accustomed to the ferrari speeds?

Thanks

[Leon van Batenburg]

I can tell you that there is a significant difference between the two. What do you concider: firing quickly when shooting people A burst of 5-10 images with some time (30 sec) for the next burst? The 1Ds will do this. More images, and/or faster recovery (=writing time), and you will be disappointed.

[Persian-Rice]

1D = Faster
1Ds = Best Sensor

[Leon van Batenburg]

1D = Faster
1Ds = Best Sensor

It's not *that* simple! The sensor of the 1Ds is bigger, not better. Newer technology incorporated in the 1Dmk2 consists a.o. new sensor design, newer (faster) processor, ETTL-II, faster internal buffer memory, new RAW file handling etc.

Both camera's are targetting different users. Full frame should not be overrated. Again, it's a different market.

[johnellisphotography]

Full frame should not be overrated.

True. One of my concerns with going full frame is that issues with lens quality start to arise. The 1.3 crop isn't that bad because it excludes the usual problem area of most lenses.

I may have actually almost talked myself out of it due to some comparisons I found on the web related to the resolution of both cameras. the markII doesnt lag far behind. It excels over the 1DS IMO when shooting at or above 800ISO. I printed the comparison shots and dont see hardly any resolving difference at 16x20. Its 24x36 that shows some difference but still not alot*. On canvas, which masks some of the softness, there is almost no difference. Ill stay with my ferrari.

*It's the leaves in trees that show the most difference. They are more pronounced with the 1DS, but we suspected that. The deal was, when viewing at "nose on the print" distances, you can see it. But step back a foot and a half, which is still uncomfortably close to a 2foot by 3foot print, you cant tell the difference. Canvas masks the leaves anyway so there is really no difference.

[johnellisphotography]

I just wanted to leave some info for anyone else who ever might find themselves debating the purchase of these two cameras. I got to handle the 1DS today and compare directly to my 1DMKII.

The 1DS is MUCH slower in overall operation. More than I expected. I guess that digic 2 chip is really something. The other thing that really confimed the 1DMKII as a better choice to me was the LCD. The LCD on the 1DS is horrible in its resolution and color. I wouldnt think you could even get a rough idea of white balance with it. The missing RGB histogram makes it even more difficult. Ill keep my 1DMKII for 2 years or so and them maybe buy used 1DSMKII. Thanks.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 1Ds IS much slower,. 2.5 frames per second is all that is possible,. with the MkII even set to single shot,. I can trigger the shutter maually at AT LEAST 4 fps,.. maybe closer to five fps when I need it,. with the 1Ds one would be capped at 2.5... never mind the MkII's blistering burst rates of 8.5 fps,. I just want at least what my own trigger finger is capable of!

Then there's the buffer,. I knew a 1Ds owner who shot with two,. he'd literaly fill a buffer,. drop it in a bag and grab the second camera,.. fill the buffer on the second one while the first one wrote to clear for another shot.

Now,.. all of this may be of no concern for some types of photography,. but I would have a hard time giving up the speed option.

Then there is the noise comparison,. 1Ds can only be set as high as ISO 1250,.. and there it looks "icky" the MkII can offer much less noise at ISO 1600,. and offer a very good picture,. in fact even at ISO 3200 it's probably better than the 1Ds at 1250 (or close anyways)

I shoot indoor events that regularly require ISO 1600 or more,. and thus the 1Ds simply would not serve the purpose. (this is even coupled with the fastest primes)

The 1Ds remains a great camera for some applications,. and yet I marvel at the fact that the used price remains higher than the MkII's,.. considering that the resolution and full frame are the ONLY aspects of the 1Ds that are in it's favor.