Buying a second hand EOS 1D 4.2 MP camera

[sandman22]

Hi Guys,

I'm new to this forum. I'm considering buying a EOS 1D 4.2 MP camera. I love all types of photography - sports, landscape etc. I always buy items that will last the distance(both physically and technology wise) and fall into a reasonable budget.
I have quite a few EOS lenses already and know that you can pick examples of these cameras on EBAy for around $1400 - 1700. The question I'm asking for people in the know...is it worth considering this camera or maybe saving up more pennies to invest in the 1 D MK II? Will the technology leap be too much in the next 1-2 years that the 1 D will be left behind??...if you can say that. Any advice would be greatly appreciated

regards,

Richard

[tforonda]

This is of course only my opinion.
For me, even though the 1D MK1 was and still is a good camera the 4.2 MP is a bit on the low side in today's standard. The current model (MKII) has 8.2 MP. The rumours it is about to be replaced by a MKIII model with 12MP.
If you are in a hurry to buy, you can get a brand EOS 20D (8 MP) now on your budget or wait for the MKIII to come out and get the ID MKII cut priced.
Welcome the forum Richard. I'm new here myself.

[Carzee]

Welcome to POTN Sandman. Good luck with finding a 1D. I suppose they're nearly all ex-pro use.

[tim]

Welcome to POTN Richard :)

I'm not an expert on the 1D camera, but I probably wouldn't buy one. The main reasons are performance at high ISO wouldn't be as good as the 20D or the 1D Mk 2, and also because I want more than 4MP as I print quite a few photos at 20*30 in. It is a professional quality camera though, but i'd probably skip it for the 20D or the Mk2.

[tim]

The rumours it is about to be replaced by a MKIII model with 12MP.

I've heard it won't be a 1 series, but will be between the 20D and the 1D Mk 2, and will be about 12.8MP. It's just rumours and there are threads on it, so probably best not go into it too much here.

[sandman22]

Thanks for the advice Tony! I wasn't aware that there is a mk III on the horizon. Technology doesn't seem to slow down...

[Mohawk]

I would save my pennies. But, there are still allot of people using the old 1D who swear by it. As far as the technology leap, it is already here, and who knows where things will be in 6 months from now. If Canon releases this tweener 11-13mp camera that everyone is talking about, 4.2mp will really seem weak. That does not make it a bad camera for what it is.

I'll say one thing though, the 1DMKII can create some incredible images, rivaling film in some cases. The detail is pretty incredible, I just cannot see this coming from a 4.2mp camera. Others may disagree, but I would go with the 1DMKII. Heck, it will be old school within a year or two, or maybe sooner. I know mine will be around for many years to come, it truly is an incredible camera with just the right stuff to make the long run into the future.

Mike

[grego]

For sports you can't go wrong with this camera. It's like a machine gun. It was made for newspaper photography, where the photos didn't have to be as high resolution.

SO you really need to ask yourself how big you want to blow up the photos. 8x10, sure, but anything after that is iffy.

[gmen]

For sports you can't go wrong with this camera. It's like a machine gun. It was made for newspaper photography, where the photos didn't have to be as high resolution.

SO you really need to ask yourself how big you want to blow up the photos. 8x10, sure, but anything after that is iffy.

Absolutely. The 1D is a workhorse of a camera. The image is quality is excellent up to ISO800 and 'acceptable' at ISO1000 and ISO1250.

I still use my 1D from time to time for newspaper work (sports) and I also have successfully printed images at 16" x 12". The main limitation is the camera's performance at ISO1600 and ISO3200 where the noise becomes intrusive.

Obviously the MkII is the way to go if your budget allows. However, if you're looking for a camera with the build quality to stand up to intensive use and harsh conditions at a good price, then the original 1D is still worth a look. Many pros are still using them both as primary and back-up bodies.

By way of example, here is a full size jpeg image straight out of the camera. The only post-production I have carried out is to add a text layer for copyright purposes... http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/B2FE8645.jpg

Basic EXIF as follows:
2005:07:19 19:16:17
300mm
1/640 sec, f/2.8
Mode: Manual
ISO: 500
AF mode: AI Servo AF
White balance: Auto
Flash: Off
Image size: 2464 x 1648
Color matrix 1: sRGB natural-looking hue and chroma
Sharpness level: Off

--- Gavin

[schmoelzel]

Have to be the one voice not in agreement with some of the previous statements. I moved up to a 1D from the DRebel about 6 months ago. I was also concerned with the loss of MP until I did a lot of reading concerning the different sensors in the 1D and the more recent DSLR's. CCD vs CMOS......yes, noise is much much better at higher iso but I rarely go above 1000 anyway so for me this is a non-issue. The functionality of the pro camera is miles ahead of the DRebel and other pro-sumer DSLR's. If you want fast AF and fast burst shooting, it's there!! Many even say that the AF in the 1D is faster and more accurate than the MkII. Can't verify that because I have never used the MKII.......it is definitly in a different league than the DRebel!! I can also use a shutter speed of 1/160000 which you cannot do on other Canon bodies. And the flash sync goes to 1/500 which you cannot get with the MKII. Do I use these features? Yes, especially the flash sync outdoors which works like a charm!! And as far as printing large prints.......I have regularly done poster-size prints (16 X 20 , 20 X 24) for my teashop and they are stunning!! There are enough resizing tools out there and noise reduction tools that do an excellent job. I can print 11 X 14 here at home (which I rarely do) and it looks equally good. I alway find it interesting that people rate the MP because of how big they want to print but many never make anything bigger than 8 X 10.

In closing, if you want a great camera to learn the whole DSLR thing with, at a good price and something that you can use for a few years without feeling like you've out-grown it, get a 1D!! (this is coming from a non-pro, hobbiest photographer). One more advantage, bet I can fit a lot more RAW files on my 1GB CF cards than you guys with the more MP cameras!! :)

[Roy P]

Welcome to the forum Richard

I read schmoelzel reply above and it was nearly my story, I have a 300D and got my 1D 4 months ago and have no regrets at all. Mine was very low useage (less than 10,000 shots) and I have found it tremendous for in flight raptor pics. Just finished doing some dawn shots of a local church and again brilliant results. I shoot raw and use Capture 1 for processing normally to a A4 size. Found that even with film I did not enlarge much larger than this and although only 4 Mp I think the larger sensor size makes up for this. I have also found that blown highlights are for me a much rarer occurance.

[sandman22]

I have a 300D and got my 1D 4 months ago and have no regrets at all. Mine was very low useage (less than 10,000 shots) ]


If buying it second hand..obviously the fewer shots taken the better..but is there a number that you start saying is too many????

Richard

P.S thanks for all the advice so far.:)

[mdude85]

I think 4.2 MP is enough, but then again this is coming from someone who shoots with a 3.3 MP sensor (D30). I have been able to print posters with great results, and the 3.3 MP sensor is just fine for print media. You generally find that the people who shoot with 8 MP sensors think 4.2 is too little, simply because that's what they're used to.

[mdude85]

If buying it second hand..obviously the fewer shots taken the better..but is there a number that you start saying is too many????

Richard

P.S thanks for all the advice so far.:)

I think anything over 75,000 shots is pushing it.

[schmoelzel]

If buying it second hand..obviously the fewer shots taken the better..but is there a number that you start saying is too many????

Richard

P.S thanks for all the advice so far.:)

Shutter-life is said to be about 150 000 actuations!! For a non-pro, this is a long long time. My 1D has just over 70 000.......high but working like a charm. If the shutter ever goes, its a $300 repair from Canon.

[CyberDyneSystems]

1D is just plain awesome.. but you allready have one no?
So you know what it's capable of.

I'd say it's well worht saving for a MkII if you want to additional MP..

I would not wait for a new camera to be introduced.. there is nothing but rumors right now.

[photography By Evangelos]

By the way B&H has a few good ones for sale in there used department.


Angelo

[KennyG]

You usually find advice not to buy a 1D coming from those that have never used one. Those of us that have both the MK-I and MK-II versions still appreciate the awsome quality and performance from the 4mp model.

You have to realise that there is a megapixel fixation with some people and if you followed their logic you would buy a $250 8mp P&S instead of the 1D. If you want a used camera that will not blow highlights, digs detail our of the shadows, needs hardly any post-processing, fabulous colour and will comfortably print to A4, then the 1D MK-I is best bang for buck. That's not to mention that it is strong enough to batter your way into a Sherman tank.

[sandman22]

Thanks guys... Feel that the 1D is maybe the way to go for me keeping in mind budget. The megapixel thing doesn't bother me too much. The need for blowing images up to larger formats is probably few and far between.
Is there any other things besides the extra noise that the 1D may have at higher ISO vs the Mk II as a potential negative of the camera??

Richard